***************************************************************** 02/22/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.44 ***************************************************************** 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 Ban Ki-moon 'deeply Concerned' By Iran's Refusal To Suspend Uranium 2 Congress' Liability in a Nuclear Strike on Iran 3 Guardian Unlimited: Rice to Confer With Diplomats About Iran 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Refuses to Budge on UN Demands 5 Guardian Unlimited: US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say V 6 BBC NEWS: UN to press Iran on nuclear talks 7 BBC NEWS: Iran failed to meet UN deadline 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says Iran 'Missed Opportunity' 9 AFP: US has no intention of attacking Iran - Rice 10 AFP: Iran to return to Security Council over nuclear work - Rice 11 AFP: UN chief to meet ElBaradei on nuclear crisis 12 Guardian Unlimited: Report Says Nuclear Work Ongoing in Iran 13 Guardian Unlimited: World Powers Await IAEA Report on Iran 14 AFP: UN atomic watchdog to issue key report on Iran 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says Europe, Russia Want Iran Talks 16 Guardian Unlimited: NKorea Accuses U.S. of Fabricating Lies 17 Digital Chosunilbo: Who Cares About N.Korea's Uranium Program? 18 Digital Chosunilbo: True Peace Needs the Korea-U.S. Alliance 19 Reuters: North Korea accuses United States of hostility, lies 20 Korea Times: Ministry Rebuffs Command Transfer Resolution 21 AFP: US, SKorea to debate alliance amid NKorea nuke fears 22 Archived: CAIB: The US and Nuclear Proliferation 23 US: reviewjournal.com: War prompts discourse 24 US: RGJ.com: Clinton discusses protecting the environment, vote on w 25 Guardian Unlimited: Straw promises inquiry but Blair 'proud' of war 26 The Hindu: Nuclear accord designed to promote stable environment 27 RIA Novosti: Russia's missile forces: lower quantity but higher qual 28 RIA Novosti: Russia's new first vice premier given wide powers 29 The Herald: Brown constituents oppose nuclear renewal NUCLEAR REACTORS 30 US: NRC: NRC Issues "White" Finding at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant 31 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Plant's Safety Rating Takes Hit 32 US: St. Paul Pioneer Press: Nuclear is green, advocate says 33 allAfrica.com: Russia Welcome to Tender for Construction of Nuclear 34 US: Penn State Live: Probing Question: Are today's nuclear power pla 35 BBC NEWS: Nuclear plans go back to public 36 US: Platts: Spurgeon: US likely to need nuclear for future energy de 37 US: Platts: Need for new US reactors to withstand aircraft hit - NRC 38 Independent: Government delays nuclear White Paper for two months 39 FT.com: UK nuclear plans delayed until May 40 FT.com: In depth - Global warming must slow by 2020, warns UN 41 Indian Express: Nuclear energy can supplement India's energy needs 42 US: Reuters: NRC puts biggest Arizona nuclear power plant on watch 43 ANTARA News: Indonesia nuclear plant to cost US$1.5 bln 44 US: Boston Globe: Pilgrim owners reprimanded for worker who slept on 45 US: UPI: Fermi nuke plant used wrong test for years 46 Japan Times: Kepco reactor pipes fail multiple checks 47 Reuters: Five facts on Japan's Kyoto Protocol targets 48 Whitehaven News: British Energy seeks reactor NUCLEAR SECURITY 49 Japan Times: Keep North on terrorist list, Yokotas urge Cheney NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 [Radbull] Asounding: Health workers Records burried in n-waste Dump! 51 US: KUAM: Public hearing will consider radiation testing concerns 52 US: KCPW: Opponents of Divine Strake React To Cancellation - 53 US: FOXNews.com: Pentagon Abandons Big Bomb Test - 54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Defense agency kills Divine Strake test explo 55 US: FR NRC: ACRS Meeting notice 3-7-07 56 US: Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Cancels Test Explosion in Nev. 57 US: ABC4.com: Downwinders express gratitude to Utah people and leade NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 58 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents wary of free health progra 59 US: Deseret News: Lobbyists misstate SB155 60 The Australian: Traditional owners reject nuclear dump 61 US: Platts: Uranium prices continue to rise, reaching at least $85/p 62 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Calls rush in over N-dump 63 US: FR: EPA: Starmet CMI; Barnwell, Barnwell County, SC; Notice of S 64 UPI: Sen. Reid: Yucca a no go 65 US: UPI: Ill. lab may begin recycling nuclear fuel 66 US: Daily Utah Chronicle: Nuclear knowledge 67 US: North Jersey Media Group: State can't regulate rail waste 68 US: AU ABC: Mayor worried nuclear laws may hamper uranium mining ind 69 US: KVBC.com: UNLV working on way to safely transport hazardous wast 70 US: Canon City Daily Record - Cotter Corp. files lawsuit 71 UPI: Japan, Russia set to sign nuclear deal PEACE 72 RIA Novosti: Russian parliament to ratify protocol to CTR umbrella a 73 BBC NEWS: S Asia rivals sign nuclear pact US DEPT. OF ENERGY 74 Safety Alarms at Nuclear Weapons Factory 75 KnoxNews: DOE wants you to be prepared 76 Tri-City Herald: B Reactor deserves national recognition 77 Hanford News: INL breaks ground on energy studies building 78 LA Daily News: L.A. city officials want testing required near lab 79 FR: DOE: Straegic Petroleum Reserve 80 Tracy Press: Get hard facts on bio-lab right ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Ban Ki-moon 'deeply Concerned' By Iran's Refusal To Suspend Uranium Enrichment Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:30:39 -0500 BAN KI-MOON ‘DEEPLY CONCERNED’ BY IRAN’S REFUSAL TO SUSPEND URANIUM ENRICHMENT New York, Feb 22 2007 4:00PM United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today he was “deeply concerned” that Iran had not met the Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, stressing that the country’s nuclear programme had great implications for peace, stability and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. “I urge again that the Iranian Government fully comply with the Security Council as soon as possible” to engage in continued negotiation “with the international community so that we will be able to address and peacefully resolve this issue,” he <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=989">told reporters in Vienna, Austria, where he is on an official visit. Uranium enrichment can produce fuel either for nuclear energy, which Iran says is its only goal, or for making nuclear weapons, which other countries, including European nations and the United States, maintain is its main aim. In December, the Council imposed sanctions, banning trade of all materials, equipment, goods and technology that could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and gave the Government until 21 February to suspend “proliferation sensitive nuclear activities,” including all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. The Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/iran_iaeaboard.html">IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, today submitted a report on Iran’s latest activities to the 15-member Council, which can impose further sanctions. “I’m sure that members of the Security Council will discuss what measures they will take in addition to what they have taken last December,” Mr. Ban said. “As the Director General of the IAEA is finally going to report his recommendations to the Security Council, it is now up to the members of the Security Council to determine what kind of measures they will take in the future.” In recent reports, Mr. ElBaradei has noted that while the IAEA has not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, it also cannot conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The crisis began with the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Mr. Ban compared the Iranian nuclear issue with that of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK), calling the recent accord in Six-Party talks under which the DPRK committed to dismantle eventually all nuclear weapon facilities and materials “a very important step forward” towards a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. “I hope this will also give some good lessons to the Iranian authorities that it is always better, always desirable, to resolve all of the issues through dialogue,” he said. Turning to the Middle East, Mr. Ban said yesterday’s meeting in Berlin of the diplomatic Quartet – the UN, European Union, Russia, and United States – which is seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was “very useful and constructive” but he stressed the need to monitor the new Palestinian unity government between Hamas, which won elections last year but has yet to recognize Israel, and Fatah. “We will have to closely monitor how the Palestinian people, after establishing this national unity government, will fully comply with the principles set out by the Quartet, namely the recognition of the right of Israel and the cessation of violence and adherence to all previous agreements and obligations agreed with the international community,” he added. Mr. Ban, who will be in Vienna until tomorrow, met today with Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, with whom he had a working luncheon attended by Foreign Ministers in the region. He was later due to confer with Austrian President Heinz Fischer and the Federal Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer. 2007-02-22 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 Congress' Liability in a Nuclear Strike on Iran Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:46:56 -0600 (CST) Congress' Liability in a Nuclear Strike on Iran; No more European vacations for our legislators? http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=10544 Author: Jorge Hirsch Madrid, Brussels, London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Vienna may well be off-limits to U.S. members of Congress soon. Just as well: they will still be able to enjoy pleasant summer breaks in Crawford, Texas, or Jackson Hole, Wyo., in the best of companies . That's certainly preferable to ending up in a European jail for a very long time. Every one of the 535 members of the 110th Congress is liable to face criminal indictment from the International Criminal Court in de Hague if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons in the impending conflict with Iran. Following an indictment, every country that is a State Party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be required to take into custody any members of Congress that are temporarily on their soil and surrender them to the Court. None of the Western European State Parties to the ICC have signed bilateral "Article 98 agreements" with the United States that would give immunity to U.S. citizens. ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Rice to Confer With Diplomats About Iran From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 8:46 AM AP Photo MSC108 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer BERLIN (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to confer with European diplomats ahead of a likely push for new sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program. Rice scheduled a strategy meeting Thursday with European and Russian diplomats as a U.N. deadline loomed for Iran to stop enriching uranium. Enrichment is a key step toward building a bomb, as the West claims the Islamic republic intends to do. Iran says it merely wants to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran called for talks with the United States - but did not budge on council demands that it mothball its enrichment program. The U.N. nuclear watchdog finalized a report that is to be released Thursday and is expected to formally confirm the Islamic republic's refusal to freeze enrichment. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report - by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based agency - would say that Iran has expanded enrichment efforts instead of freezing them. Such a finding would be a step toward additional sanctions, but it was not clear whether U.N. Security Council members Russia and China would go along. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an atomic bomb. In moderate remarks Wednesday directed at Washington - the key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the dispute ``has to be decided peacefully with the Uniorld powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday. Rice said last week that the United States probably would press for another U.N. resolution condemning Iran for continuing to defy the U.N. demand to stop enriching uranium, and to seek additional penalties against Tehran. The Security Council set a 60-day deadline on Dec. 23 for Iran to freeze its enrichment activities and said continued Iranian defiance past that ultimatum, which ran out Wednesday, could lead to stronger punishment. The U.N. is demanding an immediate and unconditional stop to uranium enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an economic reward package might begin. Iran has long insisted it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. ``The best course would be for Iran to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities so that we can return to negotiations,'' Rice told reporters Tuesday. ``That is the entire purpose of having the pressure on the Iranian regime, so that the Iranian regime can make better choices about how to engage the international community.'' In Washington, a top State Department official said Iran was in a ``diplomatic pincer movement'' that could force it to resume negotiations. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said only a handful of countries were backing Iran in its defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Burns said Iran was beginning to feel economic pressures as well, citing in particular a sharp decline recently in export credits from Europe. Burns spoke Wednesday night to a meeting of the Atlantic Council, which advocates close ties between the United States and Europe. On the Net: CIA World Factbook on Iran: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Refuses to Budge on UN Demands From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 11:16 AM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States and other world powers on Thursday worked on a response to Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council ultimatum on mothballing its uranium enrichment program. With Tehran showing no signs it had met the council's Wednesday deadline on an enrichment freeze, the U.N. nuclear watchdog finalized a report to be released later in the day. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based agency, would say that Iran has expanded enrichment efforts instead of freezing them, a conclusion that could trigger tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Once released, the report will be sent to the agency's 35-nation board and to the U.N. Security Council, which - in setting the deadline - had said that any enrichment related activities past Wednesday could lead to sanctions in addition to those imposed last month. The United States and its allies suspect Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel, but further enrichment makes it suitable for a bomb. The Security Council is demanding an immediate and unconditional stop to uranium enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an economic reward package might begin. Iran has long insisted it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. In Berlin, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, expressed hope after a meeting Wednesday that a compromise still might be reached with Iran. They refused to comment on what action Tehran might face for defying the latest U.N. deadline. Steinmeier said he had made clear to Iran that rather than ambiguous public statements, the West needed ``real, reliable signals of accommodation that actually allow us to find the way back to the negotiating table.'' ``I am not giving up hope of succeeding in this, but I say again and again that decisions are needed in Tehran itself,'' he told reporters. Rice planned to confer Thursday with Russian and other European diplomats on the next steps in a joint Iran strategy. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that pursuing a diplomatic solution is the only way to defuse the standoff with Tehran. Blair said ``the only sensible way'' to solve the crisis was to pursue political solutions, but that he could not ``absolutely predict every set of circumstances.'' ``No one is preparing for military action. No one wants military action,'' Blair said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio. ``I can't think that it would be right to take military action against Iran.'' Tehran's refusal to freeze all its enrichment-related activities prompted the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions targeting its nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them. Back then, it gave the country 60 days to halt enrichment or face additional measures. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment were expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. In Tehranm, some 400 students rallied on Thursday in support of Iran's controversial nuclear program, burning British and Israeli flags and urging the Iranian government not to scale down the program. The students marched to the French and Italian embassies in central Tehran as they condemned the West's stance. Part of the sanctions target companies suspected of involvement in Iran's nuclear program - a measure that an Iranian dissident group on Thursday said Tehran was circumventing by renaming the companies and otherwise disguising them, or setting up new ones. In a list provided The Associated Press ahead of general publication, the National Council of Resistance in Iran said firms under sanctions that were renamed were the Farayand Technique Company and the Pars Thrash Company. It named new companies set up to work on Iran's enrichment programs while avoiding sanctions as Tamin Tajhizat Sanayeh Hasteieh; Shakhes Behbood Sanaat and Sookht Atomi Reactorhaye Iran. All are headed by Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's atomic energy programs and some involve others on the Security Council's list of those involved in Iran's nuclear program, said the group - the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of Iran's Islamic government. There was no independent confirmation of the information provided by the group, which the United States and the European Union list as a terrorist organization. But it has revealed past secret Iranian nuclear activities that were subsequently verified by the IAEA or governments. --- Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan in Berlin contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources Julian Borger in Vienna Friday February 23, 2007 A Tehran student supports the nuclear programme. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna. The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme. That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites. At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna. "Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities." "Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test." One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran. Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency. "First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer." IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential. A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy but argued that the essential point was Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. "I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true intentions." That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report. It concluded bluntly: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop. The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot enrichment plant. Furthermore, the report said that Iran had informed the agency of its plan to install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant by May - a total of nearly 3,000. At the moment, Iran's centrifuges are being used to make low-enriched uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium, they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year. Dr ElBaradei's report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them. Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give Iran a clear bill of health. One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document. Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant. "Regarding the suspension mentioned in the report, because such a demand has no legal basis and is against international treaties, naturally, it could not be accepted by Iran," Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told Reuters in Tehran. Mr Saeedi said the report showed that returning to talks was the best way to resolve the dispute. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was "deeply concerned". "I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 BBC NEWS: UN to press Iran on nuclear talks Last Updated: Thursday, 22 February 2007, 14:53 GMT Iran has apparently defied UN calls to halt uranium enrichment US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the UN Security Council will make a fresh attempt to persuade Iran to discuss its nuclear programme. Speaking in Berlin, Ms Rice said the US, Russia, Germany and the EU agreed to use the UN and other means to get Iran back to the negotiating table. Iran's foreign minister said there was still time for a negotiated solution. Iran denies Western claims it is secretly trying to build nuclear arms. Tehran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful, energy-producing purposes. 'Deeply concerned' A 60-day deadline set by the UN for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities expired on Wednesday. We think that talks are the best way to get out of the impasse while each party is stressing a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the issue Manouchehr Mottaki Iranian foreign minister The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, is expected to report in Vienna on Thursday that Iran has failed to comply with the UN's demands, and expanded rather than halted its nuclear fuel programme. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Iran to co-operate. "I am deeply concerned again that the Iranians did not meet the deadline set by the Security Council," he said ahead of the announcement. "The Iranian government should fully comply with the Security Council as soon as possible and engage in continued negotiations with the international community so that we will be able to address and peacefully resolve this issue." Iran could face fresh sanctions in addition to measures targeting its nuclear and missiles programmes imposed by the UN in December. 'No military action' But Ms Rice said efforts would continue to be made to encourage Iran to stop its nuclear work and resume talks. "We reconfirmed that we will use our available channels and the Security Council to try and achieve that goal," she said. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said there were no plans for military action against Iran, but that he could not predict every set of circumstances. "There is, as far as I know, no planning going on to make an attack on Iran and people are pursuing a diplomatic and political solution," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran also wanted talks. "We were against taking Iran's dossier to the Security Council from the very beginning because it was political and illegal. We are still against discussing the issue in the Security Council," he said. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Iran failed to meet UN deadline Last Updated: Thursday, 22 February 2007, 18:19 GMT The report said Iran was expanding into industrial-scale production Iran has ignored the latest UN deadline to suspend uranium enrichment and is actually extending it, a report by nuclear watchdog the IAEA has said. The refusal to observe the Wednesday deadline could lead to further UN sanctions against Iran. The US described Iran's non-compliance as a "missed opportunity for the Iranian government and Iranian people". While enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs. We think that talks are the best way to get out of the impasse Manouchehr Mottaki Iranian foreign minister The report, written by agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran had not only failed to stop enrichment but was expanding the scale of its enrichment programme. Iran denies Western claims it is secretly trying to build nuclear arms, saying its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful, energy-producing purposes. "Iran considers that a suspension of uranium would be contrary to its rights, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to international rules," the deputy head of Iran's nuclear agency, Mohammad Saeed. The best way to solve the dispute was to return to the negotiating table, he said. But US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the UN Security Council should now consider fresh sanctions in addition to measures targeting its nuclear and missiles programmes imposed by the UN in December. The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says senior US diplomats are now in contact with other members of the UN Security Council to try to ratchet up the pressure. UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Britain remained determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons, but was "committed to a negotiated solution". Cascades installed The six-page IAEA report said there had been little progress in clearing up outstanding questions about Iran's past nuclear activities and urged the Iranians to be co-operative. POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS New UN resolution on tougher economic sanctions, tabled by US or European allies US pressure on Europeans to step up bilateral sanctions New initiative to get Iran back to talks It said Iran had expanded from research-scale to industrial-scale production of enriched uranium. Two cascades of 164 centrifuges each had been installed at the enrichment facility in Natanz, with two more close to completion, it said. A total of 3,000 centrifuges are expected to be installed in the coming months. Iran was also building a heavy water reactor and heavy water production plant in defiance of the UN Security Council, the report said. It added that Tehran had agreed to interim IAEA verification procedures but not to remote monitoring at the plant, the report said. There would be a breach of non-proliferation safeguard rules once there were more than 500 centrifuges. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says Iran 'Missed Opportunity' From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 7:16 PM AP Photo VIE112 WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department said Thursday that Iran's refusal to comply with U.N. Security Council demands to curtail its nuclear program is a ``missed opportunity'' for the Iranian government and the Iranian people. Deputy spokesman Tom Casey said it was his understanding that the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency chief confirms, as expected, that Iran has failed to come into compliance with a Security Council requirement that it suspend uranium enrichment. Casey noted that the U.S. position is that the Security Council should convene to take additional steps beyond those approved last December. He said he was confident that additional sanctions will be approved but he declined to predict what they might be. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: US has no intention of attacking Iran - Rice Thursday February 22, 01:06 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has no intention of attacking Iran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a television interview broadcast Thursday. "Let me just say here publicly, the United States has no desire for confrontation with Iran. None," Rice told CNN. "The option that we have is to continue to try to convince those who are reasonable in Iran, that the course they are on is destructive," Rice said. Her comments came just ahead of a UN report that is likely to conclude that Iran has failed meet a UN Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment program, and with two US aircraft carrier groups deployed in the Gulf region. In the interview Rice also reiterated her offer to talk to Iran "any time, any place" if Tehran first halts its uranium enrichment program. Washington and leading western powers believe that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. In 2005, Rice offered Iran the possibility of direct talks on the turmoil in Iraq with the then-US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. The discussions never materialized and Washington cooled on the idea last year. Washington and Tehran have been at odds for nearly 30 years and have no diplomatic ties, but had occasional contact through the United Nations or multinational forums such as deliberations on the future of Afghanistan. In Berlin, Rice said Thursday that world powers planned to refer Iran back to the Security Council in an attempt to halt its sensitive nuclear work and resume negotiations. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Iran to return to Security Council over nuclear work - Rice Thu Feb 22, 6:34 AM ET BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday world powers planned to refer Iran back to the UN Security Council in an attempt to halt its sensitive nuclear work and resume negotiations. Rice said after a meeting in Berlin with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana that there was agreement over the next steps to take following Iran's refusal to stop uranium enrichment. "We re-confirmed that we will use our available channels and the Security Council to achieve that goal and the goal is to get Iran back to negotiations once they suspend their enrichment activities," Rice said. "We have the common goal to encourage Iran back to the bargaining table." Iran has struck a defiant note, insisting on its right to nuclear technology ahead of a UN report to be released on Thursday that is likely to conclude that it has failed to halt enrichment. The international community has made a freeze on uranium enrichment a pre-condition for talks to end the long-running standoff. Iran insists its programme is only to provide fuel for nuclear power plants, but highly enriched uranium can also provide material to make atomic weapons. Rice told reporters: "I don't think there is any doubt that there is some dissatisfaction with the course they (Iran) are on. "We've said all along that there are people in Iran who recognise that the path that they are on is not a useful path and there are better ways to do this. "The point of Security Council action has always been to try to get to a negotiating track." The Security Council brought limited sanctions against Iran in December, but the Islamic republic risks tougher sanctions over the latest standoff. Rice said: "The hope is that the sanctions show the Iranians the isolation that they are enduring, that this isolation is likely to increase over time and that it is time to take a different course." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: UN chief to meet ElBaradei on nuclear crisis Thu Feb 22, 1:43 AM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN chief Ban Ki-moon will hold talks Thursday on Iran's disputed nuclear program with the head of the UN atomic watchdog, who is expected to issue a damning report that could pave the way for tougher sanctions against Tehran. The meeting comes before Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, releases his report that is expected to formally confirm Iran is pressing ahead with sensitive enrichment work in defiance of the UN Security Council. Iran ignored a UN deadline Wednesday to halt nuclear reprocessing efforts, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defending the program as vital to his country's progress. The deadline was set by the UN Security Council on December 23 when it imposed sanctions and gave the IAEA 60 days to declare whether Iran has imposed a "full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment. Before his meeting with ElBaradei, Ban, in Berlin for talks on Middle East peace efforts, called on Iran to reconsider and return to the negotiating table. "I would strongly urge the Iranian authorities to comply, first of all fully with the Security Council resolution, and continue to negotiate with the international community," the UN chief said in remarks posted on the UN website. ElBaradei signaled earlier that his findings to the Security Council, due out by Friday, would conclude Iran was speeding ahead with its uranium enrichment project -- a process US and European governments fear is aimed at making nuclear weapons. "Short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend," ElBaradei told the Financial Times earlier this week. Iran showed no sign of an about-face when Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani met ElBaradei in Vienna on Tuesday. It remains unclear what further penalties Iran faces for failing to obey the UN deadline, as major powers previously have struggled to forge a consensus on the issue. The United States will likely push for stricter sanctions than the relatively limited measures imposed so far, while Russia and China may prove reluctant to widen economic sanctions. The limited sanctions adopted in December specifically target trade and officials involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. In Washington, the State Department said US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte will travel to major Asian capitals next week for talks likely to cover Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. The number two US diplomat planned to visit Japan, China and South Korea. In Iran, Ahmadinejad said the disputed nuclear program was crucial for his country's development and would not be relinquished. "It is worth it, even if we shut down other activities for 10 years and focus on this issue," said Ahmadinejad, without specifying which areas could be affected. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice re-affirmed a US offer, first made last May, to end a 27-year rupture in American-Iranian relations if Tehran complies with the UN conditions. "We offered to reverse 27 years of policy to engage in the context of the six (parties), and I said I would meet with my Iranian counterpart any place, any where, any time if they suspend," she said. Amid speculation Washington was preparing for possible military action against Iran, Rice later told CNN that the United States was not seeking conflict. "Let me just say here, publicly, the United States has no desire for confrontation with Iran," Rice told CNN. She said the US government was ready to "talk about anything" and added: "We have, in fact, even under these circumstances, we've cooperated some in Afghanistan and I think that was useful." The Security Council was due to hold Friday public debate on the general issue of non-proliferation in which Iran could be brought up, but the meeting is not specifically on the Iranian case. The United States and its European allies believe Tehran is using its nuclear energy program to secretly develop a nuclear arsenal. But Tehran denies this, saying it is only seeking to generate nuclear energy. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Report Says Nuclear Work Ongoing in Iran From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 7:46 PM AP Photo VIE105, VIE111 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program instead of complying with a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze it, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Thursday in a finding that clears the way for harsher sanctions against Tehran. ``Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities,'' the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report. Although its information was based on material available to it as of Feb. 17, a senior U.N. official familiar with Iran's nuclear file, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue, suggested the IAEA's conclusion remained valid as of Thursday. The IAEA detailed recent activities showing Tehran expanding its enrichment efforts - setting up hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall and bringing nearly 9 tons of the gaseous feedstock into the facility in preparation for enrichment. It added that Iranian officials had informed the agency that they would expand their centrifuge installations to have thousands of them ready by May. The conclusion - while widely expected - was important because it could serve as the trigger for the council to start deliberating on new sanctions meant to punish Tehran for its intransigence over its nuclear program. In the report, written by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency also said the Islamic republic continues building both a reactor that will use heavy water and a heavy water production plant - also in defiance of the Security Council. Both enriched uranium and plutonium produced by heavy water reactors can produce the fissile material used in nuclear warheads. Iran denies such intentions, saying it needs the heavy water reactor to produce radioactive isotopes for medical and other peaceful purposes and enrichment to generate energy. The report also said agency experts remain ``unable ... to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear program'' due to lack of Iranian cooperation. That, too, put it in violation of the Security Council, which on Dec. 23 told Tehran to ``provide such access and cooperation as the agency requests to be able to verify ... all outstanding issues'' within 60 days. The report - sent both to the Security Council and the agency's 35 board member nations - set the stage for a fresh showdown between Iran and Western powers. In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammed Saeedi, said: ``Iran considers the (IAEA demand for) suspension as against its rights, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and international regulations.'' ``That's why Tehran could not have answered positively to the request by resolution 1737 of the UN Security Council for a suspension of enrichment activity,'' Saeedi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that Iran's refusal to curtail its nuclear program is a ``missed opportunity'' for its government and people. He said he is confident that the Security Council will approve additional sanctions against Iran but declined to predict what they might be. Before the report was issued, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. and its allies would use the Security Council and other ``available channels'' to bring Tehran back to negotiations over its nuclear program. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was ``deeply concerned ... that the Iranian government did not meet the (Wednesday) deadline set by the Security Council.'' ``I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the Security Council'' as soon as possible, he told reporters in Vienna, saying Iran's nuclear activities had ``great implications for peace and security, as well as nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.'' U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia said he had no comment on the report but reiterated Moscow's desire for a negotiated solution. ``We should not lose sight of the goal - and the goal is not to have a resolution or to impose sanctions,'' he said. ``The goal is to accomplish a political outcome.'' In addition to the sanctions, the U.S. government has been raising the pressure on Tehran on other fronts, from arresting Iranian officials in Iraq to persuading European governments and financial institutions to cut ties with the Islamic Republic. Rice, speaking in Berlin, said U.S., European and Russian diplomats all want Iran back at the bargaining table. ``We reconfirmed we will use available channels and the Security Council to try to achieve that goal,'' she said following a breakfast meeting with her counterparts from Germany, Russia and the European Union. The Security Council is demanding an immediate and unconditional stop to enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an economic reward package could begin. Iran has long insisted it will not stop its nuclear activities as a precondition for negotiations. In moderate remarks Wednesday directed at Washington - the key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the dispute ``has to be decided peacefully with the United States.'' But other top Iranian officials used harsher language, and none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S. and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday. With the United States bolstering its naval forces in the Gulf and cracking down on Iranians within Iraq it says are helping Shiite militias, concerns have grown that Washington might be planning military action. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said ``the only sensible way'' to solve the crisis was to pursue political solutions, but that he could not ``absolutely predict every set of circumstances.'' Still, ``I know of nobody in Washington that is planning military action on Iran,'' Blair told BBC radio. ``Iran is not Iraq. There is, as far as I know, no planning going on to make an attack on Iran and people are pursuing a diplomatic and political solution.'' The Security Council sanctions targeted Iran's nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment were expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Part of the sanctions target companies suspected of involvement in Iran's nuclear program - a measure that an Iranian dissident group said Tehran was circumventing by renaming the companies and otherwise disguising them, or setting up new ones. The National Council of Resistance in Iran said firms under sanctions that were renamed were the Farayand Technique Co. and the Pars Thrash Co. It named new companies set up to work on Iran's enrichment programs while avoiding sanctions as Tamin Tajhizat Sanayeh Hasteieh, Shakhes Behbood Sanaat and Sookht Atomi Reactorhaye Iran. All are headed by Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy programs, and some employ others on the Security Council's list of those involved in Iran's nuclear program, said the group, the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of Iran's Islamic government. There was no independent confirmation of the information provided by the group, which the U.S. and the European Union list as a terrorist organization. But it has revealed past secret Iranian nuclear activities subsequently verified by the IAEA or governments. In Tehran on Thursday, 400 students burned British and Israeli flags and urged the government not to scale down the nuclear program. --- Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Berlin and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations in New York contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: World Powers Await IAEA Report on Iran From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 1:01 PM AP Photo VIE112 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - With the stage being set for a fresh showdown between Iran and Western powers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the U.S. and its allies would use the U.N. Security Council and other ``available channels'' to bring Tehran back to negotiations over its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency was expected to report Thursday that Iran has expanded uranium enrichment efforts instead of meeting international demands to halt them. The finding could lead to Security Council sanctions broader than a limited set imposed by the council last month. In addition to the sanctions, the Bush administration has been raising the pressure on Tehran on other fronts, from arresting Iranian officials in Iraq to persuading European governments and financial institutions to cut ties with the Islamic Republic. Rice, speaking in Berlin, said that the United States, European and Russian diplomats all want Iran back at the bargaining table. ``We reconfirmed we will use available channels and the Security Council to try to achieve that goal,'' she said following a breakfast meeting with her counterparts from Germany, Russia and the European Union. The Security Council is demanding an immediate and unconditional stop to uranium enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an economic reward package could begin. Iran, which has long insisted it will not stop its nuclear activities as a precondition for negotiations, missed a Wednesday Security Council deadline to halt enrichment. In moderate remarks Wednesday directed at Washington - the key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the dispute ``has to be decided peacefully with the United States.'' But other top Iranian officials used harsher language, and none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S. and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday. The IAEA planned to send its report on Iran's compliance Thursday to the agency's 35-nation board and to the Security Council. Although any finding that Iran has ignored the deadline on enrichment would be a step toward additional sanctions, it was not clear whether U.N. Security Council members Russia and China would go along. Rice said she and her counterparts made no decisions Thursday because they met before the report was released. With the United States beefing up naval forces in the Gulf and cracking down on Iranians within Iraq it says are helping Shiite militias, concerns have grown that Washington might be planning military action. In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said ``the only sensible way'' to solve the crisis was to pursue political solutions, but that he could not ``absolutely predict every set of circumstances.'' Still, ``I know of nobody in Washington that is planning military action on Iran,'' Blair told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. ``Iran is not Iraq. There is, as far as I know, no planning going on to make an attack on Iran and people are pursuing a diplomatic and political solution.'' Tehran's refusal to freeze all its enrichment-related activities prompted the Security Council on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions targeting its nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them. Back then, it gave the country 60 days to halt enrichment or face additional measures. Discussions on a new resolution aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran to suspend enrichment were expected to start next week, a Security Council diplomat said in New York, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Part of the sanctions target companies suspected of involvement in Iran's nuclear program - a measure that an Iranian dissident group said Tehran was circumventing by renaming the companies and otherwise disguising them, or setting up new ones. In a list provided to The Associated Press on Thursday ahead of general publication, the National Council of Resistance in Iran said firms under sanctions that were renamed were the Farayand Technique Company and the Pars Thrash Company. It named new companies set up to work on Iran's enrichment programs while avoiding sanctions as Tamin Tajhizat Sanayeh Hasteieh, Shakhes Behbood Sanaat and Sookht Atomi Reactorhaye Iran. All are headed by Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy programs, and some involve others on the Security Council's list of those involved in Iran's nuclear program, said the group, the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, which advocates the overthrow of Iran's Islamic government. There was no independent confirmation of the information provided by the group, which the United States and the European Union list as a terrorist organization. But it has revealed past secret Iranian nuclear activities subsequently verified by the IAEA or governments. --- Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Berlin and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations in New York contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: UN atomic watchdog to issue key report on Iran Thursday February 22, 01:17 PM By Michael Adler VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic watchdog was to issue a report Thursday expected to document Iran's defiance of calls to rein in its nuclear program and open Tehran up to wider UN sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will report that Iran has pressed ahead with the installation of hundreds of centrigues, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground bunker in Natanz, diplomats close to the IAEA told AFP. This means that Iran is increasing rather than freezing uranium enrichment operations, in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution. Iran insists its programme is only to provide fuel for nuclear power plants, but highly enriched uranium can also provide material to make atomic weapons. One diplomat said that Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani had clearly told IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei at a meeting in Vienna Tuesday that sanctions would not work against Iran and that Tehran would not stop enrichment or enrichment-related activities under pressure. The Security Council had in a resolution adopted December 23 imposed limited sanctions on Iran and mandated ElBaradei to report in 60 days on whether Iran had honored the Council's demand to freeze the strategic enrichment work. In an inteview with CNN on Thursday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to take up talks with Iran anywhere, at any time, as long as Tehran first stops enriching uranium. "It is an offer I would renew today," Rice told CNN. "We have, in fact, even under these circumstances, cooperated some in Afghanistan and I think that was useful. So there is a different path." She added: "Let me just say here publicly, the United States has no desire for confrontation with Iran. None." Rice was in Berlin where she held talks on Iran with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday insisted on Iran's right to nuclear technology. "Iranians defend their rights and the nuclear right is a demand of all Iranians. Nobody in the world can deprive them of their rights even one iota," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in northern Iran carried by the ISNA news agency. According to a diplomat here, Larijani had told ElBaradei that Iran could agree to a compromise under which it would spin centrifuges dry without feedstock uranium gas, but only if the Security Council lifted its sanctions at the same time. But the United States has rejected any turning of centrifuges, as well as lifting of sanctions ahead of Iran suspending all enrichment work, despite a "time-out" proposal along these lines from ElBaradei. The limited UN sanctions adopted in December target travel by Iranians involved in nuclear work as well as trade and aid related to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Diplomats in Vienna said that Britain and France have already drafted a new resolution for tougher sanctions with more economic bite, such as travel bans on high-ranking Iranian officials, freezing Iranian assets abroad and cutting off government-backed loans and credits to Iran. But a European diplomat said there was grumbling from EU states such as Germany and Italy, and even France, about economic sanctions that would hurt their trade with Iran. "The United States does not trade with Iran, Britain is also out, there are only a few countries which still have large contracts with Iran," the diplomat said. Meanwhile, the United States has raised speculation about possible military action by sending a second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran was prepared for possible US military action, but believed dialogue was the best way to resolve the dispute. Threats would not force Tehran into making concessions, Mottaki said. ElBaradei, meanwhile, is to meet Friday in Vienna with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a spokeswoman said. AFP ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says Europe, Russia Want Iran Talks From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 7:01 PM AP Photo YBER106 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer BERLIN (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that U.S., European and Russian diplomats have a common goal to encourage Iran back to the bargaining table over its disputed nuclear program. ``We reconfirmed we will use available channels and the Security Council to try to achieve that goal,'' the top U.S. diplomat said. Rice spoke following a breakfast meeting with her counterparts from Germany, Russia and the European Union. The group reviewed Iran's compliance with a U.N. Security Council demand that it stop enriching uranium, a key step toward producing either nuclear power or a nuclear weapon. After the meeting ended, the U.N. nuclear watchdog released a report formally confirming the Islamic republic's refusal to freeze enrichment. The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran has expanded enrichment efforts. The finding is a step toward additional sanctions, but it was not clear whether U.N. Security Council members Russia and China would go along. Rice said she and her counterparts made no decisions Thursday because they met before ElBaradei's report was released. Rice headed back to the United States immediately after the breakfast meeting. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that Iran's refusal to curtail its nuclear program is a ``missed opportunity'' for Iran's government and people. Casey said that he is confident that the Security Council will approve additional sanctions against Iran but he declined to predict what they might be. Iran has called for talks with the United States - but has not budged on council demands that it mothball its enrichment program. Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an atomic bomb. The West claims the Islamic republic intends to build a bomb with enriched uranium. Iran says it merely wants to develop peaceful nuclear power. In moderate remarks Wednesday directed at Washington - the key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the dispute ``has to be decided peacefully with the United States.'' But other top Iranian officials used harsher language, and none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S. and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities. ``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday. Rice said last week that the United States probably would press for another U.N. resolution condemning Iran for continuing to defy the U.N. demand to stop enriching uranium, and to seek additional penalties against Tehran. The Security Council set a 60-day deadline on Dec. 23 for Iran to freeze its enrichment activities and said continued Iranian defiance past that ultimatum, which ran out Wednesday, could lead to stronger punishment. The U.N. is demanding an immediate and unconditional stop to uranium enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an economic reward package might begin. Iran has long insisted it will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for negotiations to start. ``The best course would be for Iran to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities so that we can return to negotiations,'' Rice told reporters Tuesday. ``That is the entire purpose of having the pressure on the Iranian regime, so that the Iranian regime can make better choices about how to engage the international community.'' --- On the Net: CIA World Factbook on Iran: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: NKorea Accuses U.S. of Fabricating Lies From the Associated Press Thursday February 22, 2007 6:46 AM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - North Korea accused the United States of fabricating lies that it was diverting U.N. aid money to develop nuclear weapons and said it would accept an outside audit of U.N. operations unless the aim was to politicize aid to the country, according to a letter circulated Wednesday. In the letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon accused the United States of ``hostile maneuvers'' against his country in seeking an audit of the alleged misuse of aid money from the U.N. Development Program, known as UNDP. Last month, the United States accused UNDP of funneling millions of dollars in cash aid to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's government to be used for ``its own illicit purposes'' including possible nuclear weapons development. The U.S. demanded an outside audit, and Ban immediately ordered external audits of all U.N. programs in North Korea. Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said he had no immediate comment because U.S. diplomats had not seen the letter. Pak said aid projects conducted by UNDP and other U.N. agencies in the North ``have been carried out in a fair and transparent way, in conformity with United Nations regulations.'' ``Therefore, we do not mind whether the external audit is being done or not,'' he said. Pak also made clear that North Korea wants to continue cooperation with U.N. agencies, noting that Pyongyang has maintained ``good relations and cooperation'' with them for several decades. ``But if the above-mentioned external audit is to serve the attempt by the United States to politicize international aid to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we will not tolerate it and the consequences will be severe,'' he warned, using the country's official name. Neither the U.S. nor UNDP would give a figure of how much money was involved in the alleged diversion. UNDP said last month that from 1997 through 2006, the executive board authorized more than $59 million for North Korea but only about $27.7 million was delivered. Pak noted that UNDP has denied the U.S. allegation that money was illegally diverted. ``Last January, from dirty political motives, the United States fabricated lies that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea might have used the UNDP aid funds for the development of nuclear weapons without foundation and demanded investigation of the UNDP aid activities in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,'' he said. ``As UNDP has denied, the allegations of the United States are sheer fiction aimed at politicizing international aid to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,'' Pak said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 17 Digital Chosunilbo: Who Cares About N.Korea's Uranium Program? Updated Feb.22,2007 07:36 KST Appearing before the National Assembly a few days ago, the head of South Korea's National Intelligence Service said he believed a uranium enrichment program existed in North Korea. It was the first time the head of South Korea's intelligence service made such an acknowledgement. But the fact that a uranium program for weapons, in addition to a plutonium program, exists in North Korea is not a striking revelation. In 2004, the father of Pakistan¡¯s nuclear program, Dr. Khan, who was arrested for disseminating nuclear technology, confessed to passing on related equipment, a blueprint and technology to North Korea since 1991 and training North Korean scientists. In his autobiography, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf wrote that Khan handed North Korea around 20 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, including the P-1 and P-2 types. In return, North Korea handed over missile technology to Pakistan. It wasn¡¯t until 2002 that the United States was able to acquire evidence pointing to the deal. The so-called second nuclear crisis began after North Korea allegedly acknowledged this deal after assistant secretary of state James Kelly visited the communist country and questioned Pyeongyang officials using that evidence. Meanwhile, South Korean government officials had been saying that, as was the case for counterfeit money, there was no evidence of a North Korean HEU program. It is impossible for U.S. spy satellites to capture evidence on the ground of a uranium program, since they can be produced underground, unlike plutonium. In his autobiography, former U.S. President Bill Clinton wrote that it wasn¡¯t until his term ended that he realized North Korea had violated the Geneva Accord by enriching in 1998 enough uranium to produce around two nuclear warheads. It is possible that North Korea may have enriched more uranium by now, whose raw materials the communist country can obtain from its mines. But during the previous round of six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea claimed it had no high-enriched uranium. A nuclear resolution which does not include highly-enriched uranium makes no sense. William Perry, the North Korea policy coordinator under former President Clinton, is visiting South Korea now and forecast that the uranium program could be the factor that leads to the breakdown in negotiations with North Korea. He also said North Korea could bide for time and take the United States for a ride. However, South Korea¡¯s Unification Ministry made an announcement earlier this week to the effect that it will treat the North Korean nuclear dilemma and rice and fertilizer aid as separate issues. In other words, South Korea intends to continue providing rice and fertilizer to North Korea, even if the nuclear talks break down and the communist country fails to dismantle its nuclear program. The Unification Ministry did not forget to mention the need to hold a North-South summit. The government seems to be uncomfortable about the uranium issue flaring up again. It¡¯s a mystery just who is in charge here. ***************************************************************** 18 Digital Chosunilbo: True Peace Needs the Korea-U.S. Alliance Updated Feb.22,2007 12:07 KST There are two kinds of peace -- the kind that is declared and the kind that is practiced. Despite their conclusion of several peace agreements, Israel and Palestine have yet to achieve peace. This eloquently shows how much more important substantial peace is from mere declarations. Article 6 of the Feb. 13 agreement on steps for North Korea to end its nuclear development reaffirms Article 4 of the Sept. 19, 2005 statement of principles. The latter stipulates, "The parties directly concerned will have negotiations at an appropriate separate forum on a durable peace system on the Korean Peninsula." Building a peace framework on the Korean Peninsula means ending an unstable armistice and a military confrontational structure caused by the Korean War and establishing durable peace. That requires steps including the denuclearization of the peninsula, arms control between the two Koreas, normalization of diplomatic ties between the North and the United States and the North and Japan, and conclusion and guarantee of a peace agreement. Determining which to give priority to -- denuclearization or a peace framework -- is vital. Of course, it is possible to start talks on a peace framework by forming a separate forum even before North Korea dismantles its nuclear facilities. But a peace agreement should be concluded when North Korea dismantles its nuclear facilities and that has been verified to a considerable extent. In such talks, North Korea may well use disruptive tactics. Even if a peace forum is launched separately from the six-party talks, North Korea will highly likely call on the United States to conclude the peace agreement via bilateral talks. If North Korea proposes trilateral talks between the two Koreas and the U.S. and the proposal is accepted, it still cannot be ruled out that North Korea will turn them into virtual bilateral talks and drive a wedge between South Korea and the U.S. If it judges that U.S. position or suggestions fall short of its expectations, Pyiongyang will likely disturb the entire structure -- inter-Korean relations, Seoul-Washington relations, and its own relations with the U.S. -- by suddenly accepting the request for an inter-Korean summit and issuing some kind of peace declaration between the two Koreas. If the two Koreas were to conclude one as a prelude to a peace agreement, some people in South Korea may stress that there is no longer any justification for the U.S. forces' presence here. If the two Koreas conduct speedy talks on a peace framework before South Korea and the U.S. present any concrete visions for it, it could cause a crack in the Seoul-Washington alliance. Only when the U.S. is confident that it can keep its forces on the Korean Peninsula after the threat of North Korea¡¯s nuclear weapons has been removed can it cooperate in building a peace framework. South Korea and the U.S. can produce synergistic effects between building a peace system and their alliance only when the two agree to build a comprehensive alliance that includes the U.S. military structure in South Korea after full operational control of Korean forces has been handed over to Seoul, and when the role of South Korean and U.S. forces on both the regional and global scale has been established. It may be possible to consult with the U.S. in such a way as to link the building of a peace system with North Korea's dismantlement of its nuclear facilities. It may be possible to link concrete decisions in building it -- who should be the parties concerned to a peace agreement; talks on a peace system; conclusion of a peace agreement; and the building of a peace system -- with North Korea's dismantlement of its nuclear program -- the shutdown of North Korean nuclear facilities, reporting, verification and dismantlement. South Korea and the United States need to agree explicitly, in advance to push for the a peace agreement that does not affect the continuity and strength of the South Korea-U.S. alliance. U.S. president John F. Kennedy said, "Peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone but it lies in the hearts and minds of all people." I look forward to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a peace framework that will take root in people's minds. The column was contributed by Kim Sung-han, a professor with the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. ***************************************************************** 19 Reuters: North Korea accuses United States of hostility, lies Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:36PM EST By Michelle Nichols UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - An external audit of U.N. funds in North Korea is a hostile maneuver by the United States, Pyongyang said in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon circulated on Thursday. North Korean U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon also accused the United States of having "dirty" political motives and fabricating lies by suggesting Pyongyang might have misused funds from the U.N. Development Program for the development of nuclear weapons. "The allegations of the United States are sheer fiction aimed at politicizing international aid to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Pak said in the letter, which was also sent to the 15 U.N. Security Council members. "We cannot doubt that the motive and purpose of the audit are strictly in line with the hostile maneuvers of the United States against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Pak said. Late last month, the 36-member board of the U.N. Development Program, which includes the United States and North Korea, called for an audit and delayed any new programs for North Korea until the review was complete and the agency puts forward proposals in March. The board's move came after Mark Wallace, the U.S. envoy for U.N. financial management, accused the U.N. Development Program of violating rules by hiring North Korean government officials to carry out its work and by paying salaries in cash through the government. The program has already revamped its operation in North Korea to make sure Pyongyang does not hire agency staff. The agency's projects are mainly training for food management and other tasks and cost about $4 million. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Korea Times: Ministry Rebuffs Command Transfer Resolution Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation Lawmakers Seek to Thwart Command Transfer By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter Nearly half of the country's lawmakers last week sent a letter opposing the transition of wartime operational control of the Korean military from the United States to South Korea to top U.S. defense officials, an opposition lawmaker said Thursday. The move came just one day before the defense chiefs from the two governments meet in Washington, D.C. to try to set a specific timeline on the command rearrangement, a major policy goal of the Roh Moo-hyun administration to achieve a ``self-reliant'' defense capability. Currently, the top U.S. military officer in South Korea exercises operational control over the Korean armed forces in wartime under the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) formula. ROK is an acronym South Korea's official name, the Republic of Korea. A day earlier, a National Assembly committee passed a resolution calling for a delay in talks on the command transfer until the nuclear deadlock with North Korea is peacefully resolved. The resolution will be put to vote at today's plenary session. The Defense Ministry criticized the resolution. In a statement, the ministry said it is not appropriate to link the nuclear issue with the command transfer because Washington has reaffirmed its commitment to the provision of an extended nuclear umbrella to Seoul in case of war on the peninsula under a mutual defense treaty. `` North Korea's ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the security of Northeast Asia as well as on the peninsula,'' Rep. Hwang Jin-ha of the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP), who initiated the parliamentary resolution and sending of the letter signed by 142 legislators from the governing and opposition parties, said in a briefing. The Assembly now has a total of 296 members. The conservative GNP holds a majority power on the floor with 127 seats. The governing Uri Party has 108. ``In that context, the South Korean people are very much concerned about the risks the early transfer of wartime operational control would bring to the ROK-U.S. combined defense posture,'' said Hwang, a retired Army lieutenant general. The letter was delivered to the U.S. Ambassador to Seoul Alexander Vershbow on Feb. 16 and was addressed to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he added. In a meeting of defense chiefs last year, the two countries agreed on a flexible transition timeline _ between Oct. 15, 2009, and March 15, 2012. They also agreed to run separate military commands with the U.S. military shifting to a supporting role. Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo is scheduled to meet with his U.S. counterpart, Robert M. Gates, in Washington, D.C., tomorrow. A fixed timetable on the control transfer is likely to be finalized during the meeting, ministry officials said. Informed defense sources said the two sides have recently narrowed differences on the transfer timing to late 2011 or early 2012. gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 02-22-2007 19:46 ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: US, SKorea to debate alliance amid NKorea nuke fears Thursday February 22, 07:52 AM SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea's defence chief left Thursday for the United States to discuss major changes in the military alliance, as legislators called for caution in the light of North Korea's nuclear threat. Defence Minister Kim Jang-Soo and his US counterpart Robert Gates are likely to set a date for the transfer of wartime operational control when they meet Friday, officials said. Some 29,500 US troops are stationed here to help 680,000 South Korean forces face up to North Korea's 1.1-million-strong military. Should war break out, the top US general currently controls both South Korean and American troops under an arrangement dating back to the 1950-53 war. South Korea wants to regain wartime control over its forces by 2012, citing national pride and a new US military global strategy. Washington does not object and has proposed an earlier date of 2009. The United States plans to reduce its forces in South Korea to 25,000 by 2008 and is seeking flexibility to deploy them elsewhere in times of need. "There are good chances for both sides to fix it (the timing) at the defence chiefs' meeting this week," a South Korean defence official said on condition of anonymity. The move has sparked alarm in some quarters, following the North's missile tests in July and nuclear test in October. On Wednesday, parliament's defence committee approved a resolution opposing any change in command as long as concerns exist over North Korea's nuclear weapons. "We, by all means, oppose the proposed transfer of wartime operational control ... until the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved and the security situation peacefully improves on the Korean peninsula," it said. The panel said it would send the resolution to a full session of parliament Friday. On his way home Kim will meet his Japanese counterpart Fumio Kyuma in Tokyo Sunday to discuss North Korea's nuclear programmes and other issues of mutual interest. AFP ***************************************************************** 22 Archived: CAIB: The US and Nuclear Proliferation Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:05:20 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 18:24:41 CDT Sender: Activists Mailing List From: "(Rich Winkel)" Subject: CAIB: The US and Nuclear Proliferation "For decades, then, while publicly decrying the spread of nuclear weapons, the U.S. has been providing extensive covert and overt support, including selectively proliferating bomb technology to a number of its close allies." The following appeared in the Summer '92 issue of Covert Action Information Bulletin, #41, and is reprinted with permission. ________________________________________________________________________ Nuclear Threats and the New World Order by Michio Kaku Michio Kaku is Professor of Nuclear Physics at City University of New York and co-author of To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon's Secret Plans, Boston: South End Press, 1987. On the eve of the Gulf War, opinion polls indicated that the U.S. public was evenly split, about 45 to 45 percent, on military intervention. To tip the scales, the Bush administration unleashed a blistering torrent of accusations, branding Saddam Hussein a threat to Middle East oil, a renegade, a trampler of international law, and even a new Hitler. None of these tactics, however, proved particularly effective in rousing war fever. A sizable fraction of the U.S. people resisted administration propaganda and preferred to pursue patient negotiations, rather than to pull the trigger. Then, the Bush administration unleashed the unsubstantiated claim that Iraq would develop the atomic bomb within one year--even though most nuclear physicists concluded it would take about ten years.[1] Within days, well meaning Americans who had grave reservations about the use of bloodshed to restore a reactionary, feudal emirate, began to wave the flag and support invasion. Given the success of the tactic, it is not surprising that the nuclear bogeyman reared its head again. Soon after the conclusion of the Gulf War, the "New York Times" raised the specter of a North Korean atomic bomb. For 40 years the situation in Korea had been relatively stable and, in fact, ignored by the media. Within weeks, however, the Bush administration created a major international crisis by focusing world attention on the alleged atomic bomb factory at Yongbyon.[2] Similarly, it had been known for years that Cuba was building a Chernobyl-style reactor. After the Gulf War, however, the right-wing press ignited a fierce controversy by claiming that because Florida could be contaminated by a nuclear accident, a U.S. invasion of the island was justified. Proliferation Justifies Invasion Nuclear threats, of course, have historically been at the heart of U.S. foreign policy and have proven extremely useful for justifying U.S. actions.[3] This time around, however, there is a new twist added to the more traditional threats by the U.S. to unleash nuclear devastation on any nation challenging its powers.[4] In the past, preventing nuclear proliferation had been a low priority for U.S. policymakers. Now, the U.S. claims the right to intervene militarily around the world to stop alleged proliferation. Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba are the first beneficiaries of this new "Bush Doctrine." As we shall see, the basis for calculating the extent of the threat these nations pose is a political judgment by U.S. policy makers, not an objective assessment by scientists and military analysts. Now that the only other superpower, the USSR, no longer exists, one might conclude there is no need to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. This is not the case. On January 14, 1991, days before the beginning of the Gulf War, the Pentagon leaked to "Newsweek" a major study on the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. It publicized the Pentagon's varied contingency plans to use nuclear weapons and pointedly mentioned General Norman Schwarzkop's request for permission to use them in the Gulf. The plan called for neutron bombs to destroy enemy troops, nuclear "earth penetrators" to vaporize underground bunker positions, and hydrogen bombs detonated over Baghdad to wipe out its communications systems.[5] During the war itself, there were approximately 300 U.S. hydrogen bombs in the Gulf aboard U.S. ships. This policy was further clarified by a Pentagon paper leaked to the "New York Times" in March 1992.[6] According to the secret draft, top priority for the future will be preventing the rise of another rival to U.S. military supremacy. It listed seven possible nations or combinations of nations which may threaten U.S. military domination of the world. A careful look at these seven possibilities, however, shows that the Pentagon is shadow boxing. Iraq, one of the contenders, for example, is devastated and has a gross national product that is one percent of the U.S. GNP. Nonetheless, the report unleashed a firestorm of protest, including diplomatically tempered outrage from some U.S. allies ranked as potential rivals. The Bush administration tried to distance itself from this report, calling it unofficial and low-level and not the basis of U.S. foreign policy. Two and a half months later, according to the "New York Times," the Pentagon issued its final report in which it backed away from thwarting "the emergence of a new rival to American military supremacy"[7] as the primary goal for the next five years. Official policy or not, the report, which circulated among the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a major position within the military. Ever eager to save the administration embarrassment, some commentators quickly labeled the report a "trial balloon" meant to test public opinion about a major defense strategy. More likely, however, it was deliberately released as a veiled warning to friends and foes alike that the U.S. will not tolerate threats to its military supremacy. One of the key principles of Game Theory, developed by the mathematician John von Neumann for Pentagon nuclear war games, is that the enemy can be kept at bay by letting it know that you are prepared to unleash the "maximum level of violence" if necessary. The policy is like that of a tiger snarling in the forest; it knows that if the smaller animals ganged up, they would win. Through belligerent roaring and strutting, and a few well-timed bluffs, the tiger can intimidate the other animals and keep them in line without engaging in a single fight. Likewise, the Pentagon's nuclear snarl warns the rest of the world not to tangle with the U.S. Selective Proliferation Although adding charges of proliferation to the vocabulary of snarls and using it as a justification for intervention is a recent phenomenon, its inclusion is simply an extension of longstanding U.S. Cold War strategy. The U.S. has consistently dispensed support, and in this case nuclear technology, to selected right-wing governments in reward for containing the Soviet Union. As Henry Kissinger once remarked, if a nation is on its way to building an atomic bomb, then why not provide certain assistance in order to influence its foreign policy.[8] For decades, then, while publicly decrying the spread of nuclear weapons, the U.S. has been providing extensive covert and overt support, including selectively proliferating bomb technology to a number of its close allies. The real threat of nuclear proliferation comes not so much from Iraq and North Korea, which have only a primitive technological base, but from those countries such as Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons infrastructures are quite mature and sophisticated. Interviews in 1988 with top U.S. intelligence experts indicated that Israel had at least 100 atomic bombs, South Africa had up to 20, India 12 to 20 and Pakistan 4.[9] Since then, these countries have considerably modernized their nuclear production methods and accelerated bomb production. Double Standard In its secret nuclear facility at Kahuta, in the hills near Rawalpindi, Pakistan has been quietly amassing advanced nuclear technology. The U.S. gave its tacit blessing to the project largely in recognition of Pakistan's role as a strategic CIA-financed staging area for the fundamentalist rebel fight against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan. The Reagan administration, in fact, pressured Congress to grant exceptions to laws requiring a cutoff of aid to Pakistan because of its nuclear program, arguing that it had not yet technically assembled an atomic bomb, i.e., it was "one screw turn away" from constructing a nuclear weapon. A.Q. Kahn, head of the Pakistani nuclear program, acknowledged that the U.S. was fully aware that it had the bomb. "America knows it," said the "father of the Pakistani atomic bomb" in one candid interview. "What the CIA has been saying about our possessing the bomb is correct."[10] In spring 1992, after years of adamant denial, Pakistan publicly admitted for the first time that it has the capability of building the atomic bomb. While the U.S. richly rewarded Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, which all had extensive clandestine nuclear facilities, it used Iraq's primitive bomb-building efforts to justify a war. In that conflict, the U.S. and its allies dropped 88,500 tons of high explosives (seven times the Hiroshima bomb), killed perhaps 200,000 to 300,000 people, and according to the U.N., reduced the country to a "preindustrial" state. Access to Fissionable Materials An examination of the relative strengths of nuclear programs makes the double standard clear. A first step in building an atomic bomb is obtaining or purifying from natural uranium the 20 pounds of enriched uranium, or uranium-235, necessary to fabricate one atomic bomb (less for a plutonium bomb). The two most common ways of obtaining weapons-grade uranium are manufacturing it domestically or buying it abroad on the open market. Using state-of-the-art production techniques, it takes approximately 1,000 ultracentrifuges operating for one year to purify enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. (Because U-235 is slightly lighter than U-238, the ultracentrifuge, by spinning natural uranium, can separate these two isotopes.) Pakistan is known to have about 14,000 ultracentrifuges, or enough, in principle, to make 10 to 15 atomic bombs per year.[11] Having apparently assembled its first atomic bomb in 1986, Pakistan could now have a small nuclear arsenal. By comparison, Iraq had 26 ultracentrifuges before the war, far too few to manufacture an atomic bomb within a year.[12] Meanwhile, as far back as 1968, the U.S. provided South Africa with 230 pounds of enriched uranium to power its U.S.-made 20 megawatt Safari-I nuclear reactor, which operates on weapons-grade (90 percent enriched) uranium. As early as August 1973, the South African government publicly announced that it had purified a few tons of weapons-grade fuel for its nuclear reactor at Pelindaba-Valindaba. In 1975, the South African Minister of Mines, Dr. Pieter Koornhof, announced an ambitious $4.5 billion program to build a mammoth facility capable of producing 5,000 tons of enriched uranium a year.[13] In addition, the South African government also operates the huge 1,844 megawatt Koeberg I and II nuclear power plants. Theoretically, these plants are large enough to yield roughly 500 pounds of plutonium per year, which could then be extracted by chemical purification processes. Clearly, South Africa's vast nuclear program, centered at Pelindaba-Valindaba, dwarfs the puny Iraqi program by several orders of magnitude and can generously supply both its own and Israel's need for fissionable materials.[14] The exact figures on South African plutonium refinement capability are unknown because Pretoria had refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) until 1991. Iraq, by contrast, was a signatory to the NPT, allowed inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) every six months, and only possessed about 50 pounds of enriched uranium. Legally obtained under strict IAEA controls and supervision, this material was apparently the basis of the Bush administration's claim--widely disputed by physicists around the world--that the Iraqis could assemble an atomic bomb within one year. In fact, only one month before the Gulf War, the IAEA had conducted its periodic inspection and stated flatly that there was no threat from this uranium. Compare the unsubstantiated charges of imminent nuclear capability launched against Iraq with the solid evidence provided six years earlier by Israeli defector Mordechai Vanunu. The nuclear technician claimed that Israel possessed possibly several hundred atomic bombs, developed at the secret Dimona plant, and even sent color photographs of the nuclear bomb cores to the "London Sunday Times." According to Vanunu, Dimona produces 1.2 kilograms of pure plutonium per week, or enough to manufacture four to twelve atomic bombs per year. Despite this evidence, the U.S. publicly supported the convenient fiction that Israel did not possess nuclear capability.[15] Secret Testing Revealed Even after it is assembled, an atomic bomb is effectively useless unless the technology has been tested; no country will risk its existence on a potential dud. To prevent testing without its knowledge, the U.S. launched the Vela satellite in the 1970s specifically to detect unauthorized detonations of nuclear weapons around the world. On September 22, 1979, a storm brewed off the coast of South Africa near Prince Edward Island (1,500 miles from the Cape of Good Hope). Two Israeli Navy warships plied the rough waters. Unexpectedly, the heavy cloud cover broke and the Vela satellite detected the fingerprint "double flash" (called NUCFLASHES in Pentagon jargon).[16] Apparently, the South Africans and Israelis were testing a low-yield atomic warhead that was later standardized for use by the Israeli Defense Force. Had the clouds not parted on their third test, they would have successfully evaded the Vela satellite.[17] As one Israeli official involved with the test said, "It was a fuckup. There was a storm and we figured it would block Vela, but there was a gap in the weather, a window, and Vela got blinded by the flash." This joint South African-Israeli test was the first and only known test by a country not in the Nuclear Club since India had tested its bomb in 1974.[18] By contrast, Iraq was not only years away from getting enough enriched uranium by its ingenious (although clumsy) efforts to make a bomb, it was even further away from actual testing. Developing Technology and a Credible Arsenal The recent U.N. revelations that Iraq's nuclear program was concealed and more diverse than expected do not change this basic conclusion. The new information was interesting not because it showed how advanced the project was, but because it exposed Iraq's low level of technology and high level of desperation. Unable to legally obtain ultracentrifuge technology, the country had embarked on a costly search for various alternative and antiquated methods of uranium separation. An Iraqi defector divulged that there were three previously undisclosed nuclear sites where the Iraqis even resurrected technologies long-abandoned by the West, such as the calutron (California cyclotron). The on-site U.N. team found that only 6 to 12 of the 30 calutrons in Tarmia were usable before the war and all were destroyed by the war. Iraq's admission of one pound of low-grade uranium (unsuitable for bomb use) was consistent with the state of Iraq's unfinished calutron site. Furthermore, without high speed capacitors needed for precise electronic detonation of the enriched uranium or plutonium, an Iraqi bomb would have been quite unusable. The U.N. found no indications that Iraq had mastered the technology of high speed capacitors. The Single Bomb Fallacy Even if Iraq had been able to manufacture a bomb, a single nuclear weapon, contrary to public perception, does not constitute a credible military threat, nor does it have much military value in an armed conflict. A substantial stockpile is another matter. Israel has perhaps the world's sixth largest nuclear arsenal, now estimated at 300 atomic bombs. During the 1973 October War, the Israelis were poised to fire their nuclear weapons at the Arabs if the battle had turned against them. After the 1973 war, the Israeli Defense Force apparently established three nuclear-capable battalions, each with 12 self-propelled 175-mm nuclear cannons. Three nuclear artillery shells were stockpiled for each weapon, making a total of 108 warheads for these nuclear cannons alone.[19] Adding to its nuclear potency, only Israel, of all the nations not in the Nuclear Club, has mastered the more advanced thermonuclear hydrogen bomb technology. The pictures released by Vanunu and shown to nuclear physicists at U.S. weapons laboratories revealed that the Israelis have mastered the technology of neutron bombs--highly sophisticated "enhanced radiation" weapons which are ideal for tactical or theater nuclear warfare. Delivering The Bomb Lastly, even after constructing, testing and consolidating a small arsenal of bombs, a nation must be able to deliver them. The Scud-B weapons launched by the Iraqis during the Gulf War had great psychological value, but almost no military value. Most of them broke up in mid-flight--a disaster in a war fought with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, crude atomic bombs are so large and bulky that they cannot be carried by conventional fighter bombers. By contrast, the Pakistani program is advanced enough to manufacture a lightweight atomic bomb, weighing no more than 400 pounds, that can be strapped onto the belly of a U.S. F-16 fighter bomber.[20] The South Africans have made their Overberg testing range available to the Israelis for tests of their Shavit (Comet) missile, which uses the Jericho-2B missile as its first two stages.[21] The Shavit missile launched an Israeli satellite into orbit in 1988 and can hurl a 2,000 pound bomb a distance of 1,700 miles. One top U.S. administration official, commenting on the close relationship between Israel and South Africa in developing these weapons said, "We know everything, names, dates, everything. We don't have any evidence that it's a plain uranium-for-missiles deal. Think of the relationship as a whole series of deals." [22] Divide and Conquer Puny as Iraq's nuclear program seems in comparison to that of Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa, it could not have been built in such a short time without substantial foreign assistance. Ironically, Iraq's technological infrastructure was largely a creation of the West. In the early 20th century, British success in dominating the Middle East, controlling large parts of Africa, and running a global empire, relied on a strategy of "divide and conquer." The British sliced up what is now Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, and much of Africa in order to pit Arabs against Arabs, Africans against Africans. The U.S., which took over as the major Middle East power after World War II, learned this lesson well. The Shah of Iran, for example, was set up by the CIA as regional "policeman of the Gulf" charged with keeping the Arab nations in line. After his overthrow, the U.S. needed a counterweight to the insufficiently tractable Iranian fundamentalists. In the interest of Middle East control, and eager to see its enemies clobber themselves, the U.S. largely sustained and then brokered the long, bloody stalemate between Iraq and Iran. In order to neutralize Iran, which it perceived as the greater threat, the Reagan administration gave widespread military and economic support to Saddam Hussein, secretly feeding Iraq with military intelligence information on Iran's forces, in the form of satellite data.[23] As long as Iraq was neutralizing Iran, Saddam was the beneficiary of the selective proliferation policy. As long as Iraq was perceived to be carrying out U.S. wishes, it was rewarded, like Pakistan, with substantial aid and trade concessions. Thus, much of the high technology eventually destroyed by Desert Storm came from the U.S. and West Germany.[24] The U.S. Commerce Department licensed more than $1.5 billion in sensitive high technology for Iraq before the Gulf War. About 200 major companies in the West were involved in the high technology transfer. Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Unisys, International Computer Systems, Rockwell, and Tektronix had lucrative trade agreements with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and Saad 16, Iraq's missile research center. Honeywell even did a study for a power gasoline bomb warhead for the Iraqis.[25] Nuclear Threats in Korea Similarly, the Bush Doctrine has recast the Korean question. After three decades of relative stability and obscurity, suddenly, within weeks of the Gulf War, international attention was focused on the "nuclear threat" posed by the Yongbyon nuclear complex located 60 miles north of Pyongyang. The irony, as the North Koreans have pointed out, is that the U.S. maintains thousands of tactical nuclear weapons around the world, with approximately 600 concentrated in the Korean area.[26] The threat presented by this arsenal is real. During the Korean War, the U.S. had authorized the use of nuclear weapons in the appendix to its secret war plan, OPLAN8-52. Recently declassified minutes of the National Security Council reveal the detailed plans by President Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles to exploit tactical nuclear weapons in Korea.[27] To pressure North Korea, President Bush vowed in September 1991 to withdraw nuclear weapons from South Korea. The pledge, as the North Koreans have again noted, is largely symbolic, since U.S. nuclear weapons based on ships, such as nuclear cruise missiles, can be fired into North Korea within minutes. An offshore nuclear missile is just as deadly as a nuclear missile based on land. In any case, equating the U.S.-backed South Korean nuclear capabilities with those of North Korea is absurd. The North Korean nuclear program is qualitatively and quantitatively even more primitive than the Iraqi one, which in turn was quite backward by Western standards. The Iraqis, at least, had access to billions of dollars of advanced Western technology because of its war against Iran. The Soviets, by contrast, were historically much more tight-fisted about sharing this kind of advanced technology with their allies. In the late 1960s, they provided a small reactor. The North Koreans contracted with the British to build an old-fashioned, 1950s-style graphite reactor, called the Calder Hall, which was to be operated by the British Nuclear Fuels Company. This 20 to 30 megawatt reactor, tiny compared with the 1,000 megawatts common in the West, was begun in 1980 and was already obsolete when completed seven years later. In 1985, although North Korea signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it has been unwilling to allow totally unrestricted inspections of its facilities. As a consequence, the U.S. began to suspect that the North Koreans were converting the civilian reactor to military purposes. At present, the case against the North Koreans is based primarily on satellite photographs, the interpretation of which is the subject of intense controversy. The U.S. asserts the photos show that the North Koreans are completing a new reactor, possibly 50 to 200 megawatts in power, and a new reprocessing plant which could extract plutonium from radioactive waste. These admittedly speculative conclusions have even created a dispute between the CIA on one side and the Pentagon and the State Department on the other.[28] Based on its claims that the North Koreans will have the atomic bomb within a few months, the CIA recommends immediate action, possibly including force. The Pentagon and State Department take a much more relaxed view, estimating that North Korea is two to five years from an atomic bomb. This appraisal allows ample time for a diplomatic solution. There is some indication that the stalemate is breaking up. On March 14, 1992, a new agreement was signed between the two Koreas. The South Koreans agreed to drop their insistence on a rigid timetable for inspections, and the North Koreans agreed to allow a formal inspection of the Yongbyon site--possibly in June or shortly thereafter. In April, the North Koreans even released a video of the interior of the reactor site. On May 3, they promised to hand over to the IAEA a list of nuclear-related sites for inspection.[29] Part of the controversy has revolved around the often quoted U.S. position that satellite photographs of the Yongbyon facility show no electrical wires emanating from the site. Reactors for peaceful rather than bomb-production purposes, the U.S. argued, would necessitate a network of transformers and cables connecting the site to the power grid. It was the North Koreans' word against the West's, until IAEA Director Hans Blix and his team reported after a May 1992 visit that they found "electric distribution grids outside two large nuclear power plants, suggesting that the plants are intended for power generation... [and] supporting North Korea's assertion that its nuclear plants are strictly for peaceful power-generation purposes." They also turned up a "a tiny quantity [of plutonium]," said Blix, "far from the amount you need for a weapon."[30] In fact, small quantities of plutonium are often extracted for reprocessing but are usually of a type not usable in weapons production. Despite exaggeration by the media about the Yongbyon site, the IAEA has been cautious in drawing any conclusions until a more complete inspection--expected soon--can be conducted. Will the Bush Doctrine Backfire? Ultimately, the Bush Doctrine may backfire in any number of ways, with a variety of dire consequences. The Bush administration is playing with nuclear fire, and it is easy to get burned. For example, the U.S. has allowed the atomic bomb to proliferate so widely that, without anticommunism to keep these countries in line, proliferation may be out of its control. Already in the 1973 October War, the Israelis apparently threatened to unleash their atomic bomb on the Arabs unless the U.S. came to its aid. The U.S. was thus blackmailed and put on the receiving end of a nuclear threat. Another potential nuclear flashpoint is the centuries-old feud between the Muslims in Pakistan and the Hindus in India. The recent crisis over Kashmir caused the U.S. State Department to express public alarm that the conflict would boil over into open warfare, with the distinct possibility that nuclear weapons could be used by both sides. But perhaps most important, the reliance on nuclear threats to maintain U.S. military supremacy may backfire by weakening the domestic economic infrastructure. The clear implication of the leaked Pentagon report is that while other countries, such as Germany and Japan, may eventually pose a grave economic threat to the U.S., Washington's nuclear superiority will keep them in line and keep the U.S. on top. This reliance on military domination is a tacit admission that U.S. economic strength will continue to deteriorate into the next century. Since 1945, U.S. control of 50 percent of the world's wealth has declined to 25 percent, and is still falling. Most of that wealth was squandered maintaining a world-spanning network of 395 foreign military bases in 35 countries at a current cost exceeding $210 billion annually. With such a colossal military burden, this country is undergoing a remarkable de-industrialization process, which the world has not seen since turn-of-the-century England. If the Pentagon is relying on nuclear might to keep its rising economic rivals in line, then this expensive "solution" will ultimately exacerbate the problem of economic decline by accelerating the de-industrialization of the U.S. A journalist once asked President Reagan whether the rightwing strategy of "spending Russia into a depression" might backfire; might not the U.S. be spent into a depression instead? In one of the few lucid moments of his presidency, Reagan answered, "Yes...but they'll bust first." For once, Ronald Reagan was correct. The Soviets indeed did bust first, but there are indications that the U.S. may be next. _________________________ 1. "Unless Stopped, Iraq Could Have A-Arms in 10 Years, Experts Say," New York Times, November 18, 1990 p. 1. 2. "U.S. Officials step up warnings to North Korea on Nuclear Arms," New York Times, November 21,1991. 3. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod, To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon's Secret War Plans, Boston: South End Press, 1987. 4. As early as 1948, during the Berlin crisis, President Truman authorized Operation Broiler, which included plans to drop 34 atomic bombs on 24 cities in the Soviet Union in a first strike by B-29 bombers. During the 1954 Vietnam crisis, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Vulture, which included using two to six 31-kiloton atomic bombs to vaporize Vietnamese troops at Dien Bien Phu. Kaku and Axelrod, op. cit. 5. Newsweek, January 14, 1991. 6. Patrick E. Tyler, "U.S. Strategy Plans Call for Insuring No Rivals Develop," New York Times, March 8, 1992, p. A1. 7. Barton Gellman, "Pentagon Abandons Goal of Thwarting U.S. Rivals," Washington Post, May 24, 1992, p. A1. 8. Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, New York: Summit Books, 1983, p. 148. 9. "Bombs in the Basement," Newsweek, July 11, 1988, pp. 42-45. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. Because of breakdowns, the Pakistani ultracentrifuges most likely operate at much less efficiency, perhaps producing only enough fissionable material for one to five atomic bombs per year. 12. New York Times, "Unless Stopped...," op. cit. 13. Ronald Walters, South Africa and the Bomb, Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987. 14. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York: Random House, 1992. 15. "Revealed: The secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal," London Sunday Times, October 5, 1986. See also Frank Barnaby, The Invisible Bomb, London: I.B. Tauris, 1989; CAIB, "Israel's Nuclear Arsenal," Number 30, Summer 1988, p. 45; and Louis Toscano, Triple Cross, New York: Birch Lane Press, 1990. 16. The "double flash" is the fingerprint of a nuclear detonation. Only an atomic (not a chemical) bomb can generate this rapid sequence of flashes. 17. Hersh, Samson..., op. cit., pp. 271-272. 18. Ibid., p. 267. 19. Ibid., p. 276. 20. Newsweek, "Bombs in the Basement...," op. cit. 21. "Israel's Deal with the Devil?" Newsweek, November 6, 1989, p. 52. 22. Newsweek, "Bombs in the Basement...," op. cit. 23. "Bush's Iraqi Blunder," New York Times, May 14, 1992, p. A17. 24. "Building Saddam Hussein's Bomb," New York Times Magazine, March 8, 1992, p. 30. 25. Ibid. 26. "U.S. Officials...," New York Times, op. cit. 27. Kaku and Axelrod, op. cit. 28. "2 Koreas Agree to A-Inspection by June," New York Times, March 15, 1992, p. 3. 29. "North Korea to Drop First Veil," New York Times, May 4, 1992, p.A7. 30. T. R Reid, "N. Korean Plutonium Plant Cited," Washington Post, May 17, 1992, p. A25. ***************************************************************** 23 reviewjournal.com: War prompts discourse DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL FORUM: Feb. 22, 2007 At Carson City event, U.S. policy in Iraq unites, divides candidates REVIEW-JOURNAL Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., signs autographs Wednesday during an appearance before the Nevada State Education Association in Las Vegas. Photo by Craig L. Moran. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, left, moderator of the forum Wednesday in Carson City, reacts to Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut after Stephanopoulos incorrectly pronounced "Nevada." Photo by The Associated Press CARSON CITY -- Nevada provided the backdrop for the kickoff of the 2008 presidential campaign season Wednesday as eight Democrats seeking their party's nomination participated in a nationally broadcast forum. "It needs to be ended now," said Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa. "Not six days from now, not six months from now, not six years from now." Vilsack said Congress should take away funding for the war and redirect it to domestic uses. But Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said a pullout would lead to disaster. "I don't know anybody who believes that the Iraqis either have the competence, at this moment, or the will to make the significant compromises needed to stop this self-sustaining cycle of revenge," he said. Without significant intervention to stabilize Iraq politically, he said, the current civil war will "metastasize" into a regional conflict that endangers the world and, in a "tragic irony," leads either to a new dictatorship or another occupying force. Vilsack, Biden and the six other Democratic presidential candidates at the Carson City Community Center participated in an informal, individual question-and-answer session attended by about 600 people. Most were members of the national public employees union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which sponsored the event. Some of the audience members were retirees and there was a smattering of elected officials in the crowd as well. The forum was shown live on the C-SPAN cable network and moderated by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. Each candidate came onstage, gave a statement, answered questions and then gave a concluding statement. Many of the candidates also took questions from a horde of local and national media gathered backstage to record the first official gathering of candidates in the 2008 race. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was the only announced Democratic candidate to skip the event. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Vice President Al Gore are also rumored to be considering running for the party's nomination. For the first time, Nevada will be among the earliest states to choose a Democratic presidential nominee, a move made by the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to inject geographical and ethnic diversity into the selection process. There is no corresponding Republican event as there is in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Nevada Democratic caucus is scheduled for Jan. 19. The Democratic front-runner at this early stage of the process, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, on Wednesday proposed "redeployment" of troops in Iraq within 90 days to roles that are out of harm's way. She also proposed taking away President Bush's authority to conduct the war if benchmarks are not met. She said the Iraqi government must be forced to take more responsibility, with financial consequences. "I want to cut money for Iraqi troops," Clinton said. "I want to cut the money that they get because they're not standing up and fighting the way that they have said they would." Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, said, "It is time for us, the leaders of this country, the leaders in the United States Congress, to stop George Bush's escalation of the war, for us to stand up strongly and firmly." He said he would do that by immediately pulling 50,000 troops out and redeploying the rest of the forces over the course of a year. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut also favored redeployment, saying U.S. forces in Iraq should only be used for border security, training Iraqi forces and fighting terrorism. Democratic senators are working to amend Bush's original war authorization to that effect, a direct rebuke of Bush's move for a troop "surge" into Baghdad to pacify the capital city. "Don't put our men and women in uniform into these highly, densely populated areas where they're nothing more than referees in a civil war," Dodd said. "We need to get them out of there as soon as possible." New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said that having authorized the war, Congress should "deauthorize" it. He called for the United States to "withdraw with diplomacy." All the candidates said the United States should negotiate directly with enemies such as Syria and Iran, and most called for holding an international conference with all regional interests included, as recommended last year by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Biden, however, said he was the only candidate with a plan for the political future of Iraq. He said the country should be divided into relatively autonomous regions joined by a weak central government. In addition to their differences about how to move forward in Iraq, many of the candidates ran into trouble over their initial support for the war. Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Dodd all voted for the 2002 measure authorizing Bush to go to war. Only Clinton has not repudiated her vote, saying she made the best decision she could based on what she knew at the time. The two least-known candidates had the easiest time, having opposed the war from the start. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who also ran as an antiwar candidate in 2004, said a president should have "the ability to do the right thing when it matters most, and I've demonstrated that." Former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska also said he had nothing to apologize for. When Bush was pushing the case against Iraq in early 2002, he said, "I was saying on television, 'His lips are moving, and he's lying to you, just like Lyndon Johnson lied to us 30 years ago.' " Clinton said she could not second-guess a vote that was "sincere." "I have taken responsibility for my vote, and I believe that none of us should get a free pass," she said. "It is up to the voters to judge what each of us has said and done." Dodd said his vote was based on bad information about weapons of mass destruction, but added too many politicians are unable to acknowledge they made the wrong decision. "When you make a mistake, there's nothing wrong with admitting that," he said. "I've made them in the past, I'll make them in the future. It was a mistake, in my view, to vote the way we did five years ago on that resolution." Edwards said his frankness in regretting his decision should be seen as proof he is honest. "I should never have voted for this war," he said. "I take responsibility for that. No one else is responsible for it. But the truth is, if we want to live in a moral and just America, if we want America to be able to lead in a moral and just world, we need a leader who is honest open and decent and trying to do the right thing." Biden chalked up his regrettable authorization vote to a failure of imagination. "I vastly underestimated the incompetence of this administration," he said. Because the war in Afghanistan had been carried out well, he trusted the administration to take on Iraq. "We assumed they'd act equally as responsibly," Biden said. "They've been absolutely irresponsible." The other major topics the candidates addressed were health care, taxes, Social Security, unions' right to organize, jobs and trade issues and education. They were largely in agreement that health care should be universal, the tax code should not favor the rich, Social Security should be protected and not privatized, unions should have the right of collective bargaining, U.S. jobs should not be shipped overseas, and education, from elementary to college, should be internationally competitive and available to all. Answering questions backstage in a kinder-care room in which toys had been pushed to the corners and risers for cameras and a podium platform had been installed, Dodd, Richardson and Biden were asked about the proposed nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, considered the key federal issue for Nevadans. All agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assessment that the project is dead and rightly so. Forum attendees said they liked the opportunity to hear from candidates such as Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Vilsack, whose national profiles aren't as high as Clinton and Edwards. "They have a good perspective, and it's nice to see them get some attention," Tamatha Schreinert of Reno said. Asked what the most important issue was, she said, "Getting us out of Iraq, definitely, for me. I wish it was education and health care, but I think we have to solve that first before we can do anything else." A few dozen red-shirted members of the College Republicans protested in front of the community center, and Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., issued a statement on behalf of the state Republican Party, saying the Democratic hoopla was the wrong approach for the state and the country. "What I saw today was a cast of Democrats pandering for individual political points, illustrating again that Democrats have more candidates than they do substantive ideas," Heller said. "Of this large cast of left-wing characters, I saw not one president among them." But there was no doubt the assembled candidates left many people in the capital city star-struck, starting when Clinton, Vilsack and Dodd visited the Legislature in the morning. When Clinton then stopped across the street at Comma Coffee, the owner, June Joplin, literally leaped into the air. "It is a historical day for Carson City," said Joplin, whose establishment, usually a low-key hangout for musicians and chess players, also saw visits from Biden and Kucinich. Even the Republican mayor of the 57,000-population burg was impressed. "This is the biggest event we ever have had in Carson City," Marv Teixeira said. "It is as big as the Final Four. We really spiffed up the town." Only the world's heavyweight championship fight between "Gentleman Jim" Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons attracted similar national attention, and that was back in 1897. Teixeira watched the forum on television with a crowd of nearly 400 at the offices of the Nevada Appeal newspaper. Also in attendance was Shirley Breeden of Las Vegas who took off work so she and her daughter Jennifer, a legislative employee, would have a chance to meet Clinton, who dropped by after her appearance at the forum. "I think Hillary has a big heart," Shirley Breeden said after getting her picture taken with the candidate. "She has my vote." OTHER STATES JOIN CARSON CITY -- A Democratic presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno will be co-sponsored by four other Western states, the Nevada Democratic Party announced Wednesday. The state Democratic parties of Arizona, Colorado, Montana and New Mexico will participate in the event, slated to be broadcast on the Fox News cable network and also hosted by the Western Majority Project. The first presidential event of Nevada's early Democratic nominating caucus for 2008 was held Wednesday in Carson City. The next one is to be a union-sponsored event next month at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 24 RGJ.com: Clinton discusses protecting the environment, vote on war in Iraq February 22, 2007 Presidential hopefuls bring nation to Nevada Reid refuses to pick favorite Security credentials key to 2008 win, Biden says Before the first forum for Democratic presidential candidates, state party leaders sought to emphasize Nevada's heartland over its gambling image. But Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't buying it. Asked in a brief interview with the Associated Press about the party's efforts, U.S. Sen. Clinton laughed. "I don't know anything about that. I think it's funny," she said of the 44-page document recently circulated that repackaged Las Vegas and Nevada as utterly ordinary and dismissed the state's storied gambling history in a single sentence. Clinton said her favorite casino game probably is blackjack. "I'm not much of a gambler, but I have gambled," she said. In the interview, Clinton addressed a number of questions, including several of concern to Western voters and one dealing with her husband, former President Clinton. If she's elected president in 2008, will he get an office in the West Wing? "I never think ahead," she said. "I'm like the person sitting in the dugout. I don't want to talk about it during the game." Clinton said protecting the environment is a key concern, although she's "not against any industry" such as mining companies that have huge operations in Nevada. "We've got to get back to protecting our environment and wilderness areas, and what I've been very impressed with in the last several years is how protecting wilderness and being on the front lines of the environmental movement is really part of the Western agenda," she said. "There's a role for mining," Clinton said. "I just think everybody has to be held to certain standards because the world and our beautiful country, particularly here in the West, is a common good that we all have a stake in trying to preserve." Clinton, who repeatedly has faced calls to say her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq was a mistake, repeated her previous comments. "I'm not asking for a free pass. I don't think anyone should. My vote was a sincere vote based on my assessment of the facts and the assurances that we had at the time, and I am willing to take responsibility for my vote, and everyone should take responsibility for what they've done and said. "I think any fair reading of everything I've done and said over the last 4½ years demonstrates clearly that I've been a consistent critic and trying to be helpful with respect to helping our troops and changing the direction where we are headed under this president in Iraq." Clinton said she hoped Britain's plans to reduce its troops in Iraq would influence Bush's decisions on U.S. military involvement there. "I hope that since the president seems unwilling to listen to the results of the November election or to the new Democratic majority in Congress that he would at least listen to someone who he has claimed has been his strongest ally in this effort," she said. Clinton spoke after meeting with state lawmakers. Her quick stroll through the Nevada Legislative Building caused a stir big enough to pull Democrats out of morning hearings and Republicans into the hallways -- mostly just to watch. A crowd of 30 or so, including lobbyists, a local coffee shop owner and Miss Nevada Caydi Cole, huddled in Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus' office to meet the senator from New York. Assembly Minority Leader Garn Mabey, a Republican, briefly lingered with the group, but decided he didn't want to wait in a crowded room for a Democrat. Clinton assured the star-struck group she would continue to fight a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, calling the project advanced by the Bush administration "scientifically unsound." She called her husband's two narrow victories in Nevada "near-death experiences" and said that if she's the Democratic nominee in the 2008 elections, "I'd like to open it up a little bit." Clinton promised that her Nevada supporters would be picking a winner. "From my perspective I want to run a primary campaign that sets me up to win the general election. ... and not get pulled off in one direction or another," she said. "And I want to run a general election campaign that allows me to hit the ground running in January 2009." Associated Press Writer Kathleen Hennessey contributed to this report. Reno Gazette-Journal © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: Straw promises inquiry but Blair 'proud' of war Tania Branigan, political correspondent Friday February 23, 2007 The Guardian The government will hold an inquiry into the Iraq war, Jack Straw promised yesterday, as the prime minister defended the motives and conduct of the conflict. But the leader of the house said an investigation would not take place until British troops leave the country - ensuring it will happen after Tony Blair has quit Downing Street. Opposition parties want an immediate inquiry, as demanded by the former foreign secretary Lord Hurd in a Lords debate yesterday. In a half-hour interview on foreign policy, Mr Blair said the government should be proud of its record of intervening overseas, saying the world was a better place because dictators had been removed. He admitted that the situation in Iraq was "grim", but insisted that the coalition had planned for the invasion's aftermath and dismissed as a conspiracy theory claims that Washington had decided to invade regardless of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. While the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, hinted in a Commons debate last November that an inquiry would be held, No 10 indicated it was opposed. The Foreign Office said yesterday that its position was unchanged, adding: "There might come a time for further reflection." But yesterday Mr Straw told reporters: "I think we have all made clear there will be an inquiry in due course. I am perfectly content myself, as someone who was heavily involved in the decisions on Iraq - and I do not resile from those decisions either - to be subject, at an appropriate moment, to an inquiry. That goes for the whole of the government, including the prime minister as he has made clear, but there is an issue of timing." He later said it should not happen "while the troops are there and active" and that the prime minister had acknowledged publicly that there might be a wider inquiry at some point. But Mr Straw rejected Lord Hurd's call for an inquiry like that of Lord Franks into the Falklands war, arguing that many of the issues had already been tackled by the Commons foreign affairs committee, the Butler inquiry and parliament's intelligence and security committee. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said his comments were a welcome U-turn, but added: "Such an inquiry needs to be established this year, before memories of events in 2002 and 2003 start to fade." Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, said it should be held "while the relevant ministers are still in office". Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Blair rejected claims by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative in Baghdad, that the coalition had not planned properly for rebuilding Iraq. Mr Blair also gave his strongest indication to date that he would not commit Britain to military action against Iran, on the day the UN's nuclear watchdog announced the country had failed to suspend uranium enrichment. "I can't think that it would be right to take military action against Iran," he said, arguing diplomatic channels were "the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution". He added: "You can't absolutely predict every set of circumstances that comes about, but Iran is not Iraq." Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 26 The Hindu: Nuclear accord designed to promote stable environment Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Feb 23, 2007 Amit Baruah It is in fact an extension of the MoU signed in Lahore in 1999 NEW DELHI: The objective behind the Agreement on Reducing the Risk from Accidents Relating to Nuclear Weapons, signed between India and Pakistan on Wednesday is to promote a stable environment of peace and security in the region. While committing themselves to the objective of global and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament, the text of the Agreement obtained by The Hindu recognised that the "nuclear dimension of the security environment" added to "their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries." The preamble to the Agreement made a reference to the memorandum of understanding signed between the two countries in Lahore in February 1999, which committed them to undertaking national measures to reduce the risks of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons. In Lahore, the two countries also undertook to notify each other immediately in the event of any accidental, unauthorised or unexplained incident that could create the risk of a fallout with adverse consequences for the sides or an outbreak of a nuclear war between the two countries. Clearly, Wednesday's Agreement constitutes the implementation of the Lahore MoU, which itself was a mechanism to assure the rest of the world that after the nuclear weaponisation of May 1998, India and Pakistan would behave responsibly. The document committed the two parties to maintain and improve, as it deemed necessary, existing national measures including organisational and technical arrangements, to "guard against accidents related to nuclear weapons under its control." Article 2 of the Agreement said, "The parties shall notify each other immediately in the event of any accident relating to nuclear weapons, under their respective jurisdiction or control, which could create the risk of an outbreak of a nuclear war between the two countries." "In the event of such an accident, the party within whose jurisdiction or control the accident has taken place will immediately take necessary measures to minimise the radiological consequences of such an accident," it stated. However, the Agreement spelt out that the obligation of a party to notify the other shall be in respect of only such accidents that might result in international trans-boundary release of radiological safety significance or have security implications for the other party. In the event of an accident, the parties committed themselves to reducing the possibilities of their actions being misinterpreted by the other and present the other party "forthwith" with relevant information. "The parties shall make use of the hotline links between the two Foreign Secretaries and DGMOs [Directors-General of Military Operations] or any other appropriate communication link as mutually agreed upon ... for transmission of, or request for, urgent information in situations relating to the implementation of this Agreement," the text said. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 27 RIA Novosti: Russia's missile forces: lower quantity but higher quality Opinion & analysis - Opinion & analysis 13:08 | 22/ 02/ 2007 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosty military commentator Viktor Litovkin) The recent news conference given by Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RSMF), did not cause a sensation. Specialists and experts on the Missile Forces heard only one piece of new information from the general. This was the news that the command of the RSMF will, of course, react if Russia decides to withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in reaction to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. It is as ready to assume command of the medium range missiles now as it was before the INF treaty came into force, and there is a possibility that the missiles will be aimed at U.S. targets in Eastern Europe. "At present nothing is deployed there", Solovtsov said. "But if Poland and the Czech Republic decide to change that, the Russian Strategic Missile Force will be able to consider these objects as targets." Asked by RIA Novosti about the Russian defense industry's ability to produce such missiles in sufficient number, the general said: "After the elimination of medium-range missiles, the designs and technology remained. It will not be difficult to resume production, but it will be with new technology, a new element base, and new guidance systems." These statements can hardly be called a sensation after the recent statements about Russia's possible withdrawal from the INF Treaty made by President Vladimir Putin, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian General Staff, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. But one thing was hard to ignore amid all the talk about American missiles and radars. Gen. Solovtsov said that this year, two regiments of Topol RS-12M ground-based missile systems in the Kannskaya missile division (which has sixteen launchers for SS-25 Sickle missiles) will be trimmed down, along with a missile regiment in the Kozelskaya division, stationed in the Kaluga Region. There are six regiments of UR-100 NUTTKh silo-based missile systems on combat duty (with 60 SS-19 Stiletto missile launchers capable of carrying six independently targetable nuclear warheads, each with a 750 kiloton yield). One regiment consisting of 10 missiles will be disbanded by the end of the year. Will the planned reduction in the number of these missiles, as well as further reductions in other strategic missile systems, impair Russia's security? The commander of the RSMF answered unequivocally: "No." These reductions are part of Russia's obligations under the START-1 and SORT treaties. Under the latter, Moscow and Washington will reduce their respective number of nuclear warheads on existing missile systems to 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. "And this will be accomplished," Gen. Solovtsov said. "Our missiles have many more warheads than that," he added. He did not specify the number, but according to publicly available sources, at the end of 2006 Russia had 762 strategic systems capable of carrying 3373 nuclear warheads. The RSMF alone has 503 strategic systems and 1853 warheads. Russia's former defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, said at the State Duma on February 7 that the Russian Army will get 17 new strategic missile systems this year. As Gen. Solovtsov said at his news conference, the first division, armed with the ground-based Topol-M missile system consisting of three launch vehicles and one control vehicle, will be enlarged to a regiment with three more launchers. It is therefore clear that the rest of the missile systems will be both silo- and, probably, ground-based, but they will consist only of Topol-M missiles. Gen. Solovtsov added that by 2016-2018, Topol-M missile systems, both in silos and ground-based, will constitute the backbone of the RSMF. Ivanov said that by 2015, 34 more silo-based missile systems (at present there are 42) and 66 ground-based systems will be supplied to the Armed Forces, bringing the total number of Topol-M missiles systems to nearly 150. Today, both ground- and silo-based Topol-M missile systems have only one warhead. After 2009, when the START-1 treaty's restrictions on the deployment of ground-based missile systems with MIRVed warheads are lifted, there is a possibility that the new Topol missiles will carry those multiple warheads. Otherwise, Russia won't be able to fulfill its obligations under the SORT treaty. Though Gen. Solovtsov's news conference caused no sensation, a careful analysis shows that it unveils the prospects for the development of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. Russia will have fewer missiles than today, but its missiles will be of a higher quality, capable of penetrating both existing and future missile defense systems. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 28 RIA Novosti: Russia's new first vice premier given wide powers 13:23 | 22/ 02/ 2007 MOSCOW, February 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's new first deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, seen by many as a potential successor to the Russian president, has been placed in charge of a wide spectrum of activities. Following a major government reshuffle last week, in which Ivanov was promoted from the posts of defense minister and vice premier, Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov assigned duties to his four deputies Thursday. "I would like to inform you that I have signed a document outlining the duties of deputies and first deputy prime ministers," Fradkov told a government session. The premier said responsibilities would be divided between his deputies along the priority lines of government policy. Ivanov 54, a former KGB officer like Putin, will now supervise industry, transport, science, the defense industry, national defense, communications, law enforcement, and the nuclear and space sectors. "These are what we call the real economy, including the defense industry, on which we place high stakes to diversify the economy and develop the sector in innovative ways," the head of government said. Ivanov will now enjoy equal authority with another first deputy prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, chairman of gas giant Gazprom's board of directors, who is also a potential presidential successor. Medvedev will be in charge of education, healthcare and the social sector. He will guide socially oriented priority national projects in housing and demography, and will supervise the use of mineral and natural resources. Alexander Zhukov has retained his responsibilities of deputy prime minister and will oversee lawmaking, intergovernmental fiscal relations, the main lines of the country's social and economic development and migration policy. "Overall, everything related to macroeconomics," Fradkov said. The president also appointed the former government chief of staff, Sergei Naryshkin, as a deputy prime minister. He will be responsible for foreign trade, including with former Soviet republics, and property relations. Naryshkin, 52, who worked in the St. Petersburg mayor's office in the early 1990s under Putin, who was then deputy mayor of Russia's second city, will also lead a government commission on economic integration with the European Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 29 The Herald: Brown constituents oppose nuclear renewal Politics: WESTMINSTER Web Issue 2765 February 23 2007 DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor February 23 2007 The constituents of both the Chancellor and Scotland Secretary are heavily opposed to renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent, according to a poll. The survey of people in Kirkcaldy and Paisley, represented at Westminster by Gordon Brown and Douglas Alexander, was carried out for environment pressure group Greenpeace, which this month stepped up its campaign against the renewal. It was designed as a warning to Mr Brown in particular that his party faces internal opposition to the scheme for new submarines and a new generation of missiles. The Chancellor, expected to become Prime Minister, has backed Tony Blair in saying Britain needs to retain its deterrent, but as of yesterday, Mr Brown faces a leadership challenge from former Cabinet colleague Michael Meacher, primarily over the issue. A Labour spokesman responded to the poll: "We won't be taking any risks with the future of Scotland's economy, and we won't be risking the defence of our nation." © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC Issues "White" Finding at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2007-003 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that an inspection finding at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station regarding operability of emergency diesel generators is of “white” or low to moderate safety significance. The facility is operated by Arizona Public Service Co., near Wintersburg, Ariz. “This finding was caused by performance deficiencies similar to others noted by NRC at Palo Verde since 2004,” Region IV Administrator Bruce Mallett said. “The NRC will determine the appropriate follow-up actions to ensure performance improvements at Palo Verde.” Following testing failures on July 25 and Sept. 22, an NRC special inspection identified problems in an electrical relay that rendered the emergency diesel generator non-functional for approximately 18 days during 2006. Under the NRCs reactor oversight process, inspection findings are evaluated under a significance determination process and assigned a color that indicates its safety significance. Findings with very low safety significance are labeled "green." "White" findings have low to moderate safety significance, "yellow" findings have substantial safety significance, and "red" findings have high safety significance. A preliminary "white" finding was described in a Dec. 6 inspection report. The letter transmitting the report provided the company with an opportunity to either request a regulatory conference to discuss the issue or to respond in writing. During a regulatory conference with the NRC on Jan. 16, APS officials admitted violations of NRC requirements but maintained they were of very low safety significance. After review, the NRC has characterized the violations as a single “white” finding, of low to moderate safety significance. “Diesel generators are critical components of every nuclear power plant’s defense in depth and are relied upon to supply power to key safety systems during an emergency should the need arise,” Mallett said. “The NRC has very rigorous requirements designed to ensure that this equipment is properly maintained and capable of performing its safety function if called upon to do so. APS did not do this, and this failure is similar to others identified in numerous inspection findings and assessments since 2004. We will determine whether additional inspections, increased oversight and other regulatory actions are appropriate.” 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 Thursday, February 22, 2007 ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Plant's Safety Rating Takes Hit From the Associated Press Friday February 23, 2007 12:46 AM By CHRIS KAHN AP Business Writer PHOENIX (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday downgraded the safety rating of the nation's largest nuclear plant, subjecting it to more inspectors and a level of scrutiny shared by just one other plant in the nation. The NRC made the announcement following three years of problems in various safety systems at the Palo Verde nuclear plant west of Phoenix. Inspectors in September found that one of its emergency diesel generators had been broken for 18 days. Emergency generators are critically important at nuclear reactors, providing electricity to pumps, valves and control rooms if the main electrical supply fails. Only FirstEnergy Corp.'s Perry nuclear plant in Ohio has a safety rating as bad as Palo Verde's, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said. APS, a subsidiary of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital Corp., said it will not appeal the ruling. ``It is important to know that despite the operational difficulties over the last few years, at no time was the safety of the public or our employees at risk,'' APS chief executive Jack Davis said on the company Web site. Palo Verde can provide enough electricity for nearly 4 million homes and is owned by a consortium of utilities in Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico. On the Net: Arizona Public Service: www.aps.com Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 32 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Nuclear is green, advocate says 02/22/2007 | Ex-Greenpeace chief touts energy source during St. Paul visit BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO Pioneer Press Forget the tree hugging. Environmentalists ought to embrace nuclear power as an alternative to more coal- and natural-gas-powered electricity plants whose emissions will only speed up global warming, a former Greenpeace director who advocates nuclear power told the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. "Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand," Patrick Moore said at a seminar on Minnesota's energy future that the chamber held in downtown St. Paul. Moore helped found Greenpeace in the early 1970s, eventually becoming director of Greenpeace International before leaving it in 1986. Now he runs an environmental consultancy in Vancouver, British Columbia, called Greenspirit Strategies and is leading a movement to rehabilitate nuclear energy's image from that of Frankenstein's monster to one of environmental hero. Although one of his former colleagues called him an "eco-Judas" according to a Wall Street Journal article last week, Moore said environmentalists are acting irrationally when they eliminate nuclear power as an option for reducing emissions of global-warming-causing carbon dioxide from coal- and gas-burning power plants. The United States produces 20 tons of carbon dioxide per capita while France and Sweden produce only one-third of that amount, he said. Those countries get greater portions of their electricity from nuclear power ? in Sweden, it's 80 percent. Wind energy, touted in Minnesota by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Xcel Energy, can help reduce fossil fuel dependence but will only be a niche source, he said. The United States has 103 nuclear plants in operation, and while no new plants have been built in the past three decades, 32 are on the drawing boards in the Southeast, he said. Only coal, natural gas and nuclear power can provide enough energy to meet growing energy needs, Moore said. Moore dismisses smudges on nuclear power's image like the incidents that shut down Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. Three Mile Island was actually "a total success" because its containment walls kept radioactivity from leaking, while Chernobyl was simply a poorly designed accident waiting to happen that wouldn't be repeated today, he said. But local environmentalists bridle at expanding nuclear power. There is no solution to long-term storage of nuclear waste, environmentalists at the St. Paul-based Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy said. A proposed permanent underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is opposed by that state, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently granted longer above-ground, temporary storage of radioactive waste from Xcel's two Minnesota plants in Monticello and Prairie Island. "Nuclear may have broad support, but it's only an inch deep," said George Crocker, executive director of the North American Water Office, another group that opposes nuclear energy. One more incident like Three Mile Island and support would collapse, he said. Though Minnesota law prevents the construction of new nuclear power plants, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce believes the state should start now to pave the way for more nuclear plants two decades down the road if they're needed, said William Blazar, senior vice president of public affairs and business development. "I'm sure innovation will produce things that we've never thought of," Blazar said. "But we do know standing here today there is a technology that's available, and it's called nuclear." Leslie Brooks Suzukamo covers telecommunications, technology and energy. ***************************************************************** 33 allAfrica.com: Russia Welcome to Tender for Construction of Nuclear Plant South Africa: BuaNews (Tshwane) February 22, 2007 Posted to the web February 22, 2007 David Masango Pretoria Russia is welcome to participate in the tendering process for the construction of South Africa's second conventional nuclear energy plant and it has already indicated its interest in this regard. However, Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma made it clear on Thursday that for Russia to participate in the construction of the new plant it would have to go through the normal tendering process and that there would be no "head-picking". South Africa currently has one conventional nuclear station - Koeberg in Western Cape, which contributes baseload power of about 1800 Mega Watts to the national grid. Addressing reporters following the two-day SA-Russia Joint Intergovernmental Committee on Trade and Economic Co-operation, Minister Dlamini Zuma said South Africa was seeking to expand its use of nuclear energy. Although no agreement was signed between the two governments, Minister Dlamini Zuma told reporters that the parties had discussed and agreed to work together in this regard. She however said the South African mining company Harmony and Russia's Renova signed an agreement to mine Uranium - a mineral which, when enriched, is used as nuclear fuel. "As you know we are responsible members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and we should be assisted [in acquiring nuclear energy]. "We discussed the matter and Russia is willing to work with us right though the process from mining to the final stage of nuclear energy," said the minister. Russian Minister of Natural Resources Yuri Petrovich Trutnev expressed his country's willingness and readiness to invest as much as was needed if it won the tender to build the nuclear station. "It is up to South Africa if it invites Russia to participate in the building of the nuclear station. If a decision is taken in this regard we will be ready to participate," Mr Trutnev emphasised. The ITEC agreed to set up a sub-committee to deal with cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Meanwhile, the two ministers expressed their satisfaction with the progress the ITEC had made during the two days. Dr Dlamini Zuma said, while some agreements had been entered into, more work was being done to formulate legal framework for cooperation in a wide range of sectors where such legislation did not exist. Amongst others South Africa and Russia agreed to cooperate in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes; various fields of science and technology; social issues and to enhance trade relations. Copyright © 2007 BuaNews. All rights reserved. Distributed by ***************************************************************** 34 Penn State Live: Probing Question: Are today's nuclear power plants safe? Thursday, February 22, 2007 By Charles Fergus Research Penn State Burning fossil fuels to make electricity releases many tons of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Today, as the United States and other nations search for "greener" ways of generating energy, nuclear power is getting a fresh look. The process yields huge quantities of electricity with essentially zero emissions of greenhouse gases. But are nuclear power plants safe? "Nuclear plants are very safe," asserted Forrest J. Remick, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering, adding, "It helps to compare their safety record with that of other major industries." In 2005, the industrial accident rate for nuclear power plant workers was 0.24 per 200,000 worker hours, compared with 3.5 accidents per 200,000 worker hours for all manufacturing industries (14.6 times greater). But what about those of us who live near nuclear plants? Said Remick, "No member of the public has been killed or injured from radiation during the nearly 50 years that commercial nuclear power plants have been operating in the U.S." Many of the 104 nuclear plants in the nation today are approaching the end of their 40-year licenses. But instead of utilities shutting down these profitable facilities, virtually all are expected to apply for 20-year license renewals. To date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed the operating licenses of 47 plants, and a number of others are currently under review. "The NRC is very thorough in inspecting for safety," said Remick, citing an average of 22 months for the NRC to sign off on a license renewal for a given plant. "Almost all of the equipment in a plant, with the exception of the pressure vessel" -- the structure, made of ductile, high-strength steel, that holds the reactor core -- "is replaceable: motors, pumps, pipes, wiring and so on," he said. "The integrity of the pressure vessel itself is monitored through the use of sample coupons of the same material, which are irradiated within the reactor vessel and are periodically removed for evaluation to determine effects of aging." As of early 2007, the NRC had received around 30 indications from U.S. utilities that they will soon apply to build new nukes. According to Remick, a new generation of reactors has been designed to include passive safety features. "Instead of having a safety system operated by motors and pumps," he noted, "the new designs rely on water stored at an elevation higher than the core, so that if you have an emergency and need cooling water, it automatically arrives by gravity." Operators can replenish the cooling water later by mechanical means, including tanker trucks. "In older designs, you might need electricity to open a valve for cooling," said Remick. "In many of the new designs, spring-loaded valves require electricity to remain shut and open automatically in the event of a loss of power." (Remick hastened to add that today's operating nuclear plants have multi-tiered backup systems for delivering electric current in the event of a power failure.) The NRC has issued design certification for four advanced, next-generation nuclear power plant designs. These plants will be simpler and cheaper to build than older ones, thanks to increasing standardization and the ability to assemble many components off-site. New designs are more efficient than older designs, and they are safer. One, known as VHTR (Very High Temperature Reactor), will include a helium-cooled reactor that uses tiny pellets of uranium fuel encased in graphite. "If you lose cooling in such a reactor," said Remick, "those little pellets will absorb heat without failing and releasing radioactivity." The concept has been demonstrated in test reactors in the United States, Germany, China and South Africa. "Existing nuclear plants are cash cows for utilities," Remick said. "Although fairly expensive to build, nuclear plants are much less expensive to operate than oil or gas plants and slightly less expensive to run than coal-burners. Also, they're non-polluting." The industry has come a long way in understanding how to safely produce power since the 1979 accident at the Unit 2 assembly at Three Mile Island (TMI), near Harrisburg, that resulted in a partial core meltdown. Although considered the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power-generating history, the mishap led to no deaths or injuries among plant workers or members of the local community. Since then, noted Remick, "TMI has twice set world records for consecutive days of operation without a shutdown for refueling or to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment." *** Forrest J. Remick is professor emeritus of nuclear engineering and a former associate vice president for research at Penn State. He served as commissioner for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1989 to 1994. He can be reached at fjr1@psu.edu via e-mail. For more Probing Questions and other features about research at Penn State, subscribe to Research Penn State at http://www.rps.psu.edu/cgi-bin/subscribe.cgi online. Contact Emily Rowlands ejr159@psu.edu http://www.rps.psu.edu/ 814-865-3477 The Pennsylvania State University © 2007 Penn State: Making Life ***************************************************************** 35 BBC NEWS: Nuclear plans go back to public Last Updated: Thursday, 22 February 2007, 16:16 GMT Mr Blair says nuclear power is needed to cut carbon emissions The government will hold a fresh public consultation on nuclear power stations, after the High Court ruled the first exercise was "seriously flawed". Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said they would not appeal, and a new consultation and White Paper would be published by early May. But he said the government still backed the case for new power stations. Greenpeace brought the case after accusing the government of reneging on its promise to carry out "the fullest consultation" before deciding about whether to build new power stations. 'Sham' consultation It said, and the judge agreed, that the consultation that was carried out in 2006 gave insufficient information about radioactive waste disposal and the costs involved. Greenpeace called the consultation a "sham". The judge said the information given to consultees was "wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response". He issued a quashing order last week - effectively stalling any plans to press ahead with a new generation of power stations, by ordering a new consultation process to begin. It is now likely that the White Paper and the new consultation will be published in early May Alistair Darling Mr Darling said, in a written statement to MPs on Thursday, that the new consultation would be conducted "endeavouring to meet the court's requirements". "It is now likely that the White Paper and the new consultation will be published in early May," he added. "However, if it can be published before Easter, I will do so." The government had been expected to publish its White Paper next month. It says nuclear energy is important, so Britain does not become dependent on imported oil and gas, and to reduce carbon emissions. Mr Darling said the new consultation would enable people to take "an informed view" of whether nuclear should be part of the UK's energy mix. "This will enable the government to make a decision on nuclear, and on certain other issues arising from the White Paper, in the autumn." * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 36 Platts: Spurgeon: US likely to need nuclear for future energy demands Washington (Platts)--21Feb2007 It's doubtful the US can meet projected electricity demand increase without new power reactors, according to DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon. Speaking at a meeting of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee February 21 in Idaho Falls, Idaho, Spurgeon said the US will need to generate 50% more electricity in the next 25 years to meet demand. Coal-fired generation can be increased by 50%, but what happens if generating companies are required to sequester carbon? Spurgeon asked. He added that neither natural gas, a substantial portion of which is imported, nor hydroelectric dams could generate 50% more electricity. The amount of wind power could be increased but even if the amount were doubled or tripled, it would barely put a dent in the amount needed, he said. Spurgeon told the advisory panel that he believes there is "a much greater appreciation" in Congress now of nuclear's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 37 Platts: Need for new US reactors to withstand aircraft hit - NRC London (Platts)--21Feb2007 New US reactors should be designed to withstand a hit from a large commercial aircraft, NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko said in a proposal circulated February 20 to other commissioners. Jaczko asked for a vote on his proposal (COMGBJ 07-01), which would require the staff to expedite a rulemaking containing the new requirement. The commission recently approved a final rule that excluded a deliberate attack by a large aircraft from the design basis threat requirements for existing plants. The DBT describes threat scenarios that nuclear plants must be capable of enduring. The rule did not address the next generation of reactors, and another rule pending before the commissioners would require that specific security features be assessed for inclusion in a new facility's design. Joshua Batkin, Jaczko's chief of staff, said Jaczko wants to "require new plants to be designed not just to mitigate the damage from, but rather to actually withstand such an impact." The proposal is on NRC's Adams system under accession number ML070510565. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 38 Independent: Government delays nuclear White Paper for two months By Michael Harrison, Business Editor Published: 23 February 2007 The Government's energy White Paper paving the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations has been delayed for two months after last week's shock High Court ruling that ministers had failed to consult properly on their plans. Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the Commons yesterday that the White Paper, which had been scheduled for publication on 12 March, would now be published in early May alongside the new consultation. Faced with a barrage of criticism from Opposition MPs, Mr Darling said the Government still believed there was a case for new nuclear stations and said it now aimed to take a final decision in the autumn. The High Court upheld a complaint from Friends of the Earth over last year's consultation exercise on nuclear power, saying it had been "inadequate and misleading" and "procedurally unfair" because the twin issues of how to fund new nuclear stations and how to dispose of nuclear waste had not been dealt with. Mr Darling told the Commons that the Government would not appeal against the judgment and would carry out a new consultation to meet the court's requirements. "We continue to believe, subject of course to consultation, that there is case for having new nuclear power stations because of their potentially significant contribution to security of supply and reducing carbon emissions," Mr Darling said. "Last week's court judgment does not undermine this view." Alan Duncan, for the Conservatives, claimed that the energy review was now in "a complete mess". He said: "Isn't it clear for all to see that the Government is absolutely totally paralysed." Susan Kramer, for the Liberal Democrats, asked for an assurance that in the forthcoming consultation, documents detailing the economic case for new nuclear power would be put into the public arena. Mr Darling said that "quite a considerable amount of economic data" was made available but acknowledged in retrospect that it should have been available when the Government began the original consultation in January last year before publication of its energy review in July. The French-owned EDF Energy, one of the favourites to build a new generation of nuclear reactors, welcomed the Government's re-affirmation that there was still a case for having nuclear power as part of Britain's energy mix. Vincent de Rivaz, its chief executive, said: "We believe there is a strong business case for new nuclear but that needs to be underpinned by the widest possible public acceptance." © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 39 FT.com: UK nuclear plans delayed until May By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent Published: February 22 2007 12:16 | Last updated: February 22 2007 Ministers have confirmed that the government’s plans for new nuclear power stations are to be delayed after a High Court judge last week ordered Tony Blair to rethink his flagship energy reform. Alistair Darling, trade and industry secretary, told MPs on Thursday that the energy white paper, which had been planned for the end of March, was now likely to be published in early May, though it could come out earlier. It would at the same time ssue a new consultation document “endeavouring to meet the court’s requirementsâ€. Confirmation of the delay followed an embarrassing setback for the prime minister in the High Court. Ruling on a legal challenge by Greenpeace, the environmental campaign group, Mr Justice Sullivan said that the original consultation conducted by the government before deciding to replace Britain’s ageing fleet of nuclear reactors had been “misleadingâ€, “seriously flawed†and “procedurally unfairâ€. The judge said it had contained no information of substance on two critical issues: the economics of building nuclear plants and the disposal of waste. All the information of any substance on those issues had emerged after the consultation period had concluded, he said. Mr Darling said that the government continued to believe there was a case for having nuclear power stations “as one of the options companies should consider because of their potentially significant contribution to security of supply and reducing carbon emissions†associated with climate changeâ€. He said the new consultation “will bring together the evidence and analysis we have collected and published since the energy review began in November 2005, so that people can take an informed view on whether nuclear power should continued to be part of our energy mixâ€. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 40 FT.com: In depth - Global warming must slow by 2020, warns UN Financial Times FT.com Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing the planet. Scientific evidence shows that temperature changes are likely to have profoundly negative consequences for human society, the global economy and the world’s natural systems. This poses risks and opportunities to which investors and companies must respond Global warming must slow by 2020, warns UN By Martin Virtel in Hamburg and Volker Mrasek in Cologne Published: February 22 2007 07:56 | Last updated: February 22 2007 07:56 The world has less than 15 years to take urgent action against global warming through the use of new technology if it is to prevent a climate catastrophe, the United Nations warns in the as yet unpublished third part of its World Climate Report. If carbon emissions are not substantially reduced by 2020, the report warns, global warming will set in motion irreversible natural processes such as the melting of the ice shields in Greenland and the over-acidification of the oceans. The report, a draft of which was seen by FT Deutschland, the Financial Time’s sister paper, is to be presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on May 3 in Bangkok. According to the report, carbon concentration in the atmosphere would have to be stabilised at a level of 420 parts per million to prevent a leap in temperatures. The current concentration is 383ppm and is expected to rise by 2.5ppm every year. The world has warmed by about 0.74ºC in the last 100 years. But the IPCC estimates that temperatures could rise by 3ºC by the end of this century. Temperatures could rise at an even faster pace if “feedback†effects take place, such as the thawing of Siberian permafrost leading to the release of large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. The report says that the carbon concentration target could still be achieved, but only “in the most stringent scenariosâ€, which would have to involve “the rapid introduction of new and efficient technologyâ€. The scientists who compiled the report propose a range of measures, including the much increased use of biofuels and hybrid cars, as well as the construction of new nuclear power stations. They also propose a switch in agriculture away from rice grown under water, a method that produces ­considerable amounts of methane. The first part of the ­Climate Report, which looked at the physical basis of climate change, caused a global discussion about global warming when it was published this month. The scientists warned of a future characterised by extreme weather events – long and intense droughts, fierce hurricanes, heatwaves and rising sea levels – as a result of rising temperatures. The second part, expected to be published in April, will look more specifically at the effects of climate change on humans and nature. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 41 Indian Express: Nuclear energy can supplement India's energy needs Friday, February 23, 2007 POLITICAL BUREAU NEW DELHI, FEB 22: Admitting that a country of India’s size had huge energy needs, Jean Besson, vice-president of European affairs, Rhone Alpes of France, said the use of coal and oil had to be supplemented with nuclear power. Talking to select mediapersons, Bessan said, “Huge traffic and vehicular movement in India is contributing to global warming, as we do in European Union states. But the huge need of energy in India cannot be ignored. Coal, gas or oil alone cannot be an enduring solution. So civil nuclear energy is a clean solution.” While declining to comment on the recent Indo-US nuclear deal, Besson said a country must ensure that the nuclear fuel provided for civilian use did not end up being used for military purposes. “Even in civilian nuclear energy development, India should apply very very rigourous safegaurds to ensure no mishap takes place. © 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 42 Reuters: NRC puts biggest Arizona nuclear power plant on watch Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:08PM EST By Bernie Woodall LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday announced it has placed the biggest nuclear power plant in the United States, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona, under a tighter watch because of a safety violation. The NRC gave APS a "white" finding after its inspection, meaning "low to moderate safety significance." The violation did not create a public safety health risk, the NRC said. The extra scrutiny in the past has cost nuclear power plant operators millions of dollars but Palo Verde's operator and main owner, Arizona Public Service, said it won't be a significant amount for APS. APS is a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp. of Phoenix. "We don't expect this to have a significant impact to our costs," said APS spokesman Jim McDonald. "There will be more inspections that will require more hours and we pay for that. We have money in the Palo Verde budget for plant improvement, which is a continuous process." The NRC found that APS was at fault for its operation of emergency diesel generators at the 3,850-megawatt nuclear power plant, which at full operation can make enough electricity to feed about 2 million homes. Palo Verde's three nuclear reactors are among 103 in the United States. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 ANTARA News: Indonesia nuclear plant to cost US$1.5 bln Feb 23, 2007 | Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Indonesia's first nuclear power plant, which it hopes to build by 2016, is likely to cost $1.5 billion. Asia-Pacific's only OPEC member has been trying to promote the use of alternative energy in an effort to reduce its reliance on oil and cut energy costs, and plans to build the nuclear power plant on Muria Peninsula in Central Java, Reuters reported Thursday, citing reports carried by Indonesia's Antara news agency. The plant will have a capacity to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity to help meet rising demand from the country's 220 million population. Antara quoted Adiwardojo, deputy chairman of the National Atomic Energy Agency (BATAN), as saying Indonesia will team up with Japan to develop the nuclear plant. The two countries have signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear energy cooperation. "In line with a presidential decree on the national energy policy, the Indonesian government is intending to continue exploring alternative energy and other forms of energy, to ensure adequate energy supplies," Adiwardojo said. State electricity company PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara plans to build power plants to generate 10,000 megawatts by 2010 to meet rising demand and avoid power shortages. Copyright © 2007 ANTARA February 22, 2007 Copyright © 2007 LKBN ANTARA ***************************************************************** 44 Boston Globe: Pilgrim owners reprimanded for worker who slept on the job By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent | February 22, 2007 Federal regulators have reprimanded the owners of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant for an incident more than a year ago in which a chemistry technician went to sleep on duty. The lapse was deemed a low-level violation of safety operating regulations. The night-shift technician locked himself in a storeroom and lay down on a mat in December 2005 before being discovered by another employee. Entergy Corp., which owns the plant, reported the incident to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission , and the regulatory agency last week issued a notice of violation. No fine was attached. The NRC, which has given Entergy high marks in its yearly safety reviews, said the sleeping incident posed no safety risk because the chemistry technician's duties do not require continuous observation and backup systems were in place, including a cellphone alert in the event of an emergency and a system for calling in backup staff. An earlier incident of an employee sleeping on duty, in July 2005, resulted in a $60,000 fine against the plant's owners. In that case, a control room supervisor was found asleep. That was a more serious breach of procedure given the nature of his job, and because the shift manager failed to follow procedures and immediately relieve the supervisor of duty, according to the NRC. Meanwhile, another decision by the NRC staff is drawing criticism from antinuclear activists and Pilgrim's union workers -- and has prompted a new call for a hearing before the federal panel. At issue is the plant's move to reduce the number of radiation protection technicians on evening and night shifts from two to one . The union, which represents 335 plant workers, called on the NRC to block the change, saying it might put workers and the public at risk in the event of a radiation leak. The NRC staff reviewed the case and then rejected the union's appeal. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the new staffing level is within regulatory guidelines. And Pilgrim's related plan to train chemistry technicians to back up radiation technicians is an "enhancement" of the plant's emergency response, the NRC said. Industry critics say both NRC actions-- the staffing change approval and the light reprimand for the latest sleeping-on-duty violation -- illustrate regulators' leniency toward the industry. Mary Lampert of the citizens group Pilgrim Watch said the staffing and retraining changes raise safety concerns. "Do you believe that giving the chemistry technician more responsibility for public safety will keep him awake while on the job?" Lampert asked in an e-mail. "Or is this the way NRC rewards bad behavior?" Entergy spokesman David Tarantino said the company is not reducing the number of radiation technicians on staff, but bringing a radiation technician back to the day shift where most of the work takes place. "What we're moving to is exactly what 103 other nuclear plants do in the way of back-shift staffing," Tarantino said. "We're not plowing new ground." As for retraining chemistry technicians for radiation protection duties, he said, it makes sense because the chemistry techs do not have immediate duties of their own in the event of an emergency. "We respect the union," Tarantino said, "But management makes decisions where personnel should be." The change will not go in to effect until contract issues are negotiated and the training complete. Dave Leonardi , the union representative for Utility Workers Union of America Local 369 , warned that a backup technician would not be as quick to carry out radiation protection functions and make decisions in the event of a radiation leak. Leonardi also contended practices at other plants don't provide a valid comparison, because those plants are newer or have been retrofitted with remote detection capacities allowing a technician to stay in one place and receive radiation data by computer. "We don't have that capacity," he said. The union has asked for a hearing on the issue before the NRC. Sheehan said the NRC is still evaluating whether a hearing on the issue of changes in shift staffing is "even allowed." Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. © Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 45 UPI: Fermi nuke plant used wrong test for years The U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists says the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant near Detroit used the wrong backup systems safety test for 20 years. The UCS says it documented multiple failures during the two decades to detect a flaw in an emergency backup diesel generator safety test at the plant. The organization says backup generators are one of a nuclear power plant's most important safety features since they provide backup electricity during off-site power outages and brownouts. After discovering the problem last November, the UCS said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission levied no fines, failed to ask Detroit Edison for an explanation and failed to require the utility to fix the flawed safety processes that enabled plant workers to perform the test inaccurately for 20 years. Dave Lochbaum of the UCS's nuclear safety program said, "This may not be the most useless agency sanction over the last 50 years but it's likely in the top five." Copyright 2007 by United Press International * © PhysOrg.com 2003-2007 ***************************************************************** 46 Japan Times: Kepco reactor pipes fail multiple checks Web japantimes.co.jp Friday, Feb. 23, 2007 SCORES OF CORROSION DANGERS FUKUI (Kyodo) Pipe walls at 66 locations were corroded to thinner than allowed under government regulations in 10 of the 11 nuclear reactors operated by Kansai Electric Power Co., it was learned Thursday. A Kansai Electric Power Co. workers measure the thickness of a pipe wall at the Mihama No. 3 reactor in Fukui Prefecture in December 2005. KYODO PHOTO The results are from safety checks done at Kepco plants in Mihama, Takahama and Oi, all in Fukui Prefecture, after a fatal accident at one of the reactors in 2004, according to a Kepco report. In August 2004, five workers were killed and six others were injured when searing hot steam shot out of a corroded pipe at the Mihama No. 3 reactor in Fukui Prefecture. The pipe had never been inspected or replaced since the reactor went into operation in the 1970s. The reactor resumed regular operations last month. The report says 34 of the 66 problems were in the Mihama No. 3 reactor, 10 locations in the Mihama No. 2 reactor and eight in the Oi No. 2 reactor. Some sections of reactor pipes at Mihama No. 3 had walls only 0.4 mm thick, according to the report. All of the weak pipes have been replaced with new ones, including pipes of rust-resistant stainless steel, the report says. Fifty-two of the 66 spots where dangerous pipes were found are in five reactors that have been in service for more than 30 years -- Mihama No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 and the Takahama No. 1 and No. 2 reactors. Jun Tateno, professor of Chuo University, warned there may be other problems with the older nuclear reactors. "Weak pipes may not be the only risks involving old nuclear reactors," Tateno said. "We need to consider abolishing nuclear reactors that have been in service for a long time." The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 47 Reuters: Five facts on Japan's Kyoto Protocol targets 22 Feb 2007 11:03:37 GMT Source: Reuters Feb 22 (Reuters) - Japan's chief Kyoto Protocol negotiator Mutsuyoshi Nishimura said Japan was committed to a post-Kyoto framework, but will not specify targets for emissions reductions beyond the pact's expiry in 2012. Here are five facts on Japan's current Kyoto status. * Japan is Asia's third largest carbon-dioxide emitter and the fifth biggest polluter in the world after the United States, China, Russia and India. * Nishimura said in Nov. 2006 that Japan will reverse its growth in greenhouse gas emissions to meet its Kyoto goal of cutting emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. * In 2004, Japan's emissions were 6.5 percent above 1990 levels, according to United Nations data. * Nishimura has also said Japan opposes penalties for countries that fail to meet their Kyoto targets by the end of the protocol's first phase in 2012. * Boosting nuclear power and other domestic actions will achieve the bulk of Japan's cuts, as nuclear power plants emit smaller amounts of greenhouse gases than those using coal or oil. Source: Reuters ***************************************************************** 48 Whitehaven News: British Energy seeks reactor Published on 22/02/2007 THE UK’s nuclear power company, British Energy, is inviting partners to join it in bidding to build a new generation of nuclear reactors. Reuters this week reported that “new nuclear power plants could be built and running as soon as 2016 if the government confirms its backing for nuclear as a possible cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, British Energy says.†The government’s energy white paper gave support to the nuclear option provided the private sector funded the investment. British Energy is the privatised company that runs Sizewell B and the UK’s AGR power plants. The company had to be rescued financially by the government and its shares have slumped in the past year from 700 pence to 400 pence. The nuclear power firm, the biggest energy producer, said on Tuesday it was inviting potential partners to submit proposals to build new nuclear plants in anticipation that the government would give the firm go-ahead in the next few months. "We have today launched a process to invite potential partners for new nuclear generation projects in the UK," Chief Executive Bill Coley said in a statement. "Construction of new nuclear power stations is critical to meeting the UK's security of supply and climate change objectives." Coley told reporters on a conference call that the country could see the first of the new plants completed as soon as 2016. "It is not unrealistic to expect you could have new nuclear on line in 2018, or you could perhaps go ahead of that depending on how the (planning) process works." "There's a lot of uncertainty in this. 2016 may be an optimistic number, and 2018 might be a pessimistic number," added finance director Stephen Billingham. The government said in July it believed nuclear power had a role to play in future electricity generation. reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 49 Japan Times: Keep North on terrorist list, Yokotas urge Cheney Web japantimes.co.jp Friday, Feb. 23, 2007 Compiled from AP, Kyodo The United States should keep North Korea on its list of terrorist states because of its abductions of Japanese, Pyongyang abductee Megumi Yokota's parents told Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday. Shigeru and Sakie Yokota gave Cheney a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush, asking for Washington's help in answering their questions about the fate of their daughter, who was abducted to North Korea in 1977 and, according to Pyongyang, died in the hermit state. In their letter to Bush, the Yokotas said the abductions -- not just concerns over North Korea's nuclear threat -- were a key reason to keep the country on the list. "We ask your help in continuing to make sure the United States will not remove North Korea from the list . . . until all abduction victims have been returned," the letter says. Pyongyang admitted in 2002 that it had abducted 13 people in the 1970s and 1980s, including Megumi, to train its spies in Japanese. The reclusive state allowed five to return home later that year and said Megumi and the seven others had died. Shigeru Yokota told reporters that Cheney, who left for Australia later in the day, agreed to pass the message on to Bush. "He told us several times that he personally understood the importance of a resolution," Yokota said. North Korea signed a deal on Feb. 13 at the end of the latest round of six-party talks, agreeing to shut down its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for energy aid and other incentives, including a promise from Washington that it would begin the process of removing the North from its list of states it claims sponsor terrorism. Tokyo has refused to give fuel aid to North Korea until the issue has been cleared up. It says Pyongyang has given insufficient proof that the eight abductees have died and claims more than the 13 were kidnapped. The meeting was not initially on Cheney's tight three-day schedule, but was squeezed at the last minute. Abe and Cheney also discussed the abduction issue in their meeting Wednesday and the two agreed their nations would cooperate in resolving it. Cheney said he understood Japan's position of refusing energy aid until significant progress had been made. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 50 [Radbull] Asounding: Health workers Records burried in n-waste Dump! Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:24:39 -0600 (CST) DaytonDailyNews.com: Mound Plant records buried in New Mexico Exhumation would cost millions, but they are key to workers' health claims. By Tom Beyerlein Staff Writer Wednesday, February 14, 2007 At least a dozen pallets of shrink-wrapped cardboard boxes, six 55-gallon drums and 11 safes containing classified records from the Miamisburg Mound Plant are buried in underground shafts in Area G of a radioactive waste landfill at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. But a leading federal health official said Tuesday it may be necessary to dig up the more than 400 boxes of records from the 1980s and 1990s in order to get a clear picture of the hazards workers faced at Mound. The records could help to determine if hundreds of cancer-stricken Mound workers qualify for federal compensation. "We are open-minded as to whether (the records) should be exhumed," said Larry J. Elliott, director of compensation analysis for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH. "This is an interesting problem, and we're doing the best we can to make sure that we have the documents we need to do our work." Elliott's office oversees scientific "dose reconstructions," a paperwork method of estimating atomic workers' exposures to harmful radiation and chemicals. If a reconstruction shows at least a 50 percent probability that a worker's cancer was caused by an on-the-job exposure, the worker qualifies for cash and medical benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. But NIOSH can't accurately estimate worker exposures without knowing the hazards present at each of the nation's atomic plants. Federal contractors working on a "site profile" of Mound hazards went to Los Alamos to view the classified records last year, only to learn the records had been buried as radioactively contaminated waste in 2005. Elliott said it's the largest destruction of compensation-related documents by Energy that he's ever seen. "I find it amazing that the variety of records here — 12 pallets full — could all be contaminated," Elliott said. "How could it happen?" According to the Energy Department, Mound shipped 458 boxes of classified records to Los Alamos in 1995 and later reclaimed 40 boxes for an early dose reconstruction project. Los Alamos officials buried the remaining boxes, which contain logbooks, safety analysis reports, Mound studies of the properties of toxic metals used there, and descriptions of a 1989 release of radioactive tritium. Energy officials are scouring their archives in hopes of finding uncontaminated copies of the Mound records, and exploring ways to prevent more destruction of documents that could help ailing atomic workers to prove their compensation claims, said department spokeswoman Megan Barnett. "We are looking into it," she said. "We take this very seriously." Elliott said he hopes uncontaminated copies of the documents can be found. It may be necessary to exhume the records, he said, but that would require potentially exposing workers in special protective gear to radioactive waste. Elliott said he'll know in a few weeks whether exhumation will be necessary. In a memo released last week, the Energy Department told the federal Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health it would take six months and cost $1.5 to $3 million to exhume the records and another year and up to $6 million to scan them to create uncontaminated copies. DaytonDailyNews.com: Copyright )2007 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All rights reserved. _______________________________________________ Radbull mailing list Radbull@energy-net.org http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/radbull ***************************************************************** 51 KUAM: Public hearing will consider radiation testing concerns by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News Thursday, February 22, 2007 A public hearing will be held on Resolution 5, which was introduced by Speaker Mark Forbes (R). The resolution would request Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include Guam in the list of affected areas with respect to which claims relating to atmospheric nuclear testing shall be allowed. Testimony meanwhile will also be accepted on Governor Felix Camacho's appointment of Eduardo Ilao to serve as a member of the Guam Community College's board of trustees. Also up for a public hearing are bills 24 and 25 - the former is a bill that proposes to declare Martin Luther King, Jr. day a holiday on Guam, and the latter relates to the closure of the Ordot Dump and meeting the mandates of the consent decree signed with the federal government. Tomorrow's hearing begins at 2:30 in the afternoon at the Guam Legislature in Hagatna. KUAM.com: KUAM-TV8 | KUAM-TV11 | i94-FM | Isla61-AM | Familiar Faces Copyright © 2000-2007 by Pacific Telestations, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 KCPW: Opponents of Divine Strake React To Cancellation - Feb 22, 2007 by Eric Ray (KCPW News) Federal Authorities announced the cancellation of the Divine Strake test at the Nevada Test Site today. The test was to simulate nuclear testing using conventional explosives. The fear was the explosion would throw leftover radioactive material into the atmosphere. The cancellation comes as good news to those who mounted opposition to Divine Strake. Jay Truman, Director of Downwinders, says the fact that the government received more than ten thousand comments on the test sends the message that the public didn't want it to happen. Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah, praised Governor John Huntsman Junior for holding public hearings about the tests when the Department of Energy was unwilling to hear from the citizens. The cancellation of Divine Strake comes on the same day Huntsman signed a resolution opposing the blast Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom. Copyright 2007 KCPW Copyright © 2006 KCPW ***************************************************************** 53 FOXNews.com: Pentagon Abandons Big Bomb Test - Thursday, February 22, 2007 By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON ? Facing stiff opposition from two Western states, the Pentagon on Thursday scrapped plans for a 700-ton non-nuclear test blast that would have produced the first mushroom cloud of dust over the Nevada desert in decades. The Defense Department said it would find other ways to test the nation's ability to penetrate underground bunkers that produce and store weapons of mass destruction. The cloud may have reached an altitude of 10,000 feet over the site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, an eerie echo of long-ago open-air nuclear testing. Originally scheduled for last June 2, the test blast _ called Divine Strake _ had been postponed indefinitely until the Defense Threat Reduction Agency finally canceled it. "I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test," he said in a statement. The decision was not based on any technical information that indicated the test would harm workers, the public or the environment, according to James Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon unit that works on technical aspects of how to destroy deeply buried enemy weapons. It was in March 2006 that he had likened the spectacle of a test explosion to a mushroom cloud. "I don't want to sound glib here, but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," Tegnelia said at the time to reporters. The United States stopped conducting aboveground nuclear tests in 1963. In Nevada and Utah, there was concern that the blast would scatter decades-old radioactive material from previous Cold War-era tests. Other critics contended the explosion would mark a step toward new tests to develop "bunker buster" nuclear weapons. Two months ago, the agency released a new environmental report that confirmed there is radioactive material about a mile from the blast site. Officials insisted any harm would be "extremely unlikely." The agency said in a statement it would develop other ways to gather the kind of data that Divine Strake would have provided. "Such methods to assess capabilities to defeat underground facilities do not currently exist," it said. The agency is committed "to help develop non-nuclear means to defeat underground targets. I am optimistic that we will succeed," Tegnelia said. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other lawmakers said they understood the need for tests to develop defense strategies. But, Reid said, "there were still many questions left unanswered, including the possible environmental effects." The loudest critics said the plan revived bitter memories of government "lies" during Cold War-era tests, when officials said there would be no danger. Thousands of people who lived near the Nevada Test Site _ called downwinders _ were exposed to cancer-causing radiation from weapons tests. Residents feared Divine Strake would spread more radioactive material or lead to further nuclear experiments there. "If this announcement truly signals the end of Divine Strake, my hope is that DTRA would instead spend time and money on developing a conventional weapon that would actually be useful to our military in destroying deeply buried terrorist targets," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. John Wells, a Las Vegas carpenter and regional representative to the Western Shoshone National Council, said the blast would "compound wrongs" for the American Indian tribe. The tribe fought the test in court and long has contested the government over the test site, now contaminated from years of nuclear tests. ___ Associated Press Writer Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to this report. On the Net: Defense Threat Reduction Agency: http://www.dtra.mil/ Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. comments@foxnews.com © Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Salt Lake Tribune: Defense agency kills Divine Strake test explosion The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 02/22/2007 12:18:35 PM MST Posted: 12:12 PM- WASHINGTON - Breaking under a flood of public opposition to Divine Strake, the Pentagon announced Thursday that it would scrap plans to conduct the massive blast at the Nevada Test Site. Some 10,000 Utahns and Nevadans expressed fears that the detonation of 700 tons of explosives could spew debris into the air, carrying radiation left over from Cold War nuclear weapons tests at the test site. "I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test," Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director Dr. James A. Tegnelia said in a statement announcing the cancellation of the test. The agency said the decision was not a result of any information that indicated the test might harm workers or the public. Divine Strake touched a raw nerve with Utahns, still deeply distrustful of government assurances on testing at the Nevada Test Site. Thousands of Utahns suffered from cancer and other illnesses as a result of the radioactive fallout. The test was opposed by members of Utah's congressional delegation, the state Legislature, the governor, activists and others. Divine Strake entailed detonating 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil - the same mixture used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, but 280 times more of it. Monitors were to measure the ground-shaking to a tunnel under the blast site and the data would help develop computer models to predict damage to underground bunkers. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency said it would look for other ways to collect the information. "DTRA remains committed to help develop non-nuclear means to defeat underground targets. I am optimistic that we will succeed," said Tegnelia. Early planning documents said it was intended to help "improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage." The Pentagon later said the reference to nuclear yield was in error, and it would help with conventional weaponry as well. The test is needed, the Pentagon argues, because potential U.S. enemies use buried bunkers to protect command facilities and weapons caches and the military needs the ability to destroy those hardened targets. Divine Strake was scheduled to take place last June, but opposition from Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jim Matheson and a lawsuit filed by two American Indian tribes and several Utah Downwinders delayed the test while the National Nuclear Security Administration did further environmental analyses. "I couldn't be more relieved," Hatch said. "Everybody in Utah can rest easier tonight knowing that the government listened. No one's going to be harmed by this test. This decision is a result of so many people standing firm to ensure that we didn't repeat the mistakes of the past. I'm so glad that DTRA did the right thing in the end." Said Matheson: "I have stood in the way of this test from day one. I have opposed it based on both its purpose and its potential ill affects. The prospect of even a non-nuclear 'mushroom cloud' over the Nevada Test Site brings back bitter memories of how the government lied when it said that there was no danger." In December, the National Nuclear Security Administration again said the test could be conducted safely, although it conceded very small levels of irradiated dust could be detected outside of the test site. Eighteen similar ammonium nitrate blasts of varying size - including one more than six times larger than Divine Strake - were conducted by the Pentagon between 1977 and 1991. Most were conducted at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency looked at other sites where it could conduct the test, including Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, but determined it would cost $100 million and take three years to relocate the test. The government held public meetings in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, St. George and Boise, attended by more than 600 people. Gov. Jon Huntsman also convened public hearings, forwarding public comments to the National Nuclear Security Administration. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 55 FR NRC: ACRS Meeting notice 3-7-07 Doc E7-3033 [Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)] [Notices] [Page 8032] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22fe07-96] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on March 7, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: February 12, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-3033 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 56 Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Cancels Test Explosion in Nev. From the Associated Press Friday February 23, 2007 12:31 AM WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon on Thursday canceled its plans to conduct a controversial non-nuclear explosion over the Nevada desert. ``I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test,'' Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director James A. Tegnelia said in a statement Thursday. The experiment, dubbed ``Divine Strake,'' was planned as a test of the nation's ability to defeat underground facilities that produce and store weapons of mass destruction. But it prompted a lawsuit and widespread protests from Utah and Nevada politicians, Indian tribes and residents near the Nevada Test Site, who feared it would kick up radioactive material from previous experiments there. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 57 ABC4.com: Downwinders express gratitude to Utah people and leaders - February 22, 2007 - 10:06 PM Watch This Video Story by: Buddy Blankenfeld buddy@abc4.com The announcement the U.S. Department of Defense's Divine Strake blast, that would have resulted in 700 tons of explosives erupt into a 10,000 foot mushroom cloud, was cancelled took Mary Dickson by complete surprise. "I am absolutely thrilled," she said, "I'm kind of surprised. I really didn't think they'd do it. I'm absolutely thrilled." For Dickson it is a personal victory. She is a Downwinder who suffered the effects of fallout from nuclear testing in the 60's from the Nevada Test Site near St. George. She battled thyroid cancer and won but her sister lost her fight with cancer. Dickson did not want to chance kicking up another immense dust cloud full of potentially harmful radiation, a plume that could drift over Utah. "I’m an optimistic person," Dickson said, "I really hoped for this outcome but I really thought it was going to be a long drawn out battle and I was even telling people this week I think they're going to find a way to do it no matter what." Dickson said she is grateful for the outpouring of support from people and politicians and still has hope but also stays leery more testing could be attempted in the future. "There's part of me that thinks, OK, what are they going to pull out of their sleeves next? The answer; you just have to be eternally vigilant. People are watching now. That's great if they try anything else again they will have an even bigger fight from the public," said Dickson. Darlene Philips, another Downwinder, had an equally skeptical reaction. She said, "I feel a little like Ronald Reagan, 'trust but verify,' but I am overwhelmed with excitement that when people decide to speak, and speak with many voices, they can outnumber the people who have a lot of money and who have other interests in seeing this go forward. The fact that we have shared our stories and our hearts, I think, has changed the feelings of the Defense Department for the time being." © 2007 Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. | ***************************************************************** 58 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast residents wary of free health program 02/22/2007 | They mostly avoid medical care funded by Lockheed Martin DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - Despite heavy promotion, few Tallevast residents have opted for free medical care offered through a trust fund set up by Lockheed Martin Corp. six months ago, according to doctors running the program. "We sent 10 letters to each resident - that's 10 letters each to 300 people, or 3,000 letters, but response is low," said Dr. Steven Morris III, medical director. Morris, a specialist in occupational and environmental health, wants the community to know the free medical care is offered independent of Lockheed. "Our only job is to evaluate and assist current and former residents in their health care," said Morris, who did not release participation figures for confidentiality reasons. While Tallevast leaders say they have confidence in Morris, they don't trust Lockheed, which is responsible for cleaning up a 200-acre plume of contaminated groundwater that leaked from a beryllium plant the defense giant once owned. "I can't accept Lockheed saying, 'Come over here and trust us,' " said Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS, a community advocacy group. "I don't much trust anything Lockheed tells me." Washington and more than 300 current and former residents have filed lawsuits against Lockheed, claiming property damage and distress caused by the toxic waste. Many residents are wary of a free medical program financed by the very company they are suing, Washington said. Lockheed established the Tallevast Community Trust Fund with a $500,000 gift, said Gail Rymer, company spokeswoman. The free medical program has no end date, and Lockheed will likely make more contributions in the future, Rymer said. The program includes an initial physical examination, followed by treatment plans for ailments discovered on a case-by-case basis. But before they accept free medical care, many residents want to know the details of that trust, Washington said. "We still don't quite understand what they are offering us or what strings are attached," Washington said. There are no strings, Rymer said. "Our only goal is help residents," she said. "There is no other goal." Morris said the trust issue goes both ways. "Some residents who are participating are concerned that if word gets out, they will be singled out by FOCUS," said Morris. Washington was astounded by Morris' statement. "It is not in my place to tell people what to do," she said. "We are not asking people to not participate, but at the same time we are not encouraging people to participate. The only thing I am saying to people is, 'You need to know what you are walking into before you go.' " In fact, many aspects of the free medical care program appeal to Washington, who was impressed with Morris and Dr. Wayne Jones, another doctor on the project, when they met with the advocacy group last summer. "We like Dr. Morris. We welcomed him," she said. "Our meetings were very cordial and productive. All we needed to know was the workings of the trust. But when we started asking those questions, he suddenly backed off." Morris, too, called the meetings with FOCUS fruitful before the discussion turned to legal matters. "I didn't back off," he said. "I told them I was not the information source for the trust or Lockheed. I told them to contact Gail Rymer for that information. "I know there is litigation, but I am not a litigant or lawyer," he said. "I am a doctor. My main purpose is to provide medical evaluations." Lockheed has had no input into how the program is designed, Morris said. "We do not work for Lockheed and we don't work for FOCUS," he said. "Our only concern here is to answer residents' questions about their health. Whether those questions are related to exposure is not the primary concern during the initial exam. If there is found to be a connection, then we will evaluate that." Initial exams are being provided locally through US Health Care at 1105 53rd Ave. E. Treatment options are offered on a case-by-case basis. Helping Tallevast is a personal mission for Morris and Jones, both black doctors committed to improving health care for African-American communities. "This is a dynamic program," said Jones. "In every community you can find people with chronic diseases that are not being treated. We are here to help them." Rymer says she hopes the community sees this program for what it is - "an opportunity for free health care with no strings attached." Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@Bradenton.com. Archived stories and documents on Tallevast on our Web site. Tallevast Community Health Trust Fund Financed by: $500,000 grant from Lockheed Martin Corp. Medical director: Dr. Steven Morris III, University of South Florida, specialist in environmental and occupational health. Medical evaluations: Provided by US Health Works, 1105 53rd Ave. E. Follow-up care and treatment on a case-by-case basis provided by local participating specialists. Services offered: ? Counseling ? Health evaluation ? Physical examination ? Laboratory analysis ? Pharmacy assistance ? Cardiology evaluation ? Pulmonary evaluation ? Eye exams ? Women's health exam ? Men's health exam Information: Tallevasthealth@aol.com, (941) 735-3168 Copyright | About the McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 59 Deseret News: Lobbyists misstate SB155 Thursday, February 22, 2007 It is unfortunate when a lobbyist group, such as HEAL Utah, misunderstands and/or misrepresents the facts about the impact of a particular piece of legislation on Capitol Hill. SB155 does not remove legislative oversight of EnergySolutions. If this business wishes to expand its geographical boundaries or to bring in higher-level waste (which I oppose), it must still get the approval of the Legislature and the governor. SB155 doesn't change anything. It simply reaffirms current practice pertaining to the scope of EnergySolutions' business license and clarifies that the oversight and regulation of the day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the Division of Radiation Control. In supporting SB155, I have not changed my position of opposition to radioactive waste. I worked very hard to help enact a successful state ban on B and C low-level radioactive waste, and I have worked to keep high-level nuclear waste from being stored in or transported through Utah. Rep. Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights Utah Legislature District 46 © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 60 The Australian: Traditional owners reject nuclear dump * February 22, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * By Tara Ravens A GROUP of Aborigines have written to the Federal Government, urging it not to build a nuclear waste dump on their land in the Northern Territory. The letter also called on the Government to stop negotiating with one of Australia's most influential Aboriginal land councils because it was leaving them out of the consultation process. The 16 traditional owners represent five family groups from the Muckaty region, 120km north of Tennant Creek. Their land is one of three sites being considered by the Federal Government for a repository to store low and medium-level radioactive waste. Other options include Harts Range and Mt Everard, near Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge near Katherine. In a letter sent to Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop this week, the Muckaty people called on the Government to halt waste dump negotiations with the Northern Land Council (NLC). The body, which represents traditional owners, has held talks with the Federal Fovernment since April last year, when the site was first proposed. But locals feel they are being left out of the process. "We do not think there has been proper consultation with all of the Muckaty traditional owners about this idea," the letter said. "Muckaty traditional owners have said they do not want a nuclear waste dump on Muckaty land." Not all traditional owners had been invited to meetings between the federal government and the NLC, and people had not been told about the outcomes, the letter said. "As traditional owners of Muckaty, we do not want the Federal Government to continue talking with the Northern Land Council and traditional owners about having a commonwealth radioactive waste dump at Muckaty. "We ask you to understand and acknowledge that should the Northern Land Council nominate our land for the storage of nuclear waste, it is without our consent," the letter said. At a senate estimates hearing in Canberra last week, the federal science department said the Government wanted to work with indigenous owners to find a spot for the waste dump, and was seeking an agreement from Aboriginal people to offer up indigenous land for the facility. A full report on the possible sites is due by the end of March 2007. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 61 Platts: Uranium prices continue to rise, reaching at least $85/pound Washington (Platts)--21Feb2007 The spot price of uranium has reached at least $85 a pound U3O8, market sources said. The price increased $10/lb this week based on the results of an auction of 100,000 lb U3O8 February 20 by Texas-based Mestena Uranium. Ux Consulting said in its latest weekly report said the auction "tapped into some pent-up demand, especially on the part of those that don't want to purchase on a market price basis." --Mike Knapik, newsdesk@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 62 Salt Lake Tribune: Calls rush in over N-dump Guv hears from hundreds opposed to bill The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 02/22/2007 01:41:52 AM MST Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s office has been inundated with calls from people who want him to veto the so-called EnergySolutions bill. A one-day tally Tuesday counted 320 telephone calls. Meanwhile, Huntsman has until Tuesday to decide whether he will veto the bill, which would eliminate the role of the governor, the Legislature and local elected officials in deciding on major expansions at the nuclear waste company's Utah landfill. He wasn't saying Wednesday what he plans to do. "I'm reviewing it," said the Republican governor, who vetoed a bill last year that would have taken away the need for his approval on new waste sites and major expansions. "I want to make sure there are no backdoors in terms of volumes of waste [and] in terms of hotter waste." The bill passed both the House and the Senate with enough votes to override a Huntsman veto. Opponents need three senators or six House members to change their votes for a Huntsman veto to hold up. EnergySolutions' 12 lobbyists have redoubled their efforts in the Legislature, where support has generally been stronger than in the governor's office. The company has said the state law requiring elected leaders to weigh in was never intended to apply to its operations, which, if the bill becomes law, would be free to take five times as much waste as it already has at the mile-square hazardous and radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County. Greg Hopkins, EnergySolutions vice president of public affairs, said lots of misinformation surrounds the bill and the measure would not change operations. "The governor has ample information to make a decision, including the advice of his own Department of Environmental Quality as well as from the attorney general who is in favor of this legislation," he said. "Therefore, we have not sought an audience with the governor or his staff on this issue." Hopkins served as a fundraiser for Huntsman before going to work for EnergySolutions. The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah also has been in the halls - urging lawmakers to side with the governor if he rejects the bill. Lobbyists from the group said in a news conference last week that lawmakers appear to be out of step with the public, according to a recent poll. HEAL advocates say 70 percent of lawmakers have taken money from the company and 70 percent voted for the bill, which affects only EnergySolutions. In addition, a new, Draper-based group emerged last week to rally opposition. The loosely formed Citizens Against Nuclear Waste in Utah took out ads Sunday in Salt Lake City newspapers urging people to call their legislators to oppose the bill. The ad suggests Utah will stand out for its Greatest Snow on Earth, as being the home to the 2002 Olympics and, if SB155 passes, home to "the largest radioactive waste pile in the world." Draper resident Pamela Bingham noted she fought a similar legislative effort to eliminate the need for the governor to approve of waste-site expansion last year. Bingham said she still wants elected leaders to be a check and balance on EnergySolutions. But she's not optimistic. "I don't know if we have been able to change any minds," she said. "And, obviously, they [the legislators] have been paid" in the form of lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions. fahys@sltrib.com SB155 Would eliminate elected officials' role in expansions at a nuclear waste landfill. Next step: Awaits the governor's action. ***************************************************************** 63 FR: EPA: Starmet CMI; Barnwell, Barnwell County, SC; Notice of Settlement Doc E7-3014 [Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)] [Notices] [Page 7983] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22fe07-46] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0129; FRL-8279-3] AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response costs with the Alaron Corporation concerning the Starmet CMI Superfund Site located in Barnwell, Barnwell County, South Carolina. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until March 26, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4- SFUND-2007-0129 or Site name Starmet CMI Superfund Site by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: Batchelor.Paula@epa.gov Fax: 404/562-8842/Attn Paula V. Batchelor Mail: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA Region 4, WMD-SEIMB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. ``In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.'' Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND- 2007-0129. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e- mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887. Dated: February 7, 2007. Rosalind H. Brown, Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-3014 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 64 UPI: Sen. Reid: Yucca a no go United Press International - Energy - 2/22/2007 4:16:00 PM -0500 CARSON CITY, Nev., Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told his state legislature a federal plan to store nuclear waste near Las Vegas will not move forward. Reid, like the rest of the state's Congressional delegation, has only increased his anti-Yucca Mountain rhetoric since becoming the top U.S. Senator last month. "After 25 years, folks, it's history," Reid on Tuesday told a joint session of the Nevada Senate and Assembly. "They can keep spending money there. Nothing's going to happen." Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was declared by Congress and President Bush in 2002 as the only potential geologic repository for storing the highly radioactive waste created by U.S. nuclear plants and military nuclear activity. But the project has been set back by numerous problems, including U.S. Energy Department mismanagement, scientific controversy and heavy opposition by both politicians and opposition groups. And funding for the project has been constantly constrained, led by Reid. The Energy Department says it will still submit in June 2008 an application to store waste at Yucca Mountain. Reid says Congress and the nuclear industry should refocus its efforts at an alternative to Yucca, the Nevada Appeal reports. "People realize that if they store the waste on-site, we can move to some reasonable nuclear power," he said. The federal government officially is supposed to take possession of the waste and is paying millions to nuclear plants that have sued. While the NRC said it expects more than 30 applications for new nuclear plants in the coming years, the industry says a lack of final policy on handling the waste could impede nuclear energy growth in the country. There are 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States, generating an average 2,000 tons of waste a year. Nuclear power makes up 20 percent of U.S. electricity demand. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 65 UPI: Ill. lab may begin recycling nuclear fuel United Press International - NewsTrack - Updated: 02/21/2007 7:28:56 PM -0500 UTC ARGONNE, Ill., Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy is set to hold a meeting this week to discuss whether Illinois' Argonne National Laboratory should begin recycling nuclear fuel. The Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald said Thursday's meeting in Joliet would be used not only to explain the process, but also to gauge the community's reaction to its presence at the lab in Argonne, Ill. The proposed site is part of the government's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, which is aiming to expand nuclear energy production without adding to the dangers typically associated with the process. If approved, the lab would ultimately be one of three types of nuclear recycling facilities created by the U.S. government. The three planned types of facilities include base recycling centers, research laboratories and special reactors oriented toward producing electricity by destroying the fuel's radioactive elements. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 66 Daily Utah Chronicle: Nuclear knowledge By: Paige Fieldsted Issue date: 2/22/07 Section: News Danielle Endres has been passionate about the environment since she was a teenager. Now the U communication professor has been awarded a professorship to fund her research on nuclear waste and its connection to the environment. After Endres received her bachelor's degree in history from the University of Oregon, Endres changed her emphasis and received a master's and doctorate degree in communication from San Diego State University and the University of Washington, respectively. "I prefer communication because it is more actively engaged in contemporary issues," Endres said. "But my background in history allows me to have a great understanding of what brought us to a certain point." Endres began her research on nuclear waste as a graduate student at the University of Washington four years ago and continued it when she came to the U in the fall of 2005. "I think that growing up being involved in the environmental movement made me very aware of nuclear energy and its byproducts," Endres said. "Nuclear waste is really an issue in Utah and Nevada. I am really lucky to be working here." Because of her research, Endres was awarded the Environmental Humanities Professorship, a new program that funds a professor who is doing research in environmental humanities. "My work deals with how we talk about where to put nuclear waste," Endres said. "I plan on writing several journal articles and a book on nuclear waste sighting." "(Endres') work encompasses a range of disciplinary perspectives and is guided by a concern for environmental wellbeing and social justice," said Brenden Kendall, a graduate student in communication. While no waste is currently being stored in Utah or Nevada, Endres said several sites have been picked out and waste could be transported here within the next couple of years. "If everything goes as planned, the waste could be transported and stored safely," Endres said. "But if an accident happens, widespread release could happen." Endres also said the public needs to be more involved in nuclear waste decisions. "A façade system of public decision appears to be democratic and invites open opinion, but citizen voices are rarely given much weight in decisions," Endres said. "We can bury nuclear waste literally and figuratively," Kendell said. "I prefer to live in a society that is willing to engage ongoing public deliberation in order to make change possible. I think (Endres') scholarship encourages such a stance." The Daily Utah Chronicle 200 S Central Campus Dr #236 Salt Lake City UT 84112 801-581-NEWS Send website questions to: webmaster@chronicle.utah.edu © 2006 The Daily Utah Chronicle ***************************************************************** 67 North Jersey Media Group: State can't regulate rail waste NorthJersey.com Thursday, February 22, 2007 By PETER J. SAMPSON STAFF WRITER NEWARK -- A federal judge dealt a blow Wednesday to New Jersey's efforts to regulate a string of waste transfer facilities that have sprouted up along a rail line in the Meadowlands. In a direct clash between federal and state law, U.S. District Judge Katherine S. Hayden ruled that the "transloading" facilities owned or leased by the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corp. in North Bergen are exempt from state oversight. "We are delighted with the court's decision that the state regulations are preempted by federal law," said Thomas V. O'Neil, a spokesman for the freight line, which operates 400 miles of track in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. "We have committed substantial resources in upgrading these facilities over the past year and a half that this litigation has been pending," he added. State officials vowed to appeal. They also are working with federal lawmakers to clarify the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), which gives railroads special powers. "This decision places the state's ability to protect residents and their environment at risk," Susan Bass Levin, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission chairman and commissioner of the state Department of Community Affairs, said in a statement. "In recent years, the communities in that area have had to contend with unacceptable consequences like two-story heaps of steaming garbage and running muck along railroad tracks," Levin added. "To this point, the site improvements that have been made are unacceptable and we will not be satisfied until we are assured that these buildings meet basic standards." Independent waste transfer stations are subject to rigorous environmental planning and permitting rules at the state and local levels. NYS&W and other rail carriers have moved into the lucrative waste-hauling business in recent years by taking advantage of the ICCTA's preemption clause to sidestep such rules. In 2004, NYS&W shipped 453,000 tons of construction and demolition debris to out-of-state landfills. The controversy began in early 2005, when officials began noticing piles of debris growing into 2½-story mountains, posing a health, environmental and fire risk to neighbors. Wastewater samples collected at three facilities showed excess levels of lead, arsenic, mercury and copper, they said. Fined $2.5 million for violating new state regulations governing the design, construction and operation of rail transfer facilities, NYS&W sued the state Department of Environmental Protection in August 2005, contending that federal law preempted the rules. It also sued the Meadowlands Commission, which oversees development in the ecologically sensitive district. NYS&W won a preliminary injunction suspending the fines and blocking enforcement of the rules. Hayden's decision makes those temporary restraints permanent. Although the clause doesn't strip state and local governments of their traditional police powers to protect public health and safety, New Jersey's extensive regulations "have too large an impact on transportation by rail carriers to pass muster under the police powers exemption," the judge said. "Such power is impermissible because it can be used to frustrate transportation-related activities and interfere with interstate commerce." The railroad has taken steps to comply with some of the requirements in order to be a "good neighbor," the judge noted in a 37-page opinion. It permanently shut its open-air dumps at 16th and 43rd streets and Secaucus Road, and constructed buildings to enclose loading operations at three other sites. The rail line also reduced the size of debris piles and imposed daily limits on the amount of dumped wastes. Three of the North Bergen facilities -- at 94th, 83rd and 37th streets -- currently accept construction and demolition debris. A fourth, at 58th Street, handles radioactive and contaminated soils. The rail line also operates an enclosed facility for construction waste in Paterson. "Notwithstanding the critical issue of how this small, dense state may safely dispose of its wastes, and the justifiable concerns raised by NYS&W's initial activities on its North Bergen sites," Hayden said, "this court is constrained to hold that application of the [DEP] regulations here is foreclosed by ICCTA's preemption provision." Copyright © 2007 North Jersey Media Group Inc. ***************************************************************** 68 AU ABC: Mayor worried nuclear laws may hamper uranium mining industry. 22/02/2007. ABC News Online The Mount Isa Mayor says he hopes new laws banning nuclear facilities in Queensland do not undermine the development of a uranium mining industry in the state. State Parliament has passed the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill, but the Commonwealth could still overturn it. Ron McCullough says north-western Queensland has more than 20 uranium deposits which could be worth billions in export revenue. "I think that they will or are certainly contemplating the mining and sending overseas because most of the demand or, in fact, all of the demand at the present time is from overseas countries for the uranium which we will be digging out eventually," he said. "I think that they can work side-by-side. One is not allowing the facilities in Queensland, but secondly that you do allow the mining." Councillor McCullough says he thinks governments will eventually be forced to examine alternative energy sources. "I believe that one of the next most influential movements throughout this world is going to be the people for nuclear power who are demanding that we do away with the current coal-fired power stations because they're doing too much damage to the environment," he said. "I see that coming within a decade so, I think this might be rather short-lived." © 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 69 KVBC.com: UNLV working on way to safely transport hazardous waste News 3 Inside Yucca Mountain UNLV's Engineering Department is helping with the safe transportation of hazardous waste. On Wednesday they showed off a truck sponsored by the Department of Energy. The truck and driver can be monitored from another location. An alert tells the home office when the truck is somewhere it shouldn't be and a device on the truck helps the driver avoid collisions. This could possibly be used to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain which is about a hundred miles from Las Vegas. Although much of this technology has existed for some time, it's never been bundled together in quite the same way. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 70 Canon City Daily Record - Cotter Corp. files lawsuit Publish Date: 2/21/2007 Debbie Bell The Daily Record Cotter Corp. has taken its effort to accept radioactive waste at its Cañon City plant to U.S. District Court. A lawsuit filed Feb. 2 by Cotter Corp. names the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste as defendants. Cotter has tried for years to be allowed to accept 450,000 tons of radioactive soil from a Superfund site at Maywood, N.J., for disposal. The state health department banned Cotter from receiving the materials in 2004, and the fight was on. The state ruling was challenged by Cotter in a judiciary hearing, but administrative law judge Richard Dana upheld the state health department decision following public hearings last fall. A final order denying the waste was issued by the state in January. CCAT was formed in 2002 after Cotter announced intentions to import the Maywood waste and has actively fought against its approval since. The organization’s inclusion was required by the state because of its earlier involvement in the process. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court seeks to force the state to overturn its ban on accepting the radioactive soils. “The CDPHE’s denial of Cotter's request to directly dispose the Maywood soils into the facility’s impoundment violates Colorado statutes and rules,” the lawsuit reads in part. “The main thrust of this argument is that the CDPHE improperly considered the ‘socio-economic’ effects in its review of the license application and in the issuing of the license.” Resolution of the lawsuit is expected to take months. News and Information from Cañon City and the Greater Royal Gorge Region All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 71 UPI: Japan, Russia set to sign nuclear deal United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 2/22/2007 7:43:00 AM -0500 TOKYO, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Japan and Russia are close to reaching a uranium enrichment deal for fuel in nuclear power plants, a Japanese daily said Thursday. Japan's government and major electric power companies have entered the final stage of negotiations with Russia for consigning the enrichment of uranium to a nuclear plant to be built in Russia, the Yomiuri Shimbun said, citing sources close to the deal. The Russian plant, Atomenergoprom, or Atomprom, is to be established as Russia's state-run monopoly for the nuclear energy industry, it said. "The Japanese side plans to initially consign the enrichment of uranium that was recovered from spent fuel rods and have been stored in Britain," the newspaper said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 72 RIA Novosti: Russian parliament to ratify protocol to CTR umbrella agreement 16:58 | 22/ 02/ 2007 MOSCOW, February 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin submitted Wednesday a protocol to a document that facilitates large-scale cooperation between the United States and Russia on nuclear nonproliferation for ratification by the lower house of parliament. An umbrella agreement on the safe and secure transportation, storage, and destruction of weapons and the prevention of weapons proliferation, the agreement implementing the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR), was signed by the presidents of the United States and Russia on June 17, 1992. The CTR, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, was the first large-scale program for U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, and became the basis for collaborative nonproliferation efforts on chemical and biological weapons as well. Because the 1992 CTR Agreement was signed in compliance with the former Russian legislation, it came into effect immediately on signing without ratification by the State Duma. When the CTR Agreement expired in June 1999, a protocol was signed to extend it for 7 years, and the agreement is used on a temporary basis at present. President Putin issued orders last year to initiate a procedure to prepare for ratification of both the CTR Agreement and the Protocol. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 73 BBC NEWS: S Asia rivals sign nuclear pact Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 11:54 GMT Both sides are keen to carry forward the peace process India and Pakistan have signed an agreement aimed at reducing the risk of accidental nuclear war in the region. The deal was signed during talks in Delhi between Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri and his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee. India also said it would share with Pakistan details of the investigation into the bombing of a cross-border train on Sunday. Details of the deal limiting the risk of an inadvertent nuclear conflict were not made available, but officials say it includes confidence-building measures related to each country's nuclear arsenal. Both countries have nuclear-capable weapons and have come close to war several times. Two years ago, they agreed to give each other notice of nuclear missile tests and in 1985 they signed an accord not to attack each other's nuclear installations. Share information The two sides condemned the blasts on the Samjhauta (Friendship) Express from Delhi to Lahore and vowed to continue with the peace process. The governments of India and Pakistan should not allow the perpetrators of this incident to achieve their objectives Khurshid Kasuri Pakistani foreign minister Press condemns train blasts Rivals' cautious response "Whatever information is available regarding the blasts, will be shared with Pakistan," Mr Mukherjee told reporters. The two countries established a joint panel last year to share intelligence to help fight terrorism. "The investigation of the blasts will be carried out by India. The objective of the joint mechanism is to share information and act on that," Mr Mukherjee said. Mr Kasuri said the blasts would be high on the agenda at the panel's meeting in Islamabad in March. Mr Mukherjee said the joint survey of Sir Creek - a disputed marshland between India and Pakistan - was progressing smoothly. He said India had handed over a list of its citizens who wanted to respond to a Pakistani invitation to visit relatives being held in Pakistani jails. The two sides also discussed issues such as co-operation in education, information technology, science and environment. Observers say while the attack has cast a cloud over the talks between the two foreign ministers, it could inject urgency into the long-running process. Painful search Meanwhile, families from Pakistan have been arriving at the hospital in the town of Panipat in northern India, 80km (50 miles) from Delhi, looking for lost relatives after the attack. The BBC's Dan Isaacs reports from Panipat that so far 18 bodies have been identified. He says relatives have been unable to identify anyone else because the bodies were so badly burnt by the blaze in two carriages of the train. Blood samples from close relatives are being taken to try to match them with the victims. Our correspondent says the process could take anything from four to six weeks. It is not clear who was behind the attack on the train and no group has claimed responsibility. On Tuesday, Indian police issued images of two men they believe got off the train just before the attack. Similar attacks in the past have been blamed by India on Pakistan-based militants. The bombing of commuter trains in Mumbai last year effectively derailed peace talks for many months - although allegations of Pakistani involvement were never proved and vehemently rejected by Islamabad. The twice-weekly cross-border Friendship Express - one of only two rail links between India and Pakistan - was restarted in 2004 after a two-year gap as part of the peace process. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 74 Safety Alarms at Nuclear Weapons Factory Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:19:39 -0600 (CST) Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Thursday, February 22, 2007 Safety Alarms at Nuclear Weapons Factory The Los Angeles Times featured a front-page piece on Wednesday headlined "Safety Alarms Raised at Nuclear Weapons Plant," which reports: "Electrical failures have shut down the plant. The roof has leaked. Decrepit machinery dates back more than 40 years. Safety lapses led inspectors to levy fines twice within two years. And employees, under deadline pressure, complain they are often worked past the point of exhaustion. ... "If this factory were producing medical devices or refining gasoline, the conditions would be serious enough. But this is where they work on nuclear bombs. ... "Federal safety inspectors found that the flawed operation 'increased the opportunities for dropping all or part of the explosive during handling and hence increased the potential for a violent reaction,' a finding that ran against assurances such a detonation was virtually impossible. ... "The backdrop to problems at Pantex [in Texas] is a growing concern that the Energy Department has mismanaged the nuclear weapons program." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0221-08.htm The following have closely followed safety and security procedures at the major U.S. nuclear weapons facilities: ROBERT ALVAREZ, kitbob@starpower.net, http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/nuclear/index.htm The Los Angeles Times piece quotes Alvarez, a former deputy assistant secretary of Energy and now a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies: "You can't run a plant on glittering platitudes and generalities and call that a safety program. ... A nuclear detonation accident is a low probability, but it is not incredible." MARYLIA KELLEY, marylia@earthlink.net, http://www.trivalleycares.org Kelley is executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) located in Livermore, California. She said today: "There are certainly widespread safety and security problems here at Lawrence Livermore [nuclear weapons laboratory] as well. Instead of concentrating on solving the existing problems and drawing down our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, the government is focusing on building new weapons." RALPH HUTCHISON, orep@earthlink.net Coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Hutchison has written extensively about the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee. He said today: "We have freedom of information requests going back years trying to get documents about the safety of the facility here. It's operating in an unsafe fashion -- it's the perfect time to end the bomb-making business and live up to our own obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to draw down our stockpile." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: public@lists.accuracy.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org For all list information and functions, including changing your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public ***************************************************************** 75 KnoxNews: DOE wants you to be prepared Campaign to educate public how to respond to major emergencies By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 22, 2007 The U.S. Department of Energy on Wednesday unveiled a new campaign to educate the public on how to respond to emergencies at DOE's Oak Ridge plants. The agency's Oak Ridge staff has produced new brochures and other instructional materials - offering everything from the location of evacuation shelters to advice on preparing an emergency kit for the home. Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge manager, emphasized that a large-scale emergency was unlikely, but he said it was the agency's responsibility to help prepare the area for the worst. "We're not predicting that anything will go wrong," Boyd said at a press briefing attended by community leaders from nearby counties. The event was held at DOE's joint information center in Powell, where media assistance would be conducted in times of crisis. Boyd was joined by Ted Sherry, the Oak Ridge manager for the National Nuclear Security Administration, and Col. Gary D. Ellis of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. "I have a copy (of the materials) at my house and have discussed it with my family," Sherry said. John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs director, said federal officials hope every home within five miles of the Oak Ridge facilities will have a copy of the planning guide for emergencies. There are about 53,000 homes within that four-county area, he said. Shewairy was not specific about how DOE planned to distribute the materials, although he indicated a number of local agencies would help get them to residents. About 12,000 packets have been printed, he said. Copies of the brochures are available at DOE's Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike in Oak Ridge. Interested residents also can download the materials from DOE's Web site at: www.oakridge .doe.gov/emergency. For more information, contact DOE's public information office at 865-576-0885. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 76 Tri-City Herald: B Reactor deserves national recognition Opinions Published Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 Nomination of Hanford's B Reactor as a National Landmark is a worthy effort by local and national experts to save for the entire country one of the great artifacts of World War II. Few Tri-Citians, except for the very newest, are unaware of B Reactor's main story line. In 1943, in the midst of the greatest war in history, a city of 45,000 sprang up almost overnight in the arid lands along the banks of the Columbia River. The objective was to produce a nuclear weapon before our enemies did. Failure was not an option. In just two years, success was achieved. The centerpiece of the complex operation was B Reactor, the world's first full-scale nuclear plant. Besides the main story line of the creation of a scientific marvel under immense pressure, there were the experiences of the people. They labored in desert heat, suffered blowing dust, lived in sometimes makeshift quarters and all the while were kept in ignorance of what they were doing. The B Reactor stands alone now, bereft of support buildings that surrounded it during its production days. But it still is a powerful testament to the ingenuity, courage and adaptability of Americans under pressure. Supporters of the B Reactor want it to become a museum, open to the public. So should everyone. Nomination as a National Landmark is a good solid step in that direction. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 77 Hanford News: INL breaks ground on energy studies building This story was published Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 By The Associated Press IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) - Idaho National Laboratory and several university partners have broken ground on a new $14 million Center for Advanced Energy Studies. The center is a public-private partnership by Boise State University, Idaho State University, University of Idaho and the Idaho National Laboratory. The center will focus on energy science and engineering research, particularly nuclear power, biofuels, geothermal power and hydropower. The 50,000-square-foot building on the north side of the state-owned University Place campus is expected to be completed by July 2008. "We all believe Idaho is going to be the energy corridor of the world," Idaho State University President Arthur Vailas said, adding that the new facility will be a "core resource worldwide to build core technology." Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, U.S. Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, and Reps. Mike Simpson and Bill Sali attended the groundbreaking ceremony Tuesday. Both Otter and Craig said they viewed the center as an investment in the future, not only for Idaho but for the United States and the world. When INL was made the Energy Department's lead nuclear laboratory in the 1990s, no one could have predicted the "nuclear renaissance" that is happening now, Craig said. The center has $10 million in loan guarantees from Battle Energy Alliance, the contractor in charge of Idaho National Laboratory. Establishment of the center was a requirement in the contract Battle signed with the U.S. Department of Energy when the agency hired it to operate INL in February 2005. The state also has contributed nearly $7 million to the project. The building will provide laboratories, offices, meeting rooms and classrooms. For Chris Laws, the program has more than lived up to its promise already. Laws plans to graduate from Idaho State University this year with a degree in nuclear engineering. One of six students in the program, he entered it in 2005 with his adviser's encouragement. Since then, he's been working full time for the lab and has visited other nuclear engineering projects, published articles and delivered presentations. Laws said he feels the outlook is good for nuclear energy, adding, "I'm betting my career on it." As for the new research center, "You're going to have a real condensed knowledge base of people doing great work," he said. "I would love the opportunity to somehow be a part of it. I guess we'll see." --- Information from: Post Register, http://www.postregister.com © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 78 LA Daily News: L.A. city officials want testing required near lab Plan may affect development in vicinity BY RICK ORLOV and KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writers Article Last Updated: 02/21/2007 09:36:08 PM PST Following Ventura County's lead, Los Angeles City officials want to require developers to test soil and groundwater for contamination before building within a two-mile radius of the Santa Susana Field Lab. The proposal by Councilman Greig Smith would establish the testing requirement and ensure the departments of planning and building and safety require sampling before developers get permission to build. "I just think this is the right thing to do to make sure we don't make any mistakes and allow someone to build something that could put people at risk," Smith said. The City Council's Energy and Environment Committee approved the concept Wednesday and directed city departments to begin developing the regulations. Located above West Hills and Chatsworth, the field lab was a longtime nuclear research and rocket-engine test facility. Nuclear work ended in the late 1980s, and rocket-engine tests ended in 2005. The work left radioactive and toxic contamination in the soil and groundwater on site, and some pollution has moved off site in creeks. In 2005, a developer about to build luxury homes downhill from the lab found high levels of perchlorate, a rocket-engine fuel ingredient, in the soil. Centex Homes is now cleaning the site. Despite community concern, state regulators have said they cannot prove the contamination comes from the lab. Elizabeth Crawford with Physicians for Social Responsibility and Rocketdynewatch.org said the testing requirement in Los Angeles would help prevent any other last-minute discoveries of contamination. "This is a prudent, conservative step that Los Angeles City can take to make sure additional contamination is not found in future neighborhoods," she said. Even though the lab is outside city limits, officials said they were concerned after reports of contamination. "Unfortunately, pollution knows no boundaries," Councilman Eric Garcetti said. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors recently adopted similar restrictions on future development for property within its boundaries. The Los Angeles city task force is expected to report back on proposed regulations in 45 days. rick.orlov@dailynews.com 213-978-0390 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 79 FR: DOE: Straegic Petroleum Reserve Doc E7-3022 [Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)] [Notices] [Page 7964-7972] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22fe07-36] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: DOE has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/ EIS-0385), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), to assess the environmental impacts associated with a proposal to expand the crude oil storage capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) from 727 million barrels (MMB) to 1 billion barrels, and to fill the Reserve to the full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. The proposal was to develop one new storage facility and expand the capacity of two or three existing SPR storage facilities. After careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations, DOE has decided to develop a new 160 MMB SPR storage facility at Richton (Mississippi), expand the storage capacity at the existing Bayou Choctaw (Louisiana) SPR facility by 33 MMB, expand the storage capacity at the existing Big Hill (Texas) SPR facility by 80 MMB, and fill the Reserve to 1 billion barrels of oil as authorized by Congress. This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing NEPA and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The accompanying Floodplain Statement of Findings has been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations ``Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR Part 1022). Because the decision differs somewhat from the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) (DOE/ EIS-0385-SA-1) to determine whether a supplement to the final EIS is required. DOE has determined that the minor modification to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 MMB as described in the final EIS, is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed. ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html and on the project's Web site at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion- .energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion- near future. Copies of the final EIS and this ROD and SA may be requested by contacting Donald Silawsky at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-47), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-1892, by facsimile at 202-586-4446, or by electronic mail at donald.silawsky@hq.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the site selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contact David Johnson at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-4733, by facsimile at 202-586-7919, or by electronic mail at david.johnson@hq.doe.gov. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 [[Page 7965]] Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202- 586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Agency Action On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, Pub. L. 109-58). Section 303 of EPACT states that: ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a proceeding to select, from sites that the Secretary has previously studied, sites necessary to enable acquisition by the Secretary of the full authorized volume of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' EPACT Section 301(e) directs the Secretary to ``* * * acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill * * *'' the SPR to 1 billion barrels, the capacity of the SPR authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Thus, the purpose and need for agency action is to select and develop sites necessary to add 273 MMB of new storage capacity to the SPR, so that SPR capacity can be expanded from 727 MMB to 1 billion barrels. On January 23, 2007, the President proposed an expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels. Any DOE proposal in this regard, however, is independent of the current expansion to 1 billion barrels and would be subject to a separate NEPA review process. NEPA Review DOE determined that the proposed SPR site selection and expansion constitute a major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of NEPA. For this reason, DOE prepared an EIS, Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385). DOE published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on September 1, 2005 (70 FR 52088), and held four public scoping meetings. Copies of the comment letters received during the scoping period and complete public scoping meeting transcripts are available at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html . DOE filed the draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 19, 2006. EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 30400), starting the 45-day public comment period that ended on July 10, 2006. DOE considered all comments in preparing the final EIS, which was filed with EPA on December 8, 2006. Copies of the comment letters and oral testimony received during the public comment period are available at the Internet site listed above. The comments and DOE's responses are also set forth in the final EIS. The EPA published a NOA of the final EIS in the Federal Register on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75540). As discussed further below, DOE prepared an SA, Supplement Analysis to the Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385-SA-1), to address a minor modification to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 MMB discussed in the final EIS. DOE determined that a supplement to the final EIS is not required. Proposed Action DOE's proposed action is to develop one new site, expand capacity at two or three existing sites, and fill the SPR to its full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. Storage capacity would be developed by solution mining of underground storage caverns in salt domes and disposing of the resulting salt brine by ocean discharge or underground injection. New pipelines, marine terminal facilities, and other infrastructure would also be required. Proposed construction and operation activities include clearing and preparing sites; constructing pipelines and facilities for raw water intake, disposing of brine, and distributing crude oil; constructing transmission lines to provide electrical power to the sites; and constructing or augmenting support buildings and other facilities. Alternatives In developing the range of reasonable alternatives, DOE first considered expansions of three existing storage sites, which would capitalize on existing site infrastructure and operations and thereby minimize development time and construction costs. DOE, however, cannot reach its goal of 273 MMB of additional storage capacity by expanding only at existing sites. Therefore, the alternatives considered are a combination of one new site and two or three expansion sites, as shown in the table below. Alternatives Considered in Final EIS and SA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Epansion sites and added New sites and capacity analyzed capacity Total new capacity* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruinsburg, MS (160 MMB)................. 113 MMB a................... 273 MMB or Chacahoula, LA (160 MMB)................. Bayou Choctaw (33 MMB)...... Big Hill (80 MMB) OR........ Richton, MS (160 MMB).................... 115 MMB b................... 275 MMB or Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB)...... Big Hill (80 MMB)........... West Hackberry (15 MMB) OR.. Stratton Ridge, TX (160 MMB)............. 116 MMB b................... 276 MMB. Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB)...... Big Hill (96 MMB)........... No-action alternative.................... None........................ None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Based on the proposed action for this EIS, DOE would not fill the SPR beyond 1 billion barrels if it developed more than 273 MMB of new capacity. a Alternative considered in SA. b Alternative considered in final EIS. A brief description of each new site and expansion site is below: Potential New Sites and Associated Infrastructure As required by EPACT Section 303, DOE limited its review of potential new sites for expansion of the SPR to: (1) sites that DOE addressed in a 1992 draft EIS for site expansion (DOE/EIS-0165-D); and (2) sites proposed by a state in [[Page 7966]] which DOE has previously studied a site. Five sites met those conditions and were considered in the draft EIS: Richton, MS, and Stratton Ridge, TX, which were addressed in the 1992 draft EIS; Chacahoula and Clovelly, LA, which the Governor of Louisiana requested that the Secretary of Energy consider; and Bruinsburg, MS, which the Governor of Mississippi requested that the Secretary of Energy consider. Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, DOE determined that development of a new SPR site at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port's (LOOP) Clovelly facility was not feasible because of geotechnical issues and thus is not a reasonable alternative. LOOP's development on the salt dome and the small size of the dome required that DOE propose placing new SPR caverns below and in between Clovelly's existing caverns. DOE found that this configuration presented several risk factors to the integrity of the Clovelly caverns and infrastructure and overall operation of the proposed site. DOE therefore removed the site from detailed consideration in the final EIS. Sandia National Laboratories completed a Geological Technical Assessment (Sandia Assessment) of the Bruinsburg salt dome just before the final EIS was published that indicated that the salt dome may not be able to provide the needed storage capability; however, DOE retained it as a potential new site in the final EIS because DOE needed time to further analyze the results of the study. See below for additional information regarding the Bruinsburg site and the Sandia Assessment. Bruinsburg, MS The Bruinsburg salt dome is located in Claiborne County, MS, 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of the town of Port Gibson and 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of the City of Vicksburg. The proposed storage site of approximately 266 acres (108 hectares) encompasses a cypress swamp, cotton fields, forested areas, and a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River. The infrastructure associated with the Bruinsburg storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Peetsville, MS, and Anchorage, LA. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River. The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources. These data are from well and seismic studies and include data compiled by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, as well as proprietary seismic data. In addition, Sandia contracted for two new seismic survey lines on the Bruinsburg salt dome in order to define the extent of the salt formation available for cavern development. DOE has analyzed the results of the Sandia Assessment and concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required. Chacahoula, LA The Chacahoula salt dome site is located 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico in northwestern Lafourche Parish, southwest of Thibodaux, LA. The proposed storage site of approximately 227 acres (92 hectares) lies largely underwater in wetlands. No new terminals would be required for this proposed new site since the terminal(s) already exist and the current distribution capacity is sufficient to handle the potential increase in oil storage and distribution associated with the Chacahoula site. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Richton, MS The Richton salt dome is located in northeastern Perry County, MS, 18 miles (29 kilometers) east of Hattiesburg, MS. The proposed storage site of approximately 238 acres (96 hectares) is comprised of an actively managed pine plantation with a small emergent wetland area. The infrastructure associated with the Richton storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Liberty, MS, and Pascagoula, MS. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from both the Leaf River and the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula. Stratton Ridge, TX The Stratton Ridge salt dome is located in Brazoria County, TX, 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) east of Lake Jackson-Angleton, TX. The proposed storage site of approximately 269 acres (109 hectares) is currently used for cattle ranching and has some forested wetlands. The infrastructure associated with the Stratton Ridge storage site would include a new terminal with a tank farm in Texas City, TX. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Potential Expansion Sites and Associated Infrastructure Bayou Choctaw, LA The Bayou Choctaw storage site occupies a 356-acre (144-hectare) site in Iberville Parish, LA, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest of Baton Rouge. The Mississippi River is located about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) east of the salt dome, and the Intracoastal Waterway is about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) to the west. The general area is swampy with an elevation ranging from less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) to more than 10 feet (3 meters) above mean sea level. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. In the final EIS, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 20 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 10 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility, a 0.6-mile (0.9-kilometer) brine disposal pipeline, and a 96-acre (39-hectare) brine injection field. In the SA, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 33 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 11.5 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility and use of an existing commercial cavern. The length of the brine disposal pipeline and the size of the brine disposal injection field would be the same if Bayou Choctaw is expanded to 20 MMB or 33 MMB. Expansion beyond 33 MMB is limited due to the size of the salt dome. Big Hill, TX The Big Hill SPR storage site is located in Jefferson County, TX, 17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of Port Arthur. The existing site occupies approximately 250 acres (101 hectares). The surrounding area is predominantly rural with agricultural production as the primary land use. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. The Big Hill storage site has a current capacity of 170 MMB and could be expanded by acquiring land and developing several additional caverns. West Hackberry, LA The West Hackberry SPR storage site occupies a 565-acre (229- hectare) site in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana. The site is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of the city of Lake Charles and 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is predominantly disturbed grassland habitat. No new infrastructure would be [[Page 7967]] needed for this site to be expanded. The West Hackberry storage site has a current capacity of 227 MMB and could also be expanded by acquiring land and developing or acquiring additional caverns. However, the West Hackberry site no longer has the offshore brine disposal system necessary to support a cavern development operation. There are three existing commercial caverns on the salt dome that could be acquired to increase the site capacity by 15 MMB, to a total capacity of 242 MMB, without developing new caverns. Therefore, DOE has considered a maximum potential expansion of 15 MMB at the West Hackberry site. Preferred Alternative The final EIS identifies the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry as the Preferred Alternative. The SA revised the Preferred Alternative to be the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill. Analysis of Environmental Impacts In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts that could occur from the construction and operation of a new SPR storage site and the expansion of two or three of the existing sites. The final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 10 resource areas. Of these 10 areas, the largest potential impacts are to land use, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. Although impacts occur in other resource areas, these impacts are smaller and of similar magnitude across all alternatives. Below is a brief summary of the impacts associated with these four resource areas for each alternative. For each alternative, there is a discussion of each new site and the expansion sites associated with each new site. Land Use Bruinsburg Alternatives: There is a potential land use conflict for the Bruinsburg site where the expansion of an existing pipeline route would cross the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, Natchez Trace Parkway, and the proclamation boundary of the Homochitto National Forest. There are no potential land use conflicts at the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansions sites. At West Hackberry, there were no land use conflicts at the time that the final EIS was issued because there were no ongoing commercial operations in the caverns in the West Hackberry salt dome. Comments on the final EIS indicate that Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation plans to use the caverns for commercial operations. This potential conflict is discussed further below in the Comments Received on the Final EIS and Basis for Decision sections. Chacahoula Alternatives: There are no potential land use conflicts for the Chacahoula site. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Richton Alternatives: For the Richton site, the terminal, tank farm, refurbished docks, and raw water intake structure at Pascagoula would be at the former Naval Station Pascagoula, a Base Realignment and Closure site for which future uses have not been determined. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The proposed Stratton Ridge site would have potential land use conflicts with Dow Chemical Company's use of salt from the Stratton Ridge salt dome and where a corridor containing a raw water intake pipeline, brine disposal pipelines, and two power lines would cross the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and privately owned land in the Refuge's proclamation area. In addition, the crude oil pipeline would cross the Refuge in an existing pipeline rights-of- way. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Water Resources Bruinsburg Alternatives: Construction and operation of the Bruinsburg site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 35 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River, and would not have a significant impact on water resources. Construction and operation associated with the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry sites and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 12, 4, and 3 water bodies, respectively. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Bayou Choctaw would come from Cavern Lake, which is fed by the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Big Hill would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for maintenance and drawdown at West Hackberry would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. None of these uses of water would have a significant impact on water resources. Since DOE would acquire caverns at West Hackberry, construction of new caverns would not occur at this site. A small increase in the size of the security buffer around the site would be needed, but this would not have a significant impact on water resources. Chacahoula Alternatives: Construction and operation of the Chacahoula site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 18 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Richton Alternatives: Construction and operation of the Richton site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 63 water bodies. The primary raw water source for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would be the Leaf River, which has a highly variable flow. A secondary raw water intake system, presented in the final EIS, would withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula and transport it to the Richton storage site for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown during low flow conditions in the Leaf River. If low flow conditions exist in the Leaf River during a drawdown event for a Presidentially declared national emergency, DOE would withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico and from the Leaf River to reach the necessary distribution rate. DOE would not withdraw water below the minimum instream flow that is protective of aquatic resources, except for a drawdown for a Presidentially declared national emergency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would establish the minimum instream flow during DOE's consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MS NHP) would provide input during this consultation. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Stratton Ridge Alternatives: Construction and operation of the Stratton Ridge site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 17 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. [[Page 7968]] Biological Resources This summary of impacts to biological resources considers Federally threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat (EFH), and wetlands. Impacts to these resources at expansion sites are common to all alternatives and are described first, separately from the descriptions of impacts of the alternatives, which focus on impacts at the new sites. Expansion at existing sites would not affect any Federally threatened or endangered species. The Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry expansions would not affect EFH. The Big Hill expansion would cause a temporary impact to about five acres of EFH due to pipeline construction. The discussions below regarding total wetland acres affected for the new site alternatives include the wetland impacts associated with the expansion sites, in all cases including expansion at West Hackberry (without which five fewer acres of wetlands would be affected). Expansion sites: Construction and operation of the Bayou Choctaw expansion site would potentially affect 34 acres of wetlands. About 24 acres of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 3 acres of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. Construction and operation of the Big Hill expansion site would potentially affect 189 acres of wetlands. About 9 acres of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 1 acre of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. Expanding the West Hackberry site would convert 5 acres of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands to emergent wetlands. Bruinsburg Alternatives: The Bruinsburg site and associated infrastructure may affect the fat pocketbook mussel and the pallid sturgeon, both of which are Federally endangered species. The site and associated infrastructure would not affect EFH. The Bruinsburg alternatives would potentially affect about 708 acres (287 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of about 156 acres (63 hectares) and a permanent conversion to emergent wetlands of about 123 acres (50 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 118 acres (48 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights- of-way during construction. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. Chacahoula Alternatives: The Chacahoula site and associated infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species that is proposed for de-listing, and the brown pelican, a Federal endangered species. Chacahoula would affect about 1,067 acres of EFH, for the most part a temporary impact due to pipeline construction. The Chacahoula alternatives would potentially affect 2,502 acres (1,013 hectares) of wetlands. About 182 acres (74 hectares) of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 699 acres (283 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. About 505 acres (204 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. Richton Alternatives: The Richton site and associated infrastructure may affect two Federal listed species (the yellow- blotched map turtle and the Gulf sturgeon) and a Federal candidate species (the pearl darter, considered by DOE as a ``listed species''). Based on comments from and consultation with USFWS and MS NHP, the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River may have an adverse effect on the yellow-blotched map turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and the pearl darter. The Leaf River and Mississippi Sound are designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. Development of the Richton site would temporarily affect about 183 acres of EFH due to construction, and fill an additional 43 acres of EFH for a new terminal and raw water intake structure at Pascagoula. Brine pipeline construction may affect submerged aquatic vegetation. The Richton alternatives would potentially affect 1,557 acres (630 hectares) of wetlands. The majority of the wetland areas affected (more than 1,400 acres [583 hectares]) by the Richton alternatives would be located in the long pipeline rights-of-way, which total over 200 miles and which pass through some forested and emergent wetlands. The Richton alternatives would permanently fill about 59 acres (24 hectares) of forested wetlands and about 295 acres (119 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 506 acres (205 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. Stratton Ridge Alternatives: The Stratton Ridge site and associated infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species that is proposed for de-listing. Seventeen acres of EFH would be permanently affected due to the construction and operation of a raw water intake structure. The Stratton Ridge alternatives would potentially affect 841 acres (349 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of 227 acres (92 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 70 acres (28 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 9 acres (4 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights- of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above in detail for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Cultural Resources The proposed action would have the potential to damage or destroy archeological sites, Native American cultural sites, or historic buildings or structures; or to change the characteristics of a property that would diminish qualities that contribute to its historic significance or cultural importance. Below are the potential impacts for each alternative: Bruinsburg Alternatives: SPR development at the Bruinsburg site could result in potential adverse effects on the historic setting of the Civil War landing of the Union Army in Mississippi and an associated route of troop movements in an area that could become eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a core study area. A portion of the Bruinsburg site is likely to contain archeological remains of troop presence, and remains of at least one of the ships that sank during the invasion is likely to lie northwest of the facility boundary. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. As described in the final EIS, these adverse effects could be mitigated through measures such as data recovery from an archaeological site, preparation of education materials for the public, or use of vegetation to screen project facilities from visitors in the historic properties. Chacahoula Alternatives: There would be likely adverse effects to Native American and historic sites along Chacahoula pipeline rights-of- way that could be mitigated. There would be [[Page 7969]] possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These adverse effects could be mitigated. Richton Alternatives: There are likely adverse effects to Native American archaeological sites within the Richton storage site and along Richton pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These effects could be mitigated. Stratton Ridge Alternatives: There are likely adverse effects to Native American archaeological sites within the Stratton Ridge storage site and along Stratton Ridge pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These effects could be mitigated. Comments Received on the Final EIS DOE received eight comment letters on the final EIS: three letters from elected officials, two from Federal agencies, two from private companies, and one from a property owner. Below is a brief summary of each comment letter and DOE's response. DOE received two comment letters regarding DOE's selection of Richton rather than Bruinsburg as its preferred new storage site. These comment letters were from U.S. Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Second District, Mississippi, and Mr. Allen Burks of the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors. Congressman Thompson expressed some concerns with the selection of Richton and his belief that the Bruinsburg site is a more favorable site since it would have fewer environmental impacts and cost less than the Richton site. Mr. Burks requested the reconsideration of the Bruinsburg site because, in his view, it offers significant cost, environmental, operational, and distribution advantages over the Richton site. DOE did not select the Bruinsburg site for several reasons, as discussed below; however, the primary reason was the small size of the salt dome. As discussed above, based on the Sandia Assessment, DOE concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required. The Richton salt dome, on the other hand, is very large and can easily accommodate the planned capacity of 160 MMB. Congressman Thompson also expressed concerns regarding the risk from hurricanes and brine disposal impacts associated with the Richton site. The SPR's storage of oil in underground storage caverns in salt formations is the safest and most secure form of storage available. The depth of the storage caverns and the self-sealing characteristic of the salt formation make salt dome storage virtually immune to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, and would not create a safety hazard for the population of Mississippi. In addition, Richton's location over 80 miles from the Gulf coast provides a significant land mass buffer against potential damages from the hurricane effects to surface buildings and structures at the storage sites. Congressman Thompson also expressed concern about brine disposal in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on DOE's experience with the SPR, the disposal of brine in the Gulf of Mexico has been proven to be reliable and cost effective and has had no harmful impacts on the fish population. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour supported the selection of Richton as preferred, but added that he believes Bruinsburg remains an important site for future consideration. Governor Barbour submitted for the record an independent geological evaluation prepared by Mr. Karl Kaufman of Valioso Petroleum Company, Inc., that questions the completeness and accuracy of the geological interpretations presented in the Sandia Assessment. Mr. Kaufman stated that the Sandia Assessment grossly understates the true areal extent of the Bruinsburg salt dome because well control data have been ignored, spatial uncertainty has not been resolved and additional data have not been considered. A second comment letter from Charles Morrison Consulting Geophysicist, Inc., stated that the Sandia Assessment was highly flawed and possibly biased in regard to the geological and geophysical conclusions reached. DOE and the geotechnological staff at Sandia National Laboratories have reviewed the concerns expressed by these geological consultants and have confirmed their prior geological findings, as to the insufficient salt dome size. The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources, including both existing and new well and seismic data, as discussed above. Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation submitted a comment informing DOE of its recent purchase of the property adjacent to the existing West Hackberry site, formerly owned by Dominion Natural Gas Storage, Inc., which DOE discussed in the final EIS. Sempra stated that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio, and is expected to be in service in April 2009. Sempra also stated its understanding that DOE would weigh the cost of land acquisition during its decisionmaking. DOE has not selected West Hackberry for expansion for the reasons stated below. A comment submitted by the owner of land that overlays a salt dome in Claiborne County inquired whether DOE will select other storage sites, in addition to the Richton site. DOE will only construct one new storage site in its planned expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. The National Park Service's Natchez Trace Parkway stated its support for the selection of Richton as the preferred alternative because it would have no environmental effect on the Parkway. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service field office in Temple, TX, acknowledged and approved of the characterization of important farmlands for the Big Hill and Stratton Ridges sites in the final EIS. Environmentally Preferable Alternative The Chacahoula, Bruinsburg, Richton, and Stratton Ridge alternatives, which include the expansion of existing storage sites, all have the potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources. After considering the impacts to each resource, DOE has identified the Bruinsburg and Stratton Ridge alternatives as the environmentally preferable alternatives. The Chacahoula alternatives would affect hundreds more acres of ecologically important forested wetlands than any other alternative. The wetlands at the proposed Chacahoula site are also relatively contiguous and in a mostly undisturbed area in Louisiana, which adds to the ecological function and value of the wetlands. The Richton alternatives would affect several hundred acres of wetlands through more than 200 miles of pipeline and power line rights-of-way. Most of the wetland impacts associated with the Richton alternatives, however, would either be temporary or be a permanent conversion, meaning that some of the function of the wetlands would be retained. Nonetheless, total acreage of wetlands affected from rights- of-way for the Richton alternatives would be greater than from the Stratton Ridge or Bruinsburg alternatives. USFWS and MS NHP identified two Federally listed species and a Federal candidate species that may be adversely affected by the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River. The Richton alternatives are also the only alternatives that may affect [[Page 7970]] designated critical habitat of a protected species. Floodplain Statement of Findings DOE included a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment as appendix B in the final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations ``Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,'' 10 CFR Part 1022. DOE has concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to construction within floodplains for the individual proposed new SPR sites or expansion sites. Site locations, the location of onsite facilities, and site access roads are dictated by the locations and configuration of the salt domes, which constitute a unique geologic setting. In addition, DOE needs a raw water source that is adequate for solution mining of storage caverns. Similarly, because the salt dome sites are largely located in lowland areas surrounded by wide expanses of floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to the location of the pipelines running to and from these sites within floodplains. The raw water intake structures and associated pipeline rights-of-way also are water dependent because of their function and therefore cannot be located outside of the floodplain associated with the water source. Pipelines, power lines, and roads cannot avoid crossing waterways and the associated floodplains. DOE considered alternatives for minimizing the potential impacts of pipeline and power line rights-of-way in floodplains and wetlands. The primary approach that DOE employed was to select pipeline and power line rights-of-way along existing rights-of- way. The Gulf Coast consists of a large number of gas and oil fields and associated facilities, which offer a network of existing pipeline and power line rights-of-way. This network of utilities enabled DOE to minimize the potential impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Floodplain maps of all the alternatives considered in the EIS are available in appendix B of the final EIS. To comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and DOE's regulations, DOE will follow the U.S. Water Resources Council's (1978) Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Unified National Program for Floodplain Management while planning its mitigation strategy for the selected SPR alternative. Those actions would include the following: the use of minimum grading requirements to save as much of the site from compaction as possible; returning the site and rights-of-way to original contours where feasible; preserving free natural drainage when designing and constructing roads, fills, and large built-up centers; maintaining wetland and floodplain vegetation buffers to reduce sedimentation and discharge of pollutants to nearby water bodies, where feasible; constructing stormwater management facilities (where appropriate) to minimize any alteration in natural drainage and flood storage capacity; directional drilling of larger wetland and stream crossings, where feasible; locating buildings above the base flood elevation or flood proofing; complying with the floodplain ordinance/regulations for the jurisdiction where the selected alternative is located; and performing a hydrological demonstration (using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System or an approved floodplain model) to confirm that proposed fill and structures within the floodplain would not increase the base flood elevation. Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to be watertight. DOE would coordinate with and secure approval from the floodplain coordinator at the appropriate state agency or the local government, if it has adopted the NFIP, during the design stage/site plan process. Decision DOE has decided to: construct a new storage facility at Richton, MS, with a total capacity of 160 MMB of crude oil; expand the storage capacity of two existing SPR sites by a total of 113 MMB by developing 8 new 10-MMB caverns at Big Hill, TX, developing 2 new 11.5-MMB caverns at Bayou Choctaw, LA, and acquiring an existing privately-owned 10-MMB cavern that lies within the Bayou Choctaw site; and fill the SPR to 1 billion barrels, as authorized by Congress. Basis for Decision DOE's decision is based on careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations. The Stratton Ridge alternatives were not selected based on the new storage site's location within the Seaway crude oil distribution complex and the site's potential impacts to existing commercial operations. The SPR currently has two large sites, Bryan Mound and Big Hill, which can adequately serve refiners in the Seaway distribution complex. Additional storage in this area would not enhance the SPR's distribution capabilities or address the SPR's need for increased oil storage in the Capline distribution complex, which serves the refiners on the lower Mississippi River and the Capline Interstate Pipeline system. In addition, Dow Chemical Company, which occupies the majority of the Stratton Ridge salt dome, relies on the salt for its petrochemical operations. Dow submitted comments on the draft EIS stating that the property is critical to its future salt needs and continuing operations of Dow Chemical in Freeport, TX. The primary reason for not selecting the Bruinsburg alternatives is the small size of the salt dome, which only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, as discussed above. Also, due to its location, development of the caverns at Bruinsburg would require disposing of large volumes of brine through underground disposal wells. DOE has extensive experience with underground brine disposal wells for smaller volumes. Injection wells can be difficult and expensive to operate, the geology must be appropriate for wells to be drilled, and the receiving aquifer must be hydrologically suited for injections. Disposing of large volumes of brine through underground injection at Bruinsburg presents significant development risks. The Chacahoula alternatives were not selected based on significant potential environmental impacts to the Louisiana wetlands. The entire site is located in an ecologically important bald cypress forested wetland area. The alternatives were estimated to potentially impact a total of 2,502 acres of wetlands, requiring extensive wetland mitigation. The Richton alternatives present significant benefits relative to the other alternatives by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome is large and undeveloped, which provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. The Richton site is also located approximately 80 miles [[Page 7971]] from the Gulf coast, providing a significant buffer to the potentially damaging effects of hurricanes on surface structures at the storage site. The decision announced by DOE in this ROD differs from the Preferred Alternative identified in the final EIS, which included expanding the storage capacity of 3 existing SPR facilities (West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, LA, and Big Hill, TX) by a total of 115 MMB, and constructing a new 160-MMB SPR facility at Richton, MS. The ROD replaces the planned expansion of West Hackberry (by 15 MMB) with a larger expansion of storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw (by 33 MMB instead of 20 MMB). This decision was based on: (a) The recent acquisition by a private company of the existing caverns at West Hackberry; (b) the need for additional stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address refiner demands; and (c) the need for an additional cavern at Bayou Choctaw to support the site's maximum drawdown operations. In comparing expansion options at Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry, DOE considered several factors. First, as discussed in the final EIS, the three commercial caverns that DOE had proposed to acquire at West Hackberry were purchased by Sempra Pipelines and Storage Corporation in August 2006 as part of its Liberty Gas Storage System and in conjunction with the Cameron Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal (currently under construction). As discussed above, Sempra has submitted comments on the final EIS stating that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio and the West Hackberry storage facility is expected to be in service in April 2009. As a result, DOE may not be able to acquire the West Hackberry caverns at a reasonable cost. Second, DOE needs additional crude stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address the refiners' demands along the Mississippi River. The new 160- MMB facility at Richton, MS, will have the capability to distribute crude via pipeline to the Capline Pipeline System serving refiners in the Midwest, but not to refiners along the lower Mississippi River. The SPR facility at Bayou Choctaw has the capability to distribute oil by pipeline to a number of refiners along the Mississippi River, but is very limited in its current crude storage capabilities. As these refiners are highly dependent on foreign crude supplies, the expected demand during a supply interruption would far exceed the inventories currently available at Bayou Choctaw. This situation is expected to worsen in the future by the announced doubling of crude processing capacity of the Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA. Third, an additional storage cavern at Bayou Choctaw supports the site's maximum drawdown capabilities. Due to the location of one of the existing caverns at the edge of the salt dome, DOE has placed constraints on the cavern's capacity and operations. An additional cavern would be of significant benefit to achieving and maintaining the site's maximum drawdown rate in the event of a drawdown of the Reserve. For these reasons, DOE has concluded that increasing the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw to 33 MMB, in lieu of an expansion at West Hackberry, will provide greater benefits to the SPR in terms of enhanced oil import protection capability. This proposed increase in the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw is also considered superior to the option of increasing the capacity of the Big Hill site by 96 MMB, which would not satisfy the need for additional Capline system stocks and would increase the Big Hill site storage capacity to more than 250 MMB, creating the need for additional oil drawdown and distribution infrastructure. Based on the SA, DOE determined that the additional expansion at Bayou Choctaw is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed. In conclusion, the selection of a new site at Richton with expansion of the existing Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill sites offers DOE significant benefits by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System, refiners along the lower Mississippi River, as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. Mitigation DOE has developed general mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Examples of general mitigation include programmatic agreements for dealing with impacts to cultural resources. Under the terms of programmatic agreements signed by DOE, the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the three states where the Richton site and the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansion sites are located, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and tribes, as appropriate, DOE will identify and resolve adverse effects to historic properties in locations selected for expansion or new development. At those locations, DOE will conduct field reconnaissance and additional documentary research and consultations as appropriate to identify cultural resources including historic properties; that is, archaeological or historical sites, structures, districts, or landscapes that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For identified historic properties, DOE will assess potential project effects and resolve adverse effects in consultation with the SHPOs and the tribes that are concurring parties or signatories to the programmatic agreements. The wetlands permitting process provides other examples of general mitigation measures. DOE will prepare the appropriate application for a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 401 Water Quality Certificate from each relevant state agency. This permit process requires a comprehensive analysis of alternatives to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States, an analysis of measures taken to minimize impacts, and a compensation plan to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands. Avoidance and minimization strategies could include measures such as refinement or modification of facility footprints to avoid wetlands, minimization of slopes in fill areas, use of geotechnical fabric under wetland fills to minimize mudwave potential, and restoration of the disturbed wetlands outside the permanent footprint of the facility. The compensation plan will be developed by DOE and submitted with the permit application. The compensation plan, in addition to avoidance and minimization strategies during and after construction, will include provisions for compensation sites (e.g., conservation easements or similar mechanisms), restoration, and post restoration monitoring to evaluate the success of the mitigation. Additional detail on mitigation measures is included in section 3.7.2.1.3 of the final EIS, and on potential compensation sites in appendix O of the final EIS. Mitigation measures specific to the selected Richton alternative have not been adopted at this time because DOE and the regulatory agencies agreed that the substantial amount of resources needed to develop mitigation measures [[Page 7972]] specific to each alternative during the preparation of the EIS would have been impracticable and inefficient in light of the large number of alternatives located across three states and crossing numerous agency jurisdictional boundaries. Instead, DOE will work with USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and other Federal, state, and local natural resource agencies to develop specific mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to endangered species, EFH, wetlands, and other resources, as described in the final EIS. The mitigation plan for the alternative selected in this ROD will be developed during the permitting process, after wetland delineations and jurisdictional determinations and a functional assessment of affected wetlands is completed. DOE will also complete a formal consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries and prepare a Biological Assessment as mandated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for any endangered species that may be affected by the selected alternative. Through these activities, DOE will develop and adopt a detailed mitigation plan to take all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, as required by 40 CFR 1505.2(c). Dated: February 14, 2007. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy. [FR Doc. E7-3022 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 80 Tracy Press: Get hard facts on bio-lab right February 23, 2007 Tracy, CA Clif Schofield Thursday, 22 February 2007 His Voice, a column by Clif Schofield. I found Tuesday's Tracy Press Their Voice quite amusing. Writers Dr. Judith Flanagan and Loulena Miles state in their commentary, "We would like to add hard facts to the discussion" regarding the proposed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Site 300 bio-lab. Here are some of the hard facts that they produced: "It was apparently only a small amount of weaponized anthrax that escaped from Severdlovsk, Russia, in 1979 and killed up to 100 people and many animals." When did apparently become a hard fact? Killed up to 100? Did it kill 100 or did it kill two, or did something else do the killing? In 1979 Russia, it would be hard to know these facts. Regarding detectors at the LLNL, "we cannot say whether such a detector exists in theory or actual form, but we can say that no existing technology can be 100 percent effective against accidental release." What part of that is a hard fact? They state that people might be infected by escaped "clouds of bio-agents," but they never point out one incident of proven escape from any Level 4 bio-lab in the U.S. because there haven't been any. They state that large animals that are infected with bio-agents "will produce and host extremely large quantities of very dangerous viruses and bacteria." My understanding is that these dangerous viruses and bacteria will be studied in Petri dishes, not animals. They continue to discuss Ebola escaping and killing people, but how many Americans have been killed by Ebola? None! Not one case reported in the U.S. They state, "Even in the confines of high-level U.S. bio-safety laboratories there have been documented episodes of equipment malfunction." But they fail to show hard facts of that occurrence. They follow with this statement: "Finally, the culture of high-level alert under which this work would be carried out at Site 300 is hardly conducive to frank admission on the part of a worker if accidental release of a biological agent is discovered." These seem more like guesses than hard facts. Anyone interested in knowing what is studied at bio-labs, Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 can go to http://bmbl.od.nih.gov/sect3bsl3.htm. There is even a procedure for dealing with insects and rodents that might infiltrate such labs. Clif Schofield, a 15-year Tracy resident, is a retired custom-home builder and a 2006 Tracy City Council candidate. written by D Hardesty , February 23, 2007 Clif Very well written. You dealt with the issues and did it with sensibility and civility. Thank you. PS there seems to be a glitch in the sytem as I have had to change my name because my other full name returns a message that it is registered by someone else. Strange since no one else should be using my name or even want to use my name. Hopefully the error will be corrected and I can go back to my full name Dave Hardesty. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************