*****************************************************************
03/13/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.60
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 AFP: Russia warns Iran of 'irreversible consequences' - report 
2 Guardian Unlimited: Dems Sack Language Limiting Iran Action
3 UN Atomic Chief Holds Talks With Dpr Korea This Week On Denucleariza
4 AFP: Macau may liquidate NKorea-linked bank - report
5 Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Issue May See Watershed in One Week
6 IAEA: IAEA Chief Heads Delegation to the DPRK
7 Reuters: IAEA head in N.Korea as nuclear diplomacy heats up
8 UPI: Report: N.Korea-linked bank may be killed
9 Korea Times: `GNP Presidential Hopefuls to Take Firmer Line on North
10 AFP: IAEA chief begins delicate North Korea mission 
11 UPI: Seoul to chair N.Korea energy meeting
12 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Chief Arrives in N. Korea 
13 US: [infowarsnews] Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To 
14 "options" means nukes: Straightgoods.com
15 NUCLEAR WAR: Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts
16 Guardian Unlimited: Second member of government resigns over Trident
17 Guardian Unlimited: Labour revolt over Trident grows as minister res
18 BBC NEWS: Commons crane protest at Trident
19 The Herald: Blair expects to defeat rebellion
20 Reuters: Pakistan, India open fresh round of peace talks 
21 UK: Telegraph: Blair faces Trident revolt as minister quits
22 AFP: Pakistan, India begin fourth round of peace talks 
23 Guardian Unlimited: Government facing Trident rebellion 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 US: NRC: Statement: The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissione
25 WNA: Minister backs nuclear, launches first ever climate bill
26 US: SLO Trib: No public hearing for grand jury emergency improvement
27 BBC NEWS: Libya 'may sign US nuclear deal'
28 BBC NEWS: Q&A: Climate change plans
29 US: Platts: POGO urges NRC to adopt final fitness-for-duty rule
30 US: Tri-City Herald: Hearing set on Bush plan to tap nuclear energy
31 US: toledoblade.com: Besse among plants obliged to fix welds
32 US: FR NRC: Florida Power and Light; Notice of Consideration of Issu
33 Herald Sun: GE talked to nuclear regulator | 
34 Japan Times: '98 reactor emergency in Miyagi covered up 
35 WNA: Nuclear the 'ethanol of 2017', investment bank says
36 US: News Day: Energy industry seeks to turn around negative public p
37 AFP: US says no nuclear power cooperation on the cards with Libya -
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
38 US: [NukeNet] Poison DUst -- D.U. video link
39 [du-list] Belgium Defence Commission votes unamously for a ban on
40 [du-list] From an Iraqi woman writer, Layla Anwar, defying occupatio
41 US: du-list: What Needs To Be Done? ( Article V Convention )
42 US: FR EPA: HSRB meeting
43 US: Reuters: Study faults radiological security program 
44 Guardian Unlimited: Open-Government Vote Marks Sunshine Week 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
45 [du-list] American Centrifuge Piketon, Ohio
46 US: The State: Open government is great we just don't have enough
47 US: Tri-City Herald: GNEP meeting today tests public's support
48 UK: New radioactive waste bunker planned for Hinkley Point 
49 US: KNDO/KNDU: Public Has Chance to Speak Out on GNEP
50 barrow in furness: Prison firm bids to run Sellafield
 
                           PEACE
 
51 US: Ventura County Star: Boxer presses EPA for Halaco cleanup
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
52 Daily Gazette:  Radioactive Contamination by KAPL of Hudson and Moha
53 KnoxNews: Y-12 building slowed again
54 Hanford News: Appeals court considers Hanford waste initiative
55 KnoxNews: New TVA COO has nuclear experience
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AFP: Russia warns Iran of 'irreversible consequences' - report 

Tuesday March 13, 12:19 PM

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia warned Iran on Tuesday of "irreversible
consequences" for the Bushehr nuclear power station project should
Tehran fail to resolve a financing dispute, state-run RIA Novosti
reported.

"We cannot wait longer for a decision by the Iranian side," Vladimir
Pavlov, director for Russian contractor Atomstroiexport's Bushehr
work, was quoted as saying. "Delays in restarting the financing will
bring irreversible consequences."

Pavlov said, however, that negotiations in Tehran between
Atomstroiexport and Iranian officials were proving "fairly
constructive," RIA Novosti reported.

Russia accuses Iran of falling behind on payments for work at what
is set to be the country's first nuclear power station.

On Monday, Atomstroiexport announced that the crucial delivery of
nuclear fuel to the almost completed facility would be delayed,
probably by two months.

Iran claims that Russian financial problems are causing the trouble.

The United States accuses Tehran of hiding a secret military
programme and has urged Moscow to back away from construction of
Bushehr, which Iran says is needed to generate electricity.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Dems Sack Language Limiting Iran Action

From the Associated Press

Tuesday March 13, 2007 9:31 PM

By DAVID ESPO and MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military
spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush
gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to
remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats
as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on
Israel, officials said Monday.

The overall bill - which requires that the withdrawal of U.S. combat
troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier - remained on
schedule for an initial test vote Thursday in the House
Appropriations Committee.

The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for two wars and
includes more money than Bush had requested for operations in
Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment
shortages. Still, House Republicans said they wouldn't support it
and the White House threatened a veto.

``Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will
oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General
(David) Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War
on Terror,'' Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a
statement.

Vice President Dick Cheney criticized supporters of the bill's
withdrawal provisions, declaring in a speech Monday that they ``are
telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.''

Pelosi issued a written statement that said the vice president's
remarks prove that ``the administration's answer to continuing
violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American
people.''

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement that
America was less safe today because of the war. The president ``must
change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it,'' he
added.

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush
did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but
drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a
series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is
widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be
seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility
about the Jewish state.

``It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool
that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,'' she said of the
now-abandoned provision.

``I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the
table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and
normalize it in a civilized way,'' said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the
proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and
moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the
administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially
hostile regime in Tehran.

Public opinion has swung the way of Democrats on the issue of the
war. More than six in 10 Americans think the conflict was a mistake
- the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling.

But Democrats have struggled to find a compromise that can satisfy
both liberals who oppose any funding for the military effort and
conservatives who do not want to unduly restrict the commander in
chief.

``This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and
providing what they need,'' Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., said Monday
upon returning from Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any
legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.

In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
Cheney chided lawmakers who are pressing for tougher action on Iran
to oppose the president on the Iraq war.

``It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action
against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same
time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst
enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United
States, dangerously weakened,'' Cheney said.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 UN Atomic Chief Holds Talks With Dpr Korea This Week On Denuclearization
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:01:23 -0400

UN ATOMIC CHIEF HOLDS TALKS WITH DPR KOREA THIS WEEK ON DENUCLEARIZATION
 
New York, Mar 13 2007 10:00AM
The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency is holding 
talks this week with officials of the Democratic People’s Republic 
of Korea (DPRK) on plans to rid it of nuclear weapons in what he 
calls “the first step in a long process” toward normalizing relations 
with a country that ordered UN inspectors out more than four 

UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_northkorea.html">IAEA) 
Director-General Mohamed 
ElBaradei is scheduled to meet with the officials in Pyongyang, 
the DPRK capital, tomorrow and Thursday at the invitation from 
the DPRK after it committed in Six-Party talks in Beijing last month 
to eventually dismantle all nuclear weapon facilities and materials 

“I would like to focus on how to bring the DPRK closer to the Agency,” 
Mr. ElBaradei said in Vienna on Sunday before leaving for Beijing 
on his way to the DPRK. “I would like also to discuss the 
broad framework for how to implement the Beijing Agreement among 
the Six-Party talks which foresees that the Agency will monitor and 
verify the freeze of the Yongbyon nuclear facility including the 

He is meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing both before and after 
the visit. China played a major role in the Six-Party talks 
which also brought together the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK), 
Japan, Russia and the United States. When he received the DPRK 
invitation last month, Mr. ElBaradei said he saw it as a step 

Ever since the DPRK ordered the IAEA inspectors out at the end of 
2003 and formally withdrew from the NPT and its inspections and 
other safeguards of fuel diversion from energy generation to weapons 
production, top UN officials have repeatedly appealed to it to 

In October, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on the DPRK 
as well as individuals supporting its military programme and demanded 
that it cease its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction after 
 2007-03-13 00:00:00.000 


___________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ 
_______________________________

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 4 AFP: Macau may liquidate NKorea-linked bank - report

Tuesday March 13, 2007, 5:19 pm


SEOUL (AFP) - Authorities in Macau could liquidate a bank accused of
illicit dealings with North Korea if the United States designates it
as a financial institution that laundered money, a report here said.

Liquidation would mean that Pyongyang could recover some or all of
the 24 million dollars it had at Banco Delta Asia (BDA), the Yonhap
news agency quoted an unidentified South Korean official as saying.

The United States blacklisted BDA in September 2005, accusing the
bank in the former Portuguese enclave of serving as a front for the
North's illegal financial activities.

As part of a six-nation deal reached last month on ending North
Korea's nuclear programme, Washington launched talks with Pyongyang
on eventually ending the sanctions that led to a freeze on the North
Korean funds in Macau.

The US Treasury Department is expected to announce the outcome of
its investigation into BDA later this week, the Yonhap report said.

"I believe the owner of BDA would have to take responsibility for
what he or she may be found responsible for, based on the outcome of
the investigation," the official was quoted as saying.

"I think (the issue of) how much money will be released to North
Korea is now in the hands of the Macau government."

Two weeks ago, US officials said they had wound up the probe after
meetings with authorities in Macau, but refused to say what would
happen to the money.

Daniel Glaser, a Treasury Department official, told reporters in
Hong Kong that "everything that we have seen throughout this
investigation has confirmed and reinforced the concerns we initially
expressed in September 2005."
 
Copyright &copy 2006 AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Issue May See Watershed in One Week

Updated Mar.13,2007 10:41 KST

Roughly a month after the six-nation North Korea nuclear accord was
reached in Beijing on Feb. 13, follow-up events are due to get
underway in earnest this week.

First, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International
Atomic Energy Agency, will arrive in Pyongyang on Tuesday. Then a
series of meetings between representatives from the six concerned
parties will be held in Beijing from Thursday to next Wednesday.

A topic of cardinal concern is the partial or total release of US$24
million of North Korean funds from the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in
Macao. Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea¡¯s vice foreign minister, has said
that the North will take only limited steps if the U.S. leaves some
of the funds frozen. In light of this, the BDA issue may affect the
upcoming meetings.

On Thursday, a working-group meeting on energy and economic
cooperation will be held in the Chinese capital under the
chairmanship of South Korea. A working-group meeting on peace and
security in Northeast Asia is scheduled for Friday, to be followed
by a working-group meeting on the denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula on Saturday.

The highlight of the series of meetings will be a working group on
normalizing relations between the U.S. and North Korea on Sunday, a
follow-up to similar talks held in New York on March 6 and 7.

The following Monday, the six participating countries will hold a
plenary session, also in Beijing, to discuss in detail how to shut
down North Korea's nuclear facilities. As such, a watershed in the
North Korean nuclear issue may come a week from now.

(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
 6 IAEA: IAEA Chief Heads Delegation to the DPRK

Web IAEA.org

Visit Seen as "First Step in A long Process", Dr. ElBaradei Says

Staff Report

12 March 2007

IAEA Director General ElBaradei met with reporters in Vienna on 
11 March 2007 before departing for visits to China and the DPRK. 
(Photo: T. Yatagai)

A high-level IAEA delegation headed by IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei is en route to the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
(DPRK/North Korea) to begin two days of talks on issues of "mutual
concern". Dr. ElBaradei welcomed the visit as a "the first step in a
long process" toward the normalization of the relationship between
DPRK and the Agency.

Before his departure in Vienna on Sunday, 11 March, Dr. ElBaradei
told reporters he looked forward to the IAEA´s return to DPRK after
an absence of almost five years and to establish a new framework for
cooperation.

"I would like to focus on how to bring the DPRK closer to the
Agency," he said. "I would like also to discuss the broad framework
for how to implement the Beijing Agreement among the Six-Party talks
which foresees that the Agency will monitor and verify the freeze of
the Yongbyon nuclear facility including the reprocessing facility."

Dr. ElBaradei is meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing before
and after his visit to North Korea. The IAEA delegation is meeting
with DPRK officials in Pyongyang at meetings scheduled on 14 and 15
March. DPRK officials extended the invitation for the visit to Dr.
ElBaradei on 23 February 2007.

An agreement reached in Beijing on 13 February foresees that the
DPRK will shut down its nuclear facility at Yongbyon including the
reprocessing facility, and accept Agency inspection, verification
and monitoring at the facility.

See Story Resources for more information.

Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 7 Reuters: IAEA head in N.Korea as nuclear diplomacy heats up

Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:19AM EDT

By Lindsay Beck

BEIJING (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog arrived in
North Korea on Tuesday on a landmark visit, hopeful of making
progress on closing its atomic facilities, but U.S. officials
sounded a more cautious note.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have not
visited North Korea since the isolated and impoverished state
expelled the group in late 2002 as a disarmament deal fell apart. It
withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty days later.

Now, as part of a new accord reached in February, the North has
agreed to admit the watchdog, which will play a key role in
verifying whether it meets a commitment to shut down the Yongbyon
reactor at the heart of its nuclear program.

"I hope we should be able to make some progress," IAEA head Mohamed
ElBaradei told reporters before leaving Beijing.

He hoped his agency could "work closer with the DPRK after many
years of estrangement", he said, referring to the North by its
official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Under the February deal, cut at six-party talks in Beijing that
group the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia,
North Korea agreed to shut Yongbyon by mid-April in return for an
infusion of energy aid and security assurances.

"This is an important part of the six-party talks' implementing of
the initial steps," ElBaradei said of his trip.  Continued...


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 UPI: Report: N.Korea-linked bank may be killed

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Published: March 13, 2007 at 8:14 AM

SEOUL, March 13 (UPI) -- A Macau bank accused of laundering money 
for North Korea could be liquidated as a result of a U.S. probe, 
Seoul news reports said Tuesday.

If the United States formally designates Banco Delta Asia (BDA) as a
"money laundering concern," Macau authorities could liquidate the
bank, Yonhap News Agency said, citing an unidentified official at
the Foreign Ministry.

"I believe the owners of BDA would have to take responsibility for
what they may be found liable based on the outcome of the
investigation," the official said.

If BDA is liquidated, North Korea can recover some or all of the $24
million dollars it had at the bank. The bank issue has been a key
obstacle to ending the North's nuclear drive.

"I think (the issue of) how much money will be released to North
Korea is now in the hands of the Macau government," the official
said.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea Times: `GNP Presidential Hopefuls to Take Firmer Line on North Korea'

    Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Special

Time Magazine has reported that the top contenders in South Korea¡¯s
December presidential election should be former Seoul Mayor Lee
Myung-bak and former Grand National Party chairwoman Park Geun-hye,
daughter of the former President Park Chung Hee.

``Both candidates will probably present a firmer line on North
Korea,¡¯¡¯ the weekly magazine said in its March 19 special report
titled ``What¡¯s Next.¡¯¡¯

The two conservative presidential hopefuls of the opposition GNP are
likely to be negatively affected by the Feb. 13 six-nation agreement
to scrap North Korea¡¯s nuclear programs and the communist
country¡¯s move for diplomatic normalization with the U.S., Japan
and other powers.

However, presidential hopefuls of the ruling camp could possibly
take advantage of the denuclearization accord and a possible thawing
mood in relation with North Korea.

Time said in the ``Election Watch¡¯¡¯ article of the special report
that five countries, including South Korea and Thailand, are
expected to hold elections this year.

According to the story, the Thai military junta that overthrew
elected Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra last September has
promised to hold fresh elections around October.

``Army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin swears he will not run. But
instigators of previous coups in Thailand have had a habit of
lingering,¡¯¡¯ Time said.

Pakistan¡¯s President and military leader Pervez Musharraf will
probably extend his rule another five years in September by stating
a vote in his handpicked Parliament, the magazine said.

``So far, exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto¡¯s call for open
elections have been dismissted,¡¯¡¯ it said.

In East Timor, whoever wins the presidential election scheduled for
April 9 in this tiny, brand-new half-island nation faces daunting
challenges, including mass poverty, rampant gangs and lingering
trauma from 24 years of brutal Indonesian rule.

Time said that the April 21 general elections in Nigeria could be a
constitutional transfer of power _ if President Olusegun Obsanjo, a
former military ruler, bows out as promised.

It said the front runner is a little-known provincial governor,
Umaru Musa Yar¡¯Adua, whom Obasanjo has anointed as his successor.

03-13-2007 15:23
  
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: IAEA chief begins delicate North Korea mission 

by Dan Martin Tue Mar 13, 2:36 AM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - The UN nuclear watchdog's chief arrived in 
Pyongyang on Tuesday hoping to secure North Korea's permission to 
allow his inspectors back into the country, four years after they 
were kicked out.

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei began his
two-day visit following a landmark deal made last month in
six-nation talks that raised hopes the Stalinist state would finally
abandon its nuclear weapons programme.

"We hope to discuss... how we can implement the agreements reached
at the six-party talks. I hope the outcome is positive," China's
official Xinhua news agency quoted ElBaradei as saying after
arriving in Pyongyang from Beijing.

North Korea kicked out IAEA inspectors in December 2002 and severed
ties with the Vienna-based agency shortly after when it withdrew
from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that is designed to halt
the spread of atomic weapons.

Pyongyang finally said it would readmit inspectors as part of the
six-nation deal signed on February 13 that saw it agree to close a
key nuclear facility within 60 days in return for 50,000 tonnes of
badly needed heavy fuel oil.

"I hope that we can agree with the DPRK (North Korea) to get our
inspectors back in time to implement the agreement of the six-party
talks," ElBaradei said on Monday during a stopover in the Chinese
capital.

Under last month's deal, North Korea would eventually receive the
equivalent of one million tonnes of fuel aid if it completely and
permanently disbanded its nuclear weapons programme.

However ElBaradei warned on Monday against expecting quick
breakthroughs in permanently ending North Korea's nuclear drive,
saying trust must be re-established.

"This is a very complex process and there is a lot of confidence
that needs to be built," he said.

"There are lot of issues to consider -- security issues, economic
issues and political issues -- and you will have to bear with us."

ElBaradei said he would also seek the resumption of Pyongyang's
membership in the IAEA, from which North Korea withdrew in 1994.

ElBaradei flew out of Beijing early Tuesday without speaking to the
press waiting for him at the airport, although he was expected to
give a media conference on Thursday in the Chinese capital after his
visit to Pyongyang.

ElBaradei's delicate mission comes ahead of the resumption of
six-nation negotiations in Beijing next Monday to push ahead with
the disarmament deal.

The chief US negotiator in the six-party talks, Christopher Hill,
was due to arrive in Beijing on Wednesday for the new round of
discussions and hoped to meet with ElBaradei before next week's
meeting, the State Department said.

"Chris is going to look for an opportunity to meet with him there,
although I don't think it is formally on the schedule yet," State
Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Monday.

Aside from the United States and North Korea, the six-party talks
involve host China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 UPI: Seoul to chair N.Korea energy meeting

United Press International®

3/13/2007 8:02:00 AM -0400

SEOUL, March 13 (UPI) -- South Korea will chair the first session 
of a six-way working group on energy and economic aid for North 
Korea this week, Seoul officials said Tuesday.

The meeting, which involves the two Koreas, the United States, 
Japan, China and Russia, would be held at the South Korean 
Embassy in Beijing Thursday, Seoul's Foreign Ministry said in a 
press release.

The meeting would be chaired by South Korea's chief nuclear 
negotiator Chun Yung-woo. North Korea is expected to be 
represented by one of its delegates to the United Nations, Kim 
Myong Kil, officials said.

The group is one of five created as part of a deal reached at the 
six-nation talks last month on ending North Korea's nuclear 
drive.

Under the Feb. 13 deal, the communist North agreed to shut down 
and seal its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon within 60 
days and admit U.N. nuclear inspectors in exchange for 
badly-needed energy and economic assistance.


© Copyright 2007 United Press 
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. United Press 
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Chief Arrives in N. Korea 

From the Associated Press

Tuesday March 13, 2007 9:01 AM

By KWANG-TAE KIM Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The chief U.N. nuclear inspector expressed
hope for progress in relations with North Korea as he arrived
Tuesday in Pyongyang for talks on implementing a landmark nuclear
disarmament agreement.

``We hope we can make progress in our relationship,'' Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy
Agency said after arriving in the North, Associated Press Television
News reported. ``I hope the outcome will be positive.''

In 2002, the North kicked out IAEA inspectors after U.S. officials
accused it of running a secret uranium enrichment program, a charge
denied by the North.

Under the Feb. 13 agreement, the North is to ultimately give up its
nuclear arsenal in exchange for economic aid and political
concessions.

Meanwhile, former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung urged North
Korea not to miss the opportunity to get aid and other concessions
for ending its nuclear weapons program. Kim said if the North goes
back on its promises that it could face strong collective sanctions
from the U.S. and its four regional partners - South Korea, China,
Russia and Japan.

``North Korea also has a reason to seize the opportunity to achieve
success in the six-party talks,'' Kim said at a meeting of
international journalists in Seoul. He said ``North Korea's survival
could be threatened'' if it faced tough sanctions.

Kim, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his engagement policy toward
the North, also asked the U.S. to give North Korea what it wants and
embrace the isolated country as part of international society.

The U.S. has agreed to resolve a dispute over its financial
restrictions on a Macau bank that was accused of complicity in
counterfeiting $100 bills and money laundering by North Korea. The
U.S. move led Macau authorities to freeze about $24 million in North
Korean assets.

Kim's comments come as officials from the U.S. and the North
prepared to meet their counterparts from South Korea, China, Russia
and Japan this week in Beijing to start working group talks aimed at
putting the Feb. 13 agreement into effect.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said China
would head the group on the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula, while South Korea would lead the economic and energy
cooperation group and Russia would take charge of the group on peace
and security in Northeast Asia.

A session on economic and energy cooperation will be held at the
South Korean Embassy in Beijing on Thursday, the South's Foreign
Ministry said Tuesday.

The North held separate working group meetings with the U.S. and
Japan on normalizing diplomatic ties last week.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the main
American nuclear envoy, was scheduled to arrive Wednesday in Beijing
for the working groups and will stay at least a week, said Susan
Stevenson, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Beijing.

Hill is likely to meet Elbaradei who is expected to return Wednesday
to Beijing, though no official meeting has been set, according to
the embassy.

The working group sessions will be followed by a full session of the
six-nation North Korea nuclear talks set to convene Monday.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 13 [infowarsnews] Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:47:01 -0500 (CDT)


Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything Stop
asking questions and just let us tax the living hell out of you,
including the very air you breathe, after all - it's for the
environment and we've never lied to you before have we?

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Invoking September 11 has officially been succeeded by a new mantra
and an excuse for the state to unleash a fresh tyranny no matter
how offensive and damaging to individual liberty it may be. Global
warming has replaced 9/11 as the justification to do anything!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/130307doanything.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package:
Download and Share the Truth!

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of 130307gore.jpg]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of 300106pjw.jpg]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a
name of 071106pptvbanner2.gif]
*****************************************************************
 14 "options" means nukes: Straightgoods.com
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:48:08 -0500 (CDT)


from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=149
Backing into nuclear war

None dare say what the Bush administration is really threatening to do to Iran.

Dateline: Monday, March 05, 2007

by George Lakoff

The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear 
ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not 
insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and 
rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. Seymour Hersh, The 
New Yorker, April 17, 2006

The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, 
that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz 
facility reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground is not 
prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon the so-called bunker buster can 
pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover 
over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able 
to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would 
fail. Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006

A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that 
describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from 
being described.

1b5204.jpg
In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both 
in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the 
major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a 
real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number 
one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military 
experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be 
able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But 
on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons 
might not work, eg, if the rock and earth above the facility becomes 
liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, 
say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure 
"success", then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in 
boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war a first strike nuclear 
war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned conventional GBU-28's or 
nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. 
Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would 
happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. 
Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after 
the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's 
preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news 
conference. He was asked,
"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic 
efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the 
possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration 
will plan for?"

He replied,
"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he 
appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the 
President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put 
together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their 
aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our 
preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the 
point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, 
said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we 
won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them 
to have a license to do whatever they want to do... So I think the 
president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely 
appropriate."...

whole article at: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=149

Penney Kome, author and journalist
http://penneykome.ca
Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com 

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of 1b5204.jpg]
*****************************************************************
 15 NUCLEAR WAR: Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:18:25 -0800


<x-flowed>

Subject: 	[du-list] NUCLEAR WAR: Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear 
Conflicts
Date: 	Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:11:27 -0000



The article below appears not to be getting much coverage. It deals
with fissile uranium and plutonium weapons.

Transmitted for non-profit educational use only.

Science 2 March 2007:
Vol. 315. no. 5816, pp. 1224 - 1225
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137747Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Policy Forum
NUCLEAR WAR:
Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts

Owen B. Toon, 1* Alan Robock, 2* Richard P. Turco, 3 Charles
Bardeen, 1 Luke Oman, 2,4 Georgiy L. Stenchikov 2

The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear
warfare, but regional conflicts continue. Within this milieu,
acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political,
military, and social tool (1-3).

National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international
status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost.
Against this backdrop, we provide a quantitative assessment of the
potential for casualties in a regional-scale nuclear conflict, or a
terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4, 5).

Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons. In addition, North
Korea may have a small, but growing, arsenal. Iran appears to be
seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it probably needs several
years to obtain enough fissionable material. Of great concern, 32
other nations--including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan--have sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1,
6).

A de facto nuclear arms race has emerged in Asia between China,
India, and Pakistan, which could expand to include North Korea, South
Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (1). In the Middle East, a nuclear
confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful. Saudi
Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and
Israel.

Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and
Argentina, were ended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can
hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for
other regions, despite Brazil's new, large uranium enrichment
facilities.

Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more weapons of low yield [15
kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb] are relatively easy
to build (1, 6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers,
probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever
disclosed its inventory of warheads (7).

Modern weapons are compact and lightweight and are readily
transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic
concepts of weapons design can be found on of the Internet. The only
serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability
of purified fissionable fuels.

There are many political, economic, and social factors that could
trigger a regional-scale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for
the conduct of the ensuing war. We assumed (4) that the densest
population centers in each country--usually in megacities--are
attacked. We did not evaluate specific military targets and related
casualties.

We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield
each, that is, ~0.3% of the total number of existing weapons (4).
India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear
weapons and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of
unknown yield (9).

Fatalities predicted due to immediate radiation, blast, and fire
damage from an attack using 50 nuclear weapons with 15-kt yield on
various countries. Airbursts were assumed. Estimates for ground
bursts, including early radioactive fallout, are about 25% less (4).

Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database
for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional
conflict (see figure, above) [snipped - non-text].

For instance, such an exchange between India and Pakistan
(10) could produce about 21 million fatalities--about half as many as
occurred globally during World War II. The direct effects of thermal
radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as gamma-ray and neutron
radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, would cause most
casualties.

Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived
radionuclides, and psychological trauma would likely result in the
indefinite abandonment of large areas leading to severe economic and
social repercussions.

Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would release copious amounts of
light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear
weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5
million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles (4), darkening the sky
and affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like
Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1815) (5).

Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the
atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating.
Simulations (5) predict that such radiative-dynamical interactions
would loft and stabilize the smoke aerosol, which would allow it to
persist in the middle and upper atmosphere for a decade.

Smoke emissions of 100 low-yield urban explosions in a regional
nuclear conflict would generate substantial global-scale climate
anomalies, although not as large as in previous "nuclear winter"
scenarios for a full-scale war (11, 12).

However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation
rates, and growing season lengths (see figure, below) would be likely
to degrade agricultural productivity to an extent that historically
has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 1783-1784
Laki eruption (13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe
after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5).
[figure snipped]

Climatic anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of
smoke stabilization, far longer than in previous nuclear winter
calculations or after volcanic eruptions.

Studies of the consequences of full-scale nuclear war show that
indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct
ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the world's population (11,
12).

Indirect effects such as damage to transportation, energy, medical,
political, and social infrastructure could be limited to the
combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate anomalies would
threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted smoke
emissions and fatalities per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly
100 times those expected from estimates for full-scale nuclear
attacks with high-yield weapons (4).

Change in growing season (period with freeze-free days) in the first
year after smoke release from 100 15-kt nuclear explosions [modified
from figure 11 in (5)].

Unfortunately, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has
failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group
including two former U.S. secretaries of state, a former secretary of
defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee
has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer
effective and may become dangerous (3).

Terrorists, for instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence
strategies. Mutually assured destruction may not function in a world
with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political
goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have well-
developed safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or
unauthorized launches.

This bipartisan group detailed numerous steps to inhibit or prevent
the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur,
includes removing nuclear weapons from alert status to reduce the
danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon;
reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating
tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable
plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world;
controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium
for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled
international reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors
producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for
weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in
civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials
safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that
give rise to new nuclear powers.

The analysis summarized here shows that the world has reached a
crossroads. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between
the superpowers so far, the world is increasingly threatened by the
prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale
nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to
become global catastrophes.

The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and
urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the
stability of society since the dawn of humans.

References and Notes
S. D. Drell, J. E. Goodby, The Gravest Danger: Nuclear Weapons
(Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA, 2003), 134 pp.

S. Kothari, Z. Mian, Eds., Out of the Nuclear Shadow (Zed Books,
London, 2001), 525 pp.

G. P. Shultz, W. J. Perry, H. A. Kissinger, S. Nunn, Wall Street
Journal, 4 January 2007, p. A15.

O. B. Toon et al., Atmos. Phys. Chem. Disc. 6, 11745 (2006).

A. Robock et al., Atmos. Phys. Chem. Disc. 6, 11817 (2006).

D. Albright, F. Berkhout, W. Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched
Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies (Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 1997), 502 pp.;
www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/end2003/tableofcontents.html.

National Academy of Sciences, Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and
Nuclear-Explosive Materials (National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
2005), 250 pp.

J. N. Gibson, Nuclear Weapons of the United States (Schiffer, Atglen,
PA, 1996), By comparison, China has roughly 400 and the United
States has more than 10,000 warheads. For more information, see the
supporting online material.

P. R. Lavoy, S. A. Smith, Strategic Insights II (2) (2003);
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/feb03/southAsia2.asp.

A. B. Pittock et al., Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War,
SCOPE 28, vol. 1, Physical and Atmospheric Effects [Scientific
Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), of the
International Council of Scientific Societies, Wiley, Chichester,
England, ed. 2, 1989).

M. A. Harwell, T. C. Hutchinson, Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War, SCOPE 28, vol. 2, Ecological and Agricultural Effects
(SCOPE, Wiley, Chichester, England, ed. 2, 1989), 523 pp.

L. Oman, A. Robock, G. L. Stenchikov, T. Thordarson, Geophys. Res.
Lett. 33, L18711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027665 (2006).

A.R., G.L.S., and L.O. were supported by NSF grants ATM-0313592 and
ATM-0351280.

Supporting Online Material
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5816/1224/DC1

10.1126/science.1137747

1Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for
Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
80309, USA.

2Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.

3Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of
California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

4Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.

*Authors for correspondence. E-mail: toon@lasp.colorado.edu 
<mailto:toon%40lasp.colorado.edu> ,
robock@envsci.rutgers.edu <mailto:robock%40envsci.rutgers.edu>

© 2007 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All
Rights
Reserved.
AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, PatientInform, CrossRef, and
COUNTER.

__,_._,___
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Second member of government resigns over Trident

H Mulholland, Peter Walker and agencies

Tuesday March 13, 2007

A second member of the government resigned today in protest over 
the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Jim Devine, parliamentary private secretary to health minister 
Rosie Winterton, told Guardian Unlimited he had stepped down 
ahead of a parliamentary debate on the issue tomorrow.

"Yes, I have resigned, because of Trident. I don't want to say 
anything else before the debate tomorrow," he said.

Mr Devine represents Livingstone, Robin Cook's former seat. He 
became an MP in a September 2005 byelection following the 
ex-foreign secretary's death.

The resignation comes a day after the deputy leader of the house,
Nigel Griffiths, quit his post to join the growing Labour rebellion
opposed to Tony Blair's proposals on the missile system.

Mr Griffiths, MP for Edinburgh South, said he was stepping down
"with a heavy heart but a clear conscience" to be free to vote for
an amendment stating that the government had not proven its case for
replacing Trident and questioning the need for an early decision.

A number of Labour loyalists are among the 64 MPs to sign up to the
amendment.

Stephen Pound, PPS to Labour's chairwoman, Hazel Blears, has also
signalled he will not vote with the government.

The rebellion has the blessing of Neil Kinnock, the former Labour
leader who ended Labour's commitment to unilateral disarmament.

Lord Kinnock used an address to the Fabian Society last night to
insist that the government had not made the political, technical or
military case for enhancing Britain's weapon system.

The Liberal Democrats are also planning to vote against the motion
after the party used their recent spring conference to pass by a
narrow majority a policy calling for a delay in making a decision on
replacing Trident until 2014.

Earlier today, four activists scaled a crane next to the Houses of
Parliament tin protest against the government's plans.

The Greenpeace campaigners clambered up the crane next to Big Ben
and unfurled a 50ft banner suggesting the prime minister "loved"
weapons of mass destruction.

Armed with telephones to lobby MPs, the campaigners plan to occupy
the spot until the parliamentary debate takes place tomorrow.

One of the activists on the crane, Cat Dorey, said: "Trident is a
cold war relic designed to destroy Russian cities. If MPs buckle
under pressure from Tony Blair and vote to renew it, the
repercussions will be felt around the world. We can't oppose
proliferation of WMD if we're building them at home."

She added: "The government promised a national debate on Trident but
this is being rushed through quicker than a shotgun wedding.

"The real threat is climate change and the billions earmarked for
Trident could help make Britain the world's first low-carbon
economy."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Labour revolt over Trident grows as minister resigns 

Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Tuesday March 13, 2007

The Labour revolt against the renewal of Trident hardened 
yesterday as a minister quit and MPs rallied around a rebel 
amendment. Nigel Griffiths, deputy leader of the house, resigned 
his position "with a heavy heart but a clear conscience", so he 
could vote against the motion tomorrow.

Labour rebels and the Liberal Democrats are backing an amendment 
which says that the government's case is not yet proven, and that 
they remain unconvinced of the need for an early decision.

Sixty-four Labour MPs - including loyalists such as Karen Buck 
and Marsha Singh - have signed and organisers predict that at 
least another 16 will do so.

Lord Kinnock, who as Labour leader ended the party's commitment 
to unilateral disarmament, last night backed them. Speaking at a 
Fabian Society event in London, he said the government had failed 
to make the political, technical or military case for enhancing 
Britain's weapons system.

Jon Trickett MP, who is organising the Labour opposition said: 
"The groundswell of support coming from all sides of the Labour 
party, and indeed all sides of the House of Commons, demonstrates 
the breadth of concern at the process put in place by the 
government.

"It is of course unprecedented for a government to offer parliament
a vote on such a matter, and that is to be welcomed, but the case
has simply not been made that we need to replace Trident, and
crucially, that a decision must be taken now."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said:
"The prime minister's decision to force a premature decision ... is
more about his own legacy than anything else."

Ministers say the decision to commission four new submarines to
carry nuclear warheads, at a cost of at least £15bn, must be taken
now because the existing vessels will reach the end of their lives
from 2022. "It takes 17 years to develop a replacement [for Trident]
... If you don't take a decision now, you are in effect taking a
[negative] decision," said the prime minister's official spokesman.

MPs say it is inevitable that the government's motion will be passed
on the votes of Conservatives, who are on a three-line whip to
support the government. "The prime minister knows that he can have a
rebellion and not worry about it because we'll do the right thing
for the country," David Cameron told BBC Radio 4.

But those backing renewal of Trident predict that many potential
rebels will simply abstain, while some unilateralists will think the
amendment is too weak to support. Philip Cowley, an expert on
rebellions at the University of Nottingham, suggested that some MPs
may rebel on the amendment while will others do so on the
substantive vote on the motion.

Mr Griffiths, who will outline his reasons for quitting in a
statement to the Commons, is an ally of the chancellor. Gordon Brown
has made his support for renewal clear and is unlikely to be pleased
by his resignation.

Mr Griffiths, MP for Edinburgh South, is defending a majority of
just 405 votes. One colleague said: "I suspect the pressure on Nigel
[in his seat] has been intense. Every professor at Edinburgh
University will have been complaining."

Jack Straw, the leader of the house, paid tribute to the "excellent
work" of his former deputy in the Commons.

Jim Devine, parliamentary private secretary to Rosie Winterton, the
health minister, is reported to be considering quitting and Stephen
Pound, PPS to Labour's chair, Hazel Blears, told reporters yesterday
that he would not support the government.

FAQ: A new Trident

Why does the government want to renew Trident?

The Commons will be told existing nuclear submarines are reaching
the end of their life, and a decision is needed now so replacements
are ready in time.

Why do Labour MPs disagree?

Some are unilateralists. Others say Britain now faces different
threats.

What do other parties think?

Lib Dems believe the government should postpone the decision.

How serious is this rebellion?

MPs predict this could be the largest revolt since the vote on the
Iraq war in 2003. There is no risk of the government losing, given
the Conservatives' support.

politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 18 BBC NEWS: Commons crane protest at Trident

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 10:08 GMT

Police reportedly tried to stop the activists as they began their
climb


Four Greenpeace campaigners have scaled a crane beside the Houses of
Parliament in Westminster to protest at the government's plans to
update Trident.

Once in position the activists unfurled a 50ft banner suggesting PM
Tony Blair "loved" weapons of mass destruction.

The two men and two women plan to stay there until the Commons votes
on the issue on Wednesday, said a spokesman.



The crane, estimated to be about 200ft high, is fixed on a barge on
the River Thames and is being used to replace cast-iron fascias on
Westminster Bridge.

A spokesman for Interserve, which is carrying out the work for
Transport for London, said the protest was a "real pain".

Leg injury

Police were called to the scene at 1830 GMT on Monday and are
currently trying to talk to the demonstrators.

A police spokeswoman said one protester had been taken to hospital
with a leg injury.

According to Greenpeace, the injured man was a cameraman travelling
on the boat that dropped the climbers onto the barge.

"As the boat left the barge and came up the Thames he hurt his leg
as it hit a wave," said a spokesman for the organisation.

*****************************************************************
 19 The Herald: Blair expects to defeat rebellion

Web Issue 2781 March 14 2007   

CATHERINE MacLEOD, Political Editor March 13 2007

Comment

Tony Blair will face a back-bench rebellion over the replacement 
of the Trident nuclear weapons system in the Commons today 
against a backdrop of growing opposition in and out of 
parliament.

Government managers were keeping their counsel on the expected 
size of the rebellion last night but it is understood that more 
than 60 Labour MPs were preparing to vote against the government 
and others were supporting an amendment to delay a decision.

The whips were trying to minimise the rebellion but while they 
hinted that it may not be as large as predicted they did not try 
to dismiss it.

Next to Big Ben, within a stone's throw of parliament, Greenpeace 
activists scaled a crane to protest against the plans to replace 
Trident. Four protesters climbed up a 200ft high crane mounted on 
a barge in the Thames and unfurled a banner reading "Tony Loves 
WMD".

A Greenpeace spokesman said the two men and women, who started 
the climb around 6am yesterday, "aim to occupy the crane until 
the vote takes place. They are going to phone Labour MPs to ask 
them to rebel against Tony Blair."

If MPs vote to renew Trident the repercussions will be felt 
worldwide.

Later, Cat Dorey, one of the protesters, said: "Trident is a cold
war relic designed to destroy Russian cities.

"If MPs buckle under pressure from Tony Blair and vote to renew it,
the repercussions will be felt around the world. We can't oppose
proliferation of WMD if we're building them at home."

Scottish MPs Nigel Griffiths and Jim Devine remained the only MPs to
have resigned from government positions yesterday.

Mr Devine stepped down as a ministerial aide, and Mr Griffiths left
the front bench. Both MPs are hoping to contribute to today's debate.

The government will win the vote because the Tories have already
promised their support but yesterday Alex Salmond, SNP leader,
warned that the vote would be the beginning of the debate and not
the end.

Calling on the government not to dump the proposed Trident
replacement system in Scotland, Mr Salmond said: "Tony Blair is
living in a fantasy world if he thinks that it makes sense for
Labour to have a debate on Trident at the start of the Scottish
election campaign.

"The STUC and CND, eminent academics, and most of his own MPs in
Scotland oppose a Trident replacement, as well as the overwhelming
majority of the Scottish people."

At a press briefing at Westminster, the SNP leader predicted that
opposition to Trident would galvanise the Scots in the same way as
opposition to the poll tax had mobilised people against Margaret
Thatcher. Since the Tories have pledged to support the renewal of
Trident, Mr Salmond believes the SNP wil be the beneficiaries of the
opposition.

The government says that four new submarines will cost between £15bn
and £20bn, although CND and Greenpeace said that with running costs,
the likely total over 50 years is more than £100bn.

Union leaders renewed their call for MPs not to sanction spending
billions of pounds on a new generation of nuclear weapons.

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 20 Reuters: Pakistan, India open fresh round of peace talks 

Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:23AM EDT

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan and Indian began wide-ranging talks
on Tuesday, the latest step in a peace process that has reduced
tension between the nuclear-armed rivals but made little progress on
their core dispute.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since 1947 and nearly went
to war a fourth time in 2002.

The peace process launched in 2004 has improved diplomatic, sporting
and transport links but no significant progress has been achieved in
resolving their decades-old dispute over the divided Muslim-majority
Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan and his Indian
counterpart, Shiv Shankar Menon, shook hands at the beginning of two
days of talks in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

Analysts in both India and Pakistan said no breakthroughs were
expected on major territorial disputes, including Kashmir, although
some small agreements might be reached in other areas.

This is the fourth round of the two states' so-called composite
dialogue since 2004, which covers all issues including Kashmir.

Pakistani analysts said Pakistan was preoccupied with its western
border and U.S. pressure to stop militant raids into Afghanistan. At
the same time, India had little incentive to make concessions.

The talks also coincided with a brewing constitutional crisis in
Pakistan over the government's decision last Friday to suspend the
country's top judge.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 UK: Telegraph: Blair faces Trident revolt as minister quits

By Graeme Wilson, Political Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:21am GMT 14/03/2007

Tony Blair is braced for a major back-bench revolt over Trident 
tomorrow after a minister resigned in protest at plans to replace 
Britain's nuclear deterrent.

Nigel Griffiths: resigned

Nigel Griffiths said he was standing down as deputy leader of the
commons yesterday morning, as rumours swirled round Westminster that
at least two Labour ministerial aides are expected to follow in the
next 48 hours.

Announcing his resignation - which was revealed in The Daily
Telegraph yesterday - Mr Griffiths said he had decided to quit the
unpaid post with a "heavy heart but a clear conscience".

The 51-year-old is a close friend of Gordon Brown and has held a
variety of ministerial posts over the past decade. Some Labour
insiders suggested yesterday that his decision was an attempt to
boost his popularity in his Edinburgh South constituency, where he
is defending a majority of just 405 votes.

But his resignation was hailed last night by rebel leaders, who are
predicting that up to 80 backbenchers will defy the Government
tomorrow and vote against the renewal of Trident.

The scale of the rebellion means ministers will be forced to rely on
Conservative votes to get their motion through the Commons. The air
of revolt intensified yesterday amid rumours that two ministerial
aides are poised to resign.

Stephen Pound, who is parliamentary private secretary to Hazel
Blears, the Labour chairman, has already said he will not vote for
the Government tomorrow but refused to comment on whether he will
resign.
 

  HMS Vengeance, part of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent. Labour
    may have to rely on Tory support to win the vote for the £20bn
                     renewal of Trident tomorrow

Jim Devine, who succeeded Robin Cook as MP for Livingston and is an
aide to Rosie Winterton, the health minister, has also indicated
that he will stand down over Trident.

As Labour whips battled to persuade wavering backbenchers to back
the Government, David Cameron sought to exploit Labour's discomfort
by declaring his party's intention to back Mr Blair's proposals to
replace Trident at a cost of at least £20 billion.

"On Wednesday, when the vote comes along, the Prime Minister knows
that the Conservative Party will back this policy and he can have a
rebellion and not worry about it because we'll do the right thing
for the country," the Conservative leader told BBC Radio 4's Today
programme.

Mr Griffiths' decision to resign was applauded by Jeremy Corbyn, the
veteran Left-winger and Labour MP for Islington North. "I hope other
MPs will follow suit and start leading the UK down the path of
nuclear disarmament, not re-armament, on Wednesday," he said.

advertisement


However, Downing Street played down the significance of Mr
Griffiths' departure and said Mr Blair would take his time before
choosing a replacement.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "The Prime Minister
recognises that there are those who, for whatever reason, have
always had principled objections to the nuclear deterrent.

"He believes that on balance the argument remains that Britain
should have the nuclear deterrent."

He added that a decision on Trident had to be made now because it
will take so long to procure and build the new generation of
submarines and missiles that Britain needs.

While ministers spelt out their plans to buy a new nuclear weapons
system in a recent White Paper, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary,
last night refused to rule out extending the life of the existing
system for another two or three decades.

In a formal response to a select committee report on Trident, Mr
Browne said: "We would not at this stage wish to rule out that the
Trident D5 missile might be further extended, beyond the early
2040s."

&copy; Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Pakistan, India begin fourth round of peace talks 

by Masroor Gilani Tue Mar 13, 5:37 AM ET

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan and India launched a new round of 
peace talks here Tuesday focused on their dispute over Kashmir 
and on limiting nuclear and conventional arsenals in South Asia, 
officials said.

The two-day talks between Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar 
Menon and his Pakistani counterpart Riaz Mohammed Khan mark the 
fourth round since a January 2004 deal to resume negotiations 
after a tense military standoff.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence in
1947, two over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir -- also known as
Jammu and Kashmir. They each hold part of the region but claim it in
its entirety.

"Talks between Pakistan and India have started at the foreign
office," a Pakistani foreign ministry official said on condition of
anonymity.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said late Monday that
there were "two specific issues before them which they will discuss.
These are (the) Jammu and Kashmir dispute and peace and security."

The three-year-old peace process has reduced mutual suspicion
through a series of "confidence-building measures" including
establishing transport links, but it has moved at a snail's pace.

It suffered a near-fatal blow in July 2006 when India accused
Pakistan's military spy agency and Pakistan-based Islamic militants
of involvement in train blasts in the Indian commercial hub of
Mumbai which killed 186 people.

Yet India and Pakistan pushed ahead with a meeting of their foreign
ministers last month after the firebombing of a "Friendship Express"
train running between the two countries.

In an echo of previous Pakistani statements urging India to take a
more proactive approach, Aslam said it was "important" to move
forward on the Kashmir issue from confidence-building measures to
actual dispute resolution.

"We believe that an early resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue
will pave the way for durable peace in this region and bring about
greater cooperation in South Asia," she said.

Meanwhile Aslam said Pakistan had made proposals concerning the
nuclear and conventional military balance between the neighbours,
who conducted tit-for-tat atomic weapon tests in May 1998 and still
test-fire missiles.

The countries are also expected to finalise agreements on the rapid
return of inadvertent border crossers, the relaxation of visa rules
and meetings between border officials, Aslam said.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told lawmakers Thursday peace
talks with Pakistan had brought "positive results."

The two countries earlier this month held their first meeting of a
panel set up to fight terrorism jointly and agreed to share
information.

Apart from their three wars since 1947 including one over
Bangladesh, they massed troops at the border in 2002 after militants
attacked the Indian parliament.

India blamed the attack on Pakistan-backed insurgents opposed to New
Delhi's rule in revolt-hit Indian Kashmir.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: Government facing Trident rebellion 

From Press Association

Tuesday March 13, 2007 5:23 PM

The Government is facing one of its biggest-ever rebellions as 
scores of Labour MPs prepare to defy the Prime Minister over his 
controversial support for replacing the Trident nuclear weapons 
system.

More than 100 MPs, including more than 60 from Labour, backed moves
to delay making a decision by signing up to an amendment which will
be put forward during a Commons debate on Wednesday. A further 12
Labour MPs are believed to be prepared to vote in favour of the
amendment, which argues that the case for replacing Trident "is not
yet proven".

Jim Devine has quit his post as Parliamentary aide at the Department
of Health, the second member of the Government to resign in protest
at replacing Trident. It is understood the MP for Livingston hopes
to speak during the Trident debate in the Commons. The news came a
day after Deputy Leader of the House Nigel Griffiths quit so he
could vote against the Government on the issue.

The Labour MPs putting their names to the amendment included Jon
Trickett (Hemsworth), Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton) and Joan
Ruddock (Lewisham Deptford), as well as Liberal Democrat leader Sir
Menzies Campbell.

CND chairwoman Kate Hudson said: "This heavyweight amendment has
extensive cross-party backing and indicates the enormous unity that
exists to prevent a rushed decision on Trident. It is clear to many
politicians and to the British public that the case has not been
made."

Labour leadership contender John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)
said Wednesday's vote would be a "defining moment" for the
Government, insisting: "It's time for people to stand up and be
counted on this issue, and that includes those ministers who we know
either do not support (this) or who have serious doubts about the
untimely decision-making process the Prime Minister is forcing on
us."

Tony Blair's success in the vote is assured because Tory leader
David Cameron has pledged to side with No 10 over the decision to
update the UK's submarine-based nuclear arsenal. However, being
forced to rely on Mr Cameron in the face of a large revolt -
including many previously loyal MPs - would be extremely
embarrassing.

Apart from Mr Devine, Stephen Pound, PPS to Labour chairwoman Hazel
Blears, has said he is considering his position on the lowest rung
of the Government ladder.

The Government says that four new submarines will cost between £15
billion and £20 billion, although CND and Greenpeace said that with
running costs, the likely total over 50 years is more than £100
billion.

Union leaders renewed their call for MPs not to sanction spending
billions of pounds on a new generation of nuclear weapons.

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: Statement: The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner,
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:13:04 -0800


<x-flowed>

Subject: 	NRC: Statement The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner,
Date: 	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT)


U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the 2007 Regulatory Information 
Conference in Rockville, Maryland on March 13, 2007

 

(News release No. S-07-008)
“You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet”
As many of you already know, I made a decision last October that I would 
not seek a third term as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. As a result, this will be my ninth and final Regulatory 
Information Conference as a Commissioner of the NRC.
And what a time it has been. I believe that I have given the NRC staff 
many challenges and they have more than met my expectations. When I came 
to the Commission in October of 1998, we had not
issued a single license renewal for any one of our nation’s 104 reactor 
fleet. Today, we have renewed the licenses of close to 50 reactors, and 
absent some unforseen circumstance, it appears that within a handful of 
years all 104 will either be allowed to continue to operate for 60 years 
or be in various stages of review.
Despite the fact that we had issued three design certifications by 1999, 
I was still very much on a limb at the 2001 RIC when I postulated that 
“new nuclear plant orders may become a reality in the near future.” 
During the late 1960s, the nation’s utilities rapidly increased their 
orders for nuclear power stations, participating in what Philip Sporn, 
past president of American Electric Power Service Corporation, described 
in 1967 as the “great bandwagon market.” Today, we have the potential 
for 32
new reactors at 23 sites. If that is not a second bandwagon, I don’t 
know what is.
I asked the staff to consider new ways to approach decommissioning and 
they have made great strides. Consequently, we have a much better handle 
on our legacy waste issues than we did nine years
ago. The lessons that we and our licensees have learned in this process 
will be of tremendous assistance when the as-yet-unbuilt reactors 
prepare for decommissioning late in the 21st century.
Our legal process, which was under some stress when I first got here, is 
far more disciplined under our new Part 2 procedures. Possessing a cadre 
of new, well trained judges, we are far more
prepared to handle new license applications than we were just a few 
short years ago. And with the new alternative dispute resolution process 
that I championed, I believe that the NRC will have better outcomes and 
less litigation in our enforcement process.
We are a more risk-informed agency. The reactor oversight process that 
we deployed just a year after my arrival has had a striking success in 
enhancing our oversight of the nation’s reactors, yet in a manner that 
is more open, less contentious and less burdensome. The issue of fire 
protection, which has been a nettlesome issue for this agency for 
decades, will be put to bed through the deployment of the risk-informed 
fire protection program – NFPA 805.
Our international partnerships are as strong as they have ever been. 
Whether it is the relationships with our neighbors to the north and 
south, or our allies across the Atlantic and Pacific, the multinational 
efforts that we have enhanced during my time on this Commission make us 
a better and more informed regulator. Through our partnership with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear fleet is 
stronger and safer than it was just a mere decade ago.
In a world where global terrorism is a reality, we have made tremendous 
strides in
understanding better than ever before the real safety and security risks 
associated with the materials and
facilities we regulate. The nuclear fleet we oversee was the most 
well-defended element of the civilian
infrastructure prior to the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and 
it remains so today.
Finally, I am proud of how this agency has grown in its ability to 
communicate. Whether it is meeting with the public, welcoming the world 
though our Web site, or engaging in our daily dialog with the media, we 
are less reluctant and more articulate in our ability to communicate 
about who we are and what we do. Having led the NRC Communications Task 
Force some years ago, I am proud of
the work that this agency has accomplished in spreading the word about 
what we do to protect people and the environment.
These have been real measurable achievements that have transformed this 
agency and its reputation. It was the work of a highly talented and 
motivated staff, and a series of Commissioners who
have dedicated themselves, one and all, to doing what they thought best 
for public health and safety. While there is much left to be done – Part 
26 being one that I would like to finish before I leave – I would like 
to turn my attention today to what I believe are some of the more 
significant challenges that lie ahead for my successors on this Commission.
New Plant Orders
One of the clear mantras that we have here at the NRC is that we are not 
supposed to be promoters of nuclear power. I have worked hard to 
maintain this position as a Commissioner, and I don’t intend to do 
anything different today. However, the environment in which we find 
ourselves is changing. The issues of global warming and the role that 
nuclear power can play in addressing this
significant environmental challenge are becoming increasingly 
intertwined. Today, global warming is viewed as the number one 
environmental issue around the world. Yet, while well-reasoned 
scientists may debate its origins and causes, no matter where you travel 
around the globe, there is general consensus that we have a problem and 
we need to do something about it.
Clearly, conservation must play a major role in limiting human carbon 
output. While alternative energy sources such as wind power and solar 
power also have a role to play, the fact remains that as far as large 
base load generating capacity is concerned, nuclear power is the largest 
carbon-friendly source that is echnologically deployable at the current 
time. I will not comment on whether that is a good or bad thing, but it 
is a fact.
Many of my Republican brethren may not like to hear me say this, but I 
believe that it is inevitable that our government will act to address 
global warming by enacting either a carbon tax or a
cap-and-trade emissions program. Either way, the concurrent result is 
that nuclear generating assets will become more attractive from both an 
economic and environmental point of view. One way or
another, we will have new nuclear plant orders in this country.
I believe that in the next 20 years, assuming continued safe operation, 
we could at least double the number of nuclear power plants we have in 
this country. If I am correct, there is a lot this agency will need to 
do to prepare.
Over the course of the last four months, I have led an NRC task force 
comprised of 10 senior managers and staff in this agency who have been 
looking at how we can be more efficient in our combined operating 
license review process. While I do not intend to go into detail 
regarding the results of this task force, there are three areas I would 
like to touch on as it relates to new plant orders.
First, having reviewed our programs, it seems clear to me that our 
agency has been extremely diligent in meeting the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Like many other agencies, the 
environmental impact statements associated with new reactor orders have 
grown to the size of a Manhattan phone book and leave literally no stone 
unturned. In contrast to Council of
Environmental Quality regulations, which recommend that most 
environmental impact statements be fewer than 150 pages, our recently 
published environmental impact statements for early site permits and 
uranium enrichment facilities have been over 1,000 pages. That is not to 
ridicule or criticize our environmental staff, who I believe have worked 
tirelessly to ensure that the environment is protected in what we do. 
However, I believe the NEPA process we have engendered is far too time 
intensive, too
focused on potential litigation, and goes far beyond what Congress 
expected or required under NEPA. While our task force will make specific 
recommendations, I believe the Commission will need to act to bring 
greater timeliness and efficiency into our environmental review process.
Second, I believe that our mandatory hearing process is broken. While 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has made a good faith 
effort to create a mandatory hearing process, I believe
that the scope and depth of their sufficiency review goes far, far 
beyond what Congress expected when this requirement was first adopted in 
1954. Given the openness of our process in this day and age, I believe 
Congress should repeal the requirement for a mandatory hearing. Absent 
this change, the Commission should take direct responsibility for these 
reviews. Using the recent Browns Ferry 1 restart meeting as a model, I 
believe the requirements for a mandatory hearing could be fulfilled by a 
single three-to-four hour meeting of the Commission.
Third, while our staff has made significant progress in creating a 
detailed technical review process for combined operating license 
applications, the COL technical review process remains too
long and too cumbersome. While it is the obligation of our licensees to 
craft high quality applications, we need to add discipline to the 
process to ask penetrating and detailed questions in an efficient and 
timely way. I believe that after the first handful of COLs are issued, 
we should have a target of a 24- to 26-month review for an application - 
beginning to end - including the hearing process. This will require 
discipline by our staff, efficient environmental and safety reviews, 
rigorous adherence to hearing timelines by the ASLB, and most 
importantly, strong Commission leadership.
License Renewal Process
The next topic I will address this afternoon is license renewal. Beyond 
our reactor oversight process, this is the most important and successful 
program that the Commission has overseen during
my time here on the Commission. While the first license renewal 
applications took the NRC staff over 36 months to complete, more 
recently we have been averaging these reviews in about 22 months, if
there is no hearing. I believe this is a notable achievement, and a 
testament to the discipline and efficiency that our staff and senior 
managers have invested in this program.
Now that we have completed the 20-year license extension of almost half 
of our current fleet, I believe we need to begin the process of fully 
understanding what it would take to allow a further round
of 20-year license extensions.
While we already have preliminary information from our Office of 
Regulatory Research that the pressure vessels of the existing fleet can 
likely be safely utilized for 80 years, we need to have a more detailed 
understanding of what it would take to conduct a further extension. To 
what extent would buried piping or cabling need to be replaced? Would 
changes in instrumentation and control equipment be justified or needed? 
Would replacement of emergency diesel generators be prudent? Early 
answers to these questions could have a significant impact on the 
investment decisions made by our licensees.
One of the major outcomes of our license renewal program is that it has 
created a strong incentive for many billions of dollars in investments 
for items such as new vessel heads, steam generators, pressurizers, 
injection pumps and other major capitol improvements. Long-term 
financing has made it much more viable for utilities to justify major 
upgrades and improvements in these units. A further 20-year license 
extension would provoke the same result.
While it may make economic sense to relicense all of the plants in our 
existing fleet, we need to have a better understanding of the technical 
merits of this issue. In my view, the vast majority of
nuclear power plants in the United States could be serious candidates 
for license extension for up to 80 years of operation, and I believe the 
NRC must prepare itself to consider that question.
High-Level Waste
The next topic I want to talk about is the issue of high-level waste.
It is most unfortunate the amount of time and money this nation has 
invested in finding a final repository for used fuel. I have to say I am 
somewhat tired of hearing people say that we haven’t found a “solution” 
to this problem. Clearly, we know how to reprocess spent fuel, as we 
invented that process here in the United States as part of the Manhattan 
Project. Clearly, we know how to dispose of the used fuel in a 
repository. Indeed, given the time and money we have spent studying 
Yucca Mountain, I think
this country has a pretty darn good idea how used fuel will react over a 
very long period of time.
The fact is that we have a political issue. Fair or not, in 1987 
Congress voted to hand the hot potato to Nevada, and the state has been 
fighting tooth and nail against a fuel repository ever since. As a 
Commissioner, I have not been given one fact that would lead me to the 
conclusion that Yucca Mountain could not be licensed as a repository for 
spent fuel. But, since I will be long gone from here when the final 
decision is made, my views are academic at this point.
One area we need to change course is management. DOE does an outstanding 
job overseeing the stewardship of our nation’s nuclear stockpile, and 
our national labs take a backseat to no one in
their pursuit of science and technical breakthroughs. However, it was a 
terrible mistake to saddle the Department of Energy with the Yucca 
Mountain Project. What this effort needed was sound project
management focused on meeting specific timetables and deliverables in an 
atmosphere more insulated from shifting political winds. This is 
something that DOE simply is not good at. I agree with a point that 
Commissioner Ed McGaffigan made recently: We need to follow the course 
of our counterparts in Sweden and Finland and create a private/public 
partnership to bring this issue to a final resolution.
What is important to remember about this used fuel is the matter of 
time. The spent fuel storage cask technology we have deployed at 28 of 
our 65 nuclear sites around the country is sufficient to hold this spent 
fuel safely in excess of 100 years. To those who say new plants can’t be 
built without “solving” the spent fuel storage problem, I say “hogwash.” 
Whether it is new plants or old, we can
safely store the fuel at existing or new sites throughout the lifetime 
of both current and future nuclear units. This will give our nation 
sufficient time to resolve whether we will store spent fuel in Yucca 
Mountain, reprocess the fuel and dispose of the remaining high level 
waste, or identify some new repository in the future. Time is indeed on 
our side.
International Partnerships
I have been fortunate to visit 36 countries as a Commissioner of the 
NRC, including 30 of the 31 countries that operate nuclear plants. I 
have seen first hand the impact that our agency and our
partners at IAEA have had in improving the state of nuclear regulation 
worldwide. I was pleased to have represented our country at the last 
Convention on Nuclear Safety, and it was with great pride that I was 
able to explain the steps that the NRC has taken to protect the use of 
the atom in our country.
A few things have become quite evident to me given the interactions I 
have had over the last nine years. First, there is a great desire for 
our international partners to learn from what we have done here at the 
NRC, and increasingly, our more experienced partners have more to offer 
us in return. Second, nuclear regulators around the world, particularly 
in Eastern Europe, have made great strides in improving their 
capabilities over the last 10 years. Third, there is a burgeoning number 
of countries that have announced that they are interested in exploring 
the use of nuclear power.
Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Venezuela, Chile, Poland, 
Estonia, Italy, Belarus, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Namibia , Nigeria, 
Jordan, Qatar, and Morocco are among the countries
that have announced that they may want to join the nuclear power family. 
IAEA has taken steps to reach out to many of these countries to help 
provide credible regulatory bodies, and I applaud the leadership of 
Mohammed ElBaradei for this effort. However, in my personal opinion our 
country needs to do more. The NRC must take an increased role in 
promoting strengthened nuclear regulators
worldwide.
President Dwight Eisenhower launched the Atoms for Peace program in 1953 
to foster increased cooperation among countries around the world through 
the peaceful use of the atom. The burgeoning interest in nuclear power 
today is a direct outgrowth of Eisenhower’s vision. As such, our country 
has a moral obligation to lend a helping hand to regulators in those 
countries that seek the
benefits of this technology. In my view, Congress should provide the NRC 
with additional funding off the fee base to allow this agency to take a 
more proactive role in assisting our regulatory counterparts worldwide. 
Nuclear safety should not take short shrift in the foreign aid our 
country provides, and I hope future Commissioners and our counterparts 
in the State Department will see the wisdom of this view.
Conclusion
As I stated in the beginning, it has been an exciting time to be an NRC 
Commission er over the last nine years. As a result of the effort that 
my fellow Commissioners and I have made over this period of time, we 
have created an institution that is second to none in its pursuit of 
excellence in the field of nuclear regulation. We have enjoyed 
unprecedented improvement in the operation of the plants we oversee, and 
with the significant achievement we have made in license renewal, our 
nation will enjoy
the use of this carbon-friendly power generation for decades to come. 
Today, we are confronted with an extraordinary level of interest in 
building new plants, which I believe could result in a doubling of 
nuclear power generation in the United States over the next 20 years. 
Combined with this effort, the agency will have its work cut out for it 
to prepare to deal with the potential for an 80-year license term, as 
well as the next steps on the long road toward resolving the spent fuel 
issue. When I leave the Commission in June, it will be with the 
satisfaction that we have ccomplished much as an agency, and I believe 
that I and the Commissioners I have served with will have laid a very 
solid foundation for the
future of this agency and for the safe and peaceful use of the atom in 
our country. While the face of the Commission will change, I am very 
proud of my service and contribution to this agency, and hope that it 
will do as well in the future as it has done over the last nine years.


*Beth Wellington
*POB 1361
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
http://360.yahoo.com/beth_blog


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 25 WNA: Minister backs nuclear, launches first ever climate bill

13 March 2007

Nuclear should be used to tackle the 25% of UK carbon dioxide
emissions that come from power generation, according to the UK
Enviroment Minister, David Miliband. He was speaking as the UK
launched its new Climate Change bill that, if enacted, will set five
year targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

David Miliband makes his YouTube broadcast (Image: Defra)
Miliband made his comments whilst speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today
programme. The draft bill itself makes few references to any
specific fuel source, but Miliband told the BBC that the carbon
impact of electricity generation could be reduced by using a large
amount of renewables, "and nuclear, which provides 20% of our load
and, in my view, should continue because it is a low-carbon for of
power." The government's Energy Bill, which will include measures to
facilitate new nuclear plants is expected to be published within
weeks.

Launching the Climate Change bill, Miliband made a speech available
on the video website YouTube, saying "I believe it is vital that
industrialised countries - richer countries like the UK - take the
lead." The bill is the first of its kind put forward by any
government. It includes the following proposals:
* A series of clear targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions
  - a 26-32% reduction by 2020 and a 60% reduction by 2050, which
  will be legally binding.
* A new system of legally binding five year "carbon budgets", set
  at least 15 years ahead, to provide clarity on the UK’s pathway
  towards its key targets and provide the certainty that businesses
  and individuals need to invest in low-carbon technologies.
* A requirement for the UK government to report at least every
  five years on current and predicted impacts of climate change and
  on its proposals and policy for adapting to climate change.
* A new statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change, to
  provide independent expert advice and guidance to government on
  achieving its targets and staying within its carbon budgets.
* New powers to enable the government to more easily implement
  policies to cut emissions.
* A new system of annual open and transparent reporting to
  Parliament. The Committee on Climate Change will provide an
  independent progress report to which the government must respond.
  This will ensure the government is held to account every year on
  its progress towards each five year carbon budget and the 2020 and
  2050 targets.

The draft bill is now open to public consultation. Pending the
results of this consultation the bill may pass into law later this
year. Campaign groups had argued strongly for legally binding annual
targets for greenhouse gas emissions, but Miliband said that such
targets would not be effective because greenhouse gas emissions
would vary due to factors such as short-term (annual) weather
variability.

*****************************************************************
 26 SLO Trib: No public hearing for grand jury emergency improvements for Diablo

San Luis Obispo Tribune | 

03/13/2007

By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com

County supervisors today opted not to hold a public hearing on a
grand jury report recommending improvements in the county?s
preparedness for an emergency at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

In a report to the board, county emergency services coordinators
said they would not comply with several improvements recommended by
the grand jury due to money and staffing constraints.

Several members of the public asked the supervisors to pull the
report from their consent agenda and schedule a full public hearing.
Only Supervisor Jim Patterson was willing to do so.

The grand jury recommendations the county will not follow include
mailing an emergency preparedness brochure annually to all
households in the county and rebuilding a washed out road between
Avila Beach and Shell Beach to be used as an alternative evacuation
route.

*****************************************************************
 27 BBC NEWS: Libya 'may sign US nuclear deal'

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 10:03 GMT

Libya wants to use nuclear energy to tackle projected water 
shortages

A report coming out of Libya says a nuclear power agreement with 
the United States will be signed shortly.

Libya's official news agency says the US will help build a 
nuclear power plant for electricity and civil uses.

An anonymous US official downplayed developments. There has been 
no confirmation from Washington. Relations have improved in 
recent years.

Muammar al-Gaddafi told the BBC earlier this month that the US 
and Britain had a duty to help Libya develop civilian nuclear 
power plants.

Unconfirmed

Sanctions were lifted after Libya ended its nuclear weapons 
programme in 2003, and the US and UK have resumed diplomatic 
ties.

Libya was also removed from the US list of state sponsors of 
terror, a major step towards international rehabilitation.

Last year, Libya and France signed an accord for the peaceful use 
of nuclear energy.

"The agreement aims at establishing a nuclear station in Libya to 
produce electricity, desalting water, and developing the 
radiochemistry performance at energy researches centre," Libya's 
official Jana news agency reports.

But a US official told Reuters news agency that the Jana report 
"vastly overstates things".

"What we said to the Libyans after they got rid of their nuclear 
weapons effort (was) we'd be open to talking to them about some 
aspects of civilian uses of nuclear power," the official said on 
condition of anonymity.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC NEWS: Q&A: Climate change plans

Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 13:58 GMT

The government has set out plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions 
by more than half. But what do they involve?

What targets have been set?

Ministers want to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - one of the 
"greenhouse gases" thought to contribute to global warming. They 
want a cut of 60% by 2050 - and of between 26% and 32% by 2020 - 
compared with the level measured in 1990.

Who will monitor progress?

The draft Climate Change Bill says an independent panel should be 
established to set the government a "carbon budget" every five 
years, limiting the amount of emissions the UK can produce.

Will they be legally enforceable?

If the five-yearly targets are missed, a future government could 
be taken to a judicial review - where a court can look at its 
actions and, if necessary, hand out a punishment.

How will homes and businesses be affected?

The draft bill does not stipulate how carbon dioxide emissions 
will be reduced, just that there have to be cuts. Ministers argue 
that the five-year carbon budgets will give businesses long-term 
guidance on what has to be done. Other government actions - for 
instance banning high-energy light bulbs, increasing flight 
duties and fining heavy-polluting industry - will help the 
overall targets to be achieved, it is argued.

What alternatives are there?

The draft bill acknowledges that technological advances could 
create more fuel-efficient transport, industry and homes, 
creating less carbon dioxide. The government is also calling for 
more investment in wave, solar and wind power. Environment 
Secretary David Miliband said "big decisions" needed to be taken 
on nuclear power.

What is the point of the UK cutting emissions by 60% when the 
world's biggest polluters, such as China and the USA, will not?

The government argues that by setting an example, it will be able 
to persuade other countries to sign up to a new global agreement 
when the current Kyoto agreement runs out in 2012. The EU has 
committed itself to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 
compared with 1990 levels. Germany has invited Brazil, China, 
India, Mexico and South Africa to a G8 summit at Heiligendamm in 
June to lay the foundations for a replacement for Kyoto.

Who opposes the UK government's plans?

Some politicians - including former Conservative Chancellor and 
climate change sceptic Lord Lawson - say emissions targets will 
hit UK business unfairly, making it uncompetitive. But ministers 
say they are pushing countries such as China, India and the US to 
follow suit. Whether they will remains to be seen.

The UK Independence Party insists the government's plan is 
"deeply misguided" and is demanding more investment in nuclear 
energy as an alternative to using fossil fuels.



What do environmental campaigners think of the plans?

Friends of the Earth said it was pleased that a new law was 
proposed but called for more ambitious reduction targets. 
Christian Aid said the eventual Climate Change Bill should demand 
carbon dioxide cuts of at least 80% per cent by 2050 with annual 
carbon budgeting "milestones". Companies trading in the UK should 
have to report carbon dioxide emission levels, it added.

What do opposition parties say?

The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have both welcomed the 
draft Climate Change Bill as a step in the right direction but 
they want carbon targets to be set every year. They fear the 
responsibility for keeping up progress will be too easily handed 
from one government to the next, with five yearly targets. 
Ministers say annual targets would be unworkable and unmeasurable 
because of fluctuations in the weather and carbon dioxide levels 
from one year to the next.

When will the draft bill become law?

The government is to consult environmental groups and Parliament 
and hopes to publish a full bill by the autumn, with an act in 
place by Easter 2008.

*****************************************************************
 29 Platts: POGO urges NRC to adopt final fitness-for-duty rule

Washington (Platts)--12Mar2007


The Project On Government Oversight, or POGO, is urging NRC to 
adopt a final rule for fitness-for-duty programs. 

Danielle Brian, executive director of POGO, said in a March 9 
letter that was just released that it was time for the agency to 
take action. 

The rule would bring the NRC's regulations in line with other 
federal rules and guidelines on drug and alcohol testing 
programs, establish enforceable requirements for the management 
of worker fatigue, and revise NRC's access authorization 
requirements for nuclear power plants. 

Brian said that the draft final rule would not go as far as her 
organization had hoped it would, but that it was a "significant 
improvement over the current situation." 

She said POGO believes the rule would address some concerns about 
excessive overtime and fatigue at nuclear plants.

Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 30 Tri-City Herald: Hearing set on Bush plan to tap nuclear energy

Published Monday, March 12th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

Northwest residents will have their chance Tuesday in Pasco to
discuss the Bush administration's proposed fuel recycling program to
expand the use of nuclear energy.

The Department of Energy plans to take comments on the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership before preparing an environmental study,
and this is one of several public hearings scheduled across the
nation.

DOE is looking at the Hanford nuclear reservation for three new
facilities for the project: A nuclear fuel recycling center, an
advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research
facility that could involve Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility.

Public comment at the hearing could be lively. Activists are
organizing a caravan to the meeting from Eugene, Ore., to be led by
a vegetable-oil powered bus with Veterans for Peace. The group is
concerned about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons,
transportation issues and nuclear waste.

Tri-City supporters of either the Fast Flux Test Facility or nuclear
energy also have been urging those with similar interests to attend
the hearing.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is being proposed as a way to
dramatically expand nuclear energy.

In the next 50 years, world energy demand is expected to double,
Clay Sell, deputy secretary of energy, said at a media briefing last
month. Nuclear power is the only large, mature technology capable of
meeting that demand without producing the greenhouse gases of fossil
fuels, he said.

"The world has recognized that nuclear power must play a significant
role in meeting this demand," Sell said.

He pointed out that 130 nuclear power reactors are under
construction, in the planning stage or under consideration in other
countries.

"We can either be a part of it or we can observe," he said.

The Bush administration is proposing a program to recycle used
nuclear fuel to reduce waste. That has not been done in the United
States since the 1970s.

But now, reprocessing technology is being considered that would
combine plutonium with other actinides and uranium so that it would
be difficult to use in nuclear weapons.

Not only would the United States reuse fuel that otherwise would be
planned for disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but it also would be
part of an international program to lease fuel to nations interested
in developing nuclear reactors without them pursuing enrichment
facilities to produce their own fuel.

When the cycle is completed, the amount and radiotoxicity of the
used fuel would be greatly reduced and fewer national repositories
such as Yucca Mountain would have to be built to hold it, Sell said.
In the past, Hanford has been considered as a potential site for a
national repository.

The Tri-City Industrial Council has been given a $1 million grant to
look at whether Hanford should be the site of an initial center to
recycle used nuclear fuel and a reactor that would consume the fuel
-- producing electricity and consuming long-lived radioactive
elements to reduce nuclear waste.

It believes Hanford has several advantages over most other sites
being considered, including a wide array of infrastructure such as
roads, railroads, sewage treatment, power and usable buildings. It
also has lay-down yards for nuclear fuel and a ready supply of fuel
from Energy Northwest to begin the processing.

In addition, Hanford is being considered as the site for a research
center for GNEP. Columbia Basin Consulting Group is working with
TRIDEC under the grant to see if Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility
could be restarted and nearby buildings could be used for the
research center.

After a five-day workshop with scientists and engineers involved in
the startup and operations of the reactor, the consulting group
believes FFTF could be restarted in less than six years for about
$750 million. The condition of the reactor has been a concern after
liquid sodium used to cool the reactor was drained as part of what
was planned as a permanent shutdown of the reactor.

Supporters of a restart of the reactor hope that a role in GNEP also
could lead to a second use for the reactor -- producing radioactive
isotopes for new treatments for cancer and other diseases.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., has supported TRIDEC in its efforts to
study Hanford as a site for any or all of the proposed GNEP
facilities.

But others have raised concerns about transportation of nuclear
waste. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., has questioned whether the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, another site being considered by DOE, should be
a candidate. The laboratory should be getting rid of waste, not
accepting more nuclear waste to process, he said.

Public comments on the GNEP environmental study can be submitted to
Timothy Frazier, GNEP PEIS Document Manager, Office of Nuclear
Energy, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585-0119, or e-mailed to GNEP-PEIS@
nuclear.energy.gov.

Mark envelopes and e-mails as "GNEP PEIS Comments."

Meeting details

WHAT: Department of Energy hearing on the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership

WHEN: 6 to 9:30 p.m. Tuesday3/13

WHERE: Red Lion Hotel, 2525 N. 20th Ave., Pasco

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 31 toledoblade.com: Besse among plants obliged to fix welds

Article published Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Federal regulator names 40 facilities

Davis-Besse

Forty of America's 103 nuclear plants, including FirstEnergy 
Corp.'s Davis-Besse station in Ottawa County, will be required by 
the end of 2007 to fix welds in their reactor coolant systems 
that are prone to leaking, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said 
yesterday.

Welds in those reactors have certain metal alloy materials, known 
as Alloy 82 and Alloy 182, that have been susceptible to stress 
fractures.

Although the first such flaws were discovered in a U.S. reactor 
in 1993, the size and nature of cracks found last fall in the 
Wolf Creek reactor near Burlington, Kan., persuaded the regulator 
to accelerate efforts, the NRC said.

The Wolf Creek reactor welds were fixed. But the agency said that 
case prompted it to establish tougher guidelines for shutting 
down plants to check for leaks. It also said it is requiring 
better inspection and monitoring on an ongoing basis.

Plants need to be shut down for the welds to be fixed. If 
utilities cannot do the work during planned refueling cycles, 
they will need to do a separate shutdown.

FirstEnergy plans to do Davis-Besse's inspections in December. 
Its next refueling, originally planned for early 2008, will be 
moved up so the weld inspections and refueling can occur during 
the same outage, Todd Schneider, a FirstEnergy spokesman, said.

No problems with Davis-Besse's welds were found during the 2006 
refueling, although two welds were not inspected because of 
access constraints, he said.

DTE Energy's Fermi 2 nuclear plant is not covered by the order. 
It applies only to 40 of the nation's 69 pressurized water 
reactors that have either fixed their welds or do not have a type 
that is believed to be susceptible to leaking.

Pressurized water reactors operate under higher temperatures and 
pressures. Fermi 2 is one of 34 boiling water reactors.

 © 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 ,
(419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
 32 FR NRC: Florida Power and Light; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Doc E7-4517

[Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 11381-11383] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13mr07-81]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302]

Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-72 issued to Florida Power and Light (the licensee) for 
operation of the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-
3) located in Citrus County, Florida.
    The proposed amendment would change the basis for protection of 
spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) in order to eliminate 
the Final Safety Analysis Report commitment for maintaining the SFP 
missile shields.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required 
by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. [The Proposed Change] Does Not Involve a Significant Increase 
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated.
    The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to eliminate the 
commitment for maintaining the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) missile 
shields. Removal of the missile shields increases the probability of 
an accident (damaging fuel assemblies in the SFP), but the increase 
is not significant. Based on the Individual Plant Evaluation for 
External Events (IPEEE) for the Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR-3), 
the frequency of a tornado, Class F1 or greater, that could create 
tornado missiles is 2.1 E-5/year and has a total 
probability of core damage of 9.2 E-8/year. This 
probability falls below the threshold of credible accidents.
    Fuel Handling Accidents (FHAs) are analyzed in Section 14.2.2.3 
of the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The FHA outside the 
Reactor Building (RB) event is described as the dropping of a fuel 
assembly into the spent fuel storage pool that results in damage to 
a fuel assembly and the release of the gaseous fission products. The 
current FHA assumes all 208 fuel pins in the dropped assembly are 
damaged and the gas gap activity released. The results of that 
analysis demonstrate that the applicable dose acceptance criteria, 
10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological 
Source Terms for Evaluating

[[Page 11382]]

Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' are satisfied.
    An engineering evaluation performed for this proposed change has 
determined that with the credible tornado missiles, any impact that 
a missile would impart on a SFP storage rack, spent fuel assembly, 
or the SFP floor or walls would be enveloped by the fuel handling 
accident. Any interaction between a tornado missile and the new fuel 
stored in the new fuel storage vault would potentially result in 
significant damage to an assembly, but no significant offsite 
radiation would be released and no criticality concerns exist.
    Because neither the probability nor the consequences of a FHA 
are significantly increased, and because there are no radiological 
safety concerns with the new fuel storage, it is concluded that the 
LAR does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. [The Proposed Change] Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
    Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pools 
is a normal activity for which CR-3 has been designed and licensed. 
As part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed 
without endangering the public health and safety, the ability of CR-
3 to safely accommodate different possible accidents in the spent 
fuel pools, such as dropping a fuel assembly or the misloading of a 
fuel assembly, have been analyzed with acceptable results. The 
interaction between a tornado missile and spent fuel in the SFP has 
a very low probability of occurrence, and the SFP storage racks and 
the normal water layer would provide significant protection to the 
fuel. The SFP integrity would not be compromised so there is not 
expected to be any significant loss of water above the fuel.
    Currently, the SFP missile shields are removed when refueling, 
maintenance, and other fuel and tool movement activities in the SFP 
are ongoing. Removing the requirement for missile shields does not 
introduce a new plant configuration that could introduce a new type 
of accident.
    Any interaction between a credible tornado missile and the new 
fuel stored in the new fuel storage vault is not considered an 
accident under the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, 
November 1978, ``Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis 
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,'' as the rods are not irradiated 
and no significant radiation would be released in the event of a 
complete loss of assembly integrity. This event would have financial 
implications, but is not considered an accident under RG 1.70 
criteria.
    3. [The Proposed Change] Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety.
    The purpose of the missile shields is to prevent tornado 
missiles from damaging fuel and racks in the SFP. Although the 
missile shields provide a barrier, they are not alone in providing 
margin to the SFP to protect the public health and safety.
    The margin of safety for the SFP also includes the amount of 
water in the pool above the top of the fuel, the amount of soluble 
boron in the pool, the distance between assemblies, and the fixed 
neutron absorbers in the storage racks. These are design parameters 
that prevent inadvertent criticality as well as a significant 
release of radiation in the event of a dropped (damaged) fuel 
assembly. The elimination of the CR-3 commitment to maintain missile 
shields over the SFP during all times, when not working with the 
fuel or in the pool, will not have any significant impact on these 
parameters.
    As already noted in FSAR Section 9.3.2.6.1, a tornado directly 
over the SFP is not postulated to cause the loss of any significant 
amount of water in the SFP due to a 3 psi pressure drop caused by a 
tornado. A credible tornado missile that enters the SFP is expected 
to cause the loss of some pool inventory, but not a significant 
amount. The removal of the missile shields will therefore, not cause 
or allow a significant loss of pool inventory.
    Unless a significant volume of borated water is lost from the 
pool from either the tornado suction or the missile splash down, the 
boron concentration will not change significantly once refilled. 
Additionally, CR-3 takes credit for soluble boron only as margin to 
0.95 K effective for a misloaded fuel assembly. Subcriticality is 
maintained even with the SFP filled with un-borated water. The SFP 
storage racks are designed and constructed with the specific center 
to center distances between the cells (9.11 inch for Pool B and 10.5 
inch for Pool A). Any impact from a tornado missile may cause some 
local rack deformation, but is not expected to change cell spacing 
for any racks. This logic also holds for the neutron absorber in the 
SFP storage racks. There may be some local rack deformation, but no 
significant movement of the fixed poison is expected to occur.
    Therefore, a significant reduction in a margin of safety is not 
expected to occur from the permanent removal of the SFP missile 
shields.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.
 If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 

intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding

[[Page 11383]]

officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. 
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the 
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be sent to David T. Conley, 
Associate General Counsel II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service 
Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 
attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 8, 2007, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of March 2007.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart N. Bailey,
 Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-4517 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 33 Herald Sun: GE talked to nuclear regulator | 

NEWS.com.au |

George Lekakis

March 14, 2007 12:00am

THE Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation revealed
yesterday that it had formal discussions last year with US nuclear
power giant General Electric.

ANSTO, which operates the Lucas Heights research reactor, confirmed
the talks with GE after ruling out any suggestion it had also spoken
with another big nuclear equipment supplier, Westinghouse Electric.

Scott Shaw, Westinghouse' spokesman for nuclear power plants, told
BusinessDaily earlier this week that his company "recently visited
Australia to discuss near-term opportunities with the government and
regulatory authorities".

ANSTO's corporate communications manager, Craig Pearce, said GE "
did visit ANSTO last year and made a presentation on their
technology.

"We provide a watching brief on all things nuclear for the Federal
Government and we haven't had any meeting with Westinghouse at all.

"Some of our staff definitely viewed the Westinghouse stand at a
conference in Sydney in October but there were no formal
interactions."

A spokeswoman for the Federal Minister for Industry, Tourism and
Resources Ian Macfarlane said he had not had discussions with
Westinghouse.

"Neither the Minister nor his Department have met with Westinghouse
Electric Company to discuss their plans for the future of
Australia's power industry," the minister's spokeswoman said.

A spokesman for Prime Minister John Howard said the Prime Minister's
office was not aware of any meetings with Westinghouse Electric
Company.

BusinessDaily could not contact Australia's nuclear safety
regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency.

The chairman of the Federal Government's recent inquiry on the
nuclear industry Dr Ziggy Switkowski said his committee had no
contact with Westinghouse during his review.

"We initiated contact with a number of suppliers of nuclear
technology including General Electric and General Atomics," Dr
Switkowski said yesterday.

"We could have gone further and talked to Toshiba which has a
connection, I believe, to Westinghouse but we did not."

Dr Switkowski said that rising demand for nuclear power facilities
around the world meant that existing suppliers would struggle to
meet orders for new plants.

"The suppliers of reactors are trying to overcome the pause mode
they have been in for the past 20 years," he said.

"Eight countries are in the queue to put in their first nuclear
reactors and with around 50 new projects planned around the world
that is beyond the capacity of the industry to meet."

Opponents of nuclear power generation have cited emerging carbon
capture technologies as likely to enhance the viability of
coal-fired stations in coming decades.

However, Dr Switkowski believes that nuclear power would still be
viable because of the costs associated with capturing coal emissions.

"Just about any attempt to clean up coal will not compromise the
case for nuclear," he said.

"The big issue remains setting up an appropriate regulatory regime
and to ensure it survives changes of government."

© Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
 34 Japan Times: '98 reactor emergency in Miyagi covered up 

  Web  japantimes.co.jp   

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

SENDAI (Kyodo) Tohoku Electric Power Co. apparently covered up an
emergency reactor shutdown in 1998 at the Onagawa nuclear power
plant in Miyagi Prefecture, sources at the utility said Monday.

The utility did not have records of the incident in its daily
logbook and failed to notify the government in an apparent violation
of law, company officials said, citing a recent in-house
investigation.

Utilities are required by law to swiftly notify the government of
emergency shutdowns, but the utility cannot be charged because the
three-year statute of limitations has already run out.

This is not the first coverup of an emergency shutdown. Tokyo
Electric Power Co. recently told the government it failed to give
notice of emergency shutdowns at nuclear plants in Niigata
Prefecture in 1992 and Fukushima Prefecture in 1985.

Each shutdown was caused by problems or operational delays that
arose when the reactor's output was being reduced during attempts to
halt it manually.

Tohoku Electric explained the results of its investigation to the
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, part of the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, the same day.

No other power firms have so far been implicated in shutdown
coverups, although Tepco and other utilities have been charged with
manipulating data on reactor operations.

Earlier Monday, Tohoku Electric Managing Director Kunihide Kobayashi
visited the Miyagi Prefectural Government to apologize.

"I came to know about it last week, and was confirming the fact with
people involved. I deeply apologize," he said.

Miyagi Gov. Yoshihiro Murai said: "It's a grave problem that the
company didn't observe the rules. (Tohoku Electric) needs to greatly
reflect on this."

According to the company officials, the reactor automatically went
into an emergency shutdown on June 11, 1998, after a rise in
neutrons was detected while workers were phasing down output for a
manual shutdown.

Tohoku Electric checks reactor equipment to prepare for summer, when
power consumption typically rises. It restarted the reactor on June
17 that year, they said.

The spate of coverups has prompted the agency to order all power
utilities to investigate for further irregularities and report on
them by the end of this month.

The Japan Times
*****************************************************************
 35 WNA: Nuclear the 'ethanol of 2017', investment bank says

13 March 2007

Chris Rogers, utilities analyst at JP Morgan, believes that nuclear
energy will be key to a zero-greenhouse gas hydrogen economy and
that, if they want to be part of it, oil companies will have few
options other than embracing nuclear power.

JP Morgan’s report, Trading Climate Change, suggests that within the
next decade nuclear energy will be at the top of the world’s agenda,
with the resurgence of nuclear a key element both in the drive to
reduce carbon emissions from power generation and to develop
zero-emission hydrogen-fuelled transport. In fact, the report
envisages nuclear energy’s contribution to vehicle fuel services in
10 years’ time to be as important as ethanol is today.

Describing nuclear as the "renewable energy that dare not speak its
name," Rogers said that he believes that oil giants BP and Shell may
already be looking at nuclear in their strategic plans, although
both those companies played down any nuclear interest in press
reports. However French oil company Total has already spoken up for
future involvement in nuclear, with incoming CEO Christophe de
Margerie declaring that the company will one day have to be part of
the nuclear industry. Total chairman Thierry Desmarest has also
confirmed that the company would be interested in moving into
nuclear if a suitable opportunity arose.

Future visions of a so-called hydrogen economy, in which hydrogen
replaces hydrocarbons for transport, will require the production of
hydrogen without associated carbon dioxide emissions. However the
production of hydrogen is energy intensive, and nuclear power would
provide an economic means of providing that energy without producing
carbon dioxide. The JP Morgan report notes that nuclear-hydrogen
offers a good value source of fuel to replace existing hydrocarbon
sources, at a US Department of Energy cost estimate of $2.5 per
gallon of gasoline equivalent compared to current traditional
gasoline production costs are $1.5-2.0 per gallon ($5.68-7.57 per
liter). On the downside, it notes that new nuclear build faces is
not without challenges on the environmental, economic and planning
fronts.

Further information

JP Morgan

WNA: Hydrogen economy information paper

WNN: Total to enter nuclear industry

*****************************************************************
 36 News Day: Energy industry seeks to turn around negative public perception -

Newsday.com

By STEPHEN SINGER AP Business Writer

March 13, 2007, 6:29 PM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The president of Shell Oil Co. came to 
Hartford Tuesday as part of a multi-city tour urging policymakers 
to loosen restrictions on energy production and help reverse what 
the industry sees as a negative public perception.

John D. Hofmeister, head of the Houston-based conglomerate, 
lobbied state officials to drop their opposition to the 
Broadwater natural gas barge proposed for Long Island Sound. He 
also visited Connecticut and other states in an effort to shift 
opinion on energy production and rebuilding the power grid.

"We've lived for decades off the infrastructure," he said. "We need
a new infrastructure, new supplies of energy of various kinds."

Hofmeister met Monday with state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
and Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele. Blumenthal and the administration of
Gov. M. Jodi Rell oppose the liquefied natural gas project proposed
by Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada
Pipelines Ltd.

The proposed $700 million terminal, which would be moored on Long
Island Sound nine miles off Wading River, N.Y., and 10 miles south
of New Haven, will increase and diversify local supplies of natural
gas, backers say. The project must be approved by the Federal
Environmental Regulatory Commission.

Blumenthal said he told Hofmeister that he is impressed with several
projects by Shell such as conservation and efforts against global
warming.

"We welcome a number of those initiatives, but you should abandon
Broadwater," he said he told Hofmeister.

Opposition to Broadwater is not Shell's only headache. Sharply
rising prices for energy in nearly all forms _ gasoline,
electricity, home heating oil _ have prompted accusations of price
fixing and collusion.

"We've been investigated dozens and dozens of times and we've been
exonerated every time," said Red Cavaney, president and chief
executive of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association
that represents the oil and natural gas industry.

Blumenthal said he and the attorneys general of several other states
are investigating the industry over potential violations of
antitrust laws and accusations of collusion. The probe is
continuing, he said.

The energy industry also faces opposition to production of energy
such as nuclear power, drilling offshore and in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and even a wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound
off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

"We seem to have accepted that energy is bad," Hofmeister said. "The
best thing we can do is provide energy. Availability and
affordability involve public policy enablers."

He said he and other Shell representatives have visited 27
communities and are set to travel to 23 others to change perceptions
that the industry is responsible for higher prices.

Shell is not waging the campaign alone. The American Petroleum
Institute is working with member companies to improve public
opinion. Cavaney said the industry decided to spearhead an education
campaign after it was accused of price gouging, with company
executives summoned before Congress and energy firms subjected to
state investigations.

The public education campaign will continue for at least three
years, he said.

"It took the country a long time to get into this circumstance and a
long time to turn it around," Cavaney said. "It needs to be done."

Privacy Policy. Copyright Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
 37 AFP: US says no nuclear power cooperation on the cards with Libya -

Tuesday March 13, 07:31 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States insisted Tuesday that it had 
no plans to help Libya develop a nuclear power industry despite a 
decision in Tripoli to seek such assistance.

"There's no formal pending nuclear cooperation agreement with 
Libya on nuclear power plants or any other nuclear issues," said 
State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey.

Casey said nuclear cooperation with Libya since the two countries 
renewed diplomatic relations last year following a 25-year break 
was limited to medical uses of radio isotopes.

"We are in discussions with the Libyans regarding a project to help
them develop a nuclear medicine center, and that is the only thing
you could use the word 'nuclear' in relation to past agreements," he
said.

The Libyan government announced on Monday that the foreign ministry
had been authorized to enter into negotiations with the United
States on assistance for construction of the country's first nuclear
power station.

The state news agency had reported earlier that Washington had
already offered to help Libya as part of the normalization of
bilateral relations.

Casey denied the report.

"There's no discussion of this, there's no agreement being worked
out and there are no plans to do so right now," he said.

"At a future date, we'd be open to discussions about this, but now
is not the time that I think either of us deem appropriate for
that," he said.

Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi opened the way for a renewal of
relations with the United States and Britain in late 2003 by
rejecting terrorism and renouncing all attempts to develop nuclear
or other non-conventional arms.

Formal ties with the US were established in May 2006, but Washington
has yet to name an ambassador to Tripoli amid ongoing disputes over
a series of issues, including compensation payments to the relatives
of Americans killed in terrorist attacks blamed on Libya.

Earlier this month, Kadhafi complained that Libya had not been
adequately compensated for its decision to abandon its nuclear
weapons ambitions.

"Libya is disappointed because the promises given by America and
Britain were not fulfilled," he said.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 38 [NukeNet] Poison DUst -- D.U. video link
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:57:27 -0800


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
*Poison DUst *


Poison DUst tells the story of young soldiers who thought they came home 
safely from the war, but didn't. Of a veteran's young daughter whose 
birth defect is strikingly similar to birth defects suffered by many 
Iraqi children. Of thousands of young vets who are suffering from the 
symptoms of uranium poisoning, and the thousands more who are likely to 
find themselves with these ailments in the years to come. Of a 
government unwilling to admit there might be a problem here. Filmmaker 
Sue Harris skillfully weaves the stories of these young veterans with 
scientific explanations of the nature of "DU" and its dangers, including 
interviews with former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, New York 
Daily News reporter Juan Gonzalez, noted physicist Michio Kaku, Dr. 
Rosalie Bertell, Dr. Helen Caldicott and Major Doug Rokke- the former 
U.S. Army DU Project head.

Every American who cares about our troops should watch this film. 
Everyone who cares about the innocent civilians who live in the 
countries where these weapons are used should watch this film. And 
everyone who cares about the hatred of Americans that may result from 
the effects of our government's actions in using these weapons, should 
watch this film. Is there a cover-up?
 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17249.htm
 
click on link to see Poison DUst video or to make or view comments
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 39 [du-list] Belgium Defence Commission votes unamously for a ban on
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:27:36 -0800


<x-flowed>

Subject: 	[du-list] Belgium Defence Commission votes unamously for a ban 
on DU munitions
Date: 	Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:50:04 +0100



Congratulations to the Belgian Coalition of ICBUW!
Long live Belgium!

PRESS RELEASE Belgian Coalition ?Stop Uranium Weapons?
7 March 2007

The Belgian Defence Commission votes unamously for a ban on depleted uranium
(DU) munitions

Today the Belgian Defence Commission voted unamously for a ban on Belgian
territory the use of munitions containing depleted uranium

Recognizing the precautionary principle, the federal Members of 
Parliament agree
that the production, use, storage, sale, acquisition, provision and the
transport of these conventional weapon systems has to be forbidden.

If the plenary session of the parliament follows the decision of the 
Commission,
Belgium would be the first country in the world that forbids inert 
munitions and
armor that contains depleted uranium or any other industrial made uranium.

Two years after publication in Law Gazette (?Staatsblad?) the Law becomes in
force.

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 40 [du-list] From an Iraqi woman writer, Layla Anwar, defying occupation
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:26:18 -0800


<x-flowed>

Subject: 	[du-list] From an Iraqi woman writer, Layla Anwar, defying 
occupation
Date: 	Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:33:41 -0800




Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: DEMOCRACY WITHOUT A VOICE IS A CORRUPT AND EMPTY WORD
Message from a woman defying occupation
Even as the historic building in Amsterdam , which first reverberated with
the International Appeal of Clara Zetkin among others, calling for
International Women's Day is presently under siege, with young people being
evicted and few remembering that path breaking call; and even as jaded women
of various establishments have taken over this historic day; from Layla
Anwar an Iraqi woman defying occupation comes an electrifying articulation
relevant as a political message for women and men the world over, in a
beautiful literary writing titled ' The Language of Parrots ' -

" Freedom without dignity is worthless..... democracy with no voice is an
empty corrupt word ... love without commitment is cheap ... and that parrots
look good on the outside.

They have a colourful exotic plumage ... but their language is only slogans,
and as in "The Conference of the Birds", the parrots kept talking to
themselves while other birds reached the 'Simogah'......"

( Layla Anwar , An Arab Woman Blues, 'The Language of the Parrots ',
Uruknet:info: news from Occupied Iraq )
Niloufer Bhagwat
( For circulation )

.

__,_._,___
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 41 du-list: What Needs To Be Done? ( Article V Convention )
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:22:51 -0800


<x-flowed>

Subject: 	Re: [du-list] What Needs To Be Done? ( Article V Convention )
Date: 	Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:18:27 -0800



Steve, et al, In my view, it's premature to consider constitutional
amendments when most of us have little understanding of inter-relationships
and causes of our problems, as listed below.
Example: Corporate medicine speaks of research, studies, cures and mis-uses
the term "prevention". Media advertising,
military-industrial-pharmaceutical funde universities echo this, carefully
avoiding the real causes of most of the epidemics of new disease and new
forms of old diseases, and more carefully avoiding the needed struggle
against the polluters, nuclear, coal, oil, gas, chemicals, heavy-metal,
biological contaminaters - the killer corporations whose need for increasing
profit comes before the health and, yes, survival of humans and other living
species on our sickened planet. And why is this? Obvious to me, at least, it
is the System "stupid", the capitalist system. (No, we're not stupid, we're
stupified, uninformed, mis-and-disinformed, carefully manipulated to confuse
cause and effect and to think in "boxes".
This example can be applied to every other facet of David Moyer's queries.
DU is another. Why is this mounting radioactive waste allowed by our
"regulatory" agencies to be used as weaponry, consumer and industrial
products and processes? How is it connected to Eisenhower's "peaceful atom"
and its mining, enrichmement and use by the subsidised nuclear power and
military industry? What is its connection to wars for oil and world
domination and - yes - the profit system? And, oh yeah, global warming,
which despite Moyer's opinion, is an urgent problem that must be addressed
now, if it isn't already too late. Which leads us back in a cycle to the
nuclear industry and how we're urged to allow more nukes to be built based
on the lie that it could be a help in stopping global warming.
I hope this dialogue can be continued.
Mitzi Bowman, Coordinator
Don't Waste Connecticut
upthesun@cshore.com <mailto:upthesun%40cshore.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Moyer " <nodesnetwork@gmail.com 
<mailto:nodesnetwork%40gmail.com>>
To: <progressivepolitical@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:progressivepolitical%40yahoogroups.com>>; "DKos"
<dailykos@yahoogroups.com <mailto:dailykos%40yahoogroups.com>>; 
<Bush_Be_Gone@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Bush_Be_Gone%40yahoogroups.com>>;
<On_A_Left_Wing_and_A_Prayer@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:On_A_Left_Wing_and_A_Prayer%40yahoogroups.com>>;
<ElectionFraud2004@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:ElectionFraud2004%40yahoogroups.com>>; 
<globaldomination@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:globaldomination%40yahoogroups.com>>;
<The_Nexus@yahoogroups.com <mailto:The_Nexus%40yahoogroups.com>>; 
<du-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:du-list%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:57 AM
Subject: [du-list] What Needs To Be Done? ( Article V Convention )

Over 20 years ago I wrote a book called "What Needs To be done?" (
  http://tinyurl.com/qxjdd <http://tinyurl.com/qxjdd> ) I found that 
this question is unique because it
  answers itself. Before you can answer it you must determine that it is
  necessary to ask it. Therefore, you have your answer: The question itself
  needs to be asked.

  A professor friend of mine pointed out to me that this question is
actually
  a "query." Queries have many questions within them and many potential
  answers as well. For example, "Who is the President?" is a question with a
  single correct answer. "What is President Bush's purpose in Iraq?" is a
  query with many more questions and answers lurking within it. A query is
the
  beginning of a discussion, of a search for better understanding and a
quest
  for consensus. Questions close down discussion whereas queries open it up.
  It's the difference between "Are you with us or against us?" and "What are
  the root causes of terrorism?"

  The main point I'm making here is that we need to ask the question
( query )
  "What needs to be done?" over and over and over again. One of the answers
  which comes into my mind is that we need to get quality information on
"what
  is happening now" in order to form better responses to the query. This
  requires open investigation and honest discussion. Democracy requires an
  informed electorate which is engaged in this endeavor.

  When I ask the query "What is happening now?" I get the answer that we are
  "fighting over money" and that "money is diverting our attention from what
  truly needs to be done." The War on Terror is a prime example. All of this
  focus on terrorism has created more terrorism and distracted us from the
  truly important issues such as health, education and building a just
global
  society where human rights are respected and human needs are addressed in
an
  increasingly successful and mutually satisfying manner.

  That's a lot to contemplate, for sure. We could explore the areas of
  economic and social justice for starters. What needs to be done to achieve
  economic and social justice? Well, the first thing to do is address the
  query "What is happening?" When we look into it we find that the "rich are
  getting richer" and everyone else is getting poorer at the precise moment
in
  our evolution when we have achieved an abundant productive capacity. We
can
  produce more "stuff" with less human labor. We have globalization. We have
  half of humanity living on less than two dollars a day.

  We have people dying all over the world because they cannot afford
medicines
  which could be easily produced. The problem is a dysfunctional economic
  system. We can physically manufacture what people need but the people who
  need it can't afford to buy it. This is one of the problems which needs to
  be discussed in the open but is mostly ignored because of our focus on the
  "War on Terror."

  Put simply: "Money is a failed system."

  Some people will quickly point out that global climate change is a huge
  problem which needs to be addressed. But when you look closely at it you
  find that it is a long-term problem with many uncertainties in the models
  used to predict it. It's an "out there" problem with the potential for
much
  disagreement over the particulars and projected future realities.

  Global pollution, on the other hand, including the depletion of the ozone
  layer and the corresponding increase in ultra-violet radiation, are
problems
  we are experiencing right now. These things are HAPPENING NOW! I read that
  one million people per year die in Asia because of air pollution. I
wonder:
  "How many illnesses are caused by global pollution?'

  We are so focused on cigarette smoke but billions of people are living in
  toxic "soups" full of cancer-causing chemicals. I remember going to the
top
  of South Mountain outside of Phoenix, Arizona a few years ago and looking
  out over the sprawling city below. There is an ugly brown cloud hanging
over
  the city. (
  http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/AirWeBreathe/PhxBrownCloud.jpg 
<http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/AirWeBreathe/PhxBrownCloud.jpg> )

  I recall telling myself "I'm living in that cloud 24/7. I've got to get
out
  of here!" So I moved to Vermont where I am living now.

  My point is that we have real issues which need to be addressed which are
  NOT being properly addressed because we are focused on this insane "War on
  Terror." It's not just Iraq, but the whole IDEA that we should be
"fighting
  terror" which is insane. What's the opposite of a "War on Terror?" A
"Quest
  for Justice." Terrorism results from injustice, whether perceived or
actual.
  What needs to be done is a "Quest for Justice."

  I've recently joined a group called "Friends of an Article V Convention."(
  http://foavc.org <http://foavc.org> ). Article V of the Constitution 
states that there are
two
  methods of amending the Constitution. One is for Congress to propose
  amendments and the other is for the States to do so at what is referred to
  as a "convention." The latter method has never been used even though over
  500 petitions from 50 States have called for such a convention. Congress
  refused to do its duty and convene the convention of the States.

  I've supported such a Convention, which we are now calling an "Article V
  Convention," ( as contrasted with a Constitutional Convention which has
  another meaning ), for many years. It NEEDS to be done. Even if such a
  convention accomplishes nothing at all, it STILL needs to be done. We need
a
  forum where the issues which are being ignored by Congress can be
discussed
  in the open. It's all about "We the People" taking responsibility for our
  government.

  So the question has become one of methodology. How do you convene a
  convention when Congress refuses to call one? Well, it's a simple matter
of
  redefining the meaning of the word "convention." When the Constitution was
  written it was NECESSARY for people to physically convene in a specific
  location in order to accomplish this type of activity. You couldn't have a
  viable discussion through the mail in 1787. Now you can! We do it every
day
  through e-mail, forums, online chats, videoconferencing and so forth. We
can
  convene the Article V convention at any time ... and at ALL times ...
using
  the Internet.

  The key provision of a convention is not HOW it is convened but HOW are
  proposed amendments ratified by the States. If 3/4 of the State
legislatures
  approve a specific amendment, with identical language in each resolution,
it
  is irrelevant whether that amendment was written at a convention in
  Philadelphia or through a "convention" on the Internet. The key
requirement
  is that 3/4 of the States have ratified it. Neither the Congress, the
  President nor the Supreme Court have any legal standing to question its
  legality. It is now a part of the Constitution.

  This tells me that what we really need to do is focus our energy on
writing
  amendments which achieve a high degree of consensus. This work can be done
  using the Internet but it will require tailor-made software designed for
the
  purpose of achieving consensus on "what needs to be done." This is
precisely
  the kind of software which NEEDS to be created and which we have ignored
  within our "advantage-based" economic and political paradigm. Money has
  failed to produce good results in terms of consensus.

  We are constantly attempting to "gain advantage" over competitors in the
  political and economic realms. This is exactly what DOESN'T need to be
done
  when you are designing amendments which require 3/4 approval from the
  States. An amendment which gives some States an advantage over others is
  unlikely to ever become ratified. We need a new way of thinking, a new
  paradigm, and a new set of software tools to facilitate the evolution of
  this paradigm. We need "consensus software." I'm working on creating it.

  Please visit the Friends of an Article V Convention site (
  http://www.foavc.org <http://www.foavc.org> ) and my own site on the 
subject at
  http://metamind.us/cc <http://metamind.us/cc> .... Consider how you 
can help us "build a better
  nation" by focusing on what needs to be done.

  Blessings!

  Steve Moyer http://stevemoyer.us <http://stevemoyer.us>

  P.S. You can support this endeavor ( with money ) at:
  http://stevemoyer.us/convention <http://stevemoyer.us/convention>

___
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 42 FR EPA: HSRB meeting

Doc E7-4565

[Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 48)] 
[Notices] [Page 11358-11359] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13mr07-51]                         

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998; FRL-8287-2]

 
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB); Notification of a Public 
Teleconference To Review Its Draft Report From the January 24, 2007 
HSRB Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) announces a public 
teleconference meeting to discuss its draft HSRB report from the 
January 24, 2007 HSRB meeting.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on April 10, 2007, from 1 to 
approximately 3 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The meeting will take place via telephone only.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at least 10 
business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
made.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the 
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to 
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning 
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit 
I.D. of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to 
obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the 
telephone conference, request a current draft copy of the Board's 
report or who wish further information may contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker, 
EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or via 
telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-7189. General information concerning 
the EPA HSRB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov:
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments.
    E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.
    Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public Reading Room, 
Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-ORD-
2006-0998. Deliveries are only accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0998. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.

I. Public Meeting

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, 
however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, 
especially studies on substances regulated by EPA, or to persons who 
are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other 
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to 
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal 
Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the 
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is

[[Page 11359]]

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC, 

Public Reading Room, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West 
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD 
Docket is (202) 566-1752.
    The January 24, 2007 HSRB meeting draft report is now available. 
You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other 
related documents that might be available electronically, from the 
regulations.gov Web site and the HSRB Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.
 For questions on document availability or if you 

do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page 
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal 
Register citation.

D. How May I Participate in This Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions 
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that 
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998 in the subject line 
on the first page of your request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be 
accepted up to April 3, 2007. To the extent that time permits, 
interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the 
Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each 
individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is 
strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, 
eastern time, April 3 2007, in order to be included on the meeting 
agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB DFO 
to review the meeting agenda to provide an appropriate public comment 
period. The request should identify the name of the individual making 
the presentation and the organization (if any) the individual will 
represent. Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to 5 minutes per 
individual or organization. Please note that this includes all 
individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an 
organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral 
comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not 
our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by 
having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their 
behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in 
time for public comments.
    2. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at 
any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and 
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should 
submit your comments at least 5 business days prior to the beginning of 
this teleconference. If you submit comments after this date, those 
comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should 
recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider 
those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit 
written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such 
comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, April 3, 2007. You should 
submit your comments using the instructions in Unit 1.C. of this 
notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting 
comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments 
to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no 
limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

E. Background

    The EPA Human Studies Review Board will be reviewing its draft 
report from the January 24, 2007 HSRB meeting. Background on the 
January 24, 2007 HSRB meeting can be found at Federal Register 71 249, 
78200 (December 28, 2006) and at the HSRB Web site http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.
 The Board may also discuss planning for future HSRB 

meetings.

    Dated: March 7, 2007.
George Gray,
EPA Science Advisor.
 [FR Doc. E7-4565 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


*****************************************************************
 43 Reuters: Study faults radiological security program 

11:52PM EDT, Tue 13 Mar 2007

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal program to control radiological
material that could be used to make dirty bombs has yet to secure
many of the world's most dangerous sites, according to a study
released on Tuesday.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan
investigative arm of Congress, said a Department of Energy program
that began in 2002 had secured 368 radiological sites in over 40
countries as of September 30, 2006.

But 256 sites, or about 70 percent, were hospitals or oncology
clinics that were considered relatively low-risk.

Meanwhile, over 700 high-priority sites known as radioisotope
thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, remained abandoned or in
operation across Russia, representing the largest unsecured quantity
of radioactivity in the world, the study said.

RTGs use the heat released by the decay of radioactive material to
generate electricity, often at unstaffed facilities in remote
locations such as Russia's East Asian region.

"Each of these devices has activity levels ... similar to the amount
of such material released from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
accident," the GAO said in a 76-page report to the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The Energy Department released statistics showing it has now secured
more than 470 industrial, commercial and medical facilities. It said
the sites represented "enough (material) for approximately 7,700
dirty bombs."  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 Guardian Unlimited: Open-Government Vote Marks Sunshine Week 

From the Associated Press

Tuesday March 13, 2007 12:16 AM

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats hope to breathe new life into
open-government legislation, marking Sunshine Week with votes to
protect whistle-blowers, smooth freedom of information requests and
compel presidential libraries to disclose more about their donors.
Efforts to shield reporters from revealing their sources are not
faring so well.

The House is to vote on as many as five bills coinciding with this
week's annual campaign by open-government advocates to draw
attention to a need for accessibility and accountability in the
fight against abuse and waste.

``Open government is a nonpartisan issue,'' said Rick Blum,
spokesman for the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a coalition of
media groups.

But very little is nonpartisan in Washington.

Majority Democrats want to use the five bills to highlight what they
say is the Bush administration's use of executive power and secrecy,
according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press and being
circulated among lawmakers. They argue that Republicans running
Congress during Bush's first six years conducted almost no oversight
as the administration went to war.

Shabby conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, secret
national security letters for gaining access to people's financial
records and a warrantless wiretapping program all point to White
House misuse of executive power and secrecy in the war against
terrorism, Democrats contend.

The bills all are sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman
of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They would:

- Reverse a Bush administration directive by restoring the
presumption that agencies should release records to the public when
allowed by law and when they cannot reasonably foresee that the
disclosure would cause harm.

- Require government agencies to disclose the reasons for awarding
no-bid contracts.

- Provide whistle-blower protection to workers who regularly handle
classified information, including private contractors and scientists.

- Require organizations established for the purpose of raising funds
for presidential libraries to disclose the sources of contributions
of $200 or more.

- Make it harder for current and former presidents to withhold
presidential records.

In the slower-moving Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy of Vermont is convening a hearing Wednesday on legislation to
smooth the freedom of information process. The same bill never made
it to a vote in either the House or Senate in the last Congress.

Not receiving a vote this week - or for the foreseeable future -
will be legislation that would shield reporters from being forced by
prosecutors to reveal their sources or face jail. Advocates say
whistle-blowers are less likely to expose abuse if reporters can be
compelled to reveal their sources.

The issue has been much in the news.

``I suppose you can make an argument that the entire Judith
Miller-Valerie Plame matter did not advance this cause very much,''
said Otis L. Sanford, chairman of the First Amendment Committee for
the Associated Press Managing Editors Association. ``However, in my
view it would be wrong to push for, or reject, valid legislation
based on one incident.''

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a chief sponsor of a bill to provide such
a shield, said he does not list ``the Judith Miller case'' when he
advocates for the legislation.

``That in and of itself would not be a good example,'' Boucher says.
``For my purposes it was not persuasive of the needs for a statute.''

Miller, at the time a reporter for The New York Times, served 85
days in jail rather than testify before a grand jury in the CIA leak
case, then did testify after being released from a pledge of
anonymity by her source.

Said Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., who has sponsored media shield
legislation and is supporting several bills to modify the Freedom of
Information Act:

``Some would think, for example, that the conduct of reporters
raises questions as to what sort of people they are and how are they
conducting themselves. I understand all that. But the ideal that
we're seeking hasn't really changed.''

It's unclear whether Bush would sign any of the legislation into law
during his last two years in office. The Justice department has not
yet taken positions on the measures, a spokesman said.

In several hearings last year, Justice Department officials argued
that national security interests should trump freedom of information
concerns if disclosure of information would make the country less
safe.

Bush, who in 2005 acknowledged a ``suspicion'' that his
administration was too security-conscious, issued an executive order
that year designed to speed the government's response time to
freedom-of-information requests. The order designated a chief FOIA
officer, a FOIA requester service center and public liaisons to
receive complaints from requesters.

---

The bills are: H.R. 1309 (FOIA), H.R. 1254 and H.R. 1255
(presidential libraries), H.R. 1362 (contracting) and H.R. 985
(whistle-blowers). They can be seen at http://thomas.loc.gov

---

On the Net:

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
http://www.oversight.house.gov

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 45 [du-list] American Centrifuge Piketon, Ohio
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:29:53 -0800


<x-flowed>
    Subject:  	[du-list] American Centrifuge Piketon, Ohio
Date: 	Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:44:59 -0800


USEC resumes work on lead cascade

By JEFF BARRON

Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:12 PM EST

  With its test plant for the American Centrifuge program scheduled to open
by the middle of the year the United States Enrichment Corp., Inc., will
continue engineering work on its lead cascade.

The company plans to operate the program at the Portsmouth Gaseous Plant in
Piketon. But it is conducting its engineering work in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

USEC leases the Piketon plant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Meanwhile, startup work at that plant continues, with a small number of
centrifuges already built.

They opened about three months ago and were conditioned with uranium
hexaflouride gas. USEC plans to introduce uranium gas in the near future.

The test plant is in preparation for the commercial plant USEC plans to
open in late 2009.

 
It wants to have 11,500 machines running by 2012.

Â“This is an ambitious plan from both a cost and a schedule perspective, and
the target estimate assumes cost savings we are working to achieve in
2007,Â” USEC President and CEO John K. Welch said in a statement. Â“A year
from now, as we begin to finalize manufacturing contracts, we should have
more data that will improve our ability to more accurately estimate the
ultimate cost of the commercial uranium enrichment plant.Â”

USEC is operating the program in conjunction with DOE. A 2002 agreement
between the two includes a series of milestones and dates for deploying the
American Centrifuge program.

For example, an October 2006 milestone called for obtaining satisfactory
reliability and performance data from the lead cascade operations.

 
 
USEC and DOE are also discussing having a financial commitment for the
project in place.

USEC officials say they hope to reach an agreement with DOE regarding the
rescheduling of the two milestones and how future progress should be
measured.

JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.

Home | Copyright Â© 2007 The Portsmouth Daily Times
 


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 46 The State: Open government is great we just don't have enough

03/13/2007 | 

LOTS OF PEOPLE GOT hot and bothered a few weeks ago when
Chem-Nuclear tried to take members of the House Agriculture
Committee on a private tour of the state’s nuclear landfill. But
while the uproar forced the panel to invite the public along on that
trip, the fact is that secret meetings between committees and
special interests hoping to sway them are commonplace — and usually
involve lavish dinners and drinks.

They’re not technically secret, of course: If you know whom to ask,
you can find out about them in advance.

The good news is that this unofficial method of shutting the public
out is not typical of the way government works in South Carolina.
The bad news is that most of the time, the secrecy is blessed by
state law.

Newspapers across the state and country are using this week to
celebrate the value of open government. The S.C. Municipal
Association is joining the celebration, which also has been endorsed
by the Senate.

We agree wholeheartedly that open government is valuable. Sunshine
laws let you find out how your elected officials might spend tax
money in time to try to change their minds, and when the state
releases a sex offender into your community. They let you find out
whether your doctor has been disciplined, whether your favorite
restaurant passed its latest inspection, how well your neighborhood
school is doing its job.

The problem is that we don’t have a lot of open government in South
Carolina — certainly not when you consider that everything
government does is by definition the public’s business.

Executive sessions, or closed-door meetings, are commonplace at the
local level, and it’s hard to keep up with the number of examples we
know of when cities and counties lock themselves behind closed doors
to discuss things that even our extremely generous secret-meetings
law does not allow. Many quasi-public groups that are funded with
tax money still refuse to acknowledge that the public has a right to
know what they do.

When news organizations test the law periodically by asking to look
at arrest documents without identifying themselves as reporters,
they’re frequently turned down. What that means is that even the
parts of the law that work fairly well for those of us in the
business of journalism are routinely violated when ordinary citizens
try to assert their right to inspect public documents.

Officially, there’s little the Legislature can legally do behind
closed doors. Unofficially, most major decisions are made out of
public view. The House Republican Caucus pushed through rules
earlier this year (after an illegal secret meeting of the Rules
Committee) to specifically allow its members to meet in secret,
after the attorney general said they couldn’t under the old rules.
The most common legislative abuse is also legal: Two members of a
five-member panel will meet secretly to cut a deal on legislation,
after which each of them will meet secretly with another member. Two
senators and one representative on a conference committee will meet
to reach a deal, which is legal since a second representative has to
agree to implement it.


*****************************************************************
 47 Tri-City Herald: GNEP meeting today tests public's support

Opinions

Published Tuesday, March 13th, 2007

Sometimes irony can be painful to witness.

The caravan of anti-nuclear activists descending today on 
Richland provides a particularly discomfiting twist on events.

The group is traveling from Eugene, Ore., to express concerns 
about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons, 
transportation issues and nuclear waste.

But the thing they oppose -- the Bush administration's Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership -- represents one of the best hopes 
for reducing the dangers of nuclear technology.

The proposed demonstration project, whether it ends up at Hanford 
or another site, is aimed at recycling fuels in ways that reduce 
nuclear waste and make it harder to divert materials to weapons 
production.

Those are good things, whether you live in Richland or Eugene.

Or Tehran.

No doubt, opponents of nuclear power are well versed in the 
arguments for its resurgence.

Reducing the world's reliance on fossil fuels would mean fewer
greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere and less conflict around
the globe.

Concerns about global warming and the war in Iraq lend new weight to
those arguments, but for some folks, the dangers of nuclear power
still exceed the benefits.

We think you can get to that conclusion only by gross miscalculation
-- exaggerating the risks and underestimating the benefits, and by a
lot.

Regardless, the world isn't listening.

Developing countries use a far different equation for nuclear power
-- energy equals prosperity.

China, unswayed by anything that will happen in Richland today, is
pushing ahead with plans to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2010.

The International Atomic Energy Agency anticipates at least 60 new
plants in the next 15 years. Thirty of them are already under
construction.

The world is going nuclear, and America ought to play a role.

Look at it this way, the Chernobyl disaster released at least 50
million curies or up to 9 billion curies, depending on who is
counting.

Three-Mile Island? Fifteen curies released, by everyone's count.

Given the record, should the U.S. be involved in inventing the
systems and processes that will determine the safety of nuclear
energy?

Or should we leave that task to developing nations?

Whether Hanford's the best place for a reprocessing demonstration
plant is another question. The potential is undeniable.

TRIDEC has put together an impressive list of the assets Hanford
could bring to the GNEP project, including an existing
infrastructure of roads, buildings, railroad lines and utilities.

Because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already has licensed
Energy Northwest's nuclear reactor, we know the site can meet
earthquake and other safety concerns.

But the trump card is the Fast Flux Test Facility, which could
provide GNEP with a research reactor for fuels and materials for a
fraction of what a new reactor would cost.

Studies need to be completed, but Hanford may likely prove the
safest and cheapest alternative for GNEP. The savings alone could
run into the billions of dollars.

It's likely that impressions about public sentiment will play a
bigger role in the Department of Energy's decision than they should.

Why get into a political fight when resistance is weak at a
different site?

That's why the anti-nuclear forces are rallying for today's meeting
-- to make an impression, on DOE and Northwest lawmakers.

The meeting is from 6 to 9:30 p.m. at the Pasco Red Lion Hotel, 2525
N. 20th Ave.

GNEP and FFTF supporters ought to turn out in force to make their
own impression.

A greater emphasis on technical and economic considerations and less
on politics would be best for the nation -- and enhance Hanford's
chances.

But nothing the federal government does is free of politics. It
wouldn't hurt for GNEP's supporters to bring a crowd.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 48 UK: New radioactive waste bunker planned for Hinkley Point 

Burnham-On-Sea News

Published: March 13, 2007

Hundreds of tonnes of radioactive waste could be dumped in a new
facility at Hinkley Point power station, near Burnham-On-Sea, it
emerged on Tuesday (March 13th).

Plans are being drawn up for a bunker capable of holding 24,000
square metres of low-level waste from the defunct Hinkley A power
station.

Concrete rubble and machinery from dismantled buildings, plant and
equipment and also contaminated clothing would all be eligible for
disposal in the facility. It would be kept there until safe,
potentially for hundreds of years.

British Nuclear Group, which manages the site, said a scoping report
on the project is due to be given to Somerset County Council later
this month.

The company stressed no definite decision has been taken to build
the store, but confirmed a planning application may be submitted
later in the year.

Anti-nuclear campaign group Stop Hinkley has opposed the idea and
said it could lead to Sellafield-style sprawl.

Low-level waste has in the past been taken to a site near Drigg, in
Cumbria, but that is fast filling up as more power stations from the
1950s and 1960s are closed.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for British Nuclear Group, told the Western
Daily Press: "There is the possibility that we will submit a full
application later in the summer. But that won't be before the
Government's position becomes clear. It will follow the publication
of the Defra review of low-level waste management." That report,
giving national guidance on what to do with low-level waste, is
expected in the next few months.

Jim Duffy, of Stop Hinkley, said he had supported the intermediate
store at Hinkley as a stop-gap, but could not support permanent
low-level disposal on the site. "From our point of view, we need to
draw a line in the sand somewhere. We have said OK to intermediate
waste but don't really want to see any expansion of waste storage. I
think the whole site really looks set to expand if the industry and
Government get their way."

Hinkley is also home to Hinkley B nuclear power station, which is
due back on line later in March - as recently reported by
Burnham-On-sea.com.

*****************************************************************
 49 KNDO/KNDU: Public Has Chance to Speak Out on GNEP

Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | 

RICHLAND, Wash.- Department of Energy leaders will be on hand to
listen to public comment on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
and it's impact on Hanford at a meeting Tuesday in Pasco.

The proposal involves possibly putting a nuclear fuel recycling
center, recycling reactor and a research center in at Hanford.

TRIDEC is heading up the effort.

It is thought that this could be the area's economic future, after
Hanford cleanup.

"One of the things that we're interested in doing is changing the
public reviewing Hanford history to talking about reviewing
Hanford's future, and GNEP is one aspect of that," said TRIDEC Vice
President Gary Petersen.

Some say GNEP would aid cleanup by recycling some of the spent fuel
at the new facilities.

The meeting is open to the public.

It is Tuesday night from 6:00 to 9:30 at the Red Lion Hotel in Pasco.


 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 50 barrow in furness: Prison firm bids to run Sellafield

Published on 13/03/2007

CLEAN-UP CONTRACT: Group 4 Securicor is one of the bidders hoping 
to win the contract to decommission Sellafield and run the site

A COMPANY better known for running prisons is a surprise bidder to
run Sellafield.

Group 4 Securicor is one of seven groups who have submitted
pre-qualification questionnaires to the bidding process.

The lucrative contract would be to decommission Sellafield and run
the site.

All assets would, however, remain in the hands of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority, a government body which was charged with
cleaning up the site.

The NDA, which currently owns the site, has also received interest
from several consortia including one made up of Britainâ€™s Amec,
Areva of France and Americaâ€™s Washington Group.

Another consortium includes Serco plus Bechtel and BWX Technologies
of the US.

Those also on the list include Babcock International Fluor,
EnergySolutions and CH2M Hill.

The government is privatising the sector to limit the public
purseâ€™s liability on the very costly industry.

The announcement that Group 4 was among the runners has surprised
many in the industry, including unions.

The company does have some experience in the nuclear sector.

Group 4 owns Wackenhut, a security contractor at a number of
American nuclear sites.

But it has been the subject of criticism in the past over its
running of prisons.

The bidding process is expected to run until 2009. Until then
British Nuclear Group, whose parent company is BNFL, will run the
site.

The privatisation of Sellafieldâ€™s management company comes after
Tony Blair announced new power stations may be built in the UK to
deal with climate change.

*****************************************************************
 51 Ventura County Star: Boxer presses EPA for Halaco cleanup

Oxnard

Senator asks agency to protect public from exposure to debris

By Scott Hadly, shadly@VenturaCountyStar.com

March 13, 2007

In a short letter to the administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Sen. Barbara Boxer has demanded to know how 
the federal agency will keep people from being exposed to the 
metals and radioactive isotopes mixed into the huge waste pile at 
a former metals recycling plant in Oxnard.

The EPA recently recommended that Halaco Engineering's more than 
40-acre site next to Ormond Beach be included on the national 
list of Superfund cleanup sites. The California Democrat's letter 
comes as the agency is taking public comments on the proposed 
listing. Public comment ends May 7.

"Given the amount and type of dangerous wastes, the facility's 
history of violations, uncontrolled human exposures, and off-site 
contamination, EPA must immediately determine the extent of the 
threat and do everything possible to clean up and protect public 
health," she said in the letter, noting that last summer, there 
was "evidence of rampant trespass" at the abandoned facility.

The now-bankrupt company operated at the site for 40 years. It 
halted operations in 2004, leaving behind 750,000 cubic yards of 
waste in a slag heap covering more than 28 acres, in some places 
higher than 40 feet, and laden with lead, arsenic, barium, 
cadmium and beryllium. The waste is also sprinkled with 
radioactive isotopes like thorium and cesium. Last week, federal 
workers found some of that radioactive material along a berm near 
the wetlands next to the facility, resulting in the closure of 
the wetlands at the end of Perkins Road.

Rob Wise, EPA's on-scene coordinator working to stabilize the 
site, said he and his crew have posted "no trespassing" signs and 
reinforced a fence. Crews have been out with bulldozers pulling 
back the edge of the waste pile so that it does not move into the 
adjacent wetlands, and plan to cover the material with a natural 
fiber to ensure that dust or runoff doesn't move off the site.

The $4.5 million stabilization project will be finished at the 
end of April and should protect the waste for about three years 
while officials figure out how to clean it up in the most 
cost-effective and safest way possible, he said.

As for the radioactive thorium, Wise said workers will dig it out 
and move it to the waste pile, where it will be buried. Last 
week, he learned from former Halaco officials that the thorium 
likely wound up there during the 1960s, when the company pumped 
waste from its facility directly into the Oxnard Industrial 
Drain, which bisects the property. It stopped doing that in 1970, 
Wise was told.

Marvin Burns, an attorney representing former Halaco owners, 
wrote Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in December opposing the 
Superfund listing. Halaco had been unfairly targeted by 
regulatory agencies while other neighboring industrial businesses 
were left alone, Burns said in the letter.

Those businesses are "all spewing out enormous quantities of 
waste every day," Burns said. "We are confident those plants 
discharge hazardous substances each day ?above background' as the 
EPA letter complains about Halaco. So far as we know, no one has 
attacked those other businesses with the intensity that attacks 
on Halaco have been made."


2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.       Ventura County Star 
*****************************************************************
 52 Daily Gazette:  Radioactive Contamination by KAPL of Hudson and Mohawk
 
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:09:05 -0800

March 11, 2007
 
River spreads contamination Study claims KAPL waste carried more 
than 120 miles downstream

Author(s): MICHAEL LAMENDOLA

Gazette Reporter Date: March 11, 2007 
Section: A: Front

A new scientific study shows that some plutonium and other 
radioactive metals released decades ago by Knolls Atomic Power 
Laboratory into the Mohawk River have traveled hundreds of miles 
downstream and have not remained locked in river sediment near 
the facility. The soon-to-be-published study is the first to look 
beyond existing studies of the contamination generated 
specifically by KAPL and confirm that the downstream radioactive 
contamination is from KAPL.

The study found small amounts of plutonium-239, plutonium-240 and 
cesium-137, attributed to activities at KAPL, more than 124 miles 
away, a result of sediment transport processes. Although toxic 
and known to cause cancer, the plutonium and cesium in the river 
sediment pose no health hazards to humans and the environment due 
to their low levels of concentration, said state, federal and 
local officials.

If left buried in the sediment, however, the long half-lives of 
Pu-239 and Pu-240 ensure that it will take at a minimum of tens 
of thousands of years to disintegrate completely by radioactive 
decay. Cs-137, on the other hand, has a much shorter half-life 
and does not pose such a long-term problem.

"The Mohawk River delivers about two-thirds of the sediment to 
the Hudson River Estuary. It's not surprising that some of the 
sediments contaminated by activities at KAPL get deposited and 
removed, deposited and removed. They can get resuspended with 
flooding events," said Timothy Kenna, the study's lead author.

Kenna is an associate research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty 
Earth Observatory at Columbia University in Palisades. Two of the 
seven authors are professors at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 
in Troy.

The study ruled out the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in 
Buchanan, Westchester County, as a source for the plutonium. 
Indian Point is the only other site in the Hudson River basin 
associated with nuclear materials.

"There are two sources of plutonium in the river: fallout and 
this other source," Kenna said. Understanding process

The scientific study is titled: "Sources of nuclear contamination 
in Hudson River sediments as revealed by plutonium, neptunium, 
and cesium isotope" and was funded under a $150,000 grant from 
the Hudson River Foundation. The foundation is a nonprofit 
organization that funds scientific research on the river through 
an endowment. Kenna plans to submit his study for publication in 
a peer-reviewed journal. He said the study's purpose was to 
"understand the process of sediment transport in the Mohawk 
River. That's an open research question about how sediment 
moves."

Dennis Suszkowski, science director for the Hudson River 
Foundation, said, "Our interest was originally to figure out 
where sediments were coming from. We are looking at how sediments 
and water contaminants move through the system. What we are 
finding is not just plutonium but PCBs move great distances 
through these river systems."

The study examined five sediment core samples collected in 1993 
by the state and federal governments and used Pu-239, Pu-240 and 
Cs-137 to track sediment transport. They are ideal because Pu-239 
and Pu-240 adhere tightly to soil particles and sediments and can 
be traced by their unique radioactive signatures, according to 
Kenna. By studying areas where sediments accumulate, scientists 
can obtain a history of contamination.

The study compared isotopic ratios in the sediment to identify 
and resolve different sources of non-fallout contamination, Kenna 
said.

"Ratios tell you the source of nuclear contamination. Global 
fallout was deposited worldwide in a homogenized manner, so it 
has one type of signature. These others sources have different 
signatures, which have been categorized," Kenna said.

He said Mohawk River sediments downstream of KAPL show signatures 
of Pu-239, Pu-240 and Cs-137 that are seven to 20 times higher 
than levels expected from global fallout in Northeastern soils. 
The data indicate these metals were not deposited in the Mohawk 
River sediment through atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

"The elevated levels, the non-fallout isotopic signatures and the 
core locations are all consistent with KAPL being a source of 
plutonium and cesium isotopes," Kenna said. Pu-239, Pu-240 and 
Cs-137 do not occur naturally and are products of nuclear 
reactions. They also are present in spent nuclear fuel, 
high-level radioactive wastes resulting from the processing of 
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes associated with the 
operation of reactors, fuel-processing plants and 
weapons-production plants. Spurring debate

The new study should renew debate about the nature and amount of 
nuclear contamination in the river, local environmental advocates 
said.

Indeed, the federal Department of Energy announced two weeks ago 
that it will review Mohawk River surveys of sediment and 
biological sampling KAPL performed in 1981, 1992 and 2002 dealing 
with nuclear contamination.

"The DOE's Environmental Management Program is reviewing 
available data -- principally the three reports noted -- to 
familiarize ourselves and determine that the conclusions remain 
sound," said DOE spokeswoman Anne Wickham.

KAPL has long acknowledged it released 153 curies of liquid 
radioactive waste into the Mohawk River between 1955 and 1964, 
although some critics allege the amount is higher. A curie is 
approximately the amount of radioactivity emitted by one gram of 
radium-226, or 37,000,000,000 disintegrations per second.

The waste was generated by the Separations Process Research Unit, 
an experimental nuclear weapons processing plant that General 
Electric Co. operated under contract with the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission between 1950 and 1954. SPRU was decommissioned in 
1954; Lockheed Martin Co. now owns KAPL.

KAPL still discharges radioactive material into the river, but 
the amount is minuscule and in full compliance with federal 
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency 
standards, according to KAPL officials.

KAPL has conducted extensive sediment and biological sampling on 
the Mohawk River in the vicinity of the facility every 10 years 
between 1981 and 2002. The reports are available to the public.

The most recent KAPL report in 2002 found the majority of 
radioactive contamination from the SPRU era remains confined to 
sediment along the south side of the Mohawk River within 1,000 
feet of the Niskayuna facility.

According to the 2002 KAPL study, "Elevated concentrations were 
also detectable further down river; however the concentrations 
were lower and the radioactivity was located even deeper into the 
sediment," indicating it was being buried.

What if ..

The 2002 report discussed a what-if scenario involving the 
scouring away of all radioactive material above Lock 7 during a 
three-month period by spring floods and ice flows. It said even 
if this were to happen, the amount of radioactivity released 
would still fall far below danger levels.

That study did not look at areas beyond 8 miles from KAPL for 
radioactive material, and the state Department of Environmental 
Conservation relied on KAPL data for its own determination that 
the radioactivity does not pose a serious health hazard. Claire 
Pospisil of the state Department of Health said the sediment "in 
its present state does not present an immediate threat to human 
health."

She said a DOH review of core sediments provided by KAPL shows 
that "the plutonium is contained in the sediment and has not 
changed significantly over the years. Fish and other biological 
sampling show no detectable radioactivity. We also conduct 
radiological samples of water samples near the inlet to the 
Latham water district and have found no unusual results."

The DOE decision to examine the studies was prompted by public 
comments in January about DOE's proposed $217 million cleanup of 
three areas on KAPL grounds contaminated by radioactive materials 
and chemicals from SPRU. Some at the public hearing said the DOE 
is not going far enough to clean up KAPL and the river, a former 
dumping ground for KAPL nuclear wastes.

Unfettered dumping

A once-classified 1959 report by General Electric, titled 
"Evaluation of potential hazards associated with the release of 
laboratory waste into the Mohawk River," showed that SPRU was 
capable of generating 3,000 gallons of radioactive waste per day.

The report contains a chart indicating that SPRU was discharging 
more than 1,000 mico-curies and up to nearly 10,000 mico-curies 
of gamma-emitting waste per quarter between 1951 and 1953 and up 
to 100,000 mico-curies during 1954. This type of waste could 
represent strontium, cesium and cobalt.

At the same time, SPRU was discharging 10 micro-curies of alpha 
particle-emitting waste, such as plutonium, between 1951 to 1954 
and up to 500 mico-curies in late 1954. A mico-curie is a unit of 
radioactivity equal to one millionth of a curie.

At the time, SPRU officials, backed by federal, state and local 
advisory boards, believed the river would dilute and dissipate 
the radioactivity to harmless levels.

At some point in the 1950s, KAPL officials realized that 
radioactive metals, principally Cs-137, were building up in the 
sediment, according to a 1970 KAPL report on radioactive 
contamination of river sediment. This report makes no mention of 
plutonium, but a 1995 report analyzed core samples for plutonium, 
determining they were below concentrations that would be 
environmentally harmful.

In 1963, KAPL was ordered by the Navy to comply with federal 
regulations dealing with the discharge of radioactive material in 
populated areas, according to a KAPL memo dated June 27, 1963. 
KAPL at the time was working with the Navy to develop power 
reactors for ships and submarines

 From this point until 1969, KAPL discharged less than 1 curie 
per year into the river. During the period 1955 to 1969, KAPL 
discharged a total of 150.871 curies into the river, according to 
the 1970 report.

Suspect data

A gram of radioactive material, equivalent to a curie, may appear 
harmless, but it is not, according to Glenn Paulson, associate 
dean for research with the University of Medicine and Dentistry 
of New Jersey, School of Public Health.

Paulson has researched hazardous and radioactive materials and 
wastes and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences 
Committee to review worker and public health activities programs 
administered by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services.

"You wouldn't want to hold a curie of anything in your hand; it 
would burn your hand," he said.

Paulson said he would view as suspect data collected in the early 
KAPL reports, specifically in the 1950s. "The measurements years 
ago were poor, and wastes were not measured accurately," he said.

He said the most accurately kept measurements would have dealt 
with SPRU's plutonium production. "That is what they were after, 
and they wouldn't want to waste it," Paulson said. "They would 
keep records to see if they were getting every last ounce they 
could."

Plutonium production was a multimillion-dollar enterprise for the 
government, involving a huge investment in personnel and 
material. Plutonium was needed for bombs, and a "nice amount was 
7 1/2 pounds," Paulson said.

To generate that amount of plutonium would require tons of 
uranium. "Plutonium is man-made from uranium. You zap uranium 
with another source of radiation and turn it into plutonium. The 
rate of conversion is not very high," Paulson said. Cross-country 
disposal

The government in the 1950s used nuclear reactors at Hanford in 
Benton, Wash., to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs. The 
reactors would create a solid lump of uranium and plutonium 
sodium, which had to be separated. The lump was sent to SPRU, 
which was testing a new chemical extraction process.

The irradiated fuel was placed into one of five, 25-foot-tall hot 
cells lined with stainless steel. The cells were located in an 
underground building called G2 on the Knolls campus. Acid inside 
the tanks would dissolve the plutonium and leave behind uranium 
and other byproducts. Scientists would treat the liquid and 
extract plutonium, Paulson said.

"The acid treatment won't give you 100 percent perfect 
separation; you could get 99.99999 percent, but you would have a 
smidge of plutonium left in the liquid layer," which would end up 
in the river, he said.

Other byproducts of the acid treatment were Cs-137, strontium and 
cobalt-60. The waste was pumped into seven large stainless steel 
tanks located within underground concrete vaults in Building H, 
adjacent to G2. The waste was not treated but did undergo 
evaporation. After a point, it would be mixed with waste from 
KAPL's laundry facility and then discharged into a storm sewer 
that emptied into the river.

KAPL later put the waste in barrels and stored it on-site or sent 
it elsewhere. Leftover contamination

When the Atomic Energy Commission closed SPRU in the mid-1950s, 
it removed most but not all of the radioactive material. 
Approximately 300 cubic feet of semisolid radioactive sludge 
remains in several stainless steel tanks, including cesium and 
strontium and a small amount of plutonium. Radioisotopes also 
contaminated the walls, floors and equipment within most of H2 
and portions of G2, an adjacent three-story, 22,000-square-foot 
building. G2 contains higher levels of radiation than H2.

In 1990, the DOE began ongoing radiological surveillance of the 
former SPRU buildings. The contaminated areas are sealed and 
monitored. Water that percolates up through the ground near the 
buildings is collected and treated. KAPL workers are not exposed 
to radiation.

In 1999, Lockheed-Martin told the Department of Energy it no 
longer had any use for the buildings. It had been using portions 
of G2 as office space until 1999; it still uses portions of H2. 
*Reach Gazette reporter Michael Lamendola at 395-3114 or 
**lamend@dailygazette.com* <mailto:lamend@dailygazette.com>*.* ** 
 
 
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 53 KnoxNews: Y-12 building slowed again

Wall joint behind temporary work suspension, says nuclear plant's
spokesman

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
March 13, 2007

OAK RIDGE - Another "quality-control issue" was identified in 
construction of the government's new storehouse for highly 
enriched uranium, forcing a temporary work suspension in one part 
of the high-security facility.

Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons 
plant, confirmed the problem Monday in response to questions.

Wyatt said the latest issue involves the reinforcing steel in a 
wall joint. Work in that area of the building was halted Feb. 26 
in order to evaluate the situation, he said.

Work was resumed March 7 after a series of "corrective actions" 
were identified, although they have not yet been carried out, 
Wyatt said. He would not be specific about the problem or the 
fixes.

"We also checked other similar wall joints and found them to be 
properly installed," he said.

Construction is headed by Caddell-Blaine, a partnership of 
Caddell Construction of Montgomery, Ala., and Blaine Construction 
of Knoxville. The work is performed under a subcontract to BWXT, 
the government's managing contractor at the nuclear weapons 
facility.

Quality control has been an ongoing concern at the Oak Ridge 
project.

All construction work was shut down for two months in early 2006
after inspectors found that reinforcing steel in some parts of the
Y-12 building did not meet original designs.

Work later resumed after officials determined the rebar was
sufficient, even though it was less than the designated amount.
Because of concerns about the project's quality controls, BWXT and
the National Nuclear Security Administration bolstered their
oversight of the big project and put into place new procedures.

The hardened facility is supposed to be terror-proof and capable of
surviving an airplane crash or natural disaster, although the actual
design of the facility is classified.

The storage facility's price tag has ballooned to $500 million -
more than double original estimates. Officials have blamed the
escalating cost on design changes to meet new security requirements,
as well as the rising cost of construction materials.

Once completed, the new building - known officially as the Highly
Enriched Uranium Materials Facility - will house the nation's
stockpile of bomb-grade uranium. The strategic nuclear materials
currently are stored in at least five facilities at Y-12, which
manufactures warhead parts from uranium and other materials.

In a Feb. 21 interview, Ted Sherry, the federal manager at Y-12,
touted the progress being made at the uranium storehouse.

"The work force out there is fully staffed. We're going full bore,"
he said.

Sherry said he thought the problems encountered in 2006 were a thing
of the past. "There are still things we need to do, but I am totally
confident in the team that we've put together and the processes that
we have put in place that we are recovering HEUMF from the issues
that we had."

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 54 Hanford News: Appeals court considers Hanford waste initiative

This story was published Tuesday, March 13th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

A federal court ruling that the 2004 Hanford waste initiative was 
unconstitutional failed to consider a reasonable interpretation 
of the initiative, according to state arguments filed in the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima struck down the initiative 
in June, finding that it violated the Supremacy, Commerce and 
Contract clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Washington has filed 
an appeal.

Voters approved the initiative to bar the Department of Energy from
bringing more waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation until waste
already there is cleaned up. But before it could become law, the
Justice Department challenged its constitutionality.

McDonald should not have rejected "a reasonable and constitutional
construction of how the initiative operates," the state said.

"Most sections of Initiative 297 are ambiguous and susceptible to at
least two interpretations," it argued in its appeal.

The state has authority over hazardous chemical waste at Hanford,
which can include chemical waste mixed with radioactive waste. But
the initiative expanded the state's authority to include radioactive
waste that the federal government retains the authority to regulate,
the federal court found. Under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, states may not overrule the federal government on
matters it retains the right to regulate.

The state argued on appeal that the initiative should be interpreted
not as expanding its authority over radioactive waste at Hanford,
but as requiring it to use its full authority to ensure that Hanford
is cleaned up after more than 40 years of production of plutonium
for the nation's nuclear weapons program. That would not expand its
current authority for regulating chemical waste that is mixed with
radioactive waste - authority that Congress has granted the state,
it argued.

The initiative also does not amend the scope of any existing state
law to give the state more authority, it said.

Instead, it directs the state to address "serious hazardous waste
compliance and cleanup problems at Hanford, with the goal of
bringing Hanford into compliance before still more waste is added to
the problem," the state wrote. "If radionuclide management is
incidentally affected in the process, it is nevertheless within the
tension between (the federal and state governments) that Congress
has shown its willingness to tolerate."

The state also is challenging McDonald's rulings on the Commerce and
Contract clauses.

The Commerce Clause does not apply because the initiative does not
discriminate against interstate commerce. It would affect waste DOE
wants to bring to Hanford for treatment or disposal and waste
already in the state, the state said. In fact, it does not prevent
waste from coming into the state, only from being added to a
contaminated facility, such as Hanford, the state said.

The Contract Clause arguments were made by the Tri-City Development
Council, which said private contracts held by Areva NP and Battelle
could be violated by the initiative. Both could do work at sites not
in Washington to fulfill their contracts, the state argued.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 KnoxNews: New TVA COO has nuclear experience

Appointment made as utility shows renewed interest in nuke power

By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com

March 13, 2007

A top management position at TVA will be filled by an executive 
with more than 30 years in the energy services industry, 
including substantial nuclear power experience, the federal 
utility announced Monday.

Bill McCollum Jr., who comes to TVA from Duke Energy Corp. of 
Charlotte, N.C., was appointed chief operating officer, effective 
May 1.

McCollum, 55, will oversee TVA's core operating units - the Fossil
Power Group, TVA Nuclear and River System Operations. He will be
based in Chattanooga.

The move comes as TVA shows signs of renewed interest in nuclear
power. TVA is exploring the feasibility of finishing the Unit 2
reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn., and also
has said it will apply with a consortium of utilities to build and
operate a new plant in Alabama.

McCollum joined Duke in 1974 as a junior engineer at a South
Carolina nuclear plant and worked his way up, eventually serving as
vice president of nuclear support, according to information on
Duke's Web site.

In March 2005, McCollum was named vice president of strategy and
business development. Most recently, he has served as group
executive and chief regulated generation officer for Duke,
overseeing 14 fossil plants, seven gas-fired plants and 32
hydroelectric plants.

McCollum, a native of Rossville, Ga., will replace interim COO
William "Skip" Orser, who has served in the role since September.
Orser will stay on for a transitional period after McCollum arrives
in May, said TVA spokesman John Moulton.

McCollum will earn a base compensation of $700,000 a year, plus
performance-based incentives, Moulton said. McCollum will report to
TVA CEO Tom Kilgore.

"We are fortunate to have an individual with Bill's background and
extensive utility experience join TVA," Kilgore said in a statement.

TVA, the nation's largest public utility, provides power to large
industries and distributors serving about 8.7 million consumers in a
seven-state region.

Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************