***************************************************************** 03/20/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.66 ***************************************************************** 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 Comment is free: Iraq: nuclear boomerang 2 [southnews] South Africa guts big power deal on Iran sanctions 3 Reuters: South Africa guts big power deal on Iran sanctions 4 UPI: Analysis: Russia and Iran at the U.N. 5 AFP: South Africa seeks amended UN sanctions draft on Iran - 6 Comment is free: Iraq: the run to Iran 7 [NYTr] N Korea 'committed' to nuclear disarmament deal: UN 8 AFP: NKorea accuses Japan of sabotage at nuclear talks 9 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush appointees 'watered down greenhouse sci 10 US: Politico.com: Top Scientist at Energy Says His Comments Are Unce 11 Reuters: BAE, Carlyle bid for UK nuclear dockyard - source 12 US: ABC News: More E-Mails in Fired U.S. Attorneys Controversy 13 Guardian Unlimited: German envoy attacks US policy 14 UN Nuclear Watchdog Agency Helps Bangladesh Protect Prized Goats 15 RIA Novosti: Chinese president counts on closer ties with Russia 16 Scoop: Procedure and Substance in the NPT Review Cycle NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 Sydney Morning Herald: Science turns sun, surf into green energy - 18 The Hindu: "Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal a major opportunity" 19 Daily Yomiuri: 2 more N-plants report problems 20 Daily Yomiuri: Nuclear power stations must be operated safely 21 US: newsobserver.com: Panel: Duke can recover reactor costs 22 Platts: British Energy to market nuclear power from Magnox reactors 23 US: Times Daily: Targeting TVA | 24 US: APP.COM: Plant's benefits not worth risks 25 US: Norwich Bulletin: Federal commission to discuss Millstone assess 26 US: Rutland Herald: Vt. AG weighs in on Yankee spent fuel 27 US: PATRIOT LEDGER: NRC urged to look closely at spent-fuel storage 28 US: PATRIOT LEDGER: Nuclear plant shut down while water leak fixed 29 US: El Paso Times: Expansion of nuclear power plants under way 30 US: FR NRC: ACRS meeting 31 SABCnews.com: IAEA helps SA on 2010 nuclear security plan 32 Reuters: Vietnam, U.S. sign nuclear conversion agreement 33 Slate Magazine: Bloggers on Russia's nuclear ultimatum. - 34 The Tribune: N-deal not a threat to India - US 35 Caribbean Net News: Greenpeace advises against nuclear power plant S 36 AdelaideNow: Reactors to become 'nuclear storage sites' 37 US: PRN: Westinghouse Selects Cranberry Woods for Expanded Operation 38 Japan Times: Tepco admits two nuke reactors had control rod malfunct 39 Russia Newswire: TVEL to Supply Fuel to Research Reactor in Vietnam 40 Viet Nam News: VN switches to lower-grade uranium for nuclear reacto 41 Viet Nam News: Energy officials discuss nuclear power, conservation 42 AFP: US "to help build Vietnam's first nuclear plant" - NUCLEAR SECURITY 43 BBC: World Cup 'dirty bomb' threat NUCLEAR SAFETY 44 [DU-WATCH] Criticality Accident In Japan June 18, 1999 45 US: [DU-WATCH] SAIC and the Dirtiest Hot Secret 46 US: [DU-WATCH] South Dakota uranium contamination screening bill upd 47 [DU-WATCH] Soldiers Speak Out, now avail. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 RIA Novosti: IAEA delegation visits uranium enrichment center in Eas 49 US: FR NRC: FONSI for cesium disposal 50 Reuters: Russia says gave Iran no ultimatum on enrichment 51 AFP: UN nuclear inspectors visit Iranian enrichment facility - diplo 52 US: Physorg: Lack of fuel may limit US nuclear power expansion 53 US: The Gazette: Uranium is a hot commodity 54 icWales: 'Sellafield leak ends case for Wylfa B' PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 E-News: “Can” the New Bomb Plant, Job Openings at FCNL, & More 56 KnoxNews: Union labor not sought at Y-12 site 57 Tri-City Herald: DOE plans to cut supplemental injury benefit at Han 58 KnoxNews: Bombs away: Y-12 completes work 59 POGO: DOE Employees Request Congressional Investigation ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Comment is free: Iraq: nuclear boomerang : Guardian Unlimited guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Joseph Cirincione What does the war in Iraq mean for the future of nuclear proliferation? March 20, 2007 8:00 PM | Printable version It was supposed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to evil regimes. The target of the invasion four years ago was Iraq, but the goal was to stop not just the nuclear weapons that administration officials said the country was developing, but similar programs in other states. When then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was asked what lesson Iran and North Korea should draw from the Iraq war, he replied, "Take a number". The war in Iraq marked the implementation of a radical new nonproliferation strategy. Neoconservatives wanted to replace reliance on negotiated treaties that eliminated weapons with direct American actions that eliminated regimes. They spurned 50 years of bipartisan, multilateral success in negotiating and sustaining nonproliferation barriers and replaced it with a plan for preventive war. The neocons would roll from Baghdad to Damascus, Tehran and Pyongyang. We had to do it, President George Bush told the world on March 17, 2003. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he said. "The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people." Of the 54 paragraphs in his speech, 46 were devoted to weapons. Only three, at the end, referred in passing to democracy. Bush promised that the "terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed." The opposite turned out to be true. In fact, thorough searches after the invasion leave "no doubt" that the combination of the first gulf war and UN inspections ended Saddam's chemical and nuclear programs in 1991 and his biological weapon program in 1994. A few more months of inspections in 2003 would have verified what UN inspectors had started discovering: there were no weapons, or even programs to develop weapons. By attacking a country that did not have these weapons, President Bush plunged the region into chaos and accelerated the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Both countries have made more progress in the past five years than they did in the previous ten. All three members of the "axis of evil" are more dangerous to the world today than they were when President Bush took office. The ideology of al-Qaida has spread like wildfire around the world. Terrorism has increased, and with it the threat of nuclear terrorism. Yet, the strategy of waging war to stop proliferation has not been completely repudiated. Some argue that it is poor implementation, not the strategy itself that is to blame. The neoconservatives that brought us the war with Iraq now urge us to war with Iran. Pundits like William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Joshua Muravchik and their colleagues at neoconservative think tanks are unr epentant; they want to attack Iran now. Some in the administration, particularly in the office of the vice president, appear to favor this course. These voices were heard in previous American administrations. General Curtis LeMay wanted to bomb China to stop that country from testing nuclear weapons in 1964. Others proposed invading the Soviet Union to stop a Russian nuclear program in the late 1940s. Fortunately, wiser words prevailed. It is only in the Bush administration that a radical ideology was allowed to take control of the levers of state power. Fortunately, despite the planning and promoting for more proliferation wars, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to proven strategies. Like a chapter in the Star Wars saga, the pragmatists have struck back. Democrats in Congress urge decisive diplomacy, not military attacks; moderates in the administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seem to prevail over a weakened Vice President Cheney; American journalists are behaving more like watchdogs and less like sheep; and the American public decisively rejects the Iraq war and the politicians that sold it. The outcome is not decided; a battle still rages in the American government. But the signs are more hopeful for a steady course correction than at any time since President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair misled their nations into an unnecessary war. Libya provides the model: change a regime's behavior, not the regime. The correct combination of force and diplomacy ended that nation's nuclear program with little cost, no loss of life and 100% effectiveness. If the next application of this approach, North Korea, continues to make progress, it could provide a template for Iran, the most difficult case of the three. With luck, skill and courage, wiser leaders should be able to cut America's own redundant nuclear arsenals, contain the nascent nuclear programs and engage these states in new security and economic arrangements that will benefit all. They can't do much worse. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 ***************************************************************** 2 [southnews] South Africa guts big power deal on Iran sanctions Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:15:41 -0500 (CDT) South African UN Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, who holds the rotating presidency of the 15-nation council for March, said he was working with other UN members to change the draft and its contents on tightened targeted sanctions against Iran's nuclear technology. Kumalo said the five permanent members - the US, Russia, France, China and Britain - had called on the other 10 members to meet Tuesday for discussion on issues related to Iran. But he said negotiations on the draft were scheduled on Wednesday, at which time he planned to submit amendments. ___________________________________________________ Iran draft resolution to be amended - South Africa Deutsche Presse-Agentur Mar 19, 2007, 20:51 GMT New York - South Africa said Monday it was seeking to amend the draft resolution dealing with Iran's nuclear defiance, which was endorsed by the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany. South African UN Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, who holds the rotating presidency of the 15-nation council for March, said he was working with other UN members to change the draft and its contents on tightened targeted sanctions against Iran's nuclear technology. Kumalo said the five permanent members - the US, Russia, France, China and Britain - had called on the other 10 members to meet Tuesday for discussion on issues related to Iran. But he said negotiations on the draft were scheduled on Wednesday, at which time he planned to submit amendments. 'South Africa is not a window dressing on the council,' Kumalo said. He said the amendments will deal with issues of non-proliferation and the right of country to peaceful use of nuclear energy. He said the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be recognized in the draft. Kumalo said he did not know when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would come to UN headquarters to attend the council meeting on sanctions. Ahmadinejad, who received a US visa on Monday, wanted to attend the council meeting before the vote on the draft to defend his country's nuclear programme, which he said is for civilian purposes. But the six countries negotiating the draft suspect Iran's uranium enrichment activities were ultimately intended to produce nuclear weapons. The draft would give Iran 60 days from the day the council adopts the text to establish 'full and sustained suspension of all activities' related to uranium enrichment. New tightened sanctions would enter into force if Iran failed the deadline. B) 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur _____________________________________________ South Africa guts big power deal on Iran sanctions Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:08 AM GMT16 By Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - South Africa wants to drop all key U.N. sanctions proposals against Iran that were negotiated by major powers, including an arms embargo and financial bans on an Iranian state bank and the Revolutionary Guards. While the draft could probably be adopted by the Security Council without South Africa's backing, the major powers had wanted passage to be unanimous, and include an important developing nation such as South Africa. In a paper of "required amendments" sent to the 15 council members on Sunday and obtained by reporters on Monday, South Africa also called for all sanctions to be suspended for 90 days so another round of political negotiations could be held with Tehran. Consequently, council diplomats, who had hoped for a vote on the draft resolution this week, said they did not expect one until next week. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to address the council on the day of the vote about how Iran's nuclear program is for generating electricity only. The object of the resolution is to pressure Iran to halt uranium enrichment work, which can be used for peaceful purposes or to help make nuclear bombs. Saying his country was "not window dressing" to big powers, South African U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, this month's council president, told reporters the draft "was not written by God." He said South Africa's main objective was to limit sanctions to nuclear materials and technology and not expand them, as the draft does, into other areas. The new proposed resolution is a follow-up to one adopted by the Security Council on December 23 that imposed trade sanctions on sensitive nuclear materials and technology and froze assets of key Iranian individuals, groups and businesses. Its key measures are an embargo on any conventional as well as unconventional arms Iran is allowed to export and a list of people and companies whose assets abroad would be frozen. The South African paper eliminates most of the list, including the state-owned Bank Sepah, Revolutionary Guard commanders and the companies they control. 'TIMEOUT' FOR NEGOTIATIONS And it asks for a 90-day "timeout" to allow "for political negotiations to find a long-term solution." The paper says this is based on a proposal by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. But ElBaradei's version of a "timeout" was that the sanctions should be suspended at the same time as Iran halted its enrichment work, and he gave no time frame. The new draft, like the December resolution, calls for the U.N. sanctions to be suspended only after Iran stops uranium enrichment work so negotiations can resume. After intensive negotiations, Germany and the permanent council members with veto rights -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- agreed on a text last week. Adoption requires a minimum of nine votes and no veto. The sponsors probably have that but their aim was to show a united front toward Iran. In addition to the five powers, the 10 elected council members, who serve for two-year terms, are: Congo Republic, Ghana, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, Belgium, Indonesia, Italy, Panama and South Africa. In response, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, said, "I don't, myself, see the South African amendments themselves as being helpful to the sort of approach I've adopted, but that's for discussion." ***************************************************************** 3 Reuters: South Africa guts big power deal on Iran sanctions Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59AM EDT By Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - South Africa wants to drop all key U.N. sanctions proposals against Iran that were negotiated by major powers, including an arms embargo and financial bans on an Iranian state bank and the Revolutionary Guards. While the draft could probably be adopted by the Security Council without South Africa's backing, the major powers had wanted passage to be unanimous, and include an important developing nation such as South Africa. In a paper of "required amendments" sent to the 15 council members on Sunday and obtained by reporters on Monday, South Africa also called for all sanctions to be suspended for 90 days so another round of political negotiations could be held with Tehran. Consequently, council diplomats, who had hoped for a vote on the draft resolution this week, said they did not expect one until next week. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to address the council on the day of the vote about how Iran's nuclear program is for generating electricity only. The object of the resolution is to pressure Iran to halt uranium enrichment work, which can be used for peaceful purposes or to help make nuclear bombs. Saying his country was "not window dressing" to big powers, South African U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, this month's council president, told reporters the draft "was not written by God." He said South Africa's main objective was to limit sanctions to nuclear materials and technology and not expand them, as the draft does, into other areas. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: Analysis: Russia and Iran at the U.N. United Press International - International Intelligence - Published: March 20, 2007 at 7:04 PM By WILLIAM M. REILLY UPI U.N. Correspondent UNITED NATIONS, March 20 (UPI) -- Russia's ambassador to the United Nations said any action Moscow may take in relation to Iran has nothing to do with a draft resolution before the U.N. Security Council on increasing sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program. Vitaly Churkin said Tuesday it is "a separate economic issue" and went on to explain some of the nuclear relationship between Moscow and Tehran. A report in the New York Times out of Moscow Tuesday said Russia has threatened to withhold fuel for the nuclear power plant it is building for Tehran in Bushehr. "Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran's nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the U.N. Security Council," the NYT reported, citing "European, American and Iranian officials" as sources. Churkin disagreed, saying the dispute had to do only with bilateral economic issues. "Our officials who have been involved in those talks (with Iran) I think have spoken very frankly and openly about it," Moscow's envoy told reporters outside the formal council chambers at U.N. World Headquarters in New York. "There are certain economic concerns; there are some requirements of a technical nature as they proceed with the Bushehr nuclear project. "I don't want to go into it because it's none of my business," Churkin said by way of saying he did not know the inner workings of the discussions. "But what I know is that this matter has nothing to do with the discussions we're having here concerned with the Iranian nuclear issue, uranium enrichment and other things, which are the target of the discussions of the six" nations that negotiated the draft resolution. The draft sent to the full council last week was written by the five permanent members of the council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, which has served as part of the European Union three when it was on the council last year, pushing for sanctions against Iran. "It's a separate issue, and there has been no Russian ultimatums to Iran," Churkin said. When asked about fuel for the plant, he said none has been delivered. "There is a plan of construction which envisages the delivery of nuclear fuel at a certain point which is linked to the progress of construction, but this is a separate issue," Churkin said. "The thing is that our deal with the Iranians is on track. It is intact, it is still there. We are still working on it. "We are discussing whatever economic circumstances there might be with the Iranians, but we are not linking it to our discussions here in New York on Security Council resolutions and on this concern associated with the Iranian nuclear program," Moscow's envoy said. Regarding suspension of providing fuel, he replied, "There is no question we have been talking to them" about the issue. "Our goal was to elicit from the Iranian officials a positive response to the proposals of the six, which does include suspension of uranium enrichment," Churkin said. "But either in the course of those discussions in Moscow or in other contacts we have been having with the Iranians, we have not delivered any ultimatums to them which would somehow link the Bushehr project with the Iranian nuclear program which we are discussing here in New York." Bushehr was started as a German project but was abandoned under pressure from the United States, and Russia moved in to build it under a $1 billion contract. Churkin said Moscow was "still committed" to the draft resolution, which is now being studied by the 10 non-permanent members of the council. The full council is to meet on it Wednesday. South Africa, in the presidency seat this month, earlier in the week circulated a series of its own amendments to the draft, which would effectively gut it of any immediate sanctions. "We think we have to be respectful to non-permanent members and offer them the opportunity to make their views known about the draft and discuss it with them," Churkin said. "We are analyzing those amendments. We'll be discussing those with non-permanent members, but at the same time, I can not tell you my views before I share" them with the elected 10. But when asked if South Africa's proposal of a 90-day suspension wasn't "consistent with the original Russian position," he advised, "Let's not make too strong a connection between the two." Moscow's envoy said, "Listen, we have to talk with non-permanent members. I think that as we talk to them -- and I do expect the sponsors of the resolution to take the lead in those discussions -- I hope we will have some commonality of views and common approach to this resolution." As for a vote on the draft, Churkin thought it could be later this week or even next week. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: South Africa seeks amended UN sanctions draft on Iran - Tuesday March 20, 06:31 AM By Gerard Aziakou UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - South Africa pushed on Monday for a 90-day freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment in exchange for a simultaneous suspension of UN sanctions that the Security Council is looking to toughen. The 90-day, simultaneous suspension was contained in a series of South African amendments, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, to a draft resolution agreed by six major powers last week and toughening UN sanctions slapped on Iran in December for its nuclear defiance. "The 90-day period of grace provided to Iran would allow for a de-escalation of tensions and create an opportunity for Iran and the other parties involved to resume negotiations toward a long-term solution," the South African text said. "Sanctions should never be adopted in haste when other tracks for the peaceful resolution of a situation should be addressed," the text said. The idea of a simultaneous 90-day suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment and of UN sanctions against Iran was first proposed earlier this year by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. Diplomats in Vienna, meanwhile, told AFP that Iran had denied UN inspectors access to its underground uranium enrichment plant on Monday. Blocking definitively IAEA access to Natanz could be a violation of Iran's obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with as-yet unknown impact on the UN sanctions talks. The new sanctions draft bans Iran from exporting arms, calls for voluntary trade sanctions and expands a list of officials and companies targeted for financial and travel restrictions. The text would give Iran 60 days to comply or face "further appropriate measures," meaning economic sanctions but no military action, under Article 41 of the UN Charter. But the South African amendments would gut much of the text, by deleting the weapons ban and many financial sanctions, according to Western diplomats. They would also drop several names of companies and persons subjected to assets freezes or travel restrictions, including Bank Sepah, key officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its entities. "I don't think that these amendments are consistent with the approach the Security Council is following," said French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere. South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons program during its 1990s transition to democracy, has consistently defended Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The South African envoy said the co-sponsors of the draft resolution requested informal talks for Tuesday "on other related matters, not to negotiate" the text. "The negotiations (on the draft among the council's 15 members) will start on Wednesday," he added. The sanctions package was agreed last week by envoys of the council's five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany. The United States announced Monday it had granted visas to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 38 aides and bodyguards so he can address the Security Council when it votes on the new sanctions resolution. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Iran made an additional request on Monday for visas for 33 air crew and those were also expected to be granted. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed preparations for the new UN sanctions vote with her counterparts from the European Union and Germany. The West fears Iran aims to produce nuclear weapons with the enriched uranium, but Tehran insists the fuel is for peaceful energy purposes only. Iran warned against tougher sanctions on Monday. "Adopting new resolutions by the Security Council ... will face Iran's proportionate response," Abbas Araghchi, deputy foreign minister in legal and international affairs, said in a meeting with foreign ambassadors. The United States says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, but it has never ruled out a military option. AFP ***************************************************************** 6 Comment is free: Iraq: the run to Iran Guardian Unlimited guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Ian Williams Ian Williams March 20, 2007 9:30 PM | Printable version Four years after the start of the Iraq war, the White House has a twin strategy. Dig deeper in Iraq And dig another on in Iran - with bunker busters. As Yogi Berra said, "it's deja vu all over again". The same incremental process that led into the Iraqi quagmire is being rolled out for Iran. Optimists think that because it makes no sense for the US to initiate or support an attack on Iran, it can't happen. The fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is a good time to recall that no one has yet produced a convincing reason for that war, either. And the same people are still in charge - and up to their same tricks at the UN. The WMDs, as we now know, were a chimera, and even at the time they were obviously just a diplomatic McGuffin - a way of getting UN authorization for Tony Blair and those faint-hearts in the State Department who wanted legal cover. One can't help thinking that the alleged Iranian nukes are equally draped in McGuffin tartan. While the US leaves Darfur on the back burner in the Security Council, the Bush administration is pushing inexorably against Iran by trying to get the UN, an organization whose authority Washington constantly questions, to implement a Non-Proliferation Treaty that the US has selectively sabotaged, against Iran - a country that is not in breach of it. The IAEA Council was bullied into referring Iran to the Security Council. Ironically one of the key swing votes was India, a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and an open nuclear power, which voted against Iran in return for Washington blessing New Delhi's nuclear efforts! Having got it on the UN agenda - even more ironically, under the title "Non-Proliferation" - the US and the UK are now applying their well-honed skills to chivvying the others to the brink in easily digestible gobbets. (Indeed, many international lawyers think that the UK Trident replacement programme actually puts it into breach of the NPT - a point the Iranians have been quick to make.) The west may not get a resolution authorizing actual war. But close is good enough. Before the Iraq war, heavy British and American diplomatic pressure ratcheted up the resolutions in a battle of diplomatic attrition, drawing in the Russians, the French and others in small steps. When the others members finally refused to vote for an actual attack, the British Attorney General and the US State Department invoked all the small print that their opponents on the council had conceded earlier to "prove" that the war was being fought to implement UN resolutions. The same tightening of the screws is happening with Iran. The draft resolution they are pushing has the phrase, "recalling the requirement on States to join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council", which one can, without too much paranoia, see retrospectively invoked for a coalition of the coerced. Even though the IAEA has expressed some concern over Iran's ambitions, it has made clear that Tehran is a long way from nuclear capability - unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, about which Washington seems blithely unconcerned (and indeed, in the case of India and Israel, actually to condone). The farce anticipates the tragedy. The White House took appropriations and troops voted for Afghanistan and diverted them to Iraq. It now seems to be assembling forces in the region, under the guise of an exit strategy for Iraq, and aiming them towards Iran. Two carrier groups off Iran are hardly appropriate for enhancing the safety of the ordinary Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad. Other clauses in the draft impose a ban on conventional arms trade to and from Iran, "in order to prevent a destabilising accumulation of arms". You do not have to be an Ayatollah-lover to wonder about the destabilizing effect of the American arms build-up in the region, or the overt threats from Israel against Tehran, to suspect that this is more than a little provocative - and almost surely setting up the Iranians, this time with enthusiastic French support. There is even the same pattern of turning on a former protĂ©gĂ©e. It really is time to get Ollie North back in harness. He had no problems negotiating with the Iranians and supplying them with arms before. Send him over to talk. He may even get a few contracts for Halliburton while he is there. And he could take Scooter Libby with him. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] N Korea 'committed' to nuclear disarmament deal: UN Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:54:49 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - Mar 15, 2007 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0315/1173880234736.html North Korea 'committed' to nuclear disarmament agreement by Chris Buckley UN/KOREA: North Korea is committed to a disarmament agreement reached in February but wants sanctions against it lifted first, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog said yesterday. It was the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) first negotiations with North Korea in more than four years, even though IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei was told the North's top nuclear negotiator was too busy to meet him. Mr ElBaradei said the visit had been "quite useful" and opened the way to a normal relationship. He said North Korea was positive about returning to IAEA membership, but wanted sanctions lifted. "I think they were very clear that they are willing to implement the February 13th agreement once the other parties implement their part," he said, referring to an agreement reached at six-party talks grouping the two Koreas, Russia, Japan, the US and host China. "The DPRK [North Korea] mentioned that they are waiting for the lifting of sanctions with regard to the Macau bank." Referring to the closure of the Yongbyon nuclear plant, he said: "They said they are ready, willing and capable of doing that as soon as the financial sanctions are lifted." Mr ElBaradei's visit was the first by the agency since late 2002, when North Korea expelled its inspectors as an earlier disarmament deal fell apart. It withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty days later. Under the terms of the February agreement, the Yongbyon reactor, which makes plutonium that can be used in nuclear weapons, must be shut by mid-April in return for an initial shipment of heavy fuel oil. However, South Korean foreign minister Song Min-soon said earlier that North Korea had shown no signs of closing the reactor. North Korea tested its first nuclear device last October, drawing widespread condemnation and UN sanctions. "There is no indication of a change in the operational condition of Yongbyon," Mr Song told a news conference in Seoul. The IAEA, which is trying to iron out the details of a return of its inspectors to North Korea, will be key to verifying whether the state makes good on its pledge. In addition to US envoy Christopher Hill, South Korean envoy Chun Yung-woo arrived for working-group meetings. Both envoys, along with China's Wu Dawei, will take part in discussions to flesh out parts of the agreement dealing with disarmament and energy. The US said that within 30 days of the February deal it would settle a dispute over North Korean bank accounts frozen in Macau, which the US says were used to launder illegal earnings. "The Macau issue will be resolved as we've promised," Mr Hill said. As part of the give-and-take to settle the dispute, the US Treasury Department would bar US banks from doing business with the Macau bank, allowing Macau authorities to decide whether to release some of the frozen accounts. But releasing the funds could take weeks and the US restrictions will hinder the North's access to the international financial system. Western diplomats said they expected no immediate progress and warned the process of establishing relations with the IAEA or bringing back inspectors into North Korea would need time. "North Korea wants to show that they are in the driving seat. They want to drive home the point that they are on eye level when it comes to these negotiations," one diplomat in Vienna said. - ( Reuters ) C 2007 The Irish Times * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: NKorea accuses Japan of sabotage at nuclear talks by Jun Kwanwoo and Hiroshi Hiyama Tue Mar 20, 2:24 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea accused Japan on Tuesday of trying to sabotage six-nation nuclear talks, although the United States held firm in support of its ally as envoys sought to flesh out a disarmament plan. After a major hurdle appeared to be cleared in the tortuous diplomatic process with the end of a sanctions dispute between North Korea and the United States, the Stalinist regime signalled its row with Japan could pose problems. North Korea's official KCNA news agency, one of the main windows into the secretive nation, accused "the present ruling quarters and the right-wing forces of Japan" of not wanting the Korean peninsula to be nuclear-free. Tokyo has been less enthusiastic about recent progress in the talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programme amid an unresolved row over the communist state's past abductions of Japanese nationals. North Korea has acknowledged kidnapping 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s to train its spies. It returned five victims and their families and says the rest are dead. But Japan maintains that the other abductees are alive and that more Japanese were snatched than Pyongyang has admitted. Japan has maintained that, until the abduction issue is resolved, it will not help fund a February 13 six-nation accord in which North Korea would receive as much as one million tonnes of fuel aid for disarming. "We will stay with the same policy that we won't fund the energy assistance without seeing progress (on the abduction issue)," Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told parliament on Monday. The chief US envoy to the six-nation talks, Christopher Hill, said Tuesday that Washington would continue to back Japan in its bid to resolve the kidnapping issue, and that the dispute should not derail disarmament talks. "We don't see North Korea driving a wedge between us and Japan. It is just not possible for them to do that," Hill said. The latest round of the six-nation talks -- involving host China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia -- began on Monday on an optimistic note following the end of the financial sanctions dispute. The United States announced that the roughly 25 million dollars in North Korean funds frozen in a Macau bank due to accusations of money laundering and counterfeiting would be released, although no timeframe was given. Pyongyang had insisted it would not implement the February deal until the sanctions dispute was resolved. Chief North Korean envoy Kim Kye-Gwan reportedly told his fellow envoys at the talks on Monday that his government would proceed with the first phase of disarmament once the 25 million dollars were safely returned. Under the February accord, North Korea was given 60 days to close its main reactor at Yongbyon and allow UN International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country to supervise. In return, the impoverished state would initially receive 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel, rising up to one million tonnes if it permanently disbanded its atomic weapons programme. Hill and other envoys insisted that, while the first phase of the deal should now be implemented on schedule, they also expected North Korea to begin cooperating on the drafting of a broader roadmap for full disarmament. "We would like to begin the sequence of events for the next phase, which involves the complete declaration" by North Korea of its nuclear weapons programme, Hill said late Monday. Chief South Korean envoy Chun Yung-Woo called Tuesday for North Korea to permanently and completely scrap its nuclear programme within months. "As to how early to disable (North Korea's nuclear facilities), we are talking about months, not years," Chun said, adding only complete disarmament would be acceptable. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bush appointees 'watered down greenhouse science' Suzanne Goldenberg and James Randerson in Washington Tuesday March 20, 2007 The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday. The testimony to the house committee on oversight and government reform painted the administration as determined to maintain its line on climate change even when it clashed with the findings of scientific experts. James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York, said in prepared testimony: "The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions." Since the Democratic takeover of Congress last January the committee's chairman, Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, has led efforts to uncover the extent of White House interference with scientific debate. The Bush administration has moved to exercise direct control over environmental agencies by installing political appointees including Philip Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, and a 23-year-old college drop-out who was made a public affairs officer at Nasa after working on Mr Bush's re-election campaign. Mr Cooney told the committee yesterday: "My sole loyalty was to the president and advancing the policies of his administration." Documents released yesterday show that in 2003 Mr Cooney and other senior appointed officials imposed at least 181 changes to a strategic plan on climate change to play down the scientific consensus on global warming. They made another 113 alterations to minimise the human role in climate change, and inserted possible benefits of climate change. "These changes must be made," said a note in Mr Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory." Some of the statements deleted on Mr Cooney's instruction were non-controversial, such as: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." He also deleted references to models indicating that temperatures have been rising for the last 1,000 years. However, amid such deletions he chose to highlight a study funded by his former employer, the American Petroleum Institute. Under heated questioning, Mr Cooney admitted yesterday that the changes were all intended to cast doubt over the impact of global warming. He denied they were directly coordinated with the White House but said he had regular conversations with a senior White House aide. "We got notes from them," Mr Cooney said. Control from the White House became the norm, Dr Hansen told the committee yesterday. "Scientific press releases were going to the White House for editing," he said. "It's very unfortunate that we developed this politicisation of science. The public relations office should be staffed by expert appointees. Otherwise they become offices of propaganda." He acknowledged that such interference existed before the Bush administration, though to a much lesser extent. Mr Hansen was also restrained from giving press interviews by a junior political appointee, George Deutsch, who feared the scientist could not be counted on to "hit the message". Mr Deutsch left Nasa early last year after it emerged he had falsified his CV. The restrictions were galling for Dr Hansen, a leading figure in climate science and one of few experts in the field to speak out forcefully. He first testified on the issue before congress in 1982 in a session organised by Al Gore. Some of Dr Hansen's seminal testimony in 1989 that helped put the issue in the public eye features in Mr Gore's documentary film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth. In November he was presented with the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal, the WWF's top conservation award. After a lecture to the American Geophysical Union in December 2005, Dr Hansen was reined in by Nasa bosses. Nasa public affairs wanted to dictate which media interviews he would give, and vet his calendar of planned talks and meetings and his postings on his institute's website. When the media reported the moves to gag Dr Hansen, Nasa issued an unequivocal statement in support of scientific openness. But Dr Hansen told congressmen that political PR appointees are still interfering: "In no way has the impact of deception of the public about climate change been undone by Nasa's forthright decision in favour of scientific openness." At a glance Dr Jim Hansen is the head of Nasa's Institute for Space Studies in New York and adjunct professor in the earth and environmental science department at Columbia University. He is a physicist and expert on climate change modelling and one of the few US scientists to speak out forcefully on the issue. He first testified on the issue before the US Congress in 1982, and further testimony to Congress featured in Al Gore's film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth. In November, he was presented with the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal, the WWF's top conservation award. Useful links UN framework convention on climate change Greenpeace Friends of the earth Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 10 Politico.com: Top Scientist at Energy Says His Comments Are Uncensored - By: Jean Chemnick March 20, 2007 07:25 PM EST Raymond Orbach, the nation's first undersecretary at the Department of Energy Editing science in the name of politics has been a red-hot topic recently. On Monday, House committee members released documents they said showed that a former White House official edited climate change reports to cast doubt over the causes of global warming. Two weeks before, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took similar heat for barring scientists from speaking about the effects of climate change on the survival of polar bears. Ironically, the chief scientist of one of the most scientific of all federal agencies says he has never felt pressure to keep quiet. Raymond Orbach, the nation's first undersecretary at the Department of Energy, oversees the scientific aspect of everything that goes on, from fusion to advanced science computing. The former physics professor and university chancellor sat down recently with The Politico's Jean Chemnick to discuss his research and changes on the Hill and in the climate. Q: You read that there have been attempts to manage scientists or prevent them from talking to the press on their research on certain issues. Have you had any similar experience A: I've never had anyone tell me what I can say or what I can't say. And if I did, I would say what I wanted to say anyway. Credibility is terribly important to me. I've been here five years, had two secretaries of energy, and I work on very sensitive things. Not once has anybody told me there was a political reason for not saying something. I've made that clear to my senior staff also. Q: You set your agenda for research, is that right? Nobody tells you what to study. A: Everybody tells me. First of all, we don't do everything. Our research is set by the mission of the Department of Energy. We have chosen six areas that we focus on and we have advisory committees. (The six areas are advanced scientific computing research, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy sciences, high-energy physics and nuclear physics.) We get advice from the Hill. And so what we do is try to choose the areas we can be the most effective. Our criteria is very simple: We want to be the best in the world. If we can't be the best in the world, we probably won't pursue it. Q: What has changed since the Democrats gained power in Congress? A: For us, the support of basic research is bipartisan. And, in fact, the president put forward the American Competitiveness Initiative, which called for a doubling for the funding of the physical sciences this year. And Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi called for a doubling of funding for physical science programs. People recognize the importance of science to our economy, to our competitiveness, on a basis that isn't political. Q: Is global warming real? And is it man-made? A: Global climate change is a serious challenge, and we are performing the basic applied research that will confront it. Q: But does a preponderance of evidence show that it is man-made? A: My understanding is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), of which we are a part, believes that at least part of the increase in temperature is man-made. Q: Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? A: No, I haven't. I really can't comment; it would be unfair. Q: Has your research changed at all to reflect the different types of policy the Democrats are looking at now -- options like greenhouse gas limits, renewable energy requirements for utilities or CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards? A: I don't think so. The president, in two State of the Union addresses, has put emphasis on renewables and cellulosic ethanol, in particular -- all the issues you mentioned. And I think in the pledges that the Democrats led for the continuing resolution, there was a comparable emphasis on renewables. Q: Comparable to the president's? A: I think it was the same outcome as the president's in the sense of emphasis on renewables. Q: During the State of the Union address, the president set the goal of America using 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year by 2017. Do you think we're on course for that? A: I think that's going to be difficult. ... And the issue there for me is whether nature will assist us in that regard. ... We're doing basic research now in cellulosic ethanol. We'll have a difficult time doing it without some transformational change in the way we produce ethanol, and in particular for transportation fuels. What we've done is we've tried to pick research in areas that are really critical to meeting the energy needs of our country. ... Then we're putting our bets on nuclear and fusion. The nuclear (research) has to do with spent fuel. Nuclear is a very wonderful way of producing electricity. It's safe. But it produces spent fuel, and that has literally hundreds of thousands years of lifetime associated with it. Q: Speaking of nuclear energy, there is the issue of Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As you know, the Nevada delegation is very opposed to its opening, and with Harry Reid now Senate majority leader, it looks to be in a holding pattern. Do you think there is something unique about the Yucca site when it comes to isolating the waste? A: From everything we know, it's the preferred site. Q: Why? A: First of all, it's isolated. Secondly, the geologic structure lends itself to storage. Q: I was told that actually its structure doesn't contribute that much, or at least as much as was thought when it was chosen, that it's not as uniquely suited to isolate it as they first thought. A: Well, I don't know who said that. I'm not familiar with recent studies. I understand that site was chosen over a large number of other sites in the country because it was the most effective place to store radioactive material. But if there's an argument to the contrary, I'd like to see it. I haven't heard one. We have to have the storage, because even if I can reduce the toxicity by a factor of a hundred, reduce the lifetime by a factor of a hundred, I still have to put it somewhere. Join The Conversation You need to be a registered user of Politico.com to "join the conversation". If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register Now! © 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: BAE, Carlyle bid for UK nuclear dockyard - source Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:56AM EDT LONDON (Reuters) - BAE Systems Plc (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and The Carlyle Group (CYL.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) have submitted indicative bids for Devonport, the dockyard where Britain refuels its nuclear-powered submarines, a source familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. "Indicative bids have gone in," said the source, who declined to be identified. Sources said the business, Devonport Management Ltd (DML), is expected to fetch about 200 million pounds ($389 million), though some estimates have put the price at twice that amount. U.S. private equity firm Carlyle and BAE, Europe's biggest defense company, declined to comment on whether they had bid or on speculation that they might join forces to buy DML. "There are opportunities for consolidation of the UK submarine industry ... DML is part of that opportunity and BAE Systems continues to consider a number of options," BAE spokeswoman Lisa Hillary-Tee said. U.S. firm General Dynamics (GD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and UK support services firm Babcock International Plc (BAB.L: Quote, Profile, Research) were also expected to take an interest in the business. General Dynamics declined to comment. Babcock was not available for immediate comment. The process is at an early stage and due diligence would take some months to complete, industry sources said. UBS is running the sale. DML's current top shareholder, Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) unit KBR (KBR.N: Quote, Profile, Research), is under pressure to sell its 51-percent stake in the business after falling foul of Britain's Ministry of Defense. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 ABC News: More E-Mails in Fired U.S. Attorneys Controversy March 21, 2007 Justice Department E-Mails Detail Conversations About Targeted Attorneys Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is fighting to keep his job amid the growing controversy surrounding the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors in late 2006. (ABCNEWS.com) By PIERRE THOMAS, JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK March 19, 2007? New e-mails released this evening by the Justice Department reveal the in-depth conversations Department of Justice staff members had about the eight U.S. attorneys fired last year. The department released more than 3,000 pages of documents late Monday. The e-mails detail conversations about attorneys targeted for dismissal. There are no e-mails from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who reportedly does not use e-mail, though the Justice Department says messages show some indication that Gonzales' former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, kept the attorney general apprised. Heat From Democrats The Justice Department has taken heat from Democrats, who stepped up harsh criticism and calls for Gonzales to step down last week. "They [the U.S. attorneys] should not be sent packing on a whim," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., adding, "especially when the circumstances suggest that their departures may have been motivated by politics." "First of all, he's [Gonzales] not telling the truth. These were all political," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Never in the history of the country has anything like this ever happened. What is done is untoward, it is wrong, it is unethical, it's immoral. I believe it's illegal, and Gonzales should be fired or he should resign." The president addressed criticism about political motivations last week by dismissing it. "I've heard those allegations about, you know, political decision-making," Bush said last Wednesday. "It's not true." Congress to Hear From Justice Department Officials Several top officials at the Justice Department will go before the Senate Judiciary Committee over the coming months. Gonzales will appear April 17 to answer questions about Department of Justice oversight. The committee also voted last week to allow Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to subpoena five current and former Justice Department officials, including Sampson, who stepped down last week amid the controversy. Though the Justice Department has released e-mails and said it would allow those involved in the plan to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House has yet to provide e-mails, documents and witnesses to Congress in its investigation into the controversial firings. Waiting for the White House White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees last week, but the committees' Friday deadline for a plan from the White House passed without a commitment from the counsel's office. "Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel, "we need more time to resolve them." The committees expect an answer from Fielding tomorrow, though Democrats on the committees are cautiously optimistic, as the White House could invoke executive privilege and refuse to allow any staff to testify. "Despite those assurances and my continued hope that the White House will resolve these questions in a cooperative fashion," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., said in a statement Friday "The Committee must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow walked on this matter," he said. Conyers warned that he will schedule a vote on subpoenas in an attempt to force the documents' release and witnesses to come forward. Conyers' counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has already scheduled a committee vote on whether or not to issue subpoenas for White House personnel and documents for Thursday. "I want testimony under oath," Leahy said on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Sunday. "I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this." ABC News' Jan Crawford Greenburg and Jack Date contributed to this report. Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: German envoy attacks US policy Ian Traynor, Europe editor Tuesday March 20, 2007 The Bush administration has forfeited legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of most of the world, crippling its capacity to engineer a breakthrough on the gravest problems on the international agenda, a senior German official argues today. In an unusually robust public critique of US foreign policy, Wolfgang Ischinger, the German ambassador to Britain, says the widespread collapse in confidence in the Bush administration offers Europe an opportunity to step up to the plate, setting a new agenda on the Middle East, global warming, the spread of nuclear weapons and other pressing matters. Writing in the Guardian, Mr Ischinger, a former ambassador to the US and ex-political director of Germany's foreign ministry, says a "European moment" is needed over the next several months, a period that coincides with Germany's presidency of both the EU and the G8 group of industrialised countries. "Through the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Washington's international legitimacy and credibility have suffered," he states. "It does not make for pleasant viewing to see US leadership damaged and questioned. But expectations are low today regarding the ability of the United States to lead the international community toward solutions of the most pressing international issues." Mr Ischinger stakes a claim to a greater German or European role in world leadership, saying America's time as the "undisputed leader of the free world" is over. He singles out the nuclear dispute with Iran, the challenges posed by global warming and the Middle East conflict, as well as the broader issue of "constructive" relations between the west and Islam, as key policy areas where the US is discredited and Europe can make a difference. However, Mr Ischinger also warns against European "hubris" and makes plain that Europe could not succeed by challenging or seeking to rival the US. Useful links German government German embassy in London German embassy in Washington DC Frankfurter Allgemeine (English version) Deutsche Welle (English version) Sign and Sight (in English) Spiegel Online (English version) S?ddeutsche Zeitung (in German) Goethe-Institut (in English) Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 UN Nuclear Watchdog Agency Helps Bangladesh Protect Prized Goats Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:01:23 -0400 UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG AGENCY HELPS BANGLADESH PROTECT PRIZED GOATS New York, Mar 20 2007 11:00AM The United Nations atomic watchdog agency seeks to curb nuclear proliferation and stop weapons of mass destruction from falling into Right! But among its many less publicized multi-dimensional tasks it is also applying nuclear and molecular tools for DNA analysis to help protect more than 100 sheep and goat breeds, a total of nearly 1 billion animals that represent the most important livestock species in the Asian region, which are now are threatened by Among the world’s poorest countries, Bangladesh is home to one of the richest treasures, prized black Bengal goats, but fallow lands for the dwarf-size animals to graze on are decreasing almost daily due to growing human population and the need to plant cereal Research supported by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bengalgoats.html">IAEA) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (<"http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2006-black-bengal.html">FAO) is now helping Bangladesh plan and protect the goats’ future. Working with other countries in the Asian region, scientists are looking to learn more about black Bengal goats and other livestock. “A specific aim is to build up the capacity of national agricultural research systems to conduct research in livestock genetics and breeding using modern methods of molecular science,” IAEA says in an update on the project, just one of the agency’s less publicized areas of work that crosses a host of fields from medical diagnosis and cancer treatment and isotope tracking of underground water to weather and climate studies and art restoration. But the headlines go to IAEA’s efforts to curb nuclear weapons and its dealings with the nuclear programmes of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and earlier Saddam Hussein’s Results of the FAO/IAEA research programme are contributing to scientific knowledge about animal health and reproduction underpinning Bangladesh’s efforts to help goat herders and farmers adapt to the changing environment. About 80 per cent of the country’s people live in the countryside, and raising goats and other livestock No one knows exactly how many goats graze in Bangladesh – some estimates run as high as 30 million. Together they provide about 30,000 tons of meat and 20 million square feet of hides and skins, besides milk and other products families depend upon. 2007-03-20 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/ ***************************************************************** 15 RIA Novosti: Chinese president counts on closer ties with Russia 13:12 | 20/ 03/ 2007 BEIJING, March 20 (RIA Novosti) - Chinese-Russian relations have reached an unprecedented level, Chinese leader Hu Jintao said Tuesday. Hu Jintao will pay an official visit to Russia March 26-28, the Kremlin press service said Monday. Jintao will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the two leaders will participate in a ceremony to open Year of China in Russia and a Chinese exhibition. The president of the People's Republic of China said his country and Russia were ready to make efforts in four main areas. Hu Jintao said: "Firstly, we should strengthen political trust and continue to support issues of key interest to the two countries." The Chinese leader said measures to boost practical cooperation in the economic, energy, technological and other sectors should come next. Thirdly, Russia and China "should expand exchange programs and humanitarian cooperation and enhance understanding and friendship between the two countries and nations taking advantage of the Year of China in Russia," Jintao said. Finally, the Chinese leader said, "our countries should activate strategic cooperation in international and regional affairs and contribute to a guarantee for peace and assist in general assistance." "I am sure that further progress in Russian-Chinese partnership and strategic cooperation will benefit the two nations and people in other countries," Jintao said. He praised the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies and said he expected a positive future for bilateral economic ties. Jintao described the development of energy resources, aviation, space, nuclear energy, mechanical engineering and high technologies as priorities for bilateral cooperation. "In addition, many Chinese companies have shown an interest in cooperation with Russia in such spheres as electronics, car production and assembly, infrastructure development and projects to establish special economic zones," the Chinese leader told the Russian press. "In turn, our government is encouraging and supporting China's leading enterprises, which are keen to establish mutually advantageous contacts with Russian partners," Jintao said. "We also rely on Russia to improve its investment climate and give more access to its markets," he said. The Chinese president said that bilateral trade had been on the rise for the last eight years, and totaled a record high of $33.4 billion last year. Jintao described bilateral economic partnership as "having interdependence and great potential" and said he was hopeful that the two countries would make efforts "to achieve the goal of raising bilateral trade to $60 billion-$80 billion by 2010." "China appreciates the increase in investment and the arrival of Russian companies," the Chinese leader said. Jintao also said that Russian companies had been investing actively in China, and "since late 2006, Russian investment in China exceeded $600 million." He pledged that his government would continue policies to attract foreign capital. "The Chinese government will pursue the basic policy of expanding international contacts," Jintao said. The Chinese president said: "In the 29 years of reform 590,000 companies have been established with foreign investment, and almost $700 billion worth of foreign capital has already been attracted." send by e-mail   back to main page   RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 16 Scoop: Procedure and Substance in the NPT Review Cycle Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 12:43 pm Press Release: US State Department Procedure and Substance in the NPT Review Cycle: The Example of Nuclear Disarmament Dr. Christopher A. Ford, United States Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation Remarks to the Conference on "Preparing for 2010: Getting the Process Right" Annecy, France March 17, 2007 I have been asked to speak today on how the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review cycle can deal with what some describe as its "procedural deficit," including how the review process can increase Parties' accountability to their obligations and contribute to making progress on important issues of concern relating to the authority, integrity, and implementation of the Treaty. I. The "Substantive Deficit" I hope you will not think me too much the contrarian, however, if I suggest that I think this may be asking the wrong question. Talk of a "procedural deficit" implies that there is some kind of procedural gap that needs to be filled if the NPT regime is to work right. Nevertheless, while I understand the temptation to develop new and additional procedural mechanisms when a regime is challenged, as the NPT is today, I fear that such an approach could merely replicate today's procedural difficulties on a different stage. The real problem is not so much a lack of "procedures" as it is an unhealthy fixation upon them -- a fixation that has made it hard for Parties to use the review cycle as it was intended to be used: namely, as a forum for articulating views and developing common positions on key substantive challenges facing the NPT regime. As I have discussed elsewhere, the review cycle neither is nor was intended to be either a legislative or an executive body. What it can do is catalyze and help give direction to measures by groups of countries and by individual states, either in other institutional fora or outside such structures, to support and reinforce the Treaty regime and advance its goals. The issue of withdrawal from the NPT by its violators is one example of how this can work. Short of opening up the Treaty itself for amendment, a step that few would support because of the unpredictability of its outcome, there is little that the NPT review process itself can do, directly, to make such kinds of withdrawal more costly and unattractive. Nevertheless, the review process has a very important role to play in providing a forum in which interested Parties can develop and build support for common positions on this issue. These positions can, in turn, drive initiatives that have real impact. In a paper on NPT withdrawal the United States released last month, for instance, we set forth a number of ways in which the international community could help deter withdrawal by violators of the Treaty. These potential steps involve the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Because the reasons such institutions might get involved in deterring potential violators from withdrawing are related to but do not involve oversight of the implementation of the NPT per se, the NPT review process does not have any formal say vis-Ă -vis their involvement, and no amount of energy devoted to closing a "procedural deficit" will put the review forum in a position to play the roles that these institutions are designed to play in such matters. Nevertheless, the review process is very important to the equation, because it provides a unique global forum in which these issues can be discussed and broad answers developed. Making progress in important areas does not require the layering-on of new NPT review cycle mechanisms. It requires discussion and gradual policy convergence among states, which is precisely what the review cycle is designed to facilitate. Rather than a "procedural deficit," I believe we should be worrying about a "substantive deficit" -- that is, we should be concerned with the difficulty Parties have had in getting through and beyond procedural matters in order to have the full, honest, and open substantive discussions necessary for catalytic processes to occur. II. Getting Past Procedure In our consultations on NPT matters, I have stressed that the best way to get through the procedural minefields that caused so much pain in the last review cycle is to adopt a new approach to setting forth the agenda for meetings and the allocation of time for particular topics. This approach would employ simple, unspecific, and broadly-inclusive phrasings that allow all issues of concern to have a home within review process discussions, yet avoid specific call-outs for pet topics and particular concerns. Thus, for instance, we believe that the best agenda for the 2007 Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting would be one that is as broad and unspecific as possible. It would allow for debate on all topics of concern, but avoid politically-charged designations of particular subjects as special foci of discussion. We recognize, however, that this approach -- by itself -- might fail to address some countries' worries that matters of key concern to them might receive insufficient attention. Indeed, some might suspect that a lack of specific reference to their favorite topic in an agenda formulation meant that this topic would be ignored. That is why it is vital for relevant Parties emphatically to commit themselves to full engagement on the key issues of concern to others. If this commitment is clear enough up front, we believe it can replace the assurances currently sought by some countries in the form of specific call-outs for favored topics. By a bargain in which procedural restraint is given in return for emphatic substantive engagement, the review process can avoid once again becoming paralyzed by substantive disagreements fought out through procedural vehicles. I would like to offer nuclear disarmament as an example of the way in which this could work. For reasons I will discuss in a moment, it is no secret that the U.S. Government seeks a PrepCom agenda that does not explicitly reference certain past Review Conference documents that we feel provide inadequate guides to disarmament efforts today. Such references are just the sort of procedural item that sparks controversy and difficulty and risk reviving the acrimony and difficulties of past meetings. To avoid such problems, we advocate a broadly inclusive but general and unspecific agenda formulation without such specific references. Our formula would allow discussion of all disarmament topics -- including those encompassed in past documents -- but would avoid reopening longstanding disputes because it would not place explicit emphasis upon controversial elements. But such procedural restraint is only part of the equation. We recognize the importance of nuclear disarmament as a topic for review cycle discussions. We also understand that some countries may worry that our desire to avoid such references in the agenda stems from some desire to duck discussion of these issues, or from some lack of commitment to disarmament. Accordingly, we are coupling our procedural initiative on the agenda with a demonstrable commitment to full debate and discussion of nuclear disarmament during this review cycle. This clear commitment to engagement and dialogue should put to rest any worries some might have that these matters will not receive the full hearing they deserve. And since I fully understand that it would be an inadequate answer simply to declare that the United States stands ready to engage in such a comprehensive disarmament dialogue, I would like to demonstrate our commitment to you. Consequently, for the remainder of my remarks, I hope you will permit me to speak rather candidly about nuclear disarmament. Such candor must begin with a frank discussion of what the NPT actually says about disarmament -- and, significantly, what it does not say. But after clearing the air in that respect, I would like to demonstrate our commitment to dialogue by releasing several papers the U.S. Government has prepared in order to set forth our views on a range of disarmament matters. III. Disarmament Obligations, Article VI, and the Review Process Let me first try to clear up some persistent misunderstandings about the NPT's key disarmament provision, Article VI. As you know, Article VI provides that "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." I will spare you a detailed history of how Article VI came to be written, but it is not a coincidence that it was written in such unspecific terms. Parties undertake to pursue merely negotiations related to disarmament, and though they must do this in good faith, the Treaty carefully avoids requiring any specific action by any particular point in time -- except for ending the nuclear arms race by what is unhelpfully described merely as "an early date." Indeed, to the extent that the Treaty suggests anything about specific disarmament milestones, in the disarmament paragraphs of the Preamble, it seems to envision nuclear disarmament only occurring pursuant to -- that is, not prior to -- a treaty on general and complete disarmament. (Hopefully we can all do better than that, but the Treaty does not require it.) The International Court of Justice tried in 1996 to read into these vague aspirational generalities an obligation "to conclude" disarmament agreements, but this reading is not supported by the actual text of Article VI, which was drafted by lawyers who knew how to impose clear obligations when they wanted to, but who did not do so here. Moreover, the ICJ's view runs entirely contrary to the negotiating history of Article VI, of which the Court gave no sign of being at all aware -- perhaps because the meaning of Article VI was never properly raised and argued before that body in the first place. (We should remember that pursuant to its Statute, the ICJ has no authority to render advisory opinions on questions that were not asked of it. The 1996 case in which its dictum about Article VI appears involved only a question about the legality of the use of nuclear weapons.) If one reads the negotiating history of Article VI, it will be clear that its lack of specificity is no accident. Indeed, during the long negotiations at the United Nations' Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC), attempts were repeatedly made to insert specific disarmament obligations that paralleled the nonproliferation obligations then taking shape in what became Articles I and II of the final Treaty. Time after time, countries such as India, Sweden, Burma, and the then-United Arab Republic tried to add concrete disarmament requirements to the drafts under consideration. But each time, these attempts failed to win the support they needed, and were abandoned. And so, in a September 1965 joint memorandum, the non-aligned members of the ENDC declared that the emerging Nonproliferation Treaty should instead merely be "coupled with or followed by" steps toward disarmament. Canada and others subsequently expressed what in effect became the compromise solution, arguing that the nuclear weapon states should make "a clear and compelling declaration of intent to embark on the process of nuclear arms control" (emphasis added). This led to the adoption in 1967 of the approach embodied in the final text. Pursuant to this approach, rather than requiring anything concrete with respect to disarmament, the Treaty would merely express the clear intention of the nuclear weapons states to move toward it in the framework of a treaty on general and complete disarmament. Mexico then added the final element, by proposing the phrasing about "negotiations in good faith" -- a formulation which did not, incidentally, require anything more than their pursuit. As Mexico's Ambassador Castaneda noted, demanding the inclusion of specific disarmament measures at that point would have been tantamount to opposing the treaty itself. With these compromise amendments, the final text of Article VI had been reached. Both the plain meaning of the text of Article VI and its negotiating history thus make clear that the disarmament provisions of the NPT are not substantively equivalent to the Treaty's nonproliferation obligations. Nor is this really surprising, for the primary motivation for the NPT was to reduce the risk of nuclear war and to do so explicitly in the Treaty by obligations designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states. Certainly, there was an awareness that nuclear war could also occur through actions by those already in possession of nuclear weapons. (This is why, for instance, Article VI urges an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date.) Importantly, however, Article VI makes clear that measures to address that risk are envisioned as occurring separately from the NPT. For better or worse, Article VI actually does not contain concrete disarmament requirements, and it is wrong to contend today that its drafters included the sort of specific proposals that in reality they considered but declined to adopt. Do not mistake my point, however. None of what I have just said means that disarmament issues are unimportant, nor do such observations write out of the NPT the very significant emphasis placed in the Preamble and in Article VI upon the need to move toward nuclear disarmament. Nor indeed do such comments make it any less true that all States Party have solemnly pledged their support for these goals and to pursue them in good faith. In fact, disarmament issues have a particular salience for us in the NPT review process, for a review of the negotiating history of Article VI also reveals that the review cycle was created in part to provide a forum for debating how much progress States Party were making in moving toward the goals expressed in the Treaty. In fact, this was a point first made by the United States, which suggested that rather than requiring actual disarmament steps, the Treaty should include provisions for a review process to give Parties the chance to raise concerns they might have that the treaty "should be accompanied by progress to halt and reduce rising nuclear stocks." So disarmament issues are subjects ripe for discussion in NPT fora during the review cycle. It is thus incumbent upon all Parties to debate and discuss what progress has been made in achieving the objectives of Article VI and the Preamble, and what still needs to be done. So if we in the United States have ever tried to duck debate on these topics, shame on us. But while we have quite rightly sought to emphasize areas in which the NPT faces its gravest challenges, I do not believe that we have ever shied away from engagement on disarmament matters. And I hope that in the remainder of my remarks, I can not only convince you of our longstanding and continuing seriousness about disarmament, but also challenge you to engage in more thoughtful and practical discussions of how it is that we can all work together to bring the world to the point where the total elimination of nuclear weapons can actually be achieved. IV U.S. Disarmament Positions As part of our commitment to engaging in full and candid discussions with our diplomatic counterparts and other opinion-leaders on these matters, I am pleased to announce the release today of four U.S. position papers on disarmament issues. We have prepared these papers, and are making them available in advance of the PrepCom, to help make our perspectives as clear as possible and catalyze productive debates on disarmament during the lead-up to the 2007 NPT Preparatory Committee meeting at the end of next month. I will summarize these papers here only very briefly, and I hope you will read them carefully. I believe they demonstrate clearly what the United States has done and is doing today to make the goals of the Article VI and the Preamble a reality. I also hope they will succeed in sparking a dialogue about how, in the complexities of the real world, it might finally be possible to achieve - and sustain - the total elimination of nuclear weapons. I have only a limited supply of paper copies of the papers here today, but we will post them on the U.S. State Department website. Let me take a few minutes quickly to walk you through them. A. The U.S. Record The first paper sets forth the United States' outstanding record of accomplishments related to nuclear disarmament. Those of you who have read U.S. materials prepared for previous NPT meetings will find much of this material familiar, but you should note that this paper does not merely reiterate the accomplishments of the past. These accomplishments continue today. We have eliminated more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988 and gotten rid of more than 1,000 ballistic missiles and 450 missile silos. But this process is not over. The Bush Administration dismantled the last W-56 warhead for the Minuteman II missile in June 2006, and it has requested significant increases in the current budget for nuclear warhead dismantlement. We are currently in the process of drawing down our strategic warhead numbers in order to meet Moscow Treaty targets. When we have completed this task, our nuclear arsenal will be at about a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War, and will have reached its lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration. The Bush Administration has also continued longstanding reductions in delivery systems, and we recently announced that we will eliminate about 400 Advanced Cruise Missiles currently deployed with the B-52 bomber fleet. We have not produced any uranium for use in nuclear weapons since 1964, nor any plutonium for such purposes since 1988, and we have scrupulously observed the nuclear testing moratorium we announced in 1992. We have also been actively removing fissile material from our nuclear weapons programs, placing some of it under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and down-blending some 90 tons of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) from defense nuclear programs for use in civilian power reactors. The most recent step in this process occurred as recently as November 2005, when the Bush Administration announced that it would remove another 200 metric tons of HEU from any further use as fissile material in U.S. nuclear warheads. This is enough material, according to IAEA figures, to make 8,000 nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the United States in May 2006 became the first (and so far only) country to introduce a draft Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) at the UN Conference on Disarmament. The United States is also beginning development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), which will help us to continue to meet our deterrence needs until the total elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved, but to do so with safer warheads, fewer warheads, and less potential need to resume nuclear testing. The RRW, which adds no new nuclear weapons capabilities, thus supports and will help advance the disarmament objectives of the NPT. For those of you who now acknowledge the reductions we have made since the end of the Cold War but think the United States may nonetheless be increasing its reliance upon nuclear weapons, rest assured that this is false. Indeed, pursuant to our Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2001, the United States is reducing its formerly exclusive reliance upon nuclear weapons for strategic deterrence. In place of the exclusively nuclear strategic "Triad" of the Cold War, the United States relies increasingly on a combination of non-nuclear offensive strike capabilities, active and passive defenses (including ballistic missile defenses), and a robust and responsive defense industrial infrastructure to satisfy the requirements of strategic deterrence with a lessened emphasis on nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) will expire in 2009, and the Moscow Treaty in 2012. We have already begun high-level discussions with the Russians about what our future strategic security relationship should look like. It is too early to say much about those talks, but I should emphasize that U.S. officials have made it clear that they hope to ensure that transparency and confidence-building measures remain an enduring part of the U.S.-Russia relationship as it continues to mature in a post-Cold War environment. The reductions that followed the end of the Cold War highlight the role that easing tension and strengthening trust among nations must play in achieving the goals of Article VI and the Preamble to the NPT. Finally, I wish to stress the link between nonproliferation compliance and disarmament progress, a link that Article VI itself makes by stressing the need to end nuclear arms race behavior. Strict compliance with nonproliferation obligations is an essential step toward disarmament, and the world cannot expect to achieve and sustain the elimination of existing nuclear weapons programs if it cannot prevent the development of new ones. As the non-aligned members of the ENDC noted in a 1965 draft resolution during NPT negotiations, a guiding principle was for the draft treaty to be "a step towards the achievement of general and complete disarmament and, more particularly, nuclear disarmament." Nonproliferation alone, in other words, is not sufficient as the goal for the international community, but it is absolutely necessary if the world is to have any hope of finally achieving disarmament. B. FMCT The second U.S. paper concerns our proposal for a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. I won't recapitulate its contents now, for U.S. representatives have spoken long and well about its merits, and about the need for other delegations to the Conference to end their counter-productive policies of "linkage" that have prevented any movement to date on this treaty. C. Achieving and Sustaining Elimination The third U.S. paper focuses upon the need to create an international environment in which it would be possible to achieve the objectives of Article VI and the Preamble. It begins by noting the emphasis in the Treaty's Preamble upon lessening tension and strengthening trust among nations in order to facilitate disarmament. The paper then discusses the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, pointing out the ways in which deterrence serves both nonproliferation and disarmament interests by helping reduce the incentives of technologically-sophisticated U.S. allies to pursue nuclear weapons themselves. Historically, the U.S. nuclear "umbrella" has been an important factor in the decisions by a number of countries to forgo having their own nuclear weapons programs and in convincing others to abandon nuclear weapons programs that were already underway. Today, it provides a powerful stabilizing force that helps keep in check the danger of new nuclear arms race dynamics. This is an important fact to bear in mind, for such deterrent must be both acknowledged and maintained during the period in which nuclear weapons continue to exist in the world prior to their elimination. Building upon this point, the paper then discusses certain aspects of what the global security environment might have to look like if it were to become both possible and realistic to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. First, the nations of the world must make dramatic progress in easing tensions and building trust in order to help create the conditions for a world in which elimination of nuclear weapons is possible. The end of the Cold War, and its role in persuading the nuclear superpowers to move towards disarmament, illustrate the importance of such trust. Significantly, neither Article VI nor the Preamble addresses itself solely to nuclear weapon states. Rather, it is incumbent upon all States Party to contribute to the lessening of tensions and strengthening of trust that will be necessary for further progress in achieving the goals of Article VI and the Preamble. Second, there must be confidence that all states will faithfully adhere to nuclear nonproliferation commitments such as those of the NPT. Third, there must be confidence that countries and individuals that engage in or provide support to illicit weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs are fully and finally out of the proliferation business. Fourth, the pursuit of other WMD and their delivery systems must be halted, and existing programs of this type terminated. Fifth, there would need to be means to develop ways in which any deterrent requirements that remain after nuclear disarmament could be met in a non-nuclear and "non-WMD" fashion. Sixth, there would need to be assurances against development or reconstitution of nuclear weapons capabilities (i.e. "breakout" from a disarmament regime) or of other WMD, as well as means to enforce those assurances. Because fissile material and nuclear technology will remain in the world -- and because knowledge of the basic physics of nuclear weaponry cannot be eradicated -- it would also need to be clear that a violator would not be able to realize the intended strategic benefits of his violation. The principle of "irreversibility" in nuclear disarmament, therefore, should not be understood and approached as solely a technical matter, for this would be impossible to achieve. Instead, irreversibility should be seen as a requirement that strategic dynamics be set in place that will ensure the maintenance over time of a balance of costs and benefits such that would-be violators understand that potential development or reconstitution of nuclear weapons would be against their interest. D. Facilitating Disarmament In the fourth U.S. paper, the United States reemphasizes its commitment to the goals expressed in Article VI and the Preamble to the NPT, and offers some suggestions about how the Treaty review process can help Parties understand and create the conditions in which it would be possible to achieve these goals. As I have emphasized before, the world changes over time, and we must ensure that our policy prescriptions change accordingly. Many positions expressed in past Review Conference documents will no doubt remain of enduring importance, but others may age less gracefully, while new issues will surely arise. It is up to all of us continuously to evaluate the situation, and use the review process to encourage support for measures that in today's world promote fulfillment of the Treaty's provisions and achievement of the purposes expressed in its Preamble. It is no secret that the United States believes that the "Thirteen Steps" on disarmament from the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference today constitute an inadequate set of policy priorities for helping to achieve the goals of Article VI and the Preamble. But because the United States remains steadfastly committed to these goals, we feel it is an insufficient answer merely to point out the obsolescence of the "Thirteen Steps." Disarmament issues, as I have indicated, are of great importance, and the world needs more -- not less -- serious and thoughtful discussion of how to achieve these goals. Accordingly, in this fourth paper, we discuss a number of ways in which the Treaty review process could help update international thinking and build upon the lessons of recent experience in order to facilitate real movement toward the NPT's objectives. Not all of you, perhaps, will agree with everything we mention. But let it no longer be said that we are not actively engaged in dialogue about how to move the world in realistic ways toward disarmament. V. Conclusion My quick summaries here do not do these papers justice. Nor do I have any doubt that reasonable people can disagree about many of these matters. I hope, however, that we can demonstrate that we do wish to engage seriously on these matters - and that supporters of nuclear disarmament need have no worries that such issues will receive anything other than the full hearing they deserve during this review cycle. Let me emphasize again that such engagement is what the review process is for. However free Article VI may in fact be of concrete disarmament requirements, we cannot ignore the important goals set forth in it and in the Preamble, and we cannot ignore disarmament issues as States Party set about reviewing how well the NPT is living up to its promise. Rather than curse each other's blindness, it is our responsibility to engage with each other on such matters. For anyone who takes seriously the Preamble's wise focus upon lessening tensions and strengthening trust among nations in order to facilitate disarmament, there is no alternative to such engagement. With luck, it will contribute to building a world in which the elimination of nuclear weapons ceases to be merely a utopian fantasy and instead becomes a practical and sustainable reality. Released on March 18, 2007 ENDS International News EU: Why New Zealand may have to go nuclear - The world needs to go nuclear in order to secure the future of the planet, according to Terry Wynn, former Member of the European Parliament, energy expert, author and rugby league fan… See... EU: Why New Zealand may have to go nuclear Darfur: UN Seeks New Sites For IDPs - Camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sudan’s conflict-torn Darfur region are almost at full capacity due to a continuing influx of people fleeing violence, with 30,000 people uprooted last month alone, the United Nations reported today… See... Darfur: UN Seeks New Sites For IDPs UN Watchdog Helps Bangladesh Protect Prized Goats - The United Nations atomic watchdog agency seeks to curb nuclear proliferation and stop weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, right…? But among its many less publicized multi-dimensional tasks it is also applying nuclear and molecular tools... See... UN Watchdog Helps Bangladesh Protect Prized Goats MORE INTERNATIONAL HEADLINES: United Nations - Device Could Revolutionize Bird Flu Detection Middle East - A Microcosm of Middle Eastern ContradictionsUnited Nations - Call to Back Migrant Worker Treaty Israel - ACRI appeals to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Zimbabwe Police Brutality At Harare Protest Sri Lanka - UN Appeals For Urgent Funds To Feed Thousands ***************************************************************** 17 Sydney Morning Herald: Science turns sun, surf into green energy - www.smh.com.au Deborah Smith Science Editor March 21, 2007 A REVOLUTIONARY technology that uses sunlight and sea water to produce an unlimited supply of clean, hydrogen fuel could be developed within a decade, Sydney researchers say. Leigh Sheppard, of the University of NSW, estimated that 1.6 million of the solar devices, installed on rooftops, would be able to produce enough hydrogen gas to supply Australia's entire energy needs. While other energy options under discussion, such as nuclear power, produce harmful wastes, the only by-products of this solar hydrogen technology would be oxygen and fresh water, Dr Sheppard said. "It is the cleanest, greenest energy option for a sustainable economy." Dr Sheppard said much more research was needed, but the university team was confident it would be able to make the process efficient enough within 10 years for it then to be developed commercially. Its technique relies on using a light sensitive material, titanium dioxide, to harness the power of the sun to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. "The process has the additional advantage that it works best in sea water," Dr Sheppard said. Australia was rich in titanium, and had abundant sunshine. "And we are surrounded by ocean." It might also be possible to use artesian water, or pump sea water inland, to a large array of solar panels which could produce hydrogen for local use and even for export. An area covering 40 square kilometres would meet the country's energy needs. A way of using sunlight to split water was first developed by Japanese scientists in the 1970s, but worldwide interest in developing this approach has only recently been rekindled by concerns about burning fossil fuels and global warming. The small UNSW team, led by Professor Janusz Nowotny, is a world leader in using titanium dioxide as a catalyst to split water. The researchers have developed instruments which can measure the electrical properties of the material so they can improve its performance by altering its oxygen content or adding impurities. A visiting German solar expert, Helmut Tributsch, of the Free University in Berlin, said research was urgently needed into ways to covert the sun's power into usable energy, such ashydrogen fuel and photovoltaic electricity. Professor Tributsch said water splitting was a process nature used to harness the sun's energy. "We should really follow the example of nature. It is the only safe way to handle our environment in the long term." Hydrogen was a clean and efficient fuel for powering everything from vehicles to furnaces and air conditioning. "When you burn it, it gives water, so there is no pollution of the environment," he said. Dr Sheppard said hydrogen fuelling stations for cars were operating in several countries including Germany and the US, but a lot more infrastructure would be needed before hydrogen could be widely used as an energy source. He said nuclear power had the advantage that it was a proven technology. "But this is a smarter technology. It does not produce toxic waste." It could take five more years to commercialise the water-splitting technology once it was fully developed, he said. Professor Tributsch will give a public lecture on solar energy at the university on Monday night. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 18 The Hindu: "Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal a major opportunity" Wednesday, Mar 21, 2007 Special Correspondent U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman calls for a push forward with necessary next steps U.S Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman addressing the members of the FICCI in New Delhi on Tuesday. NEW DELHI: U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman on Tuesday described the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement as "a major opportunity'' in synergising India's scientific talent and creativity and the U.S. advancement in technology, safety and security in the development and use of nuclear energy. Addressing a meeting organised by the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Bodman said: "We should continue the negotiations on the civil nuclear agreement and push forward with the necessary next steps.'' Alternative sources He called for diversification of the energy portfolios by expanding the use of alternative and renewable sources. Diversification towards alternatives could greatly relieve pressure on markets for conventional sources overtime while also addressing environmental concerns. "There are myriad technologies ? solar and wind energy, hydrogen and bio-fuels ? but the key is to increasing both their availability and cost-competitiveness. This is the core of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, which focuses on accelerating the commercialisation of promising technologies," he said. Mr. Bodman said a major component of any clean energy strategy must be nuclear power. "I strongly believe that the civil nuclear agreement currently under negotiation is good for India, is good for the United States, is good for our mutual energy security and is good for the global non-proliferation system,'' he added Elaborating on the key opportunities for expanded cooperation in the energy sector, Mr. Bodman highlighted the development of India's domestic oil and natural gas reserves ? including offshore sites ? as well as coal-bed methane and, especially, clean coal technologies. "U.S. and India share a heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation and so I am extremely pleased that India is a partner in the FutureGEN project. FutureGEN will work to create a near zero-emissions coal-fired plant that will produce hydrogen and sequester CO2 underground," he said. In order to increase global access to conventional fuels, he felt there was a need for stable regulatory frameworks, open investment climate, adherence to the rule of law and market-based pricing of energy resources. India, he said, could not continue to fuel its economy without heavy investment in energy diversification and infrastructure, including foreign investment. "This is one area where we are not living up to the potential of our relationship," he remarked. Five major goals He said the Indo-U.S. energy cooperation should envisage five major goals ? diversification of the available supply of conventional fuel and expansion of production; diversification of the energy portfolios by expanding the use of alternative and renewable sources; efficiency and conservation measures; taking steps to improve the environment to reduce pollution and emissions, maintaining the global energy supply system and protecting critical energy infrastructure to ensure a more resilient, secure and less volatile market. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu ***************************************************************** 19 Daily Yomiuri: 2 more N-plants report problems Tokyo Electric Power Co. announced Tuesday nuclear-related problems in which control rods at nuclear reactors slipped during routine checkups in its Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant's No. 3 reactor in Fukushima Prefecture and its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant's No. 1 reactor in Niigata Prefecture. The reactors did not reach criticality in either case. The incidents are similar to problems in three other nuclear plants, including the No. 1 reactor of Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s Shika nuclear power station, which experienced a criticality incident in 1999. The problem in Fukushima Prefecture occurred in June 1993 during preparations for a leakage inspection of the reactor container, the power company said. According to the company, two of the control rods slipped down from their positions in the reactor core--one by 1.7 meters, and the other by 0.9 meter. In the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, a control rod slipped 1.8 meters, and another slipped 0.75 meter downward during inspection preparations in April 2000, according to the company. Company officials believe both problems were caused by operation errors with the water pressure adjustment valves used to move the control rods. In the case of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, operational procedures had been written correctly into a manual, but a worker still failed to fully open one of the valves, leading to the incident, the company said. It is unclear if the procedures had been properly explained in the manual at the Fukushima Prefecture plant, the officials said. The information about the problems had not been reported to anyone outside the power plants, because the firm did not have a company-wide system for sharing such information at the time, the company said. === 5 charged over Mihama accident The Yomiuri Shimbun F UKUI--Prosecutors on Tuesday filed a summary indictment against five people inco nnection with a steam blowout that occurred at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Mi hama No. 3 nuclear reactor in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture, in August 2004, ki lling five people and injuring six. T he Fukui District Public Prosecutors Office charged four KEPCO employees and an employee of a subsidiary then in charge of maintenance of the reactor with pr ofessional negligence causing injury and death by failing to take proper me asures to prevent the accident. S ummary indictments can settle cases instantly with fines. T he prosecutors recommended that the five be fined between 300,000 yen and 50 0,000 yen. The five reportedly will accept the summary order. Therefore, cr iminal responsibility for the worst nuclear accident in the nation's history is unlikely to be judged in a public trial. I ndicted are the then manager of the Mihama plant's machine maintenance and re pair division, 45; the then subsection chief, 52; a then foreman, 45; a 43 -year-old employee then in charge of pipes at the division; and Nihon Network Su pport Co.'s 58 year-old then manager at the plant. T he prosecutors said they chose to file the summary indictment because KEPCO's lo ng-standing poor management practices caused the accident, and it would be un fair to judge that one or more individuals bore criminal responsibility for th e accident. P apers on the 48-year-old chief manager of maintenance and repair at KEPCO's fo rmer Wakasa branch were also sent to the prosecutors office, but he was not in dicted as he was not informed that the plant had a pipe that was in danger of ru pturing, the prosecutors office said. ) The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 20 Daily Yomiuri: Nuclear power stations must be operated safely : Editorial : The Atomic Energy Commission's white paper on nuclear energy for this year positions nuclear power generation as the core of solutions to energy problems. International competition over energy resources has been intensifying in recent years, and global warming continues to escalate. As the white paper notes, it is impossible to tackle these difficult problems without expanding nuclear power generation. The significance of nuclear power generation is, first of all, that the ratio of fuel cost as a proportion of power generation cost is low. The price of uranium fuel has been rising sharply recently. But in actuality, the impact of the price rise on the power generation cost has been small. The supply of uranium has been stable. According to an estimate published in autumn last year by the International Energy Agency, in 2030 global energy demand will be about 1.5 times the current demand due to the economic development of emerging economies, including China. Nuclear power stations are indispensable in terms of maintaining energy security. The white paper points out that nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. Ironically, this fact was highlighted when Tokyo Electric Power Co. suspended operations of all its 17 nuclear power stations for a year from 2002. The firm acted because its tampering with inspection documents came to light. TEPCO compensated for the loss of its nuclear power generation with thermal power generation, increasing CO2 emissions by 42 million tons. Japan has pledged internationally to cut its CO2 level by 6 percent from the 1990 level by 2010. Forty-two million tons is not a small figure; it is 3.4 percent of the 1990 level. === No room for complacency However, as was brought home by the attempt of Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to hide a criticality accident at its Shika nuclear power station in Ishikawa Prefecture, we should not ignore the recent series of revelations that power utilities covered up problems they experienced with their reactors. We doubt that those in the power industry are keenly aware of the heavy responsibility operators of nuclear power stations bear. The AEC has also compiled its view on securing nuclear power generation safety. In it, the commission asks power companies to realize information disclosure with a high degree of transparency and strict compliance with laws. The view was attached to the white paper. Although the cases in which past problems were concealed were all discovered through internal investigations carried out by power companies, which voluntarily announced them, it is an urgent task to reform the mind-set of those in the industry to prevent similar troubles. === N-power wave of the future On a global scale, the significance of nuclear power stations has been praised, and moves to construct new nuclear power stations have been accelerating. The number of developing countries aiming to introduce nuclear power stations has increased. However, fears over the safety of nuclear plants and the risk of their aiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons persist. The fact that nuclear power stations are not approved as a means of combating global warming illustrates the depth of these concerns. In the Kyoto Protocol, which defines international measures to fight global warming, developing countries will not be regarded as reducing CO2 emissions even if they construct nuclear power stations with the assistance of industrialized nations. Thus, nuclear power is removed from the Kyoto Protocol as a way to ease global warming. To improve this situation, the white paper urges Japan to act positively to include nuclear power generation as part of measures to cut CO2 emissions. To make such a move persuasive, power companies should aim at operating nuclear power stations safely and steadily. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, March 21, 2007) ***************************************************************** 21 newsobserver.com: Panel: Duke can recover reactor costs Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill By John Murawski, Staff Writer State regulators ruled this afternoon that Duke Energy can recover about $87.5 million in development costs for two nuclear reactors, even if the nuclear plant is never built. The ruling removes a major obstacle to nuclear plant development in North Carolina, a state that has allowed utilities to recover development and construction costs only after a power plant was completed. The N.C. Utilities Commission said that the Charlotte utility can file for engineering, licensing and other expenses incurred through Dec. 31, expected to total $125 million. Duke Energy's North Carolina customers would pay about $87.5 million and the rest would be paid by the utility's South Carolina customers. Duke Energy had made the request in September to recover its expenses, saying building a nuclear plant is too risky to undertake without some guarantee of cost recovery — even if the plant is never built. The company is exploring the option of adding two new reactors at the Lee Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina, at a projected cost of $4 billion to $6 billion. Duke Energy's request was opposed by a host of public advocacy groups as well as by the state Attorney General. It was supported by the Public Staff, the consumer advocacy arm of the utilities commission. Commissioner Robert Owens Jr. dissented from his colleagues' decision, arguing instead that the financial risk of a new nuclear plant should be borne by Duke Energy's shareholders, not the company's rate payers. Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at (919) 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. © Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company newsobserver.com ***************************************************************** 22 Platts: British Energy to market nuclear power from Magnox reactors London (Platts)--20Mar2007 UK generator British Energy Monday said it struck a deal with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to sell power from the NDA's ageing stations. NDA's Magnox nuclear power stations -- Wylfa and Oldbury -- are expected to generate about 7 TWh year until 2011, when the last Magnox plant is taken offline, the companies said. "The agreement provides the NDA with certainty and confidence in the continuity of trading services with a service provider that understands the complexity of managing and trading nuclear output," Mark Leggett, commercial director at the NDA, said in a statement. Neil O'Hara, trading director at British Energy said the deal would increase "the depth and diversity of the portfolio we manage." The two Magnox stations are the last of eight still online. Oldbury, which started generating electricity in 1967, is scheduled to cease operations at the end of 2008. And Wylfa, which went online in 1971, in 2010. The NDA and its subsidiary British Nuclear Group in December chose British Energy to take over the BNG subsidiary that manages trading for the UK's Magnox nuclear power stations. The sale of Energy Sales and Trading Ltd, a BNG subsidiary, to British Energy is subject to final negotiations and regulatory approvals, BNG said in a press release. A BNG spokesman in December told Platts the companies hope to complete the sale by the spring. No price for the deal was released. The NDA, owned by the government, is in the process of selling off BNG units as part of a privatization process. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 23 Times Daily: Targeting TVA | TimesDaily.com | Florence, AL The latest attempt to dismantle the Tennessee Valley Authority is coming from within its borders -- and it's a deeply misguided attempt. U.S. Sens. Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell, Republicans from Kentucky, have introduced bills in Congress that would authorize a study to privatize the 8.6 million customer federal utility and establish the "Access to Competitive Power Act," which they say would give customers choices for cheaper electric power. Their bills are inherently flawed in that they would allow customers to buy power outside the TVA service area. TVA, however, is prohibited by federal law from selling power outside its seven-state service area in the Southeast. By allowing private companies to sell electricity inside TVA's territory, a "cherry-picking" scenario would be created, undermining TVA's ability to compete. And experience suggests they are on the wrong track. So far, where electricity generation has been deregulated, rates have increased and reliability has not improved. There have been few bargains for customers in the hurly-burly of deregulated trade. TVA, created by Congress in 1933 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal recovery program, has been under attack in Congress on and off for years. The latest attempt to undermine the agency already has opponents. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., is chairman of the TVA Caucus, and he has signaled his intent to block the legislation. We support his efforts. Bunning and McConnell appear to be working from local politics: two Kentucky power companies have given notice to TVA that they will be severing their ties to the agency and buying electricity elsewhere. One of the electric companies has invested in a private coal-burning power plant. Because TVA requires those leaving the system for private sources to build their own transmission systems, the cost can be hefty. It appears the Kentucky senators want to break TVA for two comparatively small power providers. TVA still has some of the cheapest electricity rates in the country, though it is burdened with a debt of $25 billion. The senators' bills do little to address the debt, which ultimately would be placed on the steps of the federal government if TVA is dismantled. The debt was incurred mostly from an overly ambitious nuclear plant construction program in the 1970s and from Congress' decision in the 1950s to stop subsidizing power operations. TVA certainly has its faults, but selling it off to the highest bidders won't improve the quality of life in its service area. © Copyright 2007 TimesDaily. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 APP.COM: Plant's benefits not worth risks | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Post Comment At the League of Women Voters of Ocean County's community dialogue Feb. 28 to discuss the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Lacey, environmental experts detailed the numerous structural inadequacies, the worsening environmental damage, the dire health risks and the frightening security deficiencies at the plant. Representatives from Oyster Creek were present, but they refused to answer any questions. Instead of contributing to the discussion, they set up a cardboard display outside the meeting room and gave out bumper stickers and bouncy, green balls. Were they expecting a busload of second-graders to come to this very adult meeting? The simplistic Oyster Creek display praised the "clean" and "safe" energy the plant provides for its customers. Unfortunately, New Jersey receives less than 6 percent of its electricity from Oyster Creek. Most of the electricity generated at the nuclear plant supplies other states. So while Maryland and Delaware do indeed get "clean" and "safe" power from Oyster Creek, New Jersey gets to live with the environmental damage and health consequences that come with the continued operation of the oldest and least updated nuclear plant in the U.S. Let's do some math: New Jersey gets less than 6 percent of its electricity from Oyster Creek but takes 100 percent of the risk. Does it make any sense for New Jersey to allow the Oyster Creek nuclear plant to be licensed for 20 more years? Even a second-grader would answer "No way!" Helen A. Mahtaban TOMS RIVER Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Norwich Bulletin: Federal commission to discuss Millstone assessment www.norwichbulletin.com - Norwich, Conn. Tuesday, March 20, 2007 WATERFORD — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford will be the subject of two upcoming public meetings. At 3 p.m. on March 22, NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., to discuss the annual assessment, which covers the period between Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006. Dominion operates the Unit 2 and 3 reactors at the Waterford, Conn. site. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, will be held at the Leland F. Sillin, Jr., Training Center, located at the plant on Rope Ferry Road. At 6 p.m., NRC staff will review results with Connecticut’s Nuclear Energy Advisory Council at Waterford Town Hall, at 15 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford. Before the meetings are adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of the Millstone plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant operation. The annual assessment letter for Millstone is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mill_2006q4.pdf. Notices for the meetings, with agendas attached, are available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession numbers ML070670489 and ML070670485. Originally published March 20, 2007 Copyright ©2007 Norwich Bulletin ***************************************************************** 26 Rutland Herald: Vt. AG weighs in on Yankee spent fuel Rutland Vermont News & Information March 20, 2007 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff MONTPELIER — The Vermont Attorney General's office has added its voice to six other states asking federal regulators to take into account the safety of on-site storage for high-level radioactive waste when they consider a license extension at Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, among other reactors. Monday was the deadline for public comment on the petition originally filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, according to Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. Rep. Richard Marek, D-Newfane, said he had been told by Attorney General William Sorrell that the state had joined Massachusetts, asking that the NRC change its own rules on the issue. Marek had written a letter on behalf of fellow House members seeking the state's involvement. The Massachusetts petition seeks an assessment of the vulnerability of the spent fuel pool, and whether it is a natural target of terrorists, and it also wants the NRC to change its rules about whether the regulators can consider this issue in relicensing dockets. Sorrell, and a deputy attorney general also working on the case, didn't return telephone calls Monday. Marek said that he had received the letter from Sorrell last week, alerting him and other Windham County legislators that the state had already joined the debate. Windham County legislators and anti-nuclear activists had asked for the state to join Massachusetts on the issue. The Pilgrim nuclear plant in Massachusetts, which is also owned by Entergy Nuclear, is also seeking a 20-year extension of its original 40-year license. In the case of Vermont Yankee, that license to operate expires in 2012. Sheehan said that his office hadn't tallied all the public comments that had been submitted on the issue, but he said the state of California had submitted a very similar petition to the Massachusetts argument. The other states already on record with Massachusetts are New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana. At issue is the safety of the highly-radioactive spent fuel, which in Vermont's case is still kept in a deep water pool on the fifth floor of the reactor building. Entergy Nuclear is in the process of building an on-site storage facility next to the Vernon reactor, where the oldest and coolest of the old fuel will be transferred into steel and concrete casks. Sen. Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, president pro tempore of the state Senate, said the news that Sorrell's office had joined the debate was welcome. Shumlin said when NRC officials met with legislators in Montpelier a couple of weeks ago, legislators were "astounded" to learn that the NRC was not considering the issue of storage of high-level radioactive waste when making a decision about extending Vermont Yankee's license. Shumlin said he would consider approving a 20-year extension, but only if there was an independent safety assessment of the aging reactor, as well as the issue of disposal of high-level radioactive fuel. "Vermont would never have taken that plant if they knew that high-level waste would be stored on the banks of the Connecticut River," Shumlin said. If Vermont Yankee does get a license extension, he said, it should be conditioned on different areas of the state hosting some of the high-level waste since it will be mobile in the concrete and steel casks. "We've had it all in Windham County now for almost 40 years," Shumlin said, noting the entire state benefited from Yankee and should share in its liabilities. "If we're going to create the waste, we should share in its storage and Windham County has done its share," he said, adding that storage should start in the state's most populous areas. "It is appropriate that the issue be addressed at the commission level. We believe that the plant is protected by its very strong design and also by a comprehensive security program on site, but also by the resources of the federal government," said Robert Williams, Entergy spokesman. Sheehan said the Massachusetts attorney general's office has been rebuffed by the NRC and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on several related issues regarding the relicensing of Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, which is only a few miles from the Massachusetts border. Marek said federal regulators told the Vermont legislators a federal waste site would be available to nuclear plant operators by 2025, but Marek said that was unlikely, given the problems encountered at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 27 PATRIOT LEDGER: NRC urged to look closely at spent-fuel storage pools : Petition seeks rule change to require Pilgrim to file environmental-impact study SouthofBoston.com The Patriot Ledger 400 Crown Colony Drive P.O. Box 699159 Quincy, MA 02269-9159 (617) 786-7000 By JULIE JETTE The Patriot Ledger PLYMOUTH - The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation and a number of South Shore state legislators are urging federal regulators to force the Pilgrim nuclear power plant to address concerns about the safety of its waste-storage pool. Comments from lawmakers, advocates and individuals were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in support of Attorney General Martha Coakley’s request for a rule change that would affect plants, such as Pilgrim, that are seeking to extend their operating life. The comment period on Coakley’s request, originally submitted by former Attorney General Thomas Reilly, ended yesterday. As of yesterday, about 40 comments had been submitted. Only Pilgrim owner Entergy Corp. and a coalition of nuclear plants opposed Coakley’s request. Most of the comments were copies of a form letter. Reilly had asked nuclear regulators to require a closer study of the pool as part of the process to extend Pilgrim’s operating license past its current expiration in 2012, to 2032. So far, those efforts have been rejected. Reilly and Coakley have also tried to change the rules that govern relicensing procedures. Changes to NRC rules can take years to enact, but Entergy has asked the commission to decide by November on Coakley’s requested change. An NRC spokesman said the agency planned to respond in a timely manner but would not specify how long it could take. The change would require Pilgrim and other plants looking to extend their life to file an environmental-impact statement if they plan to continue to keep spent-nuclear fuel in high-density storage pools. Environmental-impact statements are intensely researched documents and preparing one would likely delay a new license for Pilgrim. When Pilgrim began operating in 1972, its spent-fuel pool was viewed as temporary storage for fuel that would be eventually kept in a federal repository. Efforts to build such a repository have been stalled for years, and Pilgrim has continued to store its own waste. The density of fuel stored in a pool inside the plant’s reactor building is higher than had been anticipated when the plant was built, but the plant’s operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission insist the pool is safe. Activists point to a study that says a fire in the pool would be more catastrophic than previously thought. They also say the pool’s potential as a terrorist target means it should be examined more closely. Sanford Lewis, an environmental attorney from Amherst, told the commission that rules for relicensing, approved in 1996, did not take into account the possibility that damage to a plant’s fuel storage could be done on purpose. ‘‘Today we cannot consider issues of spent-fuel storage without reflecting the concern that spent-fuel storage may be a target of intentional action by terrorists,’’ Lewis wrote in comments to the NRC. Pilgrim will have to build additional fuel storage on its property if it plans to operate past 2012 because even at its higher density, the pool will not be able to accommodate more waste. The company has not yet said what its plans are for additional storage, but most plants have built steel and concrete capsules known as ‘‘dry-cask storage’’ to house their waste. David Tarantino, a spokesman for Pilgrim, said the company is frustrated that the federal government has not yet provided the waste-storage facility it said it would. ‘‘We wish that instead of arguing over the effects of the spent-fuel pool, the Congress would take some action and actually move fuel out,’’ he said. Julie Jette may be reached at jjette@ledger.com . Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger Transmitted Tuesday, March 20, 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 PATRIOT LEDGER: Nuclear plant shut down while water leak fixed SouthofBoston.com The Patriot Ledger 400 Crown Colony Drive P.O. Box 699159 Quincy, MA 02269-9159 (617) 786-7000 By JULIE JETTE The Patriot Ledger PLYMOUTH - The Pilgrim nuclear power plant was shut down at about 5 p.m. Saturday so operators could investigate a water leak that was dripping into the containment vessel around the reactor. The problem has been fixed and the plant was expected to be restored to full power today, plant spokesman David Tarantino said. The incident was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The leaking valve was part of the reactor water-filtering system, investigators said. Tarantino said that during the day Saturday, operators noted that the amount of water leaking into the plant’s dry well was increasing at a rate of less than a half gallon every four hours. Some valves are designed to leak into the dry well, but there was no apparent reason for the increase. ‘‘To be absolutely positive you have to go in there and see the water dripping,’’ Tarantino said. He said the plant began powering back up at about 8 a.m. yesterday. Pilgrim will be closed next month for maintenance. Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger Transmitted Tuesday, March 20, 2007 ***************************************************************** 29 El Paso Times: Expansion of nuclear power plants under way El Paso Times Staff Article Launched: 03/20/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT By Tom Fowler Houston Chronicle HOUSTON -- The number of nuclear powered generators in Texas could triple in the next decade with as many as four new projects in the works. Expansions at the state's two existing plants -- Comanche Peak south of Dallas and the South Texas Project near Bay City -- took steps forward this past week when TXU Energy said it will likely buy reactors from Mitsubishi for the Dallas-area expansion and NRG Energy said it will work with a Tokyo utility as an adviser for Bay City. Illinois-based Exelon Energy has also said it is considering sites in South and East Texas for a new two-unit plant, while a private firm in Amarillo hopes to build two new nuclear units. About 14 percent of the state's power, or 4,800 megawatts, came from nuclear powered units in 2006, according to state power grid operators. The proposed project could add an additional 10,600 megawatts of nuclear power to the grid as early as 2015. One megawatt can power up to 800 homes. "Texas is considered very hospitable towards nuclear," said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for Exelon. "It's shaping up to be one of the key states for the next generation of nuclear power plants." Nuclear power plant development in the U.S. came to a halt shortly after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. The last new plant to start up was the Watts Bar facility in Tennessee, which began operating in May 1996 though it received its construction permit in 1973. New nuclear plant construction has continued unabated outside the U.S., however, particularly in Japan and France. Today it accounts for about 16 percent of the world's electricity output and 19 percent of the U.S. output, according to Platts. A renaissance for nuclear projects in the U.S. is under way, however, fueled by a less-costly permitting process initiated in the 1990s, a new batch of incentives included in a 2005 federal energy bill, growing opposition to greenhouse-gas producing power plants and the higher cost of natural gas-fired power. Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is anticipating up to 32 applications for permits to build and operate reactors nationwide. Texas has been the target for many new projects because of its growing power needs, air pollution problems that have fueled opposition to new coal plants, and the state's competitive wholesale electric market, observers say. Jim Curtiss, a former commissioner at the NRC who now heads the energy practice at the law firm Winston & Strawn, said the 32 pending permit applications before the commission aren't the same thing as commitments to build, however. Combined the firms have spent an estimated $2 billion preparing their applications so far, he said, but it can cost up to $3 billion to build a single plant. "They may all go through the application process and get approval from the NRC, but whether they do build them will depend on what power demand is like and what the other alternatives are at the time," Curtiss said. The permitting process has been eased significantly since the height of nuclear power construction in the U.S. in the 1970s. Rather than having to essentially make all of its financial commitments to the projects before even beginning the permitting process, a company can now address many of the health, safety and environmental issues before buying reactors or signing other long-term commitments. In addition to generation tax credits, the Department of Energy has pledged to pay plant developers up to $500 million if projects are delayed because of regulatory issues, split development costs during some portions of the permitting process, and provide loan guarantees. In Texas, legislators have proposed a bill to have power customers cover the cost of mandatory plant decommissioning funds should the operator not be able to. Despite the sweeteners and a recent agreement from environmental groups to support a private equity buyout of TXU if the company backed off from a number of planned Texas coal plants, the new nuclear plants in Texas aren't a slam dunk. The Natural Resources Defense Council was one of the groups supporting the planned buyout of TXU, but the group isn't giving the company carte blanche, said Tim Greeff, campaign manager for the NRDC's Climate Center. "If you can figure out how to solve the waste problem for nuclear power and let it work without the massive subsidies it has received over the years, we'd be all for it," Greeff said. "But we'd like to see TXU make strides on conservation programs and renewable energy first before looking at nuclear." Copyright © by the El Paso Times and MediaNews Group and/or wire ***************************************************************** 30 FR NRC: ACRS meeting Doc E7-5035 [Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)] [Notices] [Page 13142] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20mr07-93] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on April 3, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, April 3, 2007--8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business. The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's proposed revisions to Standard Review Plan Section 4.2, ``Fuel Designs.'' The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors, representatives of the nuclear industry, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (telephone 301/415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: March 14, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-5035 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 SABCnews.com: IAEA helps SA on 2010 nuclear security plan South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © Security at Koeberg came under a new spotlight last year due to power shortages March 20, 2007, 15:15 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, is cooperating with South Africa to develop a security plan ahead of the 2010 Soccer World Cup to avert any "dirty bomb" attack, a government official, said today. Tselio Maqubela, South Africa's chief nuclear director, said security at existing nuclear facilities met international standards but there were concerns over radioactive sources used in hospitals and other industrial applications. "We will be looking at that, particularly going towards the 2010 Soccer World Cup, because part of the requirements is to have a nuclear and radiological security plan, which would then make sure that we do not have incidents of dirty bombs and so on," Maqubela told a parliament briefing. He said the IAEA was assisting South Africa, the only country in Africa operating a nuclear power plant and Africa's first host to the global soccer tournament, to formulate security plans to cover a wide range of possible nuclear sources. "We just need to make sure that the sources do not fall within the cracks and you find that, come 2010, then we have a problem with a source that got lost and found its way into undesirable elements," Maqubela said after the meeting. Dirty bombs The issue of "dirty bombs" assembled from radioactive nuclear waste is a global concern, with security agencies and governments fearful that attackers could detonate such a bomb with devastating consequences. South Africa's nuclear power plant at Koeberg was breached by Greenpeace activists in 2002, when six protestors managed to clamber up a wall in a pre-dawn raid and hoist a banner reading: "Nukes out of Africa". Security at Koeberg came under a new spotlight in February 2006 when Alec Erwin, the public enterprises minister, suggested that "sabotage" was behind a misplaced bolt which caused extensive damage to the facility in the previous December, contributing to power shortages. The government later said it had been unable to conclude if the placement of the bolt had been deliberate. - Reuters ***************************************************************** 32 Reuters: Vietnam, U.S. sign nuclear conversion agreement Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:19PM EDT HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam has agreed to work with the United States to begin converting a nuclear research reactor to using low-enriched uranium fuel from highly-enriched uranium, state media said on Tuesday. Vietnam's Atomic Energy Commission also signed an agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to send any highly-enriched uranium back to Russia, where it was originally imported from, the reports and a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi said. The statement said U.S. and Vietnam government agencies "recently signed contracts to further enhance security at the Dalat Research Reactor and at three radiological facilities in Vietnam to protect materials that could be used for harmful purposes". It said the two contracts stem from last November's state visit to Vietnam by President Bush, the second visit by a U.S. President to Hanoi since the former war enemies established diplomatic relations in 1995. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration will administer the project at Dalat, capital of south-central Lam Dong province and the other sites. Vietnam, which signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1982, plans to start building a nuclear power plant in 2015 to help drive the energy-hungry economy. The Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission says the country will need 2,000 megawatts to 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power from 2017, but does not want to enrich uranium on its soil. International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei said on a visit to Hanoi in December that the communist-run government had involved the agency from the beginning of its nuclear power development. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Slate Magazine: Bloggers on Russia's nuclear ultimatum. - By Christopher Beam - posted March 20, 2007 Putin His Foot Down Bloggers wonder why Russia is really withholding nuclear fuel from Iran. They also discuss what makes Patrick Fitzgerald less than "distinguished" and assess the damage of Mitt Romney's Miami gaffe. Putin his foot down: Russia issued an ultimatum that it will stop shipping materials for Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor unless the Islamic republic complies with U.N demands that it cease enriching uranium. But, as the announcement comes after a dispute over payments, bloggers wonder what is really fueling the face-off. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters calls it a "repudiation of the mullahcracy" and speculates on behind-the-scenes maneuvering: "Some other pressure point must have been hit by the West. Perhaps someone mentioned Russia's G-8 status, or maybe other commercial issues got worked in Putin's favor. What is obvious is that Ahmadinejad placed all his eggs in the Russian nuclear basket, and for the moment he has come up empty." Conservative Marcie at Running the Gauntlet concurs: "Seriously, Russia floated Saddam Hussein for years. The same goes for France and Germany. Why the mad rush for Putin to be paid when he sat in limbo for at least a couple of years with Saddam?" Stanford researcher Pavel Podvig at the blog of the research project Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces calls the Times article "sloppy": "The ultimatum story may well be true, although Igor Ivanov [secretary of the Russian Security Council] doesn't strike me as a person who would deliver a strongly-worded ultimatum - more likely it was more of an advice and explanation of the reasons behind the recent delays with fuel shipment." And at TNR's The Plank, Bradford Plumer flags a Bloomberg report in which Russian officials asserts that the Times' claim that Russia issued an ultimatum "does not correspond to reality." "This wording was never used," Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov tells Bloomberg. "Ivanov discussed with his Iranian counterpart some issues relating to Bushehr concerning the financial debt of the Iranian side." Former Marine and self-proclaimed idealist Westhawk doesn't see how Ahmadinejad can wriggle out of this one. Given how strongly he asserted Iran would never suspend enrichment at Natanz, it will be hard for him to renege on his promise: "Iran will now have to choose which outcome is worse, domestic embarrassment for the regime or a conspicuous hardening in the global alliance against its nuclear program." At conservative HotAir, Allahpundit points out Iran may still be able to develop nukes on its own—it will just take longer: "Doesn't Iran enrich its own uranium at Natanz? Why, yes — but it's still a few years away from being able to enrich it highly enough to make a bomb, which means any bomb in the meantime would likely come from Bushehr. Can a bomb be made out of the nuclear fuel that Russia had planned to send to them for the Bushehr reactor? Why, yes, by extracting plutonium from the fuel after it's spent — which is why Russia's always insisted that Iran return all of the spent fuel to them." Read more about Russia's smackdown. It's Pat! A 3,000-page document dump by the Justice Department reveals that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was ranked somewhere between loyal Bush followers and "weak" attorneys who had "chafed against Administration initiatives." The rankings were drawn up by Kyle Sampson, the recently resigned chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales, while Fitzgerald was prosecuting the case against former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby. Bloggers probe yet another layer of the U.S. attorneys flap. Jeff Fecke at Blog of the Moderate Left notes that Fitzgerald has "gone after corruption on both sides with equal vigor": "When Alberto Gonzales is forced from office–and the hour is growing late–Patrick Fitzgerald would make a fine Attorney General. Not because I know he's a Democrat or liberal or a perfect fit for me poltiically–but because I don't know that. It would be nice to have an Attorney General who simply was an honest, straightforward, and ethical prosecutor." At From On High, Jerry Fuhrman isn't quite sure what all the fuss is about: "U.S. attorney Fitzgerald was fired for ... well, no he wasn't fired. … U.S. attorney Fitzgerald was reprimanded for ... well, no he wasn't reprimanded either. … U.S. attorney Fitzgerald was demoted ... uh. U.S. attorney Fitzgerald was disinvited to the Knicks game? … No. U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's name was on a list of names of U.S. attorneys." Late Monday night, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker summoned the might of citizen journalists to sift the 3,000 pages of DOJ documents. The result is a massive comment thread of page-by-page analysis. Take a look if you have a few days to burn. Read more about Patrick Fitzgerald's "not distinguished" ranking. Slate's Alberto Gonzales Deathwatch measures how near the end is. Romney revolution: Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney signed off during a speech in Miami with Fidel Castro's famous rallying cry, "Patria o muerte, venceremos!" Romney asserted that dictators like Castro and Hugo Chávez had tried to steal the phrase, which he said "belongs to a free Cuba," but the Boston Herald reports that listeners were offended by the appropriation. Anti-Castro blogger Val Prieto at BabaluBlog puts it simply: "Mitt Romney Loses 2008 Florida Vote, in 2007." James Joyner at Outside the Beltway disagrees: "[T]he fact that this is just making the Miami papers ten days after the speech is probably a pretty fair indication that it's not that big a deal." Strange Women Lying in Ponds takes a sober look at the context of the remark, pointing out that reading the full speech "casts his use of the offending phrase in a very different light." At There Is No Blog, thereisnospoon speculates that "Romney can, of course, recover from this: it's still quite early in the race, and Romney doesn't need to get Florida to win the GOP primary. Still, it will be amusing to watch him try to explain this gaffe away--and it will harm his credibility even further as a politico trying to be all things to all people." 2007 Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC ***************************************************************** 34 The Tribune: N-deal not a threat to India - US Chandigarh, India - Main News New Delhi, March 20 Ahead of the talks on an agreement to operationalise the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, Washington today said the deal should not be viewed as a “threat in any way to New Delhi’s sovereignty or its nuclear programme.” Seeking to allay any apprehensions by India that the deal may be inimical to its interests, the visiting US Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said the deal was good for India and should be seen as a “major opportunity”. “The civil nuclear agreement currently under negotiation is good for India... is good for the US... is good for our mutual energy security... and is good for global non-proliferation system,” Bodman said at a FICCI interaction. Bodman made a strong case for pushing forward the deal to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and increase use of alternative sources to achieve energy security. — PTI ***************************************************************** 35 Caribbean Net News: Greenpeace advises against nuclear power plant Suriname The source for news throughout the Caribbean Source: afiwi.com Published on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 By Ivan Cairo Caribbean Net News Suriname Correspondent Email: ivan@caribbeannetnews.com PARAMARIBO, Suriname: Plans of a group of investors and businessmen to build a nuclear power plant in Suriname are raising concerns with the environmental organisation Greenpeace. According to Greenpeace, the country has no expertise in this field, while it has a number of other resources to generate energy. The organisation is also concerned over the type of nuclear reactor the investors have in mind. Meanwhile, the Suriname Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement released Friday that, although it has been approached by investors with the idea to construct a nuclear power plant, “atomic energy to facilitate economic activities has not been on the agenda of the government yet”. The ministry confirmed, however, that the government has no policy yet regarding nuclear power and technology. Meanwhile, the authorities have started consultations with stakeholders in several sectors of society to determine whether the country is ready to become member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations. In an interview with Radio Netherlands, Greenpeace’s radiation expert Rianne Teule argued that there are a number of unknown factors regarding the plans of Suriname Industrial Engineering and Vehicle Services to build the power plant. The planned so-called Simplified Gas Cooled Reactor (SGR) is not widely used yet and there is, therefore, very little international experience with this type of reactor. China is one of the few countries using this type of power facilities. Teule further argued that the alleged investment of US$30 million in the nuclear power plant could easily be invested in development of cleaner energy sources. Greenpeace is also very concerned over the disposal of the nuclear waste, since this is not only a very costly operation but also one that has enormous risks for the environment. Transportation of nuclear waste by sea is not an easy task, said the Greenpeace activist. It is also unclear whether other CARICOM countries will allow any shipment of nuclear waste through the Caribbean. CARICOM has for years strongly opposed transportation of atomic waste through the region. Meanwhile, the United States is observing the developments in Suriname from a distance. “We are following the news reports closely buy at this moment we have little information, so we can’t comment as yet,” said embassy spokesman in Paramaribo, Andy Utschig. Copyright © 2003-2007 Caribbean Net News All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 36 AdelaideNow: Reactors to become 'nuclear storage sites' NEWS.com.au | March 20, 2007 02:30pm Article from: AAP Reactor plants will become defacto waste storage sites if Australia adopts nuclear power, a US anti-nuclear campaigner claims. Washington-based Kevin Kamps, who is on a national tour with the Wilderness Society, said today the public's primary concern should be where the governments planned to store nuclear waste. He said US experience showed reactors, generally located near cities, had been forced to store toxic waste while the argument of where to build a national dump continued. American nuclear reactors produced up to 30 metric tonnes of waste each year, which posed serious health and environmental risks, he said. ''Nuclear power is still a very contentious issue in the US with most people asking where do we put the waste,'' he said. ''If reactors are built, they will serve as waste storage sites for many years in the future and there is a massive risk for accidents.'' Mr Kamps pointed to the Yucca Mountain proposed dump in Nevada that had now been delayed as a groundswell of opposition grew. He said nearby residents and environmentalists did not want the dump because of the site's location on a fault line, near drinking water supplies and on volcanic land. He argued that the same problem would happen in Australia if nuclear energy was developed. Last month the South Australian city of Port Augusta, north of Adelaide, was named the most likely location for Australia's first nuclear power plant by The Australia Institute thinktank. Mr Kamps dismissed the argument put by Prime Minister John Howard that nuclear energy was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal. ''The creation of a nuclear power industry to decrease emissions trades one ecological disaster for another,'' he claimed. The government should concentrate on improving energy efficiency and renewable energies to solve global warning, he said. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times ACDT (GMT +10:30). ***************************************************************** 37 PRN: Westinghouse Selects Cranberry Woods for Expanded Operations in Western Pennsylvania Posted on : Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:40:00 GMT | Author : Westinghouse Electric Company MONROEVILLE, Pa., March 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Westinghouse Electric Company today announced that it has selected Cranberry Woods, Butler County, as the site for its expanding Western Pennsylvania operations.Construction of the new facility will begin within three months with occupancy by the company's Nuclear Power Plant Business unit expected during the first half of 2009. Employees currently located at existing facilities in Monroeville and Churchill will follow in a second-phase move, with all employees expected to be in the new facility by year-end 2010. Westinghouse employees currently located in Blairsville, Madison, and New Stanton will remain in their existing facilities.Construction of the new facility is contingent upon formal approval of the site as a Strategic Development Area by the local governing bodies.Westinghouse announced in late 2006 that Western Pennsylvania would remain the hub of its expanding worldwide operations. That announcement followed a real estate review that also included Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. At that time, Westinghouse also announced that it would choose between the Cranberry Woods site and the company's existing site in Monroeville.The decision to select Cranberry Woods is based on a number of factors, including flexibility of construction options to accommodate future growth. Additionally, the Cranberry Woods site will be able to better accommodate the parking requirements of the expanding workforce.In making the announcement, Tony Greco, Westinghouse Sr. Vice President of Human Resources and Corporate Relations, thanked Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as other state and local government and business officials for their unwavering support in the effort to maintain Westinghouse and its expanding business operations in Western Pennsylvania."Governor Rendell, Dan Onorato, Scott Lowe, the Allegheny Conference and numerous others worked together to insure that Westinghouse would be able to expand in Western Pennsylvania," he said. "We look forward to a long and mutually rewarding presence that will benefit the entire region."Westinghouse Electric Company Copyright © 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 Japan Times: Tepco admits two nuke reactors had control rod malfunctions japantimes.co.jp Web Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Kyodo News Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Tuesday joined the list of power utilities revealing their nuclear reactors had accidents involving control rods but did not report them. The nation's largest power firm said two control rods fell off at the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear plant's No. 3 reactor in Fukushima Prefecture in June 1993 and at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant's No. 1 reactor in Niigata Prefecture in April 2000 during routine checks. Operations were suspended for the checks. As in the control-rod problems at Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Chubu Electric Power Co., neither of the Tepco incidents resulted in a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, or criticality, so the utility was not legally required to report them to the government, Tepco said. In both Tepco cases, an emergency system that immediately inserts control rods into the reactor core failed to function, it said. Hokuriku Electric Power Co. disclosed on March 15 that a 15-minute criticality accident had resulted from three of the 89 control rods coming off at its reactor in Ishikawa Prefecture in 1999. It neglected to report the incident to the government. On Monday, Tohoku Electric announced that reactor control rods fell off in 1988 at its reactor in Miyagi Prefecture and Chubu Electric said rods came off in 1991 in its Shizuoka Prefecture reactor. All these incidents were in boiling-water reactors and were caused by the mishandling of valves in the system that controls the water pressure to move reactor control rods. No one was harmed and their was no contamination of the environment, the utilities and the government claimed. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 39 Russia Newswire: TVEL to Supply Fuel to Research Reactor in Vietnam Newsmaker: TVEL Headquarters: Moscow Date: 19/03/2007 MOSCOW (RNWire) – The U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Research Center Dalat (Vietnam) signed an agreement March 15 on replacement of highly enriched uranium fuel of the Dalat research reactor with low enriched one. The fuel is to be supplied by TVEL under the Russian-American RERTR program (Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors). The low enriched uranium fuel VVR-M2 (less than 20% enrichment with uranium-235) is planned to be delivered to the Vietnamese research reactor already this September to replace 36-percent enrichment fuel it uses at the moment. A total of 36 fuel assemblies are to be supplied to the research facility. The new low enriched fuel will make the reactor safer in operation. Previous fuel supplies under RERTR program were done in 2005 to research reactors of the Czech Technical University and Nuclear Research Center Tajoura (TREWDRC) in Libya. The VVR-M2 low enriched fuel for the Dalat reactor will be fabricated at one of the TVEL's enterprises, i.e. the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant. About TVEL Joint Stock Company TVEL takes the lead within the Corporation – one of the world key manufacturers of nuclear fuel (17% of global market). The Corporation integrates large Russian enterprises specializing in natural uranium mining, nuclear fuel fabrication, supplies, scientific and engineering support to Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs) and NPPs in CIS and foreign countries. This is an advanced and dynamically developing company, which is sustainably ranked among the 20 largest production associations of Russia. Copyright © 2004-2007 Russia Newswire ***************************************************************** 40 Viet Nam News: VN switches to lower-grade uranium for nuclear reactor Tuesday, March 20, 2007 HA NOI — The Vietnamese government has agreed to use a lower concentration of uranium in its Da La nuclear reactor. The non proliferation contract was signed by the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), managed by the US Department of Energy, and the Viet Nam Anatomic Energy Commission (VAEC), headed by the nation’s Ministry of Science and Technology. VAEC has also agreed to send any highly enriched uranium back to Russia, where it was originally imported from. The two nuclear deals are part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, operated by the NNSA, and are the final objectives to be met in the Viet Nam-America Joint-Statement created last November. Ensuring the this technology is kept safe, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Science and Technology have worked out plans to improve security at the Da Lat reactor and three other nuclear facilities in Viet Nam. — VNS Copyright by Viet Nam News, Vietnam News Agency 11 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Editor in Chief: Tran Mai Huong Tel. 84-4-9332316; Fax: 84-4-9332311 E-mail: vnnews@vnagency.com.vn Publication Permit: 599/GP-INTER Granted by the Ministry of Culture and Information on April 9, 1998. ***************************************************************** 41 Viet Nam News: Energy officials discuss nuclear power, conservation Tuesday, March 20, 2007 HA NOI — Nuclear power, coal production and conserving energy were high on the agenda yesterday during a conference that brought together some of the top power experts in Viet Nam and Japan. Financial support and expertise from the island nation played an integral role in saving power in this country, said industry minister Hoang Trung Hai during the first Viet Nam-Japan Energy Forum, held in Ha Noi. Hai emphasised the need for Japan’s backing to build training centres, develop Government policies and promote clean energies like biofuel. He also called for co-operation in energy research and training staff for nuclear power plants. Hai applauded Japan’s support in many of those fields, including a national programme to conserve energy. Japan’s Deputy Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Kozo Yamamoto, said Japanese specialists would pass on their experience in saving energy. Japan wanted to co-operate with Viet Nam in developing nuclear power, transferring clean energy technologies, exploiting coal mines, harnessing biofuels, reforming the power industry and training staff. The two sides will also issue a joint statement detailing an energy pact reached in Tokyo last October. — VNS Copyright by Viet Nam News, Vietnam News Agency 11 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Editor in Chief: Tran Mai Huong Tel. 84-4-9332316; Fax: 84-4-9332311 E-mail: vnnews@vnagency.com.vn Publication Permit: 599/GP-INTER Granted by the Ministry of Culture and Information on April 9, 1998. ***************************************************************** 42 AFP: US "to help build Vietnam's first nuclear plant" - Tue Mar 20, 11:39 AM HANOI (AFP) - The United States has pledged to help Vietnam build a nuclear power plant if the country switches to non-weapons-grade uranium in its test reactor, a Vietnamese diplomatic source said Tuesday. Washington was ready to help its former enemy turned trading partner meet its burgeoning energy needs but wanted to ensure it does not produce high-grade radioactive material that could fall into the wrong hands, the source said. "The United States doesn't want to have a second North Korea in the Asia Pacific," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity in Hanoi. The nuclear issue was a major theme of last week's Washington meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vietnam's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem, the source said. "The United States agreed with the Vietnamese proposal to help it build its first nuclear power plant in order to meet its rising electricity needs," said the diplomat. "Vietnam lacks power and demand is growing rapidly." A US embassy official in Hanoi said: "We've had a lot of broad-based discussions about various nuclear issues and providing assistance and cooperation to the Vietnamese, but there is no formal agreement at this point." Earlier Tuesday, the US said Vietnam had agreed to convert its Soviet-built Dalat research reactor, located about 250 kilometres (150 miles) northeast of Ho Chi Minh City, from high- to low-enriched uranium fuel. Vietnam would also "move forward with the repatriation of Russian-origin highly enriched uranium fuel" under an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a statement issued by the US embassy. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 BBC: World Cup 'dirty bomb' threat Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 17:43 GMT The flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is co-operating with the South African government to avert a potential "dirty bomb" attack at the 2010 World Cup. Tselio Maqubela, South Africa's chief nuclear director, said security at existing nuclear facilities met international standards but there were 'concerns' from the IAEA over radioactive sources used in hospitals and other industries. "We will be looking at that, particularly going towards the 2010 Football World Cup, because part of the requirements is to have a nuclear security plan which would reduce the threat of dirty bombs," Maqubela told a parliament briefing. A dirty bomb is where radioactive material is combined with a conventional bomb so that on explosion, contaminating radioactive debris, or chemical and biological substances are spread over a wide area. He said the IAEA was assisting South Africa, the only country in Africa operating a nuclear power plant, to formulate security plans to cover a wide range of possible nuclear sources. "We just need to make sure that our radioactive material never finds its way to undesirable elements," Maqubela said. The issue of "dirty bombs" assembled from radioactive nuclear waste is a global concern, with security agencies and governments fearful that attackers could detonate such a bomb with devastating consequences. South Africa's nuclear power plant at Koeberg was breached by Greenpeace activists in 2002, when six protestors managed to clamber up a wall in a pre-dawn raid and hoist a banner reading: "Nukes out of Africa". Security at Koeberg came under a new spotlight in February 2006 when Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin suggested that "sabotage" was behind a misplaced bolt which caused extensive damage to the facility in the previous December, contributing to power shortages. The government later said it had been unable to conclude if the placement of the bolt had been deliberate. ***************************************************************** 44 [DU-WATCH] Criticality Accident In Japan June 18, 1999 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:55:37 -0500 (CDT) The "Criticality Accident" was caused in the Nuclear Power Plant for commercial pursuit. I have not heard that such an accident occurred in the Nuclear Power Plant in the world. When this accident was opening wide and checking the pressure vessel in the nuclear power plant, the reactor reached the criticality and control of it became impracticable. Similarly in Japan, the criticality accident is caused during uranium fuel processing operation in an incorporated company called JCO of Tokai village on September 30, 1999. Two persons die from radioactive exposure then, and 667 including residents are being radioactivated. This accident that had occurred in preceding-it three months showed anew that the grade of a nuclear enterprise of Japan was getting worse to there. Before causing a catastrophe like the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster, you have to stop the nuclear installation of this country completely also including a reprocessing plant. I am doing the citizen action for carrying out uranium weapon ban in Japan. I think that there are many people who think that the Nuclear Pawer Plant in Japan has high safety. However, reality is not so. In order to hold up a rate of operating highly, the very big pushfulness is applied. Moreover, it is supposed that it is nuclear propulsion a "National Policy", and a large amount of money are used. A local autonomous community and a local business concern are provided with many of the money, and profits guidance is done nonchalantly. Various maneuver is performed in order to hide as a result the fact that a nuclear-energy plant is dangerous. The occurrence of the "criticality accident" in which even the nuclear installation for military affairses in the world now does not almost have a case. Please send the opinion of a "no" from an entire world to the nuclear power of Japan which has repeated and caused such a dangerous accident. Here is the e-mail transmitting page to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan. http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/index.htm The report of the Japan Times(Kyodo News) and Mainichi Newspapers is attached to reference. Mainichi Hokuriku Electric Power covered up nuclear reactor reaching criticality 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) Friday, March 16, 2007 Hokuriku hid '99 reactor criticality accident Radiation exposure denied; no coverup record kept Kyodo News Hokuriku Electric Power Co. failed to report a criticality accident involving a 15-minute uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction in 1999 in Ishikawa Prefecture, the government and the utility revealed Thursday. No radiation leaked and no one was injured in the accident, which occurred at the No. 1 reactor of the Shiga nuclear plant during a scheduled inspection, the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said. Hokuriku Electric Power, which announced that it didn't keep records or report the accident involving the self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction to the local and central governments, apologized and pledged to investigate and ensure a similar accident doesn't occur. 1999 also saw a criticality accident that claimed three lives in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, and exposed people in the area around the JCO Co. plant to radiation, and a shipload of so-called MOX fuel sent back to England after revelations that the processor, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., had faked shipment safety data. In the Hokuriku accident, no report was made because no workers were exposed to radiation and the measured radiation level was low, Vice President Takashi Matsunami told reporters at the company's Ishikawa branch in the city of Kanazawa. "We truly apologize for not reporting such a serious incident," Matsunami said. "At the moment, we don't know whether company executives were involved in concealing the case." But he added that the decision to cover up the accident was made by the nuclear plant chief and people in the field at the time. The accident occurred around 2 a.m. on June 18, 1999, when workers mishandled a system to control water pressure for moving reactor control rods, resulting in three of the 89 rods falling apart and part of the reactor core going critical. The reactor failed to shut down automatically because of the broken rods, leading to a 15-minute uncontrollable self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, until the rods were inserted manually. The lids of both the reactor's containment and pressure vessels were removed at the time, but the state nuclear safety watchdog said it has been notified that no workers were exposed to radiation and no radiation leaked outside the building. The agency, which is under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, said the incident may have violated the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law, adding that the Shiga plant's chief at the time knew what had happened. The agency Thursday ordered the utility to shut down the No. 1 reactor and conduct a thorough check. The accident was revealed after Hokuriku Electric, along with other power utilities, began thorough inspections of nuclear plant operations late last year, following a spate of coverups of reactor faults. Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Tohoku Electric Power Co. were also found to have covered up emergency shutdowns of reactors. But Hokuriku Electric's hiding a critical accident is the most serious, said an agency official in charge. In September 1999, hundreds of residents near a nuclear plant in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, as well as plant and rescue workers, were exposed to radiation when workers sidestepped safe operating procedures and, using buckets, put nearly eight times the normal amount of uranium into a container, causing a critical accident that took 20 hours to control and claimed three workers' lives. Thursday's news jolted local residents, and prompted the Shiga government to criticize the operator. Kenichi Doushita, who heads a group seeking in a lawsuit to suspend the operation of the plant's No. 2 reactor, said, "I'd like to hear what excuses will be offered by Hokuriku Electric." http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20070316a1.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] ***************************************************************** 45 [DU-WATCH] SAIC and the Dirtiest Hot Secret Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:57:00 -0500 (CDT) Something tells me that the District of Crime is none too happy with this Vanity Fair piece. But they won't be tooo un-happy with them for, after all, the words "depleted uranium" are not used. Instead they call it "nuclear debris" and "contaminated waste". Funny how newspapers and periodicals typically are just not allowed to "go there" with regard to the mention of the red, white, and blue's uses for Depleted Uranium. The dirty little secret of DU use - both inside the US and out - since 1945 truly is the worst federal PR nightmare that just won't go away. And now that the word is getting out there widely (courtesy of vets' and anti-war groups) one can surely bet that those paid by our tax dollars to champion enthusiastically for this Made-in-America chemically toxic and radiologically poison are working over-time these days! Page 7 and 8 below are about radiation matters, but the other pages are pretty hard-hitting. This piece depicts the War Machine and the entire Nuclear Industry for what they both actually are: a multi-faceted, all-encompassing, government-privatized Death Businesses, catering to the radioactive contamination and poisoning of both domestic populations at home and international audiences abroad as well. The rest of the article (it runs from pages 1 through 8) will wow anyone who does not take kindly to killing other humans for a buck. Cathy Garger Radiation Sickness Given that its founder came from a company called General Atomic it is hardly surprising that SAIC has been heavily involved in the nuclear business. One early project came in the 1970s and 80s, when SAIC received Pentagon contracts to reconstruct the amount of radiation absorbed by military personnel during atomic-bomb tests and other service-related exposures. The government's bookkeeping was so erratic from the early days of the Cold War that it was often difficult to tell how much radiation soldiers had received and whether it might have been responsible for their various cancers. When SAIC did the numbers, few veterans qualified for compensation. The Pentagon's nuclear testing was in effect off the hook, and ailing veterans were out of luck. After years of hearings, Congress in 1988 passed the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation Act, which gave veterans the benefit of the doubt. It was presumed that their cancer was attributable to nuclear exposure without considering the radiation dose. By then many of the veterans were dead. A health physicist who testified later on behalf of the veterans spoke unkindly of the original SAIC work: "Atomic veterans have been deprived of benefits intended by Congress through [SAIC's] deceptive internal dose reconstructions and poor understanding of radioactive material distribution in the body." SAIC disagrees, saying that it "continues to work with the government to apply the best science to performing dose reconstruction for atomic veterans." Periodically over the years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy, prodded by executives in the nuclear industry, have sought to ease the rules against re-using "lightly" contaminated radioactive waste. The impetus has been the inexorably growing stockpile of nuclear debrismuch of it lethalthat has been accumulating at weapons sites and power plants in America for decades. One way to draw down the stockpile would be to recycle large volumes of discarded nickel, aluminum, copper, steel, and other irradiated metals into usable products. If slightly radioactive metal were combined with other metals, the resulting material could be made into all kinds of consumer itemsknives and forks, baby strollers, chairs, rings, eyeglass frames, bicycles, reclining rockers, earrings, frying pans. It also could be used in construction. Lest any of this sound improbable, in the 1980s radioactive table legs began turning up in the United States everywhere from restaurants to nursing homes. A radioactive gold ring cost a Pennsylvania man his arm. The public outcry was so great that in 1992 Congress set out to ban this form of recycling. The N.R.C., D.O.E., and nuclear industry saw the ban coming and were not happy about it, but they also saw a way out: maybe it would be possible to develop broad guidelines that would allow the contaminated waste to be recycled based on what were deemed "safe" exposure levels. Never mind that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation. Two months before the ban was signed into law, the N.R.C. gave the multi-million-dollar job of formulating the guidelines to an outside contractor. The contractor was SAIC. As the years slipped by, across town, another federal agency, the Department of Energy, was handing out a $238 million contract to B.N.F.L. Inc., at that time the U.S. subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, "to clean up and reindustrialize three massive uranium enrichment facilities" at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee. The agreement called for B.N.F.L. to recycle "hundreds of thousands of tons of metals." British Nuclear Fuels had a questionable track record in the nuclear industry. For decades it had dumped plutonium and other radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and the North Atlantic. Its workers had falsified critical quality-control data. When the D.O.E. announced the contract, SAIC was identified as a major subcontractor in the recycling of radioactive scrap metal. Because the N.R.C. and the D.O.E. for some reason weren't talking to each other, the elegance of this arrangement escaped everyone's attention. To connect the dots: SAIC was writing the regulations for one government agency, the N.R.C., which would set the permissible limits of radioactive contamination for recycling, even as it partnered with another company, under contract to a different federal agency, the D.O.E., to recycle the radioactive metal for which it was drafting the regulations. Secrets The synergy of this arrangement was discovered accidentally by a Washington lawyer, Daniel Guttman, whose longtime passion has been conflicts of interest that inevitablypurposefullyarise from government outsourcing. Guttman called attention in public hearings to what was happening, thoroughly embarrassing officials at the N.R.C. and the D.O.E. and stirring the ire of public-interest groups. The N.R.C. killed its contract with SAIC. The recycling project was put on hold. And the N.R.C. filed suit against SAIC, alleging "false and/or fraudulent representations to the effect that [SAIC] was providing services to the NRC which were free from bias." SAIC has denied the conflict-of-interest claims, and the suit is still pending. But SAIC is by no means out of the nuclear business. It may be under a cloud at the N.R.C., but it's still a partner, with the construction giant Bechtel, in the largest nuclear project of allthe $3.1 billion effort to build a repository for America's high-level radioactive waste. The firm Bechtel SAIC is constructing the repository deep under Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where the buried waste will remain lethal for at least 10,000 years. It could provide a revenue stream for SAIC as far into the future as one can imagine. This page: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703?currentPage=7 First page: Washington's $8 Billion Shadow http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703?currentPage=1 Help the US become Radiation Free by 2033! www.radiation.org Cathy Garger www.mytown.ca/garger --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:du-watch-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:du-watch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 46 [DU-WATCH] South Dakota uranium contamination screening bill update - disappointing news Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:59:27 -0500 (CDT) E R Schultz says: "As a Vietnam veteran I remember politicians telling me not to be concerned about Agent Orange. Now they are saying the same thing about exposure to depleted uranium." Posted on Sun, Mar. 18, 2007 Bill should've passed To the editor - The South Dakota legislative session has come and gone and South Dakota's recently separated members of the Armed Forces received a slap in the face from these legislators and, for the life of me, I do not know why. House Bill 1202 had no tax dollars or costs attached to it, but did not pass. This bill was to ensure our most recently separated veterans were notified of possible exposure to and screening for depleted uranium. The Veterans Affairs is testing free of charge for our South Dakota troops. This bill would have made sure that every South Dakota man and woman who served this country in the Armed Forces was notified of the right to a medical evaluation for exposure to depleted uranium. As a Vietnam veteran I remember politicians telling me not to be concerned about Agent Orange. Now they are saying the same thing about exposure to depleted uranium. Thank God we have legislators like Paul Dennert and Burt Elliott who voted for our veterans and troops. They voted for this bill and deserve a big hand shake and thank you. As for Al Novstrup and David Novstrup, who thought our returning veterans did not deserve this notification, I would advise all veterans not to shake their hand and not to vote or support them ever again. They did not support you. Earl R. Schultz ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] ***************************************************************** 47 [DU-WATCH] Soldiers Speak Out, now avail. Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:45:06 -0500 (CDT) Soldier Speak Out, featuring Dennis Kyne, Jimmey Massey, Pat Resta and many other veterans of Iraq. http://www.denniskyne.com/soldierspeakout.html to purchase your copy today. is now ready for you to see and share with your friends. Get as many as you want for one shipping fee. Soldiers Speak Out is a powerful, first-hand testament to the reality of the military experience, told entirely in the words of American veterans who have been to war and are now opposing it. This half-hour documentary serves as a counter-recruitment and organizing tool for activists, schools, and organizations. It provides a sober view of the war in Iraq and an important counterpoint to the "stay-the-course" rhetoric of the Bush administration. The DVD is packed with loads of bonus footage, in addition to the documentary: 92 minutes of extended interviews with the veterans, 31 minutes of award-winning shorts: Beyond Babylon, Camp Casey, Leave My Child Alone, Looking Down, plus 27 minutes of trailers from goodfilms.org, music section, and resource section with direct weblinks to important groups and information [input] http://www.denniskyne.com/soldierspeakout.html to purchase your copy today Dennis Kyne Support the Truth www.denniskyne.com --------------------------------- 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:du-watch-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:du-watch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 48 RIA Novosti: IAEA delegation visits uranium enrichment center in East Siberia 17:01 | 20/ 03/ 2007 IRKUTSK, March 20 (RIA Novosti) - A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is visiting the Angarsk chemical plant, the site of a uranium enrichment center, a senior IAEA official said Tuesday. Last October, Russia and Kazakhstan, which holds 15% of the world's uranium reserves, opened their first joint venture to enrich uranium in Angarsk, East Siberia. The venture, which was part of Moscow's non-proliferation initiative to create a network of enrichment centers under the UN nuclear watchdog's supervision, will also be responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste. IAEA Deputy Director General Yury Sokolov said the principal condition for enriched uranium deliveries is strict "observance of all international non-proliferation rules." The center will offer uranium enrichment services to countries interested in developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes. The Angarsk plant was previously removed from the list of "national strategic installations," and there are no further legal obstacles to its operation. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 49 FR NRC: FONSI for cesium disposal Doc E7-5034 [Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)] [Notices] [Page 13138-13139] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20mr07-91] [[Page 13138]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Exemption, in Accordance With 10 CFR 30.11, From NRC Licensing Requirements That May Otherwise Be Applicable With Respect to the Receipt and Disposal of Cesium Contaminated Emission Control Dust Located at the LeTourneau, Inc. Steel Mill in Longview, Texas at the U.S. Ecology Idaho Disposal Facility AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of no significant impact for exemption from NRC regulations pursuant to 10 CFR 30.11. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shaffner, Project Manager, Low- Level Waste Branch, Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, FSME, U.S. NRC; telephone: (301) 415-5496; fax number: (301) 415-5397; or by e-mail at jas11@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.11, the issuance of an exemption from NRC licensing requirements that would otherwise be associated with U.S. Ecology Idaho's (USEI) receipt and disposal of emission control dust contaminated with minor concentrations of Cesium 137 resulting from the accidental melting of a Cesium sealed source. The contaminated material is the property of LeTourneau Inc., the owner of a steel mill near Longview, TX. A Texas licensee, Earth-Tech, is managing the material on behalf of LeTourneau consistent with Earth-Tech's Texas Radioactive Materials License (LO5449). None of the parties involved in the proposed action are NRC licensees. Issuance of the proposed exemption, in conjunction with an action by the State of Texas to approve the removal of the wastes from the LeTourneau site, will allow for transfer of the material, by rail car, to USEI's Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) Subtitle C facility near Grand View, Idaho for processing (stabilization) and disposal. Material would be processed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of USEI's RCRA permit. Pursuant to the proposed exemption, the material, upon its receipt at USEI's disposal facility, would not be subject to NRC licensing and would not be subject to NRC regulation. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action 10 CFR 30.11 provides that ``* * * the Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part * * * as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.'' The proposed action would exempt USEI from NRC licensing requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 30 that would otherwise be associated with the receipt, processing, and disposal of material contaminated with small concentrations (less than 25 picocuries per gram) of Cesium 137, a radioactive byproduct material. This action is in conjunction with a concurrent action by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to approve the transfer of the material (per Title 25, Texas Administrative Code Sec. 289.252(cc)(2)(E)) from the LeTourneau site notwithstanding the provisions of Title 25, Texas Administrative Code Sec. 289.202(ff)(20)(A) related to the stabilization of these materials. It would allow the transfer of approximately 250 tons of emissions control dust (K061) from the LeTourneau facility in Longview, Texas to the USEI facility near Grand View, Idaho. Pursuant to the proposed exemption, the material, upon its receipt at USEI's disposal facility, would not be subject to NRC licensing and would not be subject to NRC regulation. USEI would then process (stabilize) the material for disposal at its facility consistent with the requirements of its RCRA Subtitle C permit. Need for the Proposed Action This exemption is necessary to allow the timely disposal of 250 tons of K061 material that is slightly contaminated (less than 25 picocuries per gram) with Cs 137 at the USEI disposal facility near Grand View, Idaho, which is permitted under RCRA, Subtitle C. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a timely decision on the proposed exemption that ensures protection of public health and safety and the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action In its October 27, 2006 letter and technical report, LeTourneau included a description of disposal site characteristics, a description of the waste, and radiological assessments of potential dose to transport workers, USEI site workers and future occupants of the disposal site after site closure. The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluations performed by LeTourneau, as well as related Texas DSHS correspondence (dated November 14, 2006, and February 1, 2007) in order to determine whether the criteria for granting the exemption are met. Staff has found that the potential doses to members of the public, either through proximity to material in transport, as a worker at the USEI facility, or as a current or future resident around the USEI facility, are less than ``a few mrem'' and consistent with NRC's policy which would be applicable to NRC licensees regarding 10 CFR 20.2002 approvals. Staff also considered the risk associated with possible transportation accidents associated with the waste material in a readily dispersable form. Staff concludes that risk will be insignificant because of: (1) Low doses associated with low concentrations; and (2) the low accident rate associated with rail transport. Further, the staff has determined that the affected environment and environmental impacts associated with the proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. USEI has received for processing and disposal similar material in the past. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off of the USEI site, nor is there significant potential for increase in public radiation exposure (for this evaluation USEI workers are considered members of the public). Based on its review, the NRC staff considered the impact of residual radioactivity at the disposal facility. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non- radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative impacts, and concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the small amounts of radioactive material involved, the environmental impacts of the proposed action are small. Therefore, the only alternative that the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the NRC would maintain status quo by refusing to grant this exemption. This would require either leaving the material in place near Longview or sending it to an alternative facility that is permitted to receive it. In the case of the former, projected radiological impacts on members of the public are [[Page 13139]] projected to be greater than those associated with the proposed action. In the case of the latter, radiological impacts and transportation risks would be similar to those associated with the proposed action with higher implementation costs. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Texas Department of State Health Services for review on February 5, 2007. Minor comments received from both agencies via e-mail have been incorporated herein or otherwise resolved. The NRC staff has determined that the transportation of the subject material over preexisting rail transportation routes for disposal at a preexisting facility is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the habitat of such species. Therefore, no further consideration is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action are available electronically in the NRC's Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents associated with this action are: (1) Letter dated October 27, 2006, from LeTourneau to Texas DSHS and NRC requesting exemptions to allow transfer of material to USEI for processing and disposal. (ML063260540), (2) Letter dated November 14, 2006, from E. Bailey, Texas DSHS to W. Maier, NRC Region IV requesting NRC determination whether or not wastes may be disposed of at USEI facility and a condition for DSHS approval of waste removal. (ML070540192), (3) Letter dated February 1, 2007, from E. Bailey, Texas DSHS to W. Maier, NRC Region IV clarifying terms of approval for waste removal. (ML070540194), (4) Technical Review and Safety Evaluation Report of LeTourneau proposal by NRC staff dated February 22, 2007 (ML070530623), (5) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 30, ``Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems accessing documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference Staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or e-mail pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1F21, 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 13th Day of March, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Scott Flanders, Deputy Director, Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E7-5034 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 50 Reuters: Russia says gave Iran no ultimatum on enrichment 11:56PM EDT, Tue 20 Mar 2007 MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Tuesday denied a report that senior officials had warned Iran that nuclear fuel for its first atomic power station would be withheld unless Tehran suspended uranium enrichment. The New York Times reported on Monday that Igor Ivanov, the secretary of the Russian national security council, had delivered the ultimatum at a meeting in Moscow last week. "The assertion of the newspaper that the Russian side, as part of Russian-Iranian consultations in Moscow on March 12, supposedly delivered some sort of ultimatum is not true," Russia's security council said in a statement. Russia this month announced indefinite delays to the Bushehr nuclear power station, which a Russian state-owned firm is helping to build, after Iran missed millions of dollars in payments for the station. Some analysts said Moscow's patience was wearing thin with Iran and that the Kremlin had decided to take a tougher line in negotiations with Tehran. But the Security Council said Moscow was not linking the building of the station to international concerns about Iran's nuclear program. "The resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem and the completion of the building of the atomic power station in Bushehr is not being tied together by the Russian side," the security council statement said. Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the delays to Bushehr were purely technical. "The existing problems in this area have an exclusively financial and technical character," the foreign ministry said. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 AFP: UN nuclear inspectors visit Iranian enrichment facility - diplomats - by Michael Adler Tue Mar 20, 2:39 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - UN inspectors visited the Iranian nuclear facility in Natanz on Tuesday, diplomats said, but it was not clear if they resolved a dispute over monitoring a strategic underground bunker. "The inspectors were able to carry out their inspection work in Iran on Tuesday," said a diplomat close to the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who like others asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. A second diplomat said the IAEA experts visited the underground bunker where Iran is building an industrial-scale plant to make enriched uranium, which can be used for nuclear reactor fuel or atom bomb material. Iran had stopped IAEA inspectors from visiting Natanz on Saturday, in a move a third diplomat said was designed to hide work they have done underground in installing centrifuges, the machines which spin at supersonic speeds to enrich urnaium. There is also a pilot enrichment plant above-ground which since April 2006 has been doing research-level amounts of enrichment. Iran has refused to let the IAEA install cameras to monitor the hall where the Iranians have already set up hundreds of centrifuges deep underground to protect them against any air strike. But Iran had promised "frequent inspector access" to the site, the IAEA reported in February. The highly sensitive inspections, and talks over how they are to take place, come as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to plead Tehran's case this week before the UN Security Council, which is considering tightening sanctions on the Islamic republic over fears that it seeks nuclear weapons. Iran's blocking access to Natanz would be a violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei had reported on February 22 that Iran was at the underground site spinning centrifuges empty, without uranium feedstock gas, in two 164-centrifuge production lines, and was finishing installing two other similar cascades, also totalling 328 centrifuges. ElBaradei said the IAEA had "agreed to interim verification arrangements" at Natanz's underground site "involving frequent inspector access but not remote monitoring." "Iran was informed that these arrangements (which are now in place) would be valid only for as long as the number of machines installed... did not exceed 500, and that, once that number was exceeded, all required safeguards measures would need to be implemented," ElBaradei said. A diplomat said Iran did not want the IAEA to see "that it now has more than 500 centrifuges functioning underground" and that was the reason for Saturday's delay. Iran has challenged the agency "to provide a detailed legal basis" for putting in cameras, as it contests the legality of the 500-centrifuge limit, according to the report. Tehran has defied the UN's calls to suspend uranium enrichment, insisting that its nuclear programme is a peaceful effort to generate electricity. Iran warned Monday that it would make a "proportionate" response to any new UN sanctions. Diplomats in Vienna speculated that cutting off access to Natanz might be part of this response. The Security Council is to meet Wednesday to review a draft resolution against Iran agreed last week by the body's five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany. New sanctions would include barring Iran from exporting arms and buying weapons such as missiles. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 Physorg: Lack of fuel may limit US nuclear power expansion Published: 7 hours ago, 17:40 EST, March 20, 2007 Limited supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants may thwart the renewed and growing interest in nuclear energy in the United States and other nations, says an MIT expert on the industry. Over the past 20 years, safety concerns dampened all aspects of development of nuclear energy: No new reactors were ordered and there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in building facilities to produce fuel for existing reactors. Instead, the industry lived off commercial and government inventories, which are now nearly gone. Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements. That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies. "Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them. There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Neff said. For example, only a few years ago uranium inventories were being sold at $10 per pound; the current price is $85 per pound. Neff has been giving a series of talks at industry meetings and investment conferences around the world about the nature of the fuel supply problem and its implications for the so-called "nuclear renaissance," pointing out both the sharply rising cost of nuclear fuel and the lack of capacity to produce it. Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia, and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies for half its fuel on Russia under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States. Further, China, India, and even Russia have plans for massive deployments of nuclear power and are trying to lock up supplies from countries on which the United States has traditionally relied. As a result, the United States could be the "last one to buy, and it could pay the highest prices, if it can get uranium at all," Neff said. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it." Mined uranium comes in several forms, or isotopes. For starting a nuclear chain reaction in a reactor, the only important isotope is uranium-235, which accounts for JUST 7 out of 1000 atoms in the mined product. To fuel a nuclear reactor, the concentration of uranium-235 has to be increased to 40 to 50 out of 1000 atoms. This is done by separating isotopes in an enrichment plant to achieve the higher concentration. As Neff points out, reactor operators could increase the amount of fuel made from a given amount of natural uranium by buying more enrichment services to recover more uranium-235 atoms. Current enrichment capacity is enough to recover only about 4 out of 7 uranium-235 atoms. Limited uranium supplies could be stretched if industry could recover 5 or 6 of these atoms, but there is not enough processing capacity worldwide to do so. Source: MIT » Next Article in Technology - Energy: Biofuels Boom Raises Tough * © PhysOrg.com 2003-2007 ***************************************************************** 53 The Gazette: Uranium is a hot commodity canada.com survey: Expenditures UP. More than 350 projects under way across Canada LYNN MOORE, The Gazette Published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Uranium is re-emerging as a star mineral commodity, according to the latest survey of mineral exploration and mine development expenditures compiled by Natural Resources Canada. Uranium-related expenditures doubled from 2005, reaching $190 million in 2006, with more than 350 projects under way across Canada, according to the survey. And indications are that exploration expenditures for all mineral and metal commodities will approach $2 billion in 2007. The Survey of Mineral Exploration, Deposit Appraisal and Mine Complex Development Expenditures reviewed 2006 preliminary estimates and 2007 spending intentions of about 734 project operators. In 2006, total expenditures reached $1.7 billion, up 32 per cent from $1.3 billion in 2005. Sustained high commodity prices and a favourable investment climate contributed to those total expenditures surpassing $1 billion for four consecutive years, the report said. Nickel prices increased by more than 150 per cent in 2006, zinc by more than 125 per cent and uranium by nearly 100 per cent. Gold and silver were up by nearly 20 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively. Spending intentions for operations in Quebec during 2007 are pegged at just over $293 million. Preliminary estimates for 2006 spending is about $260 million, up from $205 million in 2005. Junior exploration companies continue to be a major force in the sector, the survey found. Total expenditures for junior project operators have increased from $14 million in 1999 to $1.1 billion in 2006. And juniors are now responsible for more than 60 per cent of the total exploration and deposit appraisal expenditures. Expenditures for each commodity group, except coal, increased over 2005. In 2006, all jurisdictions, except Manitoba, saw increases in expenditures, with the largest gains being experienced in Saskatchewan - the leading jur-isdiction for uranium expenditures - British Columbia and Quebec. lmoore@thegazette.canwest.com © The Gazette (Montreal) 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 54 icWales: 'Sellafield leak ends case for Wylfa B' Mar 20 2007 Darren Devine, Western Mail ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have spoken out against plans to build a new N-plant on Anglesey following a critical report into a leak at Sellafield. Up to 83,000 litres of highly radioactive liquid from dissolved nuclear fuel leaked at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP), at Sellafield two years ago. When the leak was discovered in April 2005 the plant was immediately closed down and is not expected to reopen before the summer of next year. Site operator for the British Nuclear Group, Sellafield Limited, was fined Ł500,000 as a result of the oversight. Glyn Jarvis, of Wales Forum of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, says the HSE report makes a persuasive argument against a new Welsh N-plant, a so-called Wylfa B. He said, "This HSE reports reminds us of the dangers of nuclear technology and how, with the best will in the world, technology can fail and people make mistakes. "We must find safer ways to meet our energy needs." The Health and Safety Executive investigation into the incident at Sellafield said the leak remained unnoticed for two months because of failures to follow procedures and ensure detection equipment was working. The HSE report said, "These failures were not identified due to inadequate monitoring arrangements and management oversight. The company fell well below the standard required " icWales™ is a trade mark of Western Mail & Echo Limited. ***************************************************************** 55 E-News: “Can” the New Bomb Plant, Job Openings at FCNL, & More Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:47:46 -0500 (CDT) FCNL E-Newsletter - March 20, 2007 Read this newsletter online at: http://www.fcnl.org/email/e-newsletter/20mar07.htm *Grassroots Action: You Can Tell Congress to 'Can' the New Bomb Plant The Bush administration has launched a $150 billion program to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and return production capacity to Cold War levels. The plan includes a proposal to develop the first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. A key element in this proposal is a plan for a new bomb plant. Let your members of Congress know that you oppose this new bomb plant. Send them empty soup cans wrapped in FCNL's "Can the New Bomb Plant" label. FCNL has prepared everything you need to make and send your own "Can the New Bomb Plant" can. Download copies - http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/nuclear/CanTheBombPlant_lo.pdf - and invite your friends to a can-making party! Find out more: http://www.fcnl.org/nuclear *FCNL in the News: U.S. Presses For New Nuclear Weapons (Chemical and Engineering News) "There is more public opposition to this program today than on anything I have seen in a decade. Please go back and come up with a program that really addresses national security needs and is something we can support." ~ FCNL Quaker Nuclear Disarmament Program lobbyist David Culp, testifying at an Energy Department hearing about the administration's plans to transform the nuclear weapons complex and produce a new generation of nuclear weapons. Quoted in Chemical and Engineering News, 3/17/07 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/85/8512gov1.html *Iraq: Tell Congress Four Years Is Enough As the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq entered its fifth year this week, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the president's request for another $100 billion to support the failed U.S. strategy in Iraq (read an update on congressional actions at: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2453&issue_id=35). We at FCNL are opposed to any new funding for war. If a majority in Congress is not willing to stop the supplemental, tell your representative - http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=9350216 - not to approve one more dollar for the Iraq war without also insisting on a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. *Grassroots Action: 41% of Your Taxes Go to War -- Pass It On The U.S. spent a staggering $835 billion in 2006 on the military. As a result, 41 cents out of every dollar you're paying in federal income taxes this year is going to the military. FCNL has developed a flyer illustrating how the taxes you must pay by April 17, 2007, are being spent. Write your members of Congress. Tell them that next year's budget should put more money into housing, health care, diplomacy, and efforts to peacefully prevent deadly conflicts. Find out more: http://www.fcnl.org/landing/41percent.htm *From the Hill: Call in Day on Habeas Corpus The Friends Committee on National Legislation joins Amnesty International, the ACLU, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and other groups this week urging constituents to telephone their senators to act against the use of torture. The national call-in week (March 19 to March 23) is focused on building support for legislation that would restore habeas corpus rights for all detainees. Call the Capitol switchboard 202-224-3121, ask for your senators by name and ask them to cosponsor the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 - http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/bills/?bill=9251101 *Quote of the week: Evangelical Statement on Torture "Our military and intelligence forces have worked diligently to prevent further attacks. But such efforts must not include measures that violate our own core values... The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9/11." An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror endorsed by the board of the National Association of Evangelicals: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2430&issue_id=70 *Job Openings at FCNL: Receptionist, Business Assistant, Strategic Campaigns Do you know someone who might want to work for FCNL? Help FCNL build our team of dedicated, hard working staff in Washington. Please pass these job descriptions along to people who might be qualified and interested. http://www.fcnl.org/about/jobs.htm *Resource: Redefining Quaker Simplicity The current clerk of FCNL's General Committee Marge Abbot and her husband, Carl Abbott, use FCNL's renovated green building as an example to explore the meanings of architectural simplicity as one way that contemporary Quakers express their faith: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2337&issue_id=24 _______________________________________ The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/ Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/ Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yard signs: http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/ http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump Contribute to FCNL: http://www.fcnl.org/donate/ Subscribe or update your information to this list: http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message. Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists: http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls. ________________________________________ Friends Committee on National Legislation 245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330 We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored. --- If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=81500283&queueid=1106589856. ***************************************************************** 56 KnoxNews: Union labor not sought at Y-12 site Developer says workers have right to organize after they are hired By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 20, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Two privately financed buildings are nearing completion at the government's Y-12 nuclear weapons plant - ahead of time and without a major glitch. But the developer's relationship with Y-12 unions is off to a rocky start. Lawler-Wood is advertising for workers to operate and maintain the Jack Case Center and the New Hope Center, which collectively will have about 550,000 square feet of office and workspace. However, the company won't commit to any union representation for the small group of workers, estimated to be about 35. "This is not an anti-union move," said Wayne Roquemore, president of Lawler-Wood, the Knoxville-based developer of the $150 million project. "Our plan is to advertise and hire people to perform these duties. If they decide they want (union) representation, they have every right to do that." Tennessee is a right-to-work state, which means workers at a particular site do not have to join a union - even if a labor agreement is in effect. Garry Whitley, president of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, which represents about 2,100 hourly workers at Y-12 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said the labor group had hoped to reach some type of agreement to use existing union workers or have exclusive bargaining rights for the new work group. "I'm disappointed because I really wanted to get it done up front. But this doesn't mean it's the end of the world," Whitley said. "We'll just have to try to organize them." Roquemore said the management company that will maintain the new facilities, Lawler-Wood Y-12 LLC, doesn't yet have any employees, so he said it's premature to negotiate anything. He said the goal is to have a flexible team with broad skills for housekeeping and general operations at the two facilities, which will be leased to BWXT, the government's managing contractor at the nuclear weapons plant. He said it's possible that some of the work could be outsourced to another company. Whitley said the ATLC had agreed to added flexibility for the new work group - allowing workers to perform jobs outside their designated union positions - in hopes of getting an agreement. "It's a different world, a different work environment and we have made some concessions," he said. Roquemore said Lawler-Wood Y-12 would hire several workers in the near future to help with setting up the new buildings, and then hire more later this year. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 57 Tri-City Herald: DOE plans to cut supplemental injury benefit at Hanford Published Tuesday, March 20th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER A reduced benefit for Hanford workers injured on the job is threatening organized labor negotiations as a collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of the month. The proposal for a reduced worker compensation payment is one more way the Department of Energy is systematically chipping away at the benefits paid to Hanford workers, said Dave Molnaa, president of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, or HAMTC. Since 1949, workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have received a supplement to worker compensation payments if they are injured on the job, Molnaa said. But in contract extensions for Fluor Hanford and CH2M Hill Hanford Group, DOE makes it clear it will not reimburse the contractors for supplemental payments for injured workers after current collective bargaining agreements expire. Injured workers are paid an average of 68 percent of their income under requirements of Washington state workers' compensation laws, Molnaa said. But they also have been paid a supplement by contractors, who have been reimbursed by DOE to bring workers' income to 100 percent of their working wage for the first six months they are off work. Because only the supplement and not the base pay is taxed, workers can end up with more money when injured than they made working. Paying the supplement is "unreasonable and therefore unallowable from a cost reimbursement standpoint," DOE wrote in a letter to HAMTC on Monday in response to questions it asked Jan. 18. The letter was sent after the Herald asked DOE for a response on the issue. "I agree that someone out on injury should not make more than someone (working)," Molnaa said. But he said there should be a middle ground between eliminating the supplement entirely and paying 100 percent of wages with a tax break. For instance, the tax break could be figured and subtracted from the supplement, he said. Injured workers should be compensated for the risk of working at one of the most contaminated and hazardous sites in the world, he said. Hanford is heavily contaminated with radioactive and chemical wastes remaining from the past production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Workers not covered by the HAMTC collective bargaining agreement at CH2M Hill Hanford Group and Fluor Hanford have not been eligible for the supplement for several months, unless contractors are willing to pay it without reimbursement from DOE. The supplement also would not be reimbursed under DOE's draft request for bids for new contracts when the extended contracts for CH2M Hill and Fluor expire in late 2008. The companies now employ about 4,600 workers. DOE said in its letter to HAMTC that it is not a party to the collective bargaining agreements and will not become involved in labor negotiations. The agency also pointed out its policy is not to reimburse contractors for the cost of the supplemental payment. However, contractors are not prohibited from paying them. "Costs that are deemed unallowable under DOE contracts, if incurred, are borne by the contractor," DOE's letter said. Hanford has not had a strike since 1976, but the supplemental pay issue for injured workers could create one, Molnaa said. He said contractors and HAMTC are not close to reaching an agreement in the collective bargaining negotiations. The draft bid requests also make other changes to benefits. New workers would not participate in the traditional Hanford pension plan, but would be offered a 401(k)-style plan that requires workers to manage investment contributions they and contractors make. It also would move new workers to what DOE calls a "market-based" health insurance plan. Those two changes are being proposed nationwide, not just at Hanford. DOE proposed the same 401(k)-style pension and market-based health insurance plan standard for all new workers for DOE contractors, but agreed to a one-year suspension last June. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 58 KnoxNews: Bombs away: Y-12 completes work By News Sentinel staff March 20, 2007 OAK RIDGE ? Federal officials announced today that Oak Ridge workers had completed the dismantlement of uranium components from two major nuclear weapon systems. The National Nuclear Security Administration said Y-12 had finished work on the W56 warheads, deployed on the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missiles during the Cold War, and two types of B61 bombs. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the Y-12 National Security Complex, said the plant was holding a barbecue lunch today for workers to celebrate the milestones. Y-12 has dramatically increased its dismantlement workload over the past couple of years. The rate of dismantlement this year is up 50 percent compared to 2006, although officials declined to specify the number of components actually taken apart. Y-12 specializes in the production of so-called secondaries ? the second stage of thermonuclear weapons ? and the Oak Ridge plant dismantles those same parts after weapons are retired from the U.S. arsenal. More details as they develop online and in Wednesday's News Sentinel. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 59 POGO: DOE Employees Request Congressional Investigation The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog: The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has received a letter addressed to Congress from “current and former DOE employees” (pdf) calling for an investigation into persistent mismanagement at the NNSA’s Los Alamos Site Office (LASO). Their concerns include understaffing, cronyism, constant and haphazard reorganizations, and inadequate training of employees. The letter draws from a wealth of knowledge and experience, and the issues raised deserve to be taken seriously: The "we" who have authored this letter constitute a group of current and former employees of the Los Alamos Site Office (LASO) and the New Mexico DOE Complex. As a group our personnel have a sum of more that 100 years of experience. We can say with confidence that we have never in our careers, either in public service or the private sector witnessed such gross mismanagement as seen at the Los Alamos Site Office. Last year, the University of California won, along with Bechtel, a questionable competition to continue their mismanagement of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with the stated purpose of correcting the problems that they, in part, created. The NNSA initiated a “pilot program” shortly thereafter that handed over contract oversight responsibility to the contractor itself. This program rendered the Site Office virtually powerless to correct problems and it’s at the root of many of the issues discussed in the letter to Congress. The "pilot program" makes little sense considering the track records of the contractors. The University of California already had a proven history of mismanagement at Los Alamos before the DOE decided to open their contract to competitive bidding. Bechtel, UC’s current partner, not only has its own checkered contract history, but has often used its political clout to actively dodge accountability. Thus it's no surprise that safety and security debacles continue unabated: the partial blinding of an employee with a laser, incidents of losing classified information (e.g., CREM DE METH), americium contamination in four states that cost the governement $1 million in clean-up costs, and a nine-month shutdown of the lab due to lax security and safety that cost taxpayers roughly $500 million. The employee letter states: Given past problems, one must question why the LASO was thought to be the appropriate site for implementation of a pilot of reduced contractor oversight as a way of doing business. Why select a site that is-known to have had a history of serious management problems and serious problems with business systems. Audits and review of other documentation will verify the lack of a viable business system at LANL. In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman last fall, POGO also addressed the Site Office’s “pilot program.” The problem is clear: the lack of qualified safety basis experts in the Site Offices; the fact that DOE does not verify whether the safety directions created by the federal DOE overseers have been implemented by the contractor; and the decision-makers at DOE Headquarters do not support their people in the field when there is a conflict between the contractor and DOE. For instance, Headquarters assured the Los Alamos site office that it would get additional staff to work on safety verification. However, that additional staff was never provided. Furthermore, former Los Alamos safety director Chris Steele was transferred because of complaints from the contractor, who said he was being too tough on them. The solution is not self-policing by the contractor: it is to have a sufficient number of adequately-qualified safety experts, and the support for those experts from DOE Headquarters. Oversight of contractors is an inherently governmental function. On January 30 of this year, POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian testified before a House subcommittee once again reiterating that the situation has yet to improve. She stated, “In fact, I fear things may actually be getting worse. Not only has NNSA has failed to correct security issues, but the agency has determined that it wants even less oversight of Los Alamos and has implemented a new pilot program in which oversight has been handed over to the contractor itself.” Many of the DOE employees’ concerns are widely known and pre-date the “pilot program.” Retired Admiral Henry Chiles, presiding over a Security Workforce Panel, released a report in 2004 (pdf) that documented personnel problems within NNSA, particularly those related to understaffing. The following year, retired Admiral Richard Mies led an independent review of NNSA security operations at the national laboratories. His subsequent report (pdf) also detailed an extensive lack of proper training, oversight, and accountability. Yet while paying lip-service to these and other reports’ recommendations, the DOE and NNSA have failed to correct the underlying problems. At the same hearing where POGO’s Brian noted that the situations may be getting worse, NNSA Acting Administrator Thomas D’Agostino persisted in the belief (pdf) that improvements were already underway. His conclusion: We have received a number of reports from the Government Accountability Office, the DOE Inspector General, and the DOE Office of Independent Oversight. Like the Chiles and Mies studies, we have addressed the recommendations in these reports and have made major improvements. The recent letter from “current and former DOE employees” proves D’Agostino’s conclusion to be false. POGO supports their request for a congressional investigation into the matter. The “pilot program” has been a disaster and should be terminated immediately. The entire senior management staff should also be held accountable for LANL and LASO's failures. -- John Pruett March 20, 2007 in Congressional Oversight, Contract Oversight, ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************