*****************************************************************
03/15/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.62
*****************************************************************
   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 A Blank Check to Bomb Iran?
2 Guardian Unlimited: Deal Reached on U.N. Sanctions Vs. Iran
3 BBC NEWS: Iran sanctions go to UN council
4 IRNA: Iran denies Russia's claim on debt for Bushehr Plant completio
5 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: Iran's nuclear program 
6 Reuters: FACTBOX: Highlights of draft resolution on Iran sanctions 
7 Prague Post: Opinion: Iran: Of cool heads and hot reactors
8 AFP: SAfrica wants Iran sanctions to lead to 'political solution' - 
9 Dpr Korea To Consider Resuming Nuclear Non-proliferation Safeguards 
10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Meets Most Nuclear Deadlines 
11 AFP: North Korea says war games hamper efforts to defuse nuclear ten
12 AFP: China 'deeply regrets' US move on NKorea-linked bank - 
13 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. in Masterful Solution to N.Korea's Frozen A
14 IAEA: IAEA Director General Concludes Trip to the DPRK
15 Reuters: Rift over U.S. bank move ahead of nuclear talks 
16 Korea Times: GNP Leader Reaffirms Softened NK Policy
17 US: Herald Bulletin: EDITORIAL: Strengthen sunshine laws
18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Missile Defense Chief Visits Berlin 
19 Guardian Unlimited: Tories seek to exploit split on nuclear policy 
20 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear insurance 
21 Guardian Unlimited: 95 Labour MPs say no. But Blair gets his missile
22 AFP: Brown 'will keep nuclear arsenal' - 
23 AFP: Britain to remain in nuclear club, but critics question merits 
24 Arbiter Online: Looking ahead: Hans Blix lectures on diplomacy - 
25 Guardian Unlimited : This is nuclear madness
26 Guardian Unlimited : A foregone conclusion
27 Guardian Unlimited : When would Gordon push the button?
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
28 US: APP:  Zannoni Speaks Out  on Oyster Creek
29 US: Protect Vulnerable Communities
30 US: ajc.com: Activists get tiny voice in nuclear hearings 
31 Guardian Unlimited: Japanese Operator to Allow Reactor Probe
32 US: Asbury Park Press: NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Cre
33 DY: Hokurikuden hid accident at N-plant/Criticality in '99 continued
34 Daily Yomiuri: Local govts angered by cover-up
35 MDN: Hokuriku Electric Power covered up nuclear reactor reaching cri
36 US: Houston Chronicle: TXU plans to buy two nuclear reactors | 
37 Platts: European nuclear experts split on technical staff shortage i
38 US: Howell Tri Town News: Oyster Creek nixes debate with experts
39 US: APP.COM: NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek 
40 US: recordonline.com: Final Indian Point siren test called success
41 US: Dallas Morning News: TXU moves ahead with reactor plans
42 US: FR: NRC: Notice of License Renewal Request of AREVA NP, Richland
43 IHT: Power utility takes steps to reduce malfunctions in Czech nucle
44 Reuters: Outrage over Japan nuclear reactor coverup 
45 Prague Daily Monitor: Prague says anti-Temelin blockades must not ha
46 Prague Daily Monitor: Ministry wants to reinforce Temelin teams due 
47 US: KNDO/KNDU: New Study Shows New Nuclear Power Outlook Unlikely in
48 US: ENS: TXU Selects Japanese Nuclear Technology for New Generating 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
49 US: Radium at Piketon
50 PressZoom.com: Uranium pellets not dangerous to humans
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
51 US: GNEP: The worst idea Bush EVER had!
52 reviewjournal.com: QUALITY ASSURANCE: Yucca e-mails explained
53 US: KCPW: EnergySolutions Agrees to Drop Plans for "Tower of Waste" 
54 US: Northumberland News: Historic waste clean-up on track to licensi
55 US: ABQJOURNAL: WIPP Transport Contract Awarded
56 US: Tennessean: Transportation plan perilous, ill-conceived - 
57 US: Tennessean: Hazards supersede rewards of untested nuclear proces
58 US: Tennessean: Reader Views: Should Tennessee take the nation's spe
59 US: Tennessean: GNEP a solution to climate, energy needs - 
60 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Governor reaches deal on EnergySolutions 
61 US: Salt Lake Tribune: View a summary the governor's agreement with 
62 US: FR NRC: Mox license facility app in Aiken SC
63 UPI: U.S. lauds nuke cooperation with Russia
64 The Australian: Don't go nuclear, US expert warns 
65 Whitehaven News: Group 4 joins Sellafield bidders
 
                           PEACE
 
66 AFP: Press questions urgency of nuclear vote - 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
67 [NukeNet] Another Great RRW Editorial-The Independent/Livermore
68 ENS: Rocky Flats Nuclear Plant to Become Wildlife Refuge
69 FR DOE: Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee
70 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs
71 KnoxNews: A positive note at ORNL
72 The Traveler: UA seeks funds from DOE for reactor cleanup - 
73 Guardian Unlimited: Small Fire Erupts at Nuclear Plant 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 A Blank Check to Bomb Iran?
 
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:54:19 -0500 (CDT)


Before Bush Bombs Iran,
Congress Should at Least Ask WHY

It's bad enough that Congress is considering allocating another
$100 billion for the Iraq War. Now they're trying to make it
easier for President Bush to bomb Iran, too.

Early drafts of the new bill for Iraq funding contained explicit
language prohibiting Bush from bombing Iran without coming to
Congress to explain, but just yesterday that provision was
stripped from the bill. With the Iran prohibition removed, Bush
would be free to drop bombs on Iran without even seeking
approval from the people's representatives in Congress.

It's not too late to fix this, though -- the bill is not yet
law. To tell your lawmakers to make it illegal for Bush to bomb
Tehran without explaining himself, click here:

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/iran_sup/w3xww5n4l6m86ek?

We've got more than enough problems on our hands.

Darcy Scott Martin
TrueMajority Washington Director
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Deal Reached on U.N. Sanctions Vs. Iran

From the Associated Press

Thursday March 15, 2007 5:01 PM

By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP)- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the U.N.
Security Council an illegitimate body Thursday and said that any new
sanctions on his country would only push it to be self-sufficient
and further develop nuclear technology.

The comments were the first reaction by the Iranian president -
known for his provocative rhetoric - to an agreement by ambassadors
from six world powers on a new package of sanctions against Tehran
for failing to halt its uranium enrichment, which the West fears is
meant for a weapons program.

``Today, the Iranian nation fully possesses the nuclear fuel
cycle,'' Ahmadinejad said at a rally in Ardakan, central Iran,
addressing his remarks to Western nations, according to state media.
``If all of you gather and also invite your ancestors from hell, you
will not be able to stop the Iranian nation.''

The six world powers agreed on a package of new sanctions against
Iran that include an embargo on arms exports and financial
restrictions on more individuals and companies associated with
Tehran's nuclear and missile programs, many linked to Iran's
Revolutionary Guards.

The governments of the five permanent Security Council nations - the
United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - and Germany gave
a green light to the draft resolution hammered out by their
ambassadors. It will be presented to the 10 non-permanent Security
Council nations, who are elected for two-year terms and have not
been part of the negotiations.

``Do you think that if you gather and issue a torn piece of paper,
you will be able to prevent the progress of the Iranian nation?''
Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on the state-run television's Web
site.

``Using the Security Council as an instrument, the enemies of Iran
want to prevent the progress of the Iranian nation,'' Ahmadinejad
was quoted as saying by the state Islamic Republic News Agency.
``But the Security Council today has no legitimacy among world
nations.''

In December, the U.N. Security Council unanimously imposed limited
sanctions on Iran for refusing to freeze enrichment, which can
produce fuel for nuclear reactors or, if taken to a higher degree,
the material for atomic bombs.

After Tehran failed to meet a February deadline to suspend
enrichment under the December resolution, senior representatives of
the six powers began discussing new sanctions.

But Ahmadinejad suggested at the rally Thursday that new sanctions
would help enhance - not undermine - Iran's development of nuclear
technologies.

``Haven't you imposed sanctions in the past 27 years? Which
machinery or parts did you give us,'' he said in reference to U.S.
sanctions against Iran, and refusal by European countries to sell
Iran technologies that could also have a nuclear use.

``You imposed sanctions. We became nuclear. You can impose economic
sanctions again and you will see for yourself what will be the next
stage,'' Ahmadinejad added.

Iran denies it is using uranium enrichment to secretly build nuclear
weapons, saying its program is for generating electricity.

Iran says it will never give up its right under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

Apart from the threat of the new, upgraded U.N. sanctions, Iran this
week suffered another political blow - Russia's decision to postpone
a crucial shipment of fuel for Iran's Russian-built nuclear reactor
at Bushehr because of Iran's payment delays.

Without the Russian uranium, the plant cannot begin generating
electricity by September as planned. Iran had expected a fully
operational Bushehr to boost its nuclear negotiating position.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 BBC NEWS: Iran sanctions go to UN council

Last Updated: Thursday, 15 March 2007, 22:43 GMT

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to attend the Security Council vote

A new sanctions package designed to put pressure on Iran over its 
nuclear programme has been agreed by the six countries handling 
the issue at the UN.

The British ambassador immediately sent the draft to the 10 
non-permanent Security Council members, who have not been 
included in the negotiations.

The package includes an arms embargo and economic penalties.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, but Western
governments say it wants to develop nuclear weapons.

Last December, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose a
first, limited set of sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt
uranium enrichment.

The latest package includes extending a freeze of assets to those
linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and a ban on new
grants and loans to the state.


The Security Council... calls upon all States to exercise 
vigilance and restraint in the supply, sale or transfer... of any 
battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery 
systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles 
or missile systems... to Iran

Draft resolution

Ambassadors from Britain, France, the United States, China and
Russia - the five permanent members of the Security Council - and
Germany agreed the draft resolution after Tehran refused to stop
enriching uranium, which can be a precursor to weapons manufacture.

South Africa's ambassador at the UN, Dumisani Kumalo, who chairs the
council this month, warned that the 10 non-permanent members now
want to have their say.

"Nowhere in this process have they ever said that the five-plus-one
would have the exclusive wisdom of producing [the draft resolution]
and for us to rubber-stamp," he said.

Mr Kumalo later said he had received a letter from Iran's UN envoy
asking if Mr Ahmadinejad could be present when the Security Council
votes on the draft resolution.

Iranian state television quoted a government spokesman as saying
that Mr Ahmadinejad wanted to put his case to the council.

Before the draft was presented, the Iranian president had vowed the
initiative would not sway his country.

"Issuing such torn pieces of paper ... will not have an impact on
the Iranian nation's will," he told a rally in central Iran.

*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Iran denies Russia's claim on debt for Bushehr Plant completion

(REPETITION: to add more quotes by Saeidi, Kirienko) - Irna

Tehran, March 15, IRNA

Iran-Russia-Nuclear

Deputy International Affairs Head of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization (IAEO) expressed wonder here Wednesday over remarks by
head of Russian Federal Atomic Energy Organization on Iran's debt as
reason for Russia's latest delay in completing Iran's Bushehr Power
Plant.

Mohammad Saeidi added in an interview with IRNA, "Tehran has from
October 10th, 2006 to March 14th, 2007 paid the Russian contractor
of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant 75 million US dollars and six billion
rials (less than US $600,000)."

He added, "In addition to those amounts, as of March 1st, 2007, we
have be engaged in transferring another $18,200,000 into the account
of the Russian company, Atomstroyeksport."

Head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Organization Sergei
Kirienko has claimed in an interview with Russian media that Iran
has lost interest in completing its Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and
ever since mid-January it has not paid us even one kopek for the
completion of its one billion dollar Bushehr facilities.

Saeidi reiterated, "As the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Agency
is aware, the Iranian side's payments to the Russian contractor has
so far been in dollars and rials, therefor he is right in saying
that the Iranians have paid no kopek to the Russians, and I can add
we have paid them no rubles either within the past eleven years!"
The Deputy Intentional Affairs Head of country's Atomic Energy
Organization referring to the September 26th Amendment of Iran's
contract with Atomstroyeksport, reiterated, "In addition to the
amounts I mentioned earlier, there is a seventy million dollar L/C
that is permanently open for the Russian contract to withdraw from
for its shipments from the Russian factories."
He said, "It Would be much better to resort to rationalism, logic,
and the deposited amounts, for which there are undeniable documents,
rather than politicizing, and resorting to sentiments in such
technical affairs."

Saeidi added, "One possibility is that the top official at Russian
Federal Atomic Agency has not been sufficiently informed about
financial transactions before making those remarks."

The Iranian official said, "The Russian Atomic Agency that has
during the course of the past few months spent noticeable efforts to
accelerated the trend of Bushehr Nuclear Plant's completion is
definitely aware that the Iranian nation has been waiting for more
than thirty years for putting to use that plant."

Saeidi added, "During the course of the past decades, too, different
governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran have made comprehensive
efforts aimed at shortening the time for making operational the
Bushehr Power Plant."

He added, "Keeping in mind that out of the one billion dollar
Bushehr project, Iran owes only some 100 million dollars to Russia,
the remarks of the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency
are not only illogical, but also quite astonishing."

Saeidi expressed hope that the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency
would within the next few days more seriously pursue the
authenticity of the two sides' claims, and seen into the Russian
contractor's meeting of its commitments within the framework of the
September 26th, 2006 Amendment to complete Bushehr Plant in
September 2007 and to put it to use.

He concluded his remarks announcing Iran's full readiness to
cooperate with the Russian contract in accelerating the process of
Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant completion.

Iran appears to have "lost interest" in completing the nuclear power
plant which Russia is helping it build at Bushehr, Russia's top
nuclear official said Wednesday.

"I'm astonished. Maybe the Iranian leadership isn't completely
informed, but there's an impression the Iranian side has lost
interest in the construction" of the Bushehr nuclear power station,
Sergei Kirienko, chief of Russia's federal nuclear energy agency,
was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.

"From mid-January, not a single kopeck has been paid" to complete
the one-billion-dollar (760-million-euro) plant, which would be
Iran's first, Kirienko told journalists during a visit in the
Italian city of Bari.

The Bushehr plant was scheduled to be launched in the autumn but has
been repeatedly delayed as Moscow and Tehran have argued over
financing and technical difficulties.

News sent: 01:20 Thursday March 15, 2007 Print

*****************************************************************
 5 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: Iran's nuclear program 

Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:36PM EDT

(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday
derided any new U.N sanctions resolution saying it would not stop
Tehran's nuclear work, a local news agency reported.

Following are events since Iran's nuclear program first came to
light. Iran says the program is purely peaceful but the West fears
it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons.

August 2002 - Exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of
Iran reports uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and heavy water
plant at Arak.

June 2003 - IAEA report says Iran failed to comply with nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of
nuclear facilities.

February 2005 - President Mohammad Khatami says no Iranian
government will give up nuclear technology program.

September 2 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium
conversion at Isfahan.

January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment
plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Reuters: FACTBOX: Highlights of draft resolution on Iran sanctions 

Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:56AM EDT

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Following are highlights of a draft
resolution on Iran, which were presented to the 15-member U.N.
Security Council on Thursday for consideration. A vote is
anticipated next week.

The text, obtained by Reuters, was drawn up by Germany and the five
permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Britain,
France, Russia and China.

It penalizes Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment work,
which can be used in a bomb or for peaceful purposes. The draft is a
follow-up to a December 23 resolution that imposed trade sanctions
on Iran's sensitive nuclear materials and froze the assets of
Iranian individuals and companies.

The new draft:

* Tells Iran again to suspend work on enrichment-related and
reprocessing and heavy water-related reactor projects, to be
verified by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. It
asks the agency to report within 60 days about whether Iran has
complied.

* Decides to extend an assets freeze to additional groups, companies
and individuals engaged in or supporting sensitive nuclear
activities or development of ballistic missiles. On the new list are
the state-owned Bank Sepah and firms controlled by Iran's
Revolutionary Guards Corp.

* Imposes an embargo on conventional weapons Iran can export but
calls on states to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in shipping
any heavy weapons to Iran.

* Calls on nations and international financial institutions not to
enter into new commitments for "grants, financial assistance and
concessional loans" to Iran except for "humanitarian and
developmental purposes."  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Prague Post: Opinion: Iran: Of cool heads and hot reactors

March 14th, 2007

With the United States and Iran squaring off more and more, each
preparing to make its case with renewed conviction, the pressure to
make the next move wisely grows exponentially.

Iran has denied helping to arm violent radicals in Iraq in their
guerrilla warfare against U.S. troops. It has also denied hiding key
components of its nuclear fuel enrichment program from international
inspectors and has pledged that this technology is only being
developed for civilian purposes.

If there&rsquo;s a single element that the Bush administration is
most alarmed over, it&rsquo;s this last question &mdash; and
it&rsquo;s a very good one.

A reasonable enough conundrum to outside observers is why Iran, with
one of the world&rsquo;s best supplies of oil and natural gas, would
need to develop nuclear energy as a power source.

The country&rsquo;s answer is telling: According to the game plan
now being laid out by Iran&rsquo;s leaders, fossil fuels should not
be counted on to provide for the long term. By their projections,
oil could run out in as little as 80 years and natural gas could be
depleted in 200.

If these fossil fuels can be exported, however, and a different
source of energy developed, the growing nation of 72 million will
have a better ensured future, according to Iran&rsquo;s energy
minister, Parviz Fattah.

As Kamal Danashyar, head of Iran&rsquo;s parliamentary energy
commission, recently told the BBC, every 1,000 megawatts of
electricity made from nuclear energy saves the country 10 million
barrels of oil. By the schedule currently being followed, the
country plans to supply 20 percent of its energy needs from nuclear
power over the next two decades.

Impartial energy experts have pronounced this plan sound &mdash;
indeed, many a nation in the European Union, including the Czech
Republic, is making the case these days for renewed development of
nuclear power to wean us off of greenhouse-gas-producing fossil
fuels.

But it&rsquo;s the question of the source of Iran&rsquo;s nuclear
fuel that causes the real contention: Relatively cheap good-quality
supplies are available worldwide, even to a nation such as Iran,
which is vilified in much of the West.

Iran has little interest in that option, however, instead choosing
to make massive, long-term investments in the technology to create
its own fuel by enriching uranium. Because enriched uranium is a key
component in nuclear bombs, a threat that is foremost in the minds
of U.S. security authorities, this policy has the Bush
administration up in arms.

Why would Iran continue to risk this kind of wrath rather than
import its nuclear fuel? Because imports are subject to supply
problems and could be cut off if more powerful nations choose to set
up an embargo.

It comes down to suspicion and mistrust, in other words: To be
reliant on anyone other than yourself is to be at risk. Such a
mentality is understandable in a nation that&rsquo;s been, like the
Czech lands, invaded scores of times over the centuries because of
its location at the crossroads of diverse and sometimes opposing
populations.

That suspicion and mistrust has grown in the United States, too,
since Sept. 11, and for similar reasons.

Let us hope, then, that motivations other than these drive the next
critical move in this standoff.

  The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: SAfrica wants Iran sanctions to lead to 'political solution' - envoy - 

Thu Mar 15, 2:17 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said
Thursday that his country would carefully scrutinize the draft
resolution on new UN sanctions against Iran

"We want a political solution to this matter," Kumalo, who chairs
the UN Security Council for this month, told reporters Thursday as
six major powers introduced a draft broadening UN sanctions slapped
on Iran in December over its refusal to suspend sensitive nuclear
fuel work.

"So we will read this document looking to language that opens the
door for political negotiations" to resolve the nuclear crisis
between Tehran and the six powers, he added.

Kumalo said a vote on the text, worked out by Britain, China,
France, Russia, the United States and Germany, could come next week.

Kumalo added that the council's 15 members scheduled a meeting next
Wednesday afternoon to discuss the sanctions package after
delegations have had time to study it and refer it to their capitals.

The new draft broadens sanctions imposed by the council in December
after Tehran spurned repeated UN demands to freeze uranium
enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear weapons.

It bans Iran from exporting arms, calls for voluntary trade
sanctions on the Islamic Republic and expands a list of officials
and companies targeted for financial and travel restrictions because
of their alleged links with Iran's sensitive nuclear and ballistic
missile programs.

"We will be looking for areas where it (the text) addresses
non-proliferation, which is important, but also protects the rights
of Iran for the peaceful use of nuclear (energy)," Kumalo said.

He also said Pretoria was keen to ensure that the role of the
International Atomic Energy (IAEA) in the Iranian nuclear crisis "is
also protected because they are the people who are experts on this."

South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons program in the
early 1990s during its transition from white minority rule to a
democratic state, has consistently defended Iran's right to enrich
uranium for peaceful purposes.

South Africa, which took up its seat as non-permanent member of the
Security Council in January, has acted as a mediator in the nuclear
standoff with Iran, one of its chief suppliers of oil.

Late last month, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani visited
South Africa to discuss the crisis with President Thabo Mbeki.


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 Dpr Korea To Consider Resuming Nuclear Non-proliferation Safeguards - UN Atomic Chief
 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:00:33 -0400

DPR KOREA TO CONSIDER RESUMING NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION SAFEGUARDS – UN ATOMIC CHIEF
 
New York, Mar 15 2007 10:00AM
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has promised to 
consider returning to the United Nations system of safeguards against 
nuclear weapons proliferation, which they abandoned in 2002, 
following its commitment last month to dismantle its nuclear arms 

“We are moving forward,” UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_dprk_concludes.html">IAEA) 
Director-General 
Mohamed ElBaradei told a news conference 
in Beijing on his return from talks in Pyongyang, the DPRK capital, 
calling his visit at the Government’s invitation an “overall door 

But “after years before we got back on the right track,” this is 
“not going to happen over night,” he warned. The DPRK ordered IAEA 
inspectors out at the end of 2002 and withdrew from the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its agency-monitored safeguards 
against fuel diversion from energy generation to weapons production. 
Last October the UN Security Council imposed sanctions after 

Mr. ElBaradei’s talks with the General Bureau of Atomic Energy Chairman 
Ri Je Son, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hyong Jun and Vice President 
of the Standing Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly 
Kim Yong Dae, focused on initial IAEA monitoring and verification 

He said the DPRK was “fully committed” to the Six-Party agreement 
reached in Beijing last month and would allow IAEA personnel in 
once other parties met their commitments under the “Initial Actions.” 
The DPRK “was very clear they are ready to implement the February 
13 agreement once the other parties implement their part of 

The “Initial Actions” agreed by the six parties – the DPRK, the Republic 
of Korea (ROK), China, Japan, Russia and the United States 
– foresee that within 60 days “the DPRK will shut down and seal 
for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, 
including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel 
to conduct all necessary monitoring and verifications as 

The next step for IAEA will be to reach an agreement with the DPRK 
on specific technical arrangements for monitoring and verification. 
These terms would be subject to approval by the IAEA Board of 

“They are ready to work with the Agency to make sure that we monitor 
and verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon facility,” Mr. ElBaradei 
said, adding that DPRK officials “reiterated they are committed 

Today and tomorrow he is scheduled to hold meetings in Beijing with 
Six-party representatives. “I hope in the next few weeks, months 
and years, we will continue to work with the DPRK with the objective 
we all share, which is the denuclearization of the Korean 
 2007-03-15 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/
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Meets Most Nuclear Deadlines 

From the Associated Press

Thursday March 15, 2007 10:16 PM

By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Progress toward North Korean nuclear
disarmament has so far gone largely according to the plans laid out
under an international agreement, but key hurdles remain and
Pyongyang has yet to take any concrete action that would prevent it
from making atomic bombs.

The Feb. 13 accord between the North, the U.S., China, Japan, Russia
and South Korea sets out a series of initial actions that aim to
show all sides are sincere.

The disarmament agreement also foresees Pyongyang embracing its
longtime enemies, the U.S. and Japan, fostering peace across Asia
and a possible resolution to more than 53 years of stalemate since
the end of the Korean War.

Thursday marks the first deadline, 30 days since the agreement. A
look at some of the results achieved so far:

----

FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS: Washington promised within 30 days to
resolve financial restrictions against a Macau bank where North
Korea held $24 million. The U.S. blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia in
September 2005 led Pyongyang to boycott six-nation nuclear talks for
more than a year, during which it conducted its first nuclear test
in October.

On Wednesday, the U.S. said it completed its investigation and would
bar U.S. financial institutions from dealings with the bank, which
it says was complicit in money laundering by the North. The move
could allow Macau authorities that have taken over the accounts to
free some of the money that has been found to be from legitimate
business. China expressed ``deep regret'' Thursday over the U.S.
decision, foreshadowing difficulties in enforcing the disarmament
agreement.

----

U.S.-NORTH KOREA RELATIONS: The chief U.S. and North Korean nuclear
envoys met in New York in early March to kick off talks on
normalizing relations, possibly leading the countries to establish
regular diplomatic ties for the first time.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said the meetings
were ``very good, very businesslike, very comprehensive
discussions,'' but no concrete agreements were publicized.

----

U.S.-JAPANESE RELATIONS: Japan and North Korea held a rocky session
in Vietnam on improving relations, which have been hindered by a
dispute over Japanese citizens abducted by the North in the 1970s
and '80s.

Tokyo has questioned North Korea's claims about the fate of abducted
Japanese and demanded more clarification. The North insists the
issue has been resolved, and instead wants Japan to move first to
lift sanctions passed against Pyongyang for its nuclear and missile
tests last year. North Korea also wants reparation for colonial
abuses during Japan's 1910-45 rule of the Korean peninsula and
called on Japan to stop ``suppressing'' pro-North Korean residents
there.

----

SOUTH-NORTH KOREAN RELATIONS: The two Koreas resumed high-level
meetings in late February for the first time in more than seven
months due to the thaw in tensions after the disarmament agreement.
However, Seoul appeared to hold out on resuming full aid to the
North until it fulfills further pledges under the nuclear deal.

----

WORKING GROUPS: Working groups - addressing denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula; economic and energy cooperation; and a peace and
security mechanism for northeast Asia - are meeting this week in
Beijing. The progress of all the groups will be discussed at a full
meeting Monday of the six-nation arms talks.

---

The final deadline for North Korea's initial steps to disarm falls
April 14, 60 days after the agreement, which will be the real test
of whether the nuclear accord can work. Moves to be taken by then
include:

----

REACTOR SHUTDOWN: The North has yet to show any public sign of
shutting off its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, which produces
plutonium 55 miles north of Pyongyang.

The shutdown is to be monitored by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which sent its chief on a visit to Pyongyang this week.
Mohamed ElBaradei said North Korean officials told him they were
``fully committed'' to implementing the deal, but he noted the pact
was ``fragile'' and the North Koreans were waiting for the U.S. to
resolve the Macau bank issue.

----

LISTING OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS: North Korea is required to list all its
nuclear programs that would be eventually disabled. A key obstacle
could be the North's alleged uranium enrichment program. The U.S.
accused Pyongyang of such a program in late 2002, sparking the
latest nuclear standoff, but the North has never publicly admitted
to it.

----

AID: South Korea is to deliver 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil to the
North in exchange for the reactor shutdown, part of a total
equivalent of 1 million tons of oil the country will eventually get
for abandoning its nuclear programs.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: North Korea says war games hamper efforts to defuse nuclear tension

Thursday March 15, 06:10 PM

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea on Thursday warned that upcoming joint
US-South Korea military exercises were obstructing the settlement of
a stand-off over its nuclear weapons programme.

Rodong Sinmun, the official daily of the ruling Korean Workers'
Party, lashed out at the "RSOI" and "Foal Eagle" joint drills,
calling them exercises for "a war of aggression" against the
communist state.

The drills are due to begin March 25, with hundreds of thousands of
South Korean troops and some 29,000 US soldiers based here and
abroad taking part, along with a US aircraft carrier backed by
cruisers and destroyers.

South Korea and the United States have defended the annual joint
military exercises as being purely defensive.

But the daily said the plan was "an indication that the US and South
Korea were pursuing confrontation and war, not reconciliation and
improved relations."

It "gives rise to doubt about the credibility of their recent
agreement with the DPRK (North Korea) and their will to implement
it," the paper said referring to a February 13 agreement struck at
six-party talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear programmes.

The deal raised hopes that North Korea would abandon its nuclear
weapons programmes.

In return for shutting down its main Yongbyon nuclear reactor and
inviting back IAEA inspectors, North Korea would receive 50,000
tonnes of fuel oil as well as some diplomatic concessions.

"These joint military exercises planned by them at a time when the
situation of the Korean Peninsula is softening in various aspects
are a never-to-be-condoned challenge and a grave military
provocation against the DPRK," the daily said.

It said the war games would entail only negative consequences,
"obstructing the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue of the
Korean peninsula, pushing the inter-Korean relations back to a
crisis again and fanning the climate of confrontation and war."

"Dialogue and war games are never compatible with each other," it
added.

A spokesman for North Korea's Committee for the Peaceful
Reunification of the Fatherland said last week that the week-long
drill should be "immediately" called off.

The spokesman said the exercises would effectively "level a gun at
the dialogue partner" following the February 13 accord and this
behavior has "touched off towering indignation in the DPRK."

Under the terms of last month's agreement, North Korea would
eventually receive the equivalent of one million tonnes of fuel aid
if it completely disbanded its nuclear weapons programme.

The six-nation talks -- which involve the two Koreas, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States -- are due to resume in Beijing on
Monday.

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Australia & NZ Pty Limited. All rights
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: China 'deeply regrets' US move on NKorea-linked bank - 

Thursday March 15, 07:15 PM

BEIJING (AFP) - China said Thursday it opposed Washington's decision
to impose strict financial curbs on a Macau-based bank accused of
money laundering for North Korea.

"We deeply regret the ruling by the United States," foreign ministry
spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.

He said China had two concerns about the decision announced by the
United States overnight to bar US banks from any dealings with Banco
Delta Asia (BDA), effectively cutting off the family-owned bank from
the global financial system.

The first was the potential impact on six-nation talks aimed at
ending North Korea's nuclear programme.

"It (handling the bank issue) should be conducive to the promotion
of the six-party talks," Qin said, adding China was not satisfied
this was the case.

Qin also said the authorities in the Chinese territory should have
been left to resolve any problems with the bank, as he defended the
financial rules and regulations of Macau and China.

"Our position is strong. Our measures are effective. We follow
closely the international obligations," Qin said.

The United States initially imposed sanctions on Banco Delta Asia in
2005 after accusing it of helping North Korea to circulate fake
100-dollar bills, and of laundering funds from narcotics and weapons
trafficking.

Under those sanctions, Macau authorities were forced to freeze more
than 25 million dollars in North Korean accounts held by the bank.

North Korea had demanded that the sanctions issue be resolved before
it would proceed with further nuclear disarmament moves.

While the US Treasury Department's ruling barred US banks from
dealing with BDA, it also cleared the way for the North Korean funds
to be unfrozen.

The money could potentially be released because the US ruling ended
the limbo that left BDA in receivership, as it permitted the
authorities in the Chinese territory of Macau to resolve the bank's
legal status.

*****************************************************************
 13 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. in Masterful Solution to N.Korea's Frozen Accounts

Updated Mar.15,2007 09:17 KST

Concluding its 18-month long investigation of North Korea¡¯s bank in
Macau, the U.S. Treasury Department on Wednesday announced measures
barring U.S. financial institutions from direct and indirect deals
with Banco Delta Asia. The U.S. accuses the bank of having been a
money-laundering channel for the North¡¯s illicit activities. The
ban goes into effect in 30 days.

But the step paves the way for Macau authorities to unfreeze North
Korean accounts containing US$24 million in what is rumored to be
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il¡¯s personal money in the bank. ¡°Our
investigation of BDA confirmed the bank's willingness to turn a
blind eye to illicit activity, notably by its North Korean-related
clients. In fact, in exchange for a fee, the bank provided its North
Korean clients access to the banking system with little oversight or
control,¡± Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey told reporters
Wednesday. According to the department, BDA helped North Korea
handle funds from illicit activities like counterfeiting U.S.
dollars, manufacturing fake cigarettes and drug dealings. Some North
Korean companies possibly laundered money through the bank, it said.

Despite the relatively paltry sum, the freeze of the accounts
prompted North Korea to boycott six-party talks on its nuclear
program for more than a year, and talks only resumed after the U.S.
and North Korea met in Berlin in January and agreed to sort the
matter out. The six-nation talks then swiftly produced an agreement
in Beijing on Feb. 13 whereby North Korea promised to take initial
steps toward disabling its nuclear facilities in return for energy
aid from the other five.

However, the Treasury said the unfreezing of North Korean accounts
is up to Macau authorities and declined to mention the exact amount
that will be unfrozen. The department said it has informed Macau of
the investigation results. As a result, Macanese authorities will
probably unfreeze part of the money up to 12 million that apparently
came from legal activities. Some observers believe China will
unfreeze all of the accounts in consideration of ties with its
Stalinist ally.

U.S. Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey announces measures
against Macau-based Banco Delta Asia (BDA) during a press conference
at the Treasury Department in Washington, DC on Wednesday. The U.S.
concluded that the bank has been conducting illicit financial
transactions, and has been a money-laundering channel for North
Korea's illicit activities./Yonhap

Meanwhile, ahead of the official announcement, a South Korean
government official quipped the BDA case would serve as ¡°prize
material for students of international relations and financial
matters.¡± Since seeking a more conciliatory approach with North
Korea, the U.S. has been wracking its brains how to handle the
problem of the frozen $24 million. Until then, the U.S. heavily
publicized the money-laundering allegations as a way to pressure the
North, but since late last year, it has sought a way out to make
progress in the six-party talks. The solution the U.S. appears to
have come up with is to point out the unlawfulness of BDA's actions
but wash its hands of the North Korean accounts. "It seems the U.S.
has passed sentence but suspended it,¡± said Nam Sung-wook, a North
Korea specialist at Korea University.

Financial experts, looking at past examples, describe the solution
as a masterful touch. Despite allowing North Korea to retrieve the
money, the U.S. is not publicly budging from its designation of the
bank as a "primary money-laundering concern." Most of the financial
institutions in countries like Lithuania and Burma the U.S.
designated as primary money-laundering concerns in the past have
either gone bankrupt or been taken over. At the moment, the North
looks highly likely to get all of its money even if BDA goes
bankrupt, and even before that it will get at least half of its
money back.

Experts say the solution means nobody wins. Through a long-term
investigation, the U.S. looked at some 100,000 North Korean
financial transactions. A South Korean government official said, "We
understand that after an investigation of about 50 North Korean
accounts at BDA, the U.S. has obtained a considerable amount of
information on the North's financial deals" -- enough, it would
seem, to bring the BDA accounts up as a bargaining chip again any
time it needs. But Washington could also face criticism that it
exaggerated the information in the first place, considering that it
did not present any decisive evidence, citing confidentiality, but
let North Korea have the money.

North Korea, for its part, will find it more difficult to carry out
international financial transactions now allegations of
counterfeiting and money-laundering have been very publicly
confirmed. But by digging in its heels over the BDA accounts, North
Korea, once part of the ¡°axis of evil¡±, was also able to win talks
about normalization of diplomatic ties with the U.S. and other
benefits.

(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
 14 IAEA: IAEA Director General Concludes Trip to the DPRK

Web IAEA.org

Staff Report

15 March 2007

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei arrives at a press 
conference in Beijing, China, 14 March 2007. (Photo: Elizabeth 
Dalziel/AP)

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei´s 13 - 14 March visit to
Pyongyang was an "overall door opener", improving what he termed had
been a "rocky relationship" since inspectors left the DPRK in
December 2002.

In a series of meetings with senior DPRK officials, Dr. ElBaradei
invited the DPRK to return to the IAEA as a Member State. "They said
they will consider coming back as a member," Dr. ElBaradei said.

He told a press conference in Beijing "we are moving forward" but
"after years before we got back on the right track" this is "not
going to happen over night."

Talks also focused on the IAEA´s initial monitoring and verification
role for the shut down of the DPRK´s nuclear facilities. He said the
DPRK was "fully committed" to the Six-Party agreement and would
allow IAEA personnel in once other parties take action on their own
commitments under the "Initial Actions". He said the DPRK "was very
clear they are ready to implement the February 13 agreement once the
other parties implement their part of the deal."

The "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement,"
concluded at the "Six-Party Talks" on 13 February, foresees that
within 60 days "the DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of
eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the
reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all
necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and
DPRK."

The next step for IAEA will be to reach an agreement with the DPRK
on specific technical arrangements for monitoring and verification.
These terms would be subject to approval by the IAEA Board of
Governors.

"They are ready to work with the Agency to make sure that we monitor
and verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon facility," Dr. ElBaradei
said, adding officials in Pyongyang also "reiterated they are
committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."

Dr. ElBaradei held meetings with the Chairman of the DPRK´s General
Bureau of Atomic Energy, Ri Je Son; Vice Foreign Minister Kim Hyong
Jun; and Vice President of the Standing Precidium of the Supreme
People´s Assembly, Kim Yong Dae.

On 15-16 March, he is scheduled to hold meetings in Beijing with the
representatives of the Six-Party talks. On 15 March, Dr. ElBaradei
met with China´s Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Cui
Tiankai.

"I hope in the next few weeks, months and years, we will continue to
work with the DPRK with the objective we all share, which is the
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," Dr. ElBaradei said.


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:
*****************************************************************
 15 Reuters: Rift over U.S. bank move ahead of nuclear talks 

Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:08PM EDT

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING (Reuters) - A rift opened between the United States and
China on Thursday on how to end a dispute about North Korean bank
accounts, with China angered by a U.S. decision it said might harm
talks to end Pyongyang's nuclear threat.

U.S. envoy Christopher Hill said in Beijing that the decision on
North Korean accounts frozen in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA) would
advance a deal obliging Pyongyang to close the reactor at the heart
of its nuclear weapons program.

"I think we have fulfilled what we need to do," Hill told reporters
of the decision. "I think we will get ourselves into a situation
where BDA will not pose a stumbling block to the six-party process."

Those talks, which group the two Koreas, the United States, China,
Japan and Russia, struck an accord on February 13 giving North Korea
60 days to shut its Yongbyon reactor in return for energy aid and
security pledges. The United States then also agreed to defuse
within 30 days North Korea's complaints about the bank crackdown.

Pyongyang had no immediate comment on the bank move in which the
U.S. Treasury Department barred U.S. banks from dealing with Banco
Delta Asia -- ending the investigation and opening the way for Macau
to decide whether to release an estimated $8 million to $12 million
in frozen accounts.

The Treasury's announcement came after an 18-month probe into BDA,
which the United States says helped funnel Pyongyang's takings from
counterfeiting U.S. money and other misdeeds.

But China, which worked closely with Hill in the disarmament talks,
chided the U.S. decision, raising worries about the implications and
suggesting the dispute has not been laid to rest ahead of fresh
six-party talks scheduled in Beijing next week.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 Korea Times: GNP Leader Reaffirms Softened NK Policy

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter

The leader of the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP) on
Thursday reaffirmed his party's softening policy toward North Korea
following a landmark nuclear disarmament pact reached in Beijing
last month.

The conservative party, however, called for a complete dismantling
of the North's nuclear weapons programs as a prerequisite to the
implementation of flexible North Korean policies.

``Under the premise of the realization of a nuclear-free Korean
Peninsula, our party will pursue an active, flexible unification
policy based on the principle of reciprocity and co-existence, not a
passive, defensive one,'' GNP Chairman Rep. Kang Jae-sup said in a
meeting of senior party officials.

Kang said his party will announce its new party line on North Korea
in the near future after the party's ad hoc panel on North Korean
affairs reviews North Korean policies in accordance with the
changing security conditions around the Korean Peninsula.

The about-face of the conservative party's position on the North
comes about a month after the Stalinist regime agreed to take the
initial steps to disable its nuclear weapons program in return for
financial and diplomatic benefits in six-party disarmament talks
involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia
on Feb. 13.

Under the nuclear deal, North Korea promised to shut down and seal
its main nuclear reactor in Yongbon and allow international nuclear
inspectors back into the country within 60 days in return for 50,000
tons of heavy fuel.

The North will receive an additional 950,000 tons of fuel oil if it
``irreversibly'' disables its nuclear-related facilities. A new
round of the six-nation talks is scheduled to begin on March 19.

The pro-government Uri Party, however, is wary of the GNP's shifting
party stance on North Korea, describing the move as a political
gambit to win the upcoming presidential election in December.

``Being conscious of the presidential election, the GNP is just
trying to show that it is making a change in its attitude toward
North Korea,'' Uri Chairman Chung Sye-kyun said. ``In that context,
we question their sincerity.''

Rep. Chang Young-dal, floor leader of the Uri Party, demanded that
the GNP make a clear stance on the government's engagement policy
toward the North known as the ``sunshine policy'' initiated by
former President Kim Dae-jung.

``The GNP should first apologize for its past wrongdoings regarding
the North Korean issues because it has been continuously denouncing
the peace agreement made in the first summit talks between the two
Koreas,'' said Chang.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 03-15-2007 20:04
  
*****************************************************************
 17 Herald Bulletin: EDITORIAL: Strengthen sunshine laws

Published March 15, 2007 06:56 pm - 

EDITORIAL: Strengthen sunshine laws

How accessible should government activity and records be to the
public? That’s a question most media outlets are asking during
Sunshine Week, a week of advocacy for public accountability.

If you’re a government official, you might say that the state needs
to keep some things under wraps and out of reach from the public.
Those on the other side will say no, the sun needs to shine in and
illuminate actions by elected officials to keep them honest and
accountable.

“Information is the currency of democracy,” said Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed, the more that is kept secret, the less we all know. Being a
newspaper, it is vital for us to be able to obtain information so
that our readers and citizens can make informed decisions on how
government works.

Government always seems to find a way of keeping information from
the public eye. It’s up to lawmakers to prevent this, to keep
information and activity easily accessible to the public.

There are some laws currently pending at the state and federal level
to make access easier for the media and citizens.

A bill was introduced at the General Assembly that would make serial
meetings illegal, as they should be. Serial meetings occur when
government officials break up into smaller groups — groups that
don’t, therefore, constitute a quorum — and discuss public business.

This happened when Bob Knight was fired from Indiana University in
2000, and, incredibly, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that serial
meetings were acceptable but violated the spirit on the open-door
law, first passed in 1977. We commend this session of the General
Assembly for trying to thwart this shady practice.

At the federal level, the House of Representatives has introduced
bills to counter the secrecy of the Bush administration. For
example, two of the bills would offer whistle-blower protection and
make it harder for presidents to withhold presidential records.

Indiana’s Sen. Richard Lugar and Rep. Mike Pence have both sponsored
legislation for a federal shield law, which would protect the
identity of media sources. Lugar, while seemingly wary of reporters’
motives, nevertheless understands what they do is valuable.

“Some would think, for example, that the conduct of reporters raises
questions as to what sort of people they are and how they are
conducting themselves. I understand all that. But the ideal we’re
seeking hasn’t really changed.”

The ideal of which he speaks is no less than the maintenance of our
democracy. If we allow secrecy in government, we open the door to
tyranny, and the rights we hold so dear would vanish.

We have to know what our government agencies are doing because their
actions affect our lives and determine if our liberties are
maintained.

The Knoxville News Sentinel recently filed suit against 20 members
of the Knox County Commission, alleging they conducted private deals
before appointing new members. In an editorial, the newspaper cited
much reader interest in the lawsuit.

We urge citizens all over to hold their public officials
accountable. When darkness settles over decision making, abuse runs
rampant. We join with the nation this week in advocating for
transparency in government.


© 2007, The Herald Bulletin
1133 Jackson St.; Anderson, IN 46016
(765) 622-1212; Email news tips and feedback
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Missile Defense Chief Visits Berlin 

From the Associated Press

Thursday March 15, 2007 10:16 AM

By DAVID McHUGH Associated Press Writer

BERLIN (AP) - The head of the U.S. missile defense program stressed
Thursday that plans to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland would
protect Europe as well as the United States from an attack from Iran
- and are not aimed at Russia, despite Moscow's complaints.

``This in no way, shape or form threatens the Russian missile
fleet,'' Lt. Gen. Henry Obering told journalists in Berlin. ``The
numbers don't add up.''

The interceptor base, along with a proposed radar in the Czech
Republic, would be in the wrong place to stop Russian missiles,
Obering said. In addition, there are only a small number of
interceptors while Russia had thousands of nuclear weapons.

Obering is in Europe to counter what he called ``consternation and
misinformation on the part of some nations'' since the announcement
that Poland and the Czech Republic were entering into talks about
hosting the bases.

Russian officials have sharply criticized the plans, and the head of
Russia's missile forces suggested Moscow could target the bases in
Eastern Europe. German officials have said the U.S. did not
sufficiently consult with the Russians, a charge U.S. officials deny.

Obering said that, with a radar in Britain and another planned in
Greenland, the U.S. will be able to detect incoming missiles from
Iran headed for the United States, but not toward European allies or
U.S. troops based in Europe.

The additional eastern European bases ``would protect our allies and
friends as well as the United States from what we see to be a very
serious threat emerging from Iran, a very aggressive missile
development program there.''

German officials said they welcomed Obering's visit and a chance to
talk over the status of the U.S. missile defense plans. He was to
visit the ministries of defense and foreign affairs.

Obering held similar talks with officials in Ukraine; there are no
plans to put any part of the missile defense system in Ukraine, but
U.S. officials have said that Ukrainian industry might be invited to
cooperate on the military project.

From Berlin, Obering heads to France, where leaders have raised
concerns that such a system could hurt European ties with the
Russians.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Tories seek to exploit split on nuclear policy 

Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Thursday March 15, 2007

The Conservatives yesterday began to exploit Labour divisions 
over the nuclear deterrent, as William Hague showered praise on 
the plans for renewal. Tory support ensured the government won 
the vote. But the shadow foreign secretary undermined ministers' 
arguments that the motion was not an irreversible commitment, 
seeking to highlight splits within Labour and goad more MPs into 
rebelling.

Ministers fear the Conservatives will claim in future that 
Britain is only safe because Tories supported renewal.

"The phrase in the motion...barely does justice to what is being 
decided here: building an entire new class of ballistic missile 
submarines, along with updating of our Trident missile force, 
which together represent the single most important and expensive 
procurement of coming decades," Mr Hague told the Commons. 
"Unless there are some fundamental and utterly unexpected changes 
in world affairs, this is the decision to replace our nuclear 
deterrent for another generation."

He warned that abandoning it would be "a national act of folly",
adding: "The long-term threat to the peace of the world from nuclear
weapons has changed but not necessarily diminished...The risks of
not [replacing it] far outweigh the difficulty and expense of doing
so."

Mr Hague's remarks were in contrast to arguments from a string of
Labour rebels, including four former government members who resigned
to vote against the motion. Nigel Griffiths, former deputy leader of
the house, urged colleagues to be "leaders of peace" and argued that
the billions of pounds required for renewal could be better spent on
other defence needs and combating climate change.

Margaret Beckett, foreign secretary, opened the debate by insisting
that the vote was not an irreversible commitment to a new programme,
echoing Tony Blair's olive branch earlier.

She said: "It is the decision of principle that we are being
required to make today. It is inevitably the case that there will be
future discussions and there will be decisions down the road as the
programme proceeds."

But she added that rejecting the motion would be a decision by
default, preventing the completion of a new system before Trident
reached the end of its life. "Let us be clear what we are not doing.
We are not upgrading the capability of the system. We are not
producing more usable weapons. We are not changing our nuclear
posture or doctrine...And we have not lowered the threshold for the
use of nuclear weapons," she said. The costs of the new system would
be almost identical to those of Trident and would not come at the
expense of other defence spending.

Mrs Beckett also dismissed suggestions that the policy was contrary
to the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty as "complete and utter
rubbish", reminding them of plans to cut the UK's operationally
available warheads from 200 to less than 160 and highlighting
previous progress on disarmament.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, former shadow foreign secretary, reminded Labour
colleagues that their old policy of unilateral disarmament had been
electorally disastrous. "Defeat of the government tonight could so
reduce our party's credibility as to contribute to a Labour defeat
at the next election," he warned.

But Jon Trickett, who tabled the rebel amendment, said the
government had used "specious" arguments and failed to make a
convincing case for taking the decision now.

"It's extraordinary that we should unilaterally be deciding to
effectively begin the process of rearmament within weeks of a
legally binding obligation to begin multilateral negotiations around
non-proliferation."

Conservative MP Michael Ancram, former shadow foreign and defence
secretary, broke with his party by warning that the decision was
premature. He called for an independent review and report on all the
options.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, claimed the
prime minister and the chancellor were pushing ahead with the
decision so that it was made before the handover of power to Gordon
Brown.

But both the Tory chairman of the defence select committee, James
Arbuthnot, and his Labour predecessor, Bruce George, said they were
reluctant supporters of the need for the nuclear deterrent.

Conservative Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former foreign secretary, said
nuclear weapons had deterred the Soviet Union from conventional
warfare during the cold war, because of the risk of escalation, and
in future it could deter rogue states who might otherwise harbour
terrorists.

Closing the debate, Des Browne, defence secretary, told MPs: "While
right now there is no country with both the intent and capability
for a nuclear threat...that may re-emerge. Indeed, recent
developments suggest it is not just a possibility but a very real
risk."

The Labour rebels

Diane Abbott, John Austin, Anne Begg, Joe Benton, Roger Berry, Karen
Buck, Richard Burden, Colin Burgon, Ronnie Campbell, Martin Caton,
David Chaytor, Katy Clark, Charles Clarke, Harry Cohen, Michael
Connarty, Frank Cook, Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Cousins, Jon Cruddas, Ann
Cryer, John Cummings, Ian Davidson Janet Dean, Jim Devine, Jim
Dobbin, Frank Dobson, Frank Doran, David Drew, Clive Efford, Jeff
Ennis, Bill Etherington, Mark Fisher, Paul Flynn, Michael Jabez
Foster, Neil Gerrard, Dr Ian Gibson, Roger Godsiff, Nia Griffith,
John Grogan, David Hamilton, Fabian Hamilton, Dai Havard, David
Heyes, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Eric Illsley, Glenda Jackson, Sian
James, Dr Lynne Jones, Peter Kilfoyle, Mark Lazarowicz, David
Lepper, Tony Lloyd, Christine McCafferty, John McDonnell, Ann
McKechin, Andrew Mackinlay, David Marshall, Bob Marshall-Andrews,
Michael Meacher, Alan Meale, Austin Mitchell, Julie Morgan, George
Mudie, Chris Mullin, Denis Murphy, Doug Naysmith, Sandra Osborne,
Stephen Pound, Gordon Prentice, Ken Purchase, Linda Riordan, Chris
Ruane, Joan Ruddock, Mohammad Sarwar, Alan Simpson, Marsha Singh,
Dennis Skinner, Andrew Smith, Sir Peter Soulsby, Ian Stewart, Dr
Howard Stoate, Gavin Strang, Graham Stringer, Jon Trickett, Paul
Truswell, Dr Desmond Turner, Rudi Vis, Joan Walley, Robert Wareing,
Betty Williams, David Winnick, Mike Wood, Anthony Wright (Great
Yarmouth).

The following did not support the rebel amendment, but voted against
the government's motion:

Dawn Butler, Colin Challen, Nigel Griffiths, Patrick Hall, James
McGovern, Gwyn Prosser, Emily Thornberry.

The following MPs voted with the government against the rebel
amendment, but abstained on the motion:

Fiona Mactaggart, Martin Salter, Alan Whitehead.

Ten Labour MPs were absent or abstained on both votes:

Gordon Banks, Hugh Bayley, Sir Stuart Bell, Lyn Brown, Michael
Clapham, Ann Clwyd, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Jimmy Hood, Denis MacShane,
Gordon Marsden, Andy Reed.

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear insurance 

| Comment | 

Michael White

Thursday March 15, 2007

For some MPs nuclear weapons are a moral issue and not to be 
countenanced. For others it's about having a seat at the top 
table. But sensible people on both sides yesterday sounded 
pragmatically agnostic about the pros and cons. In the end a 
cross-party majority voted yes to renewing the "insurance policy" 
against threats known and unknown, the settled will of MPs 
throughout the 60-year nuclear era.

It will - in theory - keep Britain in the nuclear club well 
beyond Hiroshima's centenary in 2045.

By then most current MPs - average age 52 - will be dead, nuclear
war or not. The short-term effects of last night's vote will be
visible much sooner, not least in Scotland, where the Trident fleet
is based and serviced. Polls say 76% of Scots voters would prefer
the nuclear billions to be spent on public services. Who wouldn't?

Labour's "gritty realists" insist that is not the real choice. If
Alex Salmond's SNP succeeds in making it so in the May 3 elections,
then wins his promised referendum for independence, Trident (Salmond
would evict it) could help destroy the UK it exists to defend.

All parties manoeuvred yesterday for tactical and strategic
advantage. Demob-happy, Tony Blair wants this decision on his legacy
CV. David Cameron is keen to revive old Labour disunity on this
nostalgic cold war dispute.

In urging postponement to 2012-14 Sir Ming, plus lots of Scots (and
Lord Hattersley), ticked the soft option box. The postponers ask
what happened to the promised public consultation. Why the rush? Why
aren't our subs as durable as US ones? (Des Browne's answer: theirs
cost more). The gritty realists claim they have talked new subs
since 2003, though quietly. Blair/Brown ducked questions in the
election campaign.

Realists also ask if a no vote would impress Iran or North Korea.

Labour learned brutally in the 80s that fellow nuclear clubbers did
not care what we did, ex-CND Margaret Beckett recalled. By giving up
Trident, anti-American MPs would put British security more into US
hands, added William Hague.

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: 95 Labour MPs say no. But Blair gets his missile 

Biggest rebellion on domestic issue since 1997. Vote won thanks 
to Tories

Patrick Wintour
Thursday March 15, 2007
The Guardian

Protesters campaign against the Trident replacement plan. 
Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty

Labour's historic divisions over nuclear weapons came back to haunt
Tony Blair yesterday when 95 Labour backbench MPs rejected his plans
to commence the £20bn renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine
system.

The scale of the rebellion, the largest on a domestic issue since
1997, forced the government to rely on the support of the
Conservatives to win the vote - a political fact that the Tories
will deploy with a vengeance in the next general election.

The move to defer "an early decision on renewal" was defeated by 413
to 167, with 95 Labour rebels joining the Liberal Democrats and
other minority parties. The former home secretary, Charles Clarke,
joined the revolt.

In a separate rebellion, 87 Labour MPs voted against the principle
of the renewal of Trident, with parliament overall voting 409 to 161
for renewal. Ten Labour MPs were absent or abstained. Three more
supported the government in the first vote but abstained on the
second.

A majority of Scottish MPs voted against the government motion,
reflecting greater opposition to renewal north of the border and
concerns that Labour will be punished for its decision at the
elections for Holyrood in May.

Critics claimed Mr Blair had blundered by forcing the issue at the
tail end of his premiership. It is the third time Mr Blair has been
forced to rely on Conservative votes to push his policy through,
following the votes on Iraq in 2003 and school trusts 12 months ago.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "As Blair heads for
the horizon, you see the rise of unreconstructed old Labour. Brown's
certainly going to have his work cut out."

The defence minister Adam Ingram put a brave face on the reverse,
saying: "It is not a bloody nose for the government, this should be
seen as a vote for the national interest, and not about the Labour
party".

The rebellion, even larger than organisers had been predicting, came
despite desperate last-minute efforts by Mr Blair and his cabinet
colleagues, including Gordon Brown, to stem the revolt.

Mr Blair told wavering rebels that although they were being asked in
principle to maintain Britain's independent deterrent, in practice
they were merely being asked to sanction two years' work on the
design and concept phase of the new system. He also contended that
no parliament could bind another, in effect suggesting the final
decision on signing the expensive contracts could be revisited by a
government in 2012-2014, led either by David Cameron or Mr Brown.

The decision to downplay the significance of yesterday's vote came
after Labour whips warned that the rebellion was spiralling out of
control. Some parliamentary aides were told by whips they could miss
the vote rather than rebel and so be forced to resign their posts on
the lowest rung of the government ladder.

Despite the offer to abstain, three parliamentary aides - Jim
Devine, Chris Ruane and Stephen Pound - resigned. They joined Nigel
Griffiths, the deputy leader of the house who quit the government on
Monday. The whips had also warned a backlash had started in response
to a hardline letter sent to Labour MPs from the foreign secretary,
Margaret Beckett.

The letter warned that a big vote against Trident would signal
Labour was returning to the dangerous divisions of the 80s.

The Labour rebellion came from three sources: moral opponents of
nuclear weapons in principle, sceptics that nuclear weapons are
necessary in a post-cold war world and a group that believed the
decision was being taken three years early so Mr Blair could take
the political hit himself rather than his likely successor, Mr Brown.

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Brown 'will keep nuclear arsenal' - 

Thu Mar 15, 6:06 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair's likely successor 
Gordon Brown will not reverse a decision to replace Britain's 
nuclear deterrent, despite dissent in the governing Labour Party, 
a senior party official said on Thursday.

A parliamentary vote on the issue on Wednesday saw 87 Labour
lawmakers vote against government plans to renew the submarine-based
Trident missile system. They were only approved with the help of
opposition conservative votes.

Some 95 from the Labour ranks voted for a separate motion to delay
the decision.

Amid media claims it demonstrated Blair's dwindling authority in his
last months in power, Labour chairwoman Hazel Blears was asked on
BBC radio whether Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown would
pursue the policy when he takes over.

"Absolutely, no doubt whatsoever," said Blears, who is standing for
the centre-left party's deputy leadership.

"It's in the best interests of this country in maintaining our
independent nuclear deterrent, which was in our manifesto at the
last election."

Brown is the front runner to replace Blair when he steps down later
this year.

Wednesday's vote -- which the government won by 409 votes to 161 --
was the largest rebellion by Labour members of parliament since the
March 2003 vote over whether to invade Iraq.

Anti-nuclear campaigners said it demonstrated the groundswell of
opposition to replacing Trident, while commentators said it showed
that Blair was now a "lame duck", as he had to rely on the backing
of the Conservative Party.

Blears put a more positive spin on the result, saying the majority
of Labour's 352 MPs backed the government.

Blair wants to renew the four Vanguard-class submarines that carry
the US-built missiles before they reach the end of their working
life in 2024 and extend the shelf life of the weapons themselves
into the 2050s.

The government claims it would cost 15-20 billion pounds but
opponents say the bill could rise to as much as 100 billion pounds.


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: Britain to remain in nuclear club, but critics question merits -

by Phil Hazlewood Thu Mar 15, 10:33 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Britain is to remain in the global nuclear club after
parliament voted to renew the country's Trident nuclear deterrent
but critics said Thursday its influence over non-proliferation is
diminished.

The vote, in which 87 of Blair's parliamentary Labour colleagues
opposed him and 95 called for a delay in the decision, was also seen
as sign he is leading a divided and less disciplined party that
could spell trouble ahead.

But Labour Party chairwoman Hazel Blears played down the
significance of the dissent and said she had "no doubt whatsoever"
the prime minister's likely successor, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Gordon Brown, would pursue the policy.

The decision comes amid growing global concerns over nuclear
proliferation, with Iran suspected of trying to build a bomb and an
international effort to persuade North Korea to dismantle its
nuclear arsenal.

In the fall-out from Britain's latest crunch vote, Blears rejected
suggestions on Thursday that Blair was a "lame duck" with dwindling
authority.

"The issue of nuclear weapons has always been an incredibly
emotional decision in the Labour Party, but even on this issue, a
majority of Labour backbenchers did support this decision," she told
BBC radio.

"I think any Labour leader would have found themselves in exactly
the same position, Tony Blair or whoever else."

The Financial Times agreed, saying strong views were always expected
-- unilateral nuclear disarmament was party policy in the 1980s --
and a cliff-hanging result was never likely because of Conservative
Party support.

It also assessed that Blair, who is expected to resign in the coming
months, may have done Brown a favour by tackling the issue now.

"If Mr Brown had been forced to renew Trident early in his
premiership, a Labour rebellion could have been highly damaging," it
added.

The Labour rebellion was the largest since the March 2003 vote on
whether to invade Iraq and the issue is unlikely to go away.

The FT quoted one unnamed Labour MP criticising the lack of
consultation on the matter: "If Gordon thinks he can run the
parliamentary party like this over the next few years he'd better
think again."

And left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell, who is hoping to stand
against Brown in a leadership election, warned: "This is only the
beginning of the campaign against Trident's replacement."

"The scale of this rebellion clearly demonstrates that the prime
minister has completely misjudged the overwhelming mood in the
party."

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) pointed to the wider
implications of the decision, which means Britain can begin
preparations to replace the four nuclear submarines that carry the
US-built missiles.

CND has led protests against Trident, arguing among other things
that it will increase proliferation at a time when Britain is
opposed to states like Iran and North Korea obtaining atomic weapons.

Blair last December justified the decision for Britain to retain its
nuclear deterrent on the grounds that North Korea, Iran and other
states were pursuing the bomb, after India and Pakistan joined the
nuclear club a few years ago.

The leader of the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats, Menzies
Campbell, has also questioned the extent of Britain's future role in
non-proliferation talks in 2010.

"A hasty decision to replace Trident is bound to undermine our
ability to have influence at the conference in 2010," he told Blair
on Wednesday.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Arbiter Online: Looking ahead: Hans Blix lectures on diplomacy - 

SONIA TREVIZO News Writer

Issue date: 3/15/07 Section: News

Media Credit: Courtesy University News Services

The Distinguished Lecture Series at Boise State University moves for
the first time to the Morrison Center for a lecture by Hans Blix,
the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Monday, March 12.
The lecture series has presented free lectures in the Student Union
Jordan Ballroom several times a year since 2001. According to BSU
president Bob Kustra these lectures are a part of the intricate
learning that goes on here at BSU.

Blix&rsquo;s lecture discussed the present state of affairs in Iraq
and the possibilities for preventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction in the future.

Hans Blix spent his early career as a Swedish diplomat, from 1962 to
1978. He served as Swedish foreign minister from 1978 to 1979, and
then chaired the Swedish Liberal Party&rsquo;s campaign during the
1980 referendum on nuclear power. He was also named the director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1981. Blix led
efforts to uncover stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction during
the build-up to the U.S.-led invasion March 20, 2003.

Blix advocated setting an example by moving away from weapons of
mass destruction instead of developing them.
Even though it is said that diplomacy is often ridiculed and that
diplomats think twice before saying nothing, Blix urged diplomacy
over war to resolve this issue. The disarmament of weapons of mass
destruction would then reduce the possibility of nuclear war,
whether by force or by accident. Although he claimed not to be a
pacifist he said he would rather have old men sitting around a
conference table get ulcers than have young men die in the
battlefield.

&ldquo;One of my worst fears is that weapons will land in the worst
hands,&rdquo; Blix said. He believes that increasing interdependence
among states is needed for cooperation, which would then make
conflicts less likely. In response to those who say nuclear weapons
should be used on terrorists, Blix said,
&ldquo;Using nuclear weapons on terrorists is like shooting
mosquitoes with a cannon.&rdquo;

&ldquo;I felt that he was very fair-minded. He gave us credit were
credit was due but he also pointed out mistakes that have been made
by our country,&rdquo; student Jared Neal said. Blix concluded the
lecture by quoting that the U.N. is there not to bring us to Heaven
but to help us avoid going to Hell.

After his work in Iraq he wrote the book &ldquo;Disarming
Iraq,&rdquo; published in 2004. Blix said,

 &ldquo;There was another option for the states that wished to take
armed action against Iraq in the spring of 2003. They could have
heeded the [U.N Security] Council&rsquo;s requests for more time for
inspection. Instead, a greater price was paid for this action: in
the compromised legitimacy of the action, in the damaged credibility
of the governments pursuing it, and in the diminished authority of
the United Nations.&rdquo;

* Arbiter Alumni

© The Arbiter Online, All Rights Reserved
The Arbiter, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr, Boise, 
ID, 83706 The Arbiter 208.345.8204 Fax 208.426.3884 Advertising 
208.345.8204 (ext.) 118 Feedback? Send a Letter to the Editor | 
Online Editor Powered by College Publisher






*****************************************************************
 25 Guardian Unlimited : This is nuclear madness
Comment is free: 

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Caroline Lucas

The cost of yesterday's decision on Trident will be counted in lives
lost as much as pounds squandered.

March 15, 2007 11:30 AM | Printable version

Yesterday's decision to replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons
system is illegal, immoral, obscenely expensive and utterly
irrelevant to the real security threats we face today.

These are just the headlines: in fact it gets even worse. Replacing
Trident won't just violate the UK's commitments under the UN nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (of which we are, supposedly, a proud
signatory) - it will undermine it by persuading other countries to
breach it too.

That can only lead to increased nuclear proliferation, and boost the
chances that nuclear weapons will be used in time of war (and we all
know resource scarcity, the principle cause of war, is getting worse
in almost every case). More nuclear weapons in the world will mean
an increased chance that they will be acquired by terrorists or
other non-state actors entirely outside the reach of the
international community. In short, today's decision directly
increases the risk that thousands will die as a result of nuclear
weapons.

Voting in favour of replacing Trident is a shameful waste of
billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and it sends out a deadly
signal to the rest of the world: "we don't care about nuclear
proliferation, so neither should you".

The non-proliferation treaty prohibits the development of new
nuclear weapons, and calls for the progressive decommissioning of
existing ones.

And if the UK is prepared to flout it, why - either morally or
legally - shouldn't the Iranians, or anyone else?

Diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon plans to develop a
nuclear programme are almost doomed to fail as long as we continue
to develop ours, and as long as we encourage the use of nuclear
energy in "responsible" states.

And this at a time when the European commission has warned that
nuclear proliferation is the biggest security threat we face:
yesterday's decision is truly nuclear madness.

The government's support for new nuclear weapons looks to be
approved - but perhaps at the cost of the cohesion of the Labour
party. The vote could only have been passed thanks to the support of
pro-nuclear Tory MPs. The government endured Commons rebellion on an
enormous scale, and the issue has already claimed more than one
ministerial scalp.

Nuclear disarmament isn't the only 1997 pre-election promise Labour
has ignored and then abandoned - but it's probably the most
dangerous and wasteful.

Look at it another way: the government's support for Trident is yet
another example of its failure to grasp the urgency of climate
change too. Imagine if its anticipated Â£76bn costs were invested in
energy conservation and renewable energy generation - we might
actually have a chance of cutting CO2 levels sufficiently to stave
off the worst impacts of climate change.

Instead, we are left with an obscenely expensive white elephant that
is likely to make the world a more dangerous place - at best it is
utterly irrelevant to the real security threats we face, chief among
them climate change, and a missed opportunity to invest the
resources in tackling them.

Whatever the historians end up saying, the immediate cost of this
decision looks likely to be measured in lives lost as well as pounds
squandered.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited : A foregone conclusion

Comment is free: 

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Neal Lawson

The sham consultation on Trident has been made worse by the
government's unconvincing case for renewal.

March 15, 2007 2:00 PM | Printable version

The result of the vote to replace Trident missiles was as
predictable as it was disappointing for the country and damaging to
Labour. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had decided long before the
consultation that Trident would be renewed and when David Cameron
gave them his backing the decision became a formality. But the way
the decision was reached and the implications of the actual vote for
the future of British politics will be far reaching.

As ever in politics, its not so much what you do but how you do it
that matters. Means matter at least as much as ends. Although
parliament was given a formal vote the process has left a bad taste
in the nation's mouth. First, the two leading players, Blair and
Brown, had decided long ago that Britain was going to renew Trident.
Brown made his decision clear on 21 June last year in his ill-fated
Mansion House speech. Many close to him were thought to have been
dismayed. Brown himself is said to have regretted the unilateral
nature of the announcement. Evidence is emerging that Blair may
already have agreed with George Bush in secret that Trident would
have been replaced. Echoes of course of Iraq, made more telling by
the uncertainty and murkiness of the attorney general's advice on
whether a go ahead to renew, put Britain at odds with its
non-proliferation obligations.

So when the consultation was launched everyone knew it was a sham. A
sham made worse by the paucity of the government's subsequent case
for renewal. Des Brown, the defence minister, who seems like a nice
guy, was left floundering on the Today programme yesterday, unable
to specify any threat and left hankering back to the 1980s and
Labour's loss of credibility then. But that was the era of the long
gone cold war when the case for Trident was strong. "New Labour" is
locked and sealed in a 25-year-old past when the rest of the world
has moved on. It is generals and majors fighting the last war. New
Labour, on this issue as many others, confirms its position as
neither new nor Labour.

We know why the decision was made now, on 14 march 2007, rather than
two or three years time and still a dozen years before the existing
missiles end their life: because Tony Blair is being forced out of
No 10 in a few short weeks. Labour is being locked into the Blair
legacy. It means the country will waste a huge amount of money on a
new missile system, the value of which has not been proven. The
military will be denied funds to fight the real threats of the 21st
century. Social spending will be cut back. Britain will be
hypocrites going into future non-proliferation talks. We will be
further tied to the foreign policy whims of the USA. None of this
was necessary, at least not yet, and not through a decision that was
made before the country was "consulted".

The country might have felt better if there hadn't been a vote at
all and it had just been imposed without treating voters and party
members like idiots. But why wasn't huge opposition mobilised on the
streets - like the Iraq war? Because people aren't stupid, they know
now that "their leaders" now never listen. So democracy dies another
death. Cynicism and the political disconnect grows a little more.
Our ability to change our country, making it a little fairer and
more humane takes a backward step. Is this really what New Labour
MPs want?

The Trident vote, like those on Iraq and education reforms means
that on key issues Britain is now being governed by a New Labour
Conservative coalition. This is constitutionally unprecedented. For
Labour it means winning the next election just got much harder. New
Labour has lost 4m votes since 1997 and stands at 29% in polls. Over
half the membership has left and the party is Â£24m in debt while
facing a revived and clever Tory leadership. How can Brown now
condemn David Cameron when the Tory leader has again ridden to his
rescue? Like Iraq, this will run and run. There is no consensus in
the country or the Labour party for renewal. It's another dodgy
decision. The issue of weapons of mass destruction will dog the
future Labour leader as the war has rightly dogged Blair.

The vote and the way the consultation was handled will be another
nail in the Labour party's coffin. More members will leave or just
give up caring. This matters, not just because we need troops to win
the next election but also because to transform the country requires
a political movement capable of overcoming the forces of
conservatism in the media and big business. A hollowed out Labour
party cannot do this. That is why Tony Blair has never cared about
the future of the Labour party - it was just a vehicle for his
personal power.

But there is always a silver lining in politics. The Rethink Trident
campaign that Compass and its parliamentary chair, Jon Trickett MP,
who tabled the rebel amendment, coordinated, ran a new political
campaign. The right ground was picked, not unilateralism but the
need for a proper and considered national rethink. Then an amazing
coalition of forces was assembled in civil society; amongst faith,
military and diplomatic leaders, defence academics, unions, other
political parties and cultural icons who were signed up in droves.
Compass reached out to modern, progressive Britain and it led to the
biggest ever rebellion on a domestic issue with 95 Labour MPs
showing that you can be modern and centre-left.

The Labour party now faces a massive test - not least where the real
competition is - for a new deputy leader and the chance to renew
itself. Last night only one deputy leader candidate, Jon Cruddas MP,
voted for the rethink position. Thousands of Labour party members
and trade unionists will bear this in mind when they hear the other
candidates talk about listening and reconnecting with party members.
The vote was lost, but for Labour things will never be the same
again.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited : When would Gordon push the button?

Comment is free: 

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Stephen Pullinger

The Trident debate leaves a vital question unresolved: under what
circumstances would be use nuclear weapons?

March 15, 2007 5:00 PM | Printable version

When Gordon Brown becomes prime minister he will be handed the
launch codes that will enable him to unleash Britain's own version
of Armageddon. He will inherit four Trident submarines and an
arsenal of 160 warheads equivalent in nuclear firepower roughly to
1,000 Hiroshima bombs - a weapon that alone killed 65,000 people
instantly and subsequently many thousands more.

The main debating point in parliament yesterday was whether or not
Britain should replace Trident. But serious focus should now be
trained upon Britain's nuclear doctrine - particularly the
circumstances in which Trident might actually be used.

Before long, Mr Brown can expect to be asked whether he would be
prepared to press the nuclear button. If he replies that he would
never do so, Trident's continued deployment becomes pointless. If he
says yes, the next question is when? He will probably reply that he
needs to retain a high degree of ambiguity about this in order to
keep our adversaries guessing.

This is understandable up to a point. But not if such ambiguity is
deployed in order to lower the nuclear threshhold, as the Defence
Committee has warned that it might: something that would also have
major repercussions for our nuclear non-proliferation policies.

Britain's current nuclear doctrine is a product of the Cold War,
when the basic premise was that the Soviets were deterred from
invading Western Europe through threat of nuclear retaliation. If
the massive Red Army had proved unstoppable through conventional
means alone, Nato might have had to use nuclear weapons first. And
even if Nato's resolve failed, the Kremlin would still have known
that Britain might be prepared to flatten Moscow with nuclear
missiles rather than accept military defeat. Of course, any British
prime minister authorising the use of nuclear weapons against the
Soviet Union would have brought about mutual assured destruction
(MAD).

We cannot prove whether deterrence worked in Europe, but we can see
when it does not. In 1982, for instance, non-nuclear-armed Argentina
rightly calculated that Britain would not retaliate against its
invasion of the Falkland Islands by nuking Buenos Aires. Britain's
nuclear weapons lacked deterrent credibility because their use would
have been disproportionate and brought widespread international
opprobrium upon Britain - far beyond that heaped on Argentina for
its initial invasion.

Today Britain no longer faces a hostile nuclear superpower with
ambitions to threaten our national survival. Surely, then, Gordon
Brown would never need even to contemplate using Trident? In which
case, one might expect Britain's nuclear doctrine to have been
adapted to reflect this. But it hasn't.

At first glance the wording of the doctrine does sound reassuring.
The Trident White Paper in December last year states that Britain
would only consider using nuclear weapons "in self-defence" and even
then only in "extreme circumstances". Whether such use was legal
"would depend upon the circumstances and the application of the
general rules of international law".

Yet the government also explicitly continues to rule out the first
use of Britain's nuclear weapons and is now highlighting the virtue
of deploying warheads of lower yield to make Trident a "more
credible deterrent against smaller nuclear threats". But "more
credible" can also mean "more usable".

The government is also now trying to extend deterrence to cover the
possible transfer of a nuclear device from state to non-state actor.
If that device is then used against Britain's vital interests, and
we can prove the original source, the supplier state can expect a
"proportionate response". This is fair enough. But to believe that
this response could involve nuclear retaliation - perhaps weeks
after the event, and justified on forensic analysis of fissile
material at Aldermaston - is stretching credulity too far.

In an era of pre-emptive war fighting, the wording of Britain's
nuclear doctrine provides considerable leeway. Nobody seriously
thinks that Britain is planning to launch a pre-emptive nuclear
strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, but arguably such an
attack would be compatible with current doctrine. Israel may take
its cue from Britain here.

This dissection of doctrinal terminology also really matters in the
wider non-proliferation context. The nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), currently under severe strain, is predicated on a
bargain between those permitted to keep nuclear weapons - pending
disarmament - and those who agree to forgo them. Part of the deal is
that those with nuclear weapons should not exploit that privilege by
seeking military advantage over non-possessors.

In this respect Britain has provided a political commitment not to
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed states. Disturbingly,
the government omitted to mention this "negative security assurance"
in its recent White Paper. Why?

Under international law it is extremely difficult to envisage how
Gordon Brown could use Britain's nuclear weapons in a way that was
compatible with the humanitarian principles to which he subscribes.
The government has repeatedly made clear the important distinction
between targeting despotic regimes, rather than the people they
subjugate. Trident is a blunt instrument of death and destruction,
unable to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Until multilateral disarmament is achieved, Trident's sole purpose
should be confined to negating any threat posed by other nuclear
weapons. Any role beyond that will undermine Britain's
non-proliferation objectives. The circumstances in which Britain
might be prepared to use Trident need to be drawn more tightly. When
Gordon Brown assumes his right to launch Trident this must be
matched with a new obligation to further reduce the prospect that he
ever would.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 28 APP:  Zannoni Speaks Out  on Oyster Creek
 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:14:27 -0800


<x-flowed>
NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek


          *Posted by the Asbury Park Press <http://www.app.com/> on
          03/15/07*

BY DENNIS ZANNONI

Story ChatPost Comment 
<http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070315&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=703150425&SectionCat=&Template=printart#comments>

Since being removed as the chief nuclear engineer for New Jersey, I have 
had some time to reflect on my removal, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. ("DEP 
yanks staffer who monitors Oyster Creek," Feb. 25.)

I made my decision to go public about the NRC and Oyster Creek while 
reflecting on the life of my dad, a World War II veteran and 50-year 
business owner, who died Feb. 15. I knew he would have told me that my 
job security was secondary to protecting the health and safety of the 
public.

The NRC's role in this process should be put in proper context. It is 
just one of many factors that need to be considered. The overall 
decision rests with Gov. Corzine and the citizens of New Jersey.

To arrive at the right decision, the following areas must be addressed: 
economic impact, need for power, employment impact, security, emergency 
preparedness, spent fuel storage and accidents, property taxes, site 
cleanup, plant safety, plant performance, plant condition, environmental 
impacts, future site use, AmerGen (the plant operator), the NRC, new 
reactors, plant location, public opposition, public support and accident 
insurance.

But those of us involved in the state Department of Environmental 
Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering assumed that the NRC would be 
more open-minded toward our involvement since Oyster Creek was going to 
be the first nuclear power plant to operate more than 40 years. We were 
wrong. Judge for yourself.

We asked the NRC to conduct meetings near Oyster Creek to educate the 
public about the NRC license renewal process. The process is difficult 
to understand. The NRC had one meeting more than two years ago.

We asked the NRC to conduct public hearings in the vicinity of Oyster 
Creek so the public would have an opportunity to provide input to the 
license renewal. The NRC told us to submit "legal contentions" if we 
wanted a hearing.

We submitted three "legal contentions" after reviewing more than 2,000 
pages of material within the 90-day NRC-mandated review period. The NRC 
rejected all three.

We asked the NRC to transcribe the NRC license renewal audit team exit 
meeting so the public's input would be recorded. The NRC said no.

We asked the NRC staff to change the NRC Audit Report issuance date, 
which was backdated eight months by the NRC. The staff said no. We 
contacted NRC attorneys, who issued the document with the correct date.

We asked the NRC to repeat a one-time NRC license renewal site 
inspection because the NRC failed to meet the requirements of the 
NRC/State Inspection Agreement during the inspection. The NRC said no.

We asked the NRC to go public with the discovery of water in the 
drywell. The NRC said no, so we went public ourselves.

We have been asking the NRC for three years to allow us to review the 
NRC analysis for a spent fuel pool accidents from airplanes. The NRC has 
this analysis. The NRC originally said we could review this analysis, 
but we needed special security clearance. We obtained the required 
security clearance last year and again requested to see the NRC 
analysis. The NRC said no.

Only two major changes have occurred to the Oyster Creek license renewal 
application since it was submitted. First, major revisions occurred as a 
result of New Jersey citizens' drywell contention. Second, major 
revisions occurred due to the inclusion of the combustion turbines into 
the application. This was raised by the state. No significant changes 
occurred as a result of the NRC.

We asked the NRC to put missing technical documents referenced in the 
license renewal application on the public record. The NRC promised it 
would, but never did.

We requested that the NRC consider security and emergency preparedness 
issues in its review of Oyster Creek. The NRC said no.

We hired our own expert to review the effects of water in the drywell, 
since we lacked confidence in the NRC.

We asked the NRC to consider the comments we submitted to the NRC 
concerning the Oyster Creek License Renewal Safety Evaluation Report. 
The NRC ignored all of our comments.

We, along with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and numerous 
New Jersey citizens, submitted comments to the NRC concerning the NRC 
Oyster Creek License Renewal Environmental Impact Statement. The NRC 
ignored the comments.

Corzine asked an NRC commissioner to hire an independent body to 
determine if Oyster Creek can operate another 20 years. The commissioner 
told the governor that the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 
would meet his request.

This committee is neither independent nor objective. Its members are NRC 
employees and they spend little time reviewing the information. They 
never visited the site. They have never identified any problems with any 
of the license renewal applications they reviewed. This expert panel did 
not identify any issue on its own. It did not meet the governor's request.

We asked the NRC to address the NRC control room habitability safety 
issue for Oyster Creek, which is still unresolved. The NRC said no. This 
real safety issue has no deadline, but the license renewal process must 
be completed within 1 1/2 years — no matter what.

The NRC recently completed its year-end review of Oyster Creek. The 
plant took almost an hour to declare an alert emergency level more than 
two years ago and the NRC has still not resolved it. I was on this 
inspection and I have followed this issue closely. This is another 
example of the NRC failing to do its job.

/Dennis Zannoni, Florence, is the former chief nuclear engineer in the 
state Department of Environment
/
</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 Protect Vulnerable Communities
 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:24:51 -0500 (CDT)


March 15, 2007

Protect Vulnerable Communities from Accidents and Terrorist Attacks
Act Now: http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6908.

Recent government studies show that contrary to the NRC's long-held view, high-density spent fuel storage facilities at reactor sites around the country ARE vulnerable to terrorism and accidents.  A radiological release from a spent fuel pool accident could be catastrophic, contaminating thousands of square miles of land for decades.  

These impacts could be avoided by implementing readily-available alternatives, such as combined low-density pool storage and hardened dry storage of spent fuel.

Yet the NRC ignores these government studies.   

In a petition for rulemaking, the Massachusetts Attorney General has asked the NRC to analyze, in its licensing decisions, the environmental impacts of accidents and terrorist attacks at high-density spent fuel storage pools, and to consider a reasonable range of mitigation measures, such as low-density pool storage and hardened dry storage of spent fuel.  

Tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Evaluate the Environmental Impacts of Attacks and Accidents at Spent Fuel Storage: http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6908.

Thank you for your fast action. 

Michele Boyd
Legislative Director
Public Citizen's Energy Program

_______________________________________

Stay informed and speak out when it counts. Sign up for newsletters and alert from Public Citizen. Go to: http://action.citizen.org/signUp.jsp.

This message was sent to map@PENCIL.MATH.MISSOURI.EDU, if you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from Public Citizen in the future, please go to: http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp
/*Your email ID. <diaEmailID='302831927' thread=5566/>--*/
*****************************************************************
 30 ajc.com: Activists get tiny voice in nuclear hearings 

By MARGARET NEWKIRK The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 03/16/07

Georgia environmental groups will have a seat at the legal table 
as Southern Co.'s Georgia Power tries to get federal permits for 
two new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle near Augusta.

But it isn't much of one.

A three-judge Atomic Safety Licensing Board handling Southern 
Co.'s nuclear expansion application ruled Thursday that six 
environmental groups can have legal standing in the process of 
permitting Southern Co.'s new reactors.

But the groups will only be able to argue about the effect new 
plants could have on fish and water quality in the Savannah 
River.

The board refused to grant them legal standing to argue about a 
range of other issues, including broader public energy policy and 
the continuing lack of a permanent place to store the nation's 
nuclear waste.

"We've got a pinkie finger in the door," said Sara Barczak, of 
the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

The groups are the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Atlanta 
WAND, Savannah Riverkeeper, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Blue 
Ridge Environmental Defense League and Turner Environmental Law 
Clinic.

Southern Co.'s proposed reactors are part of a wave of similar
planned projects across the country, particularly in the South.

Barczak said other environmental challengers have fared worse.

Challengers ended up with no legal standing in the process of
permitting new nukes in Mississippi. In Virginia, they were limited
to arguments related to the effects new nuclear plants would have on
just one kind of fish.

Georgia Power does "not believe the intervenors have identified
genuine issues of fact or law that are material to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's licensing process," spokesman John Sell said.

"We believe that all relevant issues have been handled appropriately
in the early site permit application," he said. "We'll continue
through the legal process."

ajc.com    Archives    Yellow Pages   

© 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Customer care | Advertise
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Japanese Operator to Allow Reactor Probe

From the Associated Press

Thursday March 15, 2007 8:46 PM

By CHISAKI WATANABE Associated Press Writer

TOKYO (AP) - A nuclear power plant operator agreed Thursday to shut
down a reactor in central Japan for inspection after it acknowledged
a cover-up of an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction eight years
ago.

Hokuriku Electric Power Co. failed to report to authorities that the
self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred for 15 minutes at
the No. 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant in Ishikawa
prefecture in June 1999, the company said. Power companies are
required by law to report such an incident to the government.

``We cannot forgive a cover-up like this,'' Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe told reporters. ``We must ensure safety for nuclear power.''

Three control rods fell by accident during preparations for a
checkup, which caused the reaction, according to the company
statement.

The company reported the accident to authorities Thursday following
a government order late last year for Japanese power companies to
conduct inspections following a series of data cover-ups.

No radiation escaped from the plant and there were no injuries from
the accident, according to Toshiyuki Kadono, an official of the
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, a watchdog group under the
Ministry of Economy, Industry and Trade.

The agency urged the company to shut down the reactor as soon as
possible for safety checkups, and the power company agreed, Kadono
said.

``We are deeply sorry such a serious incident occurred and that we
failed to report it,'' the company said. The incident is not
punishable by the law concerning nuclear reactors, however, because
of a three-year statute of limitations.

The revelation follows similar cases of cover-ups by Japan's power
companies earlier this month involving Tokyo Electric Power Co. and
Tohoku Electric Power Co.

In November, the agency ordered all power companies to conduct
investigations if there have been any data cover-ups or other
problems. Companies have until March 31 to report to the agency.

Resource-poor Japan depends on nuclear power plants for a third of
its energy needs and aims to raise that to nearly 40 percent by 2010.

But the Japanese public has grown increasingly wary of the industry
following a series of safety problems, shutdowns and cover-ups.

In August 2004, five workers at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in
western Japan were killed and six others were injured after a
corroded pipe ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water
and steam. The accident was Japan's worst at a nuclear facility.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 32 Asbury Park Press: NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek - 

Dennis Zannoni

Oyster Creek a danger to county, experts say

Howell, NJ

March 15, 2007

BY PATRICIA A. MILLER Staff Writer

Willie deCamp was on his way up Route 9 north from Waretown on Sept.
11, 2001, shortly after two commercial jets slammed into the World
Trade Center in New York City.

As he passed the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey
Township, he saw three police cars parked in front of the plant's
entrance. Two police officers stood next to each car, their eyes on
the sky.

"Each policeman was armed with a pistol," said DeCamp, who is
chairman of Save Barnegat Bay. "They were standing there just gazing
up at the sky and just praying that Osama didn't have Ocean County
in mind. The expressions on their faces I can still picture."

DeCamp was one of many who spoke out against the relicensing of the
aging nuclear power plant at a "community dialogue" sponsored by the
Ocean County League of Women Voters on Feb. 28.

Roughly 150 people attended the forum, which was held in the Mancini
room of the Ocean County Library in Toms River. Invitations were
sent to every mayor in the county, and federal and state legislators.

Gail Marsh Saxer of the League of Women Voters hand-delivered
invitations to all five Ocean County freeholders.

Two members of the Island Heights Borough Council, Lacey Township
Committeeman David Most, who works for AmerGen, the company that
operates the plant, and Ocean County Planner David J. McKeon were
the only officials who attended the forum.

"We were happy with whoever showed up and disappointed others
didn't," Saxer said after the meeting. "They were all invited."

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will have the final
say in whether the 38-year-old nuclear plant should be allowed to
operate for another 20 years. Oyster Creek's current license expires
on April 9, 2009. The plant was granted its first license on July 2,
1969.

Problems with corrosion and containment

"It is the oldest operating commercial nuclear plant in the
country," said Richard Webster, a staff attorney at the Rutgers
Environmental Law Center. "We believe for a number of reasons that
this plant should not be relicensed for another 20 years."

The plant has an obsolete design and inadequate containment system
that poses significant safety, security, environmental and health
risks for Ocean County, he said.

"We don't have a competent operator or regulator," he said.

Corrosion in the drywell's shell was discovered in the early 1980s,
Webster said.

"By 1992, it was so bad there was very, very severe corrosion," he
said.

Webster disagreed with Oyster Creek's contention that there is an
adequate amount of thickness in the drywell shell, the "claimed
safety margin."

"At best, you have a very small margin," he said. "At worst, you're
below the margin already. The first thing on your mind should be
current safety. Then you think about relicensing."

The plant is vulnerable to an air attack, either from a commercial
jet or a private airplane, said Paul Gunter, the director of the
Reactor Watchdog Project of the Nuclear Information and Resources
Service.

Oyster Creek stores spent fuel rods at the top of the reactor
building, which makes it vulnerable to terrorist attacks and
accidents, Gunter said.

"Off-site storage never happened," he said. "The spent fuel storage
facility is almost full now."

If the water that circulates around the fuel rods ever drained, the
rods would ignite and there would be a "huge" release of
radioactivity, Gunter said.

"Any kind of attack from the air could do that," he said. "It's
simply not true that the plant could stand up to an air attack."

The risk could be reduced if AmerGen would agree to dry cask
storage, which Gunter estimated could cost the company between $30
million and $100 million.

"We are really saying it's the lesser of two evils," he said. "This
has to happen, irrespective of relicensing."

Exelon, AmerGen's parent company, is "pitting its product margins
against your safety and security margins," Gunter said. "Not only do
we have a bad design, a deteriorating safety margin ... we also have
no regulatory control."

Harmful impacts on health, environment

Oyster Creek emits more Strontium 90 in the air than any other
nuclear plant in the country, said Julia L. Huff, the executive
director of the Eastern Environmental Law Center and a specialist in
environmental law and environmental litigation.

"People sometimes forget that nuclear plants have air emissions,"
she said. "These are air emissions that are harmful. The biggest
emitter of this radioactive isotope is Oyster Creek."

The plant uses 1.5 billion gallons of water each day to circulate
through the plant's cooling system. The heated water is discharged
into the Forked River and eventually makes its way into Barnegat
Bay, she said.

The federal Clean Water Act requires that impingement and entrapment
of aquatic life be reduced. The best way to do that is by
closed-cycle cooling towers to reduce the impact on organisms that
live in and around Barnegat Bay, Huff said.

Fish, endangered sea turtles and larvae that are part of the bay's
food chain are often sucked into the system and "cuisinarted" back
out into the bay, Huff said.

The NRC's environmental impact statement on Oyster Creek is based on
"inadequate" information, she said.

"Some of it is 30 to 35 years old," she said.

The installation of cooling towers is not a license renewal issue,
said AmerGen spokesperson Rachelle Benson after the meeting.

"We don't think cooling towers are the right option for Oyster Creek
or Ocean County," Benson said. "We believe that installing cooling
towers would have a far greater risk on the environment than our
current operations, mainly the salt particulates that would come out
of the towers."

Several people questioned how residents within the plant's 10-mile
radius would be able to be evacuated in time, in the event of an
accident or an attack.

Edward Schilling, a 46-year resident of Toms River, noted the number
of military facilities in the area, including Naval Air Engineering
Station Lakehurst, Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base.

"If [the plant] is relicensed we are captives for the next 20
years," he said. "We are at war. What would be a more valuable
target for some of these crazy folks?"

AmerGen representatives were outside the library's meeting room on
Feb. 28 with an information booth, pamphlets and fact sheets.

"Since they didn't ask us to participate, we called the library and
Gail Saxer had asked if we could set up a table to provide the
public with Oyster Creek and nuclear energy information," Benson
said after the meeting.

The forum was a "very one-sided discussion on Oyster Creek," Benson
said. "If they truly wanted to educate the public, they should have
invited experts from the NRC and Oyster Creek, who are nuclear
engineers."

*****************************************************************
 33 DY: Hokurikuden hid accident at N-plant/Criticality in '99 continued for
15 minutes 

DAILY YOMIURI 

Shika Nuclear Power Station is seen in this November 2005 photo.

Hokuriku Electric Power Co., known as Hokurikuden, failed to report
a criticality accident in 1999 at its nuclear power plant in
Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture, in which there was an
uncontrollable chain reaction for 15 minutes, the government and the
power company said Thursday.

On June 18, 1999, three of the 89 control rods inserted from
underneath into the reactor core suddenly slipped out during a
regular checkup at Shika Nuclear Power Station, causing the reactor
to reactivate.

The reactor was not automatically stopped and the chain reaction
lasted for 15 minutes. But the company did not sufficiently inspect
the cause, and failed to keep records of the accident or report it
to the government.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Economy,
Trade and Industry Ministry regarded the incident as critical and
considers the failure to report a violation of the Nuclear Reactor
Regulation Law.

Later Thursday, NISA ordered the company to confirm the reactor's
safety, suspending its operation, if necessary.

The incident started at 2:17 a.m. on June 18, 1999, when workers
were closing water pressure valves so they could move 88 control
rods to confirm whether another rod could be inserted quickly.

Due to operating errors, three of the control rods suddenly slipped
out of the reactor.

The reactor's control system detected the start of criticality--a
nuclear fission chain reaction--and sent signals for an emergency
stop, but the three control rods could not be immediately reinserted.

The reinsertion was made difficult because the necessary numbers of
nitrogen gas tanks--used to pressure the rods into place in the
reactor--had not been prepared.

The critical condition lasted for the 15 minutes it took the workers
to finish reinserting the three control rods by adjusting the valves.

Though the energy output during the accident was less than 1 percent
of the rated figure, the reactor was effectively uncontrollable for
the entire time.

In addition, the covers of the reactor pressure vessel and the
containment vessel had been removed for maintenance, thereby
lowering the reactor's ability to contain radiation.

Nobody was exposed to radiation, however, because there were no
workers near the reactor in the building at the time of the accident.

One of the operating errors stemmed from an erroneous description in
the procedure manual for operating the water pressure control valve.

As the reactor had been reactivated and became critical in an
unpredicted way, NISA concluded the incident was serious and had
been unforeseen, and therefore qualified as a criticality accident.

The accident was discovered during an internal investigation
following recent scandals over nuclear power plants falsifying data.

Shika Nuclear Power Station's Unit No. 1 Reactor began operation in
July 1993. A boiling-water reactor, it has an energy output capacity
of 540,000 kilowatts.

The reactor has emergency equipment that pours boric acid solution,
which can stop nuclear fission, into the reactor core when control
rods cannot be inserted. But during the accident, the equipment was
not used.

The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun
  
*****************************************************************
 34 Daily Yomiuri: Local govts angered by cover-up

Government officials from Ishikawa Prefecture and the town of
Shikamachi expressed anger upon learning the details of a 1999
criticality accident caused by a problem with control rods at the
No. 1 reactor of Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s Shika nuclear power
plant, after company officials tried to cover it up.

Masanobu Kuroda, the head of Shika's nuclear power office, visited
the Shikamachi town government office Thursday morning and explained
what caused the accident to the community safety section chief,
Hitoshi Fujisawa.

"I was shocked to hear the news," Fujisawa said. "It's an accident
that never should have happened. I'd like to hear the explanation
again with the deputy mayor and decide what the town should do on
the issue."

The company employees responsible for the accident visited the
Ishikawa prefectural government at about noon Wednesday, reporting
the details of the incident.

The government requested the company submit detailed data, so the
employees returned the following day at about 10:30 a.m. The
prefectural nuclear power safety measures office said: "Cover-ups
should never happen. We strongly disapprove of their actions."

Kenichi Doshita, 52, who represents a group of plaintiffs in a
lawsuit demanding the Shika nuclear power plant No. 2 be shut down,
said: "It's outrageous that the company hid a potentially lethal
accident, and it's only natural for citizens to think the company is
hiding something more. We're now more distrustful. We don't believe
the company when it says it will disclose information."

In June 2003, supplementary cooling water for a nuclear reactor
leaked from pipes at the No. 1 plant. In April 2006, a crack was
found in one of the control rods.

As for the neighboring No. 2 plant, Kanazawa District Court ordered
the company last March to halt operations because of
earthquake-resistance problems with the building. It was the first
time a commercial nuclear power plant was ordered to stop operations.

The company appealed the decision to a higher court.

© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
 35 MDN: Hokuriku Electric Power covered up nuclear reactor reaching criticality - 

MSN-Mainichi Daily News

KANAZAWA -- Hokuriku Electric Power Co. covered up that a nuclear
reactor reached criticality in 1999 after three of its control rods
accidentally dropped out of position while offline, company
officials announced Thursday.

The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has summoned
Isao Nagahara, president of the power supplier, and instructed him
to order that the reactor be stopped and given a thorough safety
inspection.

The accident occurred in the No. 1 reactor at the company's Shika
Nuclear Power Plant on June 18, 1999, company officials said. Three
of the 89 control rods -- which prevent a nuclear reaction from
occurring -- dropped out of the reactor while it was offline for
inspections. The remaining rods were insufficient to stop the
reaction process, which then reached criticality.

Since the emergency shutdown system was turned off for the
inspection, workers were forced to manually insert the control rods
back into the reactor, shutting down the reactor without any
radiation leakage 15 minutes after the accident.

The covers of the reactor pressure vessel (the main part of the
reactor) and the containment vessel (which prevents radiation
leakage) were open for inspections at the time.

"It was beyond the scope of our assumptions and a grave problem that
the reactor reached criticality while the covers were open," an
agency official said.

He also pointed out that workers should have kept the emergency
shutdown system on while nuclear fuel was still in the reactor, and
will investigate to see if it was illegal to turn off the system.

The agency suspects that three control rods dropped out of the
reactor because workers erroneously operated their control valves.

Failure to report any emergency stop of nuclear reactors to the
government regulator constitutes a violation of the law. However,
the three-year statute of limitations has already run out on the
Hokuriku Electric Power Co. case. (Mainichi)

Tohoku Electric Power failed to report emergency stoppage of nuclear
reactor

March 15, 2007


Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 Houston Chronicle: TXU plans to buy two nuclear reactors | 

Chron.com - 

March 15, 2007, 1:08AM

By TOM FOWLER

TXU plans to purchase at least two new nuclear reactors from 
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which will most likely be installed 
at the Comanche Peak nuclear plant southwest of Dallas.

The nonbinding deal, announced Wednesday by Japan-based 
Mitsubishi, means the company's technology will be used by TXU in 
any future nuclear plants. It wouldn't be until about 2015 at the 
earliest that the new reactors would be permitted, built and 
ready to produce power.

TXU has said previously it plans to build two new reactors at 
Comanche Peak but in a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission this month it said it is also considering two or three 
more at undisclosed sites in Texas.




*****************************************************************
 37 Platts: European nuclear experts split on technical staff shortage impact

Paris (Platts)--15Mar2007

European utility nuclear chiefs and industry experts were split over the
effect of a potential "squeeze" on technical staff in the event of a nuclear
renaissance, when they spoke at the European Nuclear Forum in Paris March
13-14.

     Some speakers felt a lack of experienced nuclear staff could delay plant
built in the event of high demand. The construction of Finland's Olkiluoto-3
nuclear power plant marks the first of a new generation of plants in Europe.

     "We don't have enough technical staff," said Rosario Arroyo Brotons, head
of nuclear energy at Spanish utility Union Fenosa. "Also, we have lost a lot
knowledge that we had some years ago," she said.

     "The young generation are going to study other skills, not nuclear
technology," Ales John, vice president of Czech power group CEZ' generation
division said.

     Currently, two new nuclear power plants are planned in Europe. The 1,600
MW Olkiluoto-3 plant in Finland is due online at start of 2011 and the 1,630
MW Flamanville-3 plant in France is due online in 2012. Worldwide, around 30
plants are under construction. Many countries are also debating new nuclear
build. In Europe, a tightening of CO2 emissions controls and a push towards
power supply security has concentrated the debate over the relevance of
nuclear power. Several European nuclear power plants are due to be phased out
and nuclear power supply will decrease unless new plants are built.

     Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at Oxford University, was more
sceptical about the effect of a tight supply market for nuclear technicians.

     "There have been lots of episodes in the last 50 years in which
particular technologies have needed to ramp up their investment quickly
without the skills. The North Sea [gas] development was done extremely fast in
an industry where most people didn't know how to drill in those waters yet it
was successfully exercised, pretty quickly," Helm said. The speed in which the
Internet moved forward in the 1990s without institutional teaching of the
technology was another example, he said.

STRAIN ON SUPPLY

Demands for labor in other sectors out to 2020 could however put a strain
on the supply of labour for nuclear build, Helm said.

     "The scale of general construction in the power sector across a range of
technologies and, in some European countries, particularly the UK, the scale
of construction activity for roads, houses, new sewers, water systems, the
Olympics etc-these are going to be pretty demanding. General engineering
pressure will be large." 

     "One of the great challenges we see in the deployment of new plants is
the availability of skilled resource," said Nils Breckenridge, Commercial
Director of International Business Development at US nuclear plant vendor
Westinghouse. Training skilled resources around the world was "a major
challenge," he said.

     Westinghouse hired around 800 engineers in 2006 and expected to hire 500
or 600 in 2007, Breckenridge said.

     Project managers for nuclear build projects were in particularly high
demand, Breckenridge added. "To find these skills will be more of a challenge
than the others," he said.

     Given its importance, French nuclear plant builder Areva was aiming for
project management of nuclear plant projects to become "a normal management
process within the company," Frank Apel, Vice President of Sales Development
and Marketing at Areva said. 

     Knowledge would be transferred from experienced project managers down to
the "next-generation", he said. Bearing in mind the recruiting Areva has done
in the last few years, Apel said he was "not really concerned regarding human
resources."
---Robin Sayles, robin_sayles@platts.com

Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 38 Howell Tri Town News: Oyster Creek nixes debate with experts

Front Page March 15, 2007

An environmental expert who challenged AmerGen representatives to 
a debate on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station got a 
speedy answer.

No.

Richard Webster, a staff attorney at the East Environmental Law 
Center and teacher at the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, 
issued the challenge at a Feb. 28 public forum on Oyster Creek 
sponsored by the Ocean County League of Women Voters.

"We'd be happy to have a public debate," he said. "I challenge 
them right now."

AmerGen will not participate in a debate on the plant's 
relicensing, Rachelle Benson, a plant spokeswoman, said after the 
meeting.

The nuclear power plant is in Lacey Township.

"No, we are not going to debate Richard Webster and the people 
who were on the panel," she said. "There is a legal proceeding 
going on. He is the attorney for the anti-nuclear organizations 
who have a contention against our license renewal application."

Gail Marsh Saxer of the League of Women Voters said Ocean County
residents deserve a forum with the Environmental Law Center speakers
and Oyster Creek officials, moderated by a neutral third party.

"Ideally the citizens should hear the speakers we had the other
night who expressed concerns and Oyster Creek officials responding
to those concerns, one at a time," she said.

There have been at least 10 public meetings on Oyster Creek and
license renewal issues, where representatives of both sides have
been able to present their viewpoint, Benson said.

Oyster Creek has many avenues to educate the public, including
community presentations to organizations, senior citizen groups and
plant tours, she said.

"We have a community advisory panel and we meet with them every
other month to give them a plant update," Benson said.

But she declined to release the names of those on the panel, which
was formed in 2004, other than to say they are "key members of the
community."

"It's not a public group," she said. "We went out into the community
and interviewed a lot of people. We selected them from different
organizations and different towns in our 10-mile radius."

Benson said the Feb. 28 community forum on Oyster Creek was
"one-sided," because no plant representatives were invited.

The League of Women Voters has taken an official position against
the plant's relicensing, Saxer said.

"The goal of the league was to educate and inform the citizens of
Ocean County about what we think is a health risk for the county,"
she said.

League representatives previously met with Benson and other AmerGen
officials before deciding to take a position against the plant's
relicensing, Saxer said.

"We heard their presentations, we asked questions," she said. "We
felt that based on the information from Oyster Creek, that they did
not address the health and security issues. Once we have decided,
our only purpose is to educate the public on why we think that way."

Oyster Creek officials have declined to participate in a future
public debate with the speakers, but claim they were excluded from
the Feb. 28 event, Saxer said.

"It's a Catch-22," she said. "They can't have it both ways. In all
fairness to the people who live here, Oyster Creek should respond to
each and every concern they [forum experts] raised. If they are so
sure [the concerns] are wrong, prove they are wrong by presenting
specific information proving they are wrong."


*****************************************************************
 39 APP.COM: NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek 

| Asbury Park Press Online

Thursday, March 15, 2007

BY DENNIS ZANNONI Post Comment

Since being removed as the chief nuclear engineer for New Jersey, I
have had some time to reflect on my removal, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. ("DEP
yanks staffer who monitors Oyster Creek," Feb. 25.)

I made my decision to go public about the NRC and Oyster Creek while
reflecting on the life of my dad, a World War II veteran and 50-year
business owner, who died Feb. 15. I knew he would have told me that
my job security was secondary to protecting the health and safety of
the public.

The NRC's role in this process should be put in proper context. It
is just one of many factors that need to be considered. The overall
decision rests with Gov. Corzine and the citizens of New Jersey.

To arrive at the right decision, the following areas must be
addressed: economic impact, need for power, employment impact,
security, emergency preparedness, spent fuel storage and accidents,
property taxes, site cleanup, plant safety, plant performance, plant
condition, environmental impacts, future site use, AmerGen (the
plant operator), the NRC, new reactors, plant location, public
opposition, public support and accident insurance.

But those of us involved in the state Department of Environmental
Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering assumed that the NRC
would be more open-minded toward our involvement since Oyster Creek
was going to be the first nuclear power plant to operate more than
40 years. We were wrong. Judge for yourself.

We asked the NRC to conduct meetings near Oyster Creek to educate
the public about the NRC license renewal process. The process is
difficult to understand. The NRC had one meeting more than two years
ago.

We asked the NRC to conduct public hearings in the vicinity of
Oyster Creek so the public would have an opportunity to provide
input to the license renewal. The NRC told us to submit "legal
contentions" if we wanted a hearing.

We submitted three "legal contentions" after reviewing more than
2,000 pages of material within the 90-day NRC-mandated review
period. The NRC rejected all three.

We asked the NRC to transcribe the NRC license renewal audit team
exit meeting so the public's input would be recorded. The NRC said
no.

We asked the NRC staff to change the NRC Audit Report issuance date,
which was backdated eight months by the NRC. The staff said no. We
contacted NRC attorneys, who issued the document with the correct
date.

We asked the NRC to repeat a one-time NRC license renewal site
inspection because the NRC failed to meet the requirements of the
NRC/State Inspection Agreement during the inspection. The NRC said
no.

We asked the NRC to go public with the discovery of water in the
drywell. The NRC said no, so we went public ourselves.

We have been asking the NRC for three years to allow us to review
the NRC analysis for a spent fuel pool accidents from airplanes. The
NRC has this analysis. The NRC originally said we could review this
analysis, but we needed special security clearance. We obtained the
required security clearance last year and again requested to see the
NRC analysis. The NRC said no.

Only two major changes have occurred to the Oyster Creek license
renewal application since it was submitted. First, major revisions
occurred as a result of New Jersey citizens' drywell contention.
Second, major revisions occurred due to the inclusion of the
combustion turbines into the application. This was raised by the
state. No significant changes occurred as a result of the NRC.

We asked the NRC to put missing technical documents referenced in
the license renewal application on the public record. The NRC
promised it would, but never did.

We requested that the NRC consider security and emergency
preparedness issues in its review of Oyster Creek. The NRC said no.

We hired our own expert to review the effects of water in the
drywell, since we lacked confidence in the NRC.

We asked the NRC to consider the comments we submitted to the NRC
concerning the Oyster Creek License Renewal Safety Evaluation
Report. The NRC ignored all of our comments.

We, along with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and
numerous New Jersey citizens, submitted comments to the NRC
concerning the NRC Oyster Creek License Renewal Environmental Impact
Statement. The NRC ignored the comments.

Corzine asked an NRC commissioner to hire an independent body to
determine if Oyster Creek can operate another 20 years. The
commissioner told the governor that the NRC Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards would meet his request.

This committee is neither independent nor objective. Its members are
NRC employees and they spend little time reviewing the information.
They never visited the site. They have never identified any problems
with any of the license renewal applications they reviewed. This
expert panel did not identify any issue on its own. It did not meet
the governor's request.

We asked the NRC to address the NRC control room habitability safety
issue for Oyster Creek, which is still unresolved. The NRC said no.
This real safety issue has no deadline, but the license renewal
process must be completed within 1 1/2 years — no matter what.

The NRC recently completed its year-end review of Oyster Creek. The
plant took almost an hour to declare an alert emergency level more
than two years ago and the NRC has still not resolved it. I was on
this inspection and I have followed this issue closely. This is
another example of the NRC failing to do its job.

Dennis Zannoni, Florence, is the former chief nuclear engineer in
the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 recordonline.com: Final Indian Point siren test called success

By The Associated Press

March 15, 2007

Buchanan - The emergency siren system around the Indian Point
nuclear power plants in Buchanan performed acceptably yesterday in
what may have been its final test before retirement, the plants’
owner said.

The system, which has a checkered record with occasional outages, is
to be replaced by a state-of-the-art system next month.
The sirens are meant to warn the 300,000 residents within 10 miles
of Indian Point of an emergency.

Jim Steets, spokesman for owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said at
least 153 of the 156 sirens sounded in the test, which he called
successful.

Preliminary tests of the newer system are scheduled for next
Wednesday.


Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving
*****************************************************************
 41 Dallas Morning News: TXU moves ahead with reactor plans

Mitsubishi to design 2 reactors for Comanche Peak expansion

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, March 15, 2007

By SUDEEP REDDY / The Dallas Morning News sreddy@dallasnews.com

TXU Corp., after backtracking on its coal plant expansion, is moving
ahead with plans to build new nuclear reactors in Texas.

The company said Wednesday that it selected a design by Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries Ltd. of Japan for at least two new reactors to
expand its Comanche Peak nuclear power plant southwest of Dallas.

TXU said it has signed a nonbinding agreement to use Mitsubishi's
technology. The Dallas-based company said it has not placed an order
for the reactors, which Japanese news reports said would be about
$5.2 billion combined.

If TXU proceeds, the expansion would mark some of the first new
reactor orders in the U.S. since the 1979 partial meltdown at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island crippled the industry. Comanche
Peak, completed in 1993 after years of delays and cost overruns, was
the second-to-last plant built in the U.S.

Mitsubishi has built 23 similar pressurized-water reactors in Japan,
but the TXU agreement would mark the design's introduction in the
U.S. TXU said it considered six technologies over the last year
before choosing Mitsubishi.

"They have a strong safety and operating record," TXU spokesman Tom
Kleckner said. "They're very efficient. They know how to do this."

TXU told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a letter last Friday
that it had selected Mitsubishi for the potential development of up
to five reactors, making up as much as 6 gigawatts of new nuclear
capacity.

Comanche Peak now has two reactors totaling 2,300 megawatts, or
about 3 percent of the electric-generating capacity on Texas'
primary power grid. The new units would each have a net capacity of
1,600 megawatts.

TXU announced in August that it would start planning for the
facilities, which would come online between 2015 and 2020, and has
held discussions with other power companies to consider partnering
on the new reactors.

The company had planned to build 11 coal-fired power plants to meet
nearer-term demand in the state. Facing intense opposition from
politicians and environmental groups, TXU last month canceled plans
for eight of those plants as part of a $45 billion buyout agreement
with private-equity firms.

Many lawmakers and some environmental groups are promoting nuclear
power as part of the solution to the nation's growing dependence on
foreign oil and worries about global warming.

Unlike coal and natural gas plants, nuclear plants do not release
carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that are blamed for
climate change.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act provided for $6 billion in tax credits,
plus risk insurance and loan guarantees, for companies to develop
applications and build new plants. It's part of an effort to help
the companies show Wall Street that new reactors can be developed
without the delays and overruns of an earlier era.

The industry and the Bush administration are still wrangling over
the size and structure of loan guarantees for new reactors. They've
also struggled to find a politically acceptable solution to finding
a permanent storage space for radioactive waste from nuclear plants.

Nuclear power today generates about 20 percent of the nation's
electricity. Even though new reactors haven't been completed in a
decade, existing plants have raised output consistently while
reducing costs.

Critics say nuclear technology remains susceptible to disastrous
accidents. But with a friendlier political and regulatory
environment, power companies have announced their interest in
building more than 30 reactors around the nation.

Most of those would be at existing sites. NRG Energy is planning to
add two reactors to its nuclear plant in South Texas. TXU says it
hasn't determined where it would build the other reactors.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been adding staff to prepare
for the onslaught of applications. Still, lawmakers and companies
remain cautious about the prospects for a wave of development.
Public opinion has become more favorable, they say, but the barriers
remain high.

"That is really going to be an adventure," said Michelle Michot
Foss, head of the Center for Energy Economics at the University of
Texas at Austin. "Ultimately, this all has to go into some sort of a
market test. ... The cost structure is still stiff. We're a long way
from getting new units installed and up and running."

Mitsubishi said in a news release that it would prepare through the
end of this year for its application for the NRC to certify its
design.

TXU plans to file its applications for a construction and operating
license by the end of 2008, with its first approvals expected by
2011.

© 2007 The Dallas Morning News Co.
*****************************************************************
 42 FR: NRC: Notice of License Renewal Request of AREVA NP, Richland, WA, and 
Opportunity To Request a Hearing

Doc E7-4750

[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)]
[Notices]               
[Page 12202-12204]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr07-103]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-1257]

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of license renewal application, and opportunity to 
request a hearing.

DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by May 14, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merritt Baker, Project Manager, Fuel 
Facility Licensing Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 
415-6155; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: mnb@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received, by 
letter dated October 24, 2006, a license renewal application from AREVA 
NP, Inc. (AREVA), requesting renewal of License No. SNM-1227 at its 
Richland fuel fabrication facility located in Richland, Washington. 
License No. SNM-1227 authorizes the licensee to possess and use special 
nuclear material for the manufacture of fuel for nuclear power plants.
    The Richland facility has been licensed by the Atomic Energy 
Commission and its successor, the NRC, to manufacture low-enriched 
uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. The license was renewed in 1996 
for a period of 10 years, expiring on November 30, 2006. By 
applications dated October 24 and December 13, 2006, AREVA requested 
renewal of their license for a period of 40 years. The NRC will review 
the license renewal application for compliance with applicable sections 
of regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR)--Energy, Chapter I--Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The license 
renewal application included an Environmental Report, which the NRC 
will review and use to prepare an environmental assessment to assist in 
the NRC's determination on the license renewal application, as required 
by 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic 
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
    An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to AREVA dated 
February 7, 2007, (ML070320061) found the application acceptable to 
begin a technical review. Because AREVA filed the application for 
renewal not less than 30 days before the expiration of the date stated 
in the existing license, the existing license will not expire until the 
Commission makes a final determination on the renewal application, in 
accordance with the timely renewal provision of 10 CFR 70.38(a)(1). If 
the NRC approves the renewal application, the approval will be 
documented in NRC License No. SNM-1227. However, before approving the 
proposed renewal, the NRC will need to make the findings required by 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These 
findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and an 
Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement.

[[Page 12203]]

II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an 
application for a license renewal. In accordance with the general 
requirements in subpart C of 10 CFR part 2, as amended on January 14, 
2004 (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a 
written request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions 
which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(a), a request for a hearing must be 
filed with the Commission either by:
    1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings 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, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays;
    3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or
    4. By 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.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for 
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the 
proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule 
or order of the Commission, including:
    1. The applicant, AREVA NP, Inc. 2101 Horn Rapids Road, Richland 
Washington, 99254, Attention: Robert Link; and
    2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by 
mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests 
should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either 
by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or via email to 
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov.

    The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304 
(b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 
2.304(f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission 
need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), 
and (d), as long as an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying 
with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d) are 
mailed within two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be 
filed by May 14, 2007.
    In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 
2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed 
by a person other than an applicant must state:
    1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester;
    2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a 
party to the proceeding;
    3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or 
other interest in the proceeding;
    4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued 
in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and
    5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is 
timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b).
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or 
petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the 
contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or 
petition must:
    1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted;
    2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention;
    3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within 
the scope of the proceeding;
    4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material 
to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is 
involved in the proceeding;
    5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the 
issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support 
its position on the issue; and
    6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute 
exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This 
information must include references to specific portions of the 
application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety 
report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting 
reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the 
application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as 
required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting 
reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief.
    In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions 
must be based on documents or other information available at the time 
the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety 
analysis report, environmental report or other supporting documents 
filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the 
petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy 
Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the 
applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend 
those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or 
conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, 
environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that 
differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's 
documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions 
filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding 
officer.
    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the 
proposed action.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed 
action.
    3. Emergency Planning--primarily concerns issues relating to 
matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to 
the proposed action.
    4. Physical Security--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to 
the proposed action.
    5. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues 
that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these 
categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and 
supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the 
requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate 
designation for that category.
    Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each 
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter 
concerns into a

[[Page 12204]]

joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/
petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that 
wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner 
must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is 
filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to 
act for the requester/petitioner.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or 
petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the 
hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310.

III. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application for 
amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at 
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
 From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for 
the documents related to this notice are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               ADAMS
                Document                   Accession No.       Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmittal letter......................     ML063110083        10/24/06
License renewal application public           ML063110089        10/24/06
 version................................
Environmental Report....................     ML063110087        10/31/06
Additional information..................     ML063530128        12/13/06
NRC acceptance letter...................     ML070320061        02/07/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
    These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1-F21, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of March, 2007.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gary Janosko,
Deputy Director, Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, Division of Fuel 
Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety And 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7-4750 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 43 IHT: Power utility takes steps to reduce malfunctions in Czech nuclear
plant in Temelin - 

International Herald Tribune

The Associated Press

Published: March 15, 2007

PRAGUE, Czech Republic: Two recent leaks at a Czech nuclear plant
near the Austrian border were caused by human error, but the
state-run utility has taken concrete steps to limit such mistakes in
the future, the trade minister said Thursday.

Earlier this month, thousands of liters of radioactive water twice
leaked from the Temelin nuclear plant, outraging neighboring
Austria, which has voiced concerns about the safety of the facility.

"The leaks ... were caused by human error," Czech Trade Minister
Martin Riman said in a statement Thursday.

He said the utility CEZ has presented 14 concrete technical and
organizational measures to prevent future leaks.


Construction of the plant's two 1,000-megawatt units, based on
Russian designs, started in the 1980s. The reactors were later
upgraded with U.S. technology but they have remained controversial
because of frequent malfunctions.


Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
*****************************************************************
 44 Reuters: Outrage over Japan nuclear reactor coverup 

Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:52AM EDT

By Ikuko Kao

TOKYO (Reuters) - A Japanese power company admitted on Thursday that
it had covered up a 1999 incident in which mishandling of nuclear
fuel rods led to an unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain
reaction for 15 minutes.

Anti-nuclear activists expressed outrage over Hokuriku Electric
Power Co.'s failure to report the accident, although the company
said the mishap was relatively minor.

The news of the 15-minute "criticality" -- an unintended
self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction -- is likely to
further dent public confidence in Japan's nuclear power industry,
already undermined by safety scandals over the past decade.

An official with Hokuriku's nuclear team admitted the company had
not reported the incident, which took place during a test while the
unit was offline for a planned inspection.

"There was a cover-up," Toshihiko Takahashi told a news conference,
bowing deeply. He added that the incident may have breached laws
governing nuclear plant regulation.

"We deeply apologize for worrying everyone."

In one of Japan's worst nuclear accidents, two workers were killed
in September 1999, when workers at a nuclear facility in Tokaimura,
northeast of Tokyo, set off an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction
by using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab.  Continued...


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 Prague Daily Monitor: Prague says anti-Temelin blockades must not harm dialogue - 

By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 15 March 2007

Prague/Vienna, March 14 (CTK) - Prague views the Austrian government
as its partner and it does not consider border blockades by Austrian
atom opponents as part of the Austrian government policy, the Czech
Foreign Ministry said in reaction to the blockade of four
Austrian-Czech border crossings today.

The ministry spokeswoman, Zuzana Opletalova, said that Prague based
its stand on the statement Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer
made during his Czech visit recently.

"In our opinion the blockades are aimed to expediently raise concern
among Upper Austrian residents. We must not allow a few tractors on
the borders to impair the long-lasting safety dialogue and good
relations between Austria and the Czech Republic," Opletalova said.

Austrian opponents of the south Bohemian nuclear power plant Temelin
blocked four crossings along the Czech-Austrian border for one hour
today. The blockade caused no problems in traffic.

Like a fortnight ago, the activists blocked the Wullowitz/Solni
Dvoriste, Weigetschlag/Studanky and Guglwald/Predni Vyton crossings
in Upper Austria, and newly also Gmuend/Ceske Velenice in Lower
Austria.

Austrian authorities permitted the protests.

"Recent discussions about the responsibility of [Czech State Office
for Nuclear Safety, SUJB, chairwoman] Dana Drabova indicate that
something is happening in the Czech Republic in relation to Temelin.
This is a big change," the protest's organiser Gottfried Brandner
told CTK.

The protests are aimed against the Austrian government and against
Gusenbauer himself. The activists say he has refused to meet the
Austrian parliament's request that Austria sue the Czech Republic
over its alleged violation of the Melk agreement.

The agreement that concerns Temelin's safety was signed bythe two
countries' top leaders signed in 2000-2001.

The blockades, a number of which has already been staged, have been
organised by the Upper Austrian civic association Atomstopp. Today's
protest was joined by their colleagues from Lower Austria's Stopp
Temelin grouping.

The two groups have threatened with further blockades in a joint
statement.

Temelin, situated some 60km away from the Austrian border has been
criticised by some Austrian and Czech NGOs as being dangerous. The
Czech Republic has repeatedly dismissed the claims.


This story copyright 2007 CTK Czech News Agency
The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its
content.

copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 46 Prague Daily Monitor: Ministry wants to reinforce Temelin teams due to recent leaks -

By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 15 March 2007

Prague, March 14 (CTK) - The Industry and Trade Ministry will
propose to energy group CEZ to reinforce teams in its nuclear power
station Temelin due to recent radioactive water leaks, the news
server Euro OnLine reported today.

"They (the teams) were reduced considerably in the past and now are
at a level common in a power station operating for a few years,
which still is not true for Temelin," a well-informed source told
the server.

Staff numbers should increase in teams that are in charge of the
repairs and maintenance policy in the power station, said Deputy
Industry and Trade Minister Tomas Huner.

The meeting will take place on Thursday morning and the ministry
will release more information after the meeting is over, ministry
spokesman Tomas Bartovsky told CTK.

Radioactive water leaked twice in Temelin at the beginning of March.
Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar said the accidents did not
jeopardise employees' health and the environment.

Environment Minister Martin Bursik demands that State Authority for
Nuclear Safety (SUJB) chairwoman Dana Drabova be dismissed owing to
these accidents, but Industry and Trade Minister Martin Riman is
against.

Both events have provoked criticism by Austrian nuclear energy
opponents who want to file promptly an international lawsuit against
the Czech Republic over an alleged breach of the Melk agreements.

Austrian opponents of Temelin blocked again border crossings to the
Czech Republic at 10:00 a.m. today, trying to force the Austrian
government to file an international lawsuit against the Czech
Republic. Austrian authorities approved the protest.


This story copyright 2007 CTK Czech News Agency
The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its
content.

copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 47 KNDO/KNDU: New Study Shows New Nuclear Power Outlook Unlikely in the Northwest

Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | 

 Video Now

 The Possibility on a New Nuclear Powerplant in the Northwest

RICHLAND, Wash.- Talk of nuclear expansion at Hanford, but a new
study shows the chances of a new nuclear power plant in the
Northwest are low, that's according to the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council.

Just Tuesday, hundreds turned out for a meeting on the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership.

The proposal would bring more nuclear to Hanford.

Wednesday, one local resident says it wouldn't bother him to have
more right in his backyard.

Just seven miles from Ted Hunter's house is the Columbia Generating
Station.

Ted grew up in the Tri-Cities, his dad even worked at Hanford for 37
years, and talk of nuclear power doesn't bother him, but only if
it's safe.

People opposed to nuclear power say there are other options, like
wind, solar and water; and there's already talk of tearing down dams
to accommodate wildlife.

So is more nuclear power a safe, reliable option for the northwest?

There have only been three incidents at nuclear power plants in the
U.S. in the last 14 years.  No radioactivity was released in any of
them.

For now, Ted Hunter will continue to clean up his front yard, ever
mindful of his back yard.

 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 48 ENS: TXU Selects Japanese Nuclear Technology for New Generating Units

Environment News Service (ENS)

AmeriScan: March 14, 2007

TXU Selects Japanese Nuclear Technology for New Generating Units
DALLAS, Texas Pressurized water nuclear reactor technology known as
US-APWR developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Tokyo has
been selected by Texas energy company TXU for its proposed new
nuclear power plants.

The US-APWR is a 4451 MWt pressurized water reactor designed by
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, MHI.

TXU plans to file applications for combined construction and
operating licenses using US-APWR technology for 2-6 gigawatts at
multiple sites, including the existing Comanche Peak site located in
Glen Rose, Texas, which has two units in operation.

The filings would facilitate commercial operation of the new nuclear
power generating units starting from 2015 to 2020.

On March 9, TXU formally notified its reactor selection to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and launched the preparation of a
Combined License application.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries developed the US-APWR based on
technologies for a 1,538 MW APWR planned for use at the Tsuruga
Power Station Units 3 and 4 of the Japan Atomic Power Company.

Modifications for U.S. customers include the world's highest level
of thermal efficiency, 39 percent, a 20 percent reduction in plant
building volume, 24 months fuel cycle length, and greater economy by
increasing the power generation capacity to 1,700 MW class which is
the world's largest class.

MHI is planning to construct the US-APWR in the United States in
cooperation with engineering and construction company, Washington
Group International Inc.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is jointly promoting this US-APWR with
Mitsubishi Corporation in the U.S. market.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has established MHI Nuclear Energy
Systems Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, in Washington, DC, and has
started procedures to submit an application to the NRC for design
certification of the US-APWR.

 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 49 Portsmouth Daily Times: Radium at Piketon
 
Activist calls radium loss at plant scary

By JEFF BARRON PDT Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:57 PM 

A local nuclear activist said the loss of a capsule of radium at 
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is scary.

“They claim they don't have radium at the site,” said Vina 
Colley, president of Portsmouth/ Piketon Residents for 
Environmental Safety and Security. “So here we go again. They're 
covering it up.”

U.S. Department of Energy spokeswoman Laura Schachter said the 
vial was still missing on Wednes day.

Colley also expressed concern that the D OE is just now notifying 
the public of the loss that was discovered on Feb. 28.

“It doesn't surprise me,” she said. “In 1992 a valve came off of 
a depleted uranium cylinder. I notified a reporter in Columbus 
and they told him the valve came from a propane tank. They had a 
leak for four hours. They've never notified the public anytime 
they've had a leak.”

The United States Enrichment Corp. leases the plant from the DOE.

Schachter said the agency didn't notify the public sooner because 
the capsule does not pose a health risk. She said someone would 
have to sit 10 feet away from the vial for 24 hours to get the 
same amount of radiation as a single chest X-ray.

“We made an internal notification immediately,” Schachter said. 
“There are about 1,700 employees at the plant and we told them. 
So it's not like we were trying to hide anyt hing.”

She said DOE decided to inform the media after someone in 
Paducah, Ky., asked about the loss of the vial.

DOE hosted a public meeting in Piketon last week on another 
matter and did not mention the missing vial.

The DOE hired LATA/Parallax to do cleanup work at the 
decommissioned plant. LATA public affairs manager Sandy Childers 
said her company was responsible for the area where the vial was 
discovered missing.

Childers said the vial is metallic, about 1-inch long and 
resembles a medicine capsule.

USEC public affairs manag er Jack Williams said USEC employees 
are assisting i n the search for the missing vial.

The radium vial was used to calibrate instruments that measure 
radiation. Since 1996, it had been stored encased in lead in a 
wooden box inside a locked room with 39 similar boxes, Schachter 
said. The boxes were occasionally measured for radioactivity, 
indicating that the vials were still inside.

The box was last moved in December to prepare for shipping to 
Nevada during the site cleanup, in preparation for turning the 
building where it was stored over to USE C Inc.

According to wikipedia.com, radium is more than 1 million times 
more radioactive than the same amount of uranium. Its decay 
product, radon gas, is also radioactive.

Inhalation, injection, ingestion or body exposure to radium can 
cause cancer and other disorders.

Geoffrey Sea is the cofounder of the Southern Ohio Neighbors 
Group.

He said he heard about the missing vial several days ago and was 
told employees were looking for the radium capsule with Geiger 
counters.

B ecause the story was just made public on Wednesday, he said he 
thinks that is when USEC notified the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission of the problem.

Williams said USEC notified NRC as soon as the company found out 
about the vial. However, he said USEC was not required to do so 
because the issue didn't directly involve the company.

Sea said the NRC should delay granting USEC a license to begin 
its American Centrifuge program partly because of the inci dent.

USEC Inc. plans to begin a new pr ocess of enriching uranium at 
the gaseous diffusion plant in 2011.

“USEC claims they have improved safety, but obviously they 
haven't,” Sea said.

SONG member Andrew Feight also said USEC's American Centrifuge 
license should be delayed.

R. Gregory Evans, director of the Institute for Biosecurity at 
Saint Louis University, said misplacing the radium does raise 
questions about how contractors for the Energy Department are 
handling nuclear waste.

“Yes, it's significant that they lost this,” Evans said.

Schachter said DOE doesn't know how the vial was misplaced. She 
also said the agency will review procedures for handling 
materials to prevent a similar incident from happening again.

The Associated Press contributed to this story. JEFF BARRON can 
be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext.

Vina Colley vcolley@earthlink.net

*****************************************************************
 50 PressZoom.com: Uranium pellets not dangerous to humans

Global News Service - News and Press Release Distribution

The uranium pellets found on a private property in the town of
Lauenförde in Lower Saxony are not dangerous to humans. According to
the results of an investigation conducted by The European Institute
for Transuranium Elements, the 14 pellets found in the garden of
Hermann F. originate from Siemens' former nuclear fuel production
plant in Hanau.

(PressZoom) - The uranium pellets found on a private property in the
town of Lauenförde in Lower Saxony are not dangerous to humans.
According to the results of an investigation conducted by The
European Institute for Transuranium Elements, the 14 pellets found
in the garden of Hermann F. originate from Siemens' former nuclear
fuel production plant in Hanau. From 1969 to 1994, Siemens produced
up to 200 million uranium pellets per year at its nuclear fuel plant
in Hanau. Since then, the plant has been completely decommissioned
and released from the obligations of the German Atomic Energy Act.

The 14 pellets found in Lower Saxony at no time represented a
dangerous amount. The only slightly enriched pellets are not
dangerous to humans because uranium is a so-called alpha emitter,
and alpha particles cannot penetrate human skin. Groundwater
contamination can also be ruled out because the pellets are very
stable as ceramic elements. Examinations by the Lower Saxony
Ministry for Environment revealed no contamination of the soil in
the garden where the uranium pellets were buried.

How the 14 pellets could be stolen from the former nuclear fuel
plant has not been determined yet. Audits conducted by international
oversight authorities ( EURATOM, IAEA ) never provided a reason for
objecting to inventoried amounts. Government authorities and experts
regularly checked security precautions and security measures at the
Hanau plant; and they complied with the approval status at all times.

However, this evidently could not prevent a small amount of uranium
from being transported through plant security without detection.

Internal investigations show that, from 1987 to today, Hermann F.
was not employed by Siemens Hanau nor that he worked for third-party
companies at the Hanau plant. Siemens is fully supporting public
prosecutors in the investigation of the circumstances surrounding
the theft of the uranium pellets.


The Power Generation Group ( PG ) of Siemens AG is one of the
premier companies in the international power generation sector. In
fiscal 2006 ( which ended September 30 ), Siemens PG posted sales
amounting to more than EUR10 billion and received new orders
totaling EUR12.5 billion. Group profit amounted to EUR782 million.
On September 30, 2006, PG had a work force of approximately 36,400
worldwide. Further information at: www.siemens.com/powergeneration

Reference Number: PG200703.027 e

Alfons Benzinger Freyeslebenstr. 1 91058 Erlangen Tel.: +49 ( 
9131 ) 18-7034 Fax: +49 ( 9131 ) 18-7039 E-Mail: alfons.benzinger 
@siemens.com 

Submitted by http://siemens.com

Release Date
This news item was released on 2007-03-16. Please make sure to visit
the official company or organization web site to learn more about
the original release date. See our disclaimer for more information.

(c) PressZoom.com - Press Release Distribution Service - All Rights
*****************************************************************
 51 GNEP: The worst idea Bush EVER had!
 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:15:01 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	GNEP: The worst idea Bush EVER had! (resend with "Depleted" 
for "Deleted" Uranium)
Date: 	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:19:59 -0700
From: 	Russell 'Ace' Hoffman <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
To: 	Recipient list suppressed:;



March 14th, 2007

Dear Readers,

If you don't know what GNEP stands for, it's simple:  Nuclear waste 
reprocessing in America.  For private profit.  For public shame.  And 
perfectly legal, for the first time in 30 years.

The full name is Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.  It will cost -- 
gulp -- hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to start up, but Bush wants 
to do it anyway.

What makes it GLOBAL is that America will become the nuclear sewage 
pit of the planet, taking highly-toxic, highly-radioactive, 
extremely-difficult-to-handle nuclear waste from rogue and friendly 
countries alike -- anyone we can bargain with -- and then we will 
enrich it.  Pull out what we like, and pile up (or disperse to the 
winds and waters) what we don't.

In other words, we'll make nuclear bombs with it.  We'll make nuclear 
reactor fuel with it.

And we'll make lots of other things, too.  We'll make highly toxic 
radioactive power sources for outer space use, including "batteries" 
for spy satellites and for "civilian" deep-space probes (which will, 
in fact, just be a cover program for the spy satellite's radioactive 
batteries program).

We'll make undersea listening devices for enemy harbors with the 
nuclear waste, too.

We'll make Depleted Uranium bullets, shells, bombs and missiles with 
it.  We'll make "bunker busters" with it.

We'll even make children's braces -- yep!  I'm not kidding!  Old 
steel from nuclear reactors can be sold as "scrap" to regular metal 
recycling facilities, even though it is radioactive and thus, 
carcinogenic.  The GNEP facility will, itself, become radioactive as 
it is used.  All its tools, everything, will get the "shine" -- and 
then, later, it will all be sold as regular scrap, except for a small 
portion which is so radioactive it will have to be reprocessed again 
. . . and again . . . and again . . .

Except that "reprocessing" is dirty.  It leaks, it contaminates, it 
has accidents, including transportation accidents across the great 
oceans.  The Nuclear Mafia wants to call reprocessing (the 
traditional term) "recycling" because it sounds nicer, but it's not 
like any "green" recycling you've ever heard of.  It's dirty from 
start to finish.

President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing 30 years ago because even 
he, a nuclear submariner and advocate of commercial reactors, could 
not accept the false logic which promoters of the process 
presented.  Nothing's changed -- it's STILL a bad idea.  (Despite 
banning reprocessing, Jimmy Carter was a classic closet 
pro-nuker:  For example, he did NOT shut down the nuclear power 
industry, as he could have and should have, after Three Mile 
Island.  Instead, he went and toured TMI.  Earlier, while campaigning 
for office, he described nuclear power as being "a last resort," but 
as soon as he got into office, he declared that America "was down to 
its last resorts" and, of course, supported nuclear power.)

GNEP represents the most reprehensible things about nuclear 
power:  Waste, proliferation, fortunes being made by private 
companies whose business is comfortably (for them) kept secret from 
the pubic, supposedly due to "terrorism" concerns.  The public will 
not be informed about spills, leaks, fires, explosions, contaminated 
workers, or anything else that goes on inside the reprocessing 
facility, once it's been approved and the wall around the work site is put up.

They'll just die from cancers, leukemia, birth defects, and other 
ailments, especially downwind in the prevailing direction, but winds 
blow in every direction almost everywhere, over time, so everyone 
around the plant (and around the planet) will be poisoned, day and 
night, for the poison will be in their air and their water, on their 
land and in their crops, and in anything that eats their crops.

Radioactive poisons are undetectable by any human sense organ, except 
in doses so large that death is virtually certain and relatively 
quick.  In smaller quantities, expensive and carefully calibrated 
equipment is needed to know for sure where the tritium, cesium, 
strontium, and other radioactive particles have gone.

The GNEP facility, wherever it is built, will spew radioactive waste 
24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and an extra day 
on leap year.  Like all nuclear facilities IT COULD NOT OPERATE any 
other way!  Otherwise, the waste residue would build up inside the 
facility to the point where a worker's dose would become illegally 
high too soon, and the worker would have to be released so that, 
years later, his or her cancer can be more easily blamed on anything 
but the GNEP facility.

So instead, like all commercial nuclear reactors and other nuclear 
facilities, GNEP will poison the environment steadily, and hope the 
winds will disperse the waste enough so that no epidemiologist could 
reconstruct the trail, no court could prove with absolute certainty 
where the cancers came from.

GNEP stands for death and suffering.  A Global Network of Evil People.

Tell the Department of Energy (DOE, or "Death Of the Earth squad") 
not to allow reprocessing in America!

Stop GNEP!!

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA





*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell "Ace" Hoffman, Owner & Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726 (U.S. & Canada)
** (760) 720-7261 (elsewhere)
** www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY 
MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com


MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.



</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 52 reviewjournal.com: QUALITY ASSURANCE: Yucca e-mails explained

Mar. 15, 2007

Geological Survey hydrologists created perception problem, panel told

REVIEW-JOURNAL

BERKELEY, Calif. -- Federal hydrologists who wrote e-mails about 
short-cutting quality assurance of their work on water moving 
through the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site created more of a 
perception problem than a scientific failure, the head of a 
presidential oversight board said Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will 
report to Congress on what it learned from a daylong discussion 
on the controversial e-mails written mostly by a trio of U.S. 
Geological Survey hydrologists led by Alan L. Flint, board 
Chairman B. John Garrick said.

"It's regrettable this e-mail issue developed the way it did,"
Garrick said during a break in the meeting of the review board's
panel.

"The work was overshadowed by the e-mail fiasco," he said. "The
board generally believes the work was competently performed. It does
not appear the science has been unduly compromised even though there
was a mishandling of information."

At issue are e-mails written during a six-year period between 1998
and 2004 by Flint, his wife, Lorraine Flint, and Joseph Hevesi. The
three who worked at the USGS's Sacramento office expressed a
negative attitude about the Yucca Mountain quality assurance in
their e-mails and suggested skirting quality assurance requirements
by back-dating notebooks, making up dates of task completions and
misrepresenting information, according to Energy Department managers
who probed the problem.

The USGS reports on water infiltration models "were not fully
compliant with the traceability and transparency requirements" for
quality assurance, Gene Runkle, project controls manager for the
Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
told the panel.

"The review did not find a widespread or pervasive pattern ... of a
negative attitude toward quality assurance or willful noncompliace
with quality assurance requirements," he said. "We had no clear
evidence that it had been falsified."

Civilian Radioactive Waste chief Ward Sproat will present the
agency's findings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff at a
meeting March 27 in Rockville, Md.

During Wednesday's panel discussion, USGS Ground Water Office Chief
William Alley said after the e-mail scandal surfaced in March 2005,
it "really cast a pall around the whole branch for a while."

"It's been a traumatic experience for the USGS and we take it very
seriously," he said.

Alley said the Survey has spent about $200,000 trying to clean up
the Yucca Mountain water infiltration work and restore the integrity
of the models even though they won't be used by the Department of
Energy in seeking a license for the planned repository.

Instead, the Department of Energy has hired Sandia National
Laboratories develop new infiltration rate estimates and maps by
redoing the models using the data and measurements that Flint's team
compiled over more than a decade of work at the mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas. The price tag on that unfinished work was
not available.

Flint talked about the work elaborating on how his team sometimes
set up camp during heavy rainstorms to watch how water moves on and
around the ridge and to collect data on how it descended through
plant-covered soils and exposed rock faces. Boreholes were monitored
in channels and near earthquake faults.

Much of the surface runoff that travels to the depth of the planned
repository comes through fractures in the ridgetop and trickles
through side slopes, he said.

He said the data is credible and trustworthy despite the "perceived"
shortcomings with its quality assurance traceability and
transparency."

"There was no problem with quality assurance. It was a perceived
problem," he said after his presentation.

"The perceived problem was that people didn't understand some of the
wording that was used and the inner workings of how the program was
going at the time," said the 54-year-old Flint.

He cited an example of an e-mail discussing a quality assurance
audit in which the auditors wanted to see a scientific notebook.

"Because everything we had was electronic and all the records were
electronic, the models were electronic, the input files, I think the
e-mail said, 'Well, I'm going to have to make up a notebook.'

"People thought that meant you were going to fake a notebook," Flint
said. "What that really meant was you were going to take your
electronic data, put that into one of these green record books and
document the pages and sign them, which was done all the time. ...
And that was one of the kinds of mistakes that was made."

Another example, he said, was an e-mail that discussed keeping two
sets of records: "One to keep Q/A happy and one I use in the model.
... That's an example of the kinds of things that were sort of blown
out of proportion."

Regardless of Flint's assertion, an Energy Department spokesman for
the Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas, said the modeling
work is being redone because of questions about its integrity.

"There can be no question if we are to have a license application,"
said the spokesman, Allen Benson. "There can be no question about
the integrity. As a result we are taking another look at the work
that was done."

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
*****************************************************************
 53 KCPW: EnergySolutions Agrees to Drop Plans for "Tower of Waste" in Tooele

Mar 15, 2007 by Julie Rose

(KCPW News) EnergySolutions has agreed to withdraw its application
for permission to pile low-level waste higher at its Tooele County
dump site. Governor Jon Huntsman Junior says the agreement is the
latest of his efforts to keep Utah from becoming a nuclear dumping
ground:

"This tower of radioactive waste is not created by Utahns, and not
wanted by Utahns," says Huntsman.

Huntsman says the agreement he signed today with EnergySolutions CEO
Steve Creamer will result in a net reduction of nearly 117 million
cubic feet of low-level waste coming to Utah. Huntsman had planned
to send a letter to the regional nuclear regulating body asking it
to limit the amount of waste coming to Utah. He says
EnergySolutions' promise to withdraw its pending application makes
that letter unnecessary for now. But Huntsman adds he'll keep the
letter in his pocket in case EnergySolutions applies for waste
capacity beyond its currently approved license.


Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom. Copyright 2007 KCPW

*****************************************************************
 54 Northumberland News: Historic waste clean-up on track to licensing phase

Mar 15, 2007

By Jeanne Beneteau

PORT HOPE - Federal authorities have given a green light for the
clean-up and long-term storage of Port Hope’s historic low-level
radioactive waste (LLRW) to move forward towards the licensing phase.

Following a Jan. 24 hearing held in Ottawa, the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission (CNSC) has concluded the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Office’s (LLRWMO) proposed project to construct and
operate a long-term waste management facility is not likely to cause
significant adverse environmental effects, provided the appropriate
mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Assessment
Screening Report are implemented. The Commission also decided not to
refer the project to the federal Minister of the Environment for
referral to a review panel or mediator.

Port Hope Mayor Linda Thompson says the Commission’s decision is a
good news story for the municipality.

“There has been a tremendous amount of work done since the legal
agreement with the federal government was signed in March, 2001,”
says Mayor Thompson. “During the licensing phase, many of the
questions and concerns raised in regards to the detailed design of
the management facility and exactly how the work will be done, can
be addressed.”

Sue Stickley, communications officer for the LLRWMO, the agency that
manages the project on the government’s behalf, says the decision
reflects hard work and diligence by many people including LLRWMO
staff, municipal representatives, the municipal peer review team and
members of the public. The extensive nature of the investigation
into effects on human health and safety and environment, were
ground-breaking, not only for Port Hope but for Canada. The public
alternative means processes, which looked for community input into
the best plan to deal with the historic waste, had never before been
done with a screening level environmental assessment, explains Ms.
Stickley.

“We are really pleased with the result, which will allow the Port
Hope community and the LLRWMO to move ahead on the clean-up,” she
says.

The Port Hope Area Initiative is a $260 million, federally-funded
plan to clean up and manage historic low-level radioactive and heavy
metal waste in Port Hope and Clarington. The project includes the
clean-up of all contaminated Port Hope sites and transportation of
all materials to a single site south of Hwy. 401, west of Baulch
Road, where a capped and closed long-term storage container will be
constructed.

The Commission decision bodes well for Clarington’s Port Granby
project, adds Ms. Stickley. The project, which calls for all LLRW
waste in Clarington to be stored long-term at a site in Port Granby,
is about eight months behind the Port Hope project.

“I’m really pleased that the project can move ahead to the next step
of this process,” said Northumberland-Quinte West MP Rick Norlock,
on behalf of the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources.

“We (federal government) are committed to delivering clean air,
land, water and energy to ensure a clean, healthy environment for
Canadians.”

Copyright © Metroland, Northumberland Media Group. - All Rights
*****************************************************************
 55 ABQJOURNAL: WIPP Transport Contract Awarded

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Associated Press

CARLSBAD &#151 A Colorado firm on Wednesday was awarded a contract
to haul radioactive waste to the federal government's nuclear waste
dump in southeastern New Mexico.

CAST Specialty Transportation of Henderson, Colo., has held a
transportation contract for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near
Carlsbad since since 1995. WIPP did not start taking shipments until
March 1999, and before that, the transportation company participated
in practice runs, training for emergency responders along shipping
routes, conferences and similar activities, Dennis Hurtt, a
spokesman for WIPP, said Wednesday.

The contract, which could be extended up to five years, is worth
$96.7 million, the U.S. Department of Energy said.

It is the first of two transportation contracts that the DOE will
award. The second will be announced later.

The companies receiving the contracts will haul both contact-handled
and remote-handled radioactive waste to WIPP from defense-related
sites that generate the waste.

Hurtt said that since it opened, WIPP has received 5,542 shipments
of radioactive waste for storage in salt beds 2,150 feet under the
New Mexico desert. All but eight shipments have been contact-handled
waste, which has a lower level of radioactivity than remote-handled
waste.

WIPP received its first remote-handled shipment in late January.
Such waste is so radioactive it must be handled by robotic machines.
Remote-handled waste has always been part of WIPP's plan, and about
4 percent of its total capacity is expected to be remote-handled
waste.

Both types of shipments consist of tools, rags, protective clothing,
sludge, soil and other materials contaminated with plutonium and
other radioactive elements.

The other transportation contract for WIPP currently is held by
Tri-State Motor Transit of Joplin, Mo.

Copyright ©2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material

Copyright Albuquerque Journal
*****************************************************************
 56 Tennessean: Transportation plan perilous, ill-conceived - 

Nashville, Tennessee -

Thursday, 03/15/07 - Tennessean.com

By DON SAFER

I feel a sense of dread, a foreboding — the insecurity leads me 
to outrage. I never wanted us to create nuclear waste in the 
first place. Thirty years ago, opponents of nuclear power plants 
pointed out the folly of producing large quantities of nuclear 
waste. To date, we have created more than 59,000 tons of this 
waste.

Ill-conceived new plans would create multiples of this amount 
worldwide. The Department of Energy is proposing to bring this 
waste to the U.S., possibly Tennessee or Kentucky, for dangerous 
and dirty reprocessing. Long-term storage is at least 20 years 
away, and the proposed solutions remain highly controversial.

Implementation of the GNEP plan could result in Tennessee 
highways and rails carrying a high volume of spent reactor fuel 
in casks that have never been tested in real-world crash, fire or 
immersion tests. The previous plan, transporting the waste to 
Yucca Mountain, Nev., has estimates of 108,500 shipments; six a 
day for 38 years. And that estimate does not include the imported 
waste.

Shipping is one of the most vulnerable links in the nuclear fuel
cycle. Spent fuel is much more radioactive than the original because
of the buildup of fission and transuranic elements. One truckload
has 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the
Hiroshima bomb; a rail cask has the radiation of 200. During
transit, nuclear material comes closest to the public while under
its lowest levels of security.

'Dirty bombs on wheels'

Nuclear waste casks have been called "dirty bombs on wheels" because
they would make extremely attractive targets to terrorists. The
state of Nevada says: "Both truck and rail shipping casks are
vulnerable to an attack using a single, current-generation weapon."
They conservatively estimate contamination of an area of several
square miles.

The consequences of high-level radiation exposure are horrible. They
last for a very long time and affect future generations of humans,
animals, plants and viruses. The National Academy of Science says
that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, can have a negative
health effect.

Potential DOE plans for Tennessee are to use Interstates 40, 65, 24
and 75. Trucks carrying nuclear waste would be crisscrossing
Tennessee alongside each of us much more often than they do now. It
is hard to imagine the human and economic costs of an accident or
attack in Nashville, but it would certainly be devastating and cost
billions. Lowered property values along routes with heavy nuclear
waste traffic are a reality.

Be very skeptical of those who minimize the dangers of nuclear
power. Thirty years ago, they were almost successful in their blind,
willy-nilly effort to turn the Tennessee Valley into the world's
biggest nuclear experiment. Then, in 1979, the Three Mile Island
meltdown occurred. In 1986, the nuclear plant in Chernobyl exploded.
These, along with a near-catastrophe at TVA's Browns Ferry Plant,
quieted the building frenzy.

It took the realities of those accidents to stop the nuclear
madness. Let's hope we stop it this time before our worst fears are
realized.


Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer
its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations
online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it
impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting. Since
Tennessean.com does not control user submitted statements, we cannot
promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or
inaccurate comments posted on our Web site. In addition, we remind
anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility
for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment,
not Tennessean.com or its related sites.

All comments posted should comply with the Tennessean.com's terms of

  MORE COVERAGE

3.15.07 GNEP a solution to climate, energy needs 3.15.07 Reader
Views: Should Tennessee take the nation's spent nuclear fuel for
reprocessing? 3.15.07 Hazards supersede rewards of untested nuclear
process

Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 57 Tennessean: Hazards supersede rewards of untested nuclear process - 

Nashville, Tennessee - Thursday, 03/15/07 - 

Tennessean.com

Ship nuke waste to Tennessee?

Our View

News that a site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., is being considered as a 
reprocessing center for the nation's spent nuclear fuel is 
raising many questions about safety as well as whether the 
facility is even a good idea.

The center, which would accept waste from several nuclear power 
plants for reprocessing, would sit on 7,000 acres near the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory. The U.S. Department of Energy has paid 
a local commercial-public consortium $894,704 to investigate the 
viability of the site.

The center is a component of President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, or GNEP. The stated goals of this $10 billion
partnership, which includes Russia and France, are to provide
"reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of
older technologies and without making available separated plutonium
that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear
weapons."

Reducing waste, improving technology and deterring foul play are
commendable goals. More problematic is the program's call for a
rapid increase in nuclear power production in the United States —
too rapid to allow measured public comment or ensure safety,
security or cost-effectiveness.

GNEP is fueling a big push by the nuclear-power industry, which has
not been able to license and build a reactor in the U.S. since 1978.
Safety issues at some plants, a public outcry against nuclear power
and the government's inability to meet its waste-management
obligations stalled industry expansion.

But Bush has promoted nuclear energy in the past two years as he has
shifted focus away from fossil fuel reliance. And in 2005, Congress
passed legislation to streamline the regulatory process for new
nuclear plants.

It's true that the nuclear industry is saddled with many
regulations. It's also true that nuclear power production is cleaner
than coal-burning power plants. But the extreme risks associated
with nuclear energy have necessitated the regulatory burden. And the
safety of the public and of workers in the nuclear industry is as
important as the air they breathe.

DOE and the nuclear industry argue that they have improved safety
standards enough to relax the rules. The problem is that many
experts, who are not motivated by profit, do not agree.

The Federation of American Scientists has expressed strong concerns
about GNEP. The organization's Web site asserts that the program
"will not solve any proliferation problems and will make some
worse." They deny GNEP's assumption that reprocessing such as would
be done at an Oak Ridge facility makes waste material "resistant" to
extracting weapons-grade plutonium. If the waste material is stolen
by terrorists or a rogue state, they can extract the plutonium
elsewhere.

The federation also blasts DOE for its decision last August to
bypass what is called the "demonstration plant" phase of testing a
new procedure and rush into building commercial scale nuclear
plants. "Plutonium reprocessing and recycling might be an excellent
idea," the federation says, "at the end of the century."

Meanwhile, nuclear plants in 31 states have radioactive waste in
temporary storage, because efforts to establish a permanent dump in
Nevada have stalled. But improving short-term storage at these
facilities is preferable to sending waste to Tennessee for an
untested procedure.

DOE should slow this train until there are better safeguards on
reprocessing.

Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 Tennessean: Reader Views: Should Tennessee take the nation's spent nuclear fuel
for reprocessing? - 

Nashville, Tennessee - Thursday, 03/15/07 -
Tennessean.com

Reader Views: Should Tennessee take the nation's spent nuclear fuel
for reprocessing?

Everything from equipment to clothing, in every process from 
mining to processing of uranium, becomes dangerously contaminated 
and must be stored with public safety in mind.

We could send spent fuel into outer space, but uranium is heavy 
and the cost per pound would be staggering. And do we really want 
a rocket exploding with a cargo of spent fuel? Pools are 
currently used to store spent fuels at reactor sites but that is 
and should remain a temporary solution. It is extremely unwise to 
stockpile spent fuels in this manner.

Underground dry storage is currently our best solution, but is it
safe? Someone told me about a landfill and I believe they said it
was located in Kentucky. The landfill affected water in streams far
away. Perplexed officials began to investigate and found a series of
underground networks providing the contaminating connection.
Earthquakes and rain have a way of making underground storage look
very unattractive in this area.

Unlike our current leadership, I would advise against any plans to
store spent fuels in this area, but then again, I didn't take money
from the nuclear industry for a political campaign. Therefore, I
don't have to say, "It means jobs."

James Ramirez

Madison 37115

Tennessee is more prepared than many other locations to handle the
nuclear waste. Our history with Oak Ridge provides a secure base
upon which to build the necessary infrastructure to handle
additional nuclear waste. I believe our location is preferable to
some other alternatives. I hope rampant NIMBYism (Not In My Back
Yard) doesn't overshadow prudent decision-making.

The issue of nuclear waste creates more emotional reaction than
other issues, such as landfills, metal businesses and other
processing and storage businesses. This is one downside of the
continued conversation of energy independence. Nuclear energy brings
with it nuclear waste, which has to be disposed of.

Currently, there are rail and truck shipments through Tennessee that
contain a wide variety of hazardous waste. I see no compelling
reason to treat nuclear waste any differently than the noxious
chemicals and other products and byproducts of our consumer society.

As a society, we need to make informed decisions about our actions,
whether that is advocating nuclear energy to relieve our dependence
on foreign oil, or allowing household fertilizers to pollute our
waterways while running the risk of the tank trucks hauling them
overturning and spilling chemicals that have to be cleaned up.

Todd M. Liebergen

Madison 37115

If nuclear waste is not good enough for New England, the West Coast
and other areas of our country, why is it good enough for Tennessee?

In the past, incidental to other events, we have had insight into
conversations and other goings-on in the Oval Office. One very
disturbing consistency is the Republican Party's smirking belief
they can do to Tennessee that which they dare not attempt in other
locations of our country, owing to our faith in them (Republican
administrations) and the general lack of knowledge about the dangers
among our electorate. Disposal of nuclear waste is one of the issues
that triggered some of these conversations not intended for us to
hear. The first of these revelations surfaced in the Watergate tapes
— more than 30 years ago. There have been others since. How long
will it take us to know the dangers?

How long till we recognize the cynical responses to our misplaced
faith?

Greg McDonald

Brentwood 37027

The government's policy for dealing with this developing component
of our intractable nuclear-waste dilemma has also collapsed and is
being conceded to the private sector.

An entrepreneur named Khosrow Semnani is becoming the nation's first
radioactive-waste multimillionaire and wants to become even richer
by filling the gap between the drive to keep nuclear utilities
profitable and the inability of federal agencies to pimp their
tainted waste stream. Semnani, who gave his corporation the
tree-hugging moniker Envirocare, operates a large landfill for
A-level radioactive waste, mostly contaminated soils, on Utah's west
desert. He has come close to establishing a monopoly of the market
for A-level radioactive waste and is now bidding to corner the
emerging market in B- and C-level debris.

The federal government has been an expensive, unresponsive, and
careless steward of the nation's nuclear waste. Any citizen who has
tried to influence a hearing of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
knows that its relation to sound science, open information and
citizen inclusion is a lot like the relationship between justice and
a drive-by shooting. But the experiment in privatizing the
radioactive-waste problem has revealed the dramatic shortcomings of
that alternative

As part of an effort to jump-start the nuclear power industry the
Bush administration is proposing "a $250 million initiative to
reprocess spent nuclear fuel." The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
proposal would allow General Electric and other U.S. companies to
sell developing countries "reactors and nuclear fuel on the
condition that the U.S. would take back the spent fuel for
reprocessing. A new reprocessing method would reduce the nation's
eventual need for more nuclear-waste storage by a factor of more
than 100."

Like every other U.S. citizen, we do not want this waste to end up
in some landfill in our own state. We have already witnessed the
destruction of what over 20-some-odd years of toxic byproducts
getting into our wells and main drinking water has caused in our own
county of Dickson.

Ron Story

Charlotte 37036


Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 Tennessean: GNEP a solution to climate, energy needs - 

Nashville, Tennessee -

Thursday, 03/15/07 - Tennessean.com

By DENNIS SPURGEON

In the effort to support economic growth, aggressively address 
climate change, and satisfy a demand for world energy that is 
expected to double by 2050, the need for nuclear power — a safe, 
clean, affordable and emissions-free source of energy — has never 
been greater.

Never before has the need for energy security driven more 
countries to turn to nuclear power. The president's Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), announced in 2006, provides a 
global solution of appropriate magnitude to address these issues.

GNEP is a comprehensive strategy involving the U.S. and 
partnering nations to increase the use of nuclear power to meet 
an ever-increasing worldwide demand for energy. Specifically, it 
creates a program to eliminate the need for countries to develop 
technology that can be used to create nuclear weapons. It also 
seeks to develop existing technologies to recycle used fuel, 
allowing us to safely consume elements that are especially 
difficult to dispose of. By implementing GNEP, we would increase 
global energy security, reduce the risk of proliferation, improve 
the environment, and cut our dependence on fossil fuels — all 
while creating jobs and growing economies worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Energy has received interest from 13 sites
for potential GNEP facilities. We envision three facilities. The
first would separate used fuel, the second would recycle this fuel
with an advanced reactor, and the third would provide research
support. Currently, DOE is hosting public meetings near each of
these potential sites to gain a better understanding of the
environmental conditions under which we might be operating. On the
whole, feedback has been positive.

Partnership offers options

Of course, safety and security are a concern. In fact, they were a
driving force behind GNEP. Because nuclear power is the only
technology currently capable of delivering large amounts of power
without emitting carbon dioxide, a managed worldwide growth of
nuclear fuel production and recycling is essential because it
minimizes the risk of nuclear materials getting into the wrong
hands. Unmanaged, we would have little to no room to provide
safeguard from nuclear material winding up in the hands of those
bent on harming us. With inaction, we are complacent. With GNEP, we
have options.

With recycling, GNEP will significantly reduce the amount of used
fuel that ultimately needs to be disposed of; however, a permanent
repository is still necessary. Yucca Mountain, Nev., is best-suited
for this function, as the nation's permanent geologic repository.
GNEP will allow us to recycle and reuse fuel that would otherwise
end up unused at Yucca Mountain.

We are now at a crossroad in terms of establishing the international
framework necessary to support such expansion. Many countries such
as Japan, China and Russia are already aggressively pursuing the
expansion of nuclear power — regardless of our involvement. In order
to have a stake in how nuclear fuel is handled, processed, stored
and used, we must invest in and provide leadership in the nuclear
fuel cycle. GNEP does just that.

For more information, visit: www.gnep.gov.

Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 Salt Lake Tribune: Governor reaches deal on EnergySolutions 
radioactive waste site

Article Last Updated: 03/15/2007 03:41:26 PM MDT

Posted: 3:18 PM- Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. announced "a monumental
win" this afternoon in his fight to keep nuclear waste out of Utah.

    EnergySolutions, a nuclear waste company that operates a
mile-square hazardous and radioactive waste landfill in Tooele
County, will withdraw plans for a massive "Supercell" and, in
effect, cap the volume of waste at the site. The deal closes the
door to nearly 117 million cubic feet of waste that might have come
otherwise.

    "This is a monumental win for Utahns marking the endgame for the
in-migration of other states' radioactive waste," said Huntsman,
announcing the deal at 3 p.m.

    "I am pleased we were able to work something out that is in the
best long-term interests of Utahns without the burden of costly
litigation." On Feb. 27, the Republican Governor allowed to go into
effect SB155, which removed the governor and the Legislature from
oversight of the EnergySolutions landfill within its current
boundaries.

    Huntsman had criticized the bill and vowed to go to a regional
regulatory body to seek a cap on EnergySolutions' importation of
waste into Utah.

*****************************************************************
 61 Salt Lake Tribune: View a summary the governor's agreement with EnergySolutions

Article Last Updated: 03/15/2007 03:50:04 PM MDT

Posted: 3:52 PM- Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. announced today that
EnergySolutions will withdraw its application for a super cell as
part of an overall agreement between the waste disposal company and
Utah.

    The Agreement is summarized below:

    1. Energy Solutions will promptly withdraw the Combined Class A
Cell license amendment currently pending before the Utah Board of
Radiation Control and its Executive Secretary. This means that no
new volumes of radioactive waste will come to Utah.

    The previously-approved 11e.(2) disposal cell has an unused
capacity of approximately 3.6 million cubic yards (96.2 million
cubic feet). EnergySolutions is proposing to convert the unused
portion of the cell for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

    This means that there is a net reduction of 116,840,178 cubic
feet (4,327,414 cubic yards) of low-level radioactive waste that
will not be shipped to Utah. Furthermore, because of the spacing
between the 11e.(2) and Converted Class A cells, there will be an
additional reduction in volume of radioactive waste. Beyond this
agreed to volume, Utah will not accept any additional Class A waste.

    2. EnergySolutions re-affirmed that it will not accept Class B
or C wastes or waste with higher radionuclide concentrations than
previously accepted waste.

    3. The Governor proposed to notify the Northwest Interstate 
Low-Level Waste Compact (Compact) to limit the volume of waste 
that could be disposed at the EnergySolutions facility. Because 
EnergySolutions is withdrawing its pending license amendment for 
the Combined Class A Cell, as indicated above, that reduction in 
low-level waste volume has been accomplished without notification 
to the Compact.

    The Governor can exercise his authority under the Compact in the
future, if EnergySolutions requests a license or license amendment
to receive more low-level radioactive waste than is currently
approved.

    4. The authority and rights of the State of Utah, the Utah Board
of Radiation Control, the Board's Executive Secretary, the Compact,
and EnergySolutions are not altered by this Agreement. (This
encompasses paragraphs 4 & 5 of the Agreement.)

Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 62 FR NRC: Mox license facility app in Aiken SC

Doc E7-4751

[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 12204-12206] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr07-104]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-3098]

 
Notice of License Application for Possession and Use of 
Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Materials for the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication Facility, Aiken, SC, and Opportunity To Request a 
Hearing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of license application, and opportunity to request a 
hearing.

DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by May 14, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Tiktinsky, Senior Project 
Manager, MOX Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-6195; 
fax number: (301) 415-5369; e-mail: dht@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received, by letter 
dated September 27, 2006, November 16, 2006 (document withheld based on 
10 CFR 2.390), and January 4, 2007 (a public redacted version), a 
license application and supporting documents from Shaw AREVA MOX 
Services (MOX Services), requesting a license for possession and use of 
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials for the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) to be located on the Savannah River 
Site in Aiken, SC.
    On March 30, 2005, the NRC issued a Construction Authorization (CA) 
to MOX Services (formerly known as Duke, Cogema, Stone and Webster) for 
a MFFF to be located at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South 
Carolina (ML050660392).The NRC staff's technical basis for issuing the 
CA was set forth in NUREG-1821, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report on the 
Construction Authorization Request for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication 
Facility at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina'' (ML050660399). 
The results of the staff's environmental review related to the issuance 
of the CA are contained in NUREG-1767, ``Environmental Impact Statement 
on the Construction and Operation of a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication 
Facility at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina--Final Report'' 
(ML050240233, ML050240250).
    A License Application (LA) was submitted to the NRC on September 
27, 2006, requesting the approval for the possession and use of 
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials for the MFFF. In the 
process of performing the Acceptance/Acknowledgment review of the LA, 
the staff identified some parts of the submittal that required 
modifications in order for the NRC to complete the initial review. The 
preliminary review of the LA indicated that much of the information 
required by Part 70 (in particular, 10 CFR 70.22 and 10 CFR part 70, 
subpart H) to be in an operating license application was contained in 
the Integrated Safety Analyses (ISA) Summary. The staff also believed 
that some of the information that was identified to be withheld as 
proprietary should be publically available.
    On November 7, 2006, the NRC sent a letter to Mr. David Stinson, 
President of MOX Services indicating the modifications that were needed 
in order for the NRC to complete its initial Acceptance/Acknowledgment 
review. A revised LA was submitted to the NRC on November 16, 2006 
(document was withheld under 10 CFR 2.390).
    The U.S. NRC staff performed an acknowledgment/ acceptance review 
of the revised MFFF license submittals to determine if sufficient 
information was provided for the staff to begin a detailed technical 
review.
    The submittals generally addressed the requirements of an operating 
license for a facility specified in 10 CFR part 70, and the items 
specified in NUREG-1718, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of an 
Application for a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility.'' The staff 
accepted the application for technical review and docketing. The

[[Page 12205]]

Acceptance/Acknowledgment review was documented in a letter to MOX 
Services dated December 20, 2006 (ML063530612). A redacted public 
version of the LA was submitted to the NRC on January 4, 2007 
(ML070160304 and ML070160311).
    The NRC will review the license application for compliance with 
applicable sections of regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR)--Energy, Chapter I--Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    If the NRC approves the application, the approval will be 
documented in an NRC License. However, before approving the request for 
an operating license, the NRC will need to make the findings required 
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. 
These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report.

II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing

    The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an 
application for a license. In accordance with the general requirements 
in subpart C of 10 CFR part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 
2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and 
who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a 
hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks 
to have litigated in the hearing.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(a), a request for a hearing must be 
filed with the Commission either by:
    1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings 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, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays;
    3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or
    4. By 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.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (b), all documents offered for 
filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the 
proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule 
or order of the Commission, including:
    1. The applicant, Shaw AREVA MOX Services, P.O. Box 7097, Aiken, SC 
29804, Attention: Dealis Gwyn; and
    2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by 
mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests 
should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either 
by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or via e-mail to 
ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov.

    The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), 
(c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.304(f), a 
document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not 
comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), 
as long as an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all 
of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d) are mailed within 
two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b), a request for a hearing must 
be filed by May 14, 2007.
    In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 
2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed 
by a person other than an applicant must state:
    1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester;
    2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a 
party to the proceeding;
    3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or 
other interest in the proceeding;
    4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued 
in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and
    5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is 
timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b).
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(1), a request for hearing or 
petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the 
contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or 
petition must:
    1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted;
    2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention;
    3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within 
the scope of the proceeding;
    4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material 
to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is 
involved in the proceeding;
    5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the 
issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support 
its position on the issue; and
    6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute 
exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This 
information must include references to specific portions of the 
application that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting 
reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the 
application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as 
required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting 
reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief.
    In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(2), contentions 
must be based on documents or other information available at the time 
the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety 
analysis report, or other supporting documents filed by an applicant or 
licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner.
    Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha 
designation within one of the following groups:
    1. Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the 
proposed action.
    2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed 
action.
    3. Emergency Planning--primarily concerns issues relating to 
matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to 
the proposed action.
    4. Physical Security--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to 
the proposed action.
    5. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined 
above.
    If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues 
that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these 
categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and 
supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the 
requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs

[[Page 12206]]

with a separate designation for that category.
    Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each 
other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter 
concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring 
requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, 
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(3), any requester/petitioner that 
wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner 
must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is 
filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to 
act for the requester/petitioner.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (g), a request for hearing and/or 
petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the 
hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310.

III. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this notice are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               ADAMS
                Document                   Accession No.       Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
License Application for the MFFF........     ML062750194      09/27/2006
Request for exemption from                   ML062720071      09/27/2006
 decommissioning requirements...........
Request for exemption from radiation         ML062720076      09/27/2006
 labeling requirements..................
Request for exemption from indemnity         ML062720082      09/27/2006
 agreement and financial protection
 requirement............................
NRC letter with comments on LA content       ML063100216      11/07/2006
 review.................................
Emergency plan assessment...............     ML063250124      11/16/2007
                                             ML063250129
NRC acceptance/acknowledgment review         ML063530612      12/20/2006
 letter.................................
Transmittal letter for public version of     ML070160304      01/04/2007
 LA.....................................
License application public version......     ML070160311      01/04/2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
    These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1-F-21, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of March, 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Giitter,
Director, Special Project, and Technical Support Directorate, Division 
of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7-4751 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 63 UPI: U.S. lauds nuke cooperation with Russia

United Press International - Energy - 

3/15/2007 11:25:00 AM -0400

MOSCOW, March 15 (UPI) -- U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell
lauded nuclear cooperation between Russia and the United States,
saying their work could "literally change the world."

In comments Wednesday at the Carnegie Moscow Center, Sell noted that
both Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Bush have
put forward similar plans to pursue the spread of nuclear energy
worldwide.

"If supplier nations can provide the fuel services in a commercially
attractive form - and from a diversity of suppliers - it will reduce
incentives for nations to acquire sensitive fuel cycle technologies,
reduce stockpiles of separated plutonium, enable proliferation
resistant reactor technology, and strengthen safeguards technology,"
he said.

He said: "Moving forward, our joint cooperation in the spread of
nuclear energy will, indeed, be a tremendous development; and one
that could literally change the world."

Both plans call for the setting up of international centers for the
enrichment of uranium and countries that guarantee they want a
civilian nuclear program will get fuel from these centers, which
will operated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Under the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, nations that
supply fuel would commit to operating both nuclear power plants and
fuel production and handling facilities. They would provide fuel
services to consumer nations that operate the nuclear power plants.


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 64 The Australian: Don't go nuclear, US expert warns 

NEWS.com.au |

* March 14, 2007

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP

* By Rosemary Desmond

AUSTRALIA could face serious environmental problems if it went 
ahead with a nuclear power industry, a visiting American expert 
has warned.

Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information
and Resource Service in Washington DC, said marine life would suffer
if superheated water used to cool nuclear reactors built on the
coast was released back into the sea.

Mr Kamps said there could be no safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Prime Minister John Howard has backed a nuclear power industry,
saying it is a long-term solution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.

Mr Kamps said Australians should "nip this proposal in the bud".

"Nuclear reactors in Australia would be de facto permanent waste
dumps until a nuclear sacrifice site was made somewhere in the
country," Mr Kamps said.

In the US, a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada, had so far cost $US9 billion ($11.53 billion) and 25 years
work to set up.

"The earliest they can open it is 2021, but it's looking more and
more likely it may never open now, so it's back to square one with
our dilemma," Mr Kamps said.

The Prime Minister's nuclear taskforce has said 25 nuclear power
plants in Australia would generate 45,000 tonnes of high-level
radioactive waste.

But this was almost as much as America's estimated 60,000 tonnes
after 50 years of nuclear power, Mr Kamps said.

Nuclear waste remained a deadly poison in the environment for up to
a million years.

A study has identified cities such as Townsville, Mackay and
Brisbane as potential sites for nuclear reactors because of the
coastal cities' proximity to power and water.

But the US experience had been that marine life was seriously
affected by coast-based nuclear plants, Mr Kamps said.

"Even large animals like endangered sea turtles are sucked into
these cooling systems," he said.

"In one year, 933 endangered sea turtles were sucked into a reactor
in Florida.

"Sixteen of these were killed and many of the others were injured or
traumatised, so it's having very serious impacts on endangered
species on the sea coasts."

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 65 Whitehaven News: Group 4 joins Sellafield bidders

Published on 15/03/2007

By Alan Irving

A SECURITY firm employing more than 430,000 people in 100 countries
has emerged as a shock bidder for the management control of
Sellafield under the ownership of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority.

Group 4 Securicor, which has contracts for security in prisons and
electronic tagging of offenders, will compete with some of the big
American nuclear players to take over the overall running of
Sellafield, which employs around 12,000 staff.

The Group 4 Securicor move for the â€œstrategic managementâ€
contract has raised eyebrows among unions and movers and shakers in
the industry.

Peter Kane, convenor for Sellafieldâ€™s biggest industrial union,
the GMB, told The Whitehaven News: â€œIt is a complete surprise to
us. As far as were concerned at the end of the day any company which
wins the contract from the NDA would need to show proven experience
and expertise in nuclear operations. I am not aware that Group Four
have. It is also surprising that they donâ€™t have a contract at
Sellafield currently, although at one time they were in charge of
security on the construction site while some of the big plants were
being built.â€

The Sellafield unions have already had informal talks with some of
the other prospective bidders to run Sellafield. â€œIf Group 4 want
to meet us then we will be happy to do so on the same basis,â€ said
Mr Kane.

Group 4 Securicorâ€™s world-wide business portfolio includes an
American subsidiary Wackenhut which is the largest security supplier
to the United States government and has contracts at several US
nuclear sites.

Wackenhut is currently embroiled in a dispute with both current and
former employees who are calling for a congressional hearing to rule
on allegations against the company of â€œracism, discrimination and
poor performanceâ€.

Nuclear insiders are also surprised by the Group 4 bid.

One said: â€œWhether itâ€™s Group 4 or Woolworthâ€™s, the fact
remains that there is only one contract to bid for and that is for
the overall management of the Sellafield site, which includes the
workforce.â€

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said it could not comment
whether Group 4 or anyone else had entered the competition process
but confirmed that the top-tier Sellafield contract was for â€œthe
ultimate management of the siteâ€.

Sensitive nuclear security at Sellafield is handled by the Civil
Nuclear Constabulary but general building security such as in
reception areas is under the control of contractors Mitie and Dalkia.

Group 4 holds existing security contracts with BNFL at Risley and
the new head office at Daresbuy in Cheshire.

The US giant Fluor, one of the other bidders to run Sellafield, has
promised to put Â£30,000 a year into a community treasure chest.



*****************************************************************
 66 AFP: Press questions urgency of nuclear vote - 

Thu Mar 15, 2:37 AM

LONDON (AFP) - The press was on Thursday left wondering why Prime 
Minister Tony Blair pushed through a crucial parliamentary vote 
on renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent with what they saw as 
minimal public debate.

Blair's government passed a bill by a healthy margin, but only 
after a revolt from within Labour ranks, following a debate in 
parliament on Wednesday and the resignation of four junior 
government ministers through the course of the week.


The Daily Mail noted in its editorial column: "While this newspaper
is committed to maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent, it is
impossible not to feel some sympathy for the Labour rebels."


"The fact is that Britain is being railroaded into making an awesome
commitment with very little precise information, hardly any debate
and totally inadequate costings."


The Independent echoed those views, declaring in its editorial: "The
renewal of Trident, like the Iraq war four years ago, is an issue of
paramount national significance that cried out for a thorough
debate."


"Instead, a succession of mostly lacklustre speeches preceded a vote
that the government was never going to lose. The voters, and
taxpayers, have good reason to feel let down."


Dissent was strong within Labour, with 87 Labour MPs voting against
replacing the submarine-based Trident. Some 95 backed a defeated
amendment to delay the decision.


The government won both votes only with the support of the
Conservatives.


Similarly, the Daily Mirror said in its editorial page that the
"rush to commit Britain to a new generation of weapons of mass
destruction left the Labour government humiliatingly reliant on Tory
votes."


"It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the timing owes more
to Tony Blair's eagerness to tick another legacy box before
departing Downing Street than defence of the realm."


Blair has pledged to leave office by September, and Chancellor of
the Exchequer Gordon Brown will be his likely successor.


The Guardian meanwhile questioned not the quality of the debate, but
the decision itself, saying in its editorial: "The electorate is
less sure about Trident than leaders think, and perhaps more aware
of what has changed in the world since the Cold War and Iraq."


"It is those who back the British nuclear deterrent ... who have
been left behind."


The Times, unlike the rest, backed both the decision and the debate,
saying in its editorial page that the debate was "muted because the
outcome of the Cold War showed that the multilateralists rather than
the unilateralists were right."


"Political circumstances are different today, but the assertion that
a British independent nuclear deterrent only ever made sense in the
context of a threat from the Soviet Union is very hard to sustain."


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 67 [NukeNet] Another Great RRW Editorial-The Independent/Livermore
 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:15:21 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] Another Great RRW Editorial-The Independent/Livermore
Date: 	Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:26:06 -0800
From: 	Marylia Kelley <marylia@earthlink.net>
To: 	marylia@earthlink.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Hi, check out the Livermore Independent newspaper's editorial, below,
opposing new nuclear weapons and, specifically, the design of a new warhead
(misnamed the Reliable Replacement Warhead) at Livermore Lab.

Please consider using it (and the Tri-Valley Herald editorial I circulated
on Sunday) in your advocacy and public education efforts.

That 2 local Livermore papers think this new weapons program should not go
forward AND the New York Times has editorialized against it as well SHOULD
become known to every individual and every Member of Congress!

Act today to stop new nuclear weapons!
Peace,
Marylia

EDITORIAL SECTION
THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

Little To Celebrate (March 8, 2007)

The Bush Administration announced last week that a design team from
Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories has been selected
for a project to upgrade the nation*s nuclear arsenal. The goal is to
develop warheads whose reliability can be assured without underground
testing. LLNL/Sandia and Los Alamos competed for the work.

Not everyone celebrated. Though the project will create jobs in
Livermore, many believe it will make the world less safe. Among the
critics was Senator Dianne Feinstein, who observed that new nuclear
weapons will essentially be created. It will encourage other countries
to follow the same path, she said.

We share the concerns. The U.S. is currently engaged in delicate
negotiations with Iran and North Korea to curb the spread of nuclear
technology. How can we with any credibility ask others to surrender
their ambitions when our own development of nuclear bombs continues?

http://www.independentnews.com/

Marylia Kelley,
Executive Director

Tri-Valley CAREs
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA  94551

Ph: (925) 443-7148
Fx: (925) 443-0177
Web: www.trivalleycares.org
Email: marylia@trivalleycares.org or marylia@earthlink.net



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 68 ENS: Rocky Flats Nuclear Plant to Become Wildlife Refuge

Environment News Service (ENS)

AmeriScan: March 14, 2007

Rocky Flats Nuclear Plant to Become Wildlife Refuge DENVER, Colorado
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to delete
25,413 acres of the Rocky Flats Plant Superfund site in Jefferson
and Boulder Counties, Colorado, from the Superfund List and
designate it as a national wildlife refuge.

The 1,308 acre Central Operable Unit at the former nuclear weapons
production plant is not being considered for deletion and will
remain on the Superfund List.

Rocky Flats operated as a nuclear weapons production facility from
1952 to 1988. In 1953, the plant began production of bomb
components, manufacturing plutonium triggers, which were used at the
Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas to assemble nuclear weapons.

In 1991, due to the fall of the Soviet Union, production of most of
the weapons systems at Rocky Flats was no longer needed. In 1992,
production of submarine-based missiles using the W88 trigger was
discontinued, ending the need for production at Rocky Flats.

Numerous incidents of radioactive contamination of air, soil and
water surrounding the Rocky Flats plant were documented over the
years.

In 1989 the FBI raided the facilities and ordered everyone out. They
found numerous violations of federal anti-pollution laws including
massive plutonium contamination of water and soil.

Long-term cleanup of the facility began in 1994. Throughout the
remainder of the 1990s and into the 2000s, cleanup of contaminated
sites and dismantling of contaminated buildings continued with the
waste materials being shipped to the Nevada Test Site, the
Envirocare company in Utah, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in
New Mexico.

Clean-up was declared complete on October 13, 2005. About 1,000
acres of the new wildlife refuge - the former Industrial Area - will
remain under control of the Department of Energy to allow ongoing
environmental monitoring and remediation.

The 25,413 acre deletion reflects the completion of all response
actions for the offsite and peripheral parcels and will allow the
U.S. Department of Energy to transfer the deleted part of the site
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for management as a national
wildlife refuge.

Areas affected by the proposed deletion include the 4,933 acre
Peripheral Operable Unit and the 20,480 acre Operable Unit 3. These
areas consist of open space, residential development and
agricultural lands.

A 1997 Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3 and a 2006 Record of
Decision for the Peripheral Operable Unit determined that all
appropriate response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act have been implemented in
these areas, and that no further response action by responsible
parties is appropriate.

The state of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, concurs with the proposed deletion. The U.S.
Department of Energy will be responsible for all future response
actions required at the area deleted if future site conditions
warrant such actions.

The EPA requests public comment on this proposed action. Comments
must be received on or before April 12, 2007.

To view the Federal Register notice for this proposed action, visit:
http://www.regulations.gov and select EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011-0005 in
the Keyword/ID search box.

Please submit comments, identified by Docket ID no.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-189-0011, to Rob Henneke at the U.S. EPA by email at:
henneke.rob@epa.gov.


 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 69 FR DOE: Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

Doc E7-4756

[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 12168-12169] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr07-50]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Fossil Energy

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate 
Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesday, 
April 25, 2007, 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Table Mountain Inn, 1310 Washington Avenue, Golden, Colorado 
80401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Allison, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas,

[[Page 12169]]

Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 202-586-1023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Methane Hydrate 
Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of 
methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy, and assist in developing 
recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Methane 
Hydrate Research and Development Program.

Tentative Agenda

Tuesday, April 24

     Report and discussion of meeting with Deputy Secretary of 
Energy and congressional committees.
     Reports and discussion of key Department of Energy-
supported field projects.
     Report and discussion of code comparison for various 
reservoir simulators.
     Report and discussion of University of Mississippi 
seafloor observatory.
     Report and discussion of International activities.
     Final critique of 5-year plan and preparation of 2007 
report to Congress.

Wednesday, April 25

     Continue preparation of report to Congress.
     Fast Track, Environmental and International Subcommittee 
discussions.
     Wrap-up and discussion of action items.
     Adjourn.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Chairman of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written 
statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the 
meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the 
items on the agenda, you should contact Edith Allison at the address or 
telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral 
statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and 
reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the 
agenda. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 9, 2007.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-4756 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 70 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs 
Meeting

Doc E7-4757

[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 12168] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr07-49]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
    Friday, March 30, 2007, 8 a.m.-12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Suncoast Hotel & Casino, 9090 Alta Drive, Las Vegas, NV 
89145, (702) 636-7111 or 1-877-677-7111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Douglas Frost, Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the EM SSAB is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

Thursday, March 29, 2007

8 a.m. Welcome/Introductions
8:30 a.m. Round Robin: Top Three Issues--Each Chair
9:30 a.m. Presentation by Assistant Secretary James Rispoli
10:15 a.m. Discussion of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
12 p.m Lunch
1:30 p.m. Office of Engineering & Technology Presentation
3 p.m. Break
3:15 p.m. EM SSAB Discussion
4:15 p.m. Wrap-Up

 Friday, March 30, 2007

8:30 a.m. Presentation by Environmental Management Advisory Board Vice 
Chair
9 a.m. Update/Discussion: Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste
10 a.m. EM SSAB Wrap-Up
11 a.m. Closing Remarks
12 p.m. Adjourn
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed either before or after the meeting with the 
Designated Federal Officer, E. Douglas Frost, at the address above or 
by phone at (202) 586-5619. Individuals who wish to make oral 
statements pertaining to agenda items should also contact E. Douglas 
Frost. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a 
maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4.p.m., Monday-Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be 
available by calling E. Douglas Frost at (202) 586-5619 and will be 
posted at http://www.em.doe.gov/stakepages/ssabchairs.aspx.

    Issued at Washington, DC on March 9, 2007.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-4757 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 71 KnoxNews: A positive note at ORNL

Officials indicate lab has averted budget crisis that could've
slowed research

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com

March 15, 2007

OAK RIDGE - The final numbers aren't in yet, but it looks like 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has averted a budget crisis.

ORNL spokesman Billy Stair said the funding allotment for the 
rest of fiscal 2007 should be enough to keep the lab's major 
programs intact.

"There will be no worst-case scenario. I can say that with
confidence," Stair said.

Earlier this year, ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth warned that if
Congress froze spending at last year's levels, it could have severe
impacts on ORNL's research efforts and cause hundreds of layoffs.
That, however, is not going to happen.

Congressional actions upped the spending pool available for science.
Although the U.S. Department of Energy has not completed the
allocations to ORNL and other research labs, Oak Ridge officials
said the preliminary guidance is mostly positive.

One of the biggest concerns was the Spallation Neutron Source, the
$1.4 billion research facility that began operations last year.

"It looks like we're going to be OK," said Thom Mason, the associate
lab director in charge of the SNS. According to DOE plans to be
submitted to Congress for approval, the funding for SNS will be less
than the requested amount for '07, but the decline won't seriously
affect operations, he said.

"I think we're going to be close enough that if we tighten our belts
a bit we'll be OK, Mason said.

The purchase of some new instruments for the SNS probably will be
delayed until 2008, he said.

The same situation is true for ORNL's supercomputing programs,
including the lab's partnership with Cray Inc. to develop a
"petascale" machine - capable of 1,000 trillion calculations per
second.

Thomas Zacharia, the lab official in charge of scientific computing,
said Wednesday "preliminary indications" are that funding this year
will be sufficient to meet the performance milestones.

ORNL hopes to have its top computer, a Cray machine known as
"Jaguar," operating at 250 teraflops - 250 trillion calculations per
second - by October, Zacharia said. Jaguar's current peak capability
is 119 teraflops, but there are plans to install new processors in
the supercomputer's cabinets over the next several months, he said.

This year's spending level for the supercomputer project apparently
will be less than the requested amount of $80.75 million, but it
appears workable, he said.

The same situation could exist in 2008, based on funding requests,
Zacharia said.

While near-term milestones may be achievable, there'll need to be
additional funding later to reach the goals for scientific computing
over the next five years, he said.

"At some point in time, we have to be made whole or figure out a way
to cut the scope (of work) dramatically," Zacharia said.

The reduced funding level at this point does not affect ORNL's
contract with Seattle-based Cray, which is building the advanced
computer units.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 72 The Traveler: UA seeks funds from DOE for reactor cleanup - 

Brandon Harris

Issue date: 3/15/07 Section: News

Media Credit: Stephen Ironside

Located in Strickler, about 18 miles southwest of Fayetteville, the
Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR) nuclear plant was
used during the 1980s by the UA mechanical engineering department.
The site is contaminated with asbestos, sodium and radioactive
contamination. The $16 million needed to decontaminate the site has
yet to be appropriated under President Bush and has been sought
since 1999.

A decommissioned nuclear reactor poses a potential threat to
southern Washington County, and officials at the UA want the federal
government to help clean it up.

The Southeast Fast Oxidizing Reactor, known as SEFOR, is a
38-year-old inactive nuclear reactor located in the Strickler
community in southern Washington County. Built by the government and
several power companies, SEFOR ownership was transferred to the UA
after the reactor was shut down in 1972.

Because the federal government is unwilling to foot the $16 million
bill for the cleanup, the UA has had little choice but leave the
site untouched. That is, until now.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., joined several other congressional
delegates this month in sending a letter to the Department of Energy
requesting federal money for the cleanup effort, and the chances of
success this time are pretty high, said Collis Geren, vice provost
for research at the UA.

"The Department of Energy has stonewalled this thing for the last
couple of years," Geren said. "But now we're close, and I honestly
think it's finally about to happen."

The cleanup project was approved in the 2005 National Energy Bill,
but money was never appropriated. Things are changing, though, as
Geren is set to meet next week with James Rispoli, the assistant
secretary of energy for environmental management in the Department
of Energy.

The government has already begun the first step of the cleanup plan,
Geren said, and the meeting with Rispoli is a sign of progress.

The SEFOR site doesn't pose an immediate threat, Geren said, but
there is an increasing potential for contamination from radioactive
material, sodium, asbestos, PCBs and other harmful materials as
years pass and the chemicals' containers break down.

"It's a mixed waste site," said Geren, who has been working to 
get federal help in the cleanup effort for nearly nine years.

The radioactive material is enclosed in several feet of concrete 
and layers of sealed containers, posing little threats unless 
this seal is breached. However, there is also piping that 
contains asbestos and liquid sodium, which is explosive and 
toxic.

"Radioactivity isn't a huge problem right now," Geren said. "It's 
relatively low, but it's still a problem. The main thing is to 
get this taken care of now so it won't be a problem later."

The UA accepted ownership of the reactor site because of the 
potential surrounding the concept of nuclear energy as the Cold 
War era raged on, Geren said.

"But they were a little ahead of their time," he said. "As early 
as 1976, one of the original proponents of accepting ownership 
said it was all a mistake."

It was too late. The UA already had ownership, and while the 
government managed and funded the site while it was in use, 
ownership was actually in the hands of various power companies, 
which the government used as a way to get out of responsibility 
for cleaning the area.

The cleanup project for SEFOR "was authorized last year, and we 
expect to get started on it this year," Geren said. "That's where 
we're at right now. Will it work? I hope so. I would like to see 
this thing cleaned up."



© 2007 The Traveler
*****************************************************************
 73 Guardian Unlimited: Small Fire Erupts at Nuclear Plant 

From the Associated Press

Thursday March 15, 2007 9:31 PM

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) - Uranium chips at the Y-12 nuclear weapons 
plant spontaneously caught fire Thursday and the small blaze was 
quickly extinguished, officials said.

No workers were injured or contaminated by radiation and no damage
was done to the building, said Bill Wilburn, spokesman for BWXT
Y-12, the managing contractor for the Department of Energy facility.
The building, where about 150 people work, was evacuated.

``The fire occurred as workers were transferring uranium chips from
one container to another and the chips were exposed to air,''
Wilburn said.

Employees extinguished the fire with powdered graphite before the
plant's fire department arrived. An investigation was under way.

The Y-12 plant makes parts from highly enriched uranium for every
warhead in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It also is the country's
primary storehouse for bomb-grade uranium.

Fires occur periodically at the plant. One happened Dec. 15 when a
``alcohol-moistened cloth ignited during a spark-producing task to
separate parts,'' according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.

Bob Alvarez, a former DOE adviser, released a report last year
saying there had been at least 23 fires and explosions involving
nuclear and non-nuclear materials at Y-12 since 1992.

---

Y-12: http://www.y12.doe.gov/

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************