*****************************************************************
03/26/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.71
*****************************************************************
   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: Let Iran enrich uranium
2 Reuters: China, Russia leaders reject force on Iran, N.Korea 
3 Reuters: U.S. says Iran move on IAEA disappointing 
4 UPI: Iran's Ahmadinejad lashes out at U.N.
5 Guardian Unlimited: EU, Iran Seek Common Ground on Nukes 
6 AFP: India to go ahead with Iran gas pipeline: foreign minister - 
7 Guardian Unlimited: China and Russia urge Iran to adhere to UN rules
8 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Official in Urgent Mission to Release N.Kor
9 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Green donor or dirty money?
10 US: EnergyBiz Magazine: A New Approach to Electric Power
11 AFP: India, US in crucial talks on nuclear deal 
12 AFP: US-Pakistan alliance under scrutiny as Musharraf faces crisis -
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: TMI-Alert Turns 30
14 The Hindu: Nuke deal: More issues sorted out at Indo-US meet
15 CNN-IBN: India, US narrow down N-deal differences 
16 ISN Security Watch: Inside Egypt's nuclear debate
17 The Herald: Report recommends decentralising energy
18 US: FR NRC: License No. DPR-20, Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Not
19 People's Daily Online: Chinese nuclear fuel meets nation's needs
20 UPI: India and U.S. to hold nuclear talks
21 Sweden: The Local: Chamber of Commerce calls for more nuclear energy
22 AFP: Norway-Austria-Ireland-Iceland: Nuclear energy 'not the solutio
23 US: Vermont Guardian: Activists walk across state to shut down Vermo
24 AFP: China's Hu eyes energy imports on Russia visit
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
25 Seattle Press-Intelligencer: Proof of plutonium in climber's sample
26 US: Government Executive: DHS seeks help investigating nuclear detec
27 UPI: Nigeria fines firms for nuclear material
28 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Asks South to Halt Joint Drills With U.S
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
29 US: Providence Journal: Pilgrim nuclear plant's cancer menace 
30 US: FR EPA: Request for Nominations to the EPA Human Studies Review 
31 US: FR EPA: Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
32 US: GLRC: REUSING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 
33 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions wants out of expansion lawsui
34 Hamilton Spectator: Radioactive waste coming to a location near you?
35 THERECORD.COM: Industry wants to bury radioactive material across so
36 US: UPI: Namibia set to be global uranium supplier
37 US: New West Network: Nuclear Waste Trucked Through The Gorge (GNEP 
38 US: Financial Post: Uranium
39 UPI: U.S. tests 30,000-pound guided bomb
40 AU ABC: ALP under fire over nuclear power petitions
41 Barbados: The Nation: Region 'no place' for nuclear waste
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
42 Tri-City Herald: Chemical-dumping video making waves on Internet (w/
43 Tri-City Herald: Cleanup of notorious burial grounds being planned
44 Inside Bay Area: New H-bomb design prompts debate
45 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak R
46 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevad
47 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paduc
48 KnoxNews: Big bucks for Y-12 fortress
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Comment is free: Let Iran enrich uranium

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Christoph Bertram

Verification rather than condemnation is the strategy for 
avoiding conflict over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

March 26, 2007 9:00 AM | Printable version

There is a wise American saying: "If you are in a hole, stop 
digging." The six governments currently considering the next 
steps to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb - the five 
permanent members of the UN security council and Germany - should 
heed that advice. Otherwise, they could end up without any handle 
on the Iranian nuclear programme and with only one (useless) 
option left: a military strike.

Yet the six governments seem determined to continue with what has 
been their strategy so far. Their condition for negotiating with 
Iran is a prior halt of its nuclear enrichment activities. Only 
in exchange for Iran's permanent renunciation of enrichment will 
they provide major rewards - from lifting all sanctions and trade 
restrictions to security guarantees.

This strategy has not worked and will not work. Under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT), of which Iran is still a member,
countries are entitled to engage in enriching uranium for civilian
purposes, and Iran claims that this is all it wants.

True, Iran's total halt of its enrichment programme would be
welcome, not least because its government has hidden these
activities for almost two decades from treaty inspectors, suggesting
other than purely civilian motives.

But the issue of enrichment has been blown up into such a symbol of
national sovereignty in Iran that no government there, never mind
the Ahmadinejad administration, will climb down. Indeed, when the UN
security council formally demanded a stop to the enrichment
programme and imposed mild sanctions last December, Iran's defiant
answer was to step it up.

So what to do now? The Bush administration, predictably, is pushing
for new and tougher sanctions, based on an implied warning in the
earlier UN resolution and arguing, as it did in the run-up to the
invasion in Iraq, that the UN's credibility is at stake. But the
only real test of UN credibility in this conflict is whether it can
succeed in restricting Iran as much as possible to a purely civilian
nuclear programme.

If the security council fails to agree on new sanctions - which is
likely, given Chinese and Russian objections - it would be exposed
as a paper tiger. If, on the other hand, it works out a consensus on
more economic, and possibly even military, punishment, the UN's
credibility would depend on whether these moves produced Iranian
compliance.

That, however, is unlikely. Tougher economic sanctions will not
force Iran to comply; instead, sanctions will merely hit this oil-
and gas-rich country's trading partners. More threats will only push
the international community further along the spiral of escalation
and, possibly, into military action.

There are those in Bush's entourage who would like nothing better.
While even a major air attack would fall short of destroying all of
Iran's nuclear installations and, moreover, leave the technical
knowhow intact, it might at least slow down the programme for a
while and serve as a warning to other potential proliferators. But
it is a foolhardy gamble.

Today, Iran declares that it wants to observe the NPT and that it
has no intention of building a nuclear bomb. After a military attack
by the US, both promises would be history.

If the six governments want to avoid the escalation spiral and curb
the proliferation dynamic, they need to change strategy and
objective. Instead of making a halt to uranium enrichment the be all
and end all of their effort, their central objective should be to
subject the Iranian activities to as much verification as possible:
if Iran wants to enrich, so be it, but it must accept intrusive
international inspections.

This is a bargain the Iranians themselves have repeatedly hinted at.
The six have refused because verification cannot provide an absolute
guarantee against the diversion of some enriched uranium to military
use. But as the superpowers learned in the cold war, the absence of
airtight verification does not render inspections useless. They
would still submit the Iranian programme to greater restrictions
than is the case today. And such an agreement would open the way to
a wider agreement between Iran and the west for cooperation and
regional stability.

That is why the six should stop digging a deeper hole. Instead of
formulating new sanctions for the UN security council, they should
use the next few months to explore confidentially what level of
restrictions, combined with verification, Iran would consider in
exchange for undisputed enrichment.

By all means, the six should keep the option of more biting
resolutions as an inducement to Iranian compromise. But those who
now call on the security council to issue rapid condemnations of
Iran's behaviour should keep two things in mind: they are unlikely
to have any effect, and the US has already used such resolutions as
a pretext for launching military action on its own.

&#169 Project Syndicate, 2007.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 2 Reuters: China, Russia leaders reject force on Iran, N.Korea 

Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:37PM EDT

By Oleg Shchedrov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian
leader Vladimir Putin called on Monday for peaceful solutions to the
crises over Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs and pledged to
stop an arms race in space.

The two leaders, who hope to counter Washington's clout by promoting
internationally agreed solutions to world crises, said in a joint
declaration that they shared a common position on big global issues.

"I would like to emphasize with satisfaction that the positions of
Russia and China on all the issues discussed either coincide or are
similar," Putin said.

Hu, on his third visit to Russia, described Putin as "my good
friend" and spoke of the "warm atmosphere of trust" at their
meeting, underlining the growing friendliness between the two
erstwhile Communist rivals.

"We have agreed that strategic cooperation between China and Russia,
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, has major importance
for international affairs in creating a favorable atmosphere, in
making international relations more democratic and ensuring global
peace," Hu added.

There was no immediate sign of major new energy deals between
Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, and resource-hungry
China.

The leaders pledged to increase "bilateral, long-term strategic
cooperation" on energy but signed only a protocol to increase
Russian oil deliveries to China, something already promised in the
past by Moscow.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Reuters: U.S. says Iran move on IAEA disappointing 

Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:27AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House accused Iran on Monday of
turning a blind eye to its U.N. obligations by limiting nuclear
cooperation but reiterated the United States has no intention of
going to war with Iran.

The U.N. Security Council imposed arms and financial sanctions on
Iran on Saturday for its refusal to suspend nuclear work. Key
nations at the same time offered new talks and renewed an economic
and technological incentive package offer.

Iran said in response it would partially suspend cooperation with
the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency and called the sanctions
illegal.

The White House called the response from Tehran disappointing, with
spokeswoman Dana Perino saying the Iranian government "is turning a
blind eye" to the United Nations Security Council.

"We hope the Iranian people would see that the hard-line policies
and the rhetoric that is coming out of its leaders such as President
(Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is not helpful to the country," she said.

The diplomatic dispute was complicated by Iran's seizure of 15
British sailors in the Gulf last Friday and a warning from Iran's
elite Revolutionary Guards to the United States against attacking
the Islamic Republic.

Perino said the United States backed British Prime Minister Tony
Blair's attempts to gain freedom for the sailors, called the
situation serious and added, "We stand by our British allies."

But she said Washington wants the nuclear dispute resolved
peacefully.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 UPI: Iran's Ahmadinejad lashes out at U.N.

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Published: March 26, 2007 at 12:27 PM

TEHRAN, March 26 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 
is lashing out at the U.N. Security Council for tightening 
sanctions on the country over its nuclear program.

Speaking in Tehran Sunday night, Ahmadinejad said sanctions 
requiring Iran to give the International Atomic Energy Agency six 
months' notice of any nuclear activity is illegal and wouldn't 
stop the nuclear program "even for a second," the Fars news 
agency reported.

In an interview published Monday in Germany's Spiegel magazine, 
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also said the U.N. 
move was illegal and said the nuclear bickering had a precedent, 
the IRNA news agency reported.

"Iran was in the process of completing the nationalization of its 
oil industry. The beginning of this nationalization process was 
the subject of debate in the Security Council 50 years ago," 
Mottaki said. "It too was seen as a threat to peace and stability 
at the time, which of course was absurd."

Iran has repeatedly denied international claims its nuclear 
program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: EU, Iran Seek Common Ground on Nukes 

From the Associated Press

Monday March 26, 2007 10:16 PM

By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A top European envoy on Monday renewed an 
offer from six world powers to talk with Tehran over its nuclear 
ambitions, and a senior Iranian negotiator agreed to stay in 
contact in an effort to find common ground.

    European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana's telephone 
conversation with Ali Larijani, Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, 
was the first exchange between the representatives of Iran and 
the international community since the U.N. Security Council 
toughened its anti-Iran sanctions because of the Islamic 
republic's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

     Solana spokeswoman Cristina Gallach emphasized it was not a 
negotiating session but more a message to the Iranian side that 
the international community was interested in ``renewing ... 
talks and solving in a negotiated matter'' differences separating 
the sides.

   The conversation, which Gallach said lasted nearly an hour, 
came amid signs of impatience from Russia and China, Iran's 
traditional allies among the five permanent Security Council 
members.

    The presidents of the two countries, whose resistance to 
tough penalties against Iran have forced the United States, 
France and Britain to accept watered down U.N. sanctions, jointly 
urged Tehran to fulfill council demands.

  Although enriched uranium can serve as the fissile core of 
nuclear weapons, Iran insists it wants the technology only to 
generate power. Still, years of growing international mistrust 
over Tehran's goals led to the first set of U.N. sanctions in 
December and to agreement Saturday to impose additional Security 
Council penalties.

   Iran remained defiant. On Sunday, it announced it was 
partially suspending cooperation with the International Atomic 
Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog - by revoking a pledge 
to inform it of any plans to build new nuclear facilities. That 
could theoretically make it easier for Tehran to construct a 
secret uranium enrichment plant that would be safe from any 
Israeli or U.S. attack.

   Gallach said no new ground was covered in Monday's 
conversation between Solana and Larijani. She suggested Solana 
had repeated the main demand of the five Security Council members 
plus Germany - the six world powers trying to revive talks with 
Iran - that Tehran must freeze enrichment before any talks begin.

 Beyond that, Gallach said Solana had spoken of ``the willingness 
to create the conditions for the negotiations to resume.''

  ``Larijani was very unhappy with the (U.N.) resolution,'' she 
told The Associated Press. ``At the same time, he accepted the 
invitation for further contacts ... he indicated that he was 
willing to speak again in the next few days, without naming a 
date.''

   The two men have been the principal negotiators on the issue 
of Iran's nuclear program. The EU is eager to continue talks with 
the Iranians as part of a ``twin-track'' approach - gradually 
imposing tougher sanctions if Tehran refuses to halt enrichment 
while offering economic and political advantages on behalf of the 
six powers if it falls into line.

  The newest Security Council measure bans Iranian arms exports 
and freezes the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in 
Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are 
linked to the Revolutionary Guard.

 Before the conversation between Solana and Larijani, a senior 
State Department official urged the Iranians to choose 
negotiations over confrontation.

   ``We would all ask Javier Solana to now undertake some 
vigorous diplomacy with Larijani to see if we can convince the 
Iranians that the way forward is not through punitive measures, 
through the Security Council, and through sanctions, but through 
negotiations,'' said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political 
affairs.

 Iran said it remained interested in negotiations, without, 
however, addressing the demand for an enrichment freeze.

 ``Iran is not after adventurism,'' said Kazem Jalali, the 
spokesman of parliament's committee on foreign policy and 
national security, insisting his country does not want ``to make 
the situation more complicated.''

 Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Hu Jintao of China said 
in a statement that their countries were ready to ``search for a 
comprehensive, long-term and mutually acceptable solution to the 
Iranian nuclear problem.'' They also emphasized the dispute 
should be resolved ``exclusively through peaceful means.''

 Russia and China have significant trade ties with Iran and have 
used the threat of their veto power to push for less stringent 
sanctions against Tehan. But the two joined the rest of the 
Security Council in voting to expand sanctions.

 Among Moscow's economic interests is the $1 billion Bushehr 
nuclear reactor it is building in southern Iran. On Monday, the 
Russian state company constructing the plant - Iran's first - 
said Tehran had made up some - but only part - of the payments it 
had been in arrears on.

                                 ---

      Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Vladimir 
Isachenkov in Moscow, and Slobodan Lekic in Brussels contributed 
to this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: India to go ahead with Iran gas pipeline: foreign minister - 

Mon Mar 26, 1:33 AM ET

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee signalled Monday
that India intends to go ahead with a multi-billion-dollar gas
pipeline from Iran via Pakistan despite objections from the United
States.

"Talks on this pipeline are going on. When I was in Iran, I had 
categorically mentioned that we are interested in having this 
pipeline," Mukherjee said in an interview with the NDTV news 
network.

"Now negotiations are going on about the prices," said the minister,
who made a two-day vist to Tehran last month.

Oil Minister Murli Deora also said last week that India was
committed to the project.

The remarks come after a visit to India by US Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman, who has urged New Delhi to drop the plan.

Washington, which accuses Tehran of supporting terrorism and trying
to make a nuclear bomb, says Iran will use the revenue generated
from the pipeline to finance these activities.

Talks on the proposed 7.4-billion-dollar project began in 1994 but
stalled due to tensions between rivals Pakistan and India but the
discussions gathered momentum after the launch of a peace process
between them in 2004.

Despite being US allies in its global "war on terror," India and
Pakistan have said they want to go ahead with the 2,600-kilometre
(1,600-mile) Iranian pipeline project as they need energy to fuel
economic growth.

Iran plans to lay a pipeline from the giant South Pars gas field to
carry 90 million standard cubic meters per day of gas.

On Saturday, the UN Security Council slapped new sanctions on Iran
over its suspect nuclear weapons programme in addition to curbs
imposed in December.

The fresh sanctions block all Iranian arms exports and freeze the
overseas assets of 28 additional officials and institutions linked
to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: China and Russia urge Iran to adhere to UN rules 

Staff and agencies

Monday March 26, 2007

The presidents of Russia and China today increased the 
international pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme, 
calling on the country to abide by UN security council 
resolutions on the issue.

The joint statement agreed during talks between Vladimir Putin 
and the visiting Hu Jintao in Moscow, comes two days after Russia 
and China joined other security council members in voting for new 
sanctions against Iran.

Diplomatic efforts also continued elsewhere, with the EU 
reiterating an offer to resume negotiations and officials in Iran 
also stressing their desire to keep talking.

The Russian and Chinese leaders said their nations were ready to 
"search for a comprehensive, long-term and mutually acceptable 
solution to the Iranian nuclear problem".

"Russia and China also urge Iran to undertake all necessary and
constructive steps to carry out the appropriate resolutions of the
United Nations security council and the IAEA [International Atomic
Energy Agency]," the declaration said.

Both nations believed the crisis should be resolved "exclusively
through peaceful means and negotiations", the statement added.

On Saturday, security council members meeting in New York agreed new
sanctions, including the banning of Iranian arms exports and the
freezing of assets belonging to 28 people and organisations involved
in Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. Iran rejected the
sanctions and later announced a partial suspension of cooperation
with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

The sanctions were drawn up by the council's five permanent members
- Russia, China, the US, Britain and France - along with Germany.

Today, the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, renewed an
offer from the six countries to negotiate with Iran in a phone call
with Tehran's top atomic negotiator.

Ali Larijani had accepted "an invitation for future contacts" with
Mr Solana, an EU spokeswoman said.

Iran stressed it did not want to escalate tensions. "Iran is not
after adventurism. It does not want to violate international
measures," said Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for the Iranian
parliament's committee on foreign policy and national security.

"We are a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and we
don't want to make the situation more complicated," he said.

As permanent members, Russia and China both hold a veto in the
security council, and have thus far resisted a US-led push for much
harsher sanctions.

While the new measures agreed on Saturday are relatively modest,
they send a further signal to Iran about international feeling over
its nuclear ambitions.

Iran insists its nuclear efforts are directed purely towards
civilian power uses. The US and some of its allies fear Tehran will
use uranium produced by enrichment processes to build atomic weapons.

The council imposed its first set of sanctions in December, but Iran
responded by expanding enrichment.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 8 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Official in Urgent Mission to Release N.Korean Funds

Updated Mar.26,2007 10:27 KST

Daniel Glaser, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Treasury,
arrives at Beijing airport on Sunday./ AP


In a strange reversal of fortunes, the U.S. Treasury Department is
now busy trying to free North Korean assets in the Macau-based Banco
Delta Asia it had earlier made great efforts to freeze. The Treasury
froze the US$25 million after fingering them as gains from money
counterfeiting and drug deals in September 2005. That derailed
six-nation nuclear talks for 13 months, until the U.S. finally
agreed, in January this year, to unfreeze the funds.

On Sunday, U.S. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Daniel Glaser
flew to Beijing, one week after his last visit on March 18, when he
had read a statement in effect releasing the money. But the release
hit a snag when the Bank of China refused to touch the money, which
prompted North Korea again to boycott the talks until it has the
funds in hand. Now Glaser is in Beijing again to negotiate with
China to make sure Pyongyang gets them.

Observers speculate that Glaser will guarantee the Chinese bank and
any banks in a third country that will handle the money that there
will be no problem if they receive the North Korean funds. Only last
July, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey toured South Korea,
Vietnam, Japan and Singapore with evidence to make sure the money
remained frozen, sending banks worldwide a sign that they should
halt transactions with North Korea. Vietnamese and Singaporean banks
complied.

In an interview with Radio Free Asia on Saturday, Prof. David Kang
of Dartmouth College predicted that the Bush administration will not
block North KoreaˇŻs legal financial activities. Meanwhile, after
the Bank of ChinaˇŻs refusal, North Korea is reportedly contacting
Russian, Vietnamese and Mongolian banks about the money transfer.

(englishnews@chosun.com )

*****************************************************************
 9 Salt Lake Tribune: Green donor or dirty money?

Boulder man winces at a conservation project funded by
EnergySolutions, which he fears is trying to muscle in on the town

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 03/26/2007 12:10:08 AM MDT

The Nature Conservancy used money from Salt Lake City-based 
EnergySolutions, the nation's largest nuclear waste company, to 
help secure the watershed at Boulder Creek Canyon Ranch.

Loch Wade fears his adopted hometown of Boulder is about to lose
control of its destiny.

    Once just a bend in the breathtakingly beautiful road above
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, the fast-growing
community is home to a $1.2 million Nature Conservancy project to
protect the local watershed and preserve the community's ranching
heritage. Some locals view the deal as a solution.

    But Wade worries that, with some funding for that project coming
from the controversial nuclear waste company EnergySolutions, it is
only a matter of time before locals find well-heeled outsiders
writing future plans for their town.

    "The thing that concerns me is that The Nature Conservancy will
be the proverbial 800-pound gorilla," said Wade, a shop owner,
craftsman and summertime watermaster.

    On April 5, the Boulder Town Council will consider his concern,
along with his suggestion that The Nature Conservancy return the
money to Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions. He's not sure how the
five-member council will greet his proposal, but hopes that it will
at least spark discussion on the town's future.

    Mayor Bill Muse has invited The Nature Conservancy to take part,
too. He's hoping for a robust and respectful discussion.
    "These are open town meetings," said Muse, a rancher and retired
horse trainer. "And we let everybody speak."
   
Amanda Smith, director of government relations for The Nature
Conservancy's Utah office, said because of its "high biological
value," the 320-acre Boulder Creek Canyon Ranch was selected for the
project as part of a four-year, $43 million statewide campaign to
protect land and water.

    Funding from state and federal agriculture agencies, plus
$200,000 from EnergySolutions, has helped pay for the conservation
easement and other efforts to protect that environment, she said.

    To her knowledge, The Nature Conservancy has never returned a
donor's contribution. But that does not mean the group endorses the
donors' practices, she added.

    "We are very much in the fundraising business," said Smith.
"We're about protecting biodiversity, and we're not in the business
of censoring our corporate donors or evaluating their business
practices on how green or sustainable they are."

    Meanwhile, EnergySolutions stands by its partnership with The
Nature Conservancy, saying environmental good works is the reason
behind its two-year-old foundation. Tim Clarke is a Boulder council
member and part-time employee of the Boulder Community Alliance, a
nonprofit planning organization funded with the help of a Nature
Conservancy grant. A landscape architect by training, he said many
locals welcome the funding, and he questions rejecting it because of
any potentially controversial origins.

    Wade has detailed his concerns in letters posted on the
community bulletin board and e-mailed to neighbors. Citing a
prize-winning 2003 series by The Washington Post about the
organization's alignment with big business, he said he worries that
Boulder may soon have a pricey culture and cost of living

    Wade also noted that the alliance, headed by developers, and its
benefactor are not elected officials who are obligated to include
the public in the decision loop.

    "Mostly [other local] people are concerned about the same
thing," he said.

    fahys@sltrib.com

    Initial Draft of Proposed Boulder-Town Resolution

    April 4, 2007
   
    Whereas The Nature Conservancy has accepted $200,000 from
EnergySolutions Foundation, a charitable arm of EnergySolutions,
LLC, and Whereas EnergySolutions, LLC is the largest nuclear waste
handling company in the nation, with a flawed and deeply
controversial record of environmental stewardship (1), and Whereas
the chairman and CEO of EnergySolutions, Mr. Steve Creamer, has a
notorious reputation in the State of Utah for involvement in
projects and companies with flawed and deeply controversial records
of environmental stewardship (2), and Whereas the residents of
Boulder-Town are embarrassed and dismayed that a man and a company
with such a dismal environmental record would give money to fund a
project in their immediate vicinity, the "Boulder Watersheds
Project" and Whereas the residents of Boulder-Town are embarrassed
and dismayed that an organization with a high standard of
environmental advocacy such as The Nature Conservancy would stoop to
accept moneys from an entity such as EnergySolutions for a project
in the immediate vicinity of Boulder-Town, the "Boulder Watersheds
Project" and Whereas these moneys, coming from EnergySolutions, and
accepted by The Nature Conservancy, have caused a crisis of
confidence among the residents of Boulder-Town towards The Nature
Conservancy concerning the integrity and honor of said organization
and its ability to remain a free and impartial advocate for the
environment, and Whereas the residents of Boulder-Town thought to
remedy this unfortunate development and restore public confidence in
The Nature Conservancy, It is hereby resolved, by the Boulder Town
Council To officially request The Nature Conservancy to return any
and all portions of said $200,000 to the EnergySolutions Foundation,
and to promise that all future funding for any projects in the
vicinity of Boulder-Town, including the "Boulder Watersheds
Project," will derive only from sources with a sterling record of
disinterested, nonprofit service for the greater good. - Courtesy of
Loch Wade
  
© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 10 EnergyBiz Magazine: A New Approach to Electric Power

March 26, 2007

Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief

A large group of utility industry executives quietly convened in 
Kansas City, Mo., on a snowy day in January to sign on to an 
unprecedented shift in business strategy and corporate culture, 
entirely rethinking how they keep the lights on in homes and 
offices across America. The twin goals they hope to reach are a 
dramatic boost in energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse 
gas emissions.

It will require a profound shift in an industry that for a century
has understood its mission to be encouraging the ever-increasing use
of electric power.

At long last, Thomas Edison is ready to be introduced to Bill Gates.

Call it a remarkable convergence of political, technological and
business trends.

Al Gore's zealous campaign against global warming and the recent sea
change in Democratic power in Congress provide the backdrop.

The power of the microchip and huge leaps in communications
capabilities in recent decades make it possible to take an array of
dumb, energy-voracious appliances and machines and forge a
coordinated, efficient network that takes a minimal flow of
electrons to make our lives productive and pleasant.

Tens of billions are about to be invested to replace aging power
infrastructure and deal with an anticipated surge in power demand.
Decisions made today will affect consumers for generations. So the
moment is right for utilities to rethink a century-old paternalistic
approach to their business and forge a smarter, collaborative
relationship with their customers.

Mindful of the significance of the choices before them, upwards of
50 senior managers and CEOs of investor-owned utilities, rural
electric co-ops and public power agencies gathered in response to an
invitation from Michael Chesser, chairman and CEO of the local
utility, Great Plains Energy. The attendees serve about 60 percent
of America.

Chesser, respected throughout the industry as a soft-spoken
visionary, was appointed chairman of new energy technology
committees at the Electric Power Research Institute, the research
arm of utilities, and the Edison Electric Institute, the political
voice of investor-owned utilities.

For the past year, EPRI has held five regional meetings with
utilities to scope out what needs to get done short-term and
long-term. The blueprints for a complex, industry wide
self-transformation have been drafted. The utilities plan a major
communications campaign with their customers and policy makers in
the months ahead.

While revolutionary, the program is not wild-eyed radical.
Utilities, genetically risk-averse, are convinced that any
investment in new technology made today will not look ridiculously
silly to stockholders and regulators a year or two from now. What do
they have in mind?

At some point, there will be an intelligent box in every home,
office and factory that will be linked to any device that slurps
significant amounts of electric current. That box will be in
communication with the utility, receiving ever-changing pricing
information that varies with power demand. Turn on your dishwasher
and it is set to go. But that smart box will determine the best time
to actually kick the dishwasher into action, saving you money and
allowing the utility to use its generation resources in the most
efficient way. Such a new approach will probably trim overall energy
use by 4 percent simply by making energy users more aware of their
use of electricity.

Look for much more dramatic energy savings as the utility industry
at long last gets proactive and pressures appliance manufacturers to
understand the urgency of designing products that are more energy
stingy, says Clark Gellings, EPRI vice president of innovation.

"I am going to talk to them about what this market is going to look
like so that they can be part of it," he says. Take compact
fluorescent bulbs: Gellings wants to know why they cannot be 30
percent more efficient in a year.

In two decades, as America cycles through its current inventory of
big-screen TVs, refrigerators, computers, compressors and equipment,
Gellings and others believe that a new generation of appliances and
machinery, networked and responsive to price signals, can cut
electricity consumption by as much as 25 to 45 percent. That will
keep a heap of coal in the ground and an ocean of greenhouse gases
out of America's smokestacks.

The utility industry intends to promulgate an economy-wide,
sophisticated understanding of the complex factors shaping
greenhouse gas emissions and to help forge a consensus on the best
technology and most economic approaches to putting a lid on the
problem.

Mike Chesser and his industry buddies intend to mount their utility
revolution on two fronts. The technology has to be developed and
deployed. And regulators, legislators and government officials have
to make sure that utilities can make money doing what needs to be
done. It will take decades to develop new carbon sequestration
techniques and a new generation of safe and politically acceptable
nuclear power that can begin to solve the problem of global warming.
"Energy efficiency can be the bridge that helps us start down that
path," Chesser says. "Between 2010 and 2015, we can meet half of our
electricity demand growth with energy efficiency."

Chesser, who is 58, believes that much of the pioneering work to see
this accomplished can be done before he retires. It all started,
appropriately, in the Show-Me state, known for its hard-headed
practicality. It is quite a remarkable development.

magazine today.
EnergyBiz magazine, printed bimonthly, is the thought-leading,
award-winning publication of the emerging power industry.


This article originally appeared in EnergyBiz magazine in the
March/April 2007 issue.


* Respond to the editor: energybizinsider@energycentral.com

Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief

Copyright © 1996-2007 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech,
Incorporated.
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: India, US in crucial talks on nuclear deal 

Mon Mar 26, 6:46 AM ET

NEW DELHI (AFP) - India and the United States held crucial talks 
here Monday on sales of civilian nuclear reactors and technology 
to power growth in Asia's fourth largest economy, officials said.

The discussions are aimed at hammering out the finer details of a
broader pact on nuclear cooperation struck last year and "to iron
out key differences," said an Indian official, who did not want to
be named.

A spokesman for the United States' embassy in New Delhi said the
discussions would continue through the week.

"They had an initial meeting yesterday (Sunday) and are continuing
talks today. Both sides are hoping to make progress on key issues,"
he said.

The US team is led by Richard Stratford, director of the office of
Nuclear Energy, Safety and Security in the US State Department,
while the Indian side is headed by senior foreign ministry official
Gayatri Kumar.

Differences between India and the United States persist over the
re-processing of spent fuel and the assurance of a constant supply
of atomic fuel even in the event of New Delhi testing nuclear
weapons.

The India-US civilian nuclear energy deal is the centrepiece of
India's new relationship with Washington after decades of Cold War
tensions and is part of the energy import-dependent nation's bid to
increase its fuel sources to sustain its booming economy.

New Delhi agreed to separate its civilian and military reactors in
exchange for Washington and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG) -- which controls the sale of atomic equipment and
technology -- selling India plants, fuel and know-how.

Last year, the US Congress gave its go-ahead to the deal allowing
Washington to start talks on the bilateral agreement aimed at
amending a section of the 1954 US Atomic Energy Act.

The amendment will enable the United States to sell civilian nuclear
technology to India, which is not a signatory to the nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty and which tested atomic weapons in 1998.

Once concluded, the "123 agreement" will need to be passed by the US
Congress.

New Delhi also needs the "123 agreement" in place before it can
negotiate a bilateral deal with the International Atomic Energy
Agency on inspections of nuclear plants that India has designated as
civilian units.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: US-Pakistan alliance under scrutiny as Musharraf faces crisis -

by P. Parameswaran Mon Mar 26, 2:11 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US strategic partnership with its key "war 
on terror" ally Pakistan has come under growing scrutiny in 
Washington as President Pervez Musharraf reels from his worst 
crisis since grabbing power eight years ago.

Concerns that Musharraf has not been doing enough to flush out
extremist Taliban militia were compounded this month by his removal
of a top judge that appeared to deal a blow to hopes of democratic
progress in the South Asian state.

While it is not clear whether the judicial crisis will snowball, it
has "shaken the aura of invincibility that Musharraf has enjoyed
until now," the Washington-based Center of Strategic and
Intelligence Studies said in a report.

The threat to Musharraf's grip on power has rekindled fears in
Washington whether a strategic relationship anchored in effect by
one man in Pakistan is sustainable in the long run.

"The US strategic partnership with Pakistan is in a troubled state,"
said Marvin Weinbaum, a former US State Department expert on
Pakistan.

"It rests too heavily on the political survival of one man and a
military rule facing formidable domestic challenges and declining
legitimacy," he said.

Washington's preoccupation with counterterrorism since the September
11, 2001 attacks in the United States has in effect given Musharraf
"a pass on satisfying us on the issues of democracy, nuclear
proliferation and extremism," Weinbaum said.

President George W. Bush's administration has ruled out any
immediate threat of Musharraf being toppled, but the
Democratic-controlled US Congress is not taking chances.

"What we truly need in Pakistan is someone else to talk to," said
Democrat lawmaker Gary Ackerman (news, bio, voting record), who
heads a House of Representatives panel on South Asia.

"The administration seems content to only speak with president
Musharraf and portrays him as the indispensable man. The truth is,
for our goals to be achieved in Pakistan, there should be more than
one phone number there to dial," he said.

In fact, several senior senate Democrats have written to Musharraf,
asking him to ensure that the coming polls were open and free with
participation of key political parties of exiled ex-prime ministers
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

"The single most concrete measure of progress would be to allow all
legitimate parties and candidates to contest the elections,
including the senior leadership of the Pakistan People's Party and
the Pakistan Muslim League," said the letter.

Among the signatories was Senator Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting
record), head of the powerful senate foreign relations committee.

Bhutto, who heads the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), has reportedly
clinched a contract with a US lobbying firm to push for free
elections in the country.

The United States should "extend contacts and visibility with a
variety of civilian leaders" in Pakistan, said Lisa Curtis of the
Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

Although the military is unlikely to submit fully to a civilian
government in the near term, Washington should set benchmarks that
begin to restrict the military's role in Pakistani politics, she
said.

If Musharraf continues to renege on his promise to shed his uniform,
his legitimacy could be seriously challenged, "if not in the courts
then in the streets," Weinbaum warned.

Against the ominous political backdrop in Pakistan, the United
States is concerned about further losses in the battlefield.

It has openly linked Pakistan to the raging insurgency in
neighboring Afghanistan, where US and NATO troops face an uphill
battle against the Taliban preparing for a major spring offensive.

Pakistan helped the Taliban to power in 1996 but dropped the
hardline movement in 2001 after the September 11 attacks blamed on
Al-Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden was sheltered in Afghanistan.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 TMI-Alert Turns 30
 
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:15:42 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: TMI-Alert Turns 30
Date: 	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:52:34 -0400
From: 	Eric Epstein <ericepstein@comcast.net>
To: 	Roger Herried <rogerh@energy-net.org>
References: 	<C9E73D0E-F4FE-41D3-9300-7DB3CCE24D4F@comcast.net>



 
> *Subject: **TMI-Alert Turns 30*
>
>                             *Press Advisory * *         *
>     March 26, 2003
> * * * * *                       *
> Contact: ericepstein@comcast.net <mailto:ericepstein@comcast.net>
> Eric Epstein            (717)-541-1101
> Kay Pickering   (717)-233-7897
>
>      */TMI-Alert Turns 30/*
>
> * * (Harrisburg, Pa.) - This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 
> founding
> of Three Mile Island Alert.  TMIA will be recognizing two friends for 
> their
> exceptional contributions at a dinner at 6:00 pm, Tuesday, March 27, 2007 
> at the Jewish Community Center, 3301 North Front Street, Harrisburg. 
>
> • Larry Christian, in the days following 9/11, wondered if plans were in 
> place to safely evacuate his two daughters from their day center in 
> the event 
> of an  emergency at TMI.  He found that the state’s emergency plan 
> failed to 
> protect  preschool and at-risk populations. He has worked with TMI-Alert, 
> met with  Governor Rendell, and filed a petition for rulemaking at the 
> Nuclear 
> Regulatory Commission.
>
> • Jim Gerencser, a senior archivist at  Dickinson's College's Archives 
> and 
> Special Collections, manages the Three Mile Island Alert 
> Collection. Already there 
> are 160 linear feet—or 128 boxes—of TMI-related documents in the 
> archives, 
> including nine personal collections. Mr. Gerencser applied for a 
> matching grant 
> from the Pennsylvania Historical  and Museum Commission to help 
> maintain and 
> preserve this historic collection.
>
> •  Robert B. Swift, the keynote speaker for the evening, is a veteran 
> Ottaway 
> News Service correspondent who covered the Capitol for thirty years. 
> As a young 
> reporter,  “R.B” covered the accident at Three Mile Island and 
> attended numerous 
> briefings by state, federal and company officials including Governor. 
> Thornburgh, 
> Lt. Governor Scranton and NRC representative Harold Denton. Mr. Swift has 
> donated his notes and records to the Dickinson College Archive.
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 14 The Hindu: Nuke deal: More issues sorted out at Indo-US meet

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 : 0300 Hrs

New Delhi, March 27 (PTI): Some narrowing down of differences was
witnessed today as officials of India and the US met here to
negotiate an agreement to operationalise the civil nuclear deal
concluded last year.

With both sides aiming to conclude the bilateral agreement called
'123 Agreement' by the end of this year, officials of the two
countries held day-long talks to iron out differences over various
elements, including fuel supply assurances, re-processing of spent
fuel and future nuclear testing by India.

The two sides understood each other's position and there was some
narrowing down of differences, sources said without elaborating.

New Delhi has alleged that the Henry Hyde Act passed by the US
Congress in December last year to allow civil nuclear trade with
India, "significantly deviates" from the understandings of July 18,
2005, and March 2006, which was unacceptable to it.

It has made it clear that it will accept no deviation from the
understanding reached between the two sides last year.

New Delhi has already conveyed its concerns to Washington and handed
over a draft text of the agreement suggesting the clauses it wants
to be incorporated.

At the two-day talks, the Indian side is led by Joint Secretary in
External Affairs Ministry, Gayatri Kumar, while the American
delegation is headed by Richard Stratford, Director of Nuclear
Division in the State Department.

Officials of the Department of Atomic Energy and S Jayshankar,
Indian Ambassador to Singapore, are also participating in the talks.
Jayshankar was Kumar's predecessor and had been involved in the
parleys earlier.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the
*****************************************************************
 15 CNN-IBN: India, US narrow down N-deal differences 

 IBNLive.com : 

Updated Monday , March 26, 2007 at 23:55

NOT CONCLUDED: Even after President Bush signed the agreement,
differences remain there.

New Delhi: India and the US have narrowed down of differences on 
Monday as officials from both the countries met in New Delhi to 
negotiate an agreement to operationalise the civil nuclear deal 
concluded last year.

Both India and the US aim to conclude the bilateral agreement by 
the end of this year.

Officials of the two countries held day-long talks to iron out 
differences emerge in the 123 Agreement over various elements, 
including fuel supply assurances, reprocessing of spent fuel and 
future nuclear testing by India.

The two sides understood each other's position and there was some 
narrowing down of differences, sources said without elaborating.

New Delhi has alleged that the Henry Hyde Act, passed by the US 
Congress in December last year to allow civil nuclear trade with 
India, "significantly deviates" from the understanding of July 
18, 2005, and March 2006, which was unacceptable to it.

New Delhi has already conveyed its concerns to Washington and 
handed over a draft text of the agreement suggesting the clauses 
it wants to be incorporated.

The Indian side was led by Joint Secretary in External Affairs 
Ministry Gayatri Kumar at the two-day talks, while the American 
delegation is headed by Richard Stratford, director of Nuclear 
Division in the State Department.

Officials of the Department of Atomic Energy and S Jayshankar, 
Indian ambassador to Singapore, are also participating in the 
talks. Jayshankar was Kumar's predecessor and had been involved 
in the parleys earlier.

(With inputs from PTI)

Copyright &copy IBNLive.com. All rights reserved. Reproduction of
*****************************************************************
 16 ISN Security Watch: Inside Egypt's nuclear debate

Tuesday, 27 March 2007 Home / News and Current Affairs / Security

Image: CIA Factbook

An internal Egyptian nuclear debate and international pressure will
be crucial in determining whether Egypt quietly drops its atomic
plans or pushes on with the program.

By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (26/03/07)

A wave of nuclear announcements since September have contributed
significantly to a growing sense of regional crisis in the Middle
East, raising the specter of a future nuclear arms race.

Egypt is believed to have the most highly developed nuclear research
program amongst Arab states and it is the current debate within the
ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) over the merits of atomic
power that holds the key to whether this new wave of proliferation
will build or abate.

President Hosni Mubarak's son Gamal, who heads the NDP's powerful
Policies Committee, announced at the movement's fourth annual
conference in September that Egypt planned to restart its moribund
nuclear energy program.

Work on the site of an intended 1,000MW reactor at El-Dabaa 100
kilometers west of Alexandria was halted in 1986 in the wake of the
Chernobyl disaster and Egyptian nuclear studies have since centered
on two small research reactors near Cairo.



ISN Security Watch spoke with prominent Egyptian nuclear and
strategic relations experts on the sidelines of a major conference
on the nuclear issue held at the new Alexandria library last week.

Energy security

While international attention has focused on the potential dual-use
nature of future Egyptian reactors, nuclear fuel and associated
technologies, Egyptian officials have remained adamant that their
country has no intention of breaking its long-standing opposition to
WMD proliferation in the Middle East.

Professor of Nuclear and Inorganic Chemistry at Cairo's Helwan
University, Dr Abdel Hakim Kandil, told ISN Security Watch that the
decision to go nuclear was purely "economic."

Responding to Greenpeace advocacy at the conference for the rapid
development of renewable energy sources rather than atomic power,
Kandil said, "We have to look into solar energy, wind energy but
with these a lot of research needs to be done[…]."

Egyptian power generation currently relies on oil and natural gas,
with indigenous reserves expected to be depleted in between 30-40
years.

Opponents of nuclear development told the Alexandria symposium that
nuclear industry projections as to development costs and energy
output were greatly understated and that nuclear fuel prices would
rise in coming decades. Egyptian proponents hit back, arguing that
renewable energy technologies do not currently provide an answer for
extending generation capacity, vital to economic development.

"If you think about a five percent development rate in Egypt, it is
a must that you look into some kind of source of energy that
everyone has used," Kandil said. "In the OECD [Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development] countries 34 percent of their
energy comes from nuclear power. So why is it good for you and not
for us."

Prestige and popular politics

It is no accident that the Egyptian nuclear announcement came at a
time when the NDP was seeking an adequate response to the political
rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and a further vehicle for the
expected ascension of Gamal Mubarak to the presidency in 2011.

The Egyptian nuclear program provides a focal point for public pride
in the nation's technological achievements and future potential in a
wider social context marked by growing political repression and the
seeming reversal of recent civil reforms.

The nuclear program is also a salient symbol of national sovereignty
vis-Ă -vis the US and European nations, which are increasingly
portrayed in political discourses as seeking to prevent Egypt from
assuming its natural role as a major regional player.

"Egypt is a central country in the region and for our people here to
feel some sort of inferiority with regard to the Iranians or
Israelis this affects their morale very much," said Major-General
(ret) Dr Mohamed Kadry Said, military and technology advisor to
Cairo's Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

"I think when they said that we will think of that [nuclear
generation] again the response was very positive from the public,"
he said, adding, "I think the government at that time needs this
kind of support."

Vice-president of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs,
Ambassador Mohamed Shaker, told ISN Security Watch, "I think in
Egypt itself it is a mixed feeling; some are afraid of nuclear
power, that it will bring with it spent fuel, it will effect our
ecology. And there are others who are very enthusiastic about it and
they believe that we should not be slower [or more] backward than
others who have gone before us."

Shaker - who presided over the landmark 1995 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty conference, securing the pacts indefinite
extension - confirmed that supporters viewed the nuclear program as
a symbol "of national prestige and look at it as energy security -
that we need nuclear [power to] diversify our [generation] sources."

While the resumed atomic energy program may serve as a source of
pride in a society increasingly rived by political conflict and
blighted by widespread poverty, corruption and bureaucratization it
is unlikely to provide the palliative to ensure future regime
stability. The program may in fact act to undermine NDP control
should predicted costs escalate exponentially, as some analysts
expect.

Failure to report

Egypt has sought to allay the fears of its Western allies that the
inherent dual-use nature of some nuclear technologies would leave it
in a position to move quickly to a nuclear weapons capacity.

Egyptian officials have sought to prevent any comparisons with the
controversial Iranian program through committing to the import and
re-export of nuclear fuel for future reactors.

"You have agreements with the people who supply you with the
[nuclear] fuel. We do not have [uranium] enrichment technology in
Egypt," Kandil said.

In January 2005, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
alleged “a number of failures by Egypt to report” on the history
of its atomic research program. The IAEA also discovered particles
of actinides and fission products near a nuclear facility, which
experts believed may indicate hidden plutonium separation work.

An Associated Press (AP) report at the time quoted unnamed
diplomatic sources who said that "secret nuclear experiments" had
been conducted "that could be used in weapons programs."

"We did not decide yet what kind of reactor we are going to use. I
would say we should go into a reactor that can work with natural
uranium," Kandil said.

"We have rocks in Egypt that have some hundred-parts-per-million of
uranium. We can use our resources," he added, in a statement
unlikely to quiet international concerns.

Israel and Iran

Regional tensions loom large over the Egyptian nuclear announcement.

Shaker disagrees. Asked if Iranian nuclear development had
contributed to the Egyptian decision he said, "No, because I think
[the decision] emanates from the fact that we really won't have oil
and gas in 40 years."

He allowed that there are those who "look at it from a different
angle; that it would allow us one day to catch up with the Israeli
on the nuclear weapons capabilities."

Shaker questioned the security utility of any potential nuclear
weapons program, noting that the Israeli nuclear program "did not
dissuade us in […] 1973 […] from launching a war to regain our
territory."

Recent months have seen a significant rise in anti-Israeli sentiment
in Egypt, exacerbated by Israeli excavation work near Jerusalem's
Al-Aqsa Mosque and allegations that Israeli minister Binyamin Bin
Eliezer was involved in the murder of Egyptian prisoners of war.

A series of increasingly vitriolic debates in Egypt's People's
Assembly have included calls from NDP legislators to tear up the
peace treaty with Israel. MP Mohamed el-Katatny told the house:
"That cursed Israel is trying to destroy Al-Aqsa mosque […]
Nothing will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes
it out of existence."

While the domestic media has focused on the resumed atomic program
as a step towards military parity with Israel, the lack of recent
significant technological developments in the Israeli program and a
contemporary spike in tensions over Iranian nuclear intransigence
make it clear that the latter played a key role in Egyptian
decision-making.

Said explained that Iran and Egypt had taken different diplomatic
and political paths in the last 30 years.

"Egypt went on the path of peace and integration and globalization
so the two roads were always conflicting on many political issues,"
Said said. "We have relations with the Israelis, they do not. We
were part of the multilateral talks, they refused that."

"In Iran at the moment there is a street named after the man who
killed Sadat. So this shows it is very difficult to go with them on
the same lines. This is why on security issues I think there are
always some doubts."

"The problem also is that Iran has a very heavy shadow on the Gulf,"
Said continued. "We are totally on the side of the Gulf counties and
any threat against them - perceived or not perceived - Egypt should
consider it."

In an interview with an Egyptian newspaper on 11 January, Mubarak
warned "there is no way Egypt will sit quietly and watch other
regional powers achieve nuclear weapons."

Piece of the pie

With lucrative contracts for anywhere between three to 10 reactors
on the line, fierce international competition has already started to
supply the Egyptian nuclear program.

Asked about Mubarak's visit to China and Russia in the immediate
wake of September's nuclear announcement, Said opined, " I do not
think that the Russians and the Chinese will contribute too much [to
the Egyptian program]."

Questioned on which countries might be interested in playing a role
in Egypt's revived program, Shaker said, "They may all be interested
[…] We have this agreement with South Korea, we have an agreement
with all the major [Korean] suppliers. With the Chinese we don't
have yet an agreement but with the Russians I think we have
something."

"My reading is that in order for Egypt to start safely and to start
with international approval I think it will be a Western country
[chosen] to engender faith in the program; that the program is
geared for peaceful purposes."


Asked to characterize the US response to the Egyptian nuclear
announcement Shaker said, "The first level was a declaratory level,
"We are not against any Egyptian ambitions to go in this direction."

"Then when it will come to [US aid at] the practical level, I heard
that some people came here to Egypt who are ready to help in
anything," he intimated.

"When it comes to money I think this will be another story. And this
I think will be a critical point."

A recent Kuwaiti newspaper article claimed that Egypt had succumbed
to intense US pressure and agreed to quietly drop its nuclear plans.

Interim decision

"The final decision has not been made yet on reactivating the
nuclear power program. It is a preliminary decision. It is still
being discussed in the ruling party and in the Higher Council of
Energy," Shaker revealed.

"I think we haven't solidly settled down on a big strategy, what we
want," he added, noting that Egypt currently exports natural gas.
"Do we want to sell the gas and then invest in nuclear power or keep
the gas and delay the nuclear power now and invest in gas? But at
the same time we need extra foreign currency, so it's a dilemma."

The internal Egyptian nuclear debate and international pressure will
be crucial in determining whether Egypt quietly drops its atomic
plans or pushes on with a program that would likely constitute a
bridgehead signaling wider regional nuclear proliferation.


Dr Dominic Moran is ISN Security Watch's senior correspondent in 
the Middle East.

Related entries from the ISN Publishing House

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Near and Middle East - After the
Iraq War 2003

Middle East Briefing, Nr. 9: The Challenge of Political Reform -
Egypt After the Iraq War

*****************************************************************
 17 The Herald: Report recommends decentralising energy

ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent 

March 25 2007

Creating a network of local power stations would be far more
efficient and lead to lower carbon emissions than building new
nuclear power stations, according to a report commissioned by
Greenpeace.

Decentralising Scottish Energy concludes that generating heat and
electricity close to where it is needed could remove the need for
nuclear power, as well as being cheaper, less polluting and
decreasing Scotland's reliance on gas.

The report also says this approach would work well alongside a
policy of harnessing Scotland's large-scale renewable energy
potential.

The study by the World Alliance for Decentralised Energy argues 
that the current model across the UK relies on a few large power 
stations creating electricity miles away from the point of 
consumption. This method, developed in the 1930s, is so 
inefficient that two-thirds of the energy in the fuel is lost 
through power station cooling stations or as it passes along the 
grid.

Smaller, local stations can feed local combined heat and power 
schemes and sent the electricity shorter distances along the 
grid, saving 8% in carbon emission, cutting gas consumption by a 
similar abound and costing Ł1.8b less than building new nuclear 
plants.

Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's energy expert, said: "This is the 
closest thing to an energy silver bullet for Scotland. 
Decentralising energy will give us cleaner, cheaper and more 
secure power in the future."

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without 
permission is prohibited.

Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights 
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 18 FR NRC: License No. DPR-20, Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of 
Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Doc E7-5433

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14142-14143] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-95]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 72-7 and 50-255]

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, has issued a director's decision 
with regard to a petition dated April 4, 2006, filed by Mr. Terry 
J. Lodge, on behalf of five organizations and 30 individuals, 
hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners. Representatives for 
the Petitioners participated in a telephone conference call with 
NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) on April 26, 2006, to discuss 
the

[[Page 14143]]

petition. The teleconference was transcribed and the 
transcription was treated as a supplement to the petition. 
Transcripts of the teleconference are available via the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) on the 
agency's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , 
and for inspection at the NRC Public 

Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O- 1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
The petition concerns the operation of the independent spent fuel 
storage installation (ISFSI) at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The 
Petitioners requested that the NRC take enforcement action 
against the licensee for the Palisades Nuclear Plant, Nuclear 
Management Company, LLC (NMC), by condemning and stopping the use 
of the two independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) 
concrete pads holding dry spent fuel storage casks on the plant 
site. As the basis for the petition, the Petitioners stated that 
the concrete cask storage pads do not conform with NRC 
regulations for earthquake stability, specifically 10 CFR 
72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) and 72.212(b)(3), and, therefore, pose a 
hazard in case of an earthquake. The Petitioners asserted that 
the licensee's evaluations of the older and newer concrete 
storage pads did not properly consider the behavior of the soil 
beneath the pads in determining the effects on the storage casks 
as a result of a seismic event. On April 26, 2006, the NRC 
staff's PRB held a teleconference with the Petitioners. The 
teleconference gave the Petitioners an opportunity to provide 
additional information and to clarify issues raised in the 
petition. During the teleconference, the Petitioners requested 
additional time to submit a supplement to the petition, and the 
PRB agreed to the request, as documented in a letter to the 
Petitioners, dated May 4, 2006. However, no supplement was 
submitted. On June 27, 2006, the NRC staff informed the 
Petitioners by letter that the issue regarding the seismic 
response of the older ISFSI pad, and the issue of soil 
amplification for the newer pad, had been previously resolved and 
would not be considered under 10 CFR 2.206. In that same letter, 
the staff informed the Petitioners that the issue regarding the 
slope stability analysis for the newer pad was accepted for 
review under 10 CFR 2.206. The transcript of the teleconference 
and the letters are available in ADAMS, as stated above. On 
November 28, 2006, the NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's 
decision to the Petitioners and to the licensee for comment. At 
the request of the Petitioners, the NRC extended the end of the 
comment period from January 5, 2007, to February 2, 2007. The 
Petitioners submitted comments by electronic mail on February 2, 
2007. The comments and the staff's responses to them are 
available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html, under docket 
number 07200007.

    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards has determined that the Petitioners' request, to 
condemn and stop the use of the two ISFSI concrete pads holding 
dry spent fuel storage casks at the Palisades site, is denied. 
The NRC staff has concluded that the Petitioners' concerns have 
been adequately addressed by the licensee's revised slope 
stability evaluation for the newer concrete storage pad. The 
reasons for this decision are explained in the director's 
decision [DD-07-02] pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, the complete text of which 
is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS 
Public Library component on the NRC's Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html 

(the Public Electronic Reading Room). A copy of the director's 
decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for 
the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the 
Commission's regulations. As provided for by this regulation, the 
director's decision will constitute the final action of the 
Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the 
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the 
director's decision in that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR 
Doc. E7-5433 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
 19 People's Daily Online: Chinese nuclear fuel meets nation's needs

UPDATED: 21:50, March 26, 2007

Li Guangchang, director of the nuclear fuel division of China 
National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) said in Chengdu last Sunday 
that CNNC, as the only supplier of nuclear fuels to China, is 
qualified to develop China's nuclear power industry and make 
contributions to the nationalization of nuclear power.

Li said that to promote the development of the nuclear power 
industry in China, CNNC has already established and implemented 
plans. "We will continue to provide qualified products to our 
users, ensure safety in supply, and contribute to the development 
of China's nuclear power industry."

Jianzhong Nuclear Fuel Component Company under CNNC, the only 
manufacturing base of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) nuclear 
fuel components in China, has the most advanced technology in the 
country. The quality of its subassemblies are world standard. 
According to the general manager of Jianzhong Nuclear Fuel 
Component Company, since his company established its first 
production line of PWR nuclear fuel components in 1986, it has 
provided all kinds of fuel components-from 300 MW to 1000 MW-for 
all the operating PWR nuclear power stations in China. None of 
the 3000 series of fuel components it has produced have broken, 
proving that they can be operated safely, stably, and 
economically.

By People's Daily Online

Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 20 UPI: India and U.S. to hold nuclear talks

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Published: March 25, 2007 at 9:22 PM

NEW DELHI, March 25 (UPI) -- India is preparing for talks with 
the United States to finalize a bilateral civil agreement to 
govern future nuclear issues between the two countries.

The Indo-Asian News Service reported that crucial issues like 
nuclear testing, the production of fissile materials, the 
reprocessing of spent fuel and India's safeguards agreement with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency will be on the agenda.

India and the United States are expected to build on the 
finalization of a large part of the text for the "123" agreement 
-- named after Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act -- that will 
have to be approved by the U.S. Congress before it goes into 
operation, the report said.

As part of the talks, set to begin Monday, India is expected to 
remind the United States about the "full civilian nuclear 
cooperation" it was promised in a July 18, 2005, civil nuclear 
deal.

The U.S. team, led by Richard Stratford, director of Nuclear 
Energy, Safety and Security in the State Department, will hold 
talks with the Indian delegation led by Gayatri Kumar, a joint 
secretary in the external affairs ministry.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 Sweden: The Local: Chamber of Commerce calls for more nuclear energy

Published: 26th March 2007 17:57 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/6808/

The Swedish Chamber of Commerce (Sveriges Handelskammare) has 
called for a long-term energy strategy to keep down electricity 
costs for Swedish businesses.

In a new report, the Chamber of Commerce proposes more nuclear 
power as part of the solution.

"We are now seeing serious signs that Swedish companies are being 
damaged by high energy costs and a lack of a long-term Swedish 
energy policy.

"Companies are moving abroad or choosing to locate new factories 
in other countries as a direct result of this.

"It is time for a broad energy agreement that takes into account 
the possibility for Swedish companies to stay in the country," 
said Peter Egardt, CEO of the Swedis Chamber of Commerce.

TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se

The Local © The Local Europe AB 2007
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Norway-Austria-Ireland-Iceland: Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming' 

Mon Mar 26, 6:04 PM ET

DUBLIN (AFP) - Environment ministers from Austria, Iceland, 
Ireland and Norway said Monday that nuclear power was not the 
solution to global warming.

In a joint statement following a meeting in Dublin, the four
ministers from the non-nuclear countries said the "inherent risks
and problems associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it
can not therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel
use."

They said it was the sovereign right of each country to decide its
own energy mix.

"However, for Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Austria, we voice
serious concern that nuclear energy is being presented as a solution
to climate change.

"It is our collective view that the current debate seeks to downplay
the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and
safety issues and seeks to portray nuclear energy as a clean, safe
and problem free response to climate change."

The statement said the trans-boundary nature of health and
environment risks associated with nuclear energy dictated that
governments in countries with nuclear power needed to ensure that
other countries' concerns were taken into consideration.

"The specific international liability regimes currently in place for
the nuclear industry do not provide full scope compensation for
potential damage or injury and provide a hidden subsidy to that
industry," the ministers said.

After 50 years of nuclear power, waste remains the most intractable
issue, they added.

"The legacy of the nuclear industry for many generations to come
continues to increase with little evidence of any real
implementation of necessary long term solutions to the waste issue.

"Nuclear waste reprocessing, advocated as a solution to the
management of nuclear waste, has long since lost its lustre and
today the industry remains economically and environmentally
untenable."

They said that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel represents a key
source of pollution risks and remains a significant source of
radioactive pollution and called on Britain not to re-open the THORP
plant at its Sellafield site.

The ministers announced that a further meeting would take place in
Vienna in late 2007.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 23 Vermont Guardian: Activists walk across state to shut down Vermont Yankee

By Christian Avard | Vermont Guardian

Posted March 26, 2007

BRATTLEBORO &mdash; In an effort they hope will make people aware of
the need to shut down Vermont Yankee and put more renewable energy
online, activists are walking across Vermont.

Their goal is tell Vermonters they have the power to determine their
energy future and they can act to shut the plant down and move to a
more sustainable energy future.

On Saturday the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) of Shelburne Falls,
MA, and the Buddhist order of Nipponzan Myohoji began their trek in
Greenfield, MA and walked to the Vermont towns of Guilford,
Brattleboro, and Putney where they held potlucks and informational
discussions with Vermonters about the state&rsquo;s lone nuclear
power plant.

&ldquo;This is the second time we&rsquo;ve held the &ldquo;Walk for
a Nuclear Free Future,&rdquo; said Hattie Nestel of Athol, MA.
Nestel worries about Vermont Yankee&rsquo;s bid to extend its
operating license beyond 2012, and wants Vermonters to understand
why Vermont shouldn&rsquo;t extend it.

&ldquo;Nuclear power plants have been given uprates all over the
country to put out more electricity which creates more fuel for
bombs, plutonium, and tritium,&rdquo; said Nestel, noting that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has yet to say no to an uprate
or relicensure request.

&ldquo;I think the reason that they are [being approved] is because
the public is not really aware of how dangerous they are,&rdquo;
said Nestel.

The NRC is now reviewing Vermont Yankee&rsquo;s application of
re-licensure and their request to operate an additional 20 years.
Currently the NRC is evaluating whether or not Vermont Yankee
components can withstand operation until 2032, and if the plant has
any adverse effects on the surrounding environment. However, the NRC
is not taking into consideration whether or not the plant is
vulnerable to terrorist attacks and nuclear waste storage that some
CAN members take issue with that omission.

The Massachusetts Attorney General is taking the NRC to federal
court over the issue of waste storage and vulnerability. An attempt
by the attorney general to have these issues reviewed during the
relicensure process was denied by the NRC and its advisory panel,
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The attorney general is also, along with nine other attorneys
general, asking the NRC to reconsider how it examines the safety of
spent fuel pools and long-term onsite waste storage at all nuclear
power plants.

The issue of long-term, on site storage of nuclear waste is one that
concerns many people who live near the Vernon reactor, whether they
are in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Vermont.

And, activists believe people outside the immediate emergency
planning area should also be concerned.

&ldquo;I think that central and northern Vermonters really need to
take into account the high-level radioactive waste and right at this
point, Yucca Mountain is not open and it&rsquo;s never going to open
and it&rsquo;s very unlikely we&rsquo;re going to have a federal
repository for the high-level nuclear waste and even if we did, it
would take us 20 years to move it all,&rdquo; said Claire Chang of
Gill, MA. &ldquo;So it&rsquo;s not a situation where Vermont can
just close it&rsquo;s eyes and hope and wish and pray that&rsquo;s
it&rsquo;s just not there and we&rsquo;re not going to pay any
attention to the pink elephant in the middle of the living
room.&rdquo;

Senate Pres. Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windam, told the
Montpelier-Barre Times Argus earlier this month that legislators
were &ldquo;astounded&rdquo; to learn in February that the NRC is
not considering storage of high-level radioactive waste with respect
to Vermont Yankee&rsquo;s re-licensure efforts.

He has since urged for an independent safety assessment and removal
of the high-level radioactive waste from Vermont Yankee&rsquo;s
Vernon site.

&ldquo;Why should Windham County be the designated dump for the
entire state of Vermont? Morally, how can the rest of Vermont say,
&lsquo;Oh well, we&rsquo;re just going to write off Windham
County,&rsquo;&rdquo; said Chang.

She noted the irony that Chittenden County, the most populous of all
Vermont counties and a major user of electricity, has been unable to
site a garbage dump, yet seems to be OK with allowing a nuclear
waste site to be OK&rsquo;d along the Connecticut River.

On Sunday, more than a dozen participants walked from Guilford to
Brattleboro with stops along away at the School for International
Training where they met with students during lunch and proceeded to
Vermont Yankee headquarters where they conducted Buddhist prayers.

Today they travel by foot to Bennington where they have an afternoon
potluck with concerned citizens planned and will distribute
literature in town to raise awareness.

&ldquo;We want to alert the citizenry and they have the power, the
right, and the responsibility to talk to their legislators about
Vermont Yankee, the high-level radioactive waste and what they want
done with it and also about their feelings about renewables. We
really need to put in wind, and solar and it&rsquo;s not negotiable.
It&rsquo;s not something we can wait to do in 10 years; we need to
do it now,&rdquo; said Chang. &ldquo;So, part of it is that every
person that sees us will hopefully have more motivation to go and
talk to their legislator and to impress upon the Legislature that
we&rsquo;re serious, and they must stand up to the utilities and the
monied interests and say that Vermont is going to lead the nation in
renewable energy production,&rdquo; said Chang.

Lawmakers have also been lobbied by pro-nuclear groups, including
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who now tours the country
talking about how nuclear power should be considered a fuel source
that does not emit greenhouse gas emissions and better for the
planet than many current fuel sources.

By law, the Legislature must vote on whether Vermont Yankee should
have its license extended, but there is disagreement about whether
its vote would have any impact on the NRC licensing process.


For more information
In the coming days, the walk will visit Rutland City, Middlebury,
Montpelier, Johnson, and Burlington. For more information on the
walk call (978) 790-3074 or go to www.nukebusters.org.

Tuesday, Mar. 27, 2007

Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern 
Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 603, Brattleboro, VT 05301 
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 
(toll-free)

©2007 Vermont Guardian |

Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/032007/NuclearWalk.shtml
*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: China's Hu eyes energy imports on Russia visit

by Dario Thuburn Mon Mar 26, 8:00 AM ET

MOSCOW (AFP) - Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Moscow on 
Monday for crucial talks with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin 
as part of a worldwide drive to secure new energy sources for 
China.

Officials from the two countries were expected to seal trade deals
worth up to four billion dollars during Hu's three-day visit to
Russia, as well as discuss the nuclear programmes of Iran and North
Korea.

But the key to the visit is energy-hungry China's bid to obtain
guarantees of increased oil and gas deliveries from Russia, the
biggest energy producer in the world, analysts said.

Last month, Hu went on a 12-day tour to eight African nations that
was aimed largely at boosting Chinese investment in natural
resources in the continent and securing oil imports from war-torn
Sudan.

"Energy is one of the most significant and promising areas of
co-operation with China. It is based on large projects of a
long-term and mutually beneficial character," a Kremlin official
said ahead of the talks.

The Kommersant daily said that the main agreement to be finalised
during Hu's visit was a deal between the Russian and Chinese railway
companies that would increase crude oil exports to China.

Russia exported 15 million tonnes of oil to China in 2006, 11
million tonnes of it by rail, officials said. Plans to boost
shipments have sparked concern that supplies to the West might
suffer.

The visit is also expected to touch on Chinese worries about delays
in the construction of a planned oil pipeline from the fields of
Siberia to the Chinese oil hub of Daqing, Kommersant reported.

The two leaders are set to meet in Moscow on Monday and sign a joint
declaration on Russian-Chinese partnership. They will meet again on
Tuesday to inaugurate a major exhibition of Chinese artefacts inside
the Kremlin.

Hu will then travel to Tatarstan, a mainly Muslim province in
central Russia that has extensive oil reserves and has attracted
high levels of foreign investment.

Hu and Putin were expected to talk up strong diplomatic ties between
their two countries, which have taken closely aligned positions in
talks meant to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programme and stem
Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"They will definitely consult on what position to take in case the
Iran crisis gets worse," said Andrei Ryabov, a political analyst at
the Carnegie Moscow Centre.

Hu said ahead of the trip, his third to Russia since becoming
president, that the visit would further cement economic and
diplomatic relations that have grown significantly since the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

But Russian newspapers said that behind the high-flown rhetoric,
Hu's trip would be about hard-nosed business bargaining.

"Behind the ceremonial facade, the Chinese president is in for some
tense negotiations," Kommersant said. The Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran a
headline reading: "Difficult Neighbour: The imbalance between Russia
and China is growing."

Among the possible sources of discord, Kommersant said, were Russian
concerns about China's space ambitions and Chinese worries about the
quality of Russian arms imports.

Nearly 200 Chinese companies selling everything from aerospace
technology to tea will showcase their products during the visit at a
trade exhibition in Moscow, China's biggest ever in a foreign
country.

Both sides said bilateral trade jumped over the past year, though
their statistics differed: China said trade grew 15 percent in 2006,
while Russia said trade grew 43 percent over the same period.


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 Seattle Press-Intelligencer: Proof of plutonium in climber's sample

Last updated March 25, 2007 10:35 p.m. PT

By CAROL SMITH P-I REPORTER

The potential leak of radioactive material from the lost 
equipment on Nanda Devi is the source of much regret and 
consternation among the surviving climbers who put it there.


- Spy Robert Schaller's life of secrecy, betrayal and regrets

At least four of the original team of eight American climbers are
now dead, but of those who survive, M.S. Kohli, Jim McCarthy and
Robert Schaller all have expressed concern about having abandoned
plutonium on one of the world's highest, most sacred sites.

The U.S. government has never officially acknowledged the mission.

Pete Takeda, a Boulder, Colo.-based climber and author, tried to
scale Nanda Devi in 2005 to reconstruct the CIA's expedition and
search for wreckage of the instrument.

Takeda and his team, like nearly every other group in recent
decades, however, were denied permission by the Indian government to
climb Nanda Devi, so the team picked a route on Nanda Kot from which
they could view the likely "fall line" of the instrument on the
adjacent peak.

During the course of that expedition, Takeda took a sample of coarse
sediment 200 yards upstream from the confluence of the Rishi Ganga
and Dhauli Ganga, due south of the town of Lata just outside the
Sanctuary, a site so remote there are no potential industrial or
human sources of pollution.

The Rishi Ganga is a stream flowing from the Nanda Devi Glacier out
from the Sanctuary. The Dhauli Ganga is the river into which the
Rishi flows, ultimately becoming the Ganges, Takeda said.

Boston Chemical Data Corp., a private environmental engineering firm
in Massachusetts, analyzed the sample and detected plutonium 239
with 95 percent certainty.

"Just to have that level in a coarse sediment sample was a real
surprise," said Marco Kaltofen, a civil engineer and president of
Boston Chemical. "It definitely warrants more investigation."

Plutonium, one of the world's most toxic substances, tends to
concentrate more efficiently in organic-rich material, such as black
mud or fine clay. The coarse sample, which was the consistency of
aquarium gravel, was the "worst possible condition for retaining
plutonium," he said.

Plutonium 238 has a half-life of about 90 years and takes a
millennium to clear out of the environment, and plutonium 239, which
has a half-life of more than 24,000 years, can hang around for 250
millennia, said Tom Carpenter, director of the Government
Accountability Project Nuclear Oversight Program in Seattle.

The results suggest the possibility that a concentrated source of
plutonium exists somewhere in the Sanctuary, Kaltofen said. "This
indicates somebody should definitely go up and look for plutonium."

P-I reporter Carol Smith can be reached at 206-448-8070 or
carolsmith@seattlepi.com.

101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000

Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 26 Government Executive: DHS seeks help investigating nuclear detection gaps 

(3/26/07)

By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire

The Homeland Security Department plans to enlist experts both inside
and outside the government to launch a program probing the
vulnerabilities of the nation's nuclear detection network.

The assessment would take place even as the United States continues
to develop its radiation detection systems and looks to invest more
than $1 billion in next-generation detectors.

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, a division within DHS, is
hoping that by employing independent experts it can garner a glimpse
of the current nuclear and radiological detection approach from a
terrorist's perspective, according to a description of the plan
posted to a government Web site last week.

These "Red Teaming Assessments" would be based solely on publicly
available information in order to identify vulnerabilities a
terrorist group might be able to locate with the same data.

The government's concern, which has grown astronomically since the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is that a group or individual
could smuggle either radiological or nuclear material into the
United States for use in a "dirty bomb" or an improvised atomic
weapon. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, just more than 2
years old, was launched to specifically counter this threat.

"The goal is to identify vulnerabilities in the technology and
operational procedures and to identify sensitive open-source
information that, while unclassified, would prove useful to anyone
attempting to circumvent the global nuclear detection architecture,"
according to the program description.

DHS is currently scanning 90 percent of inbound sea cargo at U.S.
ports for radiation. The department expects that number to reach 98
percent for cargo at major domestic ports by the end of 2007. By
2008, nearly all containers at U.S. ports are set to be scanned for
radiation, DHS officials have said. Radiation detectors are also
being deployed at major land border crossings into the United States.

Industry, academic and government experts would study existing gaps
in nuclear detection and those that could arise as the system
develops, according to the detection office's request for input.
They would be able to supplement data gleaned from open-source
documents with "surveillance, site penetration" and any other
information they might be able to independently elicit.

The efforts would result in both annual assessments and shorter-term
studies that would gauge potential vulnerabilities and suggest fixes
on a quarterly basis.

The nuclear detection office is asking experts over the next month
provide suggestions on the structure of such a study group and the
technological backgrounds of its members.

The DHS is also asking for input on ways the experts in the group
could collect information, conduct surveillance and probe the
security at sites legally and safely. Such activities could include
simulated smuggling or actual transport of radiological or nuclear
material, according to the DHS description of the planned program.

Unofficial tests of the system have shown weaknesses in the past. In
2002 and again in 2003, ABC News packed 15 pounds of depleted
uranium into a lead pipe and shipped it via sea container into the
United States to test U.S. detection capabilities.

In effect, study group members might be asked to play terrorist,
probing for information and physically testing the U.S. detection
web. Homeland Security officials are looking for an "accurate
emulation of potential threat actors, their likely source materials
and courses of action," according to the DHS posting.

Red teaming, or employing government outsiders to play the role of
adversaries, is a fairly regular exercise employed by U.S. agencies,
said nuclear security expert Charles Ferguson, a fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations.

Several years ago, Ferguson was part of a red team that was called
to consider how a terrorist group might launch a dirty bomb attack.
During that exercise the government also tapped the imagination of
author Brad Meltzer, a writer of popular thrillers set in Washington.

"I think it's a valuable exercise," Ferguson said. "It's a way to
bring in outside experts and just poke holes in what the government
is trying to do."

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the New America Foundation's Nuclear
Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative, disagrees, suggesting they
are likely an ineffective way to predict real adversary responses.

"I just don't see any reason to assume that terrorists laboring
under real operational constraints would reach the same conclusions
as a predominantly white, male, sixty-something, upper-middle class
panel dominated by Ivy League graduates chatting over pastries and
coffee," said Lewis via e-mail. "Many of these individuals are
brilliant, but none of them are terrorists."

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is testing three versions of a
next-generation radiation detector that it hopes would be able to
detect radiation and to identify the emitting isotope as harmless
and naturally occurring or a material of concern such as highly
enriched uranium.

Present detectors do not distinguish between radiation-emitting
materials, requiring Customs and Border Protection officials to
conduct secondary screenings with a handheld scanner to determine
the source of the alert.

Lawmakers have questioned whether the new machines, which carry a
total price tag of $1.2 billion, would serve to better protect the
nation's borders. Funding has been put on hold until the detector's
increased efficacy can be certified by DHS.

DHS officials say the next-generation technology would still be
unable to detect shielded highly enriched uranium, what experts say
would likely be the nuclear material of choice for a terror group
trying to assemble a simple nuclear device. Highly enriched uranium
emits a relatively weak nuclear signature.

©2007 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 27 UPI: Nigeria fines firms for nuclear material

United Press International - Energy - 

3/26/2007 2:24:00 PM -0400

By CARMEN J. GENTILE UPI Energy Correspondent

LAGOS, Nigeria, March 26 (UPI) -- The Nigerian government has filed
lawsuits against Shell Petroleum Development Co. and three other
firms for the illegal transportation of radioactive material across
the oil-rich Niger Delta.

According to the 27-count indictment against the Shell holding and
other companies -- C and E Global Ltd., Western Atlas and ED Wales
-- violated Nigeria's Nuclear Safety and Radiation Law by
transporting radioactive material from Port Harcourt in the southern
state of River, home of Nigeria's multibillion-dollar oil and gas
industry, to a neighboring state without federal authorization.

Federal officials have not disclosed the possible fines the
companies face if found guilty.

A spokesman for Shell in Nigeria refused to comment, citing the
company's need to further investigate the allegations. Other
companies named in the affidavit could not be reached for comment.

An excerpt of the charges published in the pages of Nigeria's
Guardian newspaper Monday said the accused companies allegedly
conspired between Sept. 9 and Oct. 9 to "carry, transport, handle,
store and transfer radioactive sources to an unauthorized person."

The charges did not specify who the "unauthorized person" was, nor
was the intent of the transfer made public.

However, an official with the International Atomic Energy Agency --
the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog for the United Nations --
speculated that the radioactive material transported by the
companies was being used for well logging, a process whereby
radioactive material is lowered into an exploratory well to test for
hydrocarbons.

Nigeria is Africa's largest producer of oil and a major supplier to
the United States, producing some 2 million barrels per day.

Well logging is a common practice the world over and the radioactive
material used is not considered dangerous.

Though Nigeria has been a model nation for the banning of nuclear
weapons, allegations of illegal transportation of nuclear material
within its borders "hurts Nigeria's standing with the IAEA,"
Dimieari von Kemedi, head of programs for the activist group Our
Niger Delta, told United Press International.

While IAEA officials would not comment specifically on the
government charges against the companies, one official noted that
they were concerned about allegations.

"Overall, the issue of the use of devices using radioactive material
[in Nigeria] is certainly a concern," said Peter Rickwood, a public
information officer with IAEA.

In other news: Shell partially reopened a pipeline that was shutdown
earlier this month due to an oil spill.

"The flow stations have been reopened after testing the pipeline,"
Nigeria's Punch newspaper quoted a Shell spokesman in The Hague,
Netherlands, as saying. "Production is ramping up to pre-shut-in
levels."

Output lost due to the spillage and subsequent shutdown of the
pipeline and 10 flow stations was reportedly 187,000 bpd.

Officials with Shell would not speculate at to what caused the
spill. "We are still investigating," said spokesman Wim van der Wiel
in a statement, adding that Shell engineers had been deployed to the
area of delta affected by the spill to "assess and contain" the
damages.

A number of pipelines operated by foreign firms in the delta have
been damaged in the 18 months by armed militant groups seeking to
disrupt the flow of oil out of Nigeria or siphon oil for sale on the
black market.

As next month's presidential elections approach, attacks on
pipelines and oil installation both on and offshore have increased
in frequency.

(Comments to energy@upi.com)

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 28 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Asks South to Halt Joint Drills With U.S.

Updated Mar.26,2007 10:43 KST

North Korea has urged the South to halt annual joint military
exercises with the U.S., warning they could disrupt six-party talks
on PyongyangˇŻs nuclear program. South Korea and the U.S. started
the drills dubbed Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and
Integration (RSOI) on Sunday.

In a commentary published Sunday, the North Korean Cabinet organ
Minju Chosun said the drills were capable of escalating tension
between the U.S. and the North, and the ˇ°grave resultˇ± could be a
collapse of the six-party talks. The Minju Chosun accused the South
and the U.S. of ˇ°threateningˇ± the North and souring the atmosphere
of the disarmament talks by staging drills for an invasion.

North KoreaˇŻs top nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-kwan had called on the
U.S. to cancel the joint drills when the six-party talks resumed in
Beijing last Monday. According to sources close to the talks, Kim in
a meeting with his U.S. counterpart Christopher Hill condemned the
training as a threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula. Hill did not
respond, sources said.

It remains to be seen if North Korea will link the RSOI to the
nuclear talks. The Minju Chosun did not say whether Pyongyang will
take concrete action. Some analysts speculate that the North Korean
chief negotiatorˇŻs sudden return to Pyongyang last week might be
related to the RSOI issue. However, a South Korean government
official said this yearˇŻs North Korean protest against the annual
drill was not as strong as past denunciations.

(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
 29 Providence Journal: Pilgrim nuclear plant's cancer menace 

| projo.com 

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Joseph J. Mangano

VALLEY FORGE, Pa.

FOLLOWING THE REQUEST by Exelon Corp. to extend the license of the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, in Plymouth, Mass., for 20 years,
federal officials recently issued a report on environmental risks of
the Pilgrim reactor operating after 2012. The public should be
disturbed by the report, as it ignores considerable evidence that
Pilgrim has already added to the cancer burden of local residents.

There is enormous radioactivity stored in Pilgrim’s reactor core and
waste pools, the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshima bombs. A
meltdown from mechanical failure or terrorist attack would result in
the worst American environmental catastrophe ever, poisoning many
thousands in the Greater Boston area with deadly radiation.

But another Chernobyl isn’t necessary for Pilgrim to harm local
citizens. Like all nuclear reactors, Pilgrim creates over 100
radioactive chemicals found only in nuclear weapons and reactors to
produce electrical power. Most are contained in the reactor, but
some are emitted into the air and water, and enter the body through
breathing and the food chain.

These chemicals affect various organs of the body. Iodine-131
attacks the thyroid gland. Cesium-137 is distributed throughout the
muscles. Strontium-90 seeks out the bone and penetrates into the
bone marrow. All cause cancer, and are especially harmful to infants
and children. Some decay so slowly that they remain in the body for
a lifetime.

The amount of these chemicals released from Pilgrim is one of the
highest among U.S. reactors. But the government report fails to
address this, declaring emissions to be harmless because they fall
below federally-set limits. The report also includes no information
on cancer rates among people living near the reactor.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health have
previously found leukemia rates to be highest in towns closest to
the reactor. A National Cancer Institute study revealed that cancer
mortality among Plymouth County children was 22 percent below the
U.S. rate just before the plant began operating, but only 2 percent
less after startup. But this study ends in the mid-1980s and no
other health studies on Pilgrim have been performed.

A basic review of official public health statistics suggests
unusually high local cancer rates. Plymouth County has a cancer
death rate 11 percent greater than the nation’s since the late
1970s, while its death rate for all other causes is 2 percent below
the U.S. This translates into nearly 3,000 excess cancer deaths in
the county.

Rates are high in Plymouth County for many cancers. The county rate
exceeds the U.S. for the four most common forms of the disease,
which account for over half the total cancer deaths nationwide (lung
cancer, +9 percent, colorectal cancer, +15 percent, breast cancer,
+16 percent and prostate cancer, +13 percent.

There may be many reasons why people in Plymouth County die from
cancer in unexpectedly large numbers — but none is apparent. It has
a well-educated population, low poverty, and access to top-notch
medical services in the Boston area. Thus, radiation exposure from
Pilgrim must be considered as one factor accounting for the elevated
cancer death rate.

Citizens should not allow the federal government to give a free pass
to Exelon to operate Pilgrim until 2032. Instead, they should insist
that regulators create a “report card” of how safely the plant has
run, which must include a thorough review of radioactive emissions
and disease rates of persons living near the reactor.

Until this issue is better understood, it would be prudent for the
federal government not to grant the 20-year license extension that
Exelon has requested. Instead, development of alternative sources of
energy that are renewable and non-polluting, such as solar and wind
power, should be pursued. Substituting safe sources for the highly
toxic nuclear option would best protect the health of current and
future generations.

Joseph J. Mangano is executive director of the Radiation and Public
Health Project, a research and education group based in New York.

Updated Mon 3.26.07

News tip: (401) 277-7303 | Classifieds: (401) 277-7700 | Display

projoEXPRESS
*****************************************************************
 30 FR EPA: Request for Nominations to the EPA Human Studies Review Board
Doc E7-5484

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14099-14101] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-46]                         

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0143; FRL-8291-5]


AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) 
Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) is soliciting nominations of 
qualified individuals in the area of biostatistics to serve on 
the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB). The HSRB is a Federal 
advisory committee, operating in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 9, 
providing advice, information, and recommendations to EPA on 
issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human 
subjects research.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted to EPA no later than April 
25, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your nominations (``comments''), identified by 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0143, by one of the following 
methods: Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov. 
Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand 
Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3304, EPA West 
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0143. Deliveries are only 
accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays.

[[Page 14100]]

Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. Instructions: Direct your nominations to Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-ORD- 2007-0143. EPA's policy is that all nominations 
received will be included in the public docket without change and 
may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal 

information provided, unless the nomination includes information 
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your nomination. 
If you send an e-mail nomination directly to EPA, without going 
through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the nomination that is placed in the public docket and made 
available on the Internet. If you submit a nomination 
electronically, EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your nomination and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your nomination 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider it. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All 
documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 
some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 
are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov 
or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/

DC, Room 3334, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul I. Lewis, Office of the 
Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-8381, fax number: (202) 564-2070, 
e-mail: lewis.paul@epa.gov.

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action 
may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess 
human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA 
or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of 
substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency 
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may 
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this 
Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet 
under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Nomination for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing 
your nomination: 1. Providing as much supporting information as 
possible about the nominee, including contact information. 2. 
Make sure to submit your nomination by the deadline in this 
document. 3. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify 
the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line 
on the first page of your response. You may also provide the 
name, date and Federal Register citation.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 2, 2005, the President signed into law the 
Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-54 (Appropriations Act), 
which provided appropriated funds for the Environmental 
Protection Agency and other Federal departments and agencies. The 
Appropriations Act, among other points, addressed intentional 
dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides and directed the 
Agency to establish an independent Human Subjects Review Board to 
review such studies. On February 6, 2006 the Agency published a 
final rule for protections for subjects in human research (71 FR 
6138) that called for creating a new, independent Human Studies 
Review Board and described its responsibilities in the following 
language:

    The Human Studies Review Board shall comment on the 
scientific and ethical aspects of research proposals and reports 
of completed research with human subjects submitted by EPA for 
its review and on request, advise EPA on ways to strengthen its 
programs for protection of human subjects of research. 40 CFR 
26.1603(b)

    A charter for the Human Studies Review Board dated February 
21, 2006 was issued in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2 Section 
9(c) stating that the HSRB will:

    Provide advice, information and recommendations on issues 
related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects 
research. The major objectives are to provide advice and 
recommendations on: (a) Research proposals and protocols; (b) 
reports of completed research with human subjects; and (c) how to 
strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects.

    This notice requests nominations of candidates to serve as a 
member of the HSRB in the area of biostatistics. General 
information concerning the HSRB can be found on the EPA Web site 
at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ .

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations

    Any interested person or organization may nominate 
individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for the 
HSRB. Additional avenues and resources may be utilized in the 
solicitation of nominees to encourage a broad pool of expertise. 
Nominees should be experts who have sufficient professional 
qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable 
of providing expert comments on the ethical and/or scientific 
issues that may be considered by the HSRB. EPA is seeking 
nominees who are nationally recognized experts in biostatistics, 
specifically expertise in statistical design and analysis of 
research involving human subjects. All nominations should 
include: (1) A current curriculum vitae (C.V.) which provides the 
nominee's educational background, qualifications, leadership 
positions in national associations or professional publications, 
relevant research experience and publications;

[[Page 14101]]

and (2) a summary of the above in a biographical sketch 
(``biosketch'') of no more than one page. The qualifications of 
nominees received in reply to this notice will be assessed in 
terms of the specific expertise sought for the HSRB. Qualified 
nominees who agree to be considered further will be included in a 
smaller subset (known as the ``Short List''). This Short List 
consisting of nominee's name and biosketch will be posted for 
public comment on the OSA Web site 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/index.htm. 

The public will be requested to provide relevant information or 
other documentation on nominees that OSA should consider in 
evaluating the candidates. Public comments will be accepted for 
14 calendar days on the Short List. Board members will be 
selected from the Short List. Short List candidates not selected 
for HSRB membership may be considered for future HSRB membership 
as vacancies become available or as HSRB consultants for future 
HSRB meetings. The Agency estimates posting the names of Short 
List candidates sometime in late May. However, please be advised 
that this is an approximate time frame and the date could change. 
Thus, if you have any questions concerning posting of Short List 
candidates on the OSA Web site, please consult the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For the HSRB, a balanced 
panel is characterized by inclusion of members who possess the 
necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant technical 
perspectives, and the collective breadth of experience to 
adequately address the Agency's charge. Interested candidates who 
are employees of a federal department or agency (other than EPA) 
or are members of another federal advisory committee are eligible 
to serve on the HSRB, and their nominations are welcome. Other 
factors that will be considered include: Availability to 
participate in the Board's scheduled meetings, absence of any 
conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a lack of 
impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under 
review, and public comments in response to the Short List. Though 
financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a lack of 
impartiality, lack of independence, or bias may lead to 
nonselection, the absence of such concerns does not ensure that a 
candidate will be selected to serve on the HSRB. Numerous 
qualified candidates are likely to be identified. Selection 
decisions will involve careful weighing a number of factors 
including, but not limited to, the candidates' areas of expertise 
and professional qualifications, and responses to the Short List 
in achieving an overall balance of different perspectives on the 
Board. People who are hired to serve on the Board are subject to 
the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial 
Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In 
anticipation of this requirement, each nominee will be asked to 
submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special 
Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Form 3110-48 
[5-02]). This form seeks information regarding the candidate's 
financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and 
bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. 
However, this form is confidential and will not be disclosed to 
the public. The EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial 
disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts 
of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or any prior 
involvement with the development of the documents under 
consideration, including previous scientific peer review, before 
the candidate is considered further for service on the HSRB. 
Candidates selected from the Short List will be appointed to the 
HSRB. HSRB members are to perform several activities including 
reviewing extensive background materials between meetings of the 
Board, preparing draft responses to Agency charge questions, 
attending Board meetings, participating in the discussion and 
deliberations at these meetings, drafting assigned sections of 
meeting reports, and reviewing and helping to finalize Board 
reports. Nominations should be submitted by one of the methods 
listed under ADDRESSEES. The Agency will consider all nominations 
for HSRB membership that are received on or before April 25, 
2007. However, final selection of members is a discretionary 
function of the Agency and will be announced on the OSA Web site 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/index.htm soon after 

comments are received on the Short List.

    Dated: March 19, 2007. George M. Gray, Science Advisor. [FR 
Doc. E7-5484 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


*****************************************************************
 31 FR EPA: Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting

Doc E7-5492

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14101-14103] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-47]                         

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0216; FRL-8291-4]


AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or 
Agency) Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) announces a public 
meeting of the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the 
Agency on EPA's scientific and ethical reviews of human subjects' 
research.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on April 18, 2007 from 10 
a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time and April 19-20, 
2007 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time. 
Location: Environmental Protection Agency, Conference 
Center--Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Meeting Access: Seating at 
the meeting will be on a first-come basis. To request 
accommodation of a disability please contact the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 business days 
prior to the meeting, to allow EPA as much time as possible to 
process your request. Procedures for Providing Public Input: 
Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or 
oral comments for the HSRB to consider during the advisory 
process. Additional information concerning submission of relevant 
written or oral comments is provided in Unit I.D. of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who 
wishes further information should contact Paul Lewis, EPA, Office 
of the Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-8381; fax: (202) 564 2070; e-mail addresses: 
lewis.paul@epa.gov. General information concerning the EPA HSRB 
can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0216, by one of the following methods: 
Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov. 
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC),

[[Page 14102]]

ORD Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading 
Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 
in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or e-mail the ORD 
Docket at ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. Updates to Public 
Reading Room access are available on the Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-ORD- 2007-0216. EPA's policy is that all comments received 
will be included in the public docket without change and may be 
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the 
body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Meeting

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action 
may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess 
human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA 
or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of 
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be 
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the 
specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this 
Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet 
under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/    Docket: All documents in the 
docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 
some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 
are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov 
or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/

DC, Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the 
EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. 
Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or e-mail the ORD Docket at 
ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. Updates to Public Reading 
Room access are available on the Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

    EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and 
the meeting agenda will be available by late March 2007. In 
addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents 
as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic 
copies of these documents, and certain other related documents 
that might be available electronically, from the regulations.gov 
Web site and the HSRB Internet Home Page at 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. For questions on document 

availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, 
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing 
your comments: a. Explain your views as clearly as possible. b. 
Describe any assumptions that you used. c. Provide copies of any 
technical information and/or data you used that support your 
views. d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns 
and suggest alternatives. e. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be 
sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in 
the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also 
provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

D. How May I Participate in This Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the 
instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it 
is imperative that you identify docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0216 in the subject line on the first page of 
your request. a. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments 
will be accepted up to April 11, 2007. To the extent that time 
permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be 
permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at 
the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral 
comments to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request 
(preferably via email) to the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern Standard Time, 
April 11, 2007 in order to be included on the meeting agenda and 
to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO) to review the agenda to provide an 
appropriate public comment period. The request should identify 
the name of the individual making the presentation, the 
organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any 
requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 
LCD projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the HSRB are 
limited to five minutes per individual or organization. Please 
note that this limit applies to the cumulative time used by all 
individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an 
organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral 
comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is 
not

[[Page 14103]]

our intent to permit organizations to expand these time 
limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to 
speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, there may 
be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker should 
bring 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides 
for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting. b. Written comments. 
Although you may submit written comments at any time, for the 
HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your 
comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your 
comments at least five business days prior to the beginning of 
the meeting. If you submit comments after this date, those 
comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should 
recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to 
consider those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you 
plan to submit written comments, the Agency strongly encourages 
you to submit such comments no later than noon, Eastern Standard 
Time, April 11, 2007. You should submit your comments using the 
instructions in Unit I.C. of this notice. In addition, the Agency 
also requests that person(s) submitting comments directly to the 
docket also provide a copy of their comments to the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the 
length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

 E. Background

A. Topics for Discussion The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee 
operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) 5 U.S.C. app.2 section 9. The HSRB provides advice, 
information, and recommendations to EPA on issues related to 
scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The 
major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and 
recommendations on: (a) Research proposals and protocols; (b) 
reports of completed research with human subjects; and (c) how to 
strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of 
research. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's 
Science Advisor. At the April 2007 meeting of the HSRB, EPA will 
present for HSRB review: The results of two completed insect 
repellent efficacy studies on an aerosol formulation of the 
active ingredient IR3535, studies which the Agency intends to 
rely in making registration decisions. Protocols for this 
research were reviewed by the Board at its June and October 2006 
meetings. A proposal for a new field study of the effectiveness 
of products containing oil of lemon eucalyptus in repelling 
mosquitoes. Completed studies of human skin irritation and skin 
sensitization on two pending pesticide products whose use would 
involve extensive dermal exposure. These studies were conducted 
before the effective date of EPA's human studies rules (April 7, 
2006). EPA's assessment of the need for new research on the 
exposure received by occupational handlers who mix, load, or 
apply agricultural or antimicrobial pesticides. An EPA ``draft 
framework'' concerning best practices for recruiting and 
enrolling subjects in studies of occupational exposure. In 
addition, at the Board's request, EPA will present its 
interpretation and application of the standard in 40 CFR 26.1705: 
``EPA shall not rely on data from any research initiated after 
April 7, 2006, unless EPA has adequate information to determine 
that the research was conducted in substantial compliance with 
[EPA's human studies rules].'' Finally, the Board may also 
discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. B. Meeting Minutes and 
Reports Minutes of the meeting, summarizing the matters discussed 
and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory committee 
regarding such matters will be released within 90 calendar days 
of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov In 
addition, information concerning a Board meeting 

from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: March 19, 2007. George M. Gray, Science Advisor. [FR 
Doc. E7-5492 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


*****************************************************************
 32 GLRC: REUSING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 

According to the government, GNEP is an evolving U.S. global 
nuclear strategy aimed at reducing global dependence on fossil 
fuels; providing reliable, abundant energy necessary for economic 
growth, prosperity and health; utilizing international expertise 
to advance technologies and safeguards; and reducing the risk of 
nuclear proliferation. (Photo courtesy Idaho National Laboratory) 

A U.S. Department of Energy initiative to reprocess spent nuclear 
reactor fuel is trying to find a home for a facility. Fred Kight 
reports the Bush administration says the plan is a means to 
safely expand nuclear energy. Critics of the initiative say it's 
unsafe and unwise:

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership's website

Union of Concerned Scientists comments on Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP)

Producer: Fred Kight Release Date: March 26, 2007 Running Time: 
:49
                                   
                                      
Week of March 26, 2007
*****************************************************************
 33 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions wants out of expansion lawsuit

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 03/26/2007 02:57:48 PM MDT

Posted: 2:57 PM- EnergySolutions scrapped plans for a bigger
boundary Monday on the eve of legal debate at the Utah Supreme Court
about the expansion.

    The nuclear waste company made a formal written request to the
Utah Division of Radiation Control to withdraw the expanded
boundary, and within hours the state shrunk the boundary back to its
old, mile-square configuration.

    Then, before lunch, the company urged the Supreme Court to
consider dropping a lawsuit the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah
had brought over the expanded boundary.

    In court papers, EnergySolutions pointed to its March 15
agreement with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to seek no further expansions.
The Supreme Court's ruling is no longer necessary, the company said,
as it takes further steps "to assure the Governor and the public it
had no current plans to expand beyond" the mile-square area where it
disposes of low-level radioactive and hazardous waste.

    Lawyers for the state Radiation Control Board and
EnergySolutions are expected in court Tuesday morning to defend a
Jan. 6, 2006, decision by state regulators to deny HEAL's original
appeal.

    It was not clear Monday whether the state's highest court would
drop the case immediately, discuss the latest development during
Tuesday's oral arguments or go forward with its review of how the 
law was carried out.

    fahys@sltrib.com

© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 34 Hamilton Spectator: Radioactive waste coming to a location near you?

By Peter Calamai
Toronto Star
(Mar 26, 2007)

Storing millions of bundles of intensely radioactive waste fuel
underground in heavily populated southern and eastern Ontario is
rapidly shaping up as a geologically safe choice, according to the
nuclear industry.

Earlier disposal studies by federal agencies concluded the Canadian
Shield's granite was the only rock formation stable enough for the
necessary millennia of storage.

But a just released report from the industry-led Nuclear Waste
Management Organization gives a tentative green light to locations
like Toronto, London, Hamilton-Niagara, Windsor-Sarnia, Kingston,
Ottawa and a swathe running from Kitchener- Waterloo to Barrie.

Nuclear mausoleums could be buried a kilometre deep in these areas
because the underlying sedimentary rock is low risk for fractures
and water seepage, says the organization's annual report to the
federal government.

"Safety cases for repositories in sedimentary rock appear to be
quite strong," the report says.

The organization will not study a specific location until the
federal government gives a green light to its favoured form of
long-term storage.

About 1.9 million bundles of waste uranium fuel are now stored
temporarily on site at Canada's 22 nuclear reactors, largely in
concrete casks inside ordinary metal sheds on the surface.

The waste can remain dangerously radioactive for as long as 100
centuries.

More than $800 million has been spent by Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd., Ontario Power Generation and others since 1978 on research
into storing waste fuel bundles deep in the shield. The federal
government has not yet responded to the organization's formal
November 2005 recommendation for a $24-billion mausoleum, consisting
of caverns excavated up to a kilometre below ground.

Legal Notice: Contents copyright 1991-2006, The Hamilton Spectator.
All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of
any material from www.thespec.com is strictly prohibited without the
prior written permission of The Hamilton Spectator. For directions
on material reuse, website comments, questions or information send
email to helliott@thespec.com.
*****************************************************************
 35 THERECORD.COM: Industry wants to bury radioactive material across southern Ontario

Monday, March 26, 2007 | Updated at 7:07 AM EDT

Region on nuke waste list

PETER CALAMAI

Storing millions of bundles of intensely radioactive waste fuel
underground in heavily populated southern and eastern Ontario is
rapidly shaping up as a geologically safe choice, according to the
nuclear industry.

Earlier disposal studies by federal agencies concluded the Canadian
Shield's granite was the only rock formation stable enough for the
necessary millennia of storage.

But a just-released report from the industry-led Nuclear Waste
Management Organization gives a tentative green light to locations
such as Toronto, London, Hamilton-Niagara, Windsor-Sarnia, Kingston,
Ottawa and a swath running from Waterloo Region to Barrie.

Nuclear mausoleums could be buried a kilometre deep in these areas
because the underlying sedimentary rock is low-risk for fractures
and water seepage, says the organization's annual report to the
federal government. "Safety cases for repositories in sedimentary
rock appear to be quite strong,'' the report states.

The organization will not study a specific location for the
mausoleum until Ottawa approves its favoured form of long-term
storage.

About 1.9 million bundles of waste uranium fuel are now stored
temporarily on site at Canada's 22 nuclear reactors, largely in
concrete casks inside metal sheds on the surface. The waste can
remain dangerously radioactive for 100 centuries.

More than $800 million has already been spent by Atomic Energy of
Canada Ltd., Ontario Power Generation and others since 1978 on
research into storing waste fuel bundles deep in the shield. A
federal environment assessment a decade ago also backed the shield's
granite as the safest place.

But a May 2005 Nuclear Waste Management Organization report to the
federal government first raised the distant prospect of instead
burying the waste fuel in a type of sedimentary rock that lies
beneath southern Ontario and Quebec and along the western shore of
James and Hudson Bay.

Now the 2006 annual report touts this idea much more strongly,
saying this is where the organization focused its technical research
over the year. The report was released on the nuclear waste
organization's website last week with minimal publicity.

"Work being done in several countries is showing that sedimentary
rock is a potentially suitable host rock formation for a deep
repository. Switzerland and France are among countries which are
focusing their research efforts on sedimentary formations,'' the
report says.

The layered rock is between 470 million and 430 years old and was
created through pressure on dirt and other sediments deposited from
lakes and rivers. By contrast, the crystalline rock of the Canadian
Shield was forged under intense heat and pressure.

The nuclear waste organization was set up under federal law to
recommend the best long-term management for the waste fuel, almost
90 per cent of which is now stored at Ontario's Pickering,
Darlington and Bruce power stations.

But Ottawa has not yet responded to the organization's formal
November 2005 recommendation for a $24-billion mausoleum, consisting
of caverns excavated up to a kilometre below ground.

The nuclear waste organization did not comment then on a location
for the burial grounds, saying only that the emphasis should be on
finding a "willing community.''

In a statement accompanying the annual report, NWMO president Ken
Nash and chair Gary Kluger both emphasized that storage plans cannot
move ahead until the federal government responds to the proposed
solution.

The underground repository favoured by the organization relies on
steel-and-copper capsules each holding 324 bundles of waste nuclear
fuel. The capsules would be designed to last at least 100,000 years
and sealed inside the underground caverns behind water-resistant
clay barriers.

Under federal law, Ontario Power Generation, Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. and utilities in Quebec and New Brunswick must pay the $24
billion costs. The 2006 annual report says these companies have so
far deposited $990 million in a trust fund intended to pay for the
long-term waste management.


160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 
519-894-2231
*****************************************************************
 36 UPI: Namibia set to be global uranium supplier

United Press International - Energy - 

3/26/2007 1:05:00 PM -0400

WINDHOEK, Namibia, March 26 (UPI) -- A top uranium mining company in
Namibia says the country will soon supply 10 percent of the world's
demand.

Rossing Uranium, a Namibia-based subsidiary of the Rio Tinto Group,
which has headquarters in London and Melbourne, Australia, says
Namibia will be able to supply a growing global demand for nuclear
fuel as well as potential nuclear plants in Namibia.

AllAfrica.com reports Namibian Mines and Energy Minister Erkki
Nghimtina was told during a recent tour of the Langer Heinrich
Uranium Mine that it produced 3,711 tons of uranium oxide in 2005.
The company intends to boost Namibia's share of global production to
10 percent by 2012.

The company says the mine will comply with national and
international anti-proliferation regulations. Namibia has signed the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty and thus will not sell any uranium
to countries who have not signed it.

The price for uranium has skyrocketed in the past decade from $10 a
pound to more than $80 a pound, making the increase in mining
particularly economical now.

There are 30 nuclear plants being built or in the planning stages
around the world now, which will greatly increase the demand for the
fuel. Namibia faces a power crunch. It gets more than half from
South Africa, though that will decrease as the country also faces
increased demand. Namibia is looking at nuclear power to provide
electricity.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 New West Network: Nuclear Waste Trucked Through The Gorge (GNEP Hearing)

| Columbia Gorge | 

Radioactive Hot Potato

By Tomi Owens, 3-26-07
  
Oregonian's only chance to speak their mind about the United 
States Department of Energy's latest attempt to truck massive 
quantities of high-level nuclear waste through the Portland and 
the Columbia Gorge to Hanford Nuclear Reservation is tonight at 
the Best Western Hood River inn (ll08 East Marina Way; Hood River 
from 6-9:30pm.)

Discussion will revolve around the Bush Administration's Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership's (GNEP) plan to solve the problem of 
spent nuclear waste by shipping it to one or two sites in the 
country for storage and “reprocessing.”

Heart of American Northwest and Columbia Riverkeeper vehemently
oppose both the transportation of extremely hot Cesium and Strontium
through the region as well as the storage at Hanford, already
notorious for leaking millions of gallons of deadly waste.

Public comment at tonight’s “Scoping” will determine what issues
agencies will address in the environmental impact statement.
Concerns about safety and driving conditions on proposed trucking
routes, the storage facilities’ proximity to the Columbia River, and
the effectiveness of the reprocessing procedure are just some of
issues to be addressed by the EIS. 

© 2007 NewWest, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 38 Financial Post: Uranium

canada.com 

Fuel for nuclear reactors benefiting from both underlying demand and
fears of global warming

John Greenwood, Financial Post

Published: Monday, March 26, 2007

I's illegal for individuals to own and extremely dangerous even to
get close to. The few markets that exist for it are highly regulated
and private. Yet strange as it sounds, uranium has become one of the
biggest stars of the commodity boom, with hedge funds and assorted
other speculators scrambling to tap into the excitement around a
sector that only three years ago was on its knees.

Hardly a week goes by without the launch of a new mining company or
fund looking to join the party. "There [are] hundreds of outfits
today that didn't exist a few years ago," said Peter Farmer, chief
executive of Denison Mines Corp., a leading Toronto-based producer,
and president of Uranium Participation Corp., a company formed for
the sole purpose of owning physical uranium.

According to UX Consulting Company LLC, uranium spot prices have
moved up ninefold since 2002, sitting at about US$91 a pound today.
And the upward momentum may still have room to run, with analysts
saying stocks with solid fundamentals may continue to benefit from
the underlying demand for uranium.
View Larger Image

Uranium Participation Corp. president Peter Farmer plays down
buyers' concerns, saying that without growth in prices, utilities
will not have a secure uranium supply.


Peter Redman, National Post


Unlike other raw materials and foodstuffs that are benefiting from
exploding demand, the forces at work in uranium only partly involve
the economic expansion in China. The main driver is rising concern
around the world over global warming. More than half of the
electricity flowing through electricity grids globally is generated
by power plants that are fuelled by coal and other fossil fuels,
major culprits in the greenhouse-gas problem.

Since nuclear generators run on uranium and, therefore, don't
contribute to climate change, many countries are starting to see it
as part of the solution. So after decades of decline, the nuclear
industry is going through a renaissance as utilities around the
world announce new plants.

That's good news for uranium miners, since nuclear generators are
their biggest customers.

"This is completely different from the boom in other commodities,"
says Bart Jaworski, an analyst at Raymond James. "It's coincident
with what's going on in metals, but there are different drivers,
because the demand for uranium is from power utilities."

Mr. Jaworski is calling for demand to keep growing for the next five
to 10 years, based on the worldwide resurgence in nuclear power.

"If demand remains strong, we expect prices will continue to be
propelled to much higher levels," said Adam Schatzker, an analyst at
RBC Capital Markets.

Mr. Jaworski said it's not too late for investors to benefit. "You
want to buy shares in companies with strong growth profiles,
financial capacity and experienced management teams."

Since Canada is the world's top uranium producer, there is plenty of
choice close to home, including Cameco Corp., the world's biggest
producer. Its shares have moved up about 10% in the past six months,
closing last week at $46.53 for a 16% return in the past 52 weeks.

Other smaller players include SXR Uranium One Inc., Forsys Metals
Corp. and Denison Mines Corp., all of which have seen their shares
more than double since October.



While the argument for higher uranium prices is strong, there are
risks. Mr. Jaworski said the biggest one is the possibility of a
disaster such as the meltdowns at Chernobyl in 1986 or Three Mile
Island in 1979, which could put a damper on public support for the
industry. But that is unlikely since advances in technology have
dramatically improved reactor safety, he said.

Another worry is that the U.S. Department of Defence, which keeps a
stockpile of uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons, could
flood the market. But he said that risk is also remote because the
U.S. government has indicated it won't interfere with the market.

As of the end of January, there were 435 reactors operating around
the world, with about 28 under construction and a further 64 in the
planning stages, according to the World Nuclear Association. Russia
alone is planning 20 and China and India have also unveiled major
investments.

All that new capacity and the demand expected to flow from it is
what is pushing up uranium prices, and the situation is being
exacerbated by a supply crunch, since the uranium mining industry
only recently twigged to what was going on.

There are only a few places in the world where uranium ore, or
"yellowcake" as it's called, occurs in sufficient concentration to
be economic. The biggest supply is in Northern Saskatchewan.

Typically, it takes many millions of dollars and several years to
find a new mine. Because of concerns around uranium falling into the
wrong hands, companies are required to pass through a maze of
regulatory hurdles and red tape before they can get the necessary
approvals to start producing uranium. In all, it takes about a
decade to turn a proven deposit into an operating mine.

The trouble is that for the past two decades many producers have
been struggling to stay alive. Ever since Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl, uranium prices have been languishing well below the level
where companies could afford even to finance new exploration.

"For the past 20 years there has been no investment in new uranium
mines," says Thomas Neff, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology's Center for International Studies.

The bottom line is that while governments around the world were
rushing to build new reactors, the uranium-mining industry --
crucial to the success of a nuclear renaissance -- was floundering.
Because of the long lead time needed to get a new mine up and
running, there is the worrying possibility that some of those new
reactors may not be able to find fuel to run on.

"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," Prof. Neff said.

In fact, not everyone was taken by surprise by the nuclear boom. A
handful of alert money managers saw what was coming.

Back in 2004, Audit Capital, a Portland, Ore.-based hedge fund,
bought up millions of pounds of uranium at prices as low as US$20
per pound. Uranium Participation Corp., a Toronto-based company
formed for the sole purpose of owning uranium, started up in 2005,
and last year U.K.-based Nufcor Uranium Ltd., which trades on the
London Stock Exchange's AIM market, started a hoard that has grown
to 2.3 million pounds.



Given the recent rise in uranium prices, it's not surprising that
some uranium buyers are crying foul. Indeed, some U.S. utilities
complain that the funds are opportunistically benefiting from the
nuclear renaissance and that it will be homeowners who will end up
paying the price.

Uranium Participation Corp.'s Mr. Farmer dismisses that argument. He
says when mining companies were trying to keep their heads above
water in 2003, none of the power generation companies offered to pay
more for their uranium. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

"The utilities have got to realize that without the growth in prices
they will not have [a secure uranium supply]," he says. "There's got
to be enough profits to finance investments in exploration. You got
to pay a fair price."

jgreenwood@nationalpost.com


© National Post 2007

*****************************************************************
 39 UPI: U.S. tests 30,000-pound guided bomb

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

3/26/2007 3:59:00 PM -0400

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., March 26 (UPI) -- The United States
has successfully tested a huge aerial bomb designed to destroy
hardened targets, such as deeply buried nuclear sites.

Boeing's 30,000-pound, named the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or
MOP, underwent a static test at White Sands Missile Range in New
Mexico earlier this month to check its effectiveness against tunnel
complexes that could be used for enemy weapons-of-mass-destruction
programs.

"The weapon's effectiveness against hard and deeply buried targets
allows the warfighter to hold adversaries' most highly valued
military facilities at risk, especially those protecting weapons of
mass destruction," Boeing Program Director Bob McClurg said in a
news release Monday.

The test was carried out by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
inside a tunnel dug into the desert. The MOP program was launched in
2004 under a $30 million Air Force contract awarded to Boeing.

The MOP is being designed for deployment from high altitude by U.S.
B-52 and B-2 bombers on "hard and deeply buried targets," such as
nuclear facilities that are otherwise out of reach of current bombs.
The next phase of the program will involve test drops from a B-52.

The MOP is more than 20 feet long and can only be moved by a heavy
crane. The warhead is packed with 5,300 pounds of high explosives,
which the DTRA said gives it 10 times the punch of the current
BLU-109 hardened penetrator bomb. Unlike the BLU, however, the MOP
is fitted with steering fins and is guided to its target by a Global
Positioning System navigation device.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: ALP under fire over nuclear power petitions

ABC Ballarat | Local News

12:42 (ACDT)Monday, 26 March 2007. 10:42 (AWDT)

South-west Victoria's state Labor MPs are being attacked for putting
petitions in their offices opposing nuclear power.

The petitions make reference to a so-called Federal Government plan
for nuclear reactors to be built in Australia.

The federal Member for Corangamite, Stewart MacAurthur, says the
Government has no such plan.

He says the Government is merely investigating the prospect of
nuclear power, and the state Labor Party is being closed-minded.

"I think they're just looking at popular sentiment. Obviously
there's been an ongoing debate for 30 or 40 years about nuclear
power, Chernobyl was a problem, but some western countries find
nuclear power to be the cleanest fuel," he said.

*****************************************************************
 41 Barbados: The Nation: Region 'no place' for nuclear waste

Last Updated: Monday, March 26, 2007 : 2:48 PM

Published on: 3/26/07.

In fact, St James North MP Rawle Eastmond feels the islands should
take up the matter at the level of the United Nations.

Speaking during debate on the 2007-2008 Estimates of Revenue and
Expenditure last week in the House of Assembly, Eastmond said the
captains of these ships sometimes did not even let the islands know
they were passing through the area. Flyweights

He said the Caribbean was seen as weak or helpless, sometimes even
harmless.

And he wondered what would happen should one of those ships become
involved in an accident in the area.

"It has happened over time that ships carrying nuclear waste have
crossed the Caribbean Sea to our concern," he said.

"We have agitated about it, but what we have to do now at the level
of the United Nations, or the United Nations Environmental
Programme, is seek to have the Caribbean Sea declared a special zone
through which no nuclear waste should be transported." Dangerous
habit

Pointing to the island's commitment to international environmental
standards and pledges to observe the outcome of the Small Island
Developing States conference, Eastmond said: "We have to go further
and ask that those responsible for transporting nuclear waste
through the Caribbean Sea desist from that habit because of the fact
that it is dangerous, they do so without even consulting us and they
do so in circumstances of considerable risk." (HLE


© 1997-2005. Nation Publishing Company Limited. | Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 42 Tri-City Herald: Chemical-dumping video making waves on Internet (w/ link to video)

Published Monday, March 26th, 2007

BY LYNNE LYNCH

SOAP LAKE -- A 1947 newsreel showing World War II chemicals being
dumped at a now popular Eastern Washington fishing lake is making
waves on the Internet.

The newsreel "War Hazard Eliminated" was posted online in January on
Google Video and www.you tube.com by Mark Catlin, a North
Carolina-based Hazmat trainer who said he was just experimenting
with Internet technology.

Nearly 200,000 hits on the footage, which shows drums containing
20,000 pounds of sodium metal being rolled into an ice-covered Lake
Lenore, have been registered on Google and 2,500 to 3,000 on www.you
tube.com, he said.

"It's amazing," Catlin said. "I just accidentally found it on an old
newsreel. It's gone way past what I thought it would do."

The video shows clouds of water and smoke rising hundreds of feet
into the air and what appear to be fiery explosions caused by the
violent reaction between the sodium metal and lake water.

And, "a once lethal war chemical becomes a peacetime pyrotechnic
display," the newsreel's narrator announces.

Catlin hadn't posted video before and wanted to try it, he said.
He's also used the video in training classes for health care
employees in California and New York, and state transportation and
wastewater workers in New England, he said.

He said people in his training classes enjoy seeing the explosions,
and he wants his students to apply their knowledge of hazardous
materials in their training.

"One of the issues from the clip is that nobody wanted it, it was
unsafe to transport," he said. "It brings up issues of
transportation."

The lake was "devoid of fish" and made an "admirable disposal spot"
for the metallic sodium, the newsreel narrator states. However, no
public carrier would accept the chemical for transportation to a
purchaser, the announcer said.

The lake is naturally alkaline, and at the time, it apparently made
sense to drop the chemical in the water to make it dissipate, Catlin
said.

It's unclear if any effects on the lake remain today. Lake Lenore
continues to attract anglers because of its Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Richland historian Michele Gerber said the sodium didn't come from
Hanford because sodium wasn't used in reactors until Hanford's
research reactor, the Fast Flux Test Facility, was built in the
1970s. The old reactors used another form of sodium that went into
cooling water for purifying and didn't cause an explosion, she said.

Retired Reclamation engineer and irrigation operations supervisor
Francis Jensen said he first viewed the newsreel years ago, then saw
it again recently when it resurfaced on the Internet.

He began working in Ephrata after the newsreel was shot. However, he
did work with men who had served in the military and believed Lake
Lenore was chosen as a dump site because of a nearby firing range
and training facilities.

"We really didn't talk about it," he said. "It was one of those
after-the-war things."


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 43 Tri-City Herald: Cleanup of notorious burial grounds being planned

Published Monday, March 26th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

Washington Closure Hanford has narrowed its options for cleaning up
two of the most notorious burial grounds at the Hanford nuclear
reservation.

Between 1954 and 1967, radioactive and chemical waste from
experiments and metal analysis in Hanford's 300 Area were disposed
of in the 618-10 and 618-11 burial grounds.

The research supported the production of plutonium for the nation's
nuclear weapons program, including tests of processes for chemically
separating plutonium from fuel irradiated at Hanford reactors.

"Cleanup of the 618-10 and -11 burial grounds is potentially one of
the most complex and technically challenging cleanup activities
we'll do," said Chuck Spencer, president of Washington Closure, in a
statement.

Washington Closure is considering different options for different
parts of the burial grounds.

Heavy machinery, some of it remotely operated because of potential
high radiation doses, may be used to dig up trenches. Buried pipes
filled with waste may be encased and pulled out of the ground
intact. Caissons, or large underground boxes of waste, may be opened
up and the contents removed piece by piece.

Records of what was dumped in the burial grounds were destroyed in
the early 1990s. But the burial grounds are believed to contain a
wide spectrum of wastes, including some with high radioactivity and
chemicals such as thorium and beryllium.

"Our greatest concern is for the unknown and ensuring worker
safety," Spencer said.

Much of what is known about waste in the burial grounds comes from
records retained about work in the 300 Area, particularly at the 325
radiochemistry building and the 327 radioactive metallurgy building.
Former workers also were interviewed.

The location of the burial grounds also will pose a challenge. The
8.6 acres of the 618-11 burial ground are close to the parking lot
for Energy Northwest employees. The 618-10 burial ground is closer
to the Fast Flux Test Facility and less than 2 1/2 miles from the
Columbia River.

Use of both burial grounds stopped after the Atomic Energy
Commission decided that wastes containing high concentrations of
plutonium should not be disposed of near the river.

Washington Closure has identified some possible preferred ways for
retrieving the 618-10 and 618-11 waste to redispose of it in
landfills and repositories that meet modern environmental standards.

The Department of Energy and regulators also will need to approve
the retrieval methods. DOE now is considering a report from
Washington Closure, which has not been made public, and is scheduled
to comment on the contractor's preliminary proposals at the end of
April.

The burial grounds included 15 trenches, the largest of which were
900 feet long and 50 feet wide.

They also had 144 vertical pipe units made from 55-gallon bottomless
drums welded together and buried upright in the soil so loads of
waste could be dropped in periodically.

Other waste was buried in five caissons, which had an underground
3-foot-long angled chute to reach an 8-by-10-foot box.

The trenches, which hold cardboard boxes and drums of waste, are
expected to be dug up with excavators. Because of the depth of some
trenches, work may have to be done in layers with clean fill placed
over the partially excavated trench.

That would provide a clean work area for excavators to remove
contamination from the bottom layer of the trenches.

A huge, moveable tent would be placed over the work area. It would
be about 28 feet high and measure 120 feet wide and 140 feet long.

For the vertical pipe units, glassifying the waste in place,
removing waste piece by piece or overcasing the pipes was considered.

Overcasing tentatively was identified as the best method.

The pipes include waste in lidless containers workers called "milk
pails" that were sealed with gelatin and "juice cans" of
high-activity radioactive waste, according to a Washington Closure
technical paper.

In the overcasing method, a 28-foot steel pipe would be pounded into
the earth around the vertical pipe unit.

Then its top and bottom would be sealed with grout to allow it to be
pulled out of the ground.

In some cases, the pipes would be disposed of as they are taken out
of the ground. But if they contain enough plutonium contamination,
they might have to be opened and sorted.

At the caissons, a remote-controlled excavator would be used to
remove the cover slab. Then waste containers inside the caisson
would be placed in drums to await study to determine how the waste
should be disposed.

"Once DOE approves the design solution and authorizes the work, we
still have more than two years worth of site characterization,
planning, design and readiness reviews before we can safely start
cleanup in earnest," Spencer said.

Removal of the waste could begin in 2010 with back fill beginning in
2012.

The contractor also is reviewing and updating procedures and
increasing employee training to make sure that subcontractors follow
safety requirements, he said.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 44 Inside Bay Area: New H-bomb design prompts debate

Experts sharply disagree over reality, life cycle of innovation

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

Article Last Updated: 03/26/2007 02:43:57 AM PDT

For Gen. James Cartwright, the military commander of U.S. nuclear
forces, the first hydrogen bomb to come out of an American nuclear
design lab in

20 years doesn't look very new.

The warhead is launched by the same submarines on the same missiles
at the same targets and produces the same blast as the warhead it
replaces.

"This is far from being a new warhead because it still has the same
form, fit and function as the existing warhead," agrees Steve Henry,
deputy assistant defense secretary for nuclear affairs.

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., figures that by putting more
sophisticated warheads on the same missile "you are essentially
creating a new nuclear weapon."

Weapons experts themselves are sharply divided.

In designing a hardier replacement for the warhead atop the Navy's
Trident missiles, Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists poured more
muscle and a few added features into an early 1980s-vintage warhead.

The new/not-new distinction is more than semantic: A truly new bomb
probably would need explosive testing, something U.S. presidents
have forsworn since 1992, partly to block other nations from testing
new bomb designs.

What everyone can agree on is that Livermore's latest bomb ? the
first in a planned series of "reliable, replacement warheads," or
RRWs ? never has been manufactured. That means it is vulnerable to
the kinds of flaws and breakdowns that afflict every complex object,
from trains to automobiles to computersand even living things. 
The same is true for newly made nuclear bombs, with thousands of 
parts.

"What you know from bringing in these bright, new, shining systems
is they can bring in all these new defects," said Raymond Jeanloz, a
physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who sits on
several advisory committees on nuclear weapons matters. "The nature
of the glitches have always been very small, detailed things. These
are very sophisticated systems, and it's just really hard to be sure
that every detail has been shaken down. That doesn't necessarily
mean it will have to be the same in the future, but in the past,
really diligent people were part of the design and development
cycles, and there were glitches."

Scientists and engineers and factory workers and nature itself build
unforeseen flaws into the things they make. That's why products are
recalled, women miscarry and consumers repair a larger universe of
unacknowledged mistakes in the things they buy. It's why Windows
users still are downloading security fixes and "updates" after the
nth service pack.

On the other side of the equation from these "birth defects" is
aging. In time, more and more critical parts break down in any
organism or product until it reaches the end of its service life or
dies.

Engineers depict these facts of birth, life and death as a curve
that looks like a bathtub. After a number of early design- and
manufacturing-related failures, the surviving units stumble through
a smaller, constant number of random defects and then begin to fail
in larger and larger numbers as age takes its toll.

It is tempting to think the most horrendously lethal weapons ever
devised by humanity are immune to these facts of engineering and
manufacture. They're not.

Numerous studies have found the weapons to be remarkably
defect-free, especially as scientists learned to seal moisture out
of the most sensitive components. But flaws have been found ? and
when deemed necessary, fixed ? in every kind of bomb and warhead in
the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, according to a 1995 study by
scientists at all three U.S. nuclear weapons design labs.

That study suggested the wholesale failure of one or more bombs or
warheads could come somewhere around the 28th year after a weapon is
manufactured.

The deadly right-hand side of the bathtub curve, in other words, was
imminent.

Yet subsequent studies showed that conclusion was statistically
infirm, based on too small of a sample of examined weapons. Twelve
years later, with many weapons aging past that mark and an average
arsenal age of about 23 years, weapons scientists acknowledge there
is no evidence yet for an age-related meltdown. It is partly fear of
such a meltdown that has driven a plan by the weapons labs and the
Bush administration to design replacements for every U.S. nuclear
explosive.

"What is true is I think there has not been an upturn in the
frequency of age-related findings that would create a sense of
dramatic urgency in the sense we need to do something in the next
year or two years or three years," said former Lawrence Livermore
director Bruce Tarter, chairman of a committee studying the
replacement warhead program for the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

U.S. nuclear bombs and warheads then rest somewhere in the stable
bottom of the bathtub, past most of their birth defects and
adolescence.

"I don't know where the right side of the bathtub shows up, but it
is measured in hundreds of years," said Bob Peurifoy, a retired
Sandia National Laboratories weapons executive.

A newly manufactured bomb such as Livermore's latest will slip into
the bathtub at the left side, before possible defects in design and
manufacture are discovered. The lab's RRW-1 is based on a
well-tested warhead from the early 1980s but never will be tested in
its final manufactured state, and the probability of defects is
unclear.

"That's unknown, and that will be a function of the care that's
taken in the labs and the manufacturing complex and the degree of
insight those engineers have in avoiding those problems before they
happen," said Philip Coyle, a former Livermore associate director
and Pentagon testing chief who now advises the Center for Defense
Information. "Even if you take an old design like an old car and
start making them new, it's going to have some chance of birth
defects."

Livermore's experience with birth defects includes one of its most
cherished designs, the W68 warhead on the submarine-launched
Poseidon missiles. A senior Livermore weapons official chose to use
a high explosive that packed more energy than another explosive that
was better understood. Years later, the high explosive began to
discolor around the detonators, suggesting an unanticipated chemical
reaction. In the early 1970s, seven years after manufacture,
Livermore officials decided to replace the high explosive on more
than 3,000 warheads.

Livermore designers say they learn from mistakes, just as any
automaker does.

"Just like Toyota, you have many fewer birth defects today than on a
Toyota that you bought in 1985," said designer Bruce Goodwin, head
of the lab's weapons program. "But at the end of the day a lot of
the lessons learned from the last 25 years come down to simplicity
of design. If you could look at RRW, you'd see many fewer parts,
you'll see things that come together simply and come apart simply."

If the lab's designers make mistakes that, as in the current
arsenal, don't show up for a decade or two, the RRW-1 is designed so
that its first explosive stage produces at least four times the
energy necessary to drive the rest of the bomb.

"You do have a very, very large margin in the system and so you can
absorb defects, you can absorb insults or things that make it work
less well," Goodwin said.

Without the proof of a nuclear test, skeptics such as Peurifoy
aren't convinced.

"When you do something new, it's the left side of the bathtub, and
if you look at automobiles, flashlight batteries, I don't care,
you'll find that statistically, you make mistakes that you only
discover after you put something into inventory," he said. "I go
with the tried and true. I go with the stockpile that has been
surveilled and maintained and, when necessary, fixed, and that's
what we have today."

Tarter, Livermore former director, expects an "enormous effort to
scrub" RRW of flaws before production, now scheduled for 2012.

"I think we won't know about any birth defects until we've done the
experiment," he said.

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or (510) 208-6458.

© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy 
*****************************************************************
 45 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

Doc E7-5449

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14091] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-34]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, April 11, 2007; 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 
576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site 
at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities. Tentative Agenda: The main presentation topic will be 
an update on the Balance of Reservation Program and the 
Integrated Facility Disposition Project. Public Participation: 
The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. 
Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the 
agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to 
the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing 
to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes 
to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will 
be available for public review and copying at the Department of 
Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 
TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by 
writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations 
Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling 
her at (865) 576-4025.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007. Rachel M. 
Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 
E7-5449 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 46 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

Doc E7-5450

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14091-14092] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-35]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test 
Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires

[[Page 14092]]

that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, April 11, 2007; 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 7710 West Cheyenne Avenue, Conference Room 130, Las 
Vegas, Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Snyder, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193. Phone: 
(702) 295-2836; E-mail: snyderk@nv.doe.gov or ntscab@aol.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities. Tentative Agenda: 1. Briefing entitled ``Radiation 
Fundamentals'' 2. Updates by the Board's working committees 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Kelly Snyder at the 
telephone number listed above. The request must be received five 
days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made 
to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion 
that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals 
wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five 
minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of this 
meeting will be available for public review and copying at the 
U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available 
by writing to Kelly Snyder at the address listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007. Rachel Samuel, 
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5450 
Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 47 FR DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

Doc E7-5452

[Federal Register: March 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 57)] 
[Notices] [Page 14092] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26mr07-36]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, April 19, 2007; 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky 
42001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reinhard Knerr, Deputy 
Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy, Paducah Site 
Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, 
(270) 441-6825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related 
activities.

Tentative Agenda:

6 p.m. Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda, and 
Approval of March Minutes 6:15 p.m. Deputy Designated Federal 
Officer's Comments 6:30 p.m. Federal Coordinator's Comments 6:35 
p.m. Liaisons' Comments 6:45 p.m. Review of Action Items 6:50 
p.m. Public Comments and Questions 7 p.m. Presentation: C-400 90% 
Design Report 7:30 p.m. Subcommittee Reports Water 
Disposition/Water Quality Subcommittee Community Outreach 
Subcommittee Long Range Strategy/Stewardship Subcommittee 
Executive Committee: EM SSAB Chairs' Meeting Review 7:45 p.m. 
Public Comments and Questions 7:55 p.m. Administrative Issues: 
Motions, Review of Work Plan, and Review of Next Agenda 8:05 p.m. 
Final Comments 8:15 p.m. Adjourn Breaks Taken As Appropriate.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Reinhard Knerr at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also 
be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, 
Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 
Monday through Friday or by writing to Reinhard Knerr, Department 
of Energy, Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, 
Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6825.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 20, 2007. Rachel M. 
Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 
E7-5452 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 48 KnoxNews: Big bucks for Y-12 fortress

Crucial uranium storehouse's price tag increases to $549M

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com

March 26, 2007

OAK RIDGE - The government's new fortress for bomb-grade uranium 
is going up rapidly - and so is the cost.

The latest price tag: $549 million.

Known officially as the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility,
the project is the cornerstone of modernization plans at the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant. It's also an essential part of U.S. efforts
to safeguard the nation's strategic nuclear materials and keep them
out of terrorists' hands.

In 1999, when Lockheed Martin, then the federal contractor at the
Oak Ridge plant, began pitching the plans in earnest, the estimated
cost of a uranium storehouse was about $130 million.

At the time, Y-12 officials were worried about competing for federal
dollars with the Spallation Neutron Source - a $1.4 billion science
project that was starting to take shape a few miles away at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.

"The last thing we need right now is two great big items in the same
neck of the woods out of the same appropriated budget happening
concurrently," said Robert Van Hook, president of Lockheed Martin
Energy Systems.

But a lot of things happened as the project evolved.

In November 2000, BWXT replaced Lockheed Martin as the main
contractor, and it soon began reworking plans for Y-12 modernization
- including a new design for the HEUMF.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a much bigger factor,
although not immediately.

A couple of months after the attacks, Bill Brumley, then the federal
manager at Y-12, acknowledged that added security would likely jack
up the project's price tag. But he said the building's design was
not affected significantly by the aftermath of the terrorist acts.

Since then, however, the National Nuclear Security Administration
and Y-12 contractors have been chasing their tails trying to catch
up with the Design Basis Threat - a secret federal guide that sets
protection requirements based on the latest intelligence on
terrorism.

In response to questions during the past week, BWXT blamed 45
percent to 50 percent of the recent cost increases - when the
project's baseline went from $313 million to more than $500 million
over a two-year period - on evolving requirements to meet the Design
Basis Threat.

"The result was a fundamental change in the structural design (of
the building), which impacts on-going construction activities," BWXT
said.

It's hard to assess exactly how much the building's design has
changed, because the blueprints are classified. Federal and
contractor officials won't discuss anything that potentially reveals
information about the security of Y-12's bomb-making materials.

However, after years of escalating costs, Oak Ridge officials insist
that the newest cost estimate - reportedly blessed by Clay Sell, the
deputy secretary of energy - is good for the duration.

"We are confident that $549 million is the right number," Bill
Wilburn, a spokesman for BWXT, said in an e-mail response.

He said that confidence is based on the "stability of project
requirements" and the fact that construction is now 50 percent
complete. He said contingency funding has been incorporated into the
total project cost.

Wilburn said the new price tag also was validated by an independent
review team in October and approved in January. "We do not
anticipate any further changes to the baseline," he said.

If the cost does go up, there could be serious problems with
Congress.

In a Senate energy and water appropriations bill this year, the
committee noted that design changes had caused a significant delay
in the project and a significant increase in cost. Even after
drawing money from other Y-12 activities, the uranium storage
project apparently is still underfunded, and the NNSA was told to
find other ways to help complete the project.

"The committee understands cost increases are a result of a
combination of poor NNSA oversight and poor contractor execution,"
the Senate report said, calling for a detailed explanation of the
increases.

There are concerns that funding problems with the uranium storehouse
will negatively affect another, even bigger project - the Uranium
Processing Facility. The design period for the facility is already
being "stretched out" because of delays with the storage project.

The proposed Uranium Processing Facility is supposed to be the
manufacturing center of the future at Y-12. At one time, the
estimated cost of the facility was $600 million, but that estimate
has grown to $1 billion, and construction hasn't even started.

There have been a number of construction issues with HEUMF. Concerns
about reinforcing steel forced a two-month shutdown last year to
evaluate the problem, and more recently work was halted in a part of
the project while a similar issue was addressed.

The actual cost of constructing the high-security building has not
grown that much, at least not compared to the total project cost,
according to figures supplied by BWXT.

Wilburn said the value of the contract held by Caddell-Blaine, the
project's construction team, has risen from $118.8 million to $139
million since 2004.

The total project cost includes the architectural and design work,
testing and operational assessments, all equipment and capabilities
at the storage facility and relocation of the plant's electronic
security system.

The cost does not include moving the plant's highly enriched uranium
into the new facility.

The stocks of nearly pure U-235 are currently housed in about five
different buildings at Y-12, according to multiple reports, and will
be moved after construction is finished - currently scheduled for
2009.

Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, said federal officials recently reviewed all aspects
of the HEUMF project - management, procedures, and personnel.

"While we are confident that the project is moving in the right
direction, we will continue to monitor the performance of the
contract in all aspects of the project, including cost," Wyatt said.

Can the project be completed at the current estimate? "That's
certainly our intent," he said.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************