*****************************************************************
07/11/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.158
*****************************************************************
   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 UK Mail & Guardian: SA backs Iran on peaceful use of nuclear power  
2 Guardian Unlimited: Two Koreas Agree on Cooperation, Rice Aid
3 AFP:North Korea agrees to respond to US plan to end nuclear row -
4 Asia Times: Korea News and Korean Business and Economy, Pyongyang
5 Korea Herald: EU policy on North Korea unchanged   
6 FPIF News | NPT at a Crossroads
7 SF Chronicle: China's global bid for energy
8 RIA Novosti: Japan set to continue atomic submarine scrapping progra
9 BBC: Mitsubishi in Westinghouse bid
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
10 US: [NukeNet] Observer Scarpelli wants NRC to amend renewal
11 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Topic Suggestions for Next Year’s Regulatory Info
12 Xinhua: cNZ's nuclear ban stays - PM   
13 US: NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Signif
14 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License No. SN
15 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC); Notice of Withdra
16 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Uni
17 US: NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Pow
18 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
19 Korea Times: Korea to Raise Dependence on Nuclear Power Up to 60% 
20 US: Daily Herald: Clean coal conundrum                              
21 US: Tri-City Herald: Energy NW mulls $1 billion project 
22 US: SF Chronicle: Reassessing 'what if' factor at state's nuclear po
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
23 [du-list] US-India Defense Pact Spurs Demand for Sperm Banks!
24 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
25 AU ABC: Ranger operator facing fine over safety breach. 
26 US: American Chronicle: Depleted Uranium
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
27 US: MCMN:  State Land Board set to address uranium mining - 
28 NRC: HEU export license - correction
 
                           PEACE
 
29 STUFF: Renewed fight over NZ's nuclear ship ban
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 UK Mail & Guardian: SA backs Iran on peaceful use of nuclear power  

  Lavinia Mahlangu | Pretoria, South Africa      
    	
  7/11/2005 5:23:00 PM  
    
  South Africa backs Iran's stance on the right of a country to
develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, Deputy Minister of
Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad said on Monday.

"South Africa will not accept any prevention of the use of
nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It is a demand we make and
we support Iran in that regard," Pahad told journalists in
Pretoria on the first day of the second session of the South
Africa-Iran Deputy Ministerial Working Group's meeting.

He emphasised South Africa seeks a world free of nuclear weapons.

"The right [to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes] is
something logical and in line with the international community's
intentions," said Ahmad Azizi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister
for Arab and African Affairs, who is co-chairing the meeting
with Pahad.

The deputy ministers said a group of 136 Iranian doctors will be
coming to work in South Africa. No date was given for their
arrival.

Pahad said to his knowledge Cuba is the only other country with
which South Africa has a similar arrangement. He said it will be
up to the Department of Health to decide where the doctors will
be posted.

Azizi said Iran has stationed doctors in about seven African
countries, including Ghana, Mali, Niger and Sudan. There are
also doctors stationed in a number of countries in the Persian
Gulf.

Pahad said Iran is South Africa's second-largest supplier of oil
and that business ties with the country are being developed.

He said Azizi is to meet Minister of Trade and Industry Mandisi
Mpahlwa to discuss the possible formation of a South Africa-Iran
business forum that will allow the business sectors of both
countries to "get to know each other". 

Mpahlwa has been discussing the matter with members of South
Africa's private sector.

"The Iranian government is looking for ways in which South
Africa can export to Iran's needs, in order to narrow the terms
of trade between the two countries," said Pahad.

The Iranian government has also given South Africa proposals on
furthering ties in technical training, agriculture and security,
in the context of progress in the New Partnership for Africa's
Development, said Pahad.

The two countries have memoranda of understanding on tourism and
environmental affairs in order to increase tourism between the
countries and to discuss the effects of climate change.

The situation in the Middle East was also discussed at the
meeting.

"Iran is vital to finding solutions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the
Middle East," said Pahad. He said Azizi was briefed on South
Africa's efforts to aid the peace process in the region.

Pahad said Azizi was also briefed on the African stance on
reform in the United Nations, and Iran in turn briefed South
Africa on its stance.

"It is agreed that there should be transparency and more
representivity in the Security Council," said Pahad.

The Iranian delegation will be in the country until Wednesday.
-- Sapa  

www.mg.co.za

All material copyright Mail&Guardian.                           
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Two Koreas Agree on Cooperation, Rice Aid
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday July 12, 2005 12:16 AM

By JI-SOO KIM 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea agreed Tuesday to provide
the communist North with 500,000 tons in rice aid as the
countries vowed to boost economic ties after Pyongyang announced
it would end its boycott of international nuclear disarmament
talks. 

After negotiations lasting through the night, the two Koreas
also agreed the South would give the North raw materials to help
it produce clothes, shoes and soap for internal consumption by
its impoverished population. 

In return, the South will be given investment rights into North
Korean mining operations for zinc, magnesite and coal, the sides
said in a joint statement. 

The rice shipment is the largest since 2000, when leaders of the
two Koreas met in a landmark summit that paved the way for
reconciliation despite the countries remaining technically at
war after the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a
peace treaty. 

Cooperation after the 2000 summit has been limited by the
North's refusal to meet international demands it abandon its
nuclear weapons. However, hopes for a resolution of the standoff
rose over the weekend when the North said it would return to
arms talks that it has refused to attend since June 2004, citing
``hostile'' U.S. policies. 

The goodwill over the nuclear talks' planned resumption later
this month was reflected in the ambitious array of economic
initiatives brought forth by the two countries. 

Pyongyang was enthusiastic in its talks with Seoul, reflecting
its need for outside assistance that it depends on to maintain
its economy. The joint statement Tuesday said the two Koreas
would combine the South's capital and skill with the North's
cheap labor and resources to carry out ``a new way of economic
cooperative projects.'' 

The North and South agreed to conduct a pilot run in October of
reconnected railroad links across their heavily armed border and
stage an opening ceremony of restored roads. 

The two Koreas also will open an economic cooperation
consultation office at a joint industrial zone just north of
their border. 

Official contacts between the Koreas resumed in May following a
10-month hiatus after the North was angered by mass defections
to the South. In high-level talks last month, the two sides
agreed to renewed talks and a resumption of reunions between
relatives separated by the border. 

The economic talks are the 10th such meetings since 2000. The
next round was scheduled for September in Pyongyang. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP:North Korea agrees to respond to US plan to end nuclear row -
    
Monday July 11, 06:23 AM

PHUKET, Thailand (AFP) - North Korea has agreed to give a
detailed response to a US-led aid-for-disarmament proposal when
it returns to nuclear talks later this month, senior US
administration officials said.

 The one-year-old proposal, which Washington says is
comprehensive but Pyongyang sees as too stringent, is key to the
success of the six-party talks comprising the United States, the
two Koreas, Japan, South Korea and China.

 North Korea's Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan agreed in a
surprise move Saturday that Pyongyang would return to the
negotiations from July 25, after the talks were stalled for more
than a year.

 At a dinner meeting, Kim also told US Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian Affairs Christopher Hill that Pyongyang
would respond to the US plan at the talks in Beijing, said the
officials accompanying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on
her four-nation Asian trip.

 Hill had asked Kim whether North Korea was prepared to give a
detailed response to the US proposal "and he said they would,"
one of the officials told reporters on the plane taking Rice to
Thailand from her first stop, China.

 She will fly to Japan later Monday and proceed to South Korea
the next day.

 The North Koreans claimed they have responded to the proposal
using their state media but Hill told Kim "it would be fair to
do it in a meeting and he said, 'yes'," the official said.

 At the last round of talks in June 2004, the United States
tabled a proposal at the six-party talks offering Pyongyang
three months to shut down and seal its nuclear weapons
facilities in return for economic and diplomatic rewards and
multilateral security guarantees.

 It was seen as the first significant overture to Pyongyang
since Bush took office in early 2001 and branded the North part
of an "axis of evil" alongside Iran and pre-war Iraq.

 But the North Koreans rejected the proposal, according to
official media, because there were excessive upfront obligations
by Pyongyang and highly intrusive inspections as well as an
agreement for complete dismantling of all of its nuclear
facilities.

 Pyongyang instead wanted a step by step approach to weaning
away from its nuclear program.

 "That is why we need to hear from them in a comprehensive way
what their concerns are," the US official said, citing the need
for a written North Korean response to the proposal.

 "If they have concerns about the sequencing and the
frontloading, they need to tell us that in a fairly systematic
way what precisely is so frontloaded."

 The nuclear standoff flared in October 2002 when Washington
accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons programme based
on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.

 On February 10 this year, North Korea announced it had nuclear
weapons, a move analysts warn could set the pace for a nuclear
arms race in the Korean peninsula.

 The US proposal may be modified or expanded later with South
Korean inputs if North Korea moved swiftly to drop its nuclear
weapons program, officials said.

 Reports suggest South Korea was planning a huge injection of
assistance, including energy aid, similar to the US Marshall
Plan that was key to putting western Europe back on its feet
after World War II.

 Rice, who is visiting Thailand's tsunami-hit Phuket island
Monday, is expected to discuss the Seoul plan with South Korean
leaders on her visit.

 She said the plan "shows the North Koreans that there is a path
ahead if they wish to take advantage of the six-party talks.

 US officials also said that the new round of the talks could be
held for a longer period to ensure concrete results. Previous
rounds were held for about three days each and have not been
very engaging.

 "I suspect it is going to be a bit longer than previous rounds.
Most people feel that previous rounds, there were too much time
in between the rounds and the rounds themslevs were too short,"
the official said. 

Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 4 Asia Times: Korea News and Korean Business and Economy, Pyongyang
 										                												 												
Upping the ante in a deadly nuclear game 

By William R Polk 

(Republished with permission from Japan Focus) 

Note: North Korea at the weekend said that it would return to
the six-party talks on its nuclear program as "the US side
clarified its official stand to recognize the DPRK [Democratic
People's Republic of Korea] as a sovereign state, not to invade
it, and hold bilateral talks within the framework of the
six-party talks". It is expected that the talks, which will also
involve China, Russia, Japan, the US and South Korea, will be
held sometime this month in Beijing, where the first three
rounds of talks were staged more than a year ago. 

The Guardian of June 9 reported the disappearance from the
International Atomic Energy Agency of a set or sets of detailed
engineering plans for making nuclear materials and weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). While there never have been any
significant scientific secrets on the nuclear bomb, there has
been somewhat restricted engineering information that would
enable others to speed up, make more cheaply and avoid obvious
tell-tale aspects of acquisition. Now we must assume that
production information is widely available. 

It appears that this is a more important stage in the increasing
insecurity of the world than may have been realized. Perhaps one
sign of this lack of recognition is that, to the best of this
author's knowledge, the story of the disappearance of the
engineering data did not appear in The New York Times, The
Washington Post or other major American newspapers. Yet, the
presumed availability of this information moves us, potentially
at least, into a dangerous new phase of the spread of WMD: what
was once only theoretical, the so-called "nth nation" threat –
"the proliferation of nuclear weapons to an indeterminate but
increasingly significant number of states that now do not have
them" - is or soon might be a reality. Worse, the "classical"
definition of the "nth nation" must now be redefined as the "nth
group" since we have to assume that whether or not they now can
acquire nuclear weapons, circumstances are likely to arise soon
in which groups that are not nation-states will be able to do
so. 

It follows that whatever the United States government is now
doing to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is not working.
Indeed, US decision to revert to building a bigger, more
flexible (read "usable") and more integrated nuclear force -
that is a nuclear force that is not just a last resort but one
that is considered an integral part of America's "normal" or
on-going security policy - and the decision to pull back from
treaties aimed at stopping testing and cutting back inventories
of weapons are pushing the world away from "security" toward
Armageddon. 

In 1968, the US negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
in which it pledged to work toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons, yet today, almost 40 years later, the US maintains
approximately 8,000 nuclear weapons, some 2,000 of which are on
a "hair trigger alert"; that is, President George W Bush could
launch them within 15 minutes. And it has announced plans to add
to these existing weapons. In 2004, the US government voted
against reaffirming the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
which it apparently felt restricted its announced intention to
develop a range of new weapons, including what Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined in a Senate hearing as a
"robust nuclear earth penetrator". 

Numerous other pronouncements cover "up-grading" the main
nuclear force, putting weapons in outer space, etc. Former
secretary of defense Robert McNamara has characterized this
policy as "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and
dreadfully dangerous". 

Subsidiary to the NPT is the 1970 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
that was extended indefinitely in 1995. The purpose of this
treaty was to block an important step in the process of building
bombs. To give itself the scope to test its own weapons, the
Bush administration has decided not to be bound by this treaty.
And, while the administration announced a partial reduction of
its 5,300 "operationally deployed nuclear warheads", it merely
moved these to a reserve category rather than destroying them.
Thus, it has set an example which presumably other nations will
follow. 

The good news in this somber picture is that, as former
assistant secretary of defense Ashton Carter pointed out, the US
helped to dissuade Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and
Turkey from going "nuclear". However, this abstinence may be
only temporary. Since Carter wrote his account it was revealed
that at least Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had carried
experiments to the point that they could quickly "weaponize"
their stocks of nuclear materials. 

The US cannot be blamed for the spread of nuclear weapons to
China, India and Pakistan, each of which had "regional" reasons
to acquire weapons, nor can it claim credit for the decision of
Argentina, Brazil and South Africa to renounce nuclear weapons.
They did so, apparently, because they had no regional rivals
against whom they needed protection. Carter asserts, "A peaceful
and just world order led by the United States is the reason why
only a few of the world's nearly 200 nations are proliferation
'rogues'." This may have been true in the past, but more
recently America's failure to carry out the obligation it
assumed in the NPT to work toward a world-wide reduction of
weapons, its decision to push ahead with its own weapons program
in violation of the treaty, its preparations to resume testing,
its invasion of Iraq (allegedly to stop nuclear weapons
development) and its threats to other countries, have
undoubtedly accentuated rather than diminished the clear and
present danger in which today we live. 

Since we have lived under the nuclear threat for over half a
century, many of us have probably put out of our minds just what
a nuclear bomb can do. Having myself participated in the US
government "Crisis Management Committee" during Cuban missile
crisis, taken part in the war games and other studies subsequent
to it and discussed with my Russian counterparts the details of
nuclear war, that memory is still painfully vivid to me. But in
case it is not for others, let me briefly open one small window
on it. The 2000 Report of the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, which McNamara quotes, gives the
result of the explosion of just one small (one-megaton) weapon: 

+ A crater as deep as a football field is long and as large as
about 40 or 50 football fields
 
+ A fireball that immediately kills all life within a
considerably larger area and severely or lethally burns everyone
within about 3 miles
 
+ All or most buildings flattened within about 12 miles. Those
effects are virtually instantaneous
 
+ Hundreds of thousands or millions more people will quickly be
incinerated in resulting firestorms
 
+ Such survivors as there may be, would be burned, without any
means of medical attention; starving, without any succor;
terrified, without any hope, and will soon be struck down by
radiation. 

Such a small modern bomb is roughly 70 times the power of the
bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One would utterly
destroy most cities. Used in numbers they would destroy whole
civilizations. 

In addition to the huge inventories of the US and Russia
(totaling 8,000 to 10,000 warheads), Britain, France, Israel and
China each have at least 200 and perhaps twice or three times
that number; India and Pakistan may each have 100 and North
Korea is believed to have six comparable bombs. 

After a certain point, numbers cease to have much strategic
meaning. As I have shown above, the horror that would be
produced by the explosion of even one small bomb makes military
action virtually unthinkable against any nuclear state.
Unthinkable, that is, except as a deterrent or when a truly
"rogue" government is prepared to commit suicide and lose
hundreds of thousands or millions of its citizens. 

So, in strategic terms, acquisition of even half a dozen weapons
gives the holder virtual immunity from attack. Thus, regimes
that fear attack can be expected either to attempt to acquire
nuclear weapons or at least to give themselves the option to do
so in case of need. That is the pressing issue we face today. 

Acquiring weapons is not, of course, the same as using them,
although America sometimes does not draw that distinction in
evaluating the presumed intentions of other states. So what does
the Bush administration tell us of its intentions? The latest
expose of its military policy is the March 2005 National Defense
Strategy of the United States of America. [1] It proclaims that
"America is a nation at war" and warns that "at the direction of
the president, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place,
and in the manner of our choosing ..." 

The strategy paper posits an array of "challenges" that the
American government holds to be the modern equivalents to
"traditional military action". [2] (That is, "aggression" as
defined in international law) These include "catastrophic
challenges [which] involve the acquisition, possession and use
of WMD or methods producing WMD like effects [and] disruptive
challenges [which] may come from adversaries who develop and use
breakthrough technologies to negate current US advantages in key
operational domains." 

Three things in this statement immediately stand out: first,
America regards these "challenges", including seeking a
deterrent to attack as tantamount to attack; second, the paper
indicates America's determination to project its current
"advantages" to "key operational domains" which in light of
other pronouncements and actions effectively encompass the whole
world; and, third, the administration publicized – even on the
Internet - what in my time in government would have been
regarded as a top-secret national policy paper. 

Putting these three points together, it is clear that the
pronouncement is not so much a policy directive as a warning to
actual or potential rivals or enemies. Translated, it means that
states that move toward parity with the US even in their own
neighborhoods (as the paper puts it, "evolve into capable
regional rivals or enemies") are in danger of being attacked.
Lest there be any doubt, the paper proclaims that "Proliferation
of WMD technology and expertise makes contending with
catastrophic challenges an urgent priority [and we will acquire
means] ... when necessary to defeat them before they can be
employed ... when deterrence fails or efforts short of military
action do not forestall gathering threats, the United States
will employ military power ... In all cases, we will seek to
seize the initiative and dictate the tempo, timing, and
direction of military operations ... These include preventive
actions ..." 

States that have been told they are in the target zone have
included Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria. Iraq has been, at
least for the time being, eliminated as an extra-territorial
challenge although, of course, it remains a major adversary to
American policy domestically and Syria is at least temporarily
in less imminent threat. 

Since the president's 2002 "axis of evil" speech, the list of
enemy nations has been expanded to include Cuba, Belarus,
Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Current attention is focused on North
Korea and Iran. What is being planned or prepared to deal with
them are among the most critical issues facing our country, but
I do not find that they have been given the careful attention
they deserve. Here I will briefly look at what has been
happening in and to North Korea and Iran and attempt to evaluate
how developments fit what I think is the evolving pattern.
Finally, I will draw the policy implications and suggest what
Americans might do to enhance their security in light of them. I
begin with North Korea. 

Target: North Korea 
In my government and business experience, I learned that it is
often useful to imagine oneself on "the other side of the table"
and to try to think (or as war gamers put it, "program") what
motivates the other fellow, what he is likely to do and what
effect his doing it would have on those on our side of the
table. So I will try to think as though I were a North Korean
policy planner or intelligence analyst for the next few minutes.
What has shaped North Koreans may not be familiar to everyone so
I begin by identifying what I assume are the things have created
their "mindset". 

North Korea was first invaded by Japan in 1592. Using the first
"weapon of mass destruction", the newly invented gun, the
Japanese overwhelmed the Koreans, who then had only bows and
arrows. Though that invasion ultimately failed, Korea was
annexed to Japan in 1910 and spent much of the next half-century
under a brutal and degrading occupation. In the North in the
late 1930s, an anti-Japanese movement under a former student at
an American Christian mission, Kim il-Sung, waged guerrilla war
on the Japanese. Then in 1945, American and Russian troops drove
out the Japanese and divided their occupation zones at the 38th
parallel. America sponsored the creation of a government in the
South and in 1948 declared the Republic of Korea at Seoul. That
government was recognized by the United Nations as the
legitimate power in the whole peninsula. 

In the North, furious at what he regarded as an American plot to
divide Korea and ideologically driven, Kim proclaimed a rival
republic. In 1950, believing that the US (which had withdrawn
its forces from the South) had no strategic interest in Korea
and charging that the leaders of the South were "quislings" who
had collaborated with the Japanese, Kim attacked the South. In
three months, his forces had occupied almost all the southern
part of the peninsula. Then the quickly reintroduced American
troops counterattacked and in October, General Douglas MacArthur
reached the Yalu river, at which point the Chinese intervened.
Russian "volunteers" also flew for the North Koreans. Fighting
swayed back and forth across Korea. By the time an armistice was
worked out in July 1953, 3 million Koreans had died and the
whole peninsula had been badly mauled. 

Since then, North Korea has evolved into a brutal, totalitarian
state. Today, it has few foreign friends or allies and feels
itself surrounded and targeted, especially by the US. Excluded
from most beneficial contacts and trade, it has developed, at
almost unbearable human cost – with its people squeezed down to
only two meals a day and otherwise deprived to save resources -
a powerful military-industrial complex that has now produced
nuclear weapons and, apparently, sophisticated means to deliver
them. 

That is to say that after years of suffering and privation, it
has crossed the threshold that separates the period of
"acquisition" from the period of "possession" of sufficient
nuclear weapons capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on
potential attackers and/or their nearby allies. It could
devastate South Korea, wipe out Tokyo and/or ravage Taiwan. The
US Defense Intelligence Agency conceded that North Korea
"probably now has nuclear-armed missiles capable of hitting US
soil". In the face of this growing threat, as The New York Times
editorialized on May 17, "Washington appears to have no clear
strategy ... That is true because once a state actually acquires
even a miniature nuclear arsenal, it acquires military immunity
since it is far too 'expensive' to attack, even if small and
poor." 

Nuclear weapons, moreover, are not North Korea's only military
asset: in addition to an army estimated at 1 million soldiers,
it has massed an estimated 10,000 cannon within range of the
capital of South Korea and, if attacked, would almost certainly
obliterate Seoul. (In that area, the 37,000 US troops are more
hostage than protector.) At huge cost, it has built a vast
complex of factories and virtual cities underground – in which
allegedly at least 20,000 laborers are employed – and so is
essentially immune to aerial strikes. It is thus both a pariah
in the international community and one that is capable of
defending itself. 

It is clear, I think, even from a brief review of its history,
that North Korea is a wounded society. Remembering generations
of humiliating foreign rule, it is intensely xenophobic. Poor,
nearly starving and deprived in almost every sphere, its
citizens must want a better, easier, less frightening way of
life. That, I take it, is the national interest of Korea.
Outside observers often stop with national interest in
evaluating how a nation state will act or what incentives or
pressures it will respond to. This is a mistake. Quite apart
from national interest, indeed sometimes diametrically opposed
to it, is interest of government. The North Korean government,
at whatever cost to the country, is determined to stay in power.
Kim il-Sung's son and successor, Kim Jong-il must know that
"regime change" is a euphemism for his overthrow and murder.
What America has been saying and doing can only have underlined
his sense of personal threat and, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
so strongly has he reacted that he virtually disbanded his own
political party, the Korean Workers Party, and placed all of his
hopes and most of his resources on his huge and well pampered
army. 

Bellicose pronouncements such as Bush's labeling North Korea a
part of "axis of Evil" and proclaiming in March 2004 that the US
would not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea have been underlined
by such actions as holding naval maneuvers off North Korea in
October 2004, sending F111 stealth fighter-bombers to positions
in range to attack Pyongyang, the creation or upgrading of main
operating bases (unfortunately named in the military acronym
"MOBs" ) within range to attack the North and cutting off oil
supplies to the already impoverished nation. Kim must know that
in the face of this threat, he personally has little or no room
for negotiation. 

This, in brief, is what I guess a North Korean policy planner
would start with. So how would he advise his government. Putting
myself in his shoes, I guess that he would advise that, in light
of American pronouncements and actions, North Korea would be
foolish to give up its nuclear force. Indeed, to deter an
American attack, it should enhance its military capacity.
Psychologically, moreover, it should seek to convince the US
that it would fight the Americans and their allies, with what
the Israelis called the "Samson option", that is, even to the
point of national suicide. Further threats are likely only to
convince the North Korean government of its danger and so
increase its determination to protect itself at any cost.
Someone must be giving Kim this advice for it is exactly what
North Korea is doing. It recently closed down its
electricity-producing nuclear reactors to extract some 8,000
only partially-used fuel rods which will yield enough plutonium
for at least one more bomb. (International Herald Tribune, April
19). 

It follows that approaching North Korea in the terms of the
"National Defense Strategy of the United States of America" is
self-defeating. 

Target: Iran 
Can Iran be addressed in terms of the 2005 national defense
strategy with a different result? Unlike North Korea, which
certainly already possesses nuclear weapons, intelligence
specialists believe that Iran is still in the "acquisition"
phase. That is, it appears not yet to have a weapon or weapons,
but it is probably attempting to, and may soon, acquire them.
Arguably, [3] then, in this pre-nuclear weapons period, America
has room for a much more aggressive policy on Iran than on North
Korea. 

At least theoretically, America could attack, overwhelm the
country and abort Iran's program to acquire nuclear weapons.
Alternatively, it could deliver an aerial strike with aircraft
or missiles on nuclear or other facilities, as Israel did in
1981 on the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. The Israelis have
threatened to do the same to Iran. The aim would be either or
both to destroy the facilities or so damage Iranian
infrastructure as to humiliate and perhaps topple the regime. Is
this a real possibility? And is the US willing for Iran to try
it? First the possibility. 

The current weapon of choice is the so-called "bunker buster",
the B61-11. Engineering studies indicate that such a weapon
could not penetrate more than five times its length. To burrow
50 meters, it would have to be 10 meters long. At that length,
it would likely crack in half on impact. In a test on the frozen
Alaskan tundra, it failed to penetrate more than about three
meters. Apparently, it was unable to penetrate at all through
granite or reinforced concrete, even when from dropped from
40,000 feet and traveling at 300 meters a second. 

Since at least the major Iranian sites are believed to be
hundreds of meters below layers of granite, they are presumably
immune to this much publicized weapon. [4] Recognizing this,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined to a Congressional
Committee plans for a "robust nuclear earth penetrator". Such a
weapon, armed even with a tiny nuclear devise (1 kiloton
equivalent) would throw up about 1 million cubic meters of
radioactive soil. But it would do little harm to a deeply buried
site. From my personal experience with military planners, I
assume that consequently they have proposed to increase the
explosive force, that is, to move up from 1 kiloton toward 1
megaton, with results approaching those outlined at the
beginning of this essay. 

Would America be willing to use such a device or encourage or
assist others to do so? The answer is yes. In a highly
publicized move, the US gave the Israelis both 102 long-range
aircraft (the F-16i) and 500 one-ton (conventional-explosive
armed) "bunker buster" bombs, some 4,000 other powerful bombs
and related guidance equipment that they would need to carry out
such a strike. And when asked whether the US might ask Israel to
act against Iran, Vice President Dick Cheney replied that "the
Israelis might well decide to act first". 

Alternatively, the US could attempt through covert action to
bring about a coup detat, as it did in Iran in 1952 against the
government of prime minister Muhammad Mossadegh. Or, finally, it
could decide to put ground troops into the country, as it has
done in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Thus, a sober Iranian government should be amenable to threats.
Is this likely? 

Were I planning policy for the Iranian government, I would
carefully study the recent history of Iraq to see what might be
in store for me. Here is what I would see: In the 1980s, with
considerable help from America and Britain, Saddam was making
progress toward acquisition of nuclear weapons. Flush with oil
revenues, he hired experts and bought supplies from many
sources. No one in the Ronald Reagan or first Bush
administrations tried to deter him because he was regarded as
useful in containing or defeating Iran. So, as an adviser to the
Iranian government, I would at least question how determined
America is, in principle, to stop the acquisition of nuclear
weapons. Perhaps, I would guess, there is some flexibility in
the American policy. After all, America accommodated to China,
Israel, India, Pakistan and other countries' acquisition of
them. It now is accommodating to North Korea's arsenal of
nuclear weapons. 

With American help, Saddam did defeat Iran, but his war efforts
bankrupted him. Fearing that his own supporters would turn
against him unless he could keep fueling the economy on which
their private wealth depended, he appealed to Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and Abu Dhabi both to help him with further loans and to
stick to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
production quotas to keep up the price of oil. Kuwait responded
that since the danger of Iran had disappeared, it no longer had
any interest in financing Iraq; worse, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi far
exceeded their OPEC quotas and thus forced down the price of oil
from roughly $19 to $11 a barrel. Saddam became desperate enough
to try to rob the Kuwait bank. That was a fatal mistake: he did
not have a conventional military machine capable of defending
Iraq and lacked the trump card of a nuclear weapon while he was
challenging America in the one area it would not tolerate
interference, access to energy. So in 1991, the first Bush
administration threw him out of Kuwait. Had these events taken
place later, when he had acquired a nuclear weapon, the Persian
policy planner could reasonably doubt that the US would have
moved militarily against him. But the timetable was dictated by
forces he could not control. 

Then, despite sanctions and other restraints during the Bill
Clinton administration, Iraq's economic condition improved. The
price of oil rose and the Iraqis rebuilt what had been destroyed
in the invasion. Saddam concluded that the prospects for his
regime were favorable enough that he should not, at least for
the time being, take the risk of restarting his program to
acquire nuclear weapons. He did not even keep his conventional
military force up to date. This abstention made him more
vulnerable. Since no army he could ever have built would have
matched the Americans, Saddam paid the supreme price for not
having nuclear weapons. His lack of nuclear weapons made it
possible for the second Bush administration to attack him in
2003. 

So, as an Iranian, I would draw the lessons that, first,
abstaining from trying to acquire nuclear weapons would not
protect me and that, second, I should take no bold action until
my own program actually produced them. 

Turning from what happened in Iraq, what America might do to
Iran, an Iranian policy planner or intelligence analyst would
see a rising tide of threat: being told that Iran is part of the
"axis of evil", he would note that it is subjected to various
sanctions and attempts (through pressure on European commercial
suppliers) to prevent it from acquiring the means to defend
itself. Iranian intelligence would report that for much of the
last two years, the Americans have been over-flying Iran,
pin-pointing targets as they did in Iraq before their 2003
invasion and press attaches stationed in Europe would forward
Western press reports that America has infiltrated into Iran
teams of special forces commandos. (Seymour Hirsch, The New
Yorker, January) More disturbing still, they read on the
Internet the National Defense Strategy of the United States of
America, which states baldly (Section III/B/2) how the Americans
are creating "MOBs" from which they can quickly and relatively
easily "employ military power". A glance at the map shows that
Iran is almost completely surrounded by military bases in Iraq,
Qatar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey. If I am in any doubt
about the capability and intent, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Rumsfeld publicly removed it: they said that "a US
attack on Iran is not imminent but that the option remains
available". 

Under these circumstances, what would an Iranian policy planner
advise his government to do? Soberly, he would have to face the
fact that Iran has even less conventional military capacity than
Saddam had. He would conclude that Iran's only hope would be to
make an invasion so costly that the US would be deterred. To
accomplish this, Iran has four assets: The first is that, if
attacked, Iran could mount a guerrilla war. Prudently, an
Iranian policy planner would urge the government to prepare
itself. That advice has been taken. The Associated Press
reported on March 26 that "Iran is quietly building a stockpile
of thousands of high-tech small arms and other military
equipment – from armor-piercing rifles to night-vision goggles
... [despite U.S.] sanctions on dozens of companies worldwide
..." 

As a member of the Iranian governing coalition, the policy
planner would be aware that the governing religious
establishment is not popular with many Iranians, but he would
also know that Iranians are firm nationalists. No more than the
Iraqis in 2003 or the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961
would Iranians be out in the streets with flowers in their hands
welcoming foreign troops. The 150,000 members of the
Revolutionary Guard would spearhead a guerrilla resistance. They
showed their fanatical devotion to their country during the
Iraq-Iran war and almost certainly would do so again. Iran is
large and has several times the population of Iraq; so it could,
and almost certainly would, fight a protracted guerrilla war. 

Iran's second asset is that an attack on it is unlikely to be
popular in America. Still mired in the Iraqi "quicksand", and
not doing well there, even senior American military officers
believe the war could last for many years and could still fail.
British predictions are even more pessimistic: some senior
British officials speak of "a decades-long problem" (The
Observer, February 13). America is also still far short of
"victory" in Afghanistan and is encountering a bloody Taliban
resurgence. 

Consequently, Americans would probably not have much stomach for
another guerrilla war. There are also signs that Americans are
no longer exactly "flocking to the colors" and that the American
military is being forced to lower its standards to meet its
manpower needs. Public opinion polls report that less than half
(42%) of the American population now approves of the Bush
administration and only one in three Americans approves of its
Republican-dominated and relatively bellicose Congress. 

The third asset is that, unlike remote and isolated North Korea,
Iran has foreign friends and allies. Shi'ism is a vital part of
Islam and has millions of adherents outside of Iran. The oil of
Saudi Arabia is produced in the largely Shi'ite Eastern
province. Shi'ites constitute large parts of the populations of
the Gulf states, Pakistan and even Turkey. In Lebanon, the most
powerful single political group, Hezbollah, is a Shi'ite-based
movement. And, of course, Iraq now has a Shi'ite-led government.
(Paradoxically, ensuring the success of the Iraqi Shi'ite
establishment (the marjiyah) was the most significant gift of
America to Iran. [5 ]) An American attack on Iran would push the
Iraqis Shi'ites into what has been heretofore a mainly Sunni
resistance; it would do more to unite Sunnis and Shi'ites than
any effort they could mount on their own behalf. Almost
certainly, eventually if not immediately, this would enormously
expand forces the Americans consider to be "terrorists", not
only in Iraq but throughout the Muslim world. Moreover, as they
have shown, Shi'ites are usually far more determined fighters
than any other group, including the Sunni followers of Osama bin
Ladin. 

Iran's fourth asset is that, unlike North Korea, it is a
significant trading partner with countries and multinational
corporations in much of Europe and Asia. So keen to do business
with Iran are many of them that they have flouted
American-imposed sanctions and have sought to work toward a
peaceful accommodation of Iran in the United Nations and the
European Union. Before, during and after the overthrow of the
Shah's government in 1979, this asset proved of great importance
to Iran. It will continue to be so. 

But, Persian intelligence analysts, like the rest of us, realize
that governments do not always act on rational assessments.
Sometimes they are driven by ideology or by political
considerations unrelated to the immediate issue. Sometimes they
engage in wishful thinking or listen to the siren song of those
who are desperate for their help. As in Iraq, exile groups tell
the Americans that the Iranian government is weak and that the
people are only waiting for a signal to overthrow it or that,
with a little help, they can do so. This assessment comes not
only from surviving members of the old regime but also from the
Mujahideen e-Khalq. So, despite what would appear to an Iranian
policy planner as logical, he would wish to be certain. The best
way to approach certainty would be to acquire nuclear weapons.
That, after all, is what all the other nuclear powers - the US,
the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, Israel, India,
Pakistan and now North Korea – have done. 

The "acquisition phase" is a time of great danger. Iranians must
assume that America, Israel and perhaps others will try to stop
Iran from actually getting nuclear weapons. Therefore, a prudent
Iranian policy planner would advise his government to move as
rapidly as possible. One objective would be to acquire a copy of
the engineering plans that disappeared from the International
Atomic Energy Agency; this might obviate the need for testing.
Perhaps this has already been done. A second prudent action
would be to deploy production facilities as secretly, widely and
deeply as feasible to make their destruction difficult or
impossible. This, too, has already been done. A third possible
action would be to purchase components on the world market. Iran
did purchase centrifuges from Pakistan. A fourth option would be
to try, if possible, to buy a completed weapon. No one knows if
this has happened. 

(Parenthetically, to show that my hypothetical Iran policy
planner is not just a woolly minded Persian mullah, a
distinguished student of strategy at the Hebrew University in
Israel commented [6] that "had the Iranians not tried to build
nuclear weapons, they would be crazy".) 

During this dangerous acquisition period, which might last
until, perhaps, 2007 or 2008, a prudent Iranian government would
seek to throw dust in the eyes of would-be attackers. The "dust"
could consist of the claim that Iran's program is purely for the
production of energy and so is both peaceful and legal under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or that under appropriate
circumstances Iran would drop work on weapons. Diplomatically,
it could hold endless discussions on terms and conditions with
the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the European Union
and its component governments, and, even if indirectly, with the
US, seeking to drive a wedge between the Americans and other
powers. [7] Numerous articles in the press show that this is
exactly what has happened. [8] 

Evidently, Iran has decided to press ahead with acquisition of
at least the potential to acquire nuclear weapons. 

Notes 
[1]
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/nds-usa_mar200
5.htm 

[2] The highlighted words appear thus in the policy paper. 

[3] A recent argument for this policy is given by Kenneth M
Pollack in The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and
America (New York: Random House, 2005). In a previous book, The
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, Pollack urged the
invasion of Iraq. He now says that his advice was wrong. 

[4] Benjamin Phelan "Buried Truths", Harpers, December 2004. 

[5] The Iraqi Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance won almost half the
votes in the recent election and dominates the government. Many
of its leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have
spent much of their lives in Iran, are close to its ruling
religious establishment, and share its beliefs. Its militia is
Iranian-trained. Even the Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, a
Sunni, has very close ties to Iran. 

[6] Martin van Creveld, "Israel planning to attack Iran?"
International Herald Tribune, August 21-22, 2004. 

[7] Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations commented in
the May 6 International Herald Tribune that Iran "has managed
its nuclear negotiations rather effectively [so that the] longer
the negotiations go on, the more likely it is that the United
States, and not Iran, will once more stand isolated". 

[8] The International Herald Tribune mostly drawing from The New
York Times: eg April 6, May 16, May 19. In the May 19 article,
Hossein Mousavian from the Supreme National Security Council was
quoted as saying. "Iran is 100% flexible, open, ready to
negotiation, to compromise on any mechanism, but not cession." 

William R Polk taught at Harvard from 1955 to 1961 when he was
appointed a member of the Policy Planning Council of the US
State Department. In 1965 he became professor of history at the
University of Chicago and founded its Middle Eastern Studies
Center. Subsequently, he also became president of the Adlai
Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. Among his books
are The United States and the Arab World, The Elusive Peace: The
Middle East in the Twentieth Century, and the just-published
Understanding Iraq. Other of his writings can be accessed on
www.williampolk.com. 

(Republished with permission from Japan Focus)   															
														
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 5 Korea Herald: EU policy on North Korea unchanged   

The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
 
With Britain holding the European Union Presidency for six
months starting July 1, the British Embassy here made clear the
EU's policy on the North Korean nuclear standoff and relations
with Pyongyang remain unchanged.

 Judith Gough, political counselor and spokeswoman at the
embassy here, told reporters, "We are in agreement with the
Republic of Korea. We both want a peaceful and diplomatic
solution to the nuclear issue in North Korea and we are both
committed to a nuclear free Korean Peninsula."

 The EU maintains a dialogue with North Korea and continues to
hold regular meetings in Pyongyang. All but two EU member states
have diplomatic relations with North Korea and five have
embassies in Pyongyang. The five are the United Kingdom, Sweden,
Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland while the other states
with relations are accredited either from Seoul or Beijing.

 "The EU continues to support the six-party talks. We want a
peaceful solution to the nuclear issue in North Korea. Enhancing
the EU's cooperation with North Korea will only be possible when
North Korea fully complies with its international
non-proliferation obligations but the fact that we maintain
political contact with North Korea demonstrates the EU's
commitment to a peaceful and democratic solution," said Gough.

 As part of its dialogue, the EU continues to raise the issue of
human rights with North Korea. It's been part of an ongoing
dialogue with North Korea. Human rights experts from the EU and
North Korea have participated in meetings. 

"We concentrated on a number of aspects during human rights
discussions. We continue to encourage North Korea to cooperate
with U.N. human rights bodies to give access visits by EU
specialists to look at their courts and penal institutions to
verify the correctness of the reports we see coming out of North
Korea.

 "We encourage them to sign the two remaining U.N. conventions
on human rights which they are not yet a party to which is the
convention against torture and convention against racial
discrimination," she said.

 The EU continues to provide humanitarian assistance to North
Korea. When North Korea made its first appeal for humanitarian
assistance in 1995 the EU responded to this appeal.

 By 2004, the European Commission allocated 400 billion won in
humanitarian projects in the country. "When we first started to
provide humanitarian assistance it was emergency food assistance
but that help has moved towards helping food security that's
providing fertilizer and expertise in the agriculture sector and
assistance with sanitation and water projects and reconstruction
and also in the provision of medical and health care.

 (yoav@heraldm.com)

2005.07.12
 
*****************************************************************
 6 FPIF News | NPT at a Crossroads
 
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:08:54 -0500 (CDT)

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New at FPIF
Working to make the United Statesa more responsible global leader and
partner
http://www.fpif.org/

July 11, 2005
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Introducing the latest policy analysis
from Foreign Policy In Focus

The NPT at a Crossroads
By Wade Huntley

The quinquennial Review Conference for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) ended in May producing no new ideas or proposals for strengthening the
NPT regime or for confronting the crucial challenges that the regime today
faces.  In the wake of this utter failure many nuclear disarmament advocates
have warned of the pending demise of the NPT regime.   

Take a deep breath.  The conference failure is not a catastrophe: the NPT
continues
to provide the worlds strongest means to constrain nuclear proliferation,
as it has for the past 35 years.  But the conference exposed deep chasms among
NPT member states across a range of issues that puts the NPT regime at an
important
crossroads and does imperil its long-term viability.

The NPT regime labors under great new strains, facing new challenges while
suffering an eroding unity of purpose among key member states.  Sustaining
the regimes ongoing successes and meeting todays emerging new challenges
requires strengthening the core bargain that defines the NPT  the linkage
between nonproliferation among non-nuclear states and disarmament by
nuclear-armed
states.  The deadlock at the NPT Review Conference reflects the breakdown of
that bargain.  The central question placing the NPT at a crossroads is whether
consensus on the bargain, and on a program of action flowing from it, can be
restored.

Paradoxically, the NPT is somewhat a victim of its own success: that todays
dangers are not quite as dire as the apocalyptic prospects at the depths of
the Cold War makes more difficult coalescing global public determination to
revivify the sense of urgency born of that earlier time.  But the NPTs past
success is more importantly a foundation for the future.  The task at hand
is not to replace or reinvent the NPT, but to build on this existing
foundation:
to usher the regime into the emerging post-Cold War nuclear era by empowering
it not only to meet this eras new challenges, but also to seize this eras
new opportunities to move meaningfully toward a nuclear-free world. 

Wade L. Huntley is the director of the Simons Centre for Disarmament and
Non-Proliferation
Research and is a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus
(http://www.fpif.org).

See new FPIF commentary online at:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/144
 
With printer-friendly pdf version at:
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0506crossrds.pdf
 
For related information see:
 
The Exception that Makes the RuleNorth Korea & the NPT
By Wade L. Huntley (May 2005)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0505npt.html
 
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review ConferenceProspects for Progress
By Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.) (May 2005)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0505nptrc_body.html
 
Coping with North Korea
By Wade L. Huntley (February 2003)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/korea2003_body.html
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For media inquiries:        Emily Schwartz Greco, emily@ips-dc.org 
202-297-5412

                                    Kyle Johnson, kyle@irc-online.org
505-388-0208

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Produced and distributed by FPIF:A Think Tank Without Walls, a joint program
of International Relations Center (IRC) and Institute for Policy Studies
(IPS).

For more information, visit http://www.fpif.org. If you would like to add a
name to the Whats New At FPIF list, please email:
communications@irc-online.org,
giving your area of interest.

Please consider becoming an IRC member or donor. You can join the IRC and make
a secure donation by visiting http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php. Thank
you.

Also see our Progressive Response newsletter at:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

InternationalRelationCenter(IRC)
http://www.irc-online.org/
Siri D. Khalsa
Outreach Coordinator
Email: communications@irc-online.org
P.O. Box 2178
Silver City, NM88062

Siri D. Khalsa
Communications Coordinator
International Relations Center (IRC)
siri@irc-online.org

IRC Projects Online:
IRC (www.irc-online.org)
FPIF (www.fpif.org)
Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org)
Self-Determination In Focus (www.selfdetermine.org)
Project Against the Present Danger (www.presentdanger.org)
*****************************************************************
 7 SF Chronicle: China's global bid for energy
 
Richard D'Amato 

Sunday, July 10, 2005

It is no secret that China is quickly transforming itself into a
global economic and military superpower. China's economy has
grown dramatically -- 9 percent in 2004 and more than 8 percent
in 2005 -- and its government is eager to feed its economy and
its upwardly mobile 1.8 billion people with natural resources
that it does not currently possess. 

The largest communist nation in the world thus has ambitious
plans to build and acquire vast energy reserves. China Daily has
reported that the country hopes to quadruple its nuclear-power
capability by 2020 by bringing online the first of four planned
nuclear reactors, representing a $54 billion investment. 

In addition, China has its eye on oil. Last month, a Chinese
government- owned oil company executed a hostile attempt to
break up a friendly merger between two U.S. oil companies,
Unocal and Chevron. It did so in order to get the country's
hands on one of the world's largest available oil and gas
assets. Its offer to gobble up Unocal represents only the latest
in a series of China's international energy investments. Its
state oil corporation has investments in roughly 26 nations,
including Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan,
Syria, Korea and Azerbaijan. 

China claims the Unocal takeover is not a government-supported
plan, but instead, simply a commercial transaction by the
publicly traded arm of its national oil company to create
"shareholder value." "We don't get a penny from the government,"
said Yang Hua, the chief financial officer of the Chinese oil
company. 

But as details of the Chinese company's takeover bid became
public, a multibillion-dollar subsidy by the Chinese government
and its central bank was revealed, some of it in the form of
zero-interest loans. Also worth noting is that the
"shareholders" for which the Chinese executives are allegedly
trying to create value are 70 percent controlled by the Chinese
government. 

In response to China's brazen energy grab, the House of
Representatives, in a landslide vote of 398-15, recently adopted
a proposal to essentially reject the China bid. This is the
political equivalent of swinging a sledgehammer through a
plate-glass window, and it signals a growing possibility that
Congress may attempt to derail the deal, or take other punitive
action, if the executive branch caves in to China. The House
Energy Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a colleague
of President Bush, is highly skeptical of the deal and has
announced hearings in the near future. The clumsy and
heavy-handed threats leveled by the Chinese government at
Congress to keep out of the way of this deal are sure to evoke
even stronger reaction. 

China's lightning-fast growth accounts for roughly 40 percent of
the increase in world demand for oil, and that pace is expected
to continue for another 15 years. Clearly, China will be
America's biggest competitor for limited oil and gas reserves in
the decades to come. With global demand for oil at it highest
level in history, it is safe to assume that any increase in
Chinese control of limited energy resources raises the
likelihood that China will divert these resources to feed its
burgeoning domestic economy. In the present market, where only 1
million to 1.5 million barrels per day of spare oil capacity
exists, any such diversion could throw regional markets off
balance and cause severe economic dislocations in the United
States, pushing oil and gasoline prices to unprecedented levels. 

Congress is rightly concerned that allowing China to purchase
Unocal poses an outright threat to national security and an
ominous precedent of more energy acquisitions to come.
Ultimately, however, it is not Congress that will block this
hostile takeover, but the Bush administration, which has the
legal responsibility to carefully scrutinize and judge the
Chinese proposal on the grounds that it threatens U.S. security
interests, particularly by denying U.S. access to crucial oil
reserves in an energy-scarce future. 

In addition, Unocal deploys highly advanced technology for the
production and exploration of oil and natural gas, including
sophisticated drilling and seismic technology and geographical
survey data. Many of these technologies have potential military
applications. Allowing them to be bought by a communist regime
that is already doing business with a number of countries
hostile to the United States would be a costly mistake. The
United States should strongly encourage China to abandon
mercantilist, acquisitive strategies for securing oil, and to
participate instead in the open, global oil market. In the
meantime, American efforts to develop alternative energy
resources are clearly long overdue and the only long-term safety
net against increasingly scarce resources. 

Richard D'Amato is chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission. 				
Page F - 5 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 8 RIA Novosti: Japan set to continue atomic submarine scrapping program
 
12/07/2005              

VLADIVOSTOK, July 11(RIA Novosti, Anatoly Ilyukhov) - Japan is
ready to continue implementing its program to dismantle
decommissioned nuclear submarines from the Russian Pacific
Fleet, a senior official said Monday. 

Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs Kawai Katsuyuki told
a Vladivostok news conference that the budget for the second
stage of the program, which envisaged the scrapping of five
submarines, four of them in the town of Bolshoi Kamen and one in
Vilyuchinsk (Kamchatka), had already been agreed. 

The program also includes the construction of ground storage
facilities for reactor blocks, because the floating storage
facilities in the Chazhma Bay near Vladivostok are a source of
concern for experts. 

The diplomat said the second stage of the program, financed by
the Japanese government, could proceed in fall. 

Katsuyuki also said that the Australian government had recently
said it was ready to fund the second stage of the program, which
is called Zvezda Nadezhdy (Star of Hope), and was ready to allot
some $6.7 million. 

Other countries in the Asian Pacific Rim had displayed an
interest in the ecological project, the official said. 

Katsuyuki said his visit to the Maritime Territory in Russia's
Far East had been held in an honest atmosphere, which allowed an
open exchange of opinions. He inspected the facilities to
dismantle submarines in Bolshoi Kamen, the Chazhma and Razboinik
bays, and exchanged opinions with officials in charge of the
facilities and Commander of the Pacific Fleet Viktor Fyodorov. 

Katsuyuki pledged to submit a report on the results of his visit
to the Japanese government. Japan will then formulate its
position for talks in Moscow next week on this basis. 

The implementation of the second stage of the program will be
continued in fall if the Moscow talks are a success.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 9 BBC: Mitsubishi in Westinghouse bid
 
Last Updated: Monday, 11 July, 2005
 
[Sellafield nuclear power plant in Cumbria]                             
BNFL is best known for its UK Sellafield reprocessing plant                                            
		

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan is preparing an offer to buy 
British Nuclear Fuel's US-based nuclear power station 
construction unit Westinghouse. 

The offer, which is expected to value the unit at around $1.8bn 
(£1bn), is not the first approach received by British state-owned 
BNFL. 

Mitsubishi Heavy may team up with Mitsubishi Corp or US firms to 
bid. 

Many countries, including China, are poised to expand their 
nuclear power plant construction. 

Cleaner technologies 

If BNFL wants to se Westinghouse, we want to buy Hideo Ikuno, 
spokesman for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries          

Mitsubishi is believed to be preparing the bid to head off US 
rival General Electric and to increase Mitsubishi's business 
outside Japan, where public sector projects have slowed. 

Critics of the proposed sale of Westinghouse by BNFL say it is 
shortsighted as high oil prices and environmental concerns mean 
demand for "cleaner" nuclear energy is set to rise. 

They say Westinghouse could make a lot of money advising China 
and other countries that have plans to build more power stations. 

Moreover, BNFL has announced that it has cut its losses by half 
to £144m. 

If Mitsubishi Heavy gets permission to acquire Westinghouse, it 
would be the first major foreign acquisition by the Japanese 
industrial equipment maker. 

Sensitive climate 

Mitsubishi Heavy denied that US sensitivity to foreign takeovers 
of energy firms would be a problem. 

[Professor Ian Fells]                           
Professor Fells finds BNFL's timing 'mystifying'                                                              

"We have conducted extensive research and don't expect such 
problems as far as US government approvals are concerned," Hideo 
Ikuno, a Mitsubishi spokesman, told Reuters. 

"Mitsubishi and Westinghouse have been in partnership for 40 
years and the two firms are in a complementary position. 

"If BNFL wants to sell Westinghouse, we want to buy," he said. 

BNFL said a sale would make sense if it is to deliver value to UK 
taxpayers. 

Rival bidders 

BNFL, which operates the Sellafield waste reprocessing plant in 
Cumbria and the UK's remaining older Magnox stations, said on 
Friday that it had already received a number of approaches for 
Westinghouse. 

Japan's Nihon Keizi newspaper said Areva Group of France, General 
Electric and a corporate acquisition fund are interested in 
buying Westinghouse. 

However, energy expert Professor Ian Fells of the Royal Academy 
of Engineering, described BNFL's decision to sell Westinghouse as 
"mystifying". 

"I and a lot of other people who follow the nuclear industry are 
mystified by this decision," he said. 

"Westinghouse is being sold off just before it looks like 
starting to make a serious amount of money." 

*****************************************************************
 10 [NukeNet] Observer Scarpelli wants NRC to amend renewal
 
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:32 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



------- Forwarded message -------
From: Edith <gbur1@comcast.net>
To: JerseyShoreNuclearWatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch] Observer    Scarpelli wants NRC to
amend renewal criteria
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:55:37 -0400

Observer


Scarpelli wants NRC to amend renewal criteria

Published in the Ocean County Observer 7/08/05

By LAWRENCE MEEGANStaff Writer

BRICK - Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli announced yesterday he is sending a
letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requesting them to amend their
criteria for renewing the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station's
operating license.

Ultimately, he said during yesterday's press conference at Bayside Park,
he would like to see the electric plant shut down.

The current operating license of the plant, located in Lacey, expires in
2009. If it is renewed it will continue operating until 2029.

"If they held the hearing today they would base their review on criteria
of 40 years ago," Scarpelli said. He added the criteria is flawed and too
narrow in scope.

"It is unacceptable," he said. "Ocean County has changed."

"Why would any government agency issue a renewal based on standards of 35
years ago?" he asked.

The most notable change has been the population growth, he said. Other
differences include changes in the industry's technology, plant safety,
dependence upon a single evacuation route, storage of spent fuel and the
current world terrorist climate.

"The NRC is one of the weakest agencies in Washington. We are hoping to
change that," he said.

"The NRC should be the toughest in Washington. Radiation materials are the
most dangerous substances on the planet," he added.

Scarpelli said he did not ask the Township Council to take part in his
petition of the NRC, and while he did invite a congressional delegation to
attend yesterday's press conference none of the three (Reps. James Saxton,
R-3rd; Christopher H. Smith, R-4th; and Frank Pallone, D-6th) were present.

Saxton and Smith were in Washington preparing for the Base Realignment and
Closure commission hearings. Pallone was speaking at a press conference in
Piscataway.

The mayor also said that based on previous conversations, his feelings
about Oyster Creek were not shared by the county freeholders.

"This is such a bold step," said Kelly McNicholas, a representative of the
New Jersey chapter of The Sierra Club. She called Scarpelli a brave man
for making his petition to the NRC.

Scarpelli said he did not consider the Oyster Creek renewal a political
issue because he is not running for re-election. He also said it was a
regional issue that might take on national significance.

He said he learned about the procedure for appealing the renewal criteria
while he attended an NRC presentation May 12. He will employ a similar
approach used by Andrew Spano, executive director of Westchester County,
N.Y., when that county struggled to get the Indian Point Nuclear Power
Plant closed.

"We support your participation," said Grace Costanzo, president of Jersey
Shore Nuclear Watch, Toms River.

"But we have no illusions about the NRC," she added. "They are a rubber
stamp for the nuclear industry. We anticipate that the NRC will deny this
petition in order to allow Oyster Creek to operate for another 20 years."

"The most important thing about this is it will educate the public, said
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch vice president Edith Gbur. "We learned from the
NRC turning down an earlier petition that you have to start at the grass
roots level."

The letter was co-signed by five other people from three environmental
organizations: Jeff Tittel, director of the N.J. chapter of the Sierra
Club, Trenton; Dina Mottola, executive director of the NJ Public Interest
Research Group, Trenton; and David Pringle, Peggi Sturmfels and Amy
Goldsmith from the N.J. Environmental Federation, Belmar.

The letter will be delivered to the NRC by attorney Michelle Donado, said
Scarpelli.

"It is our strong desire and prayer they will accept it," he said.

"The license review process works," said Gina G. Scala, ex-ternal
communications manag-er at Oyster Creek. "It is a thor-ough and vigorous
process."

"We have spent $1.2 billion in upgrading and enhancing our technology
since the plant be-gan commercial operations in 1969," she said.

"Our security programs were the most robust of any in the U.S. nuclear
industry even pri-or to Sept. 11," she said.

"Since 9/11 we spent more than $20 million on security. We meet or exceed
the NRC re-quirements."

The NRC has scheduled a hear-ing at the Ocean County Ad-ministrative
Building, 101 Hooper Ave., July 12, to discuss evacuation concerns in the
event of a nuclear problem.Staff writer Lawrence Meegan worked at Oyster
Creek for 15 years.

from the Ocean County Observer

Published on July 8, 2005

Click here to subscribe to the Ocean County Observer
Go Back

Copyright © 1997-2005 Asbury Park Press.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated
04/13/05).
Site design by Asbury Park Press / Contact us.
Copyright © 1997-2005 Asbury Park Press.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated
04/13/05).
Site design by Asbury Park Press / Contact us.
				



-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org

"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
  great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."

- Martin Luther King Jr.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.12/46 - Release Date: 7/11/05
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\attachment2463.dat"
*****************************************************************
 11 NRC: NRC Seeks Topic Suggestions for Next Year’s Regulatory Information Conference
 
News Release - 2005-10
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail:   
  No. 05-100     July 11, 2005   
  

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking suggestions
for topics and plenary sessions to be included in the next
Regulatory Information Conference (RIC), scheduled for March
7-9, 2006, in Rockville, Md. 

Topics at last years meeting included: regulatory trends,
risk-informed emergency reactor core cooling requirements, spent
nuclear fuel management, new reactor licensing and security in a
post-9/11 world. 

The goal of the RIC is to provide a forum for discussion of
challenging technical and regulatory topics by the NRC, industry
stakeholders and the public. Conference topic suggestions can be
submitted electronically through:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/. The
deadline for suggestions is Aug. 26, 2005. Those interested in
attending the conference will also be able to register through
that Web link beginning in December 2005. The conference will be
held at the Marriott Bethesda North, 5701 Marinelli Rd. For more
information, contact Sharon Bell at 301-415-1217 or Mary Glenn
Crutchley at 301-415-2338.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, July 11, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 12 Xinhua: cNZ's nuclear ban stays - PM   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-11 09:05:57   

    WELLINGTON, July 11 (Xinhuanet) -- New Zealand Prime
Minister Helen Clark has promised that New Zealand's nuclear ban
is here to stay. 

    She made the commitment at Sunday night's Auckland
commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the bombing of the
Rainbow Warrior ship. 

    Two decades ago, bombs were allegedly planted by French
agents in response to Greenpeace's protests against the French
nuclear testing program in the Pacific, sinking the Rainbow
Warrior and killing photographer Fernando Pereira. 

    Clark said the nuclear issue is just as relevant now as it
was 20 years ago when Greenpeace was protesting against nuclear
testing in the Pacific. 

    She said the possible combination of nuclear power
generation and terrorism make the ban on nuclear powered ships
in New Zealand's harbors even more relevant. 

    Clark said New Zealand government is prepared to talk to the
United States about the nuclear free policy but it will have to
be within the framework of current legislation. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3629 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39804-39808] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-92]                         
 
Impact for Approval of Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L 
at Eglin Air Force Base, FL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact for License Amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., 
Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: 
(817) 860-8100; e-mail: dbs@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 
[[Page 39805]] I. Introduction The Department of the Air Force 
(the licensee) submitted a decommissioning plan (DP) to the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Memorandum dated May 24, 
2002. Supplemental information was provided by Memoranda dated 
November 1, 2002, August 21, 2003, October 27, 2004, and January 
13, 2005. The licensee requested that the DP for Test Area C-74L 
at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) be approved. The NRC is considering 
the issuance of an amendment to Master Materials License 
42-23539-01AF which will approve the DP. If approved by the NRC, 
the licensee will be authorized to conduct decommissioning 
activities in accordance with the DP.
 
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support 
of this licensing action in accordance with the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 51. The EA was developed to provide sufficient 
evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI). Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has 
determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Proposed Action The proposed action 
is to approve the DP which will allow the licensee to conduct 
decommissioning in accordance with the procedures and processes 
provided in the DP. The approval of the DP would be accomplished 
by license amendment to NRC Materials License 42-23539- 01AF 
following the NRC decision that the DP meets the standards 
specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and related NRC guidance documents.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action The licensee intends to 
remediate Test Area C-74L and ultimately remove the site from its 
license (and the associated AFB radioactive material permit) 
because it no longer conducts NRC-licensed activities at this 
location. If the site is properly decommissioned, the licensee 
would then be in compliance with the Timeliness Rule requirements 
of 10 CFR 30.36, ``Expiration and Termination of Licenses and 
Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor 
Areas.'' Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Test Area 
C-74L is located in Walton County, Florida, within the 
north-central portion of Eglin AFB. The site is located 
approximately 14 miles northwest of the city of Niceville, 
Florida. The test area lies within Section 11 of Range 21 West, 
Township 2 North. The test area currently consists of a 4-acre 
radiologically controlled area, fire control/ballistics building, 
gun corridor, target area, well house building, drum storage 
area, and surrounding land.
 
From late-1974 to 1978, the area was used for pre-production 
testing of a gun system which used depleted uranium (DU) 
ammunition. The licensee elected to discontinue DU munitions 
testing at this location. An estimated 16,315 pounds of DU was 
expended at the site. Approximately 9,257 pounds of DU were 
collected and disposed of during remediation activities conducted 
between March 1978 and June 1987. The remainder of the material 
has since been remediated, was dispersed or vaporized as part of 
DU ordinance testing, or remains onsite and requires remediation.
 
The portions of the site that may have been contaminated with DU 
fragments include the ballistic building interior, ballistic and 
well house building exteriors, target area, 4-acre radiologically 
restricted grounds, and two drainage ditches. Previous 
radiological investigations included at least six soil sampling 
events that occurred between 1976- 1999. Limited reclamation 
activities have been conducted several times since 1980. A 
detailed site characterization study was conducted during 1999 
followed by additional limited characterization studies during 
2000-2001. At that time, the only area remaining to be remediated 
was the 4-acre radiologically controlled area.
 
The ballistic building interior was not expected to contain 
radioactive material in measurable quantities, in part, because 
the building was not used to store DU munitions. The well house 
building was constructed after completion of DU testing although 
the land beneath the building was not radiologically surveyed 
prior to construction. The exteriors of these two buildings may 
contain small amounts of contamination as a result of possible 
wind dispersion of DU fragments.
 
Two drainage ditches are located on site property. Sample results 
indicated measurable quantities of radionuclides above background 
values. The licensee does not expect to conduct remediation 
activities in these ditches because the residual radioactivity is 
expected to be at levels below the NRC-approved release criteria.
 
The radiological criteria for unrestricted use is provided in 10 
CFR 20.1402. This regulation states that a site will be 
considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual 
radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation 
results in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member 
of the public that does not exceed 25 millirems (0.25 mSv) per 
year, including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, 
and that the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels 
that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
 
Current NRC guidance (Section 2.5 of NUREG-1757, Volume 2, 
``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance'') recommends that 
licensees demonstrate compliance with the dose criteria by using 
dose modeling or derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) 
and final status survey results. The licensee's request to 
release the site for unrestricted use will be based on use of 
DCGLs and final status survey results. In the DP, the licensee 
proposes DCGLs for building interiors, building exteriors, 
equipment, and site soils. Through an internal review process, 
the NRC accepted the licensee's proposed building and equipment 
DCGLs, but rejected the licensee's proposed soil DCGL.
 
By Memorandum dated August 21, 2003, the licensee accepted the 
NRC's alternate proposal for soil DCGL.
 
Upon completion of the decommissioning project, the licensee is 
expected to submit the final status survey results to the NRC for 
review and approval. In addition, the NRC will conduct 
confirmatory sampling. If the results of the final status survey 
and any confirmatory surveys performed are below the NRC-approved 
DCGLs, the site will be found to be in compliance with the annual 
dose limit provided in 10 CFR 20.1402. If the surveys indicate 
that the results are above the DCGLs, then additional remediation 
may be necessary. Alternatively, the licensee will have to 
conduct an analysis to demonstrate that the survey results 
demonstrate compliance with the dose criteria.
 
The remediation activities will result in potential exposure of 
workers to radioactive material. The primary radionuclide of 
concern is uranium-238. The DU is expected to be in the form of 
solid uranium oxide or uranium metal fragments. The primary 
health hazard is inhalation of DU. The health effects from DU 
include both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two 
important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs. In 
general, the health consequences are determined by the physical 
and chemical form of the DU as well as the level and duration of 
exposure.
 
 
[[Page 39806]] To prevent potential health consequences from 
exposure to DU, the licensee has initiated a radiological safety 
program. External occupational exposure rates to DU is expected 
to be minimal based on previous exposure data. The internal 
exposure pathways will be controlled and monitored as necessary 
by the use of personnel protective equipment, strict hygiene 
practices, and air particulate and bioassay sampling. The 
licensee's proposed program for control of exposure to 
radioactive materials is typical for the type of work being 
conducted and is considered acceptable to the NRC to maintain 
occupational exposures within NRC limits.
 
The Air Force, or a contractor for the Air Force, will be 
responsible for packaging and transporting the low-level 
radioactive wastes. Remediation of the site may have short-term 
non-radiological health and safety risks caused by the 
excavation, packaging, and shipping of the residual radioactive 
material. These non-radiological impacts include the normal risks 
of exhuming the wastes with earth- moving equipment and 
transportation of the material to an out-of-state disposal 
facility. The risks include injury or death from a construction 
or transportation accident.
 
There should be minimal risk to members of the public from 
exposure to radioactive wastes during transport because the 
radionuclides of concern will be dispersed within the soil, 
contained in authorized shipping containers, and shipped in 
accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation requirements.
 
The reclaimed material will be transported to an out-of-state low 
level radioactive waste disposal facility licensed to accept and 
dispose of the wastes. The radiological health risks would be 
minimal to the workers of the disposal facility, in part, because 
the facility would have a radiation protection program in place 
to protect its workers. However, there is still a small risk of 
an occupational accident occurring while handling the waste 
material.
 
In summary, the combination of the NRC-approved DCGLs, the 
licensee's proposed final status survey results, and the NRC's 
confirmatory survey results should demonstrate that annual doses 
to future occupants of the site will be less than the NRC's 
radiological criteria for unrestricted use of the facility. 
Additional details of the licensee's radiation safety program and 
NRC-approved DCGLs will be provided in the NRC's Safety Analysis 
Report that will be used to support the licensing decision. 
Furthermore, the radiological impacts of releasing the site for 
unrestricted use are bounded by the impacts evaluated in 
NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support 
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.'' The proposed action will have 
a short-term detrimental effect on the impacted area. The 
licensee plans to scrap portions of the ground surface to remove 
any residual radioactive material. This action will result in 
destruction of the cover vegetation and top soil, and may create 
airborne dust. In response, the licensee plans to implement a 
program that will minimize any long term damage. Dust suppression 
methods will be utilized as necessary. The area will be 
backfilled and revegetated if scraped.
 
The site includes two drainage ditches. One ditch is located on 
the south side of the property and drains to the south-south 
east.
 
The second ditch is located in the northeastern portion of the 
property and drains towards the northeast. There are two streams 
in the vicinity of Test Area C-74L. Rocky Creek is located about 
700 feet (213 meters) south of the controlled area. A tributary 
to Rocky Creek is located about 1800 feet (549 meters) to the 
west of the site. A small dammed pond is located within the 
western tributary. The groundwater flow is anticipated to have a 
southward component towards Rocky Creek. Therefore, the 
remediation of the site has the potential for impacting the 
wildlife habitat in and around Rocky Creek.
 
The NRC consulted with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service because 
the reclamation of the site could have an impact on the habitat 
of a endangered species, the Okaloosa darter. Okaloosa darters 
are found only in the Choctawhatchee Bay drainage in Florida, 
where they inhabit vegetated sand runs of clear creeks. According 
to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, approximately 90 percent of 
the watershed drainage area in which the Okaloosa darter occurs 
is under the management of Eglin AFB.
 
To protect the darter's habitat, the licensee has taken or plans 
to take several actions. First, an earthen berm currently exists 
on the southern portion of the radiologically restricted area. 
This berm is expected to help prevent contaminated soil from 
leaving the controlled area. Silt fencing will be used as 
necessary to supplement the berm. Manual remediation of areas of 
elevated activities in lieu of heavy equipment will help reduce 
the need for mechanical removal of the top six inches of soil in 
some areas. Dust suppression methods, including water trucks, 
will be utilized as necessary to prevent the spread of windblown 
contamination during reclamation. A decontamination pad will be 
used as necessary to decontaminate equipment. The licensee 
believes that light rain will percolate into the ground, although 
heavy rains may transport some soil material into the two 
drainage ditches.
 
Scraped surface areas will be covered with plastic sheeting as 
necessary until backfilled.
 
With respect to other potentially endangered or threatened 
species, the licensee claims that the indigo snake has been seen 
in the vicinity of Test Area C-74L but does not live within the 
radiologically controlled area. Reclamation activities are not 
expected to adversely impact the habitat of the indigo snake on 
Eglin AFB ranges.
 
Further, the licensee claims that there are no red cockaded 
woodpecker colonies within Test Area C-74L. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service ultimately decided that the proposed action 
(reclamation of the site) was not likely to adversely affect 
resources protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. This conclusion was reported to the NRC by letter dated 
February 25, 2004.
 
The surficial groundwater is about 50-60 feet (15-18 meters) 
below land surface. Geologic literature indicates that the 
surficial aquifer beneath the site extends to approximately 125 
feet (38 meters) below land surface. The Pensacola Clay separates 
the surficial aquifer from the underlying Floridian aquifer 
system. The Pensacola Clay layer is about 160 feet (49 meters) 
thick, meaning that the drinking water aquifer is no less than 
285 feet (87 meters) below the land surface. The hydraulically 
impenetrable Pensacola Clay layer would be expected to prevent 
any contamination that might be present in the surficial 
groundwater from reaching the Floridian aquifer system even if 
the surficial groundwater was contaminated with DU.
 
The licensee has conducted site characterization studies and 
concluded that the land surface contamination of DU has not 
impacted the groundwater. Most contamination is found within the 
first 6 inches (15 centimeters) of soil except in selected 
locations. In these discrete locations, contamination is no more 
than 4 feet (1.2 meters) below the land surface. There are two 
drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site. One is located 
onsite and is 644 feet (196 meters) deep. The second is located a 
half-mile (0.8 kilometers) away and
 
[[Page 39807]] has been permanently abandoned. The onsite 
drinking water well was sampled during 1983, and the sample 
result indicated no measurable quantities of radioactive 
materials above background values.
 
Because the surficial groundwater is located 50-60 feet (15-18 
meters) below surface, and the drinking water aquifer is located 
at least 285 feet (87 meters) below surface, the NRC concluded 
that the probability that DU contamination has impacted either 
the surficial or drinking water aquifer is highly unlikely.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
The licensee seeks NRC approval of the DP. The alternatives to 
the proposed action are: (1) The no-action alternative, or (2) to 
deny the amendment request and require the licensee to take some 
alternate action.
 
1. No-Action Alternative One alternative available to the NRC is 
to take no action by denying the amendment request. Denial of the 
DP submittal would result in no change in current environmental 
conditions. The no-action alternative is not a feasible 
alternative because it will result in violation of the NRC's 
Timeliness Rule (10 CFR 30.36), which requires licensees to 
decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease.
 
2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 A second alternative is 
to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release 
criteria as allowed by Sec.  20.1403 (criteria for restricted 
conditions) or Sec.  20.1404 (alternate criteria). However, the 
NRC's analysis confirmed that the proposed action (approval of 
the DP as submitted) meets the license termination requirements 
of Sec. 20.1402. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the 
second alternative is not reasonable. Therefore, this alternative 
action is eliminated from further consideration in this EA.
 
Conclusion Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that 
the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do 
not warrant denial of the license amendment request. The NRC 
staff believes that the proposed action will result in minimal 
environmental impacts, including those to endangered species and 
critical habitats. The staff has determined that the proposed 
action, approval of the DP, is the appropriate alternative for 
selection.
 
Agencies and Persons Contacted The NRC staff consulted with both 
the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer and the local 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service office. The Florida Department of 
State, Division of Historical Resources stated that no historic 
properties were known to exist in the area; therefore, the 
proposed decommissioning will have no effect on historic 
properties. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has informed the NRC 
that the proposed action (site reclamation) is not likely to 
adversely affect protected resources including endangered species 
and critical habitats. The NRC staff also consulted with the 
Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control. By 
letter dated May 19, 2005, the State responded that it had no 
objections to the proposed EA and FONSI.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded 
that the proposed action (amend the Air Force's license to 
approve the DP) complies with both the Timeliness Rule 
requirements of 10 CFR 30.36 and License Termination Rule 
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402. On the basis of this EA, the NRC 
has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts 
and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been 
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information A copy of this document will be available 
electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document 
Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of 
the NRC's document system.
 
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The following references 
are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading 
Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public 
Electronic Reading Room). ADAMS accession numbers are located in 
parentheses following the reference.
 
1. NRC, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, July 1997 
(ML042310492).
 
2. Pugh, Capt. David L., Department of the Air Force Memorandum, 
``Review of Decommissioning Plan for Eglin AFB, Florida,'' May 
24, 2002 (ML021970666, ML021970669, ML021980188, ML021980239, 
ML021990724, ML021990330, ML021990377, ML021990737, ML021990743).
 
3. Pugh, Capt. David L., Department of the Air Force Memorandum, 
``Clarification Request For C-74L Decommissioning Plan,'' 
November 1, 2002 (ML023370482, ML023370535, ML023370648, 
ML023370660, ML023370675, ML023380282, ML023380332).
 
4. Brockman, Ken E., NRC Letter to Air Force, ``Acknowledgment of 
Receipt of Decommissioning Plan,'' November 25, 2002 
(ML023290265).
 
5. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Memorandum, ``Notice of Consideration 
of Amendment Request for Department of the Air Force, Eglin Air 
Force Base, Florida, and Opportunity for Providing Comments and 
Requesting a Hearing,'' January 27, 2003 (ML030270180).
 
6. Brockman, Ken E., NRC Memorandum, ``Regional Technical 
Assistance Request Form,'' January 29, 2003 (ML030300253).
 
7. Cain, Charles L., ``NRC Inspection Report 030-28641/2003- 
01,'' February 11, 2003 (ML030420534).
 
8. Kokajko, Lawrence E., NRC Memorandum, ``Review of Derived 
Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) for Eglin Air Force 
Base,'' April 10, 2003 (ML031000111).
 
9. Cain, Charles L., NRC Letter to Air Force, ``Request for 
Additional Information Regarding Eglin Air Force Base 
Decommissioning Plan,'' April 24, 2003 (ML031140240).
 
10. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Letter to U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service, ``Request for Comments Regarding Endangered/Threatened 
Species and Critical Habitats,'' June 9, 2003 (ML031600579).
 
11. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Letter to Florida State Historic 
Preservation Officer, ``Request for Comments Regarding Cultural 
and Historical Resources at Eglin Air Force Base,'' June 9, 2003 
(ML031600613).
 
12. Carmody, Gail A., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Letter to NRC, 
``Reclamation and Decommissioning Uranium Munitions Site, Area 
C-74L,'' July 7, 2003 (ML031920346).
 
13. Matthews, Janet Snyder, Florida Department of State Letter to 
NRC, ``Reclamation Activities Within a Four-Acre Property at Test 
Area C-74L, Walton County,'' July 8, 2003 (ML032050604).
 
14. NRC, NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for 
Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs,'' July 2003 
(ML032540811).
 
15. Mather, Lt. Col. Kali K., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, 
``Supplement to the Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L, 
Eglin AFB, FL,'' August 21, 2003 (ML032450123).
 
16. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 
Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003 (ML032530410, 
ML032530405, ML032471471).
 
17. Seiber, Stephen M., Air Force Letter to NRC, ``No Effect 
Determination,'' February 11, 2004 (ML040430157).
 
18. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC letter to U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Services, ``Request for Comments Regarding Department of Air 
Force's Determination of No Effect,'' February 18, 2004 
(ML040690296).
 
 
[[Page 39808]] 19. Carmody, Gail A., U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service's Response to NRC's Letter ``Request for Comments 
Regarding Department of Air Force's Determination of No Effect,'' 
February 25, 2004 (ML040690296).
 
20. Whitten, Jack E., NRC Letter to Air Force, ``Request for 
Additional Information Regarding Eglin Air Force Base 
Decommissioning Plan,'' February 19, 2004 (ML040500864).
 
21. Whitten, Jack E., ``NRC Inspection Report 030-28641/04- 
001,'' February 25, 2004 (ML040570122).
 
22. Abell, Capt. Clint E., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, 
``Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L, Eglin AFB, Florida,'' 
October 27, 2004 (ML043410237).
 
23. Abell, Capt. Clint E., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, 
``Response to NRC Query of Decommissioning of Test Area C-74L, 
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida,'' January 13, 2005 (ML050320251).
 
24. Passetti, William A., Florida Department of Health Letter to 
NRC, ``Environmental Assessment for Decommissioning of Test Area 
C- 74L at Eglin Air Force Base,'' May 19, 2005 (ML051640567).
 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at (800) 397-4209, (301) 
415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents may also be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the 
NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 28th day of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3629 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License No. SNM-
 
                         FR Doc E5-3631 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39802] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-88]                         
 
2508; Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: License amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; fax 
number: (301) 425-8555; e-mail: jms3@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or Commission) has issued Amendment 4 to Materials License 
SNM-2508 held by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the receipt, 
possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel of the Three Mile 
Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) core debris in an Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in Butte County, Idaho. The 
amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
 
By application dated January 31, 2005, as supplemented, DOE 
submitted a request to the NRC, in accordance with Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56, ``Application for 
amendment of license,'' to amend the license for the TMI-2 ISFSI 
to revise the technical specification corrective actions if the 5 
year leak test on the dry shielded canisters (DSC) fails.
 
This amendment complies with the requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate 
findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and 
regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the 
license amendment.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), a determination has been 
made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to 
whether public health and safety will be significantly affected.
 
Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an 
opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. 
Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to 
request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or 
modified.
 
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not 
have a significant impact on the environment. For this action, an 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was 
prepared and published in the Federal Register (70 FR 37124, June 
28, 2005).
 
The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, 
Docket 72-20. For further details with respect to this action, 
see the amendment request dated January 31, 2005, and June 9, 
2005, supplement. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be 
accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of 
the referenced documents will also be available for review at the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852. PDR reference staff can be contacted at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by E-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3631 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC); Notice of Withdrawal
 
                         FR Doc E5-3632 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39803] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-90]                         
 
of Application for Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating 
License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 
has granted the request of SNC (the licensee) to withdraw its 
application dated July 20, 2004, for a proposed amendment to 
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, 
located in Appling County, Georgia.
 
The proposed amendment would have revised the Administrative 
Controls Section 5.3.1 of the technical specifications and 
replaced the specific designation for the Health Physics 
Superintendent with a reference to the senior individual in 
charge of Health Physics, and to add flexibility to the 
qualification requirements for the unit staff positions.
 
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on 
September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57993). However, by letter dated June 
27, 2005, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 20, 2004, and the licensee's 
letter dated June 27, 2005, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records 
will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading 
Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by 
e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Christopher Gratton, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3632 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3633 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39803-39804] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-91]                         
 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-33, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee), for 
operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1, 
located in Limestone County, Alabama.
 
The proposed amendment would change the BFN, Unit 1, operating 
license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 3293 
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3952 MWt. This change represents an 
increase of approximately 20 percent above the current maximum 
authorized power level. The proposed amendment would also change 
the BFN, Unit 1, licensing bases and any associated Technical 
Specifications for containment overpressure, the maximum ultimate 
heat sink temperature, and the upper bound peak cladding 
temperature.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
 
[[Page 39804]] Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested persons should consult current copies of 10 CFR 2.309, 
2.304, and 2.305, which are available at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 
request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the 
request and petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the 
petitioner/ requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest 
may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition 
should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should 
be permitted with particular reference to the following general 
requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the 
requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party 
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/ 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order 
which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also 
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated in the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those 
specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware 
and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would 
entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to 
at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a 
party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
Nontimely requests and petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing and petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is 
(301) 415-1966. A request for hearing and petition for leave to 
intervene need not comply with 10 CFR 2.304(b)(c) and (d) if an 
original and two copies otherwise complying with the requirements 
of that section are mailed within two (2) days after filing by 
e-mail or facsimile transmission to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to General 
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, ET 11A, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 28, 2004, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records 
will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th 
day of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret H. Chernoff, Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3633 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3634 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39802-39803] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-89]                         
 
Plant; Notice of Receipt and Availability for Comment of Request 
Regarding Release of Part of Site for Unrestricted Use AGENCY: 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of receipt and 
availability for comment.
 
DATES: Comments must be provided in writing by August 10, 2005.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick D. Milano, Senior 
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: 301-415-1457; fax no.: 301-415-2102; e-mail: 
pdm@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated May 20, 2005, an 
application filed by R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna 
LLC) requesting the release of a part of the site for 
unrestricted use at its R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna 
Plant), located in Wayne County, New York. An NRC administrative 
review, documented in a letter to Ginna LLC dated June 29, 2005, 
found the request acceptable to begin a technical review. Before 
approving the proposed partial site release, the NRC will need to 
determine that the licensee has met the criteria set forth in 
Section 50.83, ``Release of part of a power reactor facility or 
site for unrestricted use,'' of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.83). The tract of land proposed 
for release consists of two adjacent parcels, comprising a total 
of approximately 15 acres located along the western edge of the 
Ginna Plant site boundary, and is entirely outside of the 
Exclusion Area. The release of the part of the site would allow 
Ginna LLC to convey the tract of land under a Purchase and Sale 
Contract dated September 10, 2002, that was assumed from the 
former licensee of the Ginna Plant. Pursuant to this contract 
agreement, the land would be sold to a real estate developer for 
the purpose of developing the land for residential use. No 
physical changes to the Ginna Plant facility or operational 
changes are being proposed in the application.
 
The NRC will approve an application for partial release of a non- 
impacted area, if it determines that the licensee has adequately 
evaluated the effect of releasing the property and has adequately 
justified the classification of any release areas as 
non-impacted.
 
II. Opportunity To Provide Comments The NRC is providing notice 
to individuals in the vicinity of the facility that the NRC is in 
receipt of this request, and will accept written comments 
concerning this proposal by August 10, 2005.
 
The comments must be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite
 
[[Page 39803]] the publication date and page number of this 
Federal Register notice. Furthermore, before acting upon this 
request for approval submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.83, 
the NRC will schedule and conduct in the near future a public 
meeting in the vicinity of the Ginna Plant for the purpose of 
obtaining public comments on the proposed release of the part of 
the site. The NRC will consider and, if appropriate, respond to 
these written and verbal comments, but such comments will not 
otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments 
received after public meeting will be considered if practicable 
to do so, but only those comments received on or before the 
public meeting can be assured consideration.
 
III. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for approval and supporting 
documentation, are available for public inspection at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will also be 
accessible electronically as text and image files from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html .
 
The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this 
notice are: 

 Title                         ADAMS  accession No.
 
Application, ``Partial Site Release''....  ML051530448 
Drawing 1 of 4, ``Ginna Site Boundary      ML051530451 Survey''.
 
Drawing 2 of 4, ``Building Details''.....  ML051530453 Drawing 3 
of 4, ``Site Detail''..........  ML051530454 Drawing 4 of 4, 
``Station 13A Site Survey  ML051530457 Map''.
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737 or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3634 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3637 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39801-39802] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-87]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Extension.
 
2. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 241, 
``Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of 
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters.'' 3. The form 
number if applicable: NRC Form 241. 4. How often the collection 
is required: NRC Form 241 must be submitted each time an 
Agreement State licensee wants to engage in or revise its 
activities involving the use of radioactive byproduct material in 
a non-Agreement State, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, 
or offshore waters. The NRC may waive the requirements for filing 
additional copies of NRC Form 241 during the remainder of the 
calendar year following receipt of the initial form from a 
licensee engaging in activities under the general license.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Any licensees who 
holds a specific license from an Agreement State and wants to 
conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States, areas of 
exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters under the 
general license in 10 CFR 150.20. 6. An estimate of the number of 
responses: 3,963 responses. 7. The estimated number of annual 
respondents: 167 respondents.
 
8. An estimate of the number of hours needed annually to complete 
the requirement or request: 1,033 hours (15 minutes per 
response).
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: Under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR Part 
150, any Agreement State licensee who engages in activities (use 
of radioactive material) in non-Agreement States, areas of 
exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters, under the 
general license in Section 150.20, is required to file four 
copies of NRC Form 241, ``Report of Proposed Activities in 
Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or 
Offshore Waters,'' and four copies of its Agreement State license 
at least 3 days before engaging in such activity. This mandatory 
notification permits NRC to schedule inspections of the 
activities to determine whether the activities are being 
conducted in accordance with requirements for protection of the 
public health and safety.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by August 10, 2005. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but 
assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received 
after this date. John Asalone, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (3150-0158), NEOB-10202, Office of Management 
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2005.
 
 
[[Page 39802]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Beth C. St. May, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of 
Information Services.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3637 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 Korea Times: Korea to Raise Dependence on Nuclear Power Up to 60% 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Biz/Finance   

By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter

 About 60 percent of South Korea¡¯s energy is expected to come
from nuclear power stations in three decades, a drastic rise
from its current level of 40 percent. 

The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) said yesterday it
predicts the nation¡¯s dependency on nuclear power will soar
thanks to the next-generation nuclear facilities under
construction. 

``If we cannot find a new energy source to replace today¡¯s
fossil fuels, we have no choice but to raise our reliance on
nuclear power,¡¯¡¯ MOST director general Kim Young-shik said. 

In the wake of the energy crisis in the 1970s, Korea, which does
not produce a drop of petroleum, started tilting toward a
reliance on nuclear power as a secure energy. 

As the world¡¯s sixth-largest nuclear power producing nation, it
now operates 19 nuclear reactors, which combine to provide
roughly 40 percent of its total electricity needs. 

``Considering new technologies like the Generation IV (Gen IV)
and nuclear fusion are mushrooming, the rate is likely to rise
to 60 percent between 2035 to 2040,¡¯¡¯ Kim predicted. 

The Gen IV is an advanced nuclear power production technology,
geared toward improving cost effectiveness and safety in the
waste management. 

The system also uses new nuclear fuels unconvertible to weapons,
the so-called proliferation resistant fuels that quench doubts
on its risk of being used as nuclear bomb materials. 

A total of 11 developed countries including Korea have teamed up
to research the Gen IV reactors with the aim of commercializing
it by 2020. 

Nuclear fusion harnesses the same process of plasma fusion that
generates the sun¡¯s energy. This plasma gas cannot be contained
in a traditional vessel that magnetic fields shaped like a U.S.
donut (tokamak) are used. 

Under a project of the Korean Superconducting Tokamak Reactor
(KSTAR), the country plans to build an experimental nuclear
fusion reactor in 2007 and use it commercially in 2040. 

Pros &Cons on Nuclear Power Expansion 

People are split on whether to accept the expanded use of
nuclear power. 

Science-Technology Minister Oh Myung articulated his commitment
to nuclear energy at a ministerial conference in Paris backed by
the International Atomic Energy Agency in March. 

``I am confident nuclear energy will contribute to preventing
global warming, resolving world energy problems, promoting human
welfare and progressing the world economy,¡¯¡¯ Oh said at the
time. 

He added he believes another nuclear renaissance will take place
in the future and the global community should assign a larger
role to the energy source. 

Kyung Hee University professor Hwang Joo-ho concurs. 

``Fossil fuels will eventually dry up and there are few
alternatives. In this climate, can you pick any viable
substitute other than nuclear power?¡¯¡¯ Hwang said. 

He added renewable energies like winds or solar power should be
developed much further to get a serious consideration due to
their drawbacks including low cost effectiveness. 

``Actually it would take just about 20 years to increase our
nuclear dependency to the 60-percent mark,¡¯¡¯ Hwang said. 

By contrast, critics accuse the government of focusing solely on
nuclear energy without paying attention to alternative energy
sources. 

``The biggest problem is that government officials have a
nuclear-oriented mindset and don¡¯t spend money on developing
other energies,¡¯¡¯ said Lee Seung-hwa, an anti-nuclear activist
at the Korea Federation for Environmental Movement. 

She claimed nuclear reactors may be not effective considering
the uncertain costs of decommissioning the retired nuclear
materials and radioactive byproducts, as shown by the recent
setbacks in finding a nuclear waste dump site. 

After setting up a policy for building a nuclear wastes storage
site 18 years ago, Korea has yet to complete the long-pending
state project, which has been rejected by residents of candidate
sites. 

The government aims at fixing the waste site this year and
starting construction of the facilities in 2008 as the interim
storage sites in nuclear plants will start to run out of space
in years. 

Toward that end, the government promised hundreds of millions of
dollars for the city to embrace for the dump site but it still
remains to be seen whether or not the bounty succeeds in
persuading residents. 

voc200@koreatimes.co.kr 07-11-2005 18:08         
  
*****************************************************************
 20 Daily Herald: Clean coal conundrum                                    

Despite recent fanfare, most new power plants in Illinois won"t 
be using clean coal

Daily Herald Staff Writer

Posted Monday, July 11, 2005                                    

Every summer about this time, air conditioners kick into overtime 
across the region, and an army of aging coal burners — the 
dirtiest of Illinois’ power plants — kick into overdrive.

In coming years, they and every other household appliance
powered by electricity will increasingly get their energy
through a resource once derided for its devastating effect on
air quality — coal.

New technology enables power plants to convert coal to 
electricity without spewing a fraction of the pollution of the 
past. That prospect and other factors are fueling a modern-day 
coal rush. Yet the vast majority of new electric power plants 
likely will burn coal in a process that hasn’t fundamentally 
changed since World War II — despite a cleaner method being 
available.

Policy makers have put Illinois at the forefront of states 
supporting “clean coal” techniques, but critics still see a stage 
set for up to half a century of Illinois residents breathing air 
that’s too dirty. They say future generations will suffer from 
more asthma, more contaminated fish, continued global warming and 
more environmental damage. They fear we’ll miss a golden 
opportunity to really clean up a technology that, according to a 
2001 Harvard School of Public Health study, is responsible for 
320 premature deaths statewide each year.

This is all the more troublesome to environmentalists because 
cleaner coal technology is available; it’s just not being used.

The future of coal in the environment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
								
“Anything we build today is going to be with us in the next 50 
years,” says Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health 
programs for the Chicago chapter of the American Lung 
Association. “I’d sure rather go with something that’s five times 
cleaner, wouldn’t you?”

Of nine new coal power plants proposed for the state — a virtual 
crush compared to the previous two decades — all but two will 
burn coal in a cleaner but similar fashion to the aging 
generation of coal plants that span from Waukegan to Chicago’s 
South Side. These plants date back to the Eisenhower 
administration and still are polluting the suburbs’ air, state 
records show. In fact, soot levels in suburbs including 
Naperville, Des Plaines and Northbrook often are as bad as 
Chicago’s, according to an investigation published in this 
month’s Chicago Parent magazine.

Backers of the new proposals note the Chicago area’s quest for 
more juice to heat and cool homes and to operate gadgets means 
more power is needed. They add that any new coal plant today will 
be much cleaner than its predecessors and operate well within 
anti-pollution laws.

The new proposals range from a 600-megawatt plant in Will County 
to a controversial 1,500-megawatt operation east of St. Louis 
that will emit some 28,000 tons of pollutants per year. At least 
two local suburbs — Geneva and Batavia — have invested in the St. 
Louis-area plant in hopes it will supply cheaper electricity than 
ComEd’s nuclear generators, which have been the workhorses of the 
Chicago region’s power for decades.

A massive coal plant proposed near Racine, Wis., has moved to 
center stage in the national debate over the future of coal 
power, with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan fighting the 
plan in court, in part on grounds it will belch an unacceptable 
amount of pollutants into Illinois’ air.

Why the coal rush?

The Bush administration continues to hail nuclear power — which 
creates hazardous waste but no air pollution — as the future. But 
in an increasingly deregulated industry, many companies can’t 
afford to build a nuclear reactor.

Meanwhile, natural gas prices have soared, making that relatively 
clean fuel unattractive. Combine that with an abundance of coal, 
a coal-friendly White House and the Blagojevich administration 
supporting coal to buoy the state’s declining industry, and coal 
plants are hip again.

But they don’t have to be so dirty, according to a host of energy 
observers ranging from environmentalists to other energy 
companies.

Cleaner coal technology is already here, they say. It’s just not 
being used because utilities are to hesitant to embrace it and 
policy makers have been slow to encourage it.

It’s about 20 percent more expensive, so government subsidies or 
more stringent air regulations are needed. A new energy package 
moving through Congress contains $2æbillion in incentives over 10 
years for such projects, but it’s unclear if they’ll take hold 
soon enough.

“The question is: Are you locking in an older-generation 
technology for 50 years?” says Sasha Mackler, senior analyst for 
the bi-partisan National Commission on Energy Policy, which wants 
lawmakers to pass even greater incentives.

“It’s sort of a chicken-and-egg problem because while the 
technology is proven in other areas, there aren’t any major 
generators on the ground yet, and that creates a perceived risk 
for financiers.”

The technology, known generally as coal gasification, bakes coal 
instead of burning it. It’s touted as more efficient and about 
five times cleaner than traditional coal-burning plants. That 
means less mercury in the water, less fine soot in our lungs and 
almost no so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions blamed for the 
planet’s rising temperatures.

It’s been used for more than a decade at a power plant in 
Florida, and another plant in Indiana generates electricity for 
the Midwest power grid using the same method.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich recently signed two laws that provide 
government subsidies to encourage coal gasification.

Clean-coal supporters laud the new laws as the most progressive 
in the country.

Those subsidies are targeted for projects that primarily will 
produce fertilizer, natural gas for homes and clean diesel fuel, 
as well as set Illinois at the forefront of a national race to 
have an experimental zero-emission plant up-and-running — but not 
for about 10 years.

Too little, too late

The subsidies appear unlikely to change the coal-burning 
electricity plants already on the drawing boards, some of which 
are expected to be built in the next few years.

State and national policies still describe the technology as 
“developing.” Regulators from the Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency tout the benefits of it, predict it “holds 
great promise” and were among the first regulators in America to 
require plant designers to consider the method.

But they’ve also defended plant developers who quickly dismiss 
it, public records show.

“It is simply unproven in a commercial sense,” says Jim Thompson, 
senior vice president of business development for Indeck, whose 
proposed coal-burning plant in Southwest suburban Elwood would 
use what’s generally described as “clean coal” technology to 
reduce emissions. But backers of the cleaner method say it’s 
still not as clean as gasification — a conclusion contested by 
Thompson. “I think the environmental benefits (of gasification) 
are very much overplayed.”

Some in the energy industry say the cleaner technique is far from 
unproven — and they’re spending the money to prove it.

One of them is Michael McInnis, who’s part of a group of 
investors proposing a 536-megawatt plant in Southern Illinois. 
It’s one of two plants using gasification proposed out of the 
nine coal plants in various stages of approval in Illinois.

“We certainly don’t think it’s a developing technology,” says 
McInnis, a partner of the ERORA Group LLC. “We wouldn’t be 
risking our own money if we didn’t think (the cleaner method) 
made the most economical sense.

“We started out developing this as a pulverized coal plant, but 
we became more intrigued with the (cleaner) technology, and then 
we got the grant,” he says.

That state-backed grant for $750,000 to help design the 
$1.1æbillion facility helped ERORA make its decision.

But a little prodding and limited subsidies simply weren’t enough 
for power companies like Buffalo Grove-based Indeck, which is 
proposing the Will County plant, or Peabody Energy, which is 
developing the plant east of St. Louis, acknowledges Bill Hoback, 
bureau chief of coal development for the Illinois Department of 
Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

“My philosophy is, let’s help the ones who want to do 
(gasification), and with these other ones, well, it’s their 
millions,” he says. The only way to get the older, dirtier plants 
to finally stop polluting is to have newer plants replace them, 
even if the newer plants aren’t using the cleanest methods, he 
says.

That won’t be good enough to really clean up the air in Chicago 
and the collar counties, says the Lung Association’s Urbaszewski. 
“When you look at air quality (in the region), things are getting 
better slowly, but we have a lot to do,” he says, noting that 
Chicago currently is in violation of federal soot and smog 
standards.

One of the prime benefits of the clean gasification method is its 
ability to remove much of carbon dioxide-based “greenhouse gases” 
— the suspected culprit of global climate change — associated 
with coal plants.

But those gases remain unregulated at the state and federal 
levels. Many in the industry — including Illinois’ Hoback — 
predict those regulations will come at some point, and there’s no 
question gasification plants will be able to remove greenhouse 
emissions more cheaply than traditional coal plants.

Environmental and utility watchdogs worry that until those 
greenhouse emissions are regulated, the climate will be more 
attractive for dirty coal than clean coal. And, they add, 
regulators haven’t fully committed to acknowledging the problems 
with pulverized coal.

In written responses to one criticism over the Peabody plan east 
of St. Louis, the Illinois EPA stated simply: “Coal-fired power 
plants are not a dirty technology.”

					
Daily Herald, Paddock Publications, Inc. |                                

*****************************************************************
 21 Tri-City Herald: Energy NW mulls $1 billion project 

This story was published Monday, July 11th, 2005 

By Chris Mulick, Herald staff writer 

Energy Northwest is pitching a roughly $1 billion 600-megawatt
Western Washington power plant that would be primarily fueled by
gasified coal and coal-like petroleum coke. 

As envisioned, it would be cleaner than a standard coal plant,
dirtier than a natural gas-fired plant and more versatile than
either, able to switch fuels to whichever is cheaper. 

It would come online in late 2011 under the timeline being
floated by the utility. 

It's a bold move for the 19-member public power consortium,
which was formed as the Washington Public Power Supply System in
1957 to build and operate power plants. The proposed project, if
it were to go forward, would be its most ambitious since its
failed effort to build five nuclear plants in the late 1970s and
early 1980s. Only one project was completed and the consortium
left behind a $2.25 billion default on bonds for two of them. 

Now, with its image mostly rehabilitated -- thanks to healthy
bond ratings, its interest in environmentally friendly power
plants and its mostly solid reputation as a nuclear operator --
Energy Northwest believes it can help meet new energy demands
that may emerge over the next decade. 

"We're talking about a significant amount of new electricity
being needed," said Dan Porter, an Energy Northwest project
manager. 

The consortium is considering two undisclosed sites in Western
Washington, where a new plant would be closer to power demand
centers. It hopes to get the go-ahead from member utilities this
summer to begin signing up customers. 

Energy Northwest envisions giving public utilities first rights
to the output of one 300-megawatt turbine and selling the output
of the second to other buyers. 

The project, officially called the Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle project, would generate electricity by blending
coal and petroleum coke -- a byproduct of oil refining -- and
mixing it with water to form a slurry. The addition of oxygen,
pressure and the heat they would create ultimately would convert
the slurry into a gas that would be used to fuel the combustion
turbines. 

It's a technology used in only a few demonstration projects in
the United States but is more common overseas. 

Byproducts include sulfur, which could be sold to aid in the
manufacturing of fertilizer or for other uses, a sand-like slag
that could be used in road beds or landfills covers and mercury
that would have to be disposed of. 

While sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions would be
comparable to a modern gas plant, carbon emissions would be
twice as much, although still less than traditional coal plants. 

The project would be built with a covered storage site capable
of holding a 30-day supply of coal and petroleum coke, which
could be brought in by train. 

Environmentalists don't care for the project. Sara Patton,
director of the green-leaning Northwest Energy Coalition, said
she'd support such plants only as a replacement for existing
coal plants. 

"Energy Northwest has been doing some pretty great stuff," she
said, referring to the utility's activities in wind, solar and
biomass energy projects. "I just hope they can see their way to
stick with that." 

"Coal is really a step backward," said Patrick Mazza, research
director of Olympia-based Climate Solutions. 

Both acknowledge carbon emissions could become a moot point if a
way is found to sequester them underground rather than releasing
them into the atmosphere. 

That would be the hallmark potential of an emerging technology.
And Energy Northwest would plan to spend somewhere near $200
million to make the plant "sequestration ready." 

But though research continues, no method has been developed yet
to effectively sequester emissions. 

"If we were able to work out the sequestration issue, it would
generate a significant advantage over even natural gas," said
Jeff King, who tracks power plant development for the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council. But until then, potential
customers aren't likely to give that much weight as they decide
whether they'd be interested, he said. 

If a viable sequestration method were developed, it would cost
more to begin using it. Some utilities may be willing to pay
more for that, but "the question is how much more," said Energy
Northwest spokesman Brad Peck. 

The organization has been exploring the project assuming the
region's recession-driven power surplus is nearly eaten up, that
power demands are increasing at a rate of 2 percent to 3 percent
a year, and that the plant's power will be about 30 percent
cheaper than power generated by gas plants. 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, charged with
balancing the needs for fish and power in the region, isn't so
sure about any of them. Terry Morlan, the council's power
planning director, said power demands are increasing by about
1.5 percent a year after dropping by 20 percent in 2000 and
2001. 

"We haven't covered that 20 percent by any means," he said. 

And King said it's not entirely certain that coal will remain
significantly cheaper than gas over time. It's possible high
natural gas prices could be reeled in if liquefied natural gas
were to enter the market. 

The proposed generating station still could run on natural gas
if it were cheaper, but not quite as efficiently, Porter said. 

He said Energy Northwest is merely fulfilling its mission by
bringing new power generation options to its member utilities. 

What interest those utilities will have is not clear. Benton PUD
Manager Jim Sanders said utilities will want to know whether the
Bonneville Power Administration will be able to provide new
electricity to meet their growth and whether buying from the
proposed project would displace power they already get from the
BPA. 

Nonetheless "it's a role Energy Northwest should be playing,"
Sanders said. 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 22 SF Chronicle: Reassessing 'what if' factor at state's nuclear power plants

December tsunami prompts scientists to review all risks
 
Monday, July 11, 2005

Six months after the mega-tsunami in the Indian Ocean, fears of
a major tsunami on the California coast are spurring scientists
to reassess the possible impact on nuclear power plants. 

PG is planning to spend $500,000 in a new effort to assess how
two worst-case scenarios for tsunamis -- the "apocalyptic model"
and the "decades-of-terror model," as the utility's top
geoscientist, Lloyd Cluff, calls them -- would affect the Diablo
Canyon nuclear plant near San Luis Obispo and the decommissioned
Humboldt Bay nuclear plant near Eureka. 

The 2,300-megawatt Diablo Canyon plant supplies 10 percent of
California's electricity. The small Humboldt Bay plant closed
for refueling in 1976 and was never restarted. However, like
Diablo Canyon, the Humboldt Bay plant still has large amounts of
highly radioactive, used nuclear fuel in a storage pool. 

"We will model this with the best tsunami models that exist to
decide whether we need to do any more (upgrading) with these two
facilities" to guard them against tsunamis, Cluff told the state
Seismic Safety Commission at its June 23 meeting in San
Francisco. 

A third nuclear plant, San Onofre, is north of San Diego and is
operated by Southern California Edison. Officials there said
they are confident the plant is safe from tsunamis. Unlike PG,
they plan no reassessment of their tsunami risks. 

Ever since the dawn of commercial atomic power a half-century
ago, utilities have repeatedly faced a challenge: to convince
federal regulators that nuclear plants could withstand Mother
Nature's assaults. 

Plant designers and operators had to imagine how the plant
reactors and their spent fuel would withstand disasters ranging
from hurricanes to tornadoes to quakes and airplane crashes. The
key goal is to keep the highly radioactive nuclear fuel inside
the reactor and storage pool, rather than let it escape into the
environment. 

PG decided to shut Humboldt Bay after being convinced that
during a major quake, the pool's spent fuel rods would fragment
and fall to the bottom of the pool. At best, the result would be
a major mess for the utility to clean up. At worst, some
anti-nuclear activists claimed, water would drain from the pool
and the rods would catch fire, unleashing radioactive poisons
into the atmosphere. 

In May, Cluff and fellow scientists visited Sumatra to
investigate how utilities there weathered the waves. Cluff, who
is also former chair of the Seismic Safety Commission, told The
Chronicle his initial impression is that PG's nuclear plants
would withstand even a horrific tsunami. 

He is reassured by the performance of a cement plant in Sumatra
that survived the tsunami. The Diablo Canyon plant is at least
100 times as tsunami- resistant as the cement plant, while
Humboldt Bay is at least 10 times as resistant, he estimated. 

Still, "we're doing this (reassessment of tsunami risks) just to
make sure," Cluff said. 

The actual computer modeling will be done under contract to PG
by Paul Somerville of URS Corp. in Pasadena. Other institutions
assisting PG with the study are the U.S. Geological Survey and
the Tokyo Earthquake Research Institute in Tokyo. 

The December tsunami has spurred international concern among
nuclear plant operators on coastlines, because during the
catastrophe, a high wave hit the Madras Atomic Power Station at
Kalpakkam, India. The plant was safely shut down and suffered no
damage. That event unnerved the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which plans to hold a scientific workshop in August on
flooding hazards to nuclear plants. 

In the Sumatran tsunami in December, the highest waves were
"more than 30 meters (98 feet) high," according to the U.S.
Geological Survey. However, Cluff's team found that right next
to the Sumatran cement plant, the waves were as high as 38.9
meters or 128 feet. 

The Sumatra tsunami offers scientists a wealth of new
information about how tsunami waves propagate through oceans and
down coastlines. To date, the physics of tsunami waves have
remained somewhat mysterious, which has made it difficult to
forecast their potential hazards. 

For example, in April 1992, scientists were surprised when a
quake near the California coast caused a small tsunami that
included unusually high, slow- moving edge waves. Paradoxically,
these waves were twice as high at Crescent City as they were at
a point only one-third the distance from the epicenter. 

Their slow rate of travel also raised the possibility of an
oceanic version of a sneak attack. In future quakes, edge waves
"might arrive unexpectedly at coastal communities several hours
after the initial tsunami waves have subsided," researchers at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other
institutions said in a 1995 study. 

Cluff said his study will include an analysis of the possibility
of tsunami edge waves on the California coast: "It's a
phenomenon that is not well understood," he said. 

The tsunami study comes as PG is preparing to move the two
plants' spent nuclear fuel rods out of their cooling ponds and
into dry cask storage containers, which are thought to be safer. 

At Diablo Canyon, the nuclear plant is 85 feet above sea level.
The dry casks will be placed uphill at a site 320 feet above sea
level, possibly by 2007. 

In a pre-Sumatra tsunami study, Cluff's team estimated that in a
worst- case scenario, the waves at Diablo Canyon due to a storm,
tsunami or other event might rise as high as 36 feet above sea
level. The new study will determine whether that estimate
remains valid. 

At Humboldt Bay, which is about 30 miles north of the southern
end of the Cascadia subduction zone at Cape Mendocino, a
particularly active seismic area, the nuclear plant is 12 feet
above sea level. The dry casks will be moved to an above-ground
site nearby that is 44 feet above sea level. 

In a pre-Sumatra tsunami study, Cluff's team estimated that in a
worst- case scenario, the waves at Humboldt Bay might rise as
high as 42 feet above sea level. Again, the new study will
reassess the validity of that estimate. 

Possibly by 2008, the fuel in dry casks at Humboldt Bay will be
encased in a buried bunker, so that it could survive even a blow
from a tsunami wave that threw a boat at it. The bunker's
steel-reinforced concrete walls will be 3 feet thick. 

At the June 23 meeting of the Seismic Safety Commission, Cluff
outlined two worst-case scenarios for future tsunamis in
California. The extreme-worst case, or "apocalyptic model,"
assumes a magnitude-9 quake involving a simultaneous rupture of
the Cascadia subduction zone and the adjacent Little Salmon
Fault in the Pacific Northwest. Experts believe such an event
could trigger a massive quake akin to the 1700 temblor that
unleashed tsunami waves down the coast and across the Pacific. 

"This earthquake on Cascadia is, from some people's view,
overdue, or is soon to come," Cluff said. "It will be big -- and
it could be as big as the Sumatra earthquake." 

How soon might it strike? "The average recurrence, depending on
how you play the numbers game, is from 250 to 800 years, and the
long-term average is about 300 years -- and it's been over 300
years," Cluff said. "So we know we're getting close to a big
earthquake in the Pacific Northwest." 

Cluff showed the Seismic Safety Commission a photo of how high
the tsunami could rise at the Humboldt plant, based on a
pre-Sumatra estimate of 42 feet. He noted that officials at
Humboldt Bay previously have speculated about the possibility of
putting a Zodiac-type inflatable boat atop the reactor plant,
just in case employees need to escape during a tsunami. 

Cluff's team is also investigating a second, less extreme
scenario, which he called the "decades of terror model." That
scenario assumes the possibility of multiple, less extreme
quakes that occur over a few decades, each of which might
trigger a tsunami. 

In 2000, the USGS gave Cluff the John Wesley Powell Award, the
USGS's highest award for achievement by a private citizen. He
has run PG's geosciences department since 1985 and is director
of its Earthquake Risk Management Program. 

As for San Onofre, Southern California Edison spokesman Ray
Golden said officials there are confident that the plant is
safe. Golden said that in previous studies, officials concluded
the worst that could happen was a 16- foot wave generated by a
quake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault that runs 5 miles offshore
from the plant. The plant is 30 feet above sea level. 

Protecting a nuclear plant 

PG's Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant has been quiet for the
last three decades, but highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is
still stored inside the plant's cooling pond. 

Before the Sumatran tsunami, PG estimated that during a
worst-case tsunami triggered by a massive quake on the Cascadia
subduction zone, waves might rise as high as 42 feet at the
plant. Now the utility is conducting a new tsunami study to see
if, in light of the Sumatran disaster, that original estimate
needs to be changed, or if tsunamis pose any unexpected dangers
to the plant and its much bigger sibling, the still-operational
Diablo canyon nuclear plant near San Luis Obispo. 

Source: PG 


E-mail Keay Davidson at . 				
Page A - 4 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 23 [du-list] US-India Defense Pact Spurs Demand for Sperm Banks!
 
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:40:40 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
US-India Defense Pact Spurs Demand for Sperm Banks!


Last week, the United States and India signed a 10-year military security 
pact that might facilitate the provision of Indian troops to peacekeeping 
operations in places like Iraq, outside the UN framework. Just a few days 
later, terrorist made an unsuccessful attempt to blow up the makeshift 
temple at Ayodhya.



The incident served as yet another reminder of the terrorist backlash that 
awaits nations that join the US Coalition of the Bribed and the Coerce. If 
this was missed, the point was brought home by the brutal London terrorist 
bombings that occurred 24 hours later.



Two years ago when the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government 
was being continually wooed and pressured by the US to join the Iraq 
operations, I had written an article entitled :Iraq: Its not Bombs Alone 
that Kill". The article was focused to draw attention to the issue of 
Depleted Uranium (DU) poisoning and the consequences that it held for 
Indian Armed forces if deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.



Circulated within the Internet, I was pleasantly astounded by the reaction 
it drew.  At least 10 top international scientists, among them, two Nobel 
Laureates, wrote back for permission to reproduce the article in their 
journals or websites.  Invariably, they were all formerly intricately 
connected with the international nuclear establishment but now leading 
lights within the peace and nuclear disarmament movement, scattered in 
different countries - US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Europe.



Having satisfied myself that I contributed my two paisa to advocating 
global peace and nuclear disarmament, I promptly forgot that I even wrote 
such an article itself. That was so till I received a very strange phone 
call last evening. The caller introduced himself as a journalist from a 
renowned newspaper group in the country, who in the past had published some 
of my articles and letters to the editor. Long accustomed to chasing the 
media to publish an article, my eyes immediately lit up on anticipation of 
the prospects of actually being commissioned a story or article. The very 
thought of a reversal of roles (that I often dreamt about was about to 
materialize) instantly catapulted me to the seventh heavens.



Alas, it was all too good to be true. I landed back rudely to earth, 
punctured by the query "Do you have any information on Sperm Banks in 
Bangalore?"  Absoletely bewildered, the only answer I could manage to 
muster was "Do you have the right number??" The caller then re-confirmed my 
identity and clarified that he only got in touch with me because he came 
across one of my articles on Iraq in a website. Apparently this newspaper 
group was shortly posting him as their foreign correspondent to Iraq. I 
then expressed my inability to help him but remained perplexed all the 
same.  It took me one full hour to discover the connection between the 
article I wrote and the telephone call. Realizing perhaps the article, 
though dated as it is, has still relevance in today's scenario; I am hereby 
re-circulating the same - found as an attachment to this message.



Though the then NDA government toyed around the idea of sending troops to 
Iraq, to their credit, respecting the public mood within this country, they 
refrained from signing any agreement that put such a prospect into motion. 
The Congress, heading the now United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, 
having a more limited mandate, has now done what the NDA feared. 
Nevertheless, a political consensus is fast emerging, both within and 
outside the UPA that the 10-year Defense Pact with US is not in national 
interest. To scrap the pact, all it takes is now is for citizens to raise 
their voices!



Rajan Alexander
Development Consultancy Group
43, Da Costa Layout, II Cross, St. Mary's Town, Bangalore 560 084
E-Mail: rajanalex@eth.net; rajanalex@ncashindia.com
Web-Mail: devconsultgroup@yahoo.co.in
Tel No: 0091-80-25479457
Mob No: 0091-9341322307
Fax: 0091--80-23519477


   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/45 - Release Date: 7/9/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc E5-3630 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[Notices] [Page 39808-39810] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-93]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Core 
Laboratories, Houston, TX AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack E. Whitten, Branch Chief, 
Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials 
Safety, Region RIV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan 
Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: (817) 
860-8197; fax number (817) 860-8263; e-mail: jew1@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 
license amendment to Material License No.
 
42-26928-01 issued to Core Laboratories, Inc., (dba ProTechnics) 
to authorize the utilization of cesium-137 in quantities in 
excess of limits listed in 10 CFR 30.71 for well logging 
activities at temporary job sites where NRC maintains 
jurisdiction. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) in support of this action in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has 
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 
appropriate.
 
The amendment will be issued following the publication of this 
Notice.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Background Core Laboratories, Inc., 
(Core Laboratories) is a well logging licensee based in Houston, 
Texas, and conducts tracer operations using radioactive materials 
in oil and natural gas fields worldwide.
 
Core Laboratories is licensed by both the NRC and Agreement 
States (Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas) to conduct well logging 
operations.
 
By letter dated July 14, 1997, Core Laboratories requested that 
NRC grant an amendment to allow the use of radioactive collar 
markers containing activities of byproduct material exceeding the 
limits listed in 10 CFR 30.71. An EA was written and based on the 
EA, the NRC concluded that a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) was appropriate. The EA and the FONSI were published in 
the 67 Federal Register (FR) 5320, February 5, 2002. On March 9, 
2002, Core Laboratories was granted an amendment authorizing an 
exemption to 10 CFR 30.71. This amendment authorized Core 
Laboratories to use pipe collar markers containing iridium-192, 
scandium-46, antimony-124, cobalt-60, and cesium-137 with 
activities up to 50 micro curies ([mu]Ci).
 
On February 23, 2004, Core Laboratories requested an amendment to 
increase the activity of radioactive markers containing 
cesium-137 from the 50 [mu]Ci, previously approved, with 
activities up to 100 [mu]Ci. This 100 [mu]Ci activity exceeds the 
quantities of byproduct material listed for use as pipe collar 
markers in oil and gas wells in 10 CFR 39.47, 10 CFR 30.71, and 
the activities authorized in the March 9, 2002, license amendment 
to Core Laboratories' byproduct material license. The NRC has 
reviewed the licensee's amendment request and has developed this 
EA to assess the environmental consequences of this licensing 
action using the guidance provided in NUREG-1748, Environmental 
Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 
Programs.
 
Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend the license and 
modify the previous exemption by approving the licensee's request 
to use radioactive markers containing 100 [mu]Ci cesium-137 for 
use as pipe collar markers in oil and gas wells. This proposed 
activity exceeds the limits of radioactive markers authorized in 
10 CFR 39.47 and 10 CFR 30.71. The radioactive markers Core 
Laboratories requested authorization to use in well logging 
activities are either installed directly in the pipe collars or 
are placed on the pipe collar threads and secured between the 
pipe casing joints and are not easily removed. Once installed in 
a well bore, the pipe casing and collars are cemented into place.
 
By letter dated July 14, 1997, Core Laboratories in its 
correspondence to NRC, describes the procedures it will have in 
place involving the customer or well owner/operator. These 
procedures state, in part, that the customer or well 
owner/operator must contact Core Laboratories in the event the 
radioactive pipe collar markers must be removed. Core 
Laboratories will be available on site to secure and take 
possession of the collar markers upon their return to the 
surface. Additionally, Core Laboratories will provide the 
customer or well owner/operator a copy of Attachment XII-1 (Core 
Laboratories' Radioactive Collar Marker Utilization Log) as a 
written record of the requirement to notify Core Laboratories if 
markers returned to the surface before a specified date.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary 
so that Core Laboratories can efficiently carry out its business 
of well logging in the oil and gas industry. The need for an 
increase in activity for cesium-137 is due to the heavier density 
of the materials being used in the well logging application. The 
higher activity radioactive markers will allow, when logging 
certain oil and gas wells, for more accurate pipe collar location
 
[[Page 39809]] measurements for longer periods of time. 
Radioactive markers with lower activities may result in Core 
Laboratories having to depend on less accurate pipe collar 
location measurements when logging oil and gas wells, thereby 
providing less accurate information to the well owner/ operator.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Core laboratories 
provided calculations in its November 14, 1997, and February 27, 
2004, letters that demonstrated that the 100 millirem in a year 
or 2 millirem in any one hour limits to a member of the public 
would not be exceeded at any time while using the pipe collar 
markers with increased 50 to 100 [mu]Ci activities.
 
There will be no significant environmental impact realized from 
the proposed action, due to no material being released into the 
environment and all of the material being wholly contained within 
the pipe collars. Additionally, the pipe collar markers will be 
recovered by Core Laboratories should the casing containing the 
collars be removed from the well bores.
 
If the collar markers are returned to the surface prior to having 
decayed to exempt quantity levels specified on Core Laboratories 
customer agreement, the customer is required to contact Core 
Laboratories to take possession of the markers. These markers are 
then removed from the equipment, placed into a lead shield, and 
then placed into a U.S. Department of Transportation 7A transport 
container for shipment back to Core Laboratories.
 
Upon return to the storage facility, the markers are placed into 
waste storage to await decay or shipment to an authorized 
recipient for disposal when quantities of waste justifies such a 
shipment.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
The only alternative to the proposed action of increasing the 
activity of radioactive markers containing cesium-137 from 50 
[mu]Ci to 100 [mu]Ci is to take no action. The no-action 
alternative would be to allow the licensee to maintain 
radioactive marker activities currently authorized in Core 
Laboratories' NRC license. Again, there will be no significant 
environmental impact realized from the proposed action or the 
alternative to the proposed action, due to no material being 
released into the environment and all of the material being 
wholly contained within the pipe collars.
 
On March 9, 2002, Core Laboratories was granted an amendment 
authorizing an exemption to 10 CFR 30.71 to use pipe collar 
markers containing iridium-192, scandium-46, antimony-124, 
cobalt-60, and cesium-137 with activities up to 50 [mu]Ci. An EA 
was published in the 67 FR 55320, February 5, 2002, and based on 
the EA the NRC concluded that environmental impacts that would be 
created by the proposed action would not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the environment and did not warrant the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
Accordingly, it was determined that a FONSI was appropriate.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted Since the proposed action occurs 
downhole in the well bore and results in a permanent 
installation, the NRC has concluded that there is no potential to 
affect threatened or endangered species or historic resources. 
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, NRC staff has determined 
that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has 
potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no 
further consultation is required under Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act.
 
The NRC staff provided letters to the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and Agreement States of Louisiana, Texas, and New 
Mexico for their review and comments, in accordance with 
NUREG-1748, Section 3.3. The Agreement States that were contacted 
provided no comments. By letter dated March 3, 2005, the EPA 
responded and recommended that the NRC, as a condition of 
approving the license amendment, have Core Laboratories provide 
notice to the Federal or State natural resource agency of which 
wells have the radioactive collar installed. The NRC staff took 
this comment into consideration and determined that Core 
Laboratories already provides notification to agreement states 
via reciprocity before performing well logging activities in the 
respective agreement states.
 
Conclusion Based in its review, the NRC staff has concluded that 
there are no significant environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action and the preparation of an EIS is not 
warranted. The staff has determined that the proposed action, 
approval of the license amendment request to increase the 
activity of radioactive markers containing cesium-137 from the 50 
[mu]Ci, to100 [mu]Ci, is the appropriate alternative for 
selection.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded 
that the proposed action complies with 10 CFR Part 20. Exposure 
to a member of the public would be less than the limits specified 
in 10 CFR 20.1302. The licensee provided calculations that 
demonstrated that the 100 millirem in a year or 2 millirem in any 
one hour could not be exceeded when normal restricted boundaries 
were established. The NRC staff prepared this EA in support of 
the proposed action to amend the license. On the basis of this 
EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant 
environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant 
the preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, it has been determined 
that a FONSI is appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this notice are listed below. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located 
in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on 
the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
1. NRC, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions 
Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG-1748, August 2003. 
(ML032540811).
 
2. NRC, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' NUREG- 
1757, Volume 1, September 2003 (ML032530410).
 
3. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Texas Bureau of 
Radiation Control License No. L03835, Amendment No. 41, 
expiration date August 31, 2005 (ML051510390).
 
4. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Louisiana Department 
of Environmental Quality License No. LA-6678-L01, Amendment No. 
17, expiration date October 31, 2004 (ML051510385). 5. 
ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories New Mexico Radiation 
Control Bureau License No. WL264-26, expiration date February 28, 
2007 (ML051510393).
 
 
[[Page 39810]] 6. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories 
Letter to NRC, February 23, 2004 (ML040580736).
 
7. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, July 
14, 1997 (ML003724357).
 
8. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, 
November 14, 1997 (ML003724675).
 
9. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, 
February 4, 1998 (ML003724694).
 
10. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, 
January 20, 1998 (ML003724684).
 
11. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, 
February 27, 2004 (ML040580735).
 
12. Federal Register Volume 67, Number 24, pages 5320-5321 13. 
NRC letter to Roger Mulder, State of Texas, January 7, 2005 
(ML050130550).
 
14. NRC letter to Derrith Watchman-Moore, State of New Mexico, 
January 7, 2005 (ML050130548).
 
15. NRC letter to Michael Henry, State of Louisiana, January 7, 
2005 (ML050130549).
 
16. NRC letter to Robert Smith, EPA, January 7, 2005 
(ML050130547).
 
17. NRC letter to Bruce Kobelski, EPA, January 7, 2005 
(ML050130545).
 
18. EPA letter to Mark Satorius, NRC, March 3, 2005 
(ML050690294).
 
Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3630 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 25 AU ABC: Ranger operator facing fine over safety breach. 

11/07/2005. ABC News Online
 	
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Update: Monday, July 11, 2005. 6:45pm (AEST) 	 
 
The operator of the Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine is
facing a fine of up to $275,000 over an alleged workplace safety
breach.

 Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) was fined $150,000 in the
Darwin Magistrates Court last month after being found guilty of
contamination breaches in 2003 and 2004.

 A new charge was today filed against ERA in relation to an
incident in July last year in which a fitter and turner working
at the mine was seriously injured.

 The Northern Territory Department of Resource Development says
the incident was caused by a failure to ensure the health and
safety of mine workers.

 The charge carries a a minimum fine of $27,500. 


*****************************************************************
 26 American Chronicle: Depleted Uranium

Tuesday, July 12, 2005
 		 	 		 		 						 				
Kevin Zeese             

States Take Action to Protect their Soldiers and Veterans: An
Interview with Bob Smith of Louisiana 

Louisiana recently passed legislation to all returning veterans
to have the right to get a best practices health screening test
for exposure to depleted uranium. Interviewed here is Bob Smith,
one of the activists that helped make this bill possible. He is
with the Louisiana Activist Network at:

http://www.newdemocracyrising.com/index.asp. He is also I am a
member of Veterans for Peace and the Viet Nam Veterans Against
the War. Born a Texan and raised in a Navy family with three
siblings, moved to Louisiana in 1977 a few years after returning
from Viet Nam. He worked with adolescents in a psychiatric
hospital where he met his wife, a co-worker, returning to the
military and retired eight years ago as a Command Sergeant
Major. He became actively involved the day Congress gave the
President unconstitutional, power to make war on Iraq and has
been active ever since in the peace movement and with the
Presbyterian Church. 

Zeese: What made you pursue legislation regarding depleted
uranium in Louisiana? 

Smith: As a twenty year veteran I have been concerned about
veterans health since I returned from Viet Nam. From first hand
experience I knew the treatment of veterans by our country was
highly inadequate after their service. Each year after Gulf War
I, more and more veterans were being diagnosed with a mysterious
illness, Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) without significant research
for cause and effect much like what happened with Agent Orange
contamination. 

I learned about how the government dealt with Agent Orange
contamination during the eighties as an outreach counselor at
the VA’s Viet Nam Veterans Outreach Center or Vet Center here in
New Orleans. We were actively involved in trying to alert the VA
to the effects of Agent Orange contamination. For twenty five
years a government study done by the Rand Corporation denied any
cause and effect between Agent Orange and health problems
experienced by veterans and their offspring. Just this week the
VA has finally recognized the connection between Agent Orange
and diabetes. Remember the last troops returned from Viet Nam
over thirty years ago. Worth mentioning is that the same Rand
Corporation now denies any cause and effect between depleted
uranium contamination and health. 

Late last year after a lot of reading I found out about depleted
uranium. In January at the Jazz Funeral for Democracy, a peace
march in New Orleans organized by the Louisiana Activist
Network, I met a young Gulf War I veteran, Dennis Kyne. He
talked with me about what he knew first hand as a combat medic
about illnesses of our veterans even before they returned home
and what he has found out about DU since returning home. I then
did more research and studying. In March I met Leuren Moret, a
geoscientist, who reaffirmed everything that Dennis Kyne had
told me and reaffirmed what I had been reading. I then did more
research and studying including conversation with Doug Rokke.
Doug was the overall supervisor in charge of the clean-up after
Gulf War I and is an expert in depleted uranium. Thirty to forty
percent of his team are now dead. 

I then became concerned about what could be done to bring this
issue out into the public conversation. Leuren told me about a
young lady in Connecticut, Melissa Sterry, who was doing
something about it. Working with Rep Patricia Dillon of
Connecticut they were introducing a bill to have all of their
state’s veterans tested. The always unselfish Melissa willingly
shared a copy of the Connecticut bill with me. Melissa had been
a member of a depleted uranium clean-up team after Gulf War I.
She herself was very sick and had six of her eight team members
die since returning home. All six were less than thirty-five
years old. 

Taking the Connecticut bill, changing the name to a Louisiana
bill, and making a few minor amendments preceded a call to my
Louisiana congressperson, Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock. The
submission deadline was less than twenty-four hours after our
meeting. Rep. Juan LaFonta sponsored and Rep. Jefferson-Bullock
co-sponsored the bill. The deadline was made. 

Zeese: What does the legislation accomplish? 

Smith: The legislation will allow all returning veterans to have
the right to get a best practices health screening test for
exposure to depleted uranium. The test will use a bioassay
procedure involving sensitive methods capable of detecting
depleted uranium at low levels and the use of equipment with the
capacity to discriminate between different radioisotopes in
naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic
ratio and marker for depleted uranium. 

This test will determine if a soldier has been contaminated. It
will prevent mis-diagnosis so soldiers are not given the wrong
medications that usually make them sicker. It will allow the
contaminated soldier to decide about parenting further offspring
who have an increased chance of serious birth illnesses or
defects. 

The bill also prescribes a reporting mechanism from the
Louisiana’s Attorney General to the legislature that requires
that awareness sessions and training have been done as required
by Army regulations. 

Zeese: What tips do you have for activists in other states
interested in pursuing this in their state? 

Smith: Stay focused. Depleted uranium testing is for discovery
of contamination of a very hazardous material made from
radioactive nuclear waste. This is something that truly supports
the troops. Remind your elected representatives of that often 

Read, study, and discuss with the experts and others experienced
in this type of legislation. Other advocates should remember
that the weapons manufacturers do not want this in the public.
They make a lot of money off this death bringing material.
Likewise the military does not want to give up these very
effective offensive weapons regardless of how it effects our
soldiers or civilians, enemy soldiers, or the environment.
Although we did not encounter resistance from those two
potential adversaries, weapons manufacturers or the military,
others might and they should be prepared to bring in experts.
Having veterans testify helps. Another veteran, Ward Reilly,
from Baton Rouge was instrumental in helping get the bill
through committee. 

Zeese: What were some of the challenges you faced with this
legislation and how did you overcome them? 

Smith: The only real obstacle we encountered was educating our
representative. We knew we would have to educate her and do it
quickly but fortunately she agreed to a minimum one-hour
meeting. We were lucky as both representatives cared deeply
about our troops and taking care of them after they come home.
There were no other obstacles. 

Zeese: What are your next steps? 

Smith: We have been having awareness sessions at coffeehouses
and public events to educate the public, either by passing out
literature, making educational speeches, posting literature on
the internet, or showing documentaries. We are also
communicating with advocates in other states by sharing
information, resources, networking, and offering tips to help.
And if that doesn’t work I may just stand on top of the roof and
scream out the truth. 

Note: I retired after 20 years in the Army and National Guard as
a Command Sergeant Major, serving three tours in Viet Nam as a
Special Forces Green Beret and was mobilized for Desert Storm.
Education includes a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and a
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Currently
employed as an engineer living in New Orleans with Julie my wife
and life partner for over twenty-six years and our dog, Maggie.
Member of Veterans for Peace, Viet Nam Veterans Against the War,
and the Louisiana Activist Network. 

American Chronicle is a trademark of Ultio LLC.                 
*****************************************************************
 27 MCMN:  State Land Board set to address uranium mining - 

Moffat County Morning News 

Public comment is encouraged 
By Will Fletcher

 Morning News Staff Writer 
Friday, July 08, 2005 

Local residents will be given a chance to speak their minds on a
proposal to lease 1,680 acres of state land in Moffat County for
uranium mining. 

On Aug. 26, the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners will
address a lease proposal by the Canadian-based Standard Uranium
Inc. on four tracts surrounding the Maybell Uranium District,
two of which have already seen such mining activities in the
past. 

Residents are invited to submit comments to the board at its
regularly scheduled meeting in Pueblo, Colo., where the issue of
the Moffat County leases will be discussed, said Mark Davis,
minerals manager for the State Board of Land Commissioners. 

He added that the board must seek input from the gamut of local
government and private parties that may be impacted by such an
activity. That, he said, can range from environmental concerns
to, as Moffat County Commissioners have expressed, concerns
about increased traffic on county roads. 

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. 
And for those not capable of making the long drive, written
comments are also being accepted by the State Land Board and
will be presented to commissioners before they make their
decision. 

The state lands are dispersed among federal and private lands in
the vast western portion of the county. 

Along with grazing, mineral and energy development are
encouraged on state owned lands to raise funds for K-12
education in Colorado, Davis said. 

“Our job is to try and develop these minerals that were granted
to us when Colorado became a state,” Davis said. 

In 2004, oil, gas and coal leasing on state lands generated $40
million in Colorado. 

However, the leasing of uranium is something relatively rare at
this point, Davis said, but is growing as speculation of
increased nuclear power generation in the U.S. has caused a near
tripling of uranium prices during the past year and a half. 

Standard Uranium made claim to a total of 10,400 acres of
uranium mining claims in Moffat County this year, which was also
matched by 7,000 acres of claims in the Powder River Basin to
the north in Wyoming in May. 

The lion’s share of the Moffat County leases also fall on
federal lands, where mining claims can be staked without review
by a board, as is required on state land. 

Leasing the land for its uranium also does not mean the mine
claims will be developed, Davis said. 

Standard Uranium has signaled it is merely a holding company,
and that mining would depend heavily on how economic mining of
the radioactive element may become in the future. 

Moffat County uranium deposits typically fall below other
deposits in purity. 

“It doesn’t compare in grade to other deposits in North
America,” Davis said. 

In addition, once the state gives its approval for the lease,
any developer would also have to gain permit approval by both
the state and the Moffat County Board of Commissioners,
processes that would also follow extensive public input. 
“The big deal is not us issuing the lease,” Davis said. But

Davis added that when the Board of Land Commissioners is briefed
on the topic, it is treated as if mining is imminent. 

“When I make my presentation to the board, I make it clear that
they could develop these deposits,” Davis said. 

Questionnaires to eight local government agencies, including the
BOCC and county planner, Bureau of Land Management and Division
of Wildlife, were sent out regarding the mining claims. 

Davis said that no negative comments were received, and that the
BOCC commented that it would require a conditional use permit
prior to any mining, as well as a transportation plan to address
any increased truck traffic along county roads. 

Comments to the State Board of Land Commissioners can be made
to: attn: Mark Davis, 1313 Sherman St., Room 619, Denver, CO
80203. 

Will Fletcher can be reached at will@moffatcountynews.com

Moffat County Morning News
 519 Yampa Ave. Downtown Craig, Colorado
 970.824.6238 voice
 970.824.3009 fax 
© 2004 Bulldog Press   
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: HEU export license - correction

                         FR Doc Z5-3342 
[Federal Register: July 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 131)] 
[CORRECTIONS] [Page 39868] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy05-122]                         

[[Page 39868]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
Application for a License To Export High-Enriched Uranium
Correction

    In notice document E5-3342 beginning on page 37126 in the
issue of 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, make the following correction:

    On page 37127, in the first column, in the third full
paragraph, 
the information under the heading ``NRC Export License
Application for 
High-Enriched Uranium'' should appear as a table reading as
follows:
                            
NRC export license application for high-enriched uranium

 Name of Applicant Date of Application
   Date Received Application Number          Material Type      
         End Use                Country of
             Docket Number                                      
                                Destination

DOE/NNSA-Y12                            High-Enriched Uranium   
The material would be      Belgium
June 1, 2005                                                    
 transferred initially to
                                                                
 CERCA, in France, where
                                                                
 it would be fabricated
                                                                
 into fuel. This fuel
                                                                
 would then be
                                                                
 transferred to
                                                                
 Studiecentrum voor
                                                                
 Kernergie (SCK) for
                                                                
 ultimate use at BR-2
                                                                
 research reactor located
                                                                
 in Mol, Belgium from
                                                                
 2008-2011.

June 2, 2005
XSNM03404
11005562

[FR Doc. Z5-3342 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
*****************************************************************
 29 STUFF: Renewed fight over NZ's nuclear ship ban

New Zealand's leading news and information website
 
Tuesday, 12 July 2005      
    
  © Fairfax New Zealand Limited2005. All the material on this

Should New Zealand's 20-year-old ban on nuclear ships be changed
to improve relations with the United States? David McLoughlin
reports. 

As New Zealand basked this week in the final glow of the Lions
rugby tour, Sydney pumped to the beat of 5300 American sailors,
soldiers and pilots on shore leave from the aircraft carrier USS
Kitty Hawk. 

The giant carrier – 19 floors high and 324 metres long – berthed
in Sydney on Sunday night after 40 days at sea, fresh from an
exercise off the Queensland coast with other American and
Australian ships. 

The timing could hardly have been better as Monday was July 4,
America's Independence Day and the crew were out to party hard. 

Some estimates predicted they would pour as much as $30 million
into Sydney's shops, restaurants, bars and brothels. "My people
are eager to take advantage of the local attractions," said Rear
Admiral Jamie Kelly, commander of carrier strike group five,
which Kitty Hawk heads. 

As the eftpos machines ran white-hot all week in Sydney, New
Zealand bars, stores, hotels, camping grounds and, less publicly
than those in Sydney, our newly legalised brothels, were
counting how much the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 followers of
the British and Irish Lions had spent here. 

Though predictions of the Barmy Army drinking the nation dry
largely turned out to be hype created by promoter Freddie
Parker, the cities of New Plymouth, Invercargill, Wellington,
Christchurch, Dunedin, Rotorua, Palmerston North and this final
weekend, Auckland, have hugely enjoyed the visits of the
red-shirted hordes. 

Positively Wellington Tourism boss Tim Cossar said rough
estimates were that the Lions fans injected up to $15 million
into the city last week. 

While a rugby tour like the Lions is good for business, they
happen years apart. Sydney and other Aussie ports enjoy regular
bonanzas like the Kitty Hawk visit, a byproduct of Australia's
close defence ties with the US. 

As Kiwis were reminded this week after a speech by
soon-to-depart American ambassador Charles Swindells, New
Zealand once had similar ties and was host to regular visits by
US Navy surface warships and submarines. 

New Zealanders increasingly opposed and then stopped them after
the election in July 1984 of David Lange's Labour Party, which
adopted the nuclear-free policy and law we have today. 

Still fighting old battles 

The economic benefits of warship visits were barely considered
in the 1980s. The debates that raged then were about having an
independent foreign policy after three decades of being a minor
deputy sheriff to the US and Australia in the Anzus
(Australia-New Zealand-US) tripartite defence pact signed in
1952; and over the perceived risks of having nuclear powered and
armed warships in our ports. 

Mr Swindells' speech, aptly delivered on Independence Day,
served to remind Kiwis how much times have changed, while our
governments remain locked in the positions fought over 20 years
ago. 

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
almost 15 years ago, American surface warships no longer even
carry nuclear weapons, and most US ships, barring submarines,
are not nuclear powered. The Kitty Hawk is conventionally
powered. 

Visits by conventionally powered warships are not prohibited by
either New Zealand government policy nor the anti-nuclear law
itself, the 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control
Act. 

Navies from other nuclear powers, including Britain and France,
send warships here despite those countries objecting to our
anti-nuclear policy almost as strongly as America did in 1985. 

Stripped of the rhetoric, it seems it's little more than bloody
mindedness on America's part in stopping its ships coming here,
combined with successive New Zealand governments equally
stubbornly declining to revisit the 1987 legislation. Public
opinion appears to have moved on, as evidenced by a New Zealand
Herald poll in June last year that showed 53 per cent of Kiwis
would support a relaxation of the law banning nuclear-powered
ships if an understanding was reached with the US that such
ships would not actually be sent. 

What Mr Swindells has achieved is to put the issue on the agenda
for the election campaign. Prime Minister Helen Clark made it
clear this week that she relishes defending the nukes-ban
against National Party leader Don Brash's apparent willingness
at least to hold a referendum on changing the law. 

What the ambassador said 

Extracts from the speech of US ambassador Charles Swindells, in
Wellington on July 4: 

It is easy to overlook the fact that New Zealand and the United
States are related in many, many respects. In a way we are like
family. We share common elements of history and culture. 

Over my four years here I have also come to see that in some
ways we are very different. The way we look at the world and our
roles within that world can be very different. How each country
looks at our dispute of 20 years ago – what caused it, what the
remaining implications are – can be very different. 

I believe it's because we are so close – in history, in
language, in values – that in an attempt to preserve our
friendship, we tend to want to gloss over our differences. Or if
we do acknowledge differences we insist they are the product of
certain administrations or politicians. 

Can we bring ourselves closer or will we continue to drift ever
further apart? I confess I do not have the answers. But I do
have a suggestion – we need to talk about it. Successive
governments in both countries have been unwilling or unable to
deal comprehensively with the strains that have accumulated in
the bilateral relationship since the mid-80s. 

Let me be clear. I don't think that departures in global
interests or differences in political, economic and defence
policies will ever force the US-New Zealand relationship to an
end. Neither does my government. 

  Stripped of the rhetoric, it seems it's little more than
bloody mindedness on America's part in stopping its ships coming
here, combined with successive New Zealand governments equally
stubbornly declining to revisit the 1987 legislation.   

But a key pillar of a mature and trusting relationship is honest
and open dialogue. The past 20 years have witnessed,
unfortunately, a somewhat stifled dialogue. We keep disagreeing
about the past. But the world moves on and we need to move with
it. A lack of dialogue in any relationship creates mistrust. 

Some favour the status quo, and that's their choice, but in my
view there's really no such thing. It's like treading water in a
strong current. Relationships are dynamic. If they are not
changing to meet new challenges they lose relevance. The United
States does not want this to happen to our bilateral
relationship. 

It needn't happen if both countries open the door to
comprehensive dialogue about the issues that have adversely
affected the relationship over the past 20 years. 

Many New Zealanders believe our bilateral relationship is
important to both countries, are frustrated that successive
governments, in both countries, have let the relationship drift
to a point where it does not fulfil its potential and realise
that till there is a frank and open discussion on the issues
that divide us we will continue to drift. Let us take this
opportunity to move forward together. Let us take time to talk
freely and honestly. Let us seize the moment to define
ourselves, not as what we were, but as what we can be. 

It was 20 years ago 

From 1975 till his defeat by David Lange in July 1984, National
prime minister Sir Robert Muldoon encouraged American
nuclear-powered surface ships and submarines to visit New
Zealand ports. 

The warships were typically met by flotillas of protest boats as
they entered the harbours in Auckland and Wellington and the
visits attracted increasingly strident protests on land. 

The 1984 snap election was directly sparked by National
backbencher Marilyn Waring informing Sir Robert she planned to
vote with Labour in support of a bill drafted by then Labour MP
Richard Prebble to ban nuclear warship visits. Faced with losing
his majority, a visibly drunk Sir Robert called an early
election that very night. 

After winning the election, Mr Lange visited the US and returned
apparently prepared to weaken the policy by allowing warships to
anchor "off the Heads" rather than enter harbours, but a caucus
revolt led by Miss Clark, then a second-term backbencher,
ensured there was to be no wavering. 

But the Government led the Americans to believe it would allow a
conventionally powered warship to visit as long as it was
obvious it was not nuclear armed. 

In early 1985 the Americans requested a visit by an elderly
conventional ship of a class that did not carry nuclear weapons,
but Mr Lange refused it on the grounds that the US would not
confirm its armament status publicly. 

America rigidly operated a policy that it would "neither confirm
nor deny" the presence of nuclear weapons on its vessels, and
that became the final sticking point. 

The row prompted a dramatic breakdown in our defence ties with
the US and to a lesser extent with Australia. 

New Zealand was effectively expelled from the Anzus treaty, a
post-World War II pact intended to ensure American, New Zealand
and Australia forces would aid the other if any of the three
countries was attacked. 

The three had regularly held joint military exercises, but
America unilaterally excluded New Zealand and suspended much
intelligence sharing. 

President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz,
famously declared after meeting Mr Lange in Manila in 1985: "We
part company as friends, but we part company." 

The Lange government proceeded to pass the anti-nuclear law
through Parliament. Opinion polls suggested it had strong public
support. That support convinced National by 1990 to affirm its
backing for the policy despite being strongly opposed at first. 

The policy then became part of the fabric of New Zealand
politics and not seriously debated till this week when Mr
Swindells raised it, more it seemed in sorrow than the anger of
old. 

What happens next? 

The anti-nuclear policy is set to become an election issue.
National's leader Don Brash now sees the policy as an impediment
to better relations with the US. 

His stance is that it would be changed if there is majority
public support in a referendum, or if National wins an election
(not this coming one) after campaigning on an end to the ban. 

At a meeting in Washington in early 2004, four months after
becoming National leader, Dr Brash was alleged to have told
members of Congress that the ships ban would be "gone by
lunchtime" if National became Government. 

While Dr Brash says he cannot recall making that statement, he
has not denied it either. 

In the wake of Mr Swindells' speech this week, Dr Brash said
National's manifesto for the looming election would have a
commitment not to change the policy. 

"But, if we are in government, if, and I repeat if, it's judged
to be in New Zealand's best interests, we'll put that to a
referendum." 

Relishing a fight on the nuclear policy rather than the tax
debacle that has battered Labour since the Budget, Miss Clark
declared nobody could trust Dr Brash on the issue. 

"New Zealand's unique nuclear-free foreign policy would be
greatly at risk from a National government." 

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************