*****************************************************************
03/07/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.55
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial 
2 Attack Could Speed Up Iranian Nuclear Weapons
3 Guardian Unlimited: Sunnis will not be persuaded that Iran is their 
4 UPI: Russia: Iran still owes for nuclear plant
5 AFP: EU offers olive branch to Iran on nuclear issue 
6 AFP: US calls for immediate notification of sensitive Iranian nuclea
7 AFP: UN draft on new Iran sanctions not likely this week - diplomats
8 UPI: Outside View: Averting a U.S.-Iran clash
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., NKorea Optimistic After Talks 
10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea: Talks With Japan Canceled
11 Digital Chosunilbo: Negroponte Stops in Seoul to Talk Peace
12 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korean Vice FM Ends 'Very Good' Talks in New Y
13 Reuters: Seoul says North Korea asks for aid resumption 
14 Korea Times: Negroponte Pushes for N. Korea to Come Clean on HEU
15 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Urges NKorea to Scrap Nuclear Arms 
16 Guardian Unlimited: General: U.S. Still Wary of North Korea 
17 UPI: U.S. envoy offers BMD coop to Russia
18 [NYTr] EU rifts deepen over US missile shield plan
19 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers: Blair's Nuke Plan Has Risks
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
20 Sydney Morning Herald: PM's science chief flags nuclear boom - 
21 US: SanLuisObispo.com: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Diablo operate
22 Times of India: Indo-US N-deal independent of ties with Russia
23 Daily Yomiuri: Surgeon helping out Chernobyl victims 
24 Earth Times: Another leak reported at controversial Temelin nuclear 
25 US: NRC: NRC Issues Annual Assessments for Nation's Nuclear Plants
26 BBC NEWS: Northern Ireland | NI's nuclear quandary
27 BBC NEWS: Merkel urges EU lead on climate
28 BBC NEWS: Nuclear firm seeks new partners
29 US: Morning News: University Wants Reactor Dismantled
30 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Browns Ferry Unit 1
31 US: Daily Press: Nuclear power in Virginia
32 US: Daily Press: Law rewrite might bring new nuclear plant
33 US: The Advocate: Regulators says Millstone has addressed safety con
34 UPI: Czech nuke plant leaks again
35 US: UPI: NRC OKs Browns Ferry Unit 1 uprate
36 UPI: Walker's World: India's nuke deal falters
37 US: MHNN: NRC annual performance review gives IP good grades
38 Deutsche Welle: Germany Piques Interest With Shared Nuclear Fuel Pla
39 US: New London Day: Millstone Earns Positive Safety Review From NRC
40 AU ABC: Australians will accept nuclear power: Switkowski. 
41 AU ABC: Rann denies cabinet stint helped company plan power plant.
42 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Cheswick plant expecting order for re
43 US: BlueOregon: The Nuclear Question
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
44 US: ESN: Federal lawmakers reintroduce legislation to compensate nuc
45 US: APP.COM: NRC: Plant's safety risk is human error | 
46 US: FR: NRC: FONSI for Fort McClellan AL license termination
47 Forbes.com: Nuclear Hot Spots: Unsafe Anywhere? - 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
48 US: The State: Barnwell site draws support
49 US: AP Wire: Supporters outnumber opposition for nuclear recycling p
50 MWB: Bush administration wants to expand nuclear waste site
51 Las Vegas SUN: DOE official praises Mina route for Yucca rail line
52 AU ABC: Labor scaremongering over NT nuclear waste site, Bishop says
53 US: AU ABC: Entrepeneur faces six-figure bill over uranium claim
54 US: Savannah Now: Nuke site called a gift as well as ‘nation's toil
55 DOE: DOE to Send Proposed Yucca Mountain Legislation to Congress
56 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Another push for Yucca
57 Platts: Waste storage plan not legal without US NRC Yucca nod - Bodm
58 World Nuclear News: New impetus from Yucca legislation
59 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon GNEP meeting set for Thursday
60 US: Times and Democrat: Wanting nuclear waste
61 FR: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of USEC, I
62 US: KnoxNews: It's still early in the game, but the game may be over
63 UPI: Nev. senators introduce No Yucca bill
64 Albuquerque Tribune: Nuclear time = money 
65 Reid: REID, ENSIGN INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO FIGHT PROPOSED YUCCA
 
                           PEACE
 
66 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Movement Wants Nuclear Disarmament
67 US: Congress Daily: Democrats to examine military base contamination
68 US: Salt Lake Tribune: New nukes: Congress should not allow testing 
69 US: Salt Lake Tribune: White House reaffirms pledge of no nuke tests
70 Xinhua: EU welcomes DPRK's decision to freeze nuclear program
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
71 TriValeyCares: Action Halts Huge Bomb Blasts at Livermore Lab Site
72 DOE: DOE Releases Information on Loan Guarantee Pre-Applications
73 SF New Mexican: LANL Environmental cleanup director to trade duties 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 5:01 AM

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Once the closest adviser to Vice President Dick 
Cheney, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby was convicted Tuesday of lying 
and obstructing a leak investigation that shook the top levels of 
the Bush administration.

 Four guilty verdicts ended a seven-week CIA leak trial that 
focused new attention on the Bush administration's 
much-criticized handling of intelligence reports about weapons of 
mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war.

  In the end, jurors said they did not believe Libby's main 
defense: that he hadn't lied but merely had a bad memory.

 Their decisions made Libby the highest-ranking White House 
official convicted in a government scandal since National 
Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two 
decades ago.

     The case cost Cheney his most trusted adviser, and the trial 
revealed Cheney's personal obsession with criticism of the war's 
justification.

 Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly 
declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that 
Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New 
York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph 
Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the 
government aware of the effort.

 More top reporters were ordered into court - including Miller 
after 85 days of resistance in jail - to testify about their 
confidential sources among the nation's highest-ranking officials 
than in any other trial in recent memory.

  Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the verdict closed 
the nearly four-year investigation into how the name of Wilson's 
wife, Valerie Plame, and her classified job at the CIA were 
leaked to reporters in 2003 - just days after Wilson publicly 
accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence. No 
one will be charged with the leak itself, which the trial 
confirmed came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard 
Armitage.

  ``The results are actually sad,'' Fitzgerald told reporters 
after the verdict. ``It's sad that we had a situation where a 
high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice 
president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it 
had not happened, but it did.''

  One juror, former Washington Post reporter Denis Collins, said 
the jury did not believe Libby's main defense: that he never lied 
but just had a faulty memory. Juror Jeff Comer agreed.

   Collins said the jurors spent a week charting the testimony 
and evidence on 34 poster-size pages. ``There were good 
managerial type people on this jury who took everything apart and 
put it in the right place,'' Collins said. ``After that, it 
wasn't a matter of opinion. It was just there.''

   Libby, not only Cheney's chief of staff but also an assistant 
to Bush, was expressionless as the verdict was announced on the 
10th day of deliberations. In the front row, his wife, Harriet 
Grant, choked out a sob and her head sank.

 Libby could face up to 25 years in prison when sentenced June 5, 
but federal sentencing guidelines will probably prescribe far 
less, perhaps one to three years. Defense attorneys said they 
would ask for a retrial and if that fails, appeal the conviction.

       ``We have every confidence Mr. Libby ultimately will be 
vindicated,'' defense attorney Theodore Wells told reporters. He 
said that Libby was ``totally innocent and that he did not do 
anything wrong.''

                  Libby did not speak to reporters.

 The president watched news of the verdict on television at the 
White House. Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush 
respected the jury's verdict but ``was saddened for Scooter Libby 
and his family.''

 In a written statement, Cheney called the verdict disappointing 
and said he was saddened for Libby and his family, too. ``As I 
have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and 
with great distinction through many years of public service.''

     Wilson, whose wife left the CIA after she was exposed, said, 
``Convicting him of perjury was like convicting Al Capone of tax 
evasion or Alger Hiss of perjury. It doesn't mean they were not 
guilty of other crimes.''

   Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, 
two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to 
the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.

   Libby learned about Plame from Cheney in June 2003 about a 
month after Wilson's allegations were first published, without 
his name, by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

    Prosecutors said Libby relayed the Plame information to other 
government officials and told reporters, Miller of the Times and 
Matt Cooper of Time magazine, that she worked at the CIA.

 On July 6, 2003, Wilson publicly wrote that he had gone to Niger 
in 2002 and debunked a report that Iraq was seeking uranium there 
for nuclear weapons and that Cheney, who had asked about the 
report, should have known his findings long before Bush cited the 
report in 2003 as a justification for the war. On July 14, 
columnist Robert Novak reported that Wilson's wife worked at the 
CIA and she, not Cheney, had suggested he go on the trip.

   When an investigation of the leak began, prosecutors said, 
Libby feared prosecution for disclosing classified information so 
he lied to investigators to make his discussions appear innocent.

 Libby swore that he was so busy he forgot Cheney had told him 
about Plame, and was surprised to learn it a month later from NBC 
reporter Tim Russert. He swore he told reporters only that he 
learned it from other reporters and could not confirm it.

 Russert, however, testified he and Libby never even discussed 
Plame.

Libby blamed any misstatements in his account on flaws in his 
memory.

     He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his 
conversation with Cooper.

   Collins said jurors agreed that on nine occasions during a 
short period of 2003, Libby was either told about Plame or told 
others about her.

   ``If I'm told something once, I'm likely to forget it,'' 
Collins recalled one juror saying. ``If I'm told it many times, 
I'm less likely to forget it. If I myself tell it to someone 
else, I'm even less likely to forget it.''

    Libby is free pending sentencing. His lawyers will ask that 
he remain so through any appeal.

 The prospects of a presidential pardon remain unclear. Top 
Democrats called on Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby; the White 
House did not say what the president would do.

                                 ---

    Associated Press writer Natasha T. Metzler contributed to 
this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 2 Attack Could Speed Up Iranian Nuclear Weapons
 
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:48:21 -0600 (CST)


Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________

	Wednesday, March 7, 2007

	Report: Attack Could Speed Up Iranian Nuclear Weapons

A just-released report from the Oxford Research Group in the U.K. 
indicates that an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could actually 
accelerate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The report has gotten substantial notice in much of the world, but 
minimal coverage in the U.S. 
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-06.htm

FRANK BARNABY, frank.barnaby@btinternet.com, 
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/wouldairstrikeswork.htm
    Barnaby is nuclear issues consultant to Oxford Research Group and 
author of the new report "Would Air Strikes Work? Understanding Iran's 
Nuclear Program and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike." The 
report has a foreword by Hans Blix, the chairman of the Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Commission. Among the report's findings:

* "Limited intelligence about Iran's nuclear program means that many 
hundreds of strikes would still not destroy all nuclear related 
facilities and materials."

* "Iran could then move from a gradual and relatively open nuclear 
program, to a clandestine crash nuclear weapons program using secret 
facilities, salvaged materials, and possibly procuring supplies from the 
black market, outside of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty controls."

* "Under crash nuclear weapons program conditions, Iran could build a 
nuclear weapon within two years if the decision was made, which is less 
time than the evidence suggests Iran could manage with the current program."

JOHN SLOBODA, john.sloboda@oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk, 
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
    Executive director of the Oxford Research Group, Sloboda said today: 
"We are also analyzing the likely civilian casualties from an attack, 
the political hardening of the Iranian regime, stalling the transport of 
oil and the likely environmental fallout."

CARAH ONG, cong@armscontrolcenter.org, http://www.armscontrolcenter.org
    Ong is Iran Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and 
Nonproliferation. She gives a summary and analysis of the report on her 
blog: http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com

For background, see the Institute for Public Accuracy news release 
"Myth: Israel's Strike on Iraqi Reactor Hindered Iraqi Nukes." 
http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1242

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org

For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
     http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Sunnis will not be persuaded that Iran is their real enemy

Comment is free | 

Washington's attempt to pave the way for another invasion by
fomenting anti-Shia sectarianism in the Middle East will fail

Azzam Tamimi
Wednesday March 7, 2007

Despite the horrific failure of its adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Lebanon, the US is now said to be preparing to attack Iran.
Meanwhile, all disputes in the Middle East have suddenly turned into
sectarian conflicts and Iran is portrayed as the main culprit.
Nothing now seems comprehensible to the western media and political
establishments unless seen through the prism of Iranian ambitions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and even more distant
conflicts such as Somalia and Darfur. Opponents of Iran and of
whomever Iran is thought to support in the region no longer want us
to see US interventions as the main issue - let alone the primary
cause of the mayhem enveloping the entire Middle East.

The claim that sectarianism is driving conflict across the Muslim
world could not have gained currency had it not been for the manner
in which Saddam Hussein was executed. Only a few weeks earlier a
poll in Egypt, whose Muslim population is almost exclusively Sunni,
ranked Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
Hamas's Khalid Mish'al as the three most popular figures (two of the
three are Shia). The staged lynching of the former Iraqi leader,
whom the Americans and their allies have long portrayed as a Sunni
dictator, drastically changed perceptions. Millions of Sunnis around
the world saw the hanging as a contemptuous Shia act, as an insult
by an ungrateful minority whose existence today is testimony to the
majority's tolerance.

Since then some Fatah zealots in Palestine have labelled the Sunni
Hamas as "Shia" because the movement was promised financial aid by
Iran. Some Sunni elements in the ruling coalition in Lebanon have
justified their opposition to Hizbullah - despite its role in the
country's victory against Israel - as necessary to stop the
expansion of Shi'ism in Lebanon. Rumours about the conversion of
Sunnis to Shi'ism in Syria spread like wildfire, though without
proof. Some Sunnis have also condemned Iran for allegedly carrying
out Shia missionary activities in north Africa and Sudan.

Of all the hot spots in the region, Iraq is the only place where
sectarian tension has tipped over into bloody conflict. But that
only happened in the aftermath of the invasion. The US and Britain,
having failed to come up with any evidence to justify their
aggression, claimed that their aim was to rescue the Shia majority
from Saddam's Sunni regime. In fact, there is no census evidence
showing the Shia as a majority nor was there any credibility to the
claim that Saddam's regime was Sunni. It was secular and
nationalist, and the ruling Ba'ath party was believed to have more
Shias in its ranks than Sunnis. Thirty-two of the 52 names on the US
most-wanted list were Shias, and Saddam punished whoever rose
against his regime, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.

Despite the US-Shia alliance that brought his rule to an end,
sectarianism did not become serious until the US-led occupation
replaced Saddam's regime with one based on quotas, a process
destined to divide Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines. Then came
the destruction of one of the most venerated Shia shrines in the
overwhelmingly Sunni city of Samarra in February last year. The
bombing provided the pretext for the Mahdi army and Iranian-backed
interior and defence ministries militias of the Iraqi regime to go
on the rampage, driving Sunnis from their homes in Baghdad and
slaughtering them. Since then no less than a hundred Iraqis have
lost their lives each day in unprecedented sectarian strife.

Now the Americans and their Arab allies in the region seem convinced
that their Iranian adversary is the real winner from the occupation
of Iraq. The threat to US interests has been compounded by the
refusal of the Iranians to abandon their nuclear programme. The
US-Shia alliance in Iraq has backfired on America. Now, as the
fourth anniversary of the invasion approaches, a US-Sunni alliance
seems to be in the making to pave the way for an attack against
Iran. It is widely believed in the region that the meeting in Jordan
on 20 February between Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state,
and the intelligence chiefs of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the
United Arab Emirates was aimed at preparing the ground. The idea
appears to be for the Sunni world, which until recently would have
been opposed to any attack on Iran, to see the merits of a US
strike. The role of Washington's friends in the region would be to
portray Iran as the real threat to both Arabs and Sunnis. The best
climate for achieving such an objective is sectarianism not only
inside Iraq but across the region.

But the new US-Sunni alliance is likely to backfire, as the US-Shia
alliance did. If one of the latter's repercussions was a Sunni
backlash, wait and see what an Iranian-backed Shia explosion of
anger will do to our world. And the anger will not be confined to
Shias. The US-Sunni alliance is in fact a coalition with the corrupt
regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan - which falsely claim to
represent Sunni Islam and are loathed by their populations - along
with their backers in the west. If Iran is attacked, it is highly
unlikely that the Sunnis will be indifferent; just as they stood by
Hizbullah last summer, they will stand by Iran. The attempt to
create a US-Sunni alliance has already failed to convince most
Sunnis that Iran - rather than the US - is the real enemy.

· Dr Azzam Tamimi is the director of the London-based Institute of
Islamic Political Thought and the author of Hamas: Unwritten Chapters

info@ii-pt.com

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG.
*****************************************************************
 4 UPI: Russia: Iran still owes for nuclear plant

United Press International - Energy - 

3/7/2007 3:28:00 PM -0500

MOSCOW, March 7 (UPI) -- Officials of the Russian firm building a
nuclear plant in Iran say Tehran hasn't settled a payment dispute
stalling the project.

Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday the payment issues had been
resolved.

"According to the authorized bank, no funds had been received by the
morning of March 7," said Yevgeniya Neimerovets, chief financial
officer of Atomstroyexport, Russia's state-run nuclear export arm.

"The Iranian side made its last payment Jan. 17," she said, adding
work continues but is slowed by the missing payment.

Meanwhile representatives of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency are in
Moscow for talks with Atomstroyexport President Sergei Shmatko, RIA
Novosti reports.

"The main issue on today's agenda is the critical situation over
nonpayment by the Iranian side and its influence on the
commissioning schedule to make quick joint decisions," an
Atomstroyexport spokesman said.

Construction was to be finished this year, fuel delivered and the
plant become operational.

"We hope that Russia will resolve all remaining technical issues
under its contract obligations, especially those related to cooling
systems," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "The
plant will be ready for operation as soon as the nuclear fuel is
delivered."

The $1 billion contract for the plant in Bushehr, Iran, was signed
in 1995 for Russia to build Iran's first nuclear plant, but is being
constructed now under the shadow of controversy over Iran's overall
nuclear program. A U.S.-led coalition says Iran's goal includes
building a nuclear bomb and the enrichment facility used for fuel
for the plant is also for weapons means.

Iran denies the accusation and says it has the sovereign right to a
nuclear energy program, which Russia has publicly supported. But
Moscow has warned Tehran to comply more with international
inspectors looking into the nuclear controversy.


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: EU offers olive branch to Iran on nuclear issue 

by Michael Adler Wed Mar 7, 3:41 PM ET

VIENNA (AFP) - The European Union urged Iran on Wednesday to take 
up an offer to suspend its nuclear enrichment in return for 
suspending sanctions on Tehran.

"We therefore urge Iran to take up the offer of double suspension,
as endorsed recently by the director general," French ambassador
Francois-Xavier Deniau said, speaking for the three EU powers
mediating in the nuclear standoff.

He was referring to an offer from International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who made the offer of simultaneity
in January to make it easier for Iran to swallow a December 23 UN
Security Council resolution that imposed sanctions in order to get
Iran to unilaterally suspend enrichment. But Iranian ambassador to
the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh said Iran has not found "any reason"
to suspend enrichment, which it claims as a right under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Uranium enrichment makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also
what could be atom bomb material.

Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium but says it is ready to
talk without preconditions, thus rejecting both the UN resolution
and any compromise.

Soltanieh said the West was deceiving the international community by
saying the matter must be handled by the Security Council.

He said Iran has mastered enrichment.

"I know that Americans do not want the world to know this reality.
They have to swallow this reality."

As the EU offered an olive branch, the United States made a hardline
call on the IAEA to give immediate notification if Iran moves ahead
on enriching uranium at a huge underground site where it could do
weapons-related work.

US ambassador Gregory Schulte told the IAEA's 35-nation board of
governors meeting in Vienna since Monday that ElBaradei should
inform the board "immediately . . . should Iran introduce nuclear
material into any centrifuges in its underground plant" in Natanz.

Iran has refused to allow cameras into the hall where centrifuges
are being installed to enrich uranium, a major expansion on a
smaller research site already refining uranium above-ground.

Iran wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, which could make enough
highly enriched uranium for a bomb in less than a year, in Natanz by
May, and then eventually expand this to over 50,000 centrifuges.

Iran has more than 300 centrifuges already turning underground,
where they are protected from air attacks, but has not yet inserted
the uranium gas feedstock needed to enrich. It has installed a
similar number which are not yet turning their rotors.

Schulte and IAEA officials have said that camera monitoring is
mandated under the NPT once the number of operating centrifuges
exceeds 500.

But Soltanieh said this was not true.

Iran has failed to heed the call by the UN Security Council, based
on findings by the IAEA, to halt its uranium enrichment work.

"Iran is instead expanding activities that the Council has required
Iran to suspend and is failing to provide the IAEA with the
cooperation required by the Council," Schulte said.

The IAEA is the monitoring arm of the NPT.

The UN atomic agency was set Thursday to ratify drastic cuts in
technical aid to Iran, as debate on this failed to conclude
Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, Western states as well as Japan and non-aligned
countries welcomed an upcoming trip by ElBaradei to North Korea and
urged Pyongyang to swiftly dismantle its own nuclear weapons
programme, according to an international agreement reached February
13.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US calls for immediate notification of sensitive Iranian nuclear work 

Wed Mar 7, 12:09 PM ET

VIENNA (AFP) - The United States called Wednesday on the UN 
atomic agency to give immediate notification if Iran moves ahead 
on enriching uranium at a huge underground site where it could do 
weapons-related work.

US ambassador Gregory Schulte said International Atomic Energy
Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei should inform the IAEA's 35-nation
board of governors "immediately . . . should Iran introduce nuclear
material into any centrifuges in its underground plant" in Natanz.

Iran has refused to allow cameras into the hall where centrifuges
are being installed to enrich uranium, a process which can make fuel
for civilian nuclear reactors or material for atom bombs.

Iran wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, which could make enough
highly enriched uranium for a bomb in less than a year.

Iran has more than 300 centrifuges already turning, but lacks the
uranium gas feedstock needed to enrich, and has installed a similar
number.

Schulte and IAEA officials have said that camera monitoring is
mandated under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) once the
number of operating centrifuges exceeds 500.

"My government requests the Director General inform the board
immediately should Iran install 500 centrifuges," Schulte said.

Iran has failed to heed a call by the UN Security Council call,
based on findings by the IAEA, to halt its uranium enrichment work.

"Iran is instead expanding activities that the Council has required
Iran to suspend and is failing to provide the IAEA with the
cooperation required by the Council," Schulte told a meeting of the
IAEA's board of governors.

He cited an IAEA report that Iran has not halted construction at
Arak of a heavy water reactor which can make plutonium, also an atom
bomb material.

Schulte also said the United States was "troubled" about Iran's
rejections of inspectors proposed by the IAEA.

Iran has asked the IAEA to "remove 38 currently designated
inspecotors" and refused to accept "the designation of 10 new
inspectors," Schulte said.

The United States calls on the IAEA secretariat "to report to the
IAEA board immediately if issues concerning inspector designation
are impeding the implementation of safeguards in Iran."

The IAEA is the monitoring arm of the NPT.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: UN draft on new Iran sanctions not likely this week - diplomats -

by Gerard Aziakou Wed Mar 7, 3:19 AM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Major powers mulling new sanctions on Iran 
over its nuclear defiance are unlikely to agree on a UN Security 
council draft resolution this week, diplomats said late Tuesday.

Ambassadors from the council's five permanent members -- Britain,
China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany had
hoped to present a text to the full 15-member council this week.

But after conferring informally for the second day in a row Tuesday,
the six envoys felt that more time was needed to consult their
respective capitals and bridge lingering differences over the
proposed measures, said the diplomats, who spoke on condition of
anonymity.

"I don't think we'll have a draft this week," one diplomat said.

Also Tuesday, Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, acting on
behalf of six powers trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, briefed the 10 non-permanent members of the Council on
"elements" of a resolution that would build on UN sanctions adopted
last December.

The proposed resolution would include a travel ban, an arms embargo,
financial and trade restrictions and expanding a list of people or
entities involved in nuclear and ballistic missile work subjected to
an assets freeze, said South Africa's UN Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo,
who chairs the Security Council for March, after the briefing.

Jones Parry described them as "an incremental ratcheting up" of the
December sanctions, adding that the door was still open for Iran to
return to the negotiating table by complying with demands that it
freeze uranium enrichment.

The sanctions adopted by the council in December included a ban on
the sale of nuclear and ballistic missile-related materials to the
Islamic republic and a freeze on financial assets of Iranians
involved in illicit atomic and ballistic missile research.

The punitive measures were imposed after Tehran spurned UN demands
that it suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to develop a
nuclear bomb.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya stressed that the six had not yet
begun drafting a text. "We are comparing notes...and we will
continue the discussions."

Both he and his French counterpart Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the
six would not hold consultations on the issue here Wednesday.

On Monday, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said "there was a very
good chance" that a draft would be approved by the full council
before the end of the month.

But differences among the six powers remained.

German Ambassador Thomas Matussek Monday said the proposed ban on
arms exports to Iran faced stiff opposition from Russia and China,
which maintains close economic and energy ties with Tehran.

And he indicated that his own government was reluctant to agree to
restrictions on export credits.

"We do not want to hurt our small and medium-sized enterprises ...So
we have to calibrate in a way that we get the message across. On the
other hand we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot," he told
AFP.

Meanwhile some diplomats said they were intrigued by reports that
Iran appeared to have at least temporarily paused on the development
of its uranium enrichment program.

Still Iran publicly remains defiant, denying it is seeking a nuclear
weapons capability, and insisting it has a right under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct uranium enrichment for
electricity generation.

In Tehran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at domestic
critics of Iran's nuclear programme, declaring that the country
stands at "the crossroads of destiny", local media reported
Wednesday.

His comments were echoed by the head of Iran's atomic energy
organisation, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, who said that "evil wishers"
would not be able to thwart the controversial Iranian nuclear drive.

"Some people who call themselves analysts and politicians, instead
of standing against those enemies who want to trample on Iran's
rights, ask people 'why are you standing against the enemy and do
not yield?" said Ahmadinejad.

"Today our mission is a very heavy one. You know that at this time
we are at the crossroads of destiny and you should all work hard to
do your mission," he said late on Tuesday, according to the ISNA
news agency.

Ahmadinejad's comments were an apparent response to voices that have
been raised in sections of the press and parliament questioning
whether Iran's nuclear programme was worth the possible consequences.

Yet in an interview published Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said his government was prepared to hold
negotiations or even reopen diplomatic ties with the United States
as long as Washington set no preconditions.

Diplomats from the United States and Iran are expected to attend a
conference on Iraq's security in Baghdad on March 10, but Tehran has
said there will be no bilateral contacts at the event.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 UPI: Outside View: Averting a U.S.-Iran clash

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

3/7/2007 12:43:00 PM -0500

By PYOTR GONCHAROV UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, March 7 (UPI) -- Iran is unwilling to obey the demands of
the world community to slow down uranium enrichment. Under Article
41 of the United Nations Charter's Chapter VII, it can resort to
additional measures to influence Iran without the use of force.
While the Iranian Six have been deliberating a new draft resolution,
emotions are running high around Iran itself.

By tradition, on the eve of the U.N. Security Council's regular
March session on Iran's nuclear program, Iran and the United States
exchanged "preemptive" strikes to show mutual resolve to achieve
their goals militarily, if need be.

Iran staged large-scale exercises of its elite Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps, successfully tested its new missiles, and declared
that it would continue its nuclear program despite the world
community's demand of a moratorium on uranium enrichment and to
defend it at all costs, including war with the United States.

In turn, Washington launched a massive media onslaught on Iran. The
New Yorker published the Pentagon's plan for air strikes at
Iran-based facilities, the British Daily Telegraph reported on
Israel's talks with the United States on Israeli aircraft flights
over Iraqi territory, and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said that
no options have been taken off the table. This gives one a feeling
of deja-vu -- February 2006 was much the same.

Until now, U.S.-Iranian military confrontation was largely perceived
as a bluff. Now that the United States is deploying powerful attack
groups of "political pressure" -- to use its own explanation -- both
sides seem to be threatening each other for real. Any military
mechanism, created for "political pressure," is effective as long as
it yields results. Otherwise, it is reduced to an instrument of
trivial blackmail, and is militarily devalued. What will the United
States do if Iran does not yield to its "political pressure"?

Fighting will be the only option since U.S. prestige is at stake.

Under the circumstances, the United States is not likely to avoid
war with Iran. Their regional policies as regards each other and
Tehran's attitude to Israel are making this war practically
inevitable. In order to avoid it without dramatic changes, one of
the sides will have to make huge concessions. The United States will
have to give up its interests in the region, whereas Iran will have
to curtail its nuclear program and forget about its regional
ambitions.

Both sacrifices are unlikely, but a compromise is possible. Iran
will have to place its nuclear program under tough International
Atomic Energy Agency control; make major adjustments to its policy
in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine; and give up its anti-Israeli
rhetoric. The United States will have to accept Iran's key role in
the region with all the ensuing privileges. Neither side seems to be
ready for this.

Meanwhile, in Tehran different political forces have lashed out
against the country's nuclear program and Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's policy. Addressing the president, the leader of the
reformist Islamic Iran Solidarity Party wrote in the prestigious
daily Etemad-i Melli that "the brakes are designed to make sure the
train arrives at its destination safely, and in time."

These words seem all but a goodwill gesture. In his virtual polemics
with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ahmadinejad said that
like a train, the Iranian nuclear program did not have a reverse
gear. She replied that it needed "a stop button" rather than a
reverse gear.

Maybe, slowing down will help the sides find a compromise?

(Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator with the RIA Novosti 
news agency. The opinions expressed in this article do not 
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. This article is 
reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are 
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of 
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect 
those of United Press International. In the interests of creating 
an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., NKorea Optimistic After Talks 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 5:46 AM

By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The United States and North Korea wrapped up 
historic talks on establishing diplomatic ties on an optimistic 
note Tuesday but the U.S. wants Pyongyang to ``come clean'' about 
any uranium enrichment program and eliminate all nuclear weapons 
before normalizing relations.

    ``These were very good, very businesslike, very comprehensive 
discussions,'' U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill 
told reporters at the end of two days of meetings that lasted 
more than eight hours. ``For now, I think we feel we're on the 
right track.''

  His North Korean counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye 
Gwan, was also upbeat, telling reporters ``the atmosphere was 
very good, constructive and serious.''

  Under a Feb. 13 agreement reached at six-nation talks in 
Beijing, North Korea must shut down its main nuclear reactor and 
allow U.N. inspectors back into the country within 60 days. In 
return, the North would receive aid equal to 50,000 tons of heavy 
fuel oil from the other countries in the talks - the United 
States, South Korea, Russia, China and Japan.

 Hill said ``there was a sense of optimism on both sides that we 
will get through this 60-day period and we will achieve all of 
our objectives.''

    The Feb. 13 timetable is the first step toward implementing a 
September 2005 agreement in which North Korea agreed to abandon 
its nuclear programs in exchange for energy aid and security 
guarantees.

  Hill said he was encouraged by Kim's willingness to look ahead 
to the next stage, which calls for the country's 
plutonium-producing reactor to be disabled and then dismantled - 
and for North Korea to make a full disclosure of its entire 
nuclear program.

   Experts estimate North Korea's reactor at Yongbyon, north of 
the capital, has produced about 110 pounds of plutonium, that 
``we have reason to believe has been weaponized,'' Hill said.

 U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said Washington 
also has ``no doubt'' that North Korea has a uranium enrichment 
program, an allegation that brought on the nuclear crisis with 
the North in 2002. Pyongyang has never publicly acknowledged 
having such a program.

    Hill said North Korea spent a lot of money buying 
centrifuges, manuals, aluminum tubes and other equipment for what 
appears to be a Pakistani-designed program to enrich uranium, and 
``they need to come clean on it'' and ultimately abandon it.

   He told a news conference he ``made the point forcefully 
today'' that North Korea cannot denuclearize if highly enriched 
uranium - which can be used to produce nuclear weapons - ``is 
still out there.''

 Hill said he and Kim agreed to resolve the matter before North 
Korea makes its final nuclear declaration and decided that U.S. 
and North Korean experts will meet in order ``to get to the 
bottom of this matter.''

    The primary focus of the first meeting of the U.S.-North 
Korea Working Group, one of five established under the Feb. 13 
agreement, was steps toward establishing diplomatic relations.

       Hill said Washington looks forward not only to eventual 
normalization of relations but to creating peace on the Korean 
peninsula and ensuring security in northeast Asia.

   The United States has never had diplomatic relations with 
North Korea, which was created after World War II when Korea was 
split into a communist-dominated North and a U.S.-backed 
capitalist South.

 In Tuesday's talks, Hill said one issue that was discussed was 
North Korea's desire to get off the U.S. list of state sponsors 
of terrorism. Another issue was North Korea's desire to get off 
the list of countries subject to the U.S. Trading with the Enemy 
Act, which would open the way for a normal trading relationship 
with the U.S. for the first time.

   Speaking of North Korea, Hill said, ``I think they would like 
to move to diplomatic relations, but I must say this is very much 
linked to denuclearization.''

  Hill wouldn't predict when the last piece of nuclear material 
will be taken out of North Korea, but said: ``We believe that the 
faster we go the steadier we'll be.''

   ``Let us do this step-by-step - get through 60 days and take 
the next thing, which I think is measured in months, and not 
years, and then go on from there,'' he said.

 Hill said the six parties will meet March 19 in Beijing to make 
sure that all the required 30-day actions were met, including 
initial meetings of working groups on five issues.

  Japan's chief envoy said Wednesday at the start of two-day 
working group talks with North Korea that normalizing ties 
between the two countries will not be possible until the North 
resolves the issue of its abductions of Japanese citizens - an 
emotional dispute that has divided the two nations.

 ``We'll convey that message to the other side and urge them to 
fully face the problem and take positive steps,'' Japan's chief 
envoy Koichi Haraguchi said in Hanoi as he headed for the opening 
session with his North Korean counterpart, Song Il Ho.

 North Korea wants Japan to atone for the 1910-45 colonization of 
the Korean Peninsula and wartime atrocities, including sex 
slavery of tens of thousands of Korean women.

    Hill said he had a long discussion with Kim about the 
Japanese abductions and made ``a strong pitch'' that it was 
``very important'' for North Korea ``to reach out and develop 
relations with Japan.''

``I was pleased to see there was a positive understanding,'' he 
said.

 South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday that a senior 
aide to South Korea's president will visit North Korea this week 
and speculated his goal was to set up a summit with North Korean 
leader Kim Jong Il. But officials in Seoul denied a summit was in 
the works.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea: Talks With Japan Canceled

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 8:01 AM

By MARI YAMAGUCHI

Associated Press Writer

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) - Bilateral talks between North Korea and 
Japan aimed at normalizing diplomatic relations - a key part of 
Pyongyang's agreement to shut down its nuclear program - have 
been canceled, the North Korean Embassy said Wednesday.

 The embassy did not provide a reason for the abrupt move, which 
came hours after the start of the talks.

  The talks were mandated by a February agreement between North 
and South Korea, China, the United States and Russia in which 
North Korea said it would close down its nuclear reactor in 
return for energy aid and other incentives.

 A North Korean embassy official in the Vietnamese capital who 
spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the 
issue said Wednesday that the meeting was finished and that there 
would be no more sessions. He did not elaborate.

      North Korea's abduction of Japanese citizens and Japanese 
reparations for its wartime aggression were to top the agenda at 
two-day talks in Vietnam, which came after a one-year lapse.

  A Japanese Foreign Ministry official traveling with the 
delegation said North Korea had informed them that an afternoon 
session to be held at the North Korean embassy in Hanoi would not 
be held as planned. A media availability also was canceled.

   Japan has refused to give energy aid to North Korea or 
normalize relations with Pyongyang until it resolves the issue of 
its abductions of Japanese citizens - an emotional dispute that 
has divided the two nations.

  North Korea admitted in 2002 that it abducted 13 Japanese from 
the Japanese coast in the 1970s and 80s. Pyongyang sent five of 
them home later that year but insisted that the rest were dead. 
Japan has demanded proof and says more of its citizens may have 
been taken. Pyongyang has claimed the abduction issue is 
finished.

  Japan has yet to formally apologize to North Korea for its 
wartime actions - including forcing thousands of Korean women 
into sexual slavery - because of the lack of diplomatic ties 
between the two countries.

 The Hanoi talks were among five sets of working-group meetings 
this week scheduled to meet within 30 days of the February 
agreement.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 11 Digital Chosunilbo: Negroponte Stops in Seoul to Talk Peace

Updated Mar.7,2007 07:52 KST

Is Kim Jong-il Serious This Time?
Can U.S. and N.Korea Move Past the 2000 Détente?
U.S. Likely to Act Swiftly Under Six-Party Agreement
N.KoreaˇŻs Top Nuclear Envoy Arrives in New York
N.Korean Vice FM Ends 'Very Good' Talks in New York

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte made an impromptu
visit to Seoul on Tuesday to brief the government here on
discussions about a peace agreement for the Korean Peninsula he had
with senior officials in China and Japan.

In a press conference at the U.S. Embassy's Reference Services
Center in Seoul, Negroponte said he spent time in China and Japan
gathering ideas about a peace framework for Korea. He said if the
Korean Peninsula is denuclearized, it will be possible to bring
stability to the area through ˇ°the will to discussˇ± a durable
peace to replace the 1953 armistice that still officially halts
hostilities.

Vice Foreign Minister Cho Jung-pyo and U.S. Deputy Secretary of 
State John Negroponte shake hands before lunch at the Lotte Hotel 
in Seoul Tuesday morning.

Negroponte said there were no ˇ°concreteˇ± plans for a U.S. 
government official to visit North Korea. But he strongly hinted 
at the possibility of the chief nuclear negotiator Christopher 
Hill going to Pyongyang, saying it would not be surprising if ˇ°a 
member of a working groupˇ± should visit Pyongyang given the many 
diplomatic activities, including unofficial talks, that are 
ongoing. Hill together with his North Korean counterpart Kim 
Kye-gwan kick-started a working group on normalizing bilateral 
diplomatic ties in Washington this week.

Negroponte apparently contradicted press reports that U.S.
intelligence officials are no longer certain North Korea has a
uranium enrichment program. "I have no doubt that North Korea has
had a highly enriched uranium program, and that has been and
continues to be the judgment of our intelligence community,ˇ±
Negroponte said. He added things would become clearer when North
Korea reports on its nuclear facilities and programs in compliance
with the Feb. 13 six-party agreement.

The diplomat added he exchanged valuable opinions with South Korean
officials on the Korea-U.S. alliance and the role of the U.S. Forces
Korea. He said the alliance changes constantly, and the two
countries will undergo a necessary adjustment period to strengthen
their alliance in a ˇ°spirit of cooperation."

(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
 12 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korean Vice FM Ends 'Very Good' Talks in New York

Updated Mar.7,2007 10:25 KST

When a woman wearing sunglasses hurried into the Korea Society 
building on ManhattanˇŻs 57th Street in New York on Monday 
morning, even reporters at the scene failed to identify her 
immediately as former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright. 
Albright famously visited Pyongyang in October 2000, just over a 
month after North Korean vice marshal Cho Myong-rok's visit to 
Washington, and met Kim Jong-il to negotiate normalizing 
U.S.-North Korea diplomatic ties. Now North KoreaˇŻs Vice Foreign 
Minister Kim Kye-gwan is in New York to attend a working group to 
normalize bilateral ties, and on Monday Kim met a flock of 
America's North Korea experts. They were mostly senior officials 
in the Clinton administration who dealt with North Korea and take 
a moderate line on the Stalinist country.

Also attending the closed-door seminar sponsored by the National
Committee on American Foreign Policy at the Korea Society was Wendy
Sherman, a former U.S. envoy to North Korea, who accompanied
Albright in her Pyongyang visit. She had been Kim Kye-gwan's
negotiation partner during the Clinton administration. Jack
Prichard, the U.S. special envoy to North Korea in the Clinton years
and during the initial period of the Bush administration, was also
present. In the past six years, all of them have taken the lead in
criticizing the Bush administration's hard line on the North.

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan shakes hands with 
Dr. George Schwab, president of the National Committee on 
American Foreign Policy, in New York on Monday./AP-Yonhap

Donald Zagonia, a professor at Hunter College in New York who takes
charge of the NCAFP's Northeast Asia project, attended the seminar
too. He maintains close relations with Pyongyang to the extent of
hosting annual seminars where he invites the North Korean Foreign
Ministry's U.S. chief Li Gun. Evans Revere, the president of the
Korea Society, resigned last year as principal assistant deputy
secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs after
advocating reconciliation with North Korea. He was a member of the
dove-ish Colin Powell group in the State Department.

What Kim Kye-gwan said at the four-hour-long seminar was not
disclosed, but the atmosphere was ˇ°friendly,ˇ± according to Revere.
Also present were former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Don
Oberdorfer, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Kissinger is
said to have advised President George W. Bush to plumb for dialogue
with North Korea.

On Sunday, Kim had breakfast with Charles Kartman, former director
of the now defunct Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization,
and Joel Wit, a former State Department consultant on North Korea,
at his hotel. On Sunday evening, he had a dinner with Kartman and
Prichard at a Korean restaurant.

From left: former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and 
Madeleine Albright, and Donald Zagoria, who takes charge of the 
Northeast Asia project at the National Committee on American 
Foreign Policy./AP-Yonhap

On Tuesday, the U.S. and North Korea ended the first session of a 
working group on the normalization of bilateral diplomatic ties. 
After the talks, Kim told reporters he discussed normalization as 
well as several other issues with his counterpart Christopher 
Hill. Kim called the atmosphere of the talks ˇ°constructive and 
serious.ˇ± He declined to elaborate on the meeting but appeared 
upbeat.

Hill told reporters there was ˇ°a sense of optimism on both sides
that we will get through this 60-day period and we will achieve all
of our objectives that are set out in the Feb. 13 agreementˇ±
reached in the six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing. Under the
accord, North Korea will be provided with a first shipment of heavy
fuel oil if it takes initial action to shut down its nuclear
facilities.

The assistant secretary of state said the two sides agreed on the
need to settle the issue of North KoreaˇŻs suspected uranium-based
nuclear program and will hold expert consultations on the issue.
Hill added he and Kim shared the view that in making the Korean
Peninsula nuclear free, North Korea will have to give a full
explanation of its uranium enrichment program and extra technical
consultations will be helpful. Washington and Pyongyang will hold
the second round of working group talks in Beijing before the next
round of the six-party nuclear talks, which begin on March 19, Hill
said. The two talked for altogether eight hours on Monday and
Tuesday.

(englishnews@chosun.com )

*****************************************************************
 13 Reuters: Seoul says North Korea asks for aid resumption 

Wed Mar 7, 2007 7:00AM EST

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea asked the South on Wednesday for
300,000 tonnes of fertilizer in its first such request in several
months, Seoul's unification ministry said.

It did not say whether or when it would send the shipment.

The request was made a week after both sides agreed at
minister-level talks to step up work to remove nuclear weapons from
the North and resume reunions of family members separated during the
1950-53 Korean War.

The ministry said in a one-sentence statement that the request has
been received, but did not elaborate. Seoul has cut off assistance
to the North in the wake of Pyongyang's missile tests in July last
year.

There was no direct mention of resuming aid during last week's
meeting in the communist state's capital, held as part of
multilateral diplomacy aimed at shutting down the North's nuclear
arms program and improving its standing in the world.

South Korea has been a major donor of food and farm aid to the
North, shipping as much as 500,000 tonnes of rice and 350,000 tonnes
of fertilizer to the impoverished state each year.

South Korea has said that resumption of aid depended on tangible
progress in Pyongyang's work to shut down its nuclear programs under
a February 13 agreement at international talks with the South, the
United States, Japan, Russia and China.

South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung has said that Seoul
would now consider aid if there was request from Pyongyang.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 Korea Times: Negroponte Pushes for N. Korea to Come Clean on HEU

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in Seoul on
Tuesday that North Korea should not risk losing all the benefits
offered to it by concealing any of the nuclear facilities or
programs that exist in the reclusive Stalinist state.

``ItˇŻs in the interest of North Korea to be completely forthcoming
with respect to listing its nuclear facilities,ˇŻˇŻ Negroponte said
at a news conference.

He was on a three-day trip here that began Monday as part of his
first Asian tour since coming into office last month.

``If it were for some reason to conceal and not declare them, they
will be undermining confidence in this entire agreement,'' he said.
``The North has nothing to fear from being entirely forthcoming in
this regard.ˇŻˇŻ

Under a six-party agreement reached in Beijing on Feb. 13, Pyongyang
promised to shut down and seal its primary nuclear facilities in
Yongbyon within 60 days.

It also agreed to invite back International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) inspectors to start discussing a list of its nuclear
facilities and programs to be submitted to the nuclear watchdog.

The nuclear crisis was sparked in late 2002 when Washington accused
Pyongyang of running a highly enriched uranium (HEU) program in
addition to its acknowledged plutonium-based one, an accusation
still denied by Pyongyang.

Negroponte said the 2002 report was correct and again called on the
Stalinist nation to come clean.

``I have no doubt that North Korea has had a highly enriched uranium
program and that has been and continues to be the judgment of our
intelligence community,ˇŻˇŻ he said.

Earlier in the day, Negroponte paid an unscheduled call on Chun
Yung-woo, South KoreaˇŻs chief nuclear negotiator, saying he wished
to discuss international negotiations over North KoreaˇŻs nuclear
weapons program.

``I am very interested in meeting with you, so we can coordinate and
consult about the six-party talks that are ongoing,ˇŻˇŻ the U.S.
official told Chun during their meeting at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade.

thing@koreatimes.co.kr 03-06-2007 23:25
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Urges NKorea to Scrap Nuclear Arms 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 12:01 PM

By GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear agency shifted its focus 
from Iran to North Korea on Wednesday, ahead of a visit to 
Pyongyang next week to prepare for the resumption of inspections 
after a four-year international standoff.

  The chief of the International Atomic Energy Organization, 
Mohamed ElBaradei, plans to go to Pyongyang Tuesday as part of 
last month's six-nation agreement committing the North to 
dismantling its nuclear program and ultimately scrapping its 
weapons stockpile.

 North Korea kicked IAEA monitors out in late 2002, withdrawing 
from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and reactivating its 
mothballed nuclear program, which led to its first-ever atomic 
weapons test in October.

       Japan urged North Korea on Wednesday to comply with its 
international obligations amid reports the two countries had 
canceled an afternoon session of talks to establish diplomatic 
relations. The significance of the development was unclear, with 
Japanese officials saying they expected the discussions in 
Vietnam to resume Thursday as planned.

   U.N. officials familiar with the North Korea file said the 
board will likely agree to meet in a special session once 
ElBaradei returns to hear his report and - if positive - formally 
authorize the return of IAEA inspectors to the North.

 The IAEA started off its meeting this week in Vienna on the 
topic of Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment as demanded 
by the U.N. Security Council. The five permanent Council members 
are discussing possible new sanctions against Iran, including a 
travel ban, an expanded list of people and companies subject to 
an asset freeze, an arms embargo and trade restrictions.

 The gathering is expected to recommend partially or fully 
suspending 23 technical aid programs benefiting Iran, in line 
with existing Security Council sanctions and will look at a 
report by ElBaradei confirming that Iran continues its enrichment 
activities.

 Enrichment is a key issue because it can be used to make the 
fissile core of nuclear warheads, although Tehran insists it 
wants to enrich only to low levels used to generate power.

    Tehran's chief delegate to the meeting demanded an end to 
U.N. Security Council ``interference'' in exchange for clearing 
up suspicions about its disputed nuclear activities - an apparent 
attempt to head off new sanctions.

  The council agreed on an initial set of sanctions on Dec. 23, 
but the measures were milder than the West had wanted and took 
Russian and Chinese reservations into account.

                                 ---

   Associated Press writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to 
this report.

                                 ---

                             On the Net:

                             www.iaea.org

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: General: U.S. Still Wary of North Korea 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 10:01 PM

By FOSTER KLUG

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The general in charge of U.S. forces in South 
Korea said Wednesday he remains wary of North Korea's nuclear 
intentions, despite Pyongyang's recent agreement to begin 
dismantling its weapons programs in return for aid.

  Gen. B.B. Bell told lawmakers that North Korean leader Kim Jong 
Il has a long history of manipulating negotiations over his 
nuclear program for his regime's gain, often emphasizing 
symbolism over substantial efforts to abandon bomb-making. He 
said he saw no signs that North Korea would reduce its huge 
military spending or curb its efforts to split the US.-South 
Korean alliance.

      ``Kim Jong Il has the option to continue to manipulate the 
international community by alternating provocations and 
engagement overtures in an attempt to shape the political and 
military environment to meet his objectives,'' Bell told the 
House Armed Services Committee.

   Bell's comments follow two days of talks in New York between 
the United States and North Korea on establishing diplomatic ties 
after decades of animosity.

 Under a Feb. 13 agreement reached in Beijing, North Korea must 
shut down its main nuclear reactor and allow U.N. inspectors back 
into the country within 60 days. In return, the North would 
receive aid equal to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. More aid 
would follow if the North began to dismantle all its nuclear 
programs.

  The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific, Navy Adm. 
William Fallon, told lawmakers that the nuclear deal is a work in 
progress, with many details still to be completed.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 17 UPI: U.S. envoy offers BMD coop to Russia

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

3/7/2007 12:31:00 PM -0500

TYUMEN, Russia, March 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. ambassador to Russia has
offered Moscow a new dialogue to boost cooperation on ballistic
missile defense.

U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William Burns said during a visit to
Siberia that the U.S. and Russian governments should hold ongoing
bilateral talks to explain their conflicting stands on BMD issues
and to try and deal with their differences on them, the RIA Novosti
news agency reported Tuesday.

Burns repeated the Bush administration's position that building a
new radar installation in the Czech Republic and a new
anti-ballistic missile interceptor base in Poland to protect
European nations from the threat of nuclear missiles launched by
so-called "rogue" states would not endanger Russia's national
security. He even offered the possibility that Washington and Moscow
could start a new cycle of cooperation on BMD, the report said.

However, Burns also made other comments certain to anger the
Kremlin. He said that the desire of two former Soviet republics,
Georgia and Ukraine, to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance was an
expression of the desire of the governments and populations of both
nations.

Burns referred to the NATO-Russia Council as a relevant mechanism to
try and defuse conflicts between the two powers over such issues,
the report said.

Burns' comments came after senior U.S. officials had said they
wanted to prioritize improving relations with Russia. But as the
ambassador's comments indicated no softening of the U.S. position on
BMD bases and Ukraine and Georgia that have so angered the Kremlin,
they look unlikely to have any appreciable impact.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 18 [NYTr] EU rifts deepen over US missile shield plan
 
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:28:45 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

EU Observer - Mar 6, 2007
http://euobserver.com/9/23630/?rk=1

EU rifts deepen over US missile shield plan

By Mark Beunderman

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - US plans to build an anti-missile shield in
Poland and the Czech republic have led to open divisions within the EU,
with the Czech foreign minister strongly rejecting criticism from
Austria and Luxembourg on the scheme. 

The controversy over the US defence system - aimed at intercepting
ballistic missiles fired from states such as Iran - hit the EU stage on
Monday (5 March) as Austrian foreign minister Ursula Plassnik reportedly
said "in the population of Austria, there is some concern" during a
lunch with her EU counterparts in Brussels. 

Just before the meeting, Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn had
also expressed strong concern that Warsaw and Prague's interest in
hosting the anti-missile bases could provoke new tensions with Russia. 

"For me it is incomprehensible that after the end of the 20th century
and the fall of the Berlin Wall anyone should start escalating again,"
he said, according to Reuters. 

"We'll have no stability in Europe if we force Russia into a corner...We
should help Poland and the Czech Republic to rally around a European
position," he added. 

But the Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg rebuffed concerns
from Vienna and Luxembourg. 

"I was very astonished to hear this from two voices - first, from
Austria which does not take part in the defence of Europe, is not even a
part of NATO, and Luxembourg, which is rather far away from us," he told
EUobserver.

"It is rather strange that these two states raised concern about it.
Actually everybody who is concerned about European defence, about
security in the future, knows that we need all along a defence against
rockets," he continued. 

"The problem is of course that we in Europe have only started thinking
about building it and the United States are far ahead. But of course the
system we are building will be fully compatible with European defence
[standards]." 

"My Polish colleague [Anna Fotyga] explained the whole project [to
Austria's foreign minister] that it's purely a defence project and how
the whole thing developed. She informed her perfectly," the Czech
minister indicated. 

Meanwhile, Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moller expressed support for
the planned US system, saying "a defence missile aimed at defending us
from getting rockets on our heads is better than not having it and
getting rockets on our heads." 

But he added that it was necessary to keep Russia and China informed
about the developments.

Warsaw and Prague have yet to formally sign up to Washington's defence
scheme, which in Poland's case would include the placing of interceptor
missiles. 

But the Polish and Czech governments have publicly come out in favour of
the project, sparking strong criticism from Russia which sees the move
as designed to undermine the deterrence threat posed by its own nuclear
missiles. 

Russia bellicose 

"We are ready to destroy elements of the missile shield in Poland and
the Czech Republic," a bellicose Russian air force chief Igor Chvorov
said according to Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza. "All the strategic
aircraft of the Russian airforce can carry out tasks linked with
electronic jamming or physical destruction."

Russia's presidential security council on Monday said it is developing a
new military strategy taking into account that "military force has
become an increasingly important factor in the policy of leading
nations" while "military alliances, particularly NATO, are being
strengthened."

Meanwhile, the German EU presidency which has good ties with both Moscow
and Washington, is seeking to calm the debate with Berlin's foreign
minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier saying "what we have to do now is to
discuss this calmly within NATO and the EU and...to talk to the
Russians," according to AP. 

German defence minister Franz Josef Jung last week said the systems in
Poland and the Czech republic should become part of a wider NATO scheme.

Martin Schulz, the leader of the socialist group in the European
Parliament and member of the ruling German SPD party, called upon German
chancellor Angela Merkel to put the topic on the agenda of an EU leaders
meeting later this week (8-9 March). 

"The topic has to be discussed at the European Council because it is a
central theme for the EU," he told Spiegel Online. 

"The chancellor should resist the planned defence system," he said
expressing pacifist and Russia-friendly sentiments in the SPD party.

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers: Blair's Nuke Plan Has Risks

From the Associated Press

Wednesday March 7, 2007 6:16 AM

By DAVID STRINGER

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair's plan to commission a 
new multibillion-dollar nuclear missile defense system risks 
justifying the actions of regimes seeking to illicitly develop 
atomic weapons, a panel of lawmakers said Wednesday.

  The British leader has called for legislators to back an option 
to build a $39 billion submarine fleet to replace existing 
nuclear-armed vessels when they vote on the issue next week.

 But a report by the House of Commons Defense Select Committee 
warned the decision could be ``seized upon by would-be 
proliferators to justify their own efforts to acquire nuclear 
weapons.''

   It said that in claiming Britain required a nuclear deterrent 
to face potential future threats from rogue regimes or 
state-sponsored terrorists, Blair could be seen as damaging the 
cause of nonproliferation.

   The report, published Wednesday ahead of the March 14 debate 
and vote on the issue, also said a commitment to cut Britain's 
stock of nuclear warheads from 200 to 160 - a move intended to 
placate nuclear detractors within Blair's own party - would 
likely have little operational significance.

   Blair told lawmakers in December that potential threats posed 
by North Korea, Iran and terrorist groups meant it would be 
``unwise and dangerous'' to give up an independent nuclear 
deterrent.

 However, the prime minister has said there will be no decision 
until 2009 on whether to build a new arsenal of warheads to 
replace current stocks - expected to last only until the 2020s. 
Blair steps down by September.

  David Broucher, former head of the British delegation to the 
U.N. Disarmament Conference, was quoted in the report as saying 
building a new missile fleet would risk ``indicating nuclear 
weapons are now a permanent feature of the international security 
environment.''

  In addition to five formally declared nuclear weapons states - 
the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - four 
others are known or thought to have such arms. They are India, 
Pakistan, Israel and, following its October missile test, North 
Korea.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Sydney Morning Herald: PM's science chief flags nuclear boom - 

www.smh.com.au

Marian Wilkinson
March 8, 2007

THE new chairman of the Federal Government's peak nuclear scientific
body believes the Prime Minister, John Howard, will overturn his
policy on climate change and agree to put a price on greenhouse gas
emissions by energy producers.

Ziggy Switkowski, the newly appointed chairman of ANSTO, the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, told a
business gathering yesterday that once this happens, nuclear power
would not only become competitive in Australia but "the only real
alternative" to coal-fired power stations.

Speaking at a Committee for Economic Development of Australia lunch,
Mr Switkowski said he believed the Prime Minister's taskforce
looking at a carbon emissions scheme will put a cost on greenhouse
gases within the next decade.

"Australia along with other countries … will put a price on our
pollution … That is the way the wind is blowing," he said. "Once
carbon dioxide emissions are costed and .. people make a decision
they really do want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions then the only
alternative which is cost-competitive, clean and safe … is nuclear
power."

Mr Switkowski, who recently completed a bullish review on the
nuclear industry for the Government, has been criticised by
renewable energy groups for failing to consider the viability of
other energy sources such as wind and solar. But he insisted these
technologies were unreliable and unable to supply Australia's needs.
"My conviction is that nuclear power has to part of the solution,"
he said.

The new round of lobbying over nuclear power comes just weeks after
it was revealed that two close allies of the Government - the former
Western Mining boss, Hugh Morgan, and the Fairfax chairman, Ron
Walker - established a nuclear power company shortly before Mr
Switkowski was asked to review the nuclear industry. Mr Howard told
Parliament recently he discussed the issue with Mr Walker at the
time.

But while pushing the nuclear power case, Mr Switkowski undermined
Mr Howard and the Opposition Leader's Kevin Rudd's support for
"clean-coal technology" as a partial solution to greenhouse gas
emissions. He said clean-coal technology was "easier said than done"
and while "filled with potential" it was 20 to 30 years away.

After the meeting, Mr Switkowski conceded his review had not costed
alternative energy, but said that once Australia put a price on
carbon emissions all alternatives could be examined. "Every other
form of energy is much more cost competitive."

He said he recognised that nuclear power was opposed by the public
and had little chance of Labor support. He said "government
assistance" was necessary to make the industry feasible.

He acknowledged that the storage of nuclear waste remained an
"emotional" issue, but insisted that new technology would soon make
long-term storage feasible.

Flagging the need to change the law that prohibits the development
of a nuclear energy industry in Australia, Mr Switkowski said there
would be a 15-year lag and a huge cost before nuclear power could
become a reality.

Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 21 SanLuisObispo.com: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Diablo operated safely in 2006

03/07/2007 | 

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its annual
assessment of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and found that the
plant was operated safely during 2006.

The agency annually evaluates all of the nation’s 103 operating
nuclear reactors for a variety of safety criteria using in-house
inspectors. All of Diablo Canyon’s findings were classified as
having “very low safety significance,” resulting in green color
coding to all sections of the plant’s evaluation matrix.

A public meeting will be scheduled locally in the spring to discuss
the findings of the assessment with plant managers. A regular
inspection schedule is planned for 2007, said the agency in a letter
to plant owners Pacific Gas and Electric.

In 2005, the agency found that the plant suffered from some systemic
human performance problems and the utility initiated a 5-year plan
to improve the quality of plant procedures.


*****************************************************************
 22 Times of India: Indo-US N-deal independent of ties with Russia

: Pranab-India-NEWS-The 

[ 7 Mar, 2007 1319hrs ISTPTI ]

NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday said its civil nuclear agreement with
the United States is independent of the cooperation with Russia,
which will help in building four more atomic plants in Tamil Nadu
and some other places.

Replying to questions in the Lok Sabha, External Affairs Minister
Pranab Mukherjee, however, said that continued supply of fuel to
such reactors would depend on Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG)
guidelines and efforts are being made to get these amended for this
purpose.

“There is no co-relation between the 123 agreement (which will
operationalise Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation) and our programme
with Russia in respect to civil nuclear cooperation,” he said.

The minister, while apprising the House about the outcome of Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s recent India visit, noted that two
nuclear power plants have already been built by Moscow in India.

There is a proposal for setting up four more nuclear power plants in
Kudankulam with Russian support and others at places which have not
been identified as yet, he added.

The former defence minister also pointed out that India's
collaboration with Russia in civil nuclear field had started before
the Indo-US deal and it was a “continuing and long-term” one.

Russia is part of the 45-nation grouping and efforts are being made
to amend the NSG guidelines to ensure “we can have supply of
fuel”, the Minister said.

India and Russia also propose to collaborate on joint launch of
satellites. The two countries have also decided to participate in
Russia's Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) under which
India can use radio frequency data.

Copyright ©2007Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
 23 Daily Yomiuri: Surgeon helping out Chernobyl victims 

Prof. Kazuo Shimizu of Nippon Medical School examines Alesya
Svyatoshnik's neck after performing endoscopic surgery on her.

A Japanese doctor is promoting the use of endoscopic surgery in
Belarus, where many people have developed thyroid cancer following
the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

As operations that use an endoscope leave very little scarring,
Prof. Kazuo Shimizu of Nippon Medical School in Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo,
has been promoting the use of the technique in Belarus.

Shimizu, who heads the endocrinal surgery department at the school's
hospital, invited a Belarusian woman to Japan in February for an
operation, so that the advantages of the technique could be better
understood by Belarusian doctors. He also plans to start training
sessions for doctors in Belarus in the autumn.

Shimizu, 58, has participated in volunteer activities to offer
medical support for victims of the Chernobyl accident since 1999. He
has visited Belarus--where many people were affected because they
were downwind of the accident--five times, to examine victims and
train local doctors.

According to Shimizu, each year about 1,300 people have thyroid
tumors operated on in Belarus. Many of the patients are women.

The current technique used in the country is outdated and leaves a
U-shaped scar about 10 centimeters long on a patient's neck. Female
patients have been reluctant to seek an operation because of the
scarring, and in some cases, they seek help too late, Shimizu said.

Shimizu has developed an endoscopic procedure to remove thyroid
tumors that leaves very little scarring. Despite encouraging
Belarusian doctors to use the technique, few have recognized the
need for the surgery.

So he invited Alesya Svyatoshnik, 20, who was found to have a
nine-millimeter thyroid tumor in November, to get treatment in
Japan. "I thought that showing people one successful operation would
say more than 100 explanations," Shimizu said.

Svyatoshnik was exposed to radiation in the womb when her mother was
six months pregnant. Her mother lived in Pinsk, about 240 kilometers
from the Chernobyl accident site.

The school and Shimizu's friends paid about 3.5 million yen for
Svyatoshnik's operation and related costs. The operation was
successfully completed on Feb. 23.

"My best friend went through two surgeries and has to wear clothes
that cover her neck to hide the scar. I want to tell people about my
operation in Japan. I hope I can do something to encourage the use
of the technique," Svyatoshnik said.

Svyatoshnik returned to Belarus on Saturday.

Shimizu plans to hold study sessions in a Belarusian hospital in
October for local doctors, and to offer technical training using
video footage of Svyatoshnik's operation.
)
The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun
*****************************************************************
 24 Earth Times: Another leak reported at controversial Temelin nuclear reactor

Posted on : Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:47:00 GMT | Author : DPA

Prague- Some 1,100 litres of mildly radioactive water leaked from
the controversial Temelin nuclear power plant during a Tuesday
waterproofing check of its shut-down unit, plant spokesman Milan
Nebesar told reporters on Wednesday. The leak, equalling some five
average bathtubs of cooling water and containing boric acid, had
occurred in the top part of the plant's first unit reactor, which is
currently shut for fuel replacement, Nebesar said.

The water had run into a tank and neither harmed employees nor posed
a threat to the environment, he added.

"The check fulfilled its aim," the Temelin spokesman said. "It
detected a leak before putting (the unit) into operation."

The plant was expecting to identify the cause of the leak later on
Wednesday Nebesar said. After taking the reactor's top apart and
cleaning it up, Temelin was planning another check.

The leak prompted Environment Ministry spokesman Daniel Knapp to say
there were "serious doubts about the level of security culture in
Temelin," the Austrian Press-Agency APA quoted him as saying.

According to Nebesar, it was wrong to interpret a surge in news
about leaks in this manner.

He said that, unlike Temelin, which had "an above-standard
information policy towards Austria," nuclear power plants elsewhere
did not usually inform the public about such insignificant events.

The leak came less than a week after a similar incident caused a
rift between Austria and the Czech Republic, as Czech officials
failed to inform the chancellor of a February 27 leak that had
occurred only hours before his Prague visit.

Following a surge in protests against Temelin by its Austrian
opponents, the leaders of the two countries agreed in talks in
Prague on February 27 to set up a joint parliamentary commission on
the controversial nuclear power plant.

The incidents occurred at a time when Austrian opponents of the
Temelin plant were putting pressure on their government to sue the
Czech Republic over the controversial facility.

Austrian anti-nuclear activists blocked border crossings three times
within the last month.

Temelin is a twin-unit, Soviet-era nuclear power plant, updated with
American technology, located some 60 kilometres off the Czech-
Austrian border.

It was launched in 2000 despite protests by Austrian leaders and
anti-nuclear activists, who dispute Czech claims that Western
security controls had rendered the plant safe.

A similar leak occurred in the plant's second unit last August, the
Czech CTK news agency reported.

Copyright © 2007 Respective Author

(c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: NRC Issues Annual Assessments for Nation's Nuclear Plants

News Release - 2007-07-030 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued annual assessment 
letters to the nation’s 103 operating commercial nuclear 
power plants. All the plants continue to operate safely.

  “NRC’s assessments of nuclear power plant 
performance are central to the agency’s mission of 
protecting people and the environment,” said Elmo E. 
Collins, director of the Division of Inspection and Regional 
Support in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 
“These annual assessments report the results of NRC’s 
reviews and give the public an overview of how each plant has 
performed.”

 Later this spring, the NRC will meet publicly with the operators 
of every plant in nearby locations to discuss plant performance. 
A separate announcement will be issued for each plant meeting. In 
addition to the annual assessment letters, plants also receive an 
NRC inspection plan for the coming year. Updated information on 
plant performance is posted to the NRC Web site every quarter. 
The plants also receive a mid-cycle assessment letter during the 
year; the next mid-cycle letters will be issued in September.

  The assessment letters sent to each licensee are available on 
the NRC Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html

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.

March 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 26 BBC NEWS: Northern Ireland | NI's nuclear quandary

Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 March 2007, 07:00 GMT

By Mike McKimm Investigations correspondent, BBC Northern Ireland

Mention nuclear power in Northern Ireland and you will be drowned 
out by cries of "close Sellafield".

Sellafield is one of a number of sites along the Irish Sea

It is as if Sellafield is the only nuclear facility on the other
side of the Irish Sea.

In fact, the west coast of Scotland and England has the most
intensive nuclear industry of any part of the UK.

But it's a fact realised by very few people in Northern Ireland.

And they may soon be hearing news that they will not like.

The government is about to reveal its White Paper on energy, which
may well recommend that more nuclear power stations be built.

Some of those could well be along the Irish Sea.

Decommissioned danger

Already a long coastal nuclear arc sweeps south from Scotland,
through Cumbria as far as Wales.

Along it sit seven nuclear power stations, major reprocessing
plants, the UK's only low-level nuclear waste dump and three former
Ministry of Defence test sites for radioactive weaponry.

Tony Blair has been petitioned by nuclear workers

Several of the nuclear power plants are now being decommissioned.
Ironically this is when such plants are at their greatest risk.

Radioactive materials and cores, normally contained deep within a
protected area, are being moved - and there is a real risk of
exposure to the open air.

All the stations still operating are near the end of their designed
life.

Some are showing clear signs of age with suspected cracked cores and
possible fractured pipes deep within their systems. And they all sit
along the shores of the Irish Sea.

Underground vaults

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, all the bits that are
considered to be relatively low-risk are carted off to a huge
nuclear waste dump at a place called Drigg, a few miles south of
Sellafield in Cumbria.

The material is either stored above ground in containers or buried
in concrete underground vaults.

The nuclear industry in north-west England probably supports up to
30,000 jobs

Soon Drigg will reach a million tons of waste with room for lots
more.

But just a few hundreds of yards away, waves from the Irish Sea are
slowly eroding the land and closing the gap between the sea and the
waste.

It's now accepted that in due course the sea will overwhelm Drigg. A
point not widely known in Northern Ireland.

Little or nothing is ever said in Northern Ireland about the tons of
depleted uranium shells fired into the Irish Sea for many years.

Thousands of shells were tested up to 1998 and then left lying on
the sea bed near Stranraer and Kirkcudbright. It's considered too
dangerous to try and recover them.

Job petitions

The nuclear industry is a substantial employer. It offers well paid
jobs in rural locations where a reasonable economy would otherwise
be unsustainable.

Plants can become dangerous when they are decommissioned

As nuclear power stations reach the end of their life and are
decommissioned, these jobs come under threat.

With most of the processes in Sellafield being run down, many of the
10,000 people employed there will no longer be required.

The nuclear industry in north-west England probably supports up to
30,000 jobs in total, directly and indirectly.

That is why a petition from thousands of Cumbrian people was
recently sent to 10 Downing Street and Tony Blair calling for any
new nuclear power stations to be built in the area.

It's been supported by the local MP and the main trade union.

It's as much about their future as it is about UK energy
requirements.

It's also one of the points overlooked by people in Northern Ireland
who just see Sellafield as the nuclear bete noire across the Irish
Sea.

You can see Mike McKimm's report on BBC Newsline 6.30 on Wednesday,
BBC1 Northern Ireland.

*****************************************************************
 27 BBC NEWS: Merkel urges EU lead on climate

Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 March 2007, 10:53 GMT

Chancellor Angela Merkel is to chair the EU summit for the first time

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Europe to take the
lead in tackling global warming.

She spoke ahead of a European Union summit at which EU leaders are
expected to commit to cutting carbon emissions by 20% by 2020
compared to 1990 levels.

Ms Merkel told the UK's Financial Times paper that the deal would be
the first of several potentially painful steps that the 27 EU
members must take.

Ms Merkel will chair the EU summit - taking place on Thursday and
Friday in Brussels - for the first time, as Germany holds the
rotating EU presidency.

She said the fight against climate change was a top priority and
that an agreement on reducing carbon emissions would be an important
first step.

It is hoped EU leaders will agree to a deeper cut of 30% in
emissions by 2020 if other developed and emerging nations, notably
India and China, join in.

Renewable sources

"It won't be easy, but that's why the EU should make commitments now
and take this pioneering position," Ms Merkel told the FT.

"The necessity to combat climate change and to reduce our energy
dependency, coupled with the fact Kyoto is running out, have
concentrated minds."

Negotiations on cutting CO2 emissions are expected to be lengthy

The Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions is due to expire in
2012.

Months and years of EU negotiations are expected as European nations
haggle over their respective commitments.

Proposals to introduce a binding target of 20% for the use of
renewable energy sources are opposed by several European nations,
including France and Poland.

Member states are also deeply divided over the role of nuclear
energy in reducing carbon emissions.

And last month, Germany said it would oppose EU plans to cut CO2
emissions from vehicles if any proposal were made to penalise makers
of big cars.

Ms Merkel has acknowledged that finding agreements on climate change
will take time. "Of course a post-Kyoto agreement will not come this
year," she told the FT.

"Early negotiations are helpful but we will need one or two years at
least."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC NEWS: Nuclear firm seeks new partners

Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 March 2007, 12:19 GMT

Sizewell B was built between 1988 and 1995

A nuclear power company is looking for partners to develop new 
generators on sites where it already operates.

British Energy, which also owns coal-fired power stations and 
wind farms, is offering development land close to existing 
nuclear power plants.

It owns land at the Sizewell B plant in Suffolk and next to 
Bradwell in Essex.

A British Energy spokeswoman said: "We are waiting for the
government white paper on the future of energy generation to find
out what role nuclear generation is to play.

"But we believe nuclear power is needed as part of the solution to
ensuring security of energy supply and because it is virtually
carbon dioxide emission free it does not add to climate change.

"We are now waiting for guidance from the government before moving
forward to new build but are looking for partners in preparation."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 29 Morning News: University Wants Reactor Dismantled

Local News for Northwest Arkansas

$16 Million Project Awaits Federal Funds

This article was published on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:18 PM CST in

By Dan Craft The Morning News

FAYETTEVILLE -- There is one University of Arkansas property the
school would just as soon not own, and school leaders want the
federal government to help.

The university's 2010 Commission asks for money to improve campus
infrastructure. On the flip side, they'd also like the U.S.
Department of Energy to pay to dismantle a university-owned nuclear
reactor.

The Southeast Fast Oxidizing Reactor, commonly known as SEFOR, was
built in the Strickler community in southern Washington County
during the 1960s by a consortium of government and business
interests. It was an experiment testing a new style of reactor.

The reactor was transferred to university ownership before being
decommissioned in 1972.

"We've been working to get the place taken down for years," said
Collis Geren, vice provost for research in the graduate school.
"It's not serving any use out there, and it's potentially a problem."

Funding was approved in the 2005 national energy bill, but the
Department of Energy never appropriated the $16 million, Sen.
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark, said.



"We try to get into that funding stream every year, and hopefully,
we'll get that money released," she said.

The energy department has discretionary money for projects, and a
list of selected projects could be released within a few weeks,
Lincoln said.

Lincoln, along with other congressional delegates from the state,
sent a letter to energy officials Monday, urging approval of the
reactor cleanup money.

"We're pitching it as a pilot project," Lincoln said. "It's a fairly
small site that could teach them a lot about how effective and
efficient the cleanup of future sites might be."

While radioactivity is the best-known contaminant, the site also has
asbestos fireproofing, residual corrosive sodium in the cooling
lines, mercury in the light switches and PCBs in the power
transformers, Geren said.

"We're looking at a mixed-waste site, and that's going to complicate
the cleanup," he said.

The university spends about $50,000 annually on site maintenance and
testing, Geren said.

All content © The Morning News. Unauthorized distribution prohibited.
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Browns Ferry Unit 1

News Release - 2007-07-031 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by the 
Tennessee Valley Authority to increase the generating capacity of 
Browns Ferry Unit 1 by 5 percent.

   The NRC staff's review of TVA's application has been part of 
the agency's intensive oversight of the proposed restart of Unit 
1, which has been inactive since March 1985 and was reloaded with 
nuclear fuel in December 2006. The NRC staff concluded that, as 
long as all other issues related to restart were satisfactorily 
resolved, TVA could operate the reactor at a higher power level, 
primarily by upgrading major plant components such as turbines 
and transformers. NRC staff also reviewed TVA evaluations that 
showed the plant's design can handle the increased power level.

   Based on Unit 1's current licensing basis, the power uprate 
will increase the reactor's generating capacity from 
approximately 1,100 to 1,155 megawatts electric. TVA intends to 
operate Browns Ferry Unit 1, located 10 miles northwest of 
Decatur, Ala., at the higher power level once it receives NRC 
permission to restart and completes its initial startup testing.

 NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate 
application in the Federal Register, providing the public an 
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or 
hearing requests were received by the NRC.

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.


March 07, 2007
*****************************************************************
 31 Daily Press: Nuclear power in Virginia

Hampton Roads, Virginia - 

March 6, 2007

There are two nuclear power plants operating in Virginia, supplying
33 percent of the state's electric power: North Anna and Surry.

- Of the 31 States with nuclear capacity, Virginia ranks 14th.
- Virginia's North Anna power plant ranks 76th on the Energy
Information Administration's list of 100 largest power plants in the
United States.

North Anna
- Located on a 1,075-acre site in Louisa County, Virginia. - Owned
by Dominion (88.4%) and Old Dominion Electric Coop. (11.6%).
- The plant generates 1,786 megawatts from its two units -- enough
electricity to power 450,000 homes.
- Unit 1 began commercial operation in June, 1978 and Unit 2
followed in December 1980.

For information about permits for the new North Anna reactor, visit
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency.

Surry
- Named for the county in which it is located, is on an 840-acre
site.
- Operated by Dominion Generation and owned by Dominion Resources,
Inc.
- The plant generates 1,625 megawatts of electric power from its two
nuclear reactors -- enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.
- Unit 1 began commercial operation in December 1972 and Unit 2
began operating in May 1973.

SOURCES: Energy Information Administration; Dominion.

Copyright ©2007 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
 32 Daily Press: Law rewrite might bring new nuclear plant

Hampton Roads, Virginia - 

The Virginia bill will make Dominion a more attractive candidate for
nuclear financing.

BY CHRIS FLORES 247-4738

March 7, 2007, 11:58 AM EST

Dominion Virginia Power stands closer to becoming the first company
to order a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s after a massive
re-write of Virginia's utility laws.

The company has repeatedly said that the legislation, which is
awaiting Gov. Timothy Kaine's signature, must be passed this year to
get a new nuclear plant built. The Richmond-based utility has led a
pack of companies moving through the long government approval
process to get a plant approved.

Besides meeting various federal standards, any utility that wants to
build a plant must raise billions of dollars. That's where the
Virginia bill helps. It guarantees higher profits for a nuclear
plant, and allows Dominion to start passing the cost to its
customers during construction.

Where and when does Dominion want to build a nuclear plant?

The company first applied in 2003 to build a $3 billion plant at
North Anna, which is outside Richmond and already has two nuclear
reactors. The permit would give preliminary approval that Dominion
could build on that specific site in the future.

Aren't there still concerns about safety?

Environmentalists and nuclear opponents say the technology is still
not safe, and that there is no permanent place to put nuclear waste.
For now, waste is stored in containers and pools at the reactor
sites. The industry argues that there have been no major domestic
accidents since Three Mile Island, and that plants are as cheap and
efficient as ever.

How much will a new plant affect my electric bill?

There's no way to know how much it would increase electric bills,
because it's so far in the future. But growing demand means Dominion
would need to get more power from somewhere. Whether building a
nuclear plant adds more expense than other forms of energy
generation depends in part on what happens over the long term with
prices for natural gas, oil and renewable energy. The new Virginia
law does allow construction costs for a new plant to be added to
bills before a plant is in operation, instead of the old system of
adding building and operating costs all at once.

Why has Dominion said the Virginia law must pass this year to get a
plant built?

The first companies that apply to build new nuclear plants will get
federal incentives for a nuclear plant. Some of these perks will
only go to the first six plants, and Dominion claims ratepayers in
Virginia may miss out with even a year delay. The nuclear industry
has said the incentives will help make the first plants more
attractive to lenders.

What incentives is the federal government offering?

The federal energy department will cover about $10.5 million of the
$21 million Dominion has spent so far to get its site approved. The
government will also insure against construction delays caused by
lawsuits or new regulations. The insurance is $500 million apiece
for the first two plants and $250 million for the next four. The
federal energy bill in 2005 also included $8 billion total worth of
tax credits to some of the first plants that are built if they apply
for a license by the end of 2008.

What is the main incentive the Virginia bill offers?

The profit margin Dominion can earn in the future will be at least
the average of its peers in the Southeast. Additionally, the bill
allows Dominion to earn another two percentage points of profit on
the nuclear plant specifically. This guarantee will make the project
more attractive to Wall Street than other plants that can't offer
that profit level.

What other provision of the Virginia bill will help Dominion get
financing?

State regulators usually don't allow utilities to recover their
costs until years after a plant is under construction. The Virginia
bill allows Dominion to ask state regulators as early as this year
to start charging customers for the costs of a nuclear plant. If
approved, the company can start charging all application and
construction costs as soon as the shovels hit the ground. A similar
move was recently made by Florida, which wants to encourage the
production of nuclear power.

How will this help get a plant financed?

The industry says it is crucial that regulators approve that the
cost of a plant can be recovered from ratepayers before it is built.
Doing this also eases concerns from lenders that they approve loans
for a plant that state regulators later decide is unnecessary. Such
a decision would leave a utility with a big debt that it can't
charge its customers.

Who else is as far along as Dominion so far?

Exelon, Dominion and Entergy are the three companies furthest along
toward obtaining a site permit that approves the location for
building a new reactor. All three utilities expect to get early site
permits in 2007.

What's next after a site is approved?

The Nuclear Energy Institute expects that Dominion and Entergy will
put in the first two applications this November for a license to
build and operate a reactor. Getting that license will likely take
three to three and a half years.

Copyright ©2007 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
 33 The Advocate: Regulators says Millstone has addressed safety concerns

Associated Press

Published March 7 2007

WATERFORD, Conn. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that 
safety issues raised at the Millstone nuclear power complex in 
Waterford have been addressed over the past year.

An annual performance assessment of Millstone Power Station has 
found that concerns over the past year have been adequately 
addressed and require no extra federal oversight.

The NRC has told Millstone's parent company, Dominion Resources,
that most problems that arose during the course of the year were of
"very low safety significance," according to David C. Lew, the NRC's
director of the division of Reactor Projects.

During 2006, the Millstone 2 reactor had an unplanned shutdown later
attributed to the shutting of feedwater pumps, which provide water
to the steam generators, due to a loss of air pressure. In a
reactor, fission heats water that flashes to steam, which in turn
spins turbines that generate electricity.

Besides repairing the equipment, Dominion officials resolved the
problem by establishing a panel to review training and instructing
workers to visually inspect piping before beginning any work, said
Pete Hyde, a Dominion spokesman.

The company also had several instances of ineffectively identifying
and resolving problems, Lew wrote. In some cases, the issue had
implications for various areas of operation, said Neil Sheehan, an
NRC spokesman,

However, in each case, the company made a concerted effort to
improve the way it handles such issues that satisfied the NRC,
Sheehan said.

"We rely on plants to have a very robust program for identifying
problems and getting them resolved," Sheehan said.

---

Information from: The Day, http://www.theday.com


© 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 34 UPI: Czech nuke plant leaks again

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Published: March 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM

PRAGUE, Czech Republic, March 7 (UPI) -- Czech officials have 
detected a second leak of slightly radioactive coolant at the 
Temelin nuclear plant near the Austrian border but said there was 
no danger.

Temelin officials said about 290 gallons (1,100 liters) of 
slightly radioactive cooling liquid containing boric acid leaked 
during a pressure test at the plant Tuesday afternoon, Prague 
Radio reported Wednesday. A similar leak was reported Feb. 27.

The plant has been offline for fuel replacement and maintenance.

Milan Nebesar, a spokesman for the Temelin plant, said neither 
staff nor the environment were at risk at any time.

The Soviet-designed Temelin plant has been a bone of contention 
between the Czech Republic and Austria ever since it was put into 
operation six years ago.

Austrians have been complaining that the Temelin plant could 
develop mishaps similar to the Chernobyl nuclear plant's disaster 
in 1986.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 UPI: NRC OKs Browns Ferry Unit 1 uprate

United Press International - Energy - 

3/7/2007 2:28:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, March 7 (UPI) -- U.S. regulators have approved a power
uprate of Browns Ferry Unit 1 which, if restarted this year as
planned, would be the country's 104th operating reactor.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday announced it approved a 5
percent increase for the reactor, which has been offline since 1985.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which owns and operates the three
reactor plant near Decatur, Ala., has been doing repairs and
upgrades on Unit 1 in the hopes of bringing it online later this
year.

The move would need NRC approval.

Fuel was loaded into Unit 1 late last year, which will now be
allowed to produce 1,155 megawatts.

In approving the uprate, the NRC said other issues like replacing
turbines and transformers needed to be addressed before the power is
turned on.

Currently 103 reactors operate in 64 plants in 31 states, providing
20 percent of U.S. electricity demand.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 36 UPI: Walker's World: India's nuke deal falters

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Published: March 6, 2007 at 10:21 PM

By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus

MUMBAI, March 6 (UPI) -- There is a serious problem with this week's
detailed negotiations on the nuclear cooperation agreement between
India and the United States, whose success is essential if the Bush
administration's rhetoric about "strategic partnership" with India
is to become a reality.


Among the diplomats and officials in Washington and New Delhi, the
pact is seen as a done deal, with only a few technical issues left
to be resolved and critics of the agreement are dismissed as
"isolated voices" and "a handful of disaffected scientists."


But in a leafy suburb of Mumbai, sitting over cups of tea in his
living room, the grand old man of India's nuclear scientists told
United Press International that he was firmly opposed to the deal,
and that as currently drafted it would fatally compromise Indian
sovereignty over its nuclear program.


"I do not think I am a lone disaffected scientist," said Peter
Ayengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy commission. "Every
other living former chairman of the Commission agrees with me.
Indeed, I do not know any Indian nuclear scientists who do not
agree."


"As currently drafted, the agreement would force us to stop
re-processing nuclear fuel, something we have been doing for thirty
years. It would terminate our strategic program (India's nuclear
weapons program) by exposing us to sanctions if we conducted nuclear
tests. And it puts impossible barriers in our path to ongoing and
future research, including our well-developed programs for
fast-breeder reactors and to use thorium rather than uranium as a
nuclear fuel," he added.


"By saying that India shall not re-process fuel and not develop the
fast-breeder reactors, this deal undermines our ability to produce
energy in the future when uranium runs out," Ayengar went on. "This
is a question of national sovereignty, of India's right and ability
to decide such things for ourselves."


Ayengar could speak out because he is retired. Other Indian nuclear
scientists who are still serving, who spoke to UPI off the record
because of a gag order issued by the Indian government, agreed with
his objections to the deal. Some went further, claiming "we believe
the real U.S. motive is to take control over India's nuclear
capabilities."


The deal began as a way to allow India legal access to U.S. nuclear
technology and to uranium fuel for its nuclear power stations. This
required India to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the
international control system, which India has for 40 years refused
to do. In the initial agreement of July 2005, the Bush
administration thought it had met India's concerns by allowing India
to separate its military from its civilian reactors, and to limit
the intrusive inspection regime to the civilian sector.


As then written, Ayengar thought the deal might be acceptable. But
by the time it had gone through the U.S. Congress, he told UPI, "the
terms had been substantially rewritten. It is no longer a
partnership agreement between India and the United States but a
non-proliferation mechanism that puts us in the corner."


The opposition of Ayengar and other nuclear scientists has thrown up
formidable political hurdles to the deal in India's Parliament.
Leftist members of the governing coalition are against it from a
deep-rooted suspicion of U.S. policies in general, while the
conservative and nationalist opposition parties oppose it for
compromising Indian sovereignty.


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh backs the deal for three main reasons.
First, it ends India's status as a nuclear pariah by bringing it
within the NPT system. Second, this means that India can in future
legally import uranium as fuel for its reactors. (Ayengar confirmed
that this had not been much of a problem in the past, and that he
had been able to acquire uranium from China.) Third, it opens the
way for India to start exporting its nuclear power technology and to
sell nuclear power stations into what looks to be a booming future
market.


India's newest reactor, the 220-Megawatt pressurized heavy water
reactor called the Kaiga 3, went critical last week and will start
delivering power later this month. Anil Kakodkar, current chairman
of the Atomic Energy Commission, says the extraordinary low costs
and the short 5-year construction time "has set a new international
benchmark."


India's Nuclear Power Corporation claims that it can build export
versions of Kaiga 3 for "less than half the current international
average cost of $1,500 per installed Kilowatt." Indian media reports
suggest that initial negotiations have begun for export sales to
Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.


After detailed talks last week between Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv
Shankar Menon and U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns, American officials claimed they saw no real problem
in drafting an agreement that would satisfy India -- that it would
be guaranteed future uranium supplies and allowed to conduct nuclear
tests. But both Indian and U.S. negotiators told reporters the issue
of India's right to re-process spent nuclear fuel "would be the
toughest nut to crack" and would probably require "political
intervention at the highest level."


There is no doubt that both governments want the deal to succeed,
primarily as a symbol of the new strategic friendship of India and
the U.S. This is rooted in the way that each country feels the need
for support as the world's two largest democracies confront the
challenge of China's dramatic rise in economic and military
potential, a challenge that was emphasized this week with China's
announcement of another 18 percent increase in its military budget.


The question for Ayengar and India's nuclear scientists is whether
the price the Americans are now demanding is too high.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 MHNN: NRC annual performance review gives IP good grades

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

  Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide

Washington – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given 
Entergy high marks for the operation of its Indian Point 2 and 3 
nuclear power plants in Buchanan.

   In a just-released annual report, the two plants received 
either very high grades or a grade of “no finding.” 
The latter applied to categories like barrier integrity, 
emergency preparedness and public radiation safety.

   While critics of the NRC and Entergy have been hammering away 
at both entities, Entergy said it is “committed to the safe 
operation of all its nuclear plants and appreciates the 
NRC’s assessment that the Indian Point plants are operated 
safely,” according to spokesman James Steets.

 “We will continue to make equipment and safety 
improvements at Indian Point. It’s a credit to the workers 
at Indian Point who recognize how valuable these plants are to 
New York State and especially the lower Hudson Valley and New 
York City. With our workers’ commitment to safety we can 
continue ensuring a reliable and critical electricity 
supply,” he said.

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's 
only Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 38 Deutsche Welle: Germany Piques Interest With Shared Nuclear Fuel Plan | 

| 07.03.2007

A central agency could provide enriched uranium to nations
interested in nuclear power

An informal German proposal to provide enriched uranium to 
countries interested in the nuclear fuel has garnered the 
interest of several nations, a foreign ministry official said 
Tuesday.

Instead of having countries build facilities to acquire 
technology to enrich uranium themselves, German foreign ministry 
state secretary Gernot Erler said a shared enrichment facility 
could be created.

Speaking at a non-proliferation and arms control conference, 
Erler said the proposal was still at an informal stage but added 
that the idea had broad international support and would soon be 
fleshed out by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

"It has not yet been made official, but informally Minister 
Steinmeier has suggested that the fuel cycle be made 
international," Erler told the conference. "We are in the process 
of considering how we can take these proposals forward and 
formalize them. At present there is great interest from various 
sides."

Steinmeier first floated the idea of central enrichment site that 
would provide nuclear fuel to interested nations before a meeting 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency last September.

Uranium would not be weapons grade

Bildunterschrift: Countries can produce nuclear energy under the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty

As current president of the European Union and Group of Eight
industrialized nations, Germany could potentially put finding a
multilateral approach to enriching uranium on the international
agenda.

Observers present at the conference, where several international 
approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle were presented, said a 
shared facility would eliminate the need for countries to create 
their own enrichment operations and lower the risk of the 
facilities being used to produce nuclear weapons.

Instead of enriching their own nuclear fuel, states would legally 
obtain fuel rods from enrichment centers outside their borders 
and under the control of the United Nations.

The fuel used in atomic power reactors is similar, but not as 
highly enriched, as the radioactive material used in nuclear 
bombs.

Plan to include more than only Iran

Bildunterschrift: Iran and the west are divided on the intentions 
of Tehran's nuclear program

Erler said the program would be aimed at more countries than only
Iran, with which the UN has engaged in drawn-out nuclear
negotiations as the United States and EU fear it is developing
nuclear weapons. Tehran, however, insists its nuclear program is of
a purely peaceful nature.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said on Monday that his agency was 
still unable to verify that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, 
as the United States claims it is, adding that it was "long 
overdue" for Iran to "answer all the agency's questions and 
concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and 
transparent manner."

The European Union prepared to deliver a statement on Thursday in 
which the bloc "reaffirms its continuous support for efforts to 
find a negotiated long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear 
issue," according to a copy of the text shown to the AFP news 
agency.

The statement said "a comprehensive offer is still on the table 
and the door remains open," referring to a deal of trade, 
security and technology benefits for Iran if it guarantees it 
will not seek nuclear weapons.

The EU also said it "deplores that Iran has not complied with the 
terms of UNSC (UN Security Council) resolution 1737," which calls 
on Iran to halt uranium enrichment work and to stop building a 
nuclear reactor.

DW staff (sms)

*****************************************************************
 39 New London Day: Millstone Earns Positive Safety Review From NRC

[ Welcome to theday.com ] By Patricia Daddona
 
Published on 3/7/2007 in Home »Region »Region News

A review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Millstone Power
Station has found that concerns over the past year have been
adequately addressed and require no extra federal oversight.

The NRC, the agency responsible for ensuring that the nation's
nuclear reactors are operating safely, reviews operations annually.
It also examines measures taken to ensure the plants are physically
protected, but that evaluation is exempt from public disclosure,
according to federal law.

Completed on Feb. 13 and reported on March 2 to Millstone's parent
company, Dominion Resources, the NRC's assessment letter finds most
problems that arose during the course of the year were of “very low
safety significance,” states David C. Lew, the NRC's director of the
division of Reactor Projects.

During 2006, the Unit 2 reactor had a more serious unplanned
shutdown later attributed to the shutting of feedwater pumps, which
provide water to the steam generators, due to a loss of air
pressure. In a reactor, fission heats water that flashes to steam,
which in turn spins turbines that generate electricity.

Besides repairing the equipment, Dominion officials resolved the
problem by establishing a panel to review training and instructing
workers to visually inspect piping before beginning any work, said
Pete Hyde, a Dominion spokesman.

The company also had several instances of ineffectively identifying
and resolving problems, Lew wrote. In some cases, the issue had
implications for various areas of operation, said Neil Sheehan, an
NRC spokesman, but in each case, the company made a concerted effort
to improve the way it handles such issues that satisfied the NRC,
Sheehan said.

“We rely on plants to have a very robust program for identifying
problems and getting them resolved,” Sheehan said.

Lew also outlined the schedule for future inspections, which extends
through June 2008. Included in those inspections are a review at
Millstone 1, a plant that is permanently shut down, and an
inspection of the dry cask storage facility.

Reviews of 102 other nuclear power plants confirmed that all of the
nation's reactors are operating safely. The NRC will meet with
Dominion this spring to discuss the review.

Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, 
CT |  © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 104
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: Australians will accept nuclear power: Switkowski. 

07/03/2007. ABC News Online

Last Update: Wednesday, March 7, 2007. 9:16pm (AEDT)

Dr Switkowski believes Labor will lift policy bans on expanding
uranium mining and exports. (Getty Images) 

Australians will accept nuclear power: Switkowski

The head of the Prime Minister's nuclear task force, Dr Ziggy
Switkowski, has predicted that Australians will accept uranium
enrichment and nuclear power generation as part of action to curb
greenhouse emissions.

He has told a Sydney business lunch that he believes the Labor Party
will take the first step by lifting policy bans on expanding uranium
mining and exports.

"When the ALP have their national convention in April this year, the
leadership have foreshadowed for some time that they will be
revisiting the ALP objections to this with a view to reversing their
position on this," he said.

"It may well be that this is the first aspect of the nuclear fuel
cycle which sees bipartisan support for lifting restrictions on
uranium mining in Australia."

*****************************************************************
 41 AU ABC: Rann denies cabinet stint helped company plan power plant.

07/03/2007. ABC News Online

South Australian Premier Mike Rann says there is no way businessman
Robert de Crespigny obtained knowledge toward establishing a nuclear
power plant in Australia while he was with the Executive Cabinet.

Mr de Crespigny is involved a business called Australian Nuclear
Energy, which is looking at the viability of nuclear power
production.

In State Parliament, Mr Rann said it was outrageous to suggest Mr de
Crespigny's involvement with Executive Cabinet assisted that
proposition.

"I guess if Mr de Crespigny's company wants to build a nuclear power
plant elsewhere then that is up to him," he said.

"But he could not have gained any information that could help them
establish a power plant in South Australia except that we are
against it and ruled it out."



*****************************************************************
 42 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Cheswick plant expecting order for reactor pumps - 

By C.M. Mortimer
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

A local company is likely to be among the first to win a supplier
contract to help Westinghouse Electric Co. to build four nuclear
power plants in China, officials said Tuesday.

Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corp.'s operation in Cheswick
hopes to be awarded a contract to build the reactor coolant pumps
for Monroeville-based Westinghouse's AP 1000 nuclear plants.

The contract would amount to a significant increase in business for
the Cheswick facility. "It would provide a stable workload on top of
the naval defense work we already have," said Greg Hempfling, vice
president and general manager at the plant.

"We're working with Westinghouse on the design of the reactor
coolant pumps. We don't have a purchase order, but we expect they
(Westinghouse) will close on a contract, and we expect a purchase
order," said Hempfling.

The Cheswick plant employs 720 workers, who make pumps and
generators for the Navy and commercial applications.

Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said yesterday that other
companies that could benefit from the contract include Emerson
Process Management Power & Water Solutions in O' Hara, which makes
advanced control software, and Westinghouse's facility in
Blairsville, Indiana County, which makes fuel rods.

Westinghouse Electric last week said it successfully negotiated a
framework agreement with China's State Nuclear Power Technology Co.
--- a deal that begins procurement on the $5.3 billion nuclear power
deal with the Chinese government announced in December.

"It was a big victory for Westinghouse, but the Chinese are
deliberate and challenging negotiators. Unless you have a signed
contract, you don't have anything. I would love to be off to the
races, but we're not there yet," Hempfling said.

Hempfling said if all goes well, the contract to build the coolant
pumps would mean several years of work. "We're talking multiple
years, and it should provide a slight increase in employment," he
said.

Westinghouse has said the framework agreement provides funding for
the company and its consortium partner, The Shaw Group of Baton
Rouge, La., to begin procuring equipment for the reactors. Further
contracts will be finalized later this year, with construction to
begin in 2009 and the first plant to begin operating in 2013.

Curtiss-Wright Corp., based in Lyndhurst, N.J., designs,
manufactures and overhauls motion and flow control products.
Curtiss-Wright acquired the Electro Mechanical Division in Cheswick
from Westinghouse Government Services Co., LLC in October 2002. The
Shaw Group acquired the assets of the former IT Group, based in
Monroeville, in 2002.

C.M. Mortimer can be reached at cmortimer@tribweb.com or (724)
836-5252.

Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from
Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
 43 BlueOregon: The Nuclear Question

Leslie Carlson

Driving through the Yamhill Valley last weekend, my husband and I 
were struck with the number of solar panels going up. Sokol 
Blosser Winery has an array, Stoller Vineyards is 70 percent 
powered by solar and Torii Mor Winery plans to produce their 
entire crop of wine--12,000 cases--from solar energy.

The wind energy business is growing by leaps and bounds these 
days, both internationally and domestically. These visible signs 
of renewable energy taking hold, as well as Texas Utilities 
recent cancellation of 8 of 11 planned new coal plants, are 
enough to make me think that a global transition away from fossil 
fuels and to renewable energy may be well underway.

That's why I was surprised to hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say
that nuclear energy was "on the table" as part of her renewed effort
to get the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels. Nuclear power? In
2007? After Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the fact that some
nuclear waste can stay radioactive for a half million years?

The reason may be this: so far, Americans have shown themselves to
be poor conservers of energy, and the forecast for energy use
continues to grow. Pelosi--and others--may be worried that renewable
energy, while clearly a factor for the future, will not grow fast
enough to meet the country's demand for electricity. Therefore, they
are looking to the only large-scale conventional energy source that
does not produce carbon emissions: nuclear energy.

Here's how Angus Duncan, head of the Bonneville Environmental
Foundation, framed the consequences of the region's energy demand in
a recent article in the Portland Tribune: Unless we can reduce
demand, it is more likely that we will have to build the kinds of
(power) plants found in the rest of the country.

By the "kinds of plants found in the rest of the country," I assume
Duncan means coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. And yet, I
find it hard to believe that new nuclear plants will start springing
up all over the country in the next years. After all, the only
nuclear plant in our immediate vicinity, Trojan, was decommissioned
just recently.

However, if the consequences of global warming fall hard and fast on
our society, it may be that nuclear is a short-term strategy to
reducing carbon until we can meet our energy needs with the
plentiful and clean supply of sun, wind and waves. This situation
seems all the more reason to support the green power programs that
local energy utilities offer. Sign up for yours, if you haven't
already. You may be putting off a nuclear power plant planned for
your neighborhood.

March 7, 2007 | Leslie Carlson | E-mail to a Friend | Comments (19
so far)
Permalink: The Nuclear Question

BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round 
the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip. Learn 
more about BlueOregon and meet our contributors.

Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 7, 2007 8:12:21 AM

To meet the demand for future power in the Northwest we either have
to build more traditional power plants or we have to force people to
conserve energy, since voluntary conservation has not and will not
achieve sufficient reduction in demand. There are two ways to force
people to conserve energy. The first is to use some sort of
government mandated program like rationing. I don't see that
happening. The second way to force conservation is to allow power
prices to rise to a point that is high enough that a sufficient
number of people will use less power because they can't afford the
price. The second approach works, but it will have harsh
consequences for the poor and the middle class not to mention the
number of manufacturing and industrial jobs that would be lost due
to the increased power prices.

I think it is a fair question to ask voters and consumers whether
they want to endure forced conservation or whether they would prefer
to have new power plants built in the Northwest. If new power plants
are going to be constructed, I would prefer nuclear over coal or
natural gas.


Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 7, 2007 8:25:06 AM

There is an effort underway to restore the glow to nuclear power. It
is combined with the implication that it needs to be said quietly or
it will stir up "emotional" hysteria about nuclear energy.

But the problems that caused commercial reactors to stop being built
have not changed. The problem is not simply technology, but how that
technology gets applied in a commercial environment.

In one sense nuclear power is just a fancy way to boil water. But it
is a much more complex operation than an old-fashioned industrial
plant that burns fossil fuel for the same purpose. To do it safely
requires a lot more technical skills and a different kind of
management than most power producers need for their other operations.

And it is safely, not efficiently, that is the key word there. The
extra expense to get workers with better skills is not returned on
the bottom line except to the extent they avoid catastrophic
accidents or regulatory shutdowns from failing to comply with safety
requirements.

Not surprisingly, companies looking to control expenses cut corners
on hiring people. They hire the lowest cost workers who meets the
absolute minimum regulatory requirements for the job. In some cases,
they have hired unqualified people without any background checks at
all.

The reality is that a Three-mile Island or Chernobyl like disaster
is very unlikely. The problem is that when they happen they can have
catastrophic consequences. Unfortunately, those kinds of risks are
not well handled by the commercial marketplace. This is why we have
the Price-Anderson act limiting company's liability in the event of
an accident. But the flip side of that is that the people who make
decisions for company's are rewarded for immediate bottom line
profits, not preventing unlikely events.

But it wasn't poor management that was the demise of Trojan. It
wasn't really even poor design. It was an experimental modern
technology. Like the first version of new software, it had lots of
bugs. Only those bugs showed up over a period of years and
eventually lead the plant to be closed, although Oregon's rate
payers are still paying for it.

And that raises an issue which has changed in other parts of the
country where electrical generation has been de-regulated. PGE
operated Trojan as a regulated utility that passed on its costs to
customers. If its costs went up to make Trojan safer, so did its
rates. But in the unregulated environment, power companies will make
money on the difference between what they can charge and what it
costs. Every dime spent on improved safety comes out of the bottom
line.

Then there are the "environmentalists" who seem to forget about the
rest of the nuclear power cycle and its impact on workers and
communities. The production of uranium and the disposal of nuclear
waste both have significant environmental questions associated with
them. We are over 50 years into the nuclear power industry and we
still have no acceptable plan for disposing of the the highly
radioactive waste. Nor any clear idea of what that will ultimately
cost. And the environmental impacts of uranium mining and production
are largely dealt with by pretending they don't exist.

I suspect there is going to be a real push for nuclear power. The
technology is still experimental, the commercial organizations to
build and operate plants safely aren't really there and the ultimate
costs, when decommissioning and waste storage are included, are
unknown. But there is money to be made and a whole industry that
will start to die if we go another 25 years without building a new
plant.

At some point we will have another catastrophic disaster and the
whole process will start over with the same PR buildup, the same
implications that any opposition is just emotional hysteria and the
same results with technology rushed into production before it has
been fully vetted under experimental conditions.

And that is without considering the current fear mongering around
potential acts of terrorism. A catastrophic accident at a nuclear
power plant is both a lot more dangerous and a lot more likely than
terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon and successfully
smuggling it into the country.


Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 7, 2007 8:57:04 AM

The rise of nukes as green power is a fascinating wrinkle in modern
politics. I worked to get Trojan closed and was hugely anti-nuke
back in the 80s and 90s. Not only was it a danger to health, but
also represented foreign-policy danger. But now, if greenies are to
look seriously at the reality of global warming, we have to at least
put nukes back on the table.

Their readoption is premature--we still haven't figured out what to
do with the waste. However, if you think, as I do, that global
warming will radically alter the globe in the next century,
potentially bringing with it famine and war, you must be at least
willing to consider nuclear power.

To reframe the question from an environmental perspective: what
would it take to make nuclear power safe, unpolluting, and reliable?
If we could answer that question, we might be onto something.

In the interim, you're right--let's go as green as possible as fast
as possible first. Nukes should be a last resort. Provocative
thoughts, Leslie.


Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 7, 2007 8:57:57 AM

Not advocating N tech, but it's worth keeping up with the new stuff.
The new "pebble bed" configuration of fuel, while pretty simple is
light years ahead of Chernobyl and even Three Mile Island. Those
types of disasters could not happen with pebble bed. If something
goes wrong, the whole thing sorta "goes out" like a grill with the
coals dispersed.

That still leaves the whole radioactive waste disposal and the
mining and manufacture as really serious issues that need to be
addressed.........So I'm with Ross overall on this one.

The sad fact is that we do have the tech right now to build out the
entire country around a distributed system employing fuel cells,
solar and wind, but the current energy delivery guys would be
forever shut out of such a system, and they will not go gently into
that good night.

Wired Magazine has a short article about a guy living completely off
the grid with about a $50,000 investment. Not cheap, but maybe
cheaper than a lifetime of invading "resource nations" to support
our collective habit. Read about it here

Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 7, 2007 9:15:02 AM

My frustration with some of my friends in the environmental
community is that when they are asked to make the "Devil's Choice"
between nuclear or oil / coal / gas (or LNG), they try to choose
"none of the above". My point is that absent very painful mandatory
conservation measures, "none of the above" is not an available
choice. Notwithstanding Governor K's current fixation with solar,
there is no new or renewable technology on the horizon that can
produce anywhere near the generating capacity that will be required
by the Northwest by the year 2025. Solar panels, fuel cells, wind
farms and ocean tide generators will not meet the current demand
forecasts, and our country and our region need to decide fairly soon
how we are going to meet the demand for power. If we choose to NOT
meet the demand, then we need to begin discussions very quickly on
what form of mandatory energy conservation will be implemented.

Choosing oil or coal or natural gas or LNG are all reasonable
choices, but as I said, I happen to prefer nuclear as I believe on
balance it is the cleaner alternative and it is working very well
throughout Asia and Europe.


Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 7, 2007 12:47:39 PM

But now, if greenies are to look seriously at the reality of global
warming, we have to at least put nukes back on the table.

when they are asked to make the "Devil's Choice" between nuclear or
oil / coal / gas (or LNG), they try to choose "none of the above".
My point is that absent very painful mandatory conservation
measures, "none of the above" is not an available choice.
Notwithstanding Governor K's current fixation with solar, there is
no new or renewable technology on the horizon that can produce
anywhere near the generating capacity that will be required by the
Northwest by the year 2025

I think you have a lot of assumptions there that aren't true:

1) "painful mandatory conservation measures"

The reality is large amounts of the base need for electricity are
air conditioning, heating and lighting. We have not even begun to
tap the potential in any of the three.

You can find houses all over the place that lack basic
weatherization that is cost effective even at today's prices. Most
people have not moved to compact fluorescents and many downtown
office buildings continue to use large amounts of light all night.
These measures are hardly painful and probably don't even need to be
mandatory.


2) Wind, solar and wave technologies all have potential to generate
substantial electricity. But you are right there are environmental
tradeoffs with virtually any power source.

3) Coal gasification with co2 sequestration appears to be close to
ready to move into the commercial stage of development. In some
cases the captured co2 may actually be a source of earnings, rather
than a cost.

4) There are probably real savings to be had from reducing
transmission losses.

So your environmental friends answer is correct. They don't have to
choose today between today's coal technology and today's nuclear
technology. And its likely a lot will have changed in both
industries if and when that choice does need to be made. The effort
to get people to jump on the bandwagon is driven by business plans,
not electrical needs.

Posted by: Garlynn | Mar 7, 2007 1:20:50 PM

I don't agree with your assessment, BlueNote. Show me the data that
predicts exactly how much demand will increase for power by the year
2025, in Oregon, and in the Pacific NW power grid as a whole. And
then show me how sustainable power sources (wind, solar, tidal)
won't be able to fill the gap.

By 2009, one plant in Hillsboro be churning out 500mw worth of solar
panels each year, if I read the predictions correctly. That's a
*lot* of capacity. Eastern Oregon/Washington gets a *lot* of
sunshine, 300+ days per year! So, I don't believe the arguments that
solar isn't a viable part of the solution. Combined with
electrolysis & hydrogen fuel cells to deal with the day vs. night,
summer vs. winter issue, as well as with wind power so that if the
sun is shining, electricity is produced, and if the wind is blowing,
electricity is produced -- and it seems like there's a pretty
effective solution right there.

Especially if you look at the total cost of a new nuclear plant, and
look at how much solar/wind-fuel cell combo plant capacity could be
built with that funding instead. And also include the lifecycle
costs of the technologies.

So, no, I don't think nuclear is or should be a part of the answer.
I think if a fair analysis is conducted, nuclear is still going to
lose.

Posted by: Thomas Ware | Mar 7, 2007 1:32:12 PM

Little bit of a tangent, but... couple of weeks ago 'ore pints at
the pub big, fat rightwinger (Californian) trying to be funny
(intimidating) at my expense 'ore discussion of half million year
half lives made the classic winger so what we'll all be dead crack.
Very quiet, very well educated rightwinger who rarely commments on
anything (old Oregon boy) looked right at him and said "not like
there isn't enough of that shit, is there?"


Posted by: Some Jerk | Mar 7, 2007 2:02:38 PM

I am a huge supporter of renewable energy, but I think dismissing
nuclear energy with invocations of Chernobyl and TMI is asinine.

A) Next generation reactors have abandoned the sort of active safety
systems that failed at TMI. The Westinghouse AP1000 is the new
standard (a prototype is running at OSU) and uses gravity instead of
pumps for emergency cooling, among other passive safety features.
Unless the theory of gravity turns out to be as incorrect as
evolution, meltdown proof.

B) Nuclear waste is an issue, but what people don't understand is
how half-life works. The "hottest" stuff has short half-lifes. The
stuff that lasts a million years is not nearly as radioactive. It's
nasty, but at least its all in one place, rather than sent up a
smokestack. (yes, coal is slightly radioactive, not just full of
carbon)

C) You need baseload generation to maintain a grid. Wind is
unpredictable in many locations. Photovoltaic solar is predictably
useless at night. Hydro is already at maximum capacity in the
northwest. Right now, we rely on coal and gas fired plants to
provide the base that hydro can't. Yes, converting water to hydrogen
or spinning flywheels can store some solar or wind energy, but
that's $$$$ on a large scale.

D) What is needed is a vision of where the energy mix will be in
2050. With vigorous conservation, we should be able to hold demand
to current levels. As of 2000, the mix was 66% hydro, 24% coal, 8%
gas & 2% nuclear. I'd like to see nuclear and renewables step up to
replacing that 24%.


Posted by: Joe12Pack | Mar 7, 2007 2:19:27 PM

Is it just me or is the general sentiment among so-called
progressives far more pro-nuclear power than it was a mere 15 years
ago? I seem to recall nuclear power being the big bad bogeyman in
the not so distant past as Jeff attested to, but apparently that has
been replaced by global warming.

Though I'd agree that nuclear energy represents one of our best bets
as a low emissions energy source capable of generating copious
amounts of electricity, it's going to be very difficult to make that
happen in the U.S. Our waste management plan is a mess, stymied by
politics and environmental concerns. Fear and our "not in my
backyard" mentality will only compound the problem of moving forward
with nuclear technology.

Personally I'm most troubled by the waste issue. According to the
feds, there's already more than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste piling
up at nuclear power plants in 31 states with nowhere to go.
Hypothetically speaking, lets say we do manage to construct and put
more plants on line. Where do we put the lovely byproducts from the
process to sit for thousands of years? Yucca Mountain? That project
aint exactly on target and seems to waning in popularity, especially
among residents of Southern Nevada. Then there's the matter of
storage capacity. Even if developed to it's theoretical maximum,
were talking maybe 150,000 tons according to proponents, hardly a
real long-term solution. We need to think about that. Developed
countries who derive much larger percentages of their energy from
nuclear power than the U.S. will generate lower carbon emissions per
capita but there's quite a trade off. Call me crazy, but making
small incremental improvements in our own meaningless lives-
becoming more conscious and energy efficient would make a world of
difference without creating another set of problems.

Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 7, 2007 2:24:16 PM

The nuclear question is what you're actually going to do- for real,
like get up and walk out the door- about Easter, when you hear on
the morning news that we've just attacked Iran with tactical nukes.

Seriously, environmentalists seem to act like anything matters as
long as wars are going on. Even we can't be so consumptive to match
in a year what the cleanest war does in five minutes.



Posted by: pedro | Mar 7, 2007 2:35:05 PM

"absent very painful mandatory conservation measures, "none of the
above" is not an available choice"

this is so untrue. california's energy intensity (energy use per
dollar of gross state product) as of 2001 was more than 25% better
than oregons, and that was before the enron "crisis". i can only
imagine that it is even better now. california is also aiming at 2%
reduction per year; the average is 1.5%, and that is from higher
initial usage with more obvious room for improvement. so oregon can
do a whole lot better.

i am hoping the gov k's renewable portfolio plan provides some sort
of stimulus or state underwriting for investment in geothermal. in
some ways, our cheap electricity have been harmful in the
development of renewable source; right now our most promising
geothermal sites (the military pass-newberry volcano project, and
crump geyser) are being developed by california and nevada!

we do currently underwrite the above market costs of some renewable
energy devlopment, but i believe only cheap, utility-scale
development, which basically means wind. i think it would be super
forward thinking of the legislature to actually help get a
geothermal project going. even though it will cost more than wind,
it would give use baseload, rather than intermmitent generation.
oregon is projected to have the 3rd highest potential geothermal
capacity in the nation.

Posted by: Jonathan Poisner | Mar 7, 2007 3:33:21 PM

Blue Note writes:

My frustration with some of my friends in the environmental
community is that when they are asked to make the "Devil's Choice"
between nuclear or oil / coal / gas (or LNG), they try to choose
"none of the above". My point is that absent very painful mandatory
conservation measures, "none of the above" is not an available
choice. Notwithstanding Governor K's current fixation with solar,
there is no new or renewable technology on the horizon that can
produce anywhere near the generating capacity that will be required
by the Northwest by the year 2025.

The problem with BlueNote's assertion is it's not even close to
being true. There's plenty of renewable options, combined with
conservation measures that actually save us money that would meet
any reasonable forecast for energy demand without pushing us onto
nuclear, or building new coal/natural gas, and without increases in
prices. And that's assuming current state of technology for solar,
which continues to improve every year.


Posted by: paul | Mar 7, 2007 3:45:00 PM

Jonathan,

Could you post some links or sources for us to look at on this
topic? I am no fan of nuclear waste, but given the current options
on the table, I would not be opposed to relying on nuclear power
plants. I look at the track record in Europe, which is very good,
and look at what we're doing (coal and coal gasification), which is
very bad.

So what am I missing here?

Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 7, 2007 4:04:29 PM

I am not a scientist, but according to the Northwest Power Council
(http://www.nwcouncil.org/) NW load demand in 2025 is predicted to
average between 25 and 30,000 Megs. Could be higher or lower
depending on the economy, population growth, etc. Those figures
assume the aluminum plants in the NW will not be restarted, which
seems like a valid assumption although I think Alcoa has restarted
its Wenatchee plant.

The amount of base capacity presently available in the NW is a
moving target, because a significant amount of capacity is not under
contract to anybody and, depending on available transmission
capacity, will flow to whatever part of the west coast is paying the
highest energy spot prices at the moment. Looks like existing
guaranteed fixed demand capacity is about 20,000 Megs.

If the above load estimates and capacity figures are in the ball
park, the Northwest will require around 7,000 to 10,000 Megs of new
base load capacity (or a combination of conservation and base load
capacity). Hopefully wind will cover at least 10% of that figure if
the federal tax subsidy remains in place. World wide geothermal
production is only about 6,000 Megs so I don't see that as a viable
alternative. Right now, solar is too small to count.

The above is why I submit that we should begin to discuss adding
traditional thermal base load capacity to the Northwest grid at the
same time as we explore conservation options. Absent some pretty
incredible new technology, conservation and renewable energy are not
going to be enough.


Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 7, 2007 5:52:39 PM

Is it just me or is the general sentiment among so-called
progressives far more pro-nuclear power than it was a mere 15 years
ago?

I think there are a lot of people who were never really involved
with the issue and never understood it. The nuclear industry has
picked up global warming as the issue they can pitch their industry
around and, frankly, the environmental groups opposed to nuclear
power have mostly moved on. Its been over 25 years since anyone
seriously proposed building a new one anywhere in the United States.

For people who really want to dig into the details of future power
needs here is a Electric Power and Conservation Plan from the
Northwest Power Planning Council. It doesn't really support
Bluenote's claims about not being able to meet the region's needs
with conservation and renewables. There is no simple yes/no to that
question. It depends on a lot of things including technological
advances in the next 25 years.

Here is a quote:

"Although the Northwest Power Act still requires a 20-year forecast
of demand, there are few decisions that need to be made today to
meet growing electricity demands beyond the next five years. The
lead-time required to put new generating resources in place has been
reduced substantially from the large scale nuclear and coal plants
that appeared to be desirable in the early 1980s."

In essence, there is no need to be rushing to make decisions now for
large new generating capacity of any kind.


Posted by: Garlynn | Mar 7, 2007 5:55:12 PM

BlueNote,

Thanks for bringing in those figures. As pedro notes, California has
partially dealt with its energy situation using conservation, which
is something that Oregon/the Pacific NW should definitely try a bit
harder at. Perhaps that 6-7,000 mw figured can be whittled down to
1,000 mw if conservation measures are effective.

Then, solar/wind/fuel cell/tidal might have a fighting chance of
making a difference. According to this San Francisco Chronicle
article, one solar project using Stirling engines is expected to
produce 500mw. Put a couple of these out in the desert and tie them
into some way to store generated power for the down-time (hydrogen
tanks, batteries, capacitors, water pumped uphill, whatever), and
there might be some real solutions finally from the solar sector.

My point was, if the amount of money that it would take to build
just one nuclear plant were instead used for a portfolio of other
wind/solar/etc. projects, similar generating capacity might be
produced, especially if lifecycle costs are taken into consideration.

Given that the pace of technological change is very rapid, it's hard
to quantify this right now. For example, one single wind turbine,
the Enercon E112, will produce 6mw of electricity -- but pricing for
this turbine is hard to come by, as very few have been manufactured
so far, as from some prototypes.

Further, when it comes to wind & solar, distributed generating
capacity could very well become even more important than centralized
capacity. That is, small wind & solar generators atop homes &
businesses could eventually come to meet a major portion of our
generating capacity need increases. More incentives should be aimed
at promoting this, IMHO....


Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan | Mar 7, 2007
6:04:57 PM Is it just me or is the general sentiment among so-called
progressives far more pro-nuclear power than it was a mere 15 years
ago?

It is not just you. For a long time gas pipelines would blow up, the
afternoon shift would go down in a coal mine and never come up,
houses would be depopulated by carbon monoxide, and nuclear people
would wring their hands and say, why is the public so irrational. As
it turns out, we're not; our opinions were being misrepresented by
oil and gas interests.

The trick, it turns out, is that oil and gas profits are mostly
taken as taxes, so the very government that supposedly was pushing
nuclear has in fact always been its most cunning character-assassin.
And, to be sure, a very aggressive regulator.


Posted by: pedro | Mar 7, 2007 8:53:21 PM

i gotta second garlynn, here. the opportunity costs of putting the
collective effort towards nuclear are huge. a huge effort in time,
and capital; if we choose to do it, we are choosing not to do many,
many other things. europe indeed has a good track record with
nuclear, but they made their decision to go that route when the
options were fewer. we have more options now.

the first step, as garlynn mention, is to use full life cycle
assessment of energy production and use. only this way can the
figures not be fudged (like jk does so well with his transportation
statistics). if we fail to do that, the numbers are only good until
the next rebuild, which in the case of nuclear could easily come
sooner then expected.

*****************************************************************
 44 ESN: Federal lawmakers reintroduce legislation to compensate nuclear workers 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

empire state news

A number of federal lawmakers including Senators Charles Schumer 
and Hillary Clinton, and House Members Thomas Reynolds, Louise 
Slaughter and Brian Higgins, Tuesday re-introducing legislation 
to reform the compensation program for nuclear workers at 
Bethlehem Steel and other former New York atomic weapons 
production facilities.

The bill would enable employees to be added to a “special 
exposure cohort” and receive compensation under the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program if exposure 
records do not enable case-by-case decisions to be made.

Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act in 2000 to compensate workers who 
contracted radioactive cancer, beryllium disease or chronic 
silicosis after working at sites that performed nuclear weapons 
work during World War II and the Cold War. Under EEOICPA, former 
nuclear workers or their survivors were eligible to file claims 
with the US Department of Labor for individual payments of 
$150,000, as well as medical benefits. To file a claim, patients 
or their surviving families needed to provide proper 
documentation of their illness and employment history.

The re-introduced bill would amend the criteria by which 
employees can be added to a “special exposure 
cohort.” Being added to a cohort means that employees do 
not have to go through a “dose reconstruction” 
process. Instead, if a person has an eligible cancer and worked 
at a facility when weapons work was performed, their cancer is 
presumed to have been caused by workplace exposure and the 
person’s claim is paid.  
*****************************************************************
 45 APP.COM: NRC: Plant's safety risk is human error | 

Asbury Park Press Online

Oyster Creek must still pass inspection for a 2005 violation

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 03/7/07

BY NICK CLUNN STAFF WRITER Post Comment

LACEY — The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant operated safely last
year, but its workers continue to have trouble adhering to safety
procedures, according to an annual assessment released Tuesday by
federal regulators.

In explaining the worker-performance issue, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission brought up a special inspection — stemming
from a 2005 violation — the plant still needs to pass and subsequent
incidents related to failure in following directions.

But regulators doubt that the issue could seriously jeopardize plant
safety, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said. They have been willing to
wait nearly two years for a turn-around because they want
long-lasting reform, he said.

The plant's operator, AmerGen Energy Corp., understands the issue's
importance, and by the end of the week will finish putting all of
its 475 workers through a procedure-adherence training program,
plant spokeswoman Rachelle Benson said. Plant operators, of which
there are about 100, underwent several days of training while
support staff took half-day lessons, she said.

The time it has taken to train employees and implement other
programs meant to improve worker performance is why AmerGen has yet
to invite regulators to conduct a special inspection stemming from
the 2005 violation. The inspection would ensure that the kind of
human error that caused the violation does not happen again.

In August 2005, AmerGen failed to issue a mandatory advisory on
time, in part, because workers failed to follow procedures and
understand the expectations of management.

The company should have issued that advisory, meant to inform state
and local officials about a plant condition that could have affected
the public, soon after sea grass briefly clogged an intake used to
pump cooling water into the plant.

Regulators inspected the plant on this issue for the first time in
May, but AmerGen failed the human performance part of it.

During interviews conducted as part of that inspection, some plant
operators said they could execute step-by-step procedures by
skipping around instead.

The NRC wrote in its letter that AmerGen, besides passing the
inspection, could also help resolve the worker-performance issue by
telling regulators more about its corrective actions and how those
steps have been effective.

Regulators asked AmerGen to provide that information during an
annual public meeting about plant performance. The meeting has been
tentatively scheduled for May 17 and is expected to be held in Lacey
or a nearby town.

The annual assessment is separate from the review Oyster Creek must
pass to obtain a 20-year renewal of its operating license.

Nick Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn@app.com

Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 FR: NRC: FONSI for Fort McClellan AL license termination

Doc E7-4096

[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)] 
[Notices] [Page 10262-10264] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07mr07-169]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-17584]

Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials 
License No. 01-02861-05, for Termination of the License and 
Unrestricted Release of the Department of the Army's Chemical School 
Facility in Fort McClellan, AL

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact for license amendment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Orysia Masnyk Bailey, Health 
Physicist, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of 
Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19401; phone number (864) 427-1032; fax 
number (610) 680- 3497; or by e-mail: omm@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
terminating Byproduct Materials License No. 01-02861-05. This license 
is held by the Department of the Army (the Licensee), for remaining 
residual ground contamination at a 1950s era radioactive materials 
burial ground, located within the LaGarde Park (the Site) in Anniston, 
Alabama, adjacent to Fort McClellan. Termination of the license would 
authorize release of the site for unrestricted use.
    The Army requested this action in a letter dated April 26, 2005. 
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of 
this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on 
the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The license 
will be terminated following the publication of this FONSI and EA in 
the Federal Register.

[[Page 10263]]

II. Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would approve the Licensee's April 26, 2005, 
request, resulting in release of the Site for unrestricted use and the 
termination of its NRC materials license. The U.S. Army Chemical School 
was located at Fort McClellan from 1951-1973 and 1979-1999. Several 
Byproduct Materials Licenses were issued and terminated over the years 
which authorized the use of byproduct material by the Army Chemical 
School at Fort McClellan. License No. 01-02861-05 was issued in 1979, 
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since 
that time. This license initially was a license of broad scope, but now 
is limited to authorizing the possession of unsealed byproduct material 
in contaminated soil at the Site. Over the past 10 years, portions of 
the Army's Chemical School at Fort McClellan have been incrementally 
released for unrestricted use as remediation activities and 
radiological surveys have allowed in support of the Base Closure and 
Relocation (BRAC) process Fort McClellan is undergoing. As buildings 
and outdoor areas were released they were turned over to the State of 
Alabama. The Site now under consideration for release is on property 
that was deeded to the city of Anniston from the Army in 1974, and has 
been used as a recreational park.
    A flyover survey of Fort McClellan was completed in October 2001 
and the Site was found to contain a ``hot spot''. Cesium 137 
contamination on the east side of the Site was identified and was 
determined to be from training activities at the former Army Chemical 
School. The contaminated area (adjacent to the Fort McClellan perimeter 
fence) was then fenced. This area is located in a wooded section of the 
park containing walking and biking trails. Because the property no 
longer belonged to the Army, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
assumed responsibility for site remediation under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Since 
the contamination found at the site was associated with the Army's use 
of the property during the 1950s, the property was found to be eligible 
for action under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). 
This program authorizes the Secretary of Defense to undertake 
remediation action at formerly used defense sites (FUDS) related to 
contamination associated with past Department of Defense (DOD) use. 
USACE is DOD's delegated execution agent for DERP-FUDS response 
actions. The permit waiver provision of CERCLA 121(e) thus applies to 
the Site, and USACE therefore was not required to submit a 
decommissioning plan to the NRC prior to initiating remediation 
activities in September 2003.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the site, 
and seeks the unrestricted use of the site and the termination of its 
NRC materials license.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the site 
shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides 
with half-lives greater than 120 days: cobalt-60 and cesium-137. Prior 
to performing the final status survey, USACE contracted to have 244 
tons of contaminated materials and dirt removed from the site from 
September 2003 through March 2005.
    USACE conducted a final status survey of the Site in August 2005 
and submitted its draft data (later submitted unchanged in final form 
in June 2006) showing that the Site meets the criteria in Subpart E of 
10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release and permits license 
termination. USACE demonstrated compliance with the radiological 
criteria for unrestricted release specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using 
the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. USACE used the radionuclide-
specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed 
there by the NRC. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual 
radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in 
soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR 
Part 20 for unrestricted release. USACE's final status survey results 
were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As 
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. USACE also 
considered the dose contribution from previous site releases. The NRC 
concludes that USACE's final status survey results are acceptable. NRC 
staff conducted a confirmatory survey on September 27, 2005. Results 
were comparable to those observed by USACE and none of the confirmatory 
sample results exceeded the DCGLs.
    Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected 
environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 
Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' 
(NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). 
Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the 
use of radioactive material at the site. The NRC staff reviewed the 
docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any 
non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment 
surrounding the site. No such hazards or impacts to the environment 
were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non-
radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative 
environmental impacts.
    The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the site for 
unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in 
compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 including the impact of residual 
radioactivity at previously-released site locations of use. Based on 
its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual 
radioactivity at the Site and concluded that the proposed action will 
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, 
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative 
the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the 
staff would leave things as they are by denying the termination 
request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it 
conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of 
byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC 
after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the USACE's 
final status survey data confirmed that the Site meets the requirements 
of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for license termination. 
Additionally, this denial of the application would result in no change 
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, 
and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent 
with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 
20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the 
quality of the

[[Page 10264]]

human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is 
the preferred alternative.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State 
of Alabama, Department of Radiation Control for review on October 31, 
2006. On November 11, 2006, the State of Alabama Department of 
Radiation Control responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the 
conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no substantive comments.
    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that 
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential 
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that 
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant 
Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application for 
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available 
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
 From this site, you can access the 

NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents 
related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS 
accession numbers.
    1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance'';
    2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination'';
    3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental 
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 
Functions'';
    4. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support 
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities'';
    5. August 1, 2002 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to NRC 
memorandum (ML031490516);
    6. October 2002 ``Airborne Radiological Survey--Main Post and 
Pelham Range, Walkover Radiological Survey at Rideout Field and Anomaly 
Surveys on Main Post and Pelham Range, Groundwater Investigation--
Burial Mound at Rideout Field'' (Package ML030100136);
    7. June 2003 ``Final Completion Report, Site Investigation at 
LaGarde Park, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML052710179);
    8. August 25, 2003 NRC Inspection Report No. 01-02861-05/03-01 
(ML032380139);
    9. October 13, 2003, STEP, Inc. to USACE, ``Removal Action at 
LaGrange Park, Phase II Memorandum'' (ML052710136);
    10. February 10, 2004, Shaw Group, Inc. response to NRC Inspection 
Report 01-02861-05/03-01 (ML042100101);
    11. NRC letter dated June 24, 2004, acknowledging the receipt of 
the Army's Airborne Survey Report (ML041770403);
    12. May 2004 ``Final Report for Removal Action at LaGarde Park'' 
(TBS);
    13. April 2005 ``Final Remedial Investigation Report, Expanded Site 
Investigation at LaGarde Park, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML061940256);
    14. April 26, 2005, Department of the Army request for termination 
of Materials License No. 01-02861-05 (ML051430344);
    15. August 2005 ``Draft Final Remedial Action Report, Final Interim 
Removal Action at LaGarde Park, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML052840081);
    16. November 4, 2005 ``Final Remedial Action Report, Final Interim 
Removal Action at LaGarde Park, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML061940267 );
    17. December 14, 2005 NRC Inspection Report 03017584/2005001 
(ML053480096);
    18. May 2006 ``Proposed Plan for the LaGarde Park Site of the 
Former Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML061940273); and
    19. June 2006 ``Final Decision Document for the LaGarde Park Site 
of the former Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama'' (ML061940269).
    If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 
F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 27th day of 
February, 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller,
Chief, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region I.
 [FR Doc. E7-4096 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 47 Forbes.com: Nuclear Hot Spots: Unsafe Anywhere? - 

Security

Robert Malone, 03.07.07, 1:00 PM ET

Even without Iran knocking ever harder on the door of the nuclear
club and thousands of angry terrorists lusting after the ultimate
weapon of mass destruction, the daily, increasingly routine movement
of radioactive materials around the globe is expanding rapidly.

The dimensions of this problem are defined by a stark
statistic--some 16% of the world's electricity is already derived
from nuclear energy. And this generating capacity requires the
transportation of deadly radioactive material on a daily basis and
under broadly divergent security standards.

The biggest problems outside of security and protection from direct
atomic assault is what a nation or an individual does with its
uranium ore transport, its spent fuels and materials and how it
moves nuclear weapons (unarmed, hopefully, as per regulations) or
their parts for storage or tactical reasons. Transport can be on the
scale of a freight car or a jacket pocket.

In Pictures: Where The Radiation's Located

These movements are regulated by international and national
regulations, but storage has never been fully resolved and the
assurances from governments of total safety in regard to the
millions of authorized transports of nuclear materials a year are
highly suspect. And what about unauthorized movement?

The number of recognized movements of radioactive materials
worldwide is estimated at around 20 million by road, rail and ship
each year, and it is increasing as more nuclear plants are added
globally (430 plants in 32 countries as of 2005) and as the nuclear
weapons club grows. In the U.S. there are no more rail transfers but
plenty of truck transports.

The 20 million figure needs to be placed in context. Each year there
are 300 million hazardous material shipments in the U.S. It is hard
to make light of such a scale of haulage. However, the U.S. Energy
Department states that if sabotage caused radioactive leakage from a
truck hauling spent fuel (as to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for temporary
site storage), it might result in as many as 48 cancer deaths, and
that's in a sparsely populated desert setting. But how about
downtown Phoenix?

Nuclear waste is kept in 131 temporary U.S. sites in 39 states, as
Yucca is not to be opened for real permanent storage until 2017 (if
then). The 131 includes 103 U.S. reactor sites. The U.S. generates
about 119 million pounds of such waste annually. Haulage of waste
from these 131 sites to Yucca is often over long distances and is
not a simple business (try Maine to Yucca).

A terrorist hit on such material would not be simple nor would the
material be weapons grade--except for use in a potential "dirty
bomb." But considering the worst-case scenario may be good practice.
Who would have thought four planes could be hijacked in the U.S. and
three used as bombs against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
Or how many would have anticipated using a Ryder truck filled with
fertilizer as a weapon, as in Oklahoma City?

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona (the U.S.' largest
plant), has been put on the most-watched list and is one step away
from being shut down. The problems cited included a failed
generator, a need for an improved safety plan and the poor condition
of a heat exchanger. The facility generates 30.4 million megawatts
of power.

The existence of Palo Verde and other problem sites adds to the
regular risk of transporting nuclear material from mines (a process
called front-door delivery) and, eventually, sending it out the back
door of the plant as spent fuel to storage facilities.

"There are significant performance problems at Palo Verde that must
be addressed. To put it bluntly: The status quo at Palo Verde is not
acceptable," says U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale
Klein. Three Mile Island in 1979 was a complete surprise, and though
there was no loss of life, the partial meltdown was close to
catastrophic. The problem was later attributed to personnel error,
design deficiency and component failures only too similar to those
that exist at Palo Verde and, by a stretch, to those that touched
off the Chernobyl catastrophe in the Soviet Union.

In January, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman dismissed Linton Brookes
as chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration after
classified nuclear weapons data was stolen from Los Alamos in New
Mexico--a serious security breach. "I have decided it is time for a
new leadership at NNSA,? says Bodman. Nothing like closing the file
door after the secrets are gone.

Radioactive contamination can also come in small packages. A 
former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, was poisoned and killed 
in Britain in November 2006 by a radioactive material analyzed as 
polonium 210 placed in his drink or food. There was wide but 
minor contamination of places he visited. John Henry, a 
toxicologist who examined the victim, stated, "You can lose it on 
the point of a pin."

In January 2007 the latest small-package nuclear incident 
occurred in the form of a peddler from the country of Georgia 
trying to sell smuggled bomb-grade Russian uranium. He carried 
the uranium in a small plastic bag in his jacket pocket. Those 
Georgians are tough.

There have been still more unpleasant incidents. One such was a 
tractor-trailer hauling 6,000 pounds of low-grade uranium 
(referred to as packaged fissile material) overturning on North 
Carolina Interstate 95 in December 2006. The driver lost control 
at an exit ramp. Presumably there will be more trucks and ramps 
to negotiate and, despite governmental assurance, more spills and 
more leaks.

Another isolated incident happened in July 2006 when a Tomahawk 
test missile overturned on I-95 in the Bronx, N.Y. There was no 
trigger mechanism in the hauled load. It is hardly reassuring to 
know that a Tomahawk, lethal when fired, is transported with an 
armed nuclear capability.

The seas are not without their own potential nuclear hot spots. 
Nuclear submarines have been lost to the ocean bottom and have 
been involved in crashes with other ships. The U.S. Navy lost two 
nuclear submarines: the Thresher in 1963 and the Scorpion in 
1968. They remain on the sea floor. The former USSR, now the 
Russian Federation, has lost six nuclear submarines. However, 
possibly of greater consequence are all the Russian nuclear 
submarines being "decommissioned" with U.S. help. Where does all 
the scrap and irradiated material go in Russia?

According to the Pentagon, as of 1980 there had been 32 accidents 
involving nuclear weapons of all kinds, but no update is 
available today. The most recent nuclear incident at sea was the 
loss in 2000 of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk in the 
Barents Sea. Altogether, 92 nuclear weapons have been lost at 
sea--a colossal nuclear arsenal that could take out a continent 
in the unlikely event they could ever be resurrected and made 
operable.

The Russians also have had problems with radioisotope 
thermoelectric generators. In 2003 they had a degraded generator 
on the Arctic Ocean shore that leaked radiation into the 
environment. Two similar generators were dropped out of a 
helicopter in 2004. The impact cracked the shields and allowed 
radiation to escape. Of course neither of these incidents could 
in any way compete with the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown and its plume 
of radiation that covered a good deal of Europe, even affecting 
herds of reindeer in the far north of Finland. The possibility of 
a nuclear transportation accident has been dubbed by an angry 
public as "Mobile Chernobyl."

Some good news comes from the French, who embrace nuclear energy 
with a typically Gallic passion. They are recycling spent fuels 
at La Hague and have reached the point of recycling over 1,000 
tons each year. This means not having to place this material in 
an eternal storage site. There are developments in this direction 
in the U.S. as well.

There is also good news from Sandia National Laboratories in the 
U.S. The Department of Energy has redesigned trucks that haul 
spent materials, and Peterbilt Motors has created an armored 
tractor that looks like a normal 18-wheeler but is safer through 
improved communication, custom composite armor and armored glass. 
The truck sounds ready for Mad Max.

Even the Port of Los Angeles' nuclear security is improving, with 
the addition of container radiation detection devices that will 
scan all containers at the nation's busiest container port. So 
the terrorists will just have to deliver their bomb to another 
port.


*****************************************************************
 48 The State: Barnwell site draws support

03/07/2007 

120-plus attend hearing to back nuclear waste dump

By SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com

* BARNWELL LANDFILL

Barnwell County's love affair with a nuclear waste dump spilled into
the Legislature during a hearing Tuesday on the future of a landfill
that contributes to the county’s economy.

Wearing "I support Barnwell" stickers and saying they need the 
more than $1 million the landfill produces each year for the 
community, county residents urged a panel of lawmakers not to 
close the dump to the nation next year as scheduled.

But opponents of the 36-year-old landfill said a vote to keep the
site open should not be based on Barnwell County’s economic desires.

The low-level waste landfill has leaked, and other parts of South
Carolina are vulnerable to contamination that could wash down the
Savannah River, critics said. Communities in Beaufort County draw
drinking water from the river or plan to in the near future, and the
landfill needs to be closed, critics said.

Barnwell County is “addicted” to the modest revenues generated by
the landfill, and “we are paying the price,” said former state Rep.
Harriet Keyserling, who drove from Beaufort County to speak at
Tuesday’s public hearing.

“We ... are concerned about the Savannah River.”

Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort, said the state Legislature agreed
in 2000 to close the landfill to the nation and that the Legislature
shouldn’t pass a bill nullifying that law. This year’s bill, backed
by landfill operator Chem-Nuclear, would allow the dump to remain
open to the nation through 2023. It is the only commercial low-level
site in the U.S. to take the most potent types of atomic refuse from
any state. Current law restricts use of the landfill to South
Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey after next year.

“We made a deal; let’s keep our end of the bargain,” Herbkersman
said.

Columbia environmental lawyer Bob Guild, a Sierra Club official,
told the committee the landfill has leaked on two different
occasions: once in the mid-1970s and another time in the late 1990s,
when a spill of radioactive waste flowed onto a nearby church’s
land. Landfill operators say the spills have had little
environmental impact.

Tuesday’s hearing attracted more than 200 people and featured about
20 speakers. All told, more than 120 Barnwell landfill supporters
showed up for the four-hour hearing.

The session was so crowded legislators adjourned to a bigger room to
accommodate the crowd, which had spilled into the hallway of a
cramped meeting room.

A subcommittee of the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and
Environmental Affairs Committee, which held the hearing, is expected
to vote in about two weeks whether to send the bill to the full
committee.

Landfill supporters praised Chem-Nuclear’s safety record and
operation of the landfill, calling the company a good neighbor and a
vital economic partner. The landfill contributes $1 million to $2
million annually to the county.

“The economic future of Barnwell County and its 24,000 citizens who
live there is in your hands,” said Barnwell County Council chairman
Keith Sloan, calling opponents of the measure “extreme”
environmentalists.

Sally Rogers, a lobbyist representing Chem-Nuclear, said the
landfill will operate at a $3.6 million deficit if it closes to the
nation next year as scheduled. She and a utility company
representative said that with only South Carolina, Connecticut and
New Jersey using the site, it could cause utility rates to rise to
offset the losses.

*****************************************************************
 49 AP Wire: Supporters outnumber opposition for nuclear recycling plant

03/07/2007 | 

Associated Press

PADUCAH, Ky. - Labor and business leaders turned out to support a
proposed nuclear fuel recycling plant in western Kentucky that's
being questioned by residents and environmentalists.

At a hearing Tuesday night, labor leader Larry Sanderson, promised
federal Energy Department officials that the 5,000 trades workers
who would be needed to build the plant near the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion plant in next decade would do so safely and without a work
stoppage, the Paducah Sun reported.

"We're increasing our numbers now so that we can be ready," said
Sanderson, international representative for Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 184 in Paducah. "We can do the job, and we will
do the job. You just give us a chance to prove it."

Supporters outnumbered opponents more than 3-to-1 at the meeting,
one of 13 the Energy Department is holding in cities vying for the
recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor that would
generate electricity while destroying a large amount of highly
radioactive waste left over from fuel rods.

Environmental activist Kristi Hanson of Brookport, Ill., said she
was shocked at the public support for the plant, which would handle
highly radioactive fuel rods that can produce a lethal dose in
seconds.

"We can't trust the nuclear industry," she said. "They have caused
so much harm."

Ruby English, who would be a neighbor of the recycling center, said
the uranium plant has caused illness and death in her family and
others during its 55 years of operation.

She challenged the Energy Department to fully investigate the safety
ramifications of the new plant, and said she will support it if it
is deemed safe. But she worries about putting the factory in an
active earthquake zone.

"I'm not an environmentalist. I'm not a businessman," she said. "I'm
a concerned resident who lives there."

Businessman Rex Smith, however, said the $15 billion factory
proposed for 580 acres near the uranium enrichment plant would have
a far greater economic impact on the region than Louisville's $1
billion United Parcel Service distribution center that has spurred
billions of dollars in public works improvements.

He said the construction jobs would create a payroll of more than
$200 million, and the economic spin-off from that would be four to
seven times greater to the community.

Information from: The Paducah Sun, http://www.paducahsun.com

*****************************************************************
 50 MWB: Bush administration wants to expand nuclear waste site

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 

03/07/2007 | 

By Les Blumenthal Chuck Kennedy/MCT

A worker boards a train car that leads into the Yucca Mountain 
radioactive waste disposal site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada in 
2002.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has asked Congress for 
permission to expand its proposed nuclear-waste dump, saying the 
Nevada facility, as planned, would be unable to hold all the 
spent fuel stored at commercial reactors and the highly 
radioactive defense waste held at sites such as the Hanford 
nuclear reservation, the Savannah River Site and the Idaho 
National Laboratory.

If expanding the Yucca Mountain project isn't approved, the 
Energy Department probably would ask Congress next year for 
authority to build a second dump, said Edward Sproat III, who 
oversees the department's Office of Civilian Waste Management.

Though Congress authorized construction of the project, it's 
faced fierce opposition from Nevadans and some environmental 
groups, who think that Yucca Mountain couldn't safely store the 
waste for thousands of years. But Congress has continued to fund 
the repository amid pressure from utilities that are anxious 
about the waste accumulating at their reactor sites.

There's a statutory 77,000 metric ton cap (84,877 short tons) on 
how much nuclear waste can be stored at Yucca Mountain, about 90 
miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"If it (the cap) isn't raised, it won't have the capacity to take 
all the defense and civilian waste," Sproat said.

The administration also wants to tap the $19.5 billion Nuclear 
Waste Fund to start paying the construction costs for Yucca 
Mountain. The fund, financed by a fee on the electricity that 
nuclear power plants generate, was intended to pay for the 
facility. But because of congressional budget rules, the Energy 
Department has had to seek an annual appropriation from Congress 
to pay for the nuclear waste repository, which is scheduled to 
open in 2017.

The administration's proposals, delivered Tuesday to Congress, 
are similar to proposals made last year.

Yucca Mountain initially was to open in 1998. Because of the 
delays, utilities that operate commercial nuclear-power plants 
have been forced to store their spent fuel on site even as they 
pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund.

Sproat said the federal government would owe the utilities about 
$7 billion in damages because of delays at Yucca Mountain.

"This liability can't be paid by ratepayers," Sproat said at a 
briefing Tuesday sponsored by The Energy Daily, a trade 
publication. "It's the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers. This is 
a real financial driver to push this program forward."

On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., 
called the administration's proposal dead on arrival.

"This is just the department's latest attempt to breathe life 
into this dying beast and it will fail," Reed said in a statement 
Tuesday. "As Senate majority leader I will continue to leverage 
my leadership position to prevent the dump from ever being 
built."

Reid and Nevada's other senator, Republican John Ensign, have 
introduced legislation that would require nuclear waste to be 
stored at the facilities where it's produced.

"The administration is firmly committed to moving forward with 
Yucca," Sproat said Tuesday. "This is not an all or nothing bill. 
We want to continue the debate and dialogue" with Congress.

As currently planned, Sproat said, about 20 percent of the waste 
stored at Yucca Mountain would be generated from producing the 
nation's nuclear arsenal. Much of the waste is stored at the 
Hanford reservation in central Washington state, the Savannah 
River Site near Aiken, S.C., and the Idaho National Laboratory 
near Idaho Falls.

Preliminary design studies showed that Yucca Mountain could 
handle 120,000 metric tons (132,277 short tons) of waste, but 
Sproat said it would be up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
to determine the repository's capacity. The Energy Department is 
expected to ask the NRC for a license for Yucca Mountain in 
summer 2008.

If Congress blocked Yucca Mountain, Sproat said, lawmakers must 
determine what would become of the nuclear waste.

*****************************************************************
 51 Las Vegas SUN: DOE official praises Mina route for Yucca rail line

Today: March 07, 2007 at 14:5:7 PST

By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department official who manages the
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project said Wednesday that the
Mina Corridor route for shipping waste to the dump appears to be
faster and cheaper to build than the Caliente Corridor.

"We see a significant opportunity for both schedule and dollar
savings," Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, director of the Energy
Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told
senators at a hearing of the Appropriations Committee's energy and
water subcommittee.

Sproat told reporters after the hearing that preliminary assessments
indicate the Mina route could be $1 billion cheaper and a year
faster to build than the Caliente Corridor.

The north-south route dubbed the Mina Corridor was examined in the
1990s but shelved after the Walker River Paiute Indians refused
access to their reservation. The tribe reconsidered last year.

In the past the Energy Department has said it favored plans to build
a 319-mile east-west rail line from Caliente, near the Utah border,
across rural Nevada to the nuclear dump site, 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. The so-called Caliente Corridor route could cost $2
billion.

The Mina route would be 280 miles long and include an existing rail
line between the towns of Wabuska and Hawthorne.

New environmental reviews are under way and will include public
hearings. It will be more than a year before the department reaches
a final decision on the rail line, Sproat said.

There currently is no rail line to the Yucca site, which Congress
and the Bush administration picked in 2002 as the place to entomb
77,000 tons of radioactive waste now being stored at nuclear
reactors in 39 states. The project has been stalled by funding
shortfalls and questions about quality control work during site
selection.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 52 AU ABC: Labor scaremongering over NT nuclear waste site, Bishop says

ABC Northern Territory | Local News

13:08 (ACDT)Wednesday, 7 March 2007. 11:08 (AWDT)

Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says the Northern Territory 
Labor Government is scaremongering by saying a decision is 
imminent on a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.

A small group of traditional owners from near Muckaty Station are
meeting with the Northern Land Council today to discuss possible
sites.

Three defence sites are officially up for nomination, but
environment groups say Muckaty Station is also on the cards.

Ms Bishop says she is expecting a report on three sites by the end
of this month and Muckaty is not one of them.

"If another site is nominated that will mean other studies will have
to be undertaken so I would think by mid year, which is on schedule,
I would be looking at nominating a site," she said.

"There are a number of steps that must be taken thereafter."


*****************************************************************
 53 AU ABC: Entrepeneur faces six-figure bill over uranium claim

ABC Northern Territory  

15:36 (ACDT)Wednesday, 7 March 2007. 13:36 (AWDT)

Entrepreneur Norm McCleary faces a six-figure legal bill for his
failed claim over multi-billion-dollar uranium deposits in central
Australia.

McCleary has been ordered to pay the Northern Territory Government's
costs for the case.

Last month, the Northern Territory Supreme Court ruled McCleary's
night-time pegging expedition at uranium deposits near Alice Springs
was unlawful.

In court today, Justice Trevor Riley said the Government had been
substantially successful in defending the case and McCleary should
pay all its costs.

A spokesman for the Northern Territory Mines Department says the
bill may be a six-figure sum.

During the case, McCleary signed a business deal with Perth mining
company Segue Resources in a bid to help cover his legal costs.

Segue agreed to pay him $220,000 and millions of shares in exchange
for a 50 per cent stake in any rights he secured.


*****************************************************************
 54 Savannah Now: Nuke site called a gift as well as ‘nation's toilet' 

SavannahNow.com

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Weighted down with reports, confronted with
conflicting information and tired from hearing more than a dozen
people testify during a four-hour meeting, a South Carolina House
subcommittee studying whether to keep the Barnwell nuclear waste
site open adjourned Tuesday without making a decision.

The facility takes and stores low-level nuclear waste from 34
states, said to a representative from the EnergySolutions, the
company that owns it.

But under the Atlantic Compact, the Barnwell site is scheduled to
close to the most of the nation - except for South Carolina,
Connecticut and New Jersey - next May.

Rep. Billy Witherspoon, R-Conway, however, is sponsoring a bill to
keep the facility open to the nation for an additional 15 years.

On Tuesday, speakers alternated between calling the facility a great
gift to the county, state and nation and calling it an environmental
hazard that one Beaufort County man dubbed the "nation's toilet."

"The site is not a dump," said Keith Sloan, who chairs the Barnwell
County Council. "We resent it being called a dump."

"What we do have, and as many of you saw (on a recent tour of the
facility) is the most environmentally friendly and efficiently
operated disposal facility in the nation for low-level nuclear
waste," Sloan said.

Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Bluffton, joined environmental groups and
others from Beaufort County who said taking other states' nuclear
waste is a poor environmental decision.

And, he added, the state already has agreed to close the site next
year.

"A deal is a deal," Herbkersman said.

About 150 people packed what became a four-hour meeting. More than
20 signed up to speak.

On the one hand there were those, including two busloads of
Barnwell-area residents, who support the bill, saying that taking
the nation's waste is a service that brings in money for county
programs and state schools.

Barnwell County gets about $2 million a year, and the state gets
about $10 million, most of which goes to educational programs.

Opponents, however, argued that if nuclear waste was not bad for the
environment, other states would not be sending their waste to South
Carolina, and that the state should stick to its promise to close
the site next year.

The groups disagree on everything from the strength of the site's
environmental record to the facility's ability to remain financially
solvent if the state sticks by the Atlantic Compact.

Ultimately, subcommittee members agreed they wanted to review all
the information before making a decision.

Subcommittee chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-Laurens, said the
subcommittee would reconvene after the full House debates the budget
next week.

(March 07, 2007)

© 2006 SavannahNOW and the Savannah Morning News.
About Savannahnow.com | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact
*****************************************************************
 55 DOE: DOE to Send Proposed Yucca Mountain Legislation to Congress

March 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced
today he will send to the U.S. Congress a legislative proposal to
enhance the nation’s ability to manage and dispose of commercial
spent nuclear fuel and Defense high-level radioactive waste.

“This legislative proposal reflects the Administration’s strong
commitment to advancing the development of the Yucca Mountain
repository, while seeking to provide stability, clarity and
predictability in moving the project forward,” Secretary Bodman
said.  “Nuclear power is a clean, reliable domestic source of energy
that currently represents approximately 20 percent of the nation’s
energy supply.  The Yucca Mountain repository is critical to the
nation’s current and future energy and national security needs, and
I look forward to working with the Congress on developing a bill
that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President.”

The proposed legislation would facilitate the licensing and
construction of the geologic repository and lead to the safe,
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste deep within the mountain.   Among the various provisions, the
proposed legislation would withdraw, permanently from public use,
the land at and surrounding the Yucca Mountain repository site in
Nevada, and would facilitate Congress’s ability to provide adequate
funding for the Yucca Mountain Project.  Permanent withdrawal is
needed to meet a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing
requirement for the Yucca Mountain repository and will help assure
protection of public health and the environment.  Funding reform is
necessary to correct a technical budgetary problem that has acted as
a disincentive to adequate funding.

The proposed legislation would also eliminate the current statutory
70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain, in
order to allow maximum use of the mountain’s true technical
capacity.  This provision would help provide the safe isolation of
the nation’s entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory from
existing reactors, including life extensions.

Also included are provisions for a more streamlined NRC licensing
process, and for initiation of infrastructure activities, including
safety and other upgrades and rail line construction, to enable
earlier start-up of operations.  Other provisions are designed to
consolidate duplicative environmental reviews.

“We have a legal and moral obligation to get Yucca Mountain opened
and operating,” Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Director Ward Sproat said.  “Currently 55,000 metric tons of
commercial spent nuclear fuel and Defense high-level waste is being
stored at more than 100 above-ground sites in 39 states, and that
number grows by about 2,000 metric tons annually.  By entombing it
deep in Yucca Mountain – a safe and secure permanent geologic
repository – we can ensure public safety for thousands of
generations.”

Yucca Mountain was approved by the Congress and the President as the
site for the nation’s first permanent spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste geologic repository in 2002.

Cheney - Pelosi 21.pdf

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 56 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Another push for Yucca

Today: March 07, 2007 at 7:54:55 PST

Energy secretary tries once again to energize this justifiably
dormant project

Another year, another push by the Energy Department to breathe life
into Yucca Mountain.

Last year's push to regain congressional interest in this dormant
project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas went nowhere. We believe the
new push, announced Tuesday by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, will
meet the same fate.

It certainly should, as this year Congress is controlled by
Democrats and opening Yucca Mountain as the burial site for the
nation's high-level nuclear waste is largely a Republican dream.
Also, the "new" legislative proposal is largely a rehash of last
year's.

What's more, Harry Reid is now Senate majority leader. Reid, working
with the rest of the state's congressional delegation, has always
been able to stall this terribly unsafe project. In his new position
he will be an even more formidable foe.

Once again the Energy Department's push to gain congressional
acceptance of Yucca Mountain contains a veiled threat. Years ago,
when a majority in Congress thought safety at Yucca Mountain was at
least feasible, the amount of waste that could be buried there, if
it ever received a federal license, was capped at 77,000 tons.

This year's Energy Department proposal, like last year's, seeks to
have the cap removed. To scare Congress into acceptance of this
notion, Energy Department officials are prepared say that if the cap
remains, a second nuclear-waste dump will become necessary. The idea
is to get members of Congress envisioning that second dump in their
state, and voting to approve Yucca Mountain, sans cap, so as to
spare their constituents the dangers so callously being foisted upon
Nevada.

Years ago it was estimated that just to bury the 77,000 tons it
would require round-the-clock transports to Yucca Mountain, by rail,
barge and truck, for at least 24 years. If the cap is removed, the
populations of Southern Nevada, and the more than 30 other states
the waste would have to travel through, could look forward to
lifetimes of deadly waste transports past their homes, schools and
shopping centers.

We hope that's the image that members of Congress envision when this
proposal comes before them. Yucca Mountain threatens to contaminate
Nevada's soil, air and water, and presents the risk of deadly
accidents throughout the country via its transportation routes.

Spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants and high-level
nuclear waste from Defense Department facilities should remain where
it is, safely sealed in casks right where it is produced.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 57 Platts: Waste storage plan not legal without US NRC Yucca nod - Bodman

Washington (Platts)--6Mar2007

US Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Tuesday said that, under
law, the agency cannot make plans to store nuclear waste at a centralized
facility unless the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves DOE's license
application to build and operate the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
in Nevada.

     Testifying on DOE's fiscal-year 2008 budget request before the House
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Bodman said if NRC
approves the license application, the department can then begin evaluating
interim storage, even if construction of the Yucca Mountain site does not
begin. He rebuffed, however, calls for a DOE interim storage plan, saying he
was not legally authorized to craft such a plan before NRC approves the
license application.

     "I cannot propose anything under law," Bodman said. "Under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1992, I am precluded from having anything to do with
interim storage until such time as I get the Yucca Mountain license."

     The department plans to submit a license application to NRC in June 2008,
but it faces strong opposition to building the repository and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, has said he would block the proposal DOE
sent to Congress to remove barriers to the repository. DOE resubmitted the
proposal Tuesday after a virtually identical plan went nowhere in Congress
last year.

     Bodman said just getting NRC approval of the license application could
jumpstart consideration of a plan to send the nation's waste to one or more
central interim storage facilities. Waste currently is stored at 103 reactor
sites in more than 30 states. 

		--Dan Whitten, dan_whitten@platts.com

Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 58 World Nuclear News: New impetus from Yucca legislation

07 March 2007

Legislation intended to 'facilitate' the development of the Yucca
Mountain radioactive waste respository project has been submitted to
the US Congress.

The US Department of Energy (DoE) submitted the legislation on 6
March. DoE chief Sam Bodman said: "This legislative proposal
reflects the administration's strong commitment to advancing the
development of the Yucca Mountain repository, while seeking to
provide stability, clarity and predictability in moving the project
forward."

In particular, the bill would:


* Permanently withdraw from public use the land at and surrounding
  the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. This is a licensing requirement
  of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to help assure protection of
  public health and the environment.
* Remove the statutory limit of 70,000 t of disposal capacity of
  the eventual facility "in order to allow maximum use of the
  mountain's true technical capacity." Studies have concluded that a
  repository inside Yucca Mountain could hold over 132,000 t.
* "Facilitate Congress' ability to provide adequate funding" for
  the project. The DoE said: "Funding reform is necessary to correct
  a technical budgetary problem that has acted as a disincentive to
  adequate funding."

Other language in the bill addresses provisions for a more
streamlined licensing process and for initiation of infrastructure
activities such as safety upgrades and rail line construction to
enable a faster start-up of operation.

The bill is effectively a revised version of one that failed to make
progress in 2006. Bodman said that the new bill would "continue the
conversation" with opponents of Yucca Mountain.

As Nevada's Senator, Democratic majority leader, and head of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Harry Reid has long
been bitterly opposed to Yucca Mountain. He said the bill was "just
the department's latest attempt to breathe life into this dying
beast and it will fail." Calling Yucca a "dump" he said he would
continue to oppose it.

Storage delay costs

The DoE was supposed to have taken over management of utilities'
used nuclear fuel in 1998 for permanent storage, charging US nuclear
utilities one-tenth of a cent for each kWh they produced since 1982
to cover the costs. However, it was only in 2002 that Yucca Mountain
was confirmed as the final storage site, and current estimates
putting completion in 2017 have been described as optimistic. As a
result, utilities have stored their used nuclear fuel at more than
100 sites in 39 states at their own expense - effectively paying
twice for used fuel storage.

Scores of utilities have launched legal action against DoE over the
matter, with potential compensation payable by the department
amounting to billions of dollars. On 6 March, Duke Energy has become
the latest utility to reach a legal settlement with DoE over its
extra costs. The company will receive an initial payment of Ł56
million from the US Treasury Judgement Fund for costs up to the end
of July 2005, with additional amounts reimbursed annually for future
storage costs.

Further information

Duke Energy

US Department of Energy
*****************************************************************
 59 Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon GNEP meeting set for Thursday

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Wednesday, March 7, 2007   

The Gazette Staff

PIKETON – With local officials pursuing a nuclear fuel recycling 
center and other things at the former Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant, a key meeting in that process will be conducted 
Thursday.

A public scoping meeting will be conducted at 6:30 p.m. at the 
Ohio State University Endeavor Center (Room 160), 1862 Shyville 
Road. The meeting is set for 3 1/2 hours.

The meeting will include brief presentations about the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
as well as other presentations, then allow for public comment. A
large crowd is expected. Two local groups – Southern Ohio Neighbors
Group and Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and
Security – have campaigned against the proposal.

Piketon is one of 11 communities recently awarded a total of $16
million in study grants by the federal government. Local officials
say the plan will create jobs and help the struggling Pike County
economy.

(For more on this story, see Friday's Gazette and check back to
www.ChillicotheGazette.com for news updates throughout the day and
breaking news as it happens.)

*****************************************************************
 60 Times and Democrat: Wanting nuclear waste

Future uncertain for S.C. landfill

By SEANNA ADCOX Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

SNELLING 

 In this rural county beset by high unemployment, the 
soon-to-arrive day when the local nuclear-waste landfill closes 
its doors to nearly all debris is no cause for celebration.

Chem-Nuclear, a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste from
hospitals and power plants around the nation, offers some of the
county’s few high-paying jobs, provides roughly 10 percent of its
overall budget and pumps $1 million a year into local schools. It
has also handed out college scholarships and bought equipment for
police and paramedics.

The landfill has long been under attack from environmentalists, and
a 2000 state law says that starting next year, it can accept waste
only from South Carolina and two other states. But now, as that date
draws near, lawmakers are considering extending the deadline to 2023.

Locals say that changing the law is vital and that outsiders just
don’t understand how important the landfill is.

“It’s been in Barnwell so long, it’s part of who we are,”
said Berley Lindler, a jewelry shop owner in the nearby town of
Barnwell. “It’s good for the economy. They’re our friends.”

About 23,300 people live in Barnwell County, about 55 miles from
Columbia in the southwestern part of South Carolina, near the
Georgia state line. The county has no rail lines or
interstate-highway access, and unemployment stands at 10 percent.

In the past few years, hundreds of jobs in the county have vanished
with the closing of a gas-grill maker and a window manufacturer. The
biggest employer, the Dixie-Narco vending machine company, has cut
about 1,400 jobs over the past several years and was bought out last
year, said Keith Sloan, chairman of the County Council.

“We’ve really taken some hits,” he said.

Nuclear power plant debris and radioactive hospital clothing have
been buried here since 1971 atop aquifers that run to the Savannah
River.

In its heyday from 1980 to the early 1990s, Chem-Nuclear employed
hundreds of people. In 1980, it collected 2.4 million cubic feet of
the solid, radioactive waste, which is stored in steel containers
that are put in concrete vaults and then buried in long trenches.
Bought last year by Utah-based EnergySolutions, it is now one of
three landfills in the nation for low-level radioactive waste. Utah
and Washington have the others.

The landfill was last cited by state environmental regulators in
1983, for improperly unloading a shipment. In 1999, tritium, a
radioactive isotope of hydrogen, was found on the grounds of a
church next to the landfill. The levels were below those accepted by
regulators, but the company dug up and replaced the contaminated
soil.

A year later, then-Gov. Jim Hodges led a campaign to wean South
Carolina off radioactive waste. From about 120 miles away, residents
of wealthier Beaufort and Hilton Head, which get drinking water from
the Savannah River, added to the outcry. State lawmakers passed a
measure to slowly choke off the amount of waste that could be sent
to the landfill.

This year, the cap is 40,000 cubic feet of waste, or enough to cover
a baseball infield to a depth of 5 feet.

Plant manager Jim Lathan said restricting the waste to South
Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey means the landfill will run a
deficit and will probably have to lay off some of the 51 workers who
are left since the state law was passed.

Environmentalists say none of the changes should be a surprise. Ann
Timberlake, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South
Carolina, said the county should have used the $2 million it has
received yearly since 2000 to prepare itself.

“Everyone knew the volume would go down,” she said. “We’ve
established a fair roadmap, and we need to stick to it.”

State officials test the soil, air, surface and ground water four
times a year, inspect shipments daily and show up unannounced for
semiannual inspections. While tritium has been found in groundwater,
it has been far below regulatory limits, said Michael Moore, the
state’s environmental manager for infectious and radioactive waste
management.

But environmentalists still worry about the trucks carrying waste to
Chem-Nuclear that pass through other counties, and the underground
water that makes its way into the river. They worry, too, about the
state’s image.

“One county should not decide for South Carolina whether we should
be the nation’s dump,” Timberlake said.

Locals point out that the site has paid $430 million in fees to the
state Education Department since 1995, provides jobs that pay an
average of $49,500 a year, and has been a good corporate citizen in
other respects. Plaques thanking Chem-Nuclear for paying for various
projects pepper the walls of buildings and parks.

“I don’t disagree we knew this was coming,” Sloan said. “But
you know, one day you’re going to die, too. How are you going to
prepare for it when you don’t have alternatives available?”

Without Chem-Nuclear, residents, officials and educators fear rising
property taxes, teacher layoffs and other troubles.

“We’d be devastated without it,” said Barnwell schools
Superintendent Carolyne Williams. “We would have leaky roofs. We
wouldn’t have proper air conditioning.”


Ratings:

*****************************************************************
 61 FR: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of USEC, Inc. 

Doc E7-4103

[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)] 
[Notices] [Page 10262] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07mr07-168]                         

[[Page 10262]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-7004-ML; ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML]
 
(American Centrifuge Plant); Notice (Notice of Hearing)

March 1, 2007.
Before Administrative Judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman; Dr. Peter 
S. Lam; Dr. Richard E. Wardwel.

    This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that it 
will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits 
in the ``mandatory hearing'' portion of this proceeding regarding the 
August 23, 2004 application of USEC, Inc. (USEC) for authorization to 
construct a facility and to possess and use source, byproduct, and 
special nuclear material in order to enrich natural uranium to a 
maximum of ten percent uranium-235 by the gas centrifuge process.\1\ 
USEC proposes to do this at a facility--denominated the American 
Centrifuge Plant--to be constructed near Piketon, Ohio. This mandatory 
hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the 
proposed issuance of the requested license, as more fully described 
below.

    \1\ See 69 FR 61411 (Oct. 18, 2004); see also 10 CFR Parts 30, 
40, and 70.

A. Matters To Be Considered

    As set forth by the Commission in the October 2004 Notice of 
Hearing \2\ the matters to be considered are (1) Whether the 
application and record of the proceeding contain sufficient information 
and whether the NRC Staff's review of the application has been adequate 
to support findings to be made by the Director of the Office of Nuclear 
Materials Safety and Safeguards, with respect to the applicable 
standards contained in 10 CFR 30.33, 40.32, and 70.23, and (2) whether 
the review conducted by the NRC Staff pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 has 
been adequate. Additionally, in accord with the Commission's October 
2004 notice, also at issue in this proceeding is: (3) Whether the 
requirements of Sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, have 
been complied with in this proceeding; (4) whether the final balance 
among conflicting factors contained in the record of this proceeding 
indicate that granting the license is the appropriate action to be 
taken; and (5) whether the license should be issued, denied, or 
appropriately conditioned to protect the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 69 FR at 61411-61412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Date, Time, and Location of Mandatory Hearing

    The Board will conduct this mandatory hearing at the specified 
location and time:
    1. Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2007.
    Time: Beginning at 10 a.m. EST.
    Location: ASLBP Hearing Room, Two White Flint North, Third Floor, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.
    The hearing on these issues will then be continued until Monday, 
March 19, 2007, and thereafter day-to-day until concluded.
    Any members of the public who plan to attend the mandatory hearing 
are advised that security measures will be employed at the entrance to 
the hearing facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as 
briefcases or backpacks. The public is further advised that, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, portions of the hearing sessions will be 
closed to the public because the matters at issue will involve the 
discussion of protected information.

C. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding

    Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically from the publicly available records 
component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from 
the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public 

Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or 
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS 
should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-
4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

D. Scheduling Information Updates

    Any updated/revised scheduling information regarding the 
evidentiary hearing can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm
 or by calling (800) 368-5642, 

extension 5036, or (301) 415-5036.
    It is so ordered.

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, on March 1, 2007.

    For the Atomic Safety And Licensing Board.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Copies of this Notice were sent this date by Internet 
electronic mail transmission to counsel for (1) USEC; and (2) the 
NRC Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence G. McDade,
Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E7-4103 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 62 KnoxNews: It's still early in the game, but the game may be over

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com

March 7, 2007

An Oak Ridge team is evaluating potential sites for some big-time 
nuclear projects, reportedly focusing on two 500-acre plots near 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The study is taking place as part of the Bush administration's 
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The goal is to establish 
reprocessing operations - recycling spent fuel from the nation's 
nuclear plants - as part of a broad effort to expand the use of 
nuclear power, both in the United States and abroad.

Some of Oak Ridge's power brokers, technical chieftains and
community leaders turned out recently to show their support for a
nuclear renaissance and to indicate their willingness for Oak Ridge
- Tennessee's Atomic City - to play a leading role in GNEP.

However, there's one huge obstacle blocking the path.

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., is opposed to locating any of the GNEP
facilities in Oak Ridge, except, perhaps, for a research center to
study the issues and test some of the technologies needed to process
the highly radioactive spent fuel.

There has been some mention of ORNL using its surplus hot cells and
other facilities for doing preliminary work on a bench scale.

Wamp is strongly against Oak Ridge hosting either a reprocessing
plant or a nuclear reactor that would burn reprocessed fuel and
generate electricity as a byproduct.

Simply put, Wamp's stance will likely nix the deal, even though a
Department of Energy official from agency headquarters in Washington
recently touted Oak Ridge as a great place to do the nuclear work.
Dick Black, DOE's associate deputy assistant secretary for nuclear
energy, said Oak Ridge had the infrastructure, the security and the
expertise to handle any of the GNEP projects.

It's hard to imagine the government putting any project in Oak Ridge
over Wamp's objections. It's that simple.

The congressman has influence - and plenty of it - even with the
Republicans now the minority party.

Wamp said he shared his thoughts with Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge
manager, during a meeting last week, and he addressed the issues in
response to questions at a media session.

He said he was concerned that the specter of processing spent fuel
would damage the Oak Ridge image and possibly scuttle other projects
headed this way.

"This is one of those things that I feel in my gut that we've got to
very careful about," Wamp said.

The congressman said new programs that would broaden the Oak Ridge
missions are in the offing, although he declined to specify them or
indicate when they would be announced.

But, he added, "I don't ever want to jeopardize those missions by
anybody having the wrong impression about what happens here. I want
to be an exporter of waste and not an importer of waste, and I'm
very concerned about that.

"It's an instinctual thing in my gut. And I don't mean to step on
anybody's toes or step on anybody's mission. But, while we're
talking about this, I think I've earned the right to speak when my
instincts tell me somebody needs to say, 'Wait a second; let's be
careful.' "

Some Oak Ridge supporters of the nuclear work said privately they
believe Wamp is protecting himself in case he decides to run for
governor in a couple of years. They suggested that supporting GNEP,
with plans to haul tons of highly radioactive spent fuel to Oak
Ridge, would be a killer issue in a statewide race.

The congressman, however, denied that his opposition was tied to his
future political plans. "I can tell you unequivocally that issue
never crossed my mind," he said.

Whatever the case, Wamp put his foot down and likely squashed GNEP
at the same time.


Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the
News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 63 UPI: Nev. senators introduce No Yucca bill

United Press International - Energy - 

3/7/2007 2:26:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, March 7 (UPI) -- Nevada's two U.S. senators have
introduced legislation keeping nuclear waste where it is produced, a
bill that could stop the Yucca Mountain Project.

The Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007 was
introduced Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat,
and Sen. John Ensign, a Republican.

Also Tuesday, the U.S. Energy Department sent legislation to
Congress to move the Yucca Mountain Project forward; the same bill
was stalled last year.

"As elected leaders, we have a moral responsibility to protect the
thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans that could be put in
harm's way because of projects like proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste dump," Reid said in a statement.

Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been
designated as the repository for nuclear waste created by U.S.
nuclear plants and weapons. But the program has been set back by
scientific controversy, opposition from Congress, the Nevada
government and anti-Yucca groups, as well as funding cuts
orchestrated by Reid.

"The next step forward is to secure nuclear waste in scientifically
sound ways at the sites where it is produced," he said.

Nuclear plants currently store it on-site and industry officials
have said it is safe.

The federal government has the task of taking possession of nuclear
waste and the bill would force the government to do so but not send
it to the Nevada mountain. Instead the government would operate
on-site storage facilities, including safety and security of the
spent fuel.

"We must look for long-term innovative solutions to recycle waste
produced by nuclear power, and as we look for these solutions, we
should not transport dangerous waste through cities and rural areas
across our nation to Yucca Mountain," Ensign said.


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 64 Albuquerque Tribune: Nuclear time = money 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

The federal government will owe $7 billion in damages for delays 
in opening the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, even 
if it opens in 2017 - the earliest date now possible - and any 
further delay will raise the price half a billion dollars a year, 
the head of the radioactive waste program said.

The money would reimburse plant operators who signed contracts in 
which the federal government agreed to begin accepting their 
wastes in 1998, said Edward Sproat, director of the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are
the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Readers will be
banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an
invasion of privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement.


© 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune
*****************************************************************
 65 Reid: REID, ENSIGN INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO FIGHT PROPOSED YUCCA
MOUNTAIN DUMP: 03/06/2007

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Washington, DC — Today U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign of
Nevada introduced bipartisan legislation that would require nuclear
waste to be stored at the facilities where it is produced. The
Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007 would
eliminate the need for the proposed Yucca Mountain Project.

"As elected leaders, we have a moral responsibility to protect the
thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans that could be put in
harm's way because of projects like proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste dump," said Reid. "This isn't just a Nevada issue, it's a
national issue. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to ship the
most dangerous substance known to man through cities and small
towns, and past schools, hospitals and businesses so it could be
buried 90 miles outside of Las Vegas. The next step forward is to
secure nuclear waste in scientifically sound ways at the sites where
it is produced. This legislation will accomplish that."

"This bill provides a safe, responsible, common sense way to dispose
of nuclear waste," said Ensign. "We must look for long-term
innovative solutions to recycle waste produced by nuclear power, and
as we look for these solutions, we should not transport dangerous
waste through cities and rural areas across our nation to Yucca
Mountain."

The bill would also require the federal government to take
responsibility for possession, stewardship, maintenance, and
monitoring of the waste and increase safety at all nuclear power
plants by providing funding for additional security to guard against
accidents or terrorist attack.

Today the Department of Energy announced plans to revive the
proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain and increase storage
levels by an undisclosed amount, despite strong opposition from
Nevada's congressional delegation and a myriad of scientific, safety
and technical problems.


Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757
  
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, 
Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 
702-388-5030
  
Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980
  
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)
*****************************************************************
 66 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Movement Wants Nuclear Disarmament
 
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:29:35 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Agencia Cubana de Noticias (AIN)
http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles

Non-Aligned Movement Stands Up For Nuclear Disarmament

Havana, March 7 (ACN) The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has historically
defended nuclear disarmament, said Cuban delegate Respel Pino on Tuesday at
a conference on the issue in Geneva.

Pino recalled that during last September's NAM summit held in Havana, when
Cuba took the chair of the group, all 118 members of the organization
declared themselves in favor of nuclear disarmament, reported PL news
agency.

The Cuban representative noted the contradictory stance of some governments
that are pushing the international community into horizontal
non-proliferation, while ignoring nuclear disarmament.

"The only safe and effective way to avoid proliferation of mass destruction
weapons is by fully eliminating them," he said.

Cuba believes the use or threat to employ nuclear weapons is illegal under
every circumstance and occasion, said Pino.

"The existence of nuclear weapons and the so-called 'nuclear dissuasion
doctrines' create an international environment of instability and
insecurity," he noted.

Cuba maintains that the only way to prevent new nuclear catastrophes is to
completely do away with such weapons and forbid their existence.

ycr

                       ***

Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Nuke Disarmament a Priority for Cuba, NAM

Geneva, Mar 6 (Prensa Latina) Cuba emphasized on Tuesday that the 
highest priority for the 186-member Non Aligned Movement is nuclear 
disarmament, historically defended by the organization.

Cuban delegate Respel Pino recalled to the Disarmament Conference in 
Geneva that this position was reiterated during September s NAM meeting 
in Havana.

He considered it contradictory for some States are to pressure the 
international community for horizontal non-proliferation, while ignoring 
nuclear disarmament.

"The only safe and effective way to avoid proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction is by their complete withdrawal," he stressed.

Meanwhile, he pointed out, some initiatives with very dangerous 
implications are being advanced, such as the Security Initiative against 
Proliferation, which Cuba has commented on previously.

Cuba considers the use or threat to employ nuclear weapons is illegal in 
every circumstance and occasion, and military doctrines for nuclear 
weapons possession are unsustainable and unacceptable, he declared.

"The very existence of nuclear weapons and the so-called "nuclear 
dissuasion doctrines" create an international environment of instability 
and insecurity," he noted.

Cuba declared that the only way to prevent new nuclear catastrophes is 
to completely eliminate nuclear weapons and forbid their existence forever.

hr ccs abo ft

PL-32
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 67 Congress Daily: Democrats to examine military base contamination 

(3/7/07) 

Government Executive

By Darren Goode, CongressDaily

Defense officials might come under fire as Congress mulls 
investigating whether the Pentagon has sufficiently responded to 
reports of environmental contamination at military bases.

House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Solomon 
Ortiz, D-Texas, said communities where bases are being closed are 
concerned that the sites cannot be redeveloped because of 
contamination, and that oversight is needed.

"We're going to be looking at that, no question," he said, adding 
he is considering a hearing on the matter this month.

House Energy and Commerce Democrats likely will be focusing on 
drinking water problems. Perchlorate, used in rocket fuel, and 
trichloroethylene or TCE, an industrial solvent used as a metal 
parts degreaser, are the two biggest water contaminants at 
military sites. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and 
Health and Human Services Department have said TCE is likely to 
cause cancer in humans, while perchlorate might affect the 
thyroid gland.

A spokesman for Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, 
D-Mich., said there will be Oversight Subcommittee hearings, and 
that Dingell also "plans to examine the issues surrounding water 
contamination at Camp Lejeune and specifically the Department of 
Defense's refusal to respond to data requests from the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry."

Critics of the military's environmental record point to the TCE 
drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

After the camp was declared a Superfund site in 1989, the ATSDR 
found an alarming rate of miscarriages, birth defects and 
childhood leukemia there. TCE levels in the drinking water at 
Camp Lejeune were 1,400 parts per billion in 1982, 280 times 
higher than EPA's standard of five parts per billion.

Jerry Ensminger, who leads a group of ex-Marine Camp Lejeune 
families, said an upcoming ATSDR water modeling study will show 
that TCE levels at the camp reached EPA's limit in June 1957. 
Ensminger, whose daughter was conceived at Camp Lejeune and died 
of leukemia, wants ATSDR to expand the analysis to include adults 
and children born before their families moved to Camp Lejeune.

The Marine Corps began testing wells at Camp Lejeune in 1985 and 
then started closing off some contaminated water supplies. 
"Before that, they didn't give a damn," Ensminger said in a 
recent interview.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., disagrees. "When we looked back at 
Camp Lejeune, the concerns that were raised were, in fact, 
vetted," Burr said. "Camp Lejeune did not ignore the claims. Did 
they carry it as far as they could have and perhaps they should 
have? That's open to question."

Ensminger said he met last month with several congressional 
aides, including representatives of Burr, Ortiz, Senate 
Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., 
and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., whose district includes Camp 
Lejeune.

He has also sent "a bunch" of documents to investigators on 
Dingell's staff. "I understand that there are some extremely 
damaging documents that haven't seen the light of day," Ensminger 
said.

Critics allege that the military is stonewalling completion of an 
ATSDR epidemiological study at Camp Lejeune and has not funded a 
National Academy of Sciences study there that was authorized in 
last year's defense authorization bill.

Craig Sakai, head of the environmental branch at Marine Corps 
Headquarters, said in an e-mail that the Corps "continues to work 
close with ATSDR to provide them with the necessary data that we 
control." But some of the data requested "does not belong to the 
Marine Corps," he said, and in those instances the Corps has 
asked other agencies "to work directly with ATSDR to provide them 
access to the data that they need for their study."

Regarding the funding for the National Academy of Sciences 
project, the Corps "has provided complete funding for the study" 
to the Pentagon's NAS liaison, Sakai said, "who is working on a 
formal agreement with NAS for this study." The liaison is the 
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., who pushed for the 
NAS study, said the Corps "assures Sen. Dole that the funding has 
been identified and set aside to conduct the review." The Corps 
also told Dole that NAS "is ready to submit a proposal on how it 
will conduct its review."

Some Pentagon officials have argued that environmental 
regulations can hamper military training. The department has 
unsuccessfully tried to exempt munitions from environmental 
requirements under the Superfund and Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act waste laws in recent years.

Congressional critics also charge that the Pentagon has 
obstructed completion of a tougher EPA drinking water standard 
for TCE.

EPA issued a draft risk assessment of TCE in 2001 but it was not 
finalized. The National Research Council concluded in a July 2006 
report that evidence of the carcinogenic and other health risks 
of TCE "has strengthened since 2001." NRC recommended that 
"federal agencies finalize their risk assessment with currently 
available data so that risk management decisions can be made 
expeditiously."

An EPA spokesman did not say when or if that risk assessment will 
be finalized and said there are no plans to revise the TCE 
drinking water standard.

Dingell and other Energy and Commerce Democrats introduced a bill 
in the 109th Congress to hold EPA to a deadline to complete a new 
perchlorate drinking water standard and they might propose a 
deadline for a new TCE standard, a House aide said.

©2007 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 68 Salt Lake Tribune: New nukes: Congress should not allow testing to resume

Tribune Editorial

Article Last Updated: 03/06/2007 07:57:29 PM MST

It's naive to believe that the Pentagon would build a new nuclear
weapon and not want to see exactly what it can do. And that means
testing in the Nevada desert.

    Even the thought of resuming nuclear testing is enough to raise
the hackles of people living in Nevada, Utah and Idaho, and for good
reason. Untold numbers of people living in those states died or were
sickened by four decades of testing at the Nevada Test Site between
1951 and 1992.

    We simply cannot allow it to happen again.

    But more testing seems to be the intent of the Bush
administration, and only constant vigilance by Utah's congressional
delegation and all of us who live downwind of the test site has a
chance to stop it.

    Widespread protests over the past 60 days halted the planned
test of Divine Strake, a 700-ton conventional weapon that could have
stirred up and disbursed radioactive dust left over from those Cold
War-era nuclear tests. We may need to rally such a force again.

    In the meantime, Congress would be foolish to grant the
president's request for funds to ready the Nevada site for nuclear
tests, although he denies he will ever order them.

    It would be foolish because the National Nuclear Security 
Administration has a new big gun, the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead, and the Bush administration has dangerous plans for such 
weapons. Under Bush we no longer hoist the threat of nuclear 
weapons merely to deter other countries from launching them, as 
we did against the Soviet Union, as that country did against us. 
This administration appears to have few qualms about attacking 
enemy bunkers with small nuclear arms.

    That policy shift is nothing short of a dare to our real and
potential enemies, more of whom have nuclear capabilities than ever
before and may be itching for an excuse to do their own testing.

    Carrying out tests to update our nuclear arsenal would not only
endanger the health of people who live in Nevada and surrounding
states, but make the chilling possibility of a nuclear arms race and
even nuclear war more likely.

    Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson, whose father, former Gov. Scott
Matheson, was a victim of the Nevada testing, has consistently
opposed moves to resume Nevada tests. All our elected officials
should stand firmly with him.

    They must make no mistake. The threat is real and must be fought
with vigor.

*****************************************************************
 69 Salt Lake Tribune: White House reaffirms pledge of no nuke tests

New-era warhead can be certified without any new blasts, the Bush
administration says

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 03/07/2007 12:26:14 AM MST

WASHINGTON - The head of the nation's nuclear weapons programs
reiterated Tuesday the Bush administration's promise not to conduct
any new nuclear weapons tests in its effort to build the Reliable
Replacement Warhead, a new generation of nuclear weapon.

   There will be no underground testing of RRW. Period,? said
Thomas D'Agostino, acting administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration and acting undersecretary of nuclear
security.

   ?That is a commitment that I and others in this administration
have made repeatedly, including in testimony to Congress,? he said.
?If we are told that we have to test RRW, then we will not move
forward with this redesigned nuclear weapon.?

   Some, including Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, had expressed concerns
that the new warhead design, announced last Friday, would lead the
nation to its first nuclear test since a moratorium on testing was
put in place in 1992.

   ?I think we're going down the path of new nuclear weapons, which
takes us down the path to new nuclear weapons testing," Matheson
said last week.

   D'Agostino said the national laboratories have certified that
building the new warhead is ?technically feasible without testing,?
since the design was based on components that have already been 
tested, and a key criteria for the labs designing the weapon was 
to produce a warhead that could be certified for use without 
underground testing.

   Robert Nelson, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists, said that, in the past, new weapons have had to be
tested to be certified as safe and reliable, but if it there is
?even a hint it might need to be tested? Congress will put a stop to
RRW.

   ?I think it's probably possible to design a weapon that, with the
best judgment, does not need to be tested. [But] judgments can
change over time,? Nelson said. ?Our point of view is that it's not
necessary and it's provocative to the rest of the world and damages
our commitment [to non-proliferation].?

   The issue of renewed nuclear testing is a sore spot in Utah,
where thousands of residents suffer from cancer and other illnesses
as a result of their exposure to radioactive fallout from Cold
War-era tests.

   Last month, the Defense Department canceled a conventional
weapons test known as Divine Strake after a flood of local
opposition, fearing the bomb test could resuspend radioactive debris
at the Nevada Test Site.

   The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review in 2001 called
for a shortened time-frame to resume testing if a serious problem
were found in the weapons stockpile. Congress agreed and urged
reducing the time needed to prepare a test from two or three years
to 18 months. However, Congress has since denied repeated
administration requests for funds to move to the 18-month standard.

   Matheson introduced legislation in the last two Congresses
seeking to require the administration to get approval from Congress
before resuming testing and requiring a broad environmental study.

   Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch introduced similar legislation
in 2004 that also offered radiation monitoring equipment to any
community that requested it.

   Matheson plans to re-introduce his bill this year.
   
© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 70 Xinhua: EU welcomes DPRK's decision to freeze nuclear program

www.chinaview.cn 2007-03-07 21:03:39

    VIENNA, March 7 (Xinhua) -- The European Union welcomes
Pyongyang's decision to freeze its nuclear program and re-establish
ties with the UN atomic watchdog, Germany's top envoy to the United
Nations said here Wednesday.

    It would be the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)'s
"first step on the way toward honoring its obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty," said German ambassador Peter Gottwald,
whose country chairs the EU rotating presidency during the first
half of 2007.

    Speaking on the sidelines of a board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gottwald underlined the
necessity of a swift and full implementation of the Beijing
agreement.

    The latest round of six-party talks, involving China, the United
States, the DPRK, South Korea, Russia and Japan, ended in Beijing on
Feb. 13 with a joint statement on the first step toward the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    Upon the invitation of the DPRK, IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei will pay a two-day visit to the country from March 13 to
work out details of shutting down and sealing the DPRK's nuclear
facility, including the production of plutonium, and redeploying
inspectors by mid-April.

    The IAEA inspectors left the DPRK in December 2002 when the
country abandoned the agreed framework with the United States to
freeze its nuclear program. In October 2006, the DPRK reported it
had successfully tested a nuclear explosive device.

    After ElBaradei's return, the IAEA's 35-nation board of
governors is expected to hold a special meeting to formally approve
IAEA monitoring of the implementation of the agreement and to decide
on details of financing the inspections, diplomats in Vienna said.

Editor: Yao Runping

*****************************************************************
 71 TriValeyCares: Action Halts Huge Bomb Blasts at Livermore Lab Site
 
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:41:52 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] PRESS REL:Action Halts Huge Bomb Blasts at Livermore 
Lab Site 300
Date: 	Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:17:04 -0800
From: 	Marylia Kelley <marylia@earthlink.net>
To: 	marylia@earthlink.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Hi, from all of us at Tri-Valley CAREs -- An important victory stopping
huge explosions, which in the past have routinely included Uranium-238.
Read on...

For immediate release: March 7, 2007

ACTION HALTS HUGE BOMB BLASTS AT LIVERMORE LAB SITE 300,
Community Members, Environmentalists Hail Air District Decision to Revoke
Permits Following Citizen's Challenge

for more information, contact:
Loulena Miles, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs, 925-443-7148
Trent Orr, Counsel to Earthjustice, 415-665-2185
Bob Sarvey, Business Owner, Sarvey Shoes, 209-830-0349

TRACY: In a major victory for local activists, permits that would have
allowed Livermore Lab to increase its open air explosions annually by
8-fold have been cancelled by the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control
District. Citizens and groups challenging the permit received the news by
phone from the air district; no formal statement has yet been released.

Site 300, Livermore Lab's high explosive testing range, was granted permits
in November 2006 to detonate up to 8,000 pounds of high explosives annually
and 350 pounds daily. These explosions would also involve unknown
quantities of toxic and radioactive material including Uranium 238. The
Lab's permit application was silent about the exact contents of the
explosions.

Site 300 covers 11 square miles, and is located on Corral Hollow Road, just
off I-580 in the Altamont Hills between Livermore and Tracy. Local
businesses and community members were alarmed and demanded that the air
district conduct public hearings, disclose more information about the
blasts, and look carefully at the health and environmental impacts that
could result from the explosions.

Tracy business owner Bob Sarvey formally appealed the permits and a hearing
was scheduled for today in Modesto. The district notified the parties
yesterday afternoon that the Lab would have to reapply if it wanted to
obtain permits for these large explosions.

"The big winner today is the environment in and around Site 300," declared
Tri-Valley CAREs' Staff Attorney, Loulena Miles. "If these huge explosions
had been allowed to go forward, the hills, nearby waterways, the workers
and the surrounding community would have all been put at risk. We adamantly
argued that additional environmental review was required before any permit
could be considered. I am gratified that the air district heeded our plea."

Miles continued, "Community opposition truly made the difference in getting
these permits cancelled. And, continued vigilance is critical to ensure
that Livermore Lab does not return to the air board with a second permit
application that is similarly incomplete. We will be watching."

"I filed the appeal because I could see the Livermore Lab wanted to fast
track these permits without informing the community about the risks
involved in the project," said Bob Sarvey, a long-time Tracy resident and
business owner. "I certainly feel safer not living under a cloud of
radioactive materials exploded at Site 300." Sarvey and his family live on
Corral Hollow Road, where past blasts from Site 300 have blown out windows
in their home.

The permits that were revoked today mark the first attempts by Livermore
Lab to obtain county permission for open-air detonations at Site 300. The
Air Pollution Control District has only been in existence for 15 years.
During this time, Site 300 open-air explosions were conducted without
permits because the blasts were at a lesser volume and yield. Livermore Lab
is also applying to the Calif. State Dept. of Toxics to increase Site 300's
waste storage from 3,300 gallons to 5,500 gallons.

"It was astounding that the Air Pollution Control District issued permits
to detonate explosives involving radioactive materials outdoors on a
hazardous waste site, a mile from a planned 5,500-unit residential area,
without the public review required by the California Environmental Quality
Act," said Trent Orr, a lawyer with Earthjustice, a national nonprofit
that, along with Tri-Valley CAREs, provided written arguments to buttress
the challenge.

Orr continued, "We're pleased to learn that the District has withdrawn
these permits and look forward to the required in-depth review of this
dangerous proposal, which should lead to its rejection as utterly
incompatible with human health and the surrounding natural environment."

Site 300 is already on the federal Environmental Protection Agency's
"Superfund" list of most contaminated locations in the country. Livermore
Lab is presently cleaning up extensive contamination throughout the site,
including a two-mile plume of heavily contaminated groundwater containing
radioactive and toxic debris from past operations.

The residential population in the area surrounding Tracy is growing
dramatically.  A 5,500 housing development called Tracy Hills is planned
for one mile outside of the fence line.  The seven million people in the
San Francisco Bay Area could be affected by wind or water-borne
contamination from the blasts.

Site 300 is also on Homeland Security's "short list" of sites being
considered to host a massive bio-lab, known as the National Bio and Agro
Defense Facility, where bioweapon agents will be studied on animals in a
maximum containment laboratory the size of 5 Wal-Mart stores. Homeland
Security will decide whether to study the Tracy site as one of "finalist"
candidates for the massive bio-lab in the coming months.

###

Marylia Kelley,
Executive Director

Tri-Valley CAREs
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA  94551

Ph: (925) 443-7148
Fx: (925) 443-0177
Web: www.trivalleycares.org
Email: marylia@trivalleycares.org or marylia@earthlink.net



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 72 DOE: DOE Releases Information on Loan Guarantee Pre-Applications

March 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that
the Loan Guarantee Office has received 143 pre-applications
requesting more than $27 billion in loan guarantee protection as of
the December 31, 2006, submission deadline.  These pre-applications,
representing project costs of more than $51 billion, were submitted
in response to a Department of Energy solicitation issued in August
2006.  The pre-applications currently are under preliminary review.

“This demonstrates a great desire from industry to get federal loan
guarantees in place to spur innovative and novel technologies that
lead to clean energy,” Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. 
“As we move through the process, experts will be taking a hard look
at the proposals, the design, and the financing risks associated
with each pre-application with the hopes of inviting some sponsors
to submit loan guarantee applications to DOE as soon as possible.”

In the full-year Continuing Resolution that was enacted into law on
February 15, 2007, Congress provided DOE with $7 million to fund the
operation of its Loan Guarantee Office, and authority to issue
guarantees for up to $4 billion in loans.  The President has
requested $8.4 million for operation of the DOE Loan Guarantee
Office in FY 2008, with a loan volume limitation of $9 billion.

Analysis of the pre-applications received by the December 31, 2006,
deadline shows the following:

The technologies represented by the Pre-Applications include:
49% biomass
16% advanced fossil energy technology
12% solar
6% industrial energy efficiency projects
17% other

Pre-Applications by requested loan guarantee amount:
61% advanced fossil energy technology
10% industrial energy efficiency projects
14% biomass
7% solar
8% other

Pre-Applications by total project costs:
69% advanced fossil energy technology
11% biomass
7% industrial energy efficiency projects
6% solar
7% other

Media contact(s):
Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 

U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 73 SF New Mexican: LANL Environmental cleanup director to trade duties at lab

Wed Mar 7, 2007 10:53 pm
 
Andy Lenderman | The New Mexican

The head of environmental cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory
has asked for another job, and the lab director has agreed, lab
officials report.

Associate Director for Environmental Programs Andy Phelps asked to
be reassigned to another position at the lab, Director Michael
Anastasio said in a news release.

Phelps "indicated a desire to step down from his duties because he
had been unable to cement effective relationships with the
laboratory's regulators and stakeholders, stating that he felt it
was in the best interests of the institution to do so," according to
the lab.

The lab is regulated by the New Mexico Environment Department, which
enforces a legal agreement signed in 2005 that governs how hazardous
waste from the Cold War will be handled. About 700 contaminated
sites remain to be cleaned up at the lab, work that could total $1
billion.

Environment Secretary Ron Curry has fined the lab $240,000 for four
separate violations recently.

"We wish Andy well and are anxious to continue cleanup efforts at
the lab," Curry said through a spokeswoman.

Deputy director Carolyn Mangeng will serve as an acting director
until a replacement is picked.

Anastasio praised Phelps for his work since Los Alamos National
Security LLC took over managing the lab last year.

"Andy's leadership in environmental programs has played a critical
role in allowing the laboratory to accomplish so much during the
past nine months, including meeting nearly 100 deliverables
specified under the consent order with the New Mexico Environment
Department," Anastasio said.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.

| ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican, all
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************