*****************************************************************
05/24/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.123
*****************************************************************
   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 Annan Calls For Intensified Diplomacy On Iranian Nuclear Dispute
2 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with
3 IPS-English IRAN: Letter to Bush Lands With a Resounding Thud
4 Guardian Unlimited: World Powers Meet in London About Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: No Change on Iran Talks, White House Says
6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Hints U.N. May Step in on Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran nuclear talks continue
8 IRNA: Iran's N-activities totally for peaceful ends - Venezuelan env
9 AFP: US vows no direct talks unless Iran suspends nuclear activities
10 AFP: World powers seek to break deadlock on Iran's nuclear work -
11 AFP: World powers edge closer to breaking deadlock on Iran's nuclear
12 IRNA: Deputy FM outlines Iran's N-stance 
13 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Stop giving Tehran the silent t
14 IRNA: Envoy stresses Iran's N-rights based on NPT, IAEA 
15 Korea Herald: Railroad cancellation puts brake on N.K. ties   
16 Korea Herald: N.K. calls off cross-border railway test run   
17 IRNA: Tehran has repeatedly announced readiness to hold talks with U
18 AFP: US rules out incentives to lure NKorea back to six-way talks -
19 UPI: India says no to nuke test ban
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
20 US: Senate Hearing On Promoting Nuke Power Expansion In USA
21 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Columbia Generating Stat
22 NEWS.com.au: Beazley a nuclear hypocrite - PM -
23 NEWS.com.au: Costello 'welcomes' nuclear debate - 
24 The Australian: Nuclear power's new look: smaller, cheaper 
25 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pitches Plan to Expand Nuclear Power
26 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for James A. Fit
27 US: Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook power upgrade is approved
28 Australian Financial Review: Nuclear costs highly relevant
29 AU ABC: Mayor calls for nuclear power debate
30 AU ABC: Premiers line up to reject nuclear plant
31 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
32 AU ABC: Beazley wants nuclear sites list
33 AU ABC: Stanhope welcomes nuclear power debate
34 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear chief mulls 40 new NPP reactors by 203
35 RIA Novosti: Kiriyenko upbeat over U.S. opening nuclear market to Ru
36 US: TheNewsTribune.com: A goodbye to the ghost of nuclear power past
37 US: NRDC: KEY QUESTIONS ON NUCLEAR POWER MUST BE ADDRESSED, SAYS NRD
38 US: Platts: Senate panel approves NRC commissioners' nominations
39 RBC: Russia and US to draft peaceful nuclear energy use accord 
40 US: WH: President Discusses Energy During Visit to Nuclear Generatin
41 Xinhua: China's energy demand to be mainly self-satisfied - senior p
42 US: THERECORD.COM: Our future is nuclear
43 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
44 US: The Mercury: Limerick chosen for energy speech
45 Japan Times: Steam leak halts reactor in Fukushima 
46 AU ABC: PM calls for debate on nuclear energy
47 AU ABC: Nuclear power doesn't stack up - experts
48 US: AFP: Nuclear power: safe, inexpensive and environmentally-friend
49 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate a waste - Iemma 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
50 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Opportunity for terrorists
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
51 US: Deseret News: Is cancer Utah mill's legacy? 
52 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Idahoans demand Divine Strake info
53 US: WFTV.com: Couple Finds Uranium In Bottom Of Tool Box
54 US: KHOU.com: Did government expose Houston workers to radiation? 
55 AU ABC: Nuclear accidents aberrations - supporters. 
56 UPI: Auction find: Cylinder of depleted uranium
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
57 US: Guardian Unlimited: House Favors Scaling Back Bush Nuclear Bid
58 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor MP supports uranium enrichment - 
59 US: Beacon Journal: Uniontown dump raises concerns
60 Platts: BNG awarded 36-year, GBP230 million contract by UK's MoD
61 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Judge orders Exelon to action on tritium 
62 US: The Mercury: ACE wants fuel casks protected
63 US: The Mercury: Exelon plans for spent fuel storage
64 AU ABC: Nuclear waste for Portland? 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
65 Knox News: K-25 racecourse plans upset some
66 KnoxNews: Nuke work proceeds; is new contract next?
67 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab drainage sites a threat, groups say
68 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Feds want Hanford ban overturned
69 DOE: United States and International Partners Initial ITER Agreement
70 Hanford News: DOE audit finds area where Hanford can cut $14 million
71 Tri-City Herald: Justice wants Hanford initiative tossed 
72 Hanford News: Feds argue judge should overturn Hanford initiative
73 Hanford News: Audit suggests DOE has too many vehicles in fleet; 119
74 Hanford News: Justice wants Hanford initiative tossed
75 PRWeb: CH2M HILL Tests hydroGEOPHYSICS Leak Detection Technology at 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Annan Calls For Intensified Diplomacy On Iranian Nuclear Dispute
 
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:00:36 -0400


 
ANNAN CALLS FOR INTENSIFIED DIPLOMACY ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR DISPUTE
New York, May 24 2006  3:00PM
On the fourth leg of an Asian trip today, United Nations Secretary-General 
Kofi Annan praised the progress made by his Vietnamese 
hosts while calling for intensified efforts to reach a diplomatic 
solution on the Iranian nuclear dispute, indicating that the United 
States should talk directly with Iran and pledge not to seek 
the Government’s overthrow.

“It is important that Iran assures the world that its intentions 
are peaceful, and works with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy 
Agency] to lift the cloud of uncertainty surrounding its nuclear 
project – whether it is seeking nuclear weapons or is only peaceful,” 
he <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=878">told 
reporters in Hanoi, the Vietnamese capital.

“I think the best solution is a negotiated one and we should really 
intensify our diplomatic efforts to try and achieve that result,” 
he added of a reported diplomatic package the European negotiators 
are preparing.

Mr. Annan was specifically asked if he agreed IAEA Director-General 
Mohammed ElBaradei’s reported view that the US should engage or 
talk with Iran directly and also promise not to try and overthrow 
the Government in Iran.

“On the question of who sits at the table and the US, you know my 
own position, which I’ve been stating privately and publicly to 
the Americans, and it does coincide with what you said ElBaradei 
said today,” he replied.

Asked about reports that Iran had asked him and others to mediate 
direct talks with the US, Mr. Annan replied: “As Secretary-General 
of the United Nations, my good offices are always available in 
situations where I can help. One or two other countries on issues 
like this always approach me and see if there is any initiative 
I can take, if there’s anything I can do to help resolve the issue 
satisfactorily.

“And once again, let me repeat, as Secretary-General, my good offices 
are always available on its nuclear programme,” he added.

Earlier this year, the IAEA referred the issue of Iran’s nuclear 
programme to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, after 
Mr. ElBaradei repeatedly reported that although the Agency had 
not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other 
explosive devices, it was still not able to conclude that there were 
no undeclared nuclear materials or activities. 

Iran says its activities are solely for energy purposes but the United 
States and other countries insist it is clandestinely seeking 
to produce nuclear weapons. Last August, Iran rescinded its voluntary 
suspension of nuclear fuel conversion, which can produce 
the enriched uranium necessary either for nuclear power generation 
or for nuclear weapons. 

Earlier today, Mr. Annan visited the Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum where 
he and his wife, Nane Annan, took part in a wreath-laying ceremony. 
He then held a series of meetings with Viet Nam’s leaders, including 
President Tran Duc Luong, Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien, 
Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and Communist Party Secretary-General 
Nong Duc Manh.

In between those meetings, he met with women leaders – achieving 
gender equality is a national goal in Viet Nam – and with the National 
Avian Influenza Steering Committee, as well as with UN staff. 


“The dramatic decline in poverty over the last decade is an historic 
achievement. Viet Nam’s social indicators now compare favourably 
with countries that are much better off in terms of per-capita 
income,” he told reporters, praising the country’s efforts to achieve 
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which seek to slash 
a host of ills, such as extreme hunger and poverty, high infant 
and maternal mortality and lack of access to education and health 
care, all by 2015.

“For Viet Nam and the United Nations, the job will not be done until 
everyone enjoys freedom from hunger and deprivation, access to 
education, protection from infectious diseases and a healthy, safe 
environment,” he said, also praising the “impressive results” 
the country has achieved in fighting the current outbreak of bird 
flu. 

“They have made remarkable progress and I hope the Government is 
ready to share its expertise and organizational strategy to combat 
the avian influenza with other countries and other regions working 
to contain the influenza,” he added.
 2006-05-24 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 2 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with
 
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:45:38 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS MM NA IP BW NU PI=20
POLITICS: Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, May 24 (IPS) - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Isra=
el and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pre=
ssure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, accord=
ing to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States.

The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the is=
sues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, w=
as conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita P=
arsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University =
School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS=
, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at=
  liberty to reveal the source.=20

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush=
  administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and t=
he sponsorship of terrorism in the region. =20

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian neg=
otiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermedia=
ry who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy =
in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to b=
e identified, according to Parsi.=20

The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared=
  to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in retu=
rn for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted =
in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observer=
s of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran=
  as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had su=
pported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, =
however, offered =94acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration=94, =
which it also referred to as the =94Saudi initiative, two-states approach=
.=94

The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first off=
icial acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensi=
ve peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory i=
t had controlled before the 1967 war. Iran's proposed concession on the i=
ssue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, a=
mong others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a =94stop of any material support =
to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territ=
ory=94 along with =94pressure on these organizations to stop violent acti=
ons against civilians within borders of 1967=94.

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran=
  and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offere=
d to take =94action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization =
within Lebanon=94.

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the =
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for =94full access =
to peaceful nuclear technology=94. It offered =94full cooperation with IA=
EA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all fu=
rther IAEA protocols)=94.

That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAE=
A monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had=
  been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficul=
t for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detec=
ted.

In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetori=
c about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sough=
t U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a =94Halt i=
n U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.=94=
, as well as the =94abolishment of all sanctions=94.

Also included among Iran's aims was =94recognition of Iran's legitimate s=
ecurity interests in the region with according defense capacity=94. Accor=
ding to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official=
  acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the =
Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.

Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's se=
curity and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gu=
lf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Irani=
an concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national secu=
rity officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national=
  security policy.

An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of =
the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, =94The Iranian=
  president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you=
  start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear=
  weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concer=
n.=94

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to n=
egotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. F=
lynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the Natio=
nal Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was=
  =94literally a few days=94 between the receipt of the Iranian proposal a=
nd the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasu=
re that he had forwarded it to Washington. =20

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U=
.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relati=
ons professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the lates=
t issue of Middle East Journal that =94senior analysts=94 from Iran told =
him in July 2005 that =94the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may als=
o be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between th=
e U.S. and Iran=94.

The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and a=
nti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conser=
vatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist =
movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last yea=
r's election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have =
also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefi=
t Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence office=
r on Iran. =94Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you c=
ould strike a deal with the devil, you would do it,=94 he said in an inte=
rview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the Unite=
d States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement=
  of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough=
, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's S=
upreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was =94directly involved=94 in the =
Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security offic=
ials he interviewed in 2004.  Kamenei has aligned himself with the conser=
vatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
*****
+POLITICS: Reversing Policy, U.S. =94Froze=94 Iran Talks in March (http:/=
/ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33303)
+POLITICS: Iran Pushes for Talks With U.S. on Nukes, Security (http://ips=
news.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33070)

(END/IPS/NA/MM/IP/NU/BW/PI/GP/KS/06)

=20
=3D 05241929 ORP010
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 3 IPS-English IRAN: Letter to Bush Lands With a Resounding Thud
 
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:47:17 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS MM NA IP BW NU=20
IRAN: Letter to Bush Lands With a Resounding Thud
By Omid Memarian*

BERKELEY, California, May 24 (IPS) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadineja=
d's recent letter to U.S. Pres. George W. Bush, which was quickly dismiss=
ed by the administration as offering no useful concessions, has found new=
  critics in Tehran amid the uncertainties surrounding Iran's nuclear prog=
ramme.

In his 18-page letter, Ahmadinejad strongly criticised the United States'=
  foreign policy, declaring that =94Western-style democracy has failed=94 =
and that =94the use of secret prisons in Europe and aspects of the war in=
  Iraq=94 could not be reconciled with Bush's =94Christian values=94.

He raised a number of questions regarding human rights violations in the =
context of Washington's =94war on terror=94, and referred repeatedly to r=
eligion and faith, raising eyebrows among some Iranians who believe Ahmad=
inejad overstepped his bounds as president and portrayed himself as some =
kind of mentor or prophet.

(Since coming to office, the president has claimed to have several divine=
  experiences, including being surrounded by a light during his speech to =
the U.N. General Assembly last September).=20

=94Ahmadinejad tries to connect himself to god in order to later protect =
himself from the ordinary people when he is facing a huge economic crisis=
  inside and many international crises outside,=94 one Iranian journalist =
told IPS on condition of anonymity.

Ahmadinejad did not mention the most visible point of contention between =
the U.S. and Iran -- Tehran's efforts to enrich uranium, ostensibly for n=
uclear power but which Washington and others warn could also be used to d=
evelop nuclear weapons.

The letter coincided with a statement by the European Union's criticising=
  the Iranian government over the increasing number of executions and huma=
n rights violations, particularly the recent arrest of Ramin Jahanbeglou,=
  a prominent Iranian scholar.

Meanwhile, many Iranian dissidents, bloggers and writers seized on the op=
portunity to write their own letters to Ahmadinejad. =94Present this long=
  list of questions to Ayatollah Khamenie, the supreme leader, and then ev=
aluate how both of you treats the Iranian people,=94 wrote Mohsen Sazegar=
a, a former founder of the Revolutionary Guards who now lives in Washingt=
on as an exile.

=94It is better to resolve the Iranian people's crisis,=94 he wrote in a =
letter that was widely circulated by email and posted on Iranian affairs =
websites, =94than to give advice or defy the demands of global powers...L=
et go of this childish behaviour!=94

=94Ahmadinejad broke the taboo of negotiating with United States without =
achieving peace and glory for Iran,=94 wrote Mohammad Ghoochani, editor-i=
n-chief of Shargh, one of the more popular dailies in Tehran.

=94The Bush administration didn't respond to this letter,=94 he added in =
the controversial editorial, =94and that had no repercussions for it. But=
  Iran broke one of the taboos without achieving anything. Could anybody p=
redict the cold reaction of the United States? The reaction of the United=
  States to Ahmadinejad's letter is an insult to Iranians, which was broug=
ht about by Ahmadinejad in the first place.=94

Of course, the letter also had its admirers. Ayatollah Jannati, the head =
of Iran's notorious Guardian Council, one of the most conservative bodies=
  in the Islamic Republic, declared the letter to be an inspiration from g=
od and said students should study it in school. =94God wants to enhance t=
he power of this country with inspiring its will through this letter... T=
hey are the losers, whether they answer or not... It proves their weaknes=
s.=94

Mehdi Karrobi, the former reformist head of parliament, directly criticis=
ed Jannati's remarks. =94Officials are not people's mentors,=94 he wrote =
in his response. =94The president is not in such a high position.=94

Meanwhile, Fatemeh Rajabi, the wife of Ahmadinejad's chief of staff, anno=
unced that she is going to publish a book called =94Ahmadinejad, the Mira=
cle of the Third Millennium=94.

Just a day before the letter's contents became known on May 9, some analy=
sts speculated that Ahmadinejad must have addressed some of the issues re=
volving around the nuclear deadlock and paved the way for further negotia=
tions.

Even so, critics doubted it would do much to break the nuclear impasse, c=
iting Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations last August, which surpr=
ised many in the international community with its aggressive tone and led=
  to increased pressures on Iran.

Ahmadinejad and the conservatives eagerly expected Pres. Bush to respond.=
  =94Bush must answer this logical letter,=94 said Haddad-Adel, the curren=
t head of parliament.

The reaction on Bush's part, however, was so muted that it required addit=
ional explanations for the letter by Iran's president. =94This letter,=94=
  declared Ahmadinejad, =94was about much higher issues than the nuclear o=
ne, which we don't consider important enough to write letters for. We are=
  striving to solve the world's most vital problems. This letter has been =
an invitation to following the teachings of the prophet, justice, and uni=
fication.=94

Regardless of its many interpretations, the letter does indicate that Ira=
n's leaders, despite what they might say to the contrary, are enthusiasti=
cally awaiting an opening of dialogue with the United States.

There is a common belief among the conservatives that receiving security =
guarantees from the United States would ensure the regime's survival. Thi=
s explains why Ahmadinejad tried to find a way to talk directly to Washin=
gton, even though he did not receive any positive signals in return.

Ahmadinejad's fruitless letter to Bush, as the first direct communication=
  between an Iranian leader and a U.S. president since 1979, has further r=
educed his appeal to Iran's middle class, journalists and intellectuals. =
Most believe that he wrote this letter at the wrong time and without achi=
eving any tangible results -- other than enhancing the United States' pos=
ition in this power struggle.

*Omid Memarian is an Iranian journalist and civil society activist. He ha=
s won several awards, including Human Rights Watch's highest honour in 20=
05, the Human Rights Defender Award. Omid is currently a visiting scholar=
  at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Be=
rkeley.
*****
+Text of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush (http://www.informationclearinghous=
e.info/article12984.htm)

(END/IPS/NA/MM/IP/NU/BW/OM/KS/06)

=20
=3D 05250043 ORP001
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: World Powers Meet in London About Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 24, 2006 1:01 PM

AP Photo NYET680 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

LONDON (AP) - Six world powers searched for common ground
Wednesday on rewarding Iran if it gives up uranium enrichment,
and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Tehran to ``lift the
cloud of uncertainty'' about its nuclear program. 

Among the issues at a meeting in London grouping the five U.N.
Security Council nations and Germany was a compromise proposal
for possible sanctions against Iran should it refuse to halt
uranium enrichment, diplomats said. 

The compromise - which would drop the automatic threat of
military action if Iran remains defiant - is part of a proposed
basket of incentives meant to entice Iran to give up the
activity, a possible pathway to nuclear arms. It also spells out
the penalties if it does not. It is meant to get support both
from Russia and China, which fiercely oppose any suggestion of
force in pressuring Iran. 

France, Britain and Germany discussed the final form of the
package Tuesday ahead of submission for hoped-for approval
Wednesday at a formal meeting of the five permanent Security
Council members and Germany. 

A British Foreign Office official said that six-nation meeting
had began. The venue was being kept secret, reflecting the
delicate nature of the negotiations. 

If accepted, the compromise would resolve wrangling within the
Security Council since it became actively involved in March, two
months after Iran's file was referred to it by the 35-nation
board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Russia and China have opposed calls by the United States,
Britain and France for a resolution threatening sanctions and
enforceable by military action. 

The compromise proposal is meant to break that deadlock, said
the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the
details were not released. 

On a visit to Vietnam, Annan urged Iran to clarify whether it is
trying to develop nuclear weapons, and he appealed for a
negotiated solution to the dispute. 

Annan said Iran should work with U.N. nuclear inspectors ``to
lift the cloud of uncertainty surrounding its nuclear project,
whether it is seeking nuclear weapons or if it's only
peaceful.'' 

``What is important is that both sides - the Europeans who have
been negotiating with Iran, and Iran - have indicated that they
are prepared to continue negotiations,'' Annan said. ``In my
contacts with the Iranians, I have appealed to them not to
reject anything out of hand.'' 

If Iran remains defiant, the proposal calls for a Security
Council resolution imposing sanctions under Chapter 7, Article
41 of the U.N. Charter. But it avoids any reference to Article
42 - which is the trigger for possible military action to
enforce any such resolution. 

And in an additional reassurance to Moscow and Beijing, it
specifically calls for new consultations among the five
permanent Security Council members on any further steps against
Iran. That is meant to dispel past complaints by the Russians
and Chinese that once the pressure on Iran is increased, it
would automatically start a process leading to military
involvement. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: No Change on Iran Talks, White House Says
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 24, 2006 5:31 PM

By NEDRA PICKLER 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States will not negotiate directly
with Iran on its nuclear program, President Bush's spokesman
said Wednesday, although he left open the door for talks if
Tehran proves it has permanently stopped all nuclear weapons
activities. 

``Until they do that, there is going to be no change in the
administration's posture (or) in the president's posture when it
comes to one-on-one negotiations,'' said White House press
secretary Tony Snow. ``We will continue to use appropriate
international forums and work with and through our allies when
it comes to dealing with the government in Iran.'' 

Snow repeated the administration's demand that Iran must suspend
all uranium enrichment and processing in a verifiable, credible
and permanent manner. 

``When that happens, all right, then there may be some
opportunities,'' Snow said. But he would not elaborate on what
those opportunities might be. ``I'm going no further,'' he said. 

Iran and the United States have refused to hold bilateral
exchanges since soon after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The
only publicly acknowledged discussions between the two countries
came in early 2003, as the United States was building up
military forces in the Persian Gulf ahead of the Iraq war. 

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq has said he has been authorized to
hold discussions with Iran specifically about the situation in
Iraq, rather than broader subjects like the nuclear program.
Negotiations with Tehran on nuclear issues are being handled
through U.S. allies in Europe. 

Iran insists it is only interested in nuclear technology to
generate electricity, but the international community
increasingly fears it plans to build a nuclear bomb. 

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iran has made
requests for direct talks with the Bush administration on the
nuclear program. Snow said he didn't know if those reports are
true, but he said it's clear Iran's leaders are trying to
``negotiate through the press.'' 

``It's very clear the pressure has begun to pay off,'' Snow
said. ``They want to change the subject, and we're not going to
let them.'' 

^--- 

On the Net: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Hints U.N. May Step in on Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 24, 2006 11:46 PM

AP Photo DCKW103 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said talks
Wednesday on perks and penalties meant to stop Iran from
pursuing nuclear activities that the West fears could produce a
bomb produced ``good progress,'' suggesting the United Nations
could act soon if Tehran remains defiant. 

Meanwhile, the possibility of direct talks between Iran and the
United States appeared distant despite back channel overtures
from Iran and additional pressure on Washington from its
negotiating partners and others. 

Diplomats from the United States and other veto-holding members
of the U.N. Security Council met in London on Wednesday to
review a package of incentives and threats that European nations
could present to Iran. The deal is not final, but Rice indicated
it is close. 

``The London meeting had good progress,'' Rice told reporters.
``We did not expect them to finalize all matters and they are
still working on some matters.'' 

The foreign ministers of the six nations must give final
approval to any package. Rice said ministers may meet very soon,
but she offered no details. 

She spoke following a meeting with the head of the U.N.'s
nuclear watchdog agency. International Atomic Energy Agency
chief Mohammed ElBaradei told reporters the United States alone
must decide if it wants to sit down for direct talks with
Tehran, something the Bush administration has rejected as
premature at best. 

White House press secretary Tony Snow ruled out direct talks at
least until Iran ends all uranium enrichment, which Iran has
refused to do, and allows international inspections. 

``When that happens, all right, then there may be some
opportunities,'' Snow said. But he would not elaborate. ``I'm
going no further,'' he said. 

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Iran has been
showing interest in holding talks with the United States through
intermediaries, but the U.S. has not replied. 

ElBaradei met with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani
several days ago, and said he described to Rice ``the Iranian
point of view, which is rather different from the U.S. point of
view.'' 

ElBaradei is among a long list of diplomats, former diplomats
and leaders who have said that U.S.-Iranian talks could defuse
the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. 

``If negotiations were to move in the right direction,
particularly when the discussions of security were to start, I
would hope the U.S. would be able to join them,'' ElBaradei told
reporters after his State Department meeting. 

The Security Council hit an impasse soon after taking up Iran's
disputed nuclear program in March. Russia and China have opposed
calls by the United States, Britain and France for a resolution
that could bring sanctions and that is enforceable by military
action. 

Diplomats told the AP before the meeting that a compromise would
be considered that would drop the automatic threat of military
action but still pack the threat of sanctions if Iran remains
defiant. 

Russia and China have opposed calls by America, Britain and
France for a resolution enforceable by military action. 

If Iran remains defiant, the proposal called for a Security
Council resolution imposing sanctions under Chapter VII, Article
41 of the U.N. Charter. But it avoided any reference to Article
42 - which is the trigger for possible military action to
enforce a resolution. 

And it calls for new consultations among the five permanent
members on any further steps against Iran. That is meant to
dispel past complaints by the Russians and Chinese that once the
screws on Iran are tightened, it would automatically start a
process leading to military involvement. 

--- 

On the Net: 

State Department: http://www.state.gov 

United Nations: http://www.un.org 

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran nuclear talks continue
 
Peter Walker and agencies

Wednesday May 24, 2006           

Officials from the EU, US, China and Russia were today meeting
in London as attempts to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear
programme continued.

No ministers were attending the talks at the Foreign Office,
which a spokesman said were "part of a regular pattern of
meetings". He refused to give further details.

The talks are aimed at resolving ongoing differences between the
US and the EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - on one side and
China and Russia on the other.

China and Russia oppose a possible UN resolution that could pave 
the way for sanctions or even military action against Tehran.

The UN security council has called for Iran to end its
enrichment of uranium, which could potentially be a step towards
the production of nuclear weapons.

The London meeting will work towards a possible deal that could
offer Iran a light-water power reactor and an assured supply of
nuclear fuel from abroad, meaning it would not have to enrich
its own uranium.

However, a series of sanctions - including bans on arms sales
and visas for senior Tehran officials - could be imposed if Iran
fails to agree to the plans.

Sergei Kiryenko, the head of Russia's atomic energy agency, said
before the discussions began that he anticipated a possible
breakthrough.

"I hope that this proposal would be a major breakthrough in this
issue," Reuters quoted Mr Kiryenko as saying after talks with
the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that although she
expected "good progress" to be made at the London negotiations,
she did not expect a final deal to be reached yet.

"There's a lot to discuss, a lot to try and explore and
resolve," she added. "Certainly, ministers will want to look at
the package that's under discussion and have views about it."

The US claims Iran's nuclear programme is intended to develop
atomic weapons, but Tehran insists its only aim is to generate
domestic nuclear power.

Even if two sides bridge their differences, any offer could be
largely academic because of the defiant attitude of the Iranian
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In a speech in the city of Arak, where Iran's only existing
nuclear reactor is being constructed, Mr Ahmadinejad last week
said he was being asked to "exchange gold for walnuts and
chocolate".

Earlier today, he accused Washington and its allies of "hatching
plots" to provoke ethnic tensions and destabilise Iran.

Despite his rhetoric, some observers believe Iran is seeking
direct contact with Washington behind the scenes in an attempt
to defuse a potentially dangerous crisis.

The Washington Post today reported that, following his letter to
the US president, George Bush, Tehran was requesting direct
talks with Washington.

Citing diplomats and other sources, the paper said senior
Iranian officials had asked intermediaries to pass word of the
desire for negotiations.

Russia and China - both of whom hold security council vetoes -
have made it clear they will not accept any clear threats to use
force against Iran. Ms Beckett has said there is "no intention"
to attack the country.

The US has not ruled out military action but says it would
prefer a diplomatic solution.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Iran's N-activities totally for peaceful ends - Venezuelan envoy

Ahvaz, Khuzestan Prov, May 24, IRNA

Iran-Venezuela-Ambassador 

Iran's nuclear activities are completely for peaceful purposes,
Venezuelan Ambassador to Tehran Arthur Anibal Galeh Gouss
Ramirez said here Wednesday.

 Ramirez, who is currently heading a delegation on a visit to
the southwestern province of Khuzestan to inspect some economic
projects in the province, talked to IRNA.

 Pointing to US pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear
activities, he said US policies, particularly those of its
president, George W Bush, and not the American people were
behind such pressure on Iran.

 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in speeches before several
international circles, had criticized the Bush administration
for mounting pressure on Iran to force the country to accept its
will that Tehran should not be allowed access to nuclear
technology, the envoy said.

 He said US arguments against Iran's nuclear case were very weak
and illogical, adding that that Caracas believes Iran had
already provided enough documents to prove its nuclear program
was for peaceful purposes.

 He said Iran had opened its nuclear facilities to International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, who made 2,000
person/day inspections and found no evidence pointing to a
diversion in Iran's nuclear activities.

 He said that Iran, along with Venezuela, is a founding member
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and
commands some of the biggest reserves of hydrocarbon and fossil
fuels.

 The enemies, the United States in particular, know that the
future of global development would depend on secure energy
sources, fossil fuel being the leading source, and, therefore,
they pressure countries which possess these valuable resources
in order to manipulate them, he contended.

 The envoy said Venezuela has been following up the path of the
Islamic Revolution in Iran and has also been slapped sanctions.

 Like Iran, he added, it has risen to challenges posed by
enemies and rejected dependence on the US by becoming
self-sufficient.

 Pointing to his country's economic cooperation with Iran, he
said Iran has built a tractor manufacturing company in Venezuela.

 Caracas has even reached an agreement with Cuba to export
tractors, he added.

 Ramirez mentioned the cement factory and 10,000 residential
units constructed in Caracas, the dispatch of 47 shipping
containers filled with dairy products and the cornflour factory
which is on the initial stage of construction as examples of the
two countries' cooperation.

 He said a Venezuelan oil company had recently met with
officials of Iran's Petropars Company and reached an agreement
to exchange technical and engineering experience, and informed
that a Venezuelan delegation comprising 200 oil experts are to
undergo training in Iran in the near future.

 With a population of 25 million people, Venezuela is the only
Latin American member of OPEC.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: US vows no direct talks unless Iran suspends nuclear activities

 Wed May 24, 3:21 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House, under growing pressure to 
have bilateral talks with Tehran, insisted there would be no 
direct negotiations with Iran" /> Iranunless it suspends its 
uranium enrichment program. 

 "Iran has to take that fundamental step when it comes to
enriching and reprocessing uranium -- they've got to suspend all
activities," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. 

Without such a step, Snow said, there will be "no change in the
administration's posture and the president's posture when it
comes to one-on-one negotiations" over Tehran's nuclear program. 

"We think that Iran needs to be very serious about suspending
all enrichment and reprocessing (of) uranium. They have to agree
to do it," the spokesman said. 

"They have to do it in a verifiable and credible manner, and a
permanent manner," Snow added. 

"The first precondition right now -- and we've been working with
our allies on this -- is to make sure that Iran does nothing in
terms of advancing its ability to build nuclear weapons," he
said. 

Snow made his remarks as Washington came under increasing
international pressure to take up a dialogue with Iran, with
which it ruptured diplomatic ties a quarter of a century ago. 

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), was to
confer with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" />
Condoleezza Ricein Washington Wednesday, amid speculation he
will bear a renewed offer from Iran of direct talks on its
disputed nuclear program. 

ElBaradei met in the Austrian capital last week with Iran's
chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, whose government has been
lobbying for direct talks with the Americans. 

Diplomatic sources told AFP Wednesday that Iran has informed
ElBaradei that it would agree to talks with Washington only if
there are no preconditions, such as giving up uranium
enrichment. 

State Department Spokesman Scott McCormack acknowledged a recent
"spike of interest" by Tehran in bilateral discussions, but said
multilateral talks are a more appropriate forum for such a
dialogue. 

"Look, this is an issue that is between Iran and the rest of the
world," he said. 

"I know that there are some that would like to make this an
issue between Iran and the United States. That might play into
the hands of some of those unelected few who run Iran. But,
frankly, it's an issue that is between Iran and the rest of the
world," McCormack said. 

"Our response to Iran," McCormack continued, "is to say, 'come
back into the mainstream of international behavior. Heed the
call of the international community'." 

Meanwhile, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and
Germany were in London to try to resolve the Iran nuclear
crisis. 

Senior officials from Britain, China, France, Russia, the United
States and Germany are trying to convince a resolute Iran to
halt its sensitive nuclear program. 

But the "big six" nations reportedly have encountered
difficulties in reaching a common position. 

US officials have rejected past Iranian overtures, including an
18-page letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushearlier
this month that Tehran billed as a landmark olive branch. 

The Washington Post newspaper, citing officials, Iranian
analysts and foreign diplomats, reported Wednesday that Iran,
through intermediaries, has requested direct talks with
Washington over its nuclear program. 

The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran
since April 1980, following the seizure of the US embassy in
Tehran in 1979 in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444
days. 

Washington suspects Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a
belief denied by Tehran which says its nuclear program is
peaceful. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: World powers seek to break deadlock on Iran's nuclear work -
    
 by Lachlan Carmichael Wed May 24, 8:25 AM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - World powers have gathered to try to break a 
deadlock over how to stop Iran" /> Iranenriching uranium, as 
Tehran again warned against military intervention. 

 Senior officials from the United States, Germany, Britain,
Russia and China will discuss a European proposal at the
closed-door talks to offer Tehran incentives to suspend uranium
enrichment work. 

The meeting has been called amid an escalating international
stand-off over an Iranian civilian nuclear power programme which
the United States claims hides the development of atomic
weapons. 

The European Union" /> European Union's 'big three' -- Britain,
France and Germany -- are hoping to coax Iran into suspending
uranium enrichment work in exchange for a package of trade and
technology incentives. 

However, they want Russia and China to join in sanctions,
including an arms embargo, if Iran does not agree, according to
a draft proposal seen by AFP. 

And just ahead of the talks, a report emerged of differences of
opinion within the US administration over strategy. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricehad
"gone out on a limb" to back the European package of trade and
technology incentives but had met resistance from Vice-President
Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheney, the Financial Times newspaper
reported. 

Cheney is said to be against the idea of "rewarding bad
behavior" after Iran allegedly breached its nuclear safeguards
commitments, according to the newspaper report based on comments
from diplomats and analysts. 

It said that the divisions were complicating the EU proposal
that world powers support Iran's building of several light water
reactors, set up a nuclear fuel bank and have the United States
drop restrictions on Iran's buying of US commercial airplanes,
if Tehran takes steps to guarantee it will not make nuclear
weapons. 

But if Tehran does not do this, sanctions should follow,
including an arms embargo, according to the proposal. 

The newspaper said some European diplomats think the United
States will back their proposals if Russia supports a tough UN
resolution that would require Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment. 

During a tour of Arab Gulf countries Kuwait and Qatar on
Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow
supports the EU proposal and urged Tehran to cooperate. 

Asked if Russia would back military action against Iran if the
proposed negotiations collapsed, Lavrov declined to answer but
insisted that Moscow does not support the use of force "in
principle." 

The United States, Britain, France, China and Russia are the
five permanent members of the UN Security Council which has the
power to endorse sanctions or US military strikes, an option
which is nonetheless broadly opposed. 

An Iranian dissident group, the National Council of Resistance,
said it would hold a rally outside the Foreign Office in London
at midday when the meeting is expected to begin. 

Diplomatic sources said the talks were taking place at the
Foreign Office. 

Few details have been released on the meeting which follows
preliminary talks among the three EU countries and the United
States in London Tuesday. 

Iran's hardline government has already rejected the European
offer and insisted its uranium enrichment program is not up for
negotiation. 

In Tehran earlier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted
that the Islamic republic had "mastered the entire nuclear fuel
cycle" and that it would give an "historic slap" to any
attacker. 

The United States has refused to rule out military action. 

Iran says it wants to use the fuel cycle only to make civilian
reactor fuel, and argues such work for peaceful purposes is a
"right" enshrined by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

But the same technology can be extended to make atomic weapons,
and the United States in particular claims Iran is merely
exploiting a loophole in the NPT. 

Citing US officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats, the
Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iran had requested
through intermediaries direct talks with Washington over its
nuclear program. 

The requests follow a May 8 letter from Ahmadinejad to US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush, the first
such communication between an Iranian and US leader in more than
25 years. 

But President Bush" /> President Bushexpressed doubts in
Washington Tuesday that Iran wanted a negotiated solution to the
dispute. 

The US leader renewed a vow to defend Israel" /> Israelagainst
any attack by Iran at a White House summit with the new Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: World powers edge closer to breaking deadlock on Iran's nuclear work - 

 by Robin Millard Wed May 24, 3:28 PM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Major world powers meeting in London made progress 
towards agreeing on a European carrot-and-stick package aimed at 
breaking Iran" /> Iran's determination to enrich uranium. 

 Senior officials from United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity
Council permanent members Britain, France, China, Russia and the
United States, as well as Germany, were locked in talks on the
European package for Tehran, while diplomats said Iran might be
open to nuclear talks with the West if there were no
pre-conditions. 

The discussions were called amid an escalating international
stand-off over an Iranian nuclear power programme which
Washington claims hides the development of nuclear weapons --
but which Tehran says is purely for civilian purposes. 

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office said the talks were
"constructive and valuable" and the progress made was
encouraging, reflecting shared international concern. 

"We focused on both elements of the approach," he said,
referring to the carrot-and-stick package. 

"Political directors will now report to capitals, including on a
proposal that ministers should meet in the near future to take
final decisions." 

In Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
the negotiators made advances in hammering out a common line but
have yet to finalize an agreement. 

"What I have heard is that there has been great progress", he
said. 

"I don't think you can say at this point that you have closure
on every single issue, but it is coming into form both on the
incentive side and the disincentive side." 

The European Union" /> European Union's "big three" -- Britain,
France and Germany -- are hoping to coax Iran into suspending
uranium enrichment work in exchange for a package of trade and
technology incentives. 

However, they want Russia and China to join in UN sanctions,
including an arms embargo, if Iran does not agree, according to
a draft proposal seen by AFP. 

Meanwhile, diplomats in Vienna said Iran has told Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the UN nuclear watchdog the International
Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy
Agency(IAEA), that it wants to hold talks with the West but only
if there were no pre-conditions. 

ElBaradei was in Washington on Wednesday for talks with
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceand
other US officials, after having met last week with Iran's top
nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Vienna, home to the IAEA. 

"Larijani just said: 'We want to talk but as equals, with no
pre-conditions'," a diplomat close to the IAEA, who asked not to
be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, told AFP. 

Speaking before the London talks, British Foreign Secretary
Margaret Beckett said: "Our view, very clearly, is that there is
no intention to look for conflict." 

The United States has refused to rule out taking military action
if Iran fails to comply with IAEA demands to stop enrichment. 

Citing US officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats, the
Washington Post newspaper reported earlier Wednesday that Iran
had requested through intermediaries direct talks with
Washington over its nuclear programme. 

But the White House vowed there would be no direct negotiations
with Iran unless it halted its uranium enrichment programme. 

The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran
since April 1980. 

"Iran has to take that fundamental step when it comes to
enriching and reprocessing uranium -- they've got to suspend all
activities," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in Washington. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday that Moscow
supported the EU proposals and urged Tehran to cooperate. 

Iran's hardline government has already rejected the European
offer and insisted its uranium enrichment programme is not up
for negotiation. 

In Tehran earlier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted
that the Islamic republic had "mastered the entire nuclear fuel
cycle" and would give a "historic slap" to any attacker. 

During a visit to Vietnam, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" />
Kofi Annanappealed for a diplomatic solution. 

"It is important that Iran assures the world that its intentions
are peaceful and wait for the IAEA to lift that cloud of
uncertainty surrounding this nuclear project, whether it is
seeking nuclear weapons or it's only peaceful," he said. 

The dissident National Council of Resistance of Iran staged a
protest rally outside the Foreign Office in London, the presumed
venue of the talks, to push for democratic change in Tehran and
demand sanctions. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: Deputy FM outlines Iran's N-stance 

Tehran, May 24, IRNA

Qatar-Iran-Forum-Nuclear 

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi in Doha, Qatar on
Tuesday outlined Iran's latest stance in the dispute over its
nuclear program.

 Mostafavi held separate meetings with foreign ministers of
South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and the commerce minister of
Laos on the sidelines of the two-day regional economic forum of
the Asia Cooperation Dialogue which opened in Qatar Tuesday
night and is attended by representatives of Asian and Middle
East countries.

 Participants in the session discussed Iran's peaceful nuclear
activities, avenues for bolstering bilateral ties as well as
issues affecting cooperation among Asian countries and the world
as a whole.

 The sides also exchanged views on leading regional and
international developments, particularly the Iraqi crisis.

 The fifth meeting of foreign ministers of Asian states are
scheduled to focus on a range of topics including energy,
 transportation, strengthening access to information technology
and knowhow and technology and financial and agricultural
cooperation.

 The Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) groups 28 countries
including the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, China, Japan,
Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar,
South Korea and Kyrgyzstan.


*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Stop giving Tehran the silent treatment

Washington must take up Iran's offer of negotiations if it wants
to defuse the crisis over its quest for nuclear weapons. 

Ewen MacAskill

About WebfeedsMay 24, 2006 12:50 PM 


Senior officials from the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia
and China were meeting in London today to hammer out the details
of yet another package to put to Iran. 

The deal is in two parts. The first offers various incentives to
Tehran, mainly help with a civilian nuclear programme, in return
for abandoning its uranium enrichment programme, seen by the
west as a step towards securing a nuclear weapon capability. The
second sets out various punitive measures if it does not: a ban
on nuclear technology transfer, arms sales and visas for senior
Iranian officials. 

The intention of the US, Britain, France and Germany is,
obviously, to persuade Iran to accept the deal. There is a
strong secondary motivation: the offer is also intended to rope
in Russia and China to support punitive measures if Tehran
rejects the deal. 

So far, so good. But there is another diplomatic initiative in
play too. Germany, and to lesser degree France, would like to
see the US and Iran enter into direct talks. The Bush
administration has said repeatedly over the last year that it is
committed to the diplomatic route. Surely, the logic of that
would be to agree to talk directly to Iran. 

The US has had no direct contact with Tehran since the Iranian
revolution in 1979 when students took over the US embassy and
held Americans hostage. Washington has had no diplomatic
representation since then. It is time for the US to get over the
hostage crisis and engage directly. 

The US has so far been working through proxies - Britain, France
and Germany. It is a ludicrous position because the US carries a
veto on all European proposals. The deal the Europeans offered
to Iran last year was watered down at the last minute, after US
objections. It is hardly surprising then that the Iranians want
to talk to the organ grinderrather than the monkeys. 

If the US genuinely wants to go down the diplomatic route, then
it has to accept the Iranian offer of direct talks. It might in
the end not do any good. Iran's progress towards a nuclear
weapon now appears unstoppable (unless there was to be a change
of regime in Tehran: unlikely with military action by the US
seemingly increasingly remote). 

But Iran might make a calculation that it is worth delaying for
a few years to take the heat out of the crisis and await a new,
perhaps more pliant, administration in Washington. But even a
delay is a worthwhile diplomatic prize, one that might require
direct talks. 

In the end, at the very least, direct talks would help improve
the world perception of the US: Washington would have been seen
to have done all it could to defuse the crisis. 


About webfeeds  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Envoy stresses Iran's N-rights based on NPT, IAEA 

, May 24, IRNA


-- 
Iranian Ambassador to Belgium Ali Ahani has stressed the
country's right to enrich uranium and conduct nuclear research
based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and regulations of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 In a meeting with Luxembourg Deputy Chairman of Chamber of
Deputies Scheuer Jos, Ahani outlined Iran's latest stance on
nuclear case.

 "Iran will precisely study Europe's nuclear proposal and
announce its official stance after officially receiving the
offer," he said.

 Pointing to parliamentary cooperation between the two
countries, the two sides called for continued exchange of visits
between their parliamentary officials.

 Ahani and Jos said parliaments of Iran and Luxembourg play an
important role in creating an appropriate atmosphere to promote
common goals in an appropriate way.

 They also exchanged views on major developments in the region.

 Jos, for his part, welcomed active cooperation and exchange of
visits between the two countries' parliaments.

 He said negotiations were the best solution to Iran's nuclear
case.

 He expressed hope the European states would not repeat the same
mistake they made on Iraq, about Iran and urged Europe to play a
more active role in the region to prevent new crisis.

*****************************************************************
 15 Korea Herald: Railroad cancellation puts brake on N.K. ties   
        
North Korea's abrupt cancellation of the cross-border railways
test run yesterday is expected to put the brakes on a flurry of
inter-Korean exchanges and dialogues on a peninsula already
suffering from a standoff over nuclear programs.

 The South Korean government explained the North's sudden
"postponement" seems to have been derived from internal
disagreement on how to alternatively secure military guarantees
for the railways operation.

 Other observations suggested North Korea may be showing
discontent toward other ongoing discussions with South Korea,
such as those involving drawing new maritime sea borders.

 "All in all, this cancellation spells trouble in trust between
the two Koreas," said professor Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk
University.

    
  Vice Unification Minister Shin Eon-sang during a news briefing
[The Korea Herald]  

"(The two Koreas) must work to rebuild the confidence through
former President Kim Dea-jung's Pyongyang visit and other joint
events scheduled for June 15 and Aug. 15," Koh said. The
prevalent evaluation of North Korea's abrupt decision is that
the military authorities held an upper hand and refused to go
ahead with the test run without a clear military guarantee.

 "The North gave two positions to us. One was that a military
guarantee was to be discussed at the working-level and the other
was that it was too early," a Unification Ministry official said
on condition of anonymity.

 South Korea has also been resolute in securing a permanent
military guarantee for the heavily fortified borders that the
railways cross, but took an exception this time, offering to
replace the guarantee by exchanging lists of passengers on the
trains.

 "The North promised us that despite the lack of agreement on
military guarantees the railway test run would be accomplished,"
the official said.

 Regardless of the cancellation, the government has pledged to
go ahead with all inter-Korean projects and meetings. But it
failed to give a clear answer to how it will respond to North
Korea's unilateral decision that has cost the South time and
effort that went into the preparations.

 Observers outside the government suggested other reasons that
may belie the North's cancellation.

 "Although (North Korea) is run by military politics, I do not
believe the military authorities are powerful enough to overturn
a decision by the main government. It (The cancellation) would
presumably came from insufficient under-the-table dealings,"
said North Korean Studies professor Nam Sung-wook of Korea
University.

 South Korea agreed to finalize the aid plan on light industries
such as garments and shoes as well as a joint development plan
for North Korea's natural resources, in exchange for the railway
test run earlier this month at the economic talks.

 North Korea was also visibly discontent with South Korea's
refusal to discuss the maritime border at last week's
general-level military talks. 

North Korea has never recognized the Northern Limit Line, a de
facto maritime border drawn by the U.S.-led United Nations in
1953 at the end of the Korean War. The last round of military
talks in March also broke down due to differences over the issue.

 In the telegram sent to Seoul early yesterday morning, the
North cited an unstable domestic situation in the South as the
reason, but Seoul officials dismissed the explanation as a
rhetorical excuse.

 Although South Korea was determined to take the lead in the
stalled nuclear talks by activating more inter-Korean projects,
the effort is likely to be overshadowed due to this incident,
the observers said.

 The two Koreas are set to meet again May 29 to discuss former
President Kim Dae-jung's visit to Pyongyang in June. They also
previously agreed to meet later this month to hold another round
of economic cooperation talks but the date has not been settled. 

(angiely@herladm.com) 

(davidpooh@herladm.com)

By Lee Joo-hee and Jin Dae-woong 


2006.05.25
*****************************************************************
 16 Korea Herald: N.K. calls off cross-border railway test run   
        
North Korea canceled the two Koreas' plan to test run the
cross-border railways yesterday just a day before the
locomotives were set to roll out with groundbreaking ceremonies. 

"The North notified us this morning in a telegram that it will
not be able to go ahead with the test run of the railways citing
the absence of military guarantees and unstable situation in the
South," Vice Unification Minister Shin Eon-sang said, reading
from a statement at a news conference. 

The South Korean Unification Ministry strongly lambasted the
Northern side for canceling the epochal event at the last minute
without justifiable reasons. 

The cancellation apparently comes because of opposition from the
North Korean military authorities, Shin said. 

The communist state's military has been hesitant in giving
security guarantees for such events for fear of exposing its
facilities around the highly sensitive border. 

South and North Korea agreed earlier this month to test run two
cross-border railways that run on the east and west sides of the
Korean Peninsula. The agreement signaled that more inter-Korean
exchanges would come. 

The abrupt cancellation of the event is likely to bruise
inter-Korean relations, observers here said. 

Former President Kim Dae-jung was also pushing to travel to
Pyongyang on one of the railways for his meeting with North
Korean leader Kim Jong-il next month. 

"It is premature to say anything," Kim's assistant Choi
Kyung-hwan said in response to the cancellation. Government
officials said there will be no change in Kim's visit but did
not clarify the possibility of Kim using the train. 

The two Koreas remained deadlocked at last week's general-level
military talks over the military guarantees that would be
required to travel across the border via railway and roads.

While South Korea pushed to discuss the guarantee at the
military talks last week, North Korea remained resolute that the
matter must be discussed at working-level talks. 

Seoul and Pyongyang also failed to draw a new sea border in the
West Sea to replace the current Northern Limit Line. 

The South believes the maritime border issue must be discussed
between defense ministers along with other military issues
specified in the 1992 inter-Korean agreement. 

Seoul wants wider interchanges with the hermit state to defuse
the conflict between Pyongyang and Washington over its nuclear
programs. 

The operation of inter-Korean railways and roads was one of the
first projects to be pursued upon the historic summit between
Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il in June 2000. 

Although the restoration was completed within a few years, the
operation continued to be delayed for political and technical
reasons. 

"We want to make it clear that the North is responsible for the
cancellation of the scheduled test run. We call for sincere
measures from (North Korea) to successfully execute the test run
at an early date," Shin Eon-sang said. 

A five-car train was set to run 27.3 kilometers on the western
Gyeongeui line from the South Korean border town of Munsan to
North Korea's Gaeseong, carrying South Koreans. 

The same number of North Koreans was to ride a similar train
25.5 kilometers from the Mount Geumgang to the South's Jejin. 

(angiely@heraldm.com) 

By Lee Joo-hee 

2006.05.25
 
*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: Tehran has repeatedly announced readiness to hold talks with US
unconditionally: Asefi 

Tehran, May 24, IRNA

Iran-US-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi here on Wednesday
referring to the recent claims made by the US President George W
Bush about Iran's nuclear activities stressed that Tehran has
repeatedly announced its readiness to hold talks without any
precondition.

 Talking to parliamentary reporters on the sideline of an open
session of Majlis, he said, "From the very beginning, we had
announced that the issue should be settled only through
negotiations." President Bush, addressing a press conference on
Tuesday, said Washington's primary objective was to solve Iran's
nuclear problem diplomatically.

 Referring to profound differences between the international
community and the US over Iran's peaceful nuclear activities,
Asefi said Washington is trying to make all countries reach an
agreement on Iran's nuclear activities through force and
illogical interpretations.

 He further reiterated, "As the Russians announced, negotiations
should take place without any preconditions."
 Responding to a question on following up the issue of Iranians
imprisoned in Guantanamo prison, he said Iran's interest section
in Washington is following up the case.

 On the Europeans' new proposal for settlement of Iran's nuclear
issue, he said the proposal is to be set forth during today's
meeting of the 5+1 Group and when finalized it will be announced
to Iran.

 As to Western media propaganda on the alleged dress code of
religious minorities living in Iran and recent remarks made by
the Canadian premier, Asefi said the Canadians have adopted a
wrong attitude. The Canadian ambassador to Tehran has been
summoned to the Foreign Ministry to hear Tehran's protest over
remarks of the Canadian prime minister, he added.

 The Canadian daily 'National Post' recently said a new
dress-code reportedly passed in Iran mandates the government to
make sure that religious minorities -- Christians, Jews and
Zoroastrians -- will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to
make them identifiable in public.

 According to the article, under the proposed dress code, Jews
will have to wear a yellow badge on their dress in public, while
Christians will be required to don red ones and Zoroastrians
blue.

*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: US rules out incentives to lure NKorea back to six-way talks -
    
 Wed May 24, 2:06 AM ET 		 	 

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - The United States is not willing to provide 
North Korea" /> with incentives to lure it back into stalled 
six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, a senior 
official said. 

 US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, his nation's
envoy to the drawn-out negotiations, said it was hard to
understand why North Korea was holding out on a process which
would bring it major benefits. 

"I think the six-party agreement is in the interests of all of
us but certainly in the interests of them and I hope they will
see their way to attending," he said after meetings with
Malaysian officials. 

"So I think we need to be patient but also be firm that it's not
for us to provide incentives to the North Koreans to come back
and do something that should be in their interests to do." 

The talks, which bring together the two Koreas, the United
States, Japan and Russia, have been stalled since last November
after the US placed financial sanctions on North Korea for
alleged counterfeiting and money laundering. 

North Korea has said it will not return to the talks unless the
United States lifts the sanctions, but Washington has refused to
budge. 

Pyongyang claims the sanctions breached the spirit of a
September 2005 accord under which it agreed to abandon nuclear
weapons in return for security, diplomatic and energy aid
guarantees. 

"The North Koreans should understand that if they implement the
September agreement they will see that it is very advantageous
to their country," Hill said. 

"So for them to hold this up over issues relating to financial
measures, really defensive measures, that we have taken... this
is really frankly speaking a little hard to understand." 

Later Wednesday Hill will travel to China which for talks with
his Chinese counterpart in the negotiations, Vice Foreign
Minister Wu Dawei. 

The New York Times reported last week that top advisers to US
President George W. Bush" /> were looking for a new approach on
North Korea, perhaps including a peace treaty to replace the
1953 armistice after the Korean War. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 UPI: India says no to nuke test ban
     
 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

5/24/2006 5:55:00 AM -0400                              

NEW DELHI, May 24 (UPI) -- India has said it is averse to
signing a treaty with the United States banning further nuclear
tests. 

The Hindu newspaper said Wednesday India is against the idea of
giving legal status to its moratorium on conducting further
nuclear tests in any bilateral agreement with the United States. 

The Indian government said it was bound by its commitment
contained in the July 18, 2005 joint statement, but was not
prepared to transform this into a treaty obligation. 

The Indian foreign office said Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran
will meet U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns and tell him that speed is of the essence with
regard to getting the civilian nuclear agreement through U.S.
Congress. 

"We want to get (the civilian nuclear deal) through the U.S.
Congress as quickly as possible," the foreign office said,
admitting that it was difficult to predict what will happen in
Congress after the November elections in the United States. 

Some members of Congress, an unnamed Indian diplomat said,
wanted to link the draft legislation introduced in both Houses
to waive technology cooperation restrictions on India with the
civilian nuclear agreement currently being negotiated by the two
sides.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 20 Senate Hearing On Promoting Nuke Power Expansion In USA
 
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:23:36 -0400



  You might consider an
astonishing Senate hearing that took place Monday,
May 22, 2006 in which the
Administration and the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources promoted the
resurrection of nuclear energy.  Leaving aside
security and safety issues which
were ignored, what is striking is the focus on
government subsidies to
underwrite proposed development.  The hearing
statements appear below.  I trust you
will find them to be of interest.

----------------
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
May 22, 2006

16 Utility Companies Plan 25 New Nuke Plants
Despite Uncertainty over Yucca
Role

May 22nd, 2006

Washington, D.C. - The Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission told the
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee today
that, as of last week, 16
utility companies had serious plans to build 25
new nuclear power plants. "Some
have announced their plans. Some have only
partially announced their plans
but haven't chosen the technology," he said. "This
is no longer a flash in the
pan. Industry is very serious. They are doing the
work and investing the
resources."

Witnesses at the hearing testified that the
nuclear power provisions in the
energy bill - the loan guarantees, production tax
credit, stand-by support
insurance and reauthorization of Price Anderson -
have triggered the nuclear
energy revival in America which the committee had
intended to spark.

James Asselstine, managing director of Lehman
Brothers, testified that the
nuclear industry does not need a final resolution
on the spent nuclear fuel
issue to go forward with new nuclear power plants.

Chairman Domenici issued the following statement
after the hearing:

"The testimony today affirmed what I have observed
in a year of meetings with
industry. We are indeed in the early days of a
nuclear power renaissance in
this country. I am pleased to see utilities moving
forward with their plans for
new plants while we on Capitol Hill continue to
work on the matter of spent
fuel.

"I remain committed to integrating GNEP and Yucca.
I intend to fully-fund
GNEP and find even more money for the program if I
can. In the meantime, I am
working to help DOE get Yucca back on track. I'm
delighted by the momentum in
this country toward new nuclear power. This is
something I have been working
toward for more than a decade."

---------------

Printable Version
Full Committee Hearing- Nuclear Power
Monday, May 22, 2006

Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy The
Honorable Dennis Spurgeon
Department of Energy
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
STATEMENT OF DENNIS SPURGEON
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
MAY 22, 2006
Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and members
of the committee, it is an
honor
and a great pleasure for me to be here today to
discuss the Administration's
progress
implementing the provisions contained in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005)
that encourage building new advanced nuclear power
plants in the U.S. As this
is the
first hearing at which I have testified since
being sworn in as Assistant
Secretary for
Nuclear Energy six weeks ago, I can think of no
better topic for discussion
than efforts of
the Administration and this committee to stimulate
more nuclear generating
capacity to
meet our growing demand for energy.


The President has stated a policy goal of
expanding nuclear power in the U.S.
and around
the world. The resurgence of nuclear power is a
key component of President
Bush's
Advanced Energy Initiative and a key objective
contained in the President's
National
Energy Policy. The reasons for this are obvious.
As we enter a new era in
energy
supply, our need for energy - even with ambitious
energy efficiency and
conservation
measures - will continue to grow as our economy
grows. While nuclear is not
the only
answer, there is no plausible solution that does
not include it.

Just over a year ago, Deputy Secretary of Energy
Clay Sell testified before
this
committee on the Department's Nuclear Power 2010
program and the risks
associated
with building the first few nuclear plants. Since
then, significant progress
has been made,
in both Nuclear Power 2010 and in terms of
mitigating the risk associated
with building
the first few new nuclear plants.

Last year, President Bush proposed and Congress
created Federal risk
insurance, called
Standby Support, as part of EPACT 2005 to protect
first movers of new nuclear
plants
from regulatory or litigation-related delays that
are outside of the control
of these first
movers. I am pleased to report that earlier this
month the Department issued
the interim
final rule for the Standby Support program
on-schedule, establishing the
requirements for
risk insurance to cover costs associated with
covered delays. We look forward
to
receiving comments on the interim final rule over
the next month and issuing
the final
rule by August 8, 2006, the one-year anniversary
date of EPACT's enactment.
In addition, EPACT 2005 contains other key
provisions aimed at addressing
economic
and regulatory risks associated with building new
nuclear plants - extension
of Price
Anderson Act indemnification, creation of a
production tax credit program for
new
advanced nuclear generation, and creation of a
loan guarantee program for
advanced lowemission energy systems, including
nuclear energy.

With enactment of these provisions and the
continued work of the Department
and
industry, I am confident that we will have these
programs fully in place on a
schedule
that supports the construction schedule for the
first movers of new advanced
nuclear
power plants. I firmly believe that we will see
new plants ordered before
President Bush
leaves office. It is a key priority for the
President, for the Department,
and for me.
Today, it is appropriate that we pause to review
what has been accomplished
and where
we go from here. I would like to thank you for
holding this hearing.

NUCLEAR ENERGY, KEY TO U.S. ENERGY SECURITY

Benefits, Challenges, and Opportunities
The Energy Information Administration forecasts
that U.S. energy demand will
increase
by one-third between 2004 and 2030, climbing to
134 quadrillion British
thermal units
(Btu). At the same time, most of the growth in
energy demand will occur in the
petroleum and electricity sectors. Electricity
sales, which are most germane
to nuclear,
are forecast to increase from 3,567 billion
kilowatt hours in 2004 to 5,341
billion kilowatt
hours in 2030, more than 50 percent over the next
25 years. At the same time,
carbon
emissions from combustion of fossil fuels are
forecasted to increase by more
than onethird
over present levels, from 5,900 million metric
tons in 2004 to 8,114 million
metric
tons in 2030.

Nuclear energy is an important technology for
maintaining our economy and our
way of
life with minimal impact on the environment.
Nuclear power is the only mature
technology with significant potential to deliver
large amounts of
emissions-free baseload
power to meet projected demand for electricity. In
the future, as the country
turns to
other sources of energy for transportation, such
as hydrogen, nuclear energy
may also be
an important technology for producing hydrogen
without carbon emissions.
While this
hearing is focused on near-term deployment of new
nuclear plants, it is
important to
recognize that the benefits of nuclear extend
beyond electricity, to
medicine, space
exploration, and possibly in the future, through
hydrogen production, to
transportation.
In the U.S. today, 103 nuclear plants provide
one-fifth of the nation's
electricity. These
plants are emissions-free, operate year round in
all weather conditions, and
are among the
most affordable, reliable, and efficient sources
of electricity available to
Americans.
Nuclear, like coal, is an important source of
base-load power and is the only
currently
available technology capable of delivering large
amounts of power without
producing air
emissions. Last year, the operation of U.S.
nuclear power plants displaced
681.9 million
metric tons of carbon emissions, which is almost
as much carbon as released
from all
passenger cars combined.

Over the last 15 years, as ownership of nuclear
plants has been concentrated,
industry has
done an exceptional job improving the management
and operation of the plants.
In this
country, nuclear plants have an outstanding record
of safety, reliability,
availability, and
efficiency. In fact, the operation of these plants
over the last 15 years
added the
equivalent of 261-1,000 megawatt units without
building a single new plant.
Longer
periods between outages, reduction in the number
of outages needed, power
up-rates, use
of higher burn-up fuels, improved maintenance, and
a highly successful
re-licensing
effort extending the operation of these plants
another twenty years, have
collectively
improved the economics of nuclear energy. Today,
nuclear energy is among the
cheapest
electricity available on the grid, at 1.8 cents
per kilowatt-hour. Public
acceptance of
nuclear energy is also higher than it has been at
any time in the last 25
years - industry
studies indicate more than three-quarters of
Americans are willing to see a
new reactor
built near them and the vast majority (83%) of
those living in the vicinity
of a nuclear
plant favor nuclear power.

Yet, despite these successes and growing
recognition of the benefits and need
for more
nuclear energy, industry has not ordered a new
nuclear plant since 1973 (an
additional
plant ordered in 1978 was subsequently cancelled).
In fact, not much base-load
capacity-whether nuclear, hydro-electric, or
coal-has been ordered since the
1970s,
other than some mine-mouth coal-fired plants
located in the western United
States.
While today's nuclear plants are economic, during
their construction, the
sponsors and
owners of many of these plants experienced major
financial and regulatory
challenges
that significantly drove up the capital cost of
the plants and delayed their
initial start-up.
Although this is partially attributed to the
recession of the 1970's,
significant challenges
were brought about by a difficult, uncertain, and
often contentious
regulatory process for
siting and commissioning the plants. In addition,
investment premiums were so
high that
capital markets could no longer support nuclear
power plant projects. As a
result, by the
1980's a large number of commercial orders were
cancelled and no new orders
were
placed.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992)
authorized a "one-step,"
streamlined
licensing process for construction and operation
of new nuclear plants (also
promulgated
through Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regulations in 10 CFR Part 52).
The
combined Construction and Operating License (COL)
process established by EPACT
1992 was intended to resolve all public health and
safety issues associated
with the
construction and operation of a new nuclear power
plant before construction
begins. The
process remained untested for the next decade as
industry viewed the
combination of
high up-front capital costs and
difficult-to-control regulatory risks as show
stoppers to
building new nuclear plants. In addition, during
this time period there was
surplus
electricity, fuel costs of fossil fuels remained
relatively stable, and
additional base-load
power was not needed.

The conditions are significantly different today,
with rising fossil fuel
costs, increased
price volatility of fossil fuels, and increasing
demand. As such, to address
the economic
and regulatory risks associated with new nuclear
plants, in February 2002, the
Department launched the Nuclear Power 2010
program. In July of that year, the
Department issued a report on the critical risks
associated with deploying
new nuclear
plants, and additional approaches that could be us
ed for mitigation of the
risks. More
1 Increase in nuclear generation between 1990 and
2005 with a 90% capacity
factor
importantly, Congress and the Administration began
working together to enact
landmark
legislation to address our nation's long-term
energy security. Finally, EPACT
2005,
enacted last summer extended Price Anderson
indemnification, reauthorized
Nuclear
Power 2010, and created incentives that could
remove the last barriers to
deployment of a
new generation of nuclear plants.

NUCLEAR POWER 2010

Demonstrating Regulatory Certainty
Nuclear Power 2010 addresses the regulatory and
financial uncertainties
associated with
siting and building new nuclear plants by working
in cost-shared cooperation w
ith
industry to identify sites for new nuclear power
plants, by developing and
bringing
advanced standardized plant designs to the market,
and by demonstrating
untested
regulatory processes. Nuclear Power 2010 is
focused on Generation III+ reactor
technologies, which are advanced, light water
reactor designs, offering
advancements in
safety and economics over the Generation III
designs certified by the Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in the 1990's.

Since the program was launched in 2002, DOE and
industry have provided more
than
$270 million for the activities under this
initiative. The Department has
requested $54
million in Fiscal Year 2007 to continue the work
under this program. While
the funding
requested for Fiscal Year 2007 is less than the
current year appropriation,
at the time of
the request, the Department believed that the
combination of the requested
funding and
projected carryover would provide the funding
needed in FY 2007 to keep the
program
on schedule. However, at the end of December 2005,
one of the consortia
refined its
estimates and submitted its project baselines,
shifting a number of key
milestones
forward, including the submittal of applications
for combined COL a year
earlier than
envisioned by the original project plan. The
consortium also proposed
submitting an
additional COL application to the NRC for a
reactor technology already
included in the
program but at a different site. We did not
request funding for these new
proposals,
which we estimate would cost an additional $34.2
million in Fiscal Year 2007.

The Department is currently sponsoring cooperative
projects for preparation
of Early Site
Permits (ESP) for three commercial sites. The ESP
process includes resolution
of site
safety, environmental, and emergency planning
issues in advance of a power
company's
decision to build a new nuclear plant. The three
ESP applications are
currently in various
stages of NRC review and licensing decisions are
expected by the end of 2007.
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Department established
competitively selected,
cost-shared
cooperative agreements with two power-company led
consortia to obtain COLs.
The
Department selected Dominion Energy and NuStart, a
consortium of nine electric
generating companies, to conduct the licensing
demonstration projects to
obtain NRC
licenses and operate two new nuclear power plants
in the U.S. Dominion is
examining
North Anna in Virginia and NuStart is examining
Bellefonte in Alabama and
Grand Gulf
in Mississippi. The two project teams involved in
these two licensing
demonstration
projects represent power generation companies that
operate more than
two-thirds of all
the U.S. nuclear power plants in operation today.
Already this approach has
encouraged
nine power companies to announce their intention
to apply for COLs. Several
have
specifically stated that they are building on work
being done in the Nuclear
Power 2010
program as the basis for their applications. In
addition, UniStar, a
consortium of
Constellation, AREVA and Bechtel Power, announced
plans to pursue new nuclear
plants. The design and engineering activities
necessary to finish the
preparation of the
first COL application for submittal to the NRC
will be completed in Fiscal
Year 2007.
These projects include design certification and
completion of detailed
designs for
Westinghouse's Advanced Passive Pressurized Water
Reactor (AP 1000), General
Electric's Economic Simplified Boiling Water
Reactor (ESBWR) and site-specific
analysis and engineering required to obtain COLs
from the NRC. Under the
Nuclear
Power 2010 program, two COL applications are
planned for submission to the
NRC in
late 2007. Industry is planning for issuance of
the NRC licenses by the end
of 2010.
Several nuclear utilities have announced plans to
quickly follow these with
an additional
12 COL applications. It is possible that a utility
decision to build a new
plant could be
announced as early as 2008 with construction
starting in 2010 and a new plant
operational by 2014.

STANDBY SUPPORT
Addressing Licensing Risk for First Purchasers
Last year, the President proposed and Congress
established the Standby Support
provisions of EPACT 2005 (section 638) to
encourage building of new nuclear
power
plants in the U.S. by addressing financial risks
to first "movers" of these
new advanced
plants. Under section 638, the Secretary can enter
into contracts to insure
project
sponsors against certain delays that are outside
the control of the sponsors
and to provide
coverage for up to six reactors but for no more
than three different designs.
The level of
coverage is distinguished between the first
"initial two reactors," for
which the Secretary
will pay 100 percent of covered costs up to $500
million per contract and
"subsequent
four reactors," for which the Secretary will pay
50 percent of covered costs
up to $250
million after a 180-day delay. EPACT 2005 required
the issuance of an interim
final rule
by May 6, 2006, and the issuance of the final rule
by August 8, 2006.

As you know, the Department issued the interim
final rule on May 6, 2006,
establishing
the requirements for risk insurance to cover costs
associated with certain
regulatory or
litigation related delays in the start up of new
nuclear power plants. The
Department will
receive comments on the rule over the next thirty
days and issue the final
rule by August
8, 2006.

The interim final rule establishes a two-step
process for obtaining risk
insurance. First,
the project sponsor of a new advanced nuclear
facility may seek to enter into
a
conditional agreement with DOE after the sponsor
has an application docketed
by the
NRC for a combined construction and operating
license for an advanced nuclear
facility.
Second, after all applicable requirements have
been satisfied, including the
issuance of a
license by the NRC, the project sponsor and DOE
may enter into a standby
support
contract.

The project sponsors for the first six reactors to
satisfy the requisite
conditions can
qualify for reimbursement of certain losses that
are associated with covered
delays. The
rule identifies events that would be covered by
the risk insurance, including
delays
associated with the NRC's review of inspections,
tests, analyses and
acceptance criteria
or other licensing schedule delays, and certain
delays associated with
litigation in state,
federal, or tribal courts. Insurance coverage
would not be available for the
sponsor's
failure to take actions required by law or
regulation, events within the
sponsor's control,
and normal business risks such as employment
strikes and weather delays.
Covered
losses would, subject to satisfaction of all
requirements, include principal
or interest on
debt (subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990) and losses resulting
from the
purchase of replacement power to satisfy certain
contractual obligations.

PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS
Addresses Economic Risk for First Purchasers
EPACT 2005 (section 1306) permits a taxpayer
producing electricity at a
qualified
advanced nuclear power facility to claim a credit
equal to 1.8 cents per
kilowatt-hour of
electricity produced for eight years. The
provision also specifies a national
megawatt
capacity limitation of 6,000 megawatts. Only
capacity up to this limitation
will qualify
for the credit. The tax credit is administered by
the Department of Treasury,
in
consultation with the Department of Energy. The
Department of Treasury has
asked the
Department to assist by developing a
"certification process" under which the
Secretary of
Energy certifies that a facility is an advanced
nuclear facility, that
construction is
proceeding on schedule, and that it is feasible to
place the facility in
service before 2021.
The Secretary of Treasury will allocate the
national megawatt capacity
limitation of
6,000 megawatts only to facilities that have
received such a certification.
On May 1, 2006, the Department of Treasury
published a notice in the Internal
Revenue
Bulletin providing guidance on the production tax
credit for advanced nuclear
facilities.
The notice specified the method that will be used
to allocate the 6,000
megawatt capacity
limitation and prescribed the application process
by which taxpayers may
request an
allocation. It is anticipated that the notice will
be subsequently converted
to regulations.

LOAN GUARANTEES
Addressing Financial Risk and Promoting Emissions
Free Technologies
EPACT 2005 (Title 17) authorizes the Secretary of
Energy to enter into loan
guarantees.
The loan guarantees may be provided for projects
that avoid, reduce, or
sequester air
pollutants or emissions of greenhouse gases and
that use new and
significantly advanced
energy technologies, including advanced nuclear
power plants.
The challenge that confronts the introduction of
new nuclear generating
capacity is the
same challenge that confronts many energy
systems - the up-front capital
costs are
substantial and the financial community views them
as risky. In addition, the
uncertainties caused by possible regulatory delays
or delays from potential
litigation,
particularly as associated with new nuclear
plants, further increase the risk
to sponsors of
new plants and their investors. While these
licensing risks will be mitigated
by the
standby support program, loan guarantees
potentially provide a tool for
addressing risks
associated with major energy projects.

Therefore, consistent with the new authorities
provided to us by EPACT 2005,
we are
establishing a loan guarantee program within DOE
for energy technologies that
avoid,
reduce or sequester pollutants or greenhouse
gases. We are mindful that the
Department
does not have an enviable record of accomplishment
with loan guarantees
issued in the
past, but we will follow the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (FCRA) and the
Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines issued
since our last experience with
loan
guarantees, and we will emulate the best practices
of other Federal agencies.
We will
move prudently to ensure that the program
objectives are achieved while
meeting our
responsibilities to the taxpayer. Toward that end,
the Department has
established a small
loan guarantee office under the Department's Chief
Financial Officer and is
proceeding
to staff that office with staff detailed from
other programs and possibly
staff from other
agencies with experience in Federal loan guarantee
programs. DOE staff is
currently
developing the overarching policies and procedures
to implement the program
and
establish a credit review board. Finally, we will
employ outside experts for
financial
evaluation, construction engineering evaluation,
and credit market analyses
to assist in
the evaluation of loan guarantee applications.

We are proceeding but doing so with the
appropriate measure of caution and
prudence.
While these provisions of EPACT 2005 provide a
"self-pay" mechanism that may
reduce
the need for appropriations, they do not eliminate
the taxpayer's exposure to
the possible
default of the total loan amount. It is possible
that the ultimate cost to
the taxpayer could
be significantly higher than the cost of the
subsidy cost estimate.
Therefore, DOE's
evaluation of loan guarantee applications will
entail rigorous analysis and
careful
negotiation of terms and conditions.

It is also our view that the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 contains a
requirement that
prevents us from issuing a loan guarantee until we
have an authorization,
such as a loan
volume limitation, to do so in an appropriations
bill. We do not believe we
have the
authority to proceed with an award without having
explicit necessary
authorizations in an
appropriations bill.

CONCLUSION
Nuclear power is not the only answer to
maintaining our economy and our way
of life,
but there is no plausible solution that does not
include it. Mr. Chairman, I
thank you and
the Committee for being an early and serious voice
encouraging the country to
consider
building more nuclear plants. This is a unique
moment in time in which key
drivers of
new nuclear plants - increasing demand, price
volatility in other electricity
sectors,
performance of the last decade, supportive
government policies, and strong
bi-partisan
and public support have converged to create a
foundation for a new generation
of nuclear
power plants in the United States. I pledge to
this Committee that I will do
all that I can
to make this a reality.


Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
364 Dirksen Office Bldg . Washington, DC 20510
202.224.4971

-------------


Overview

History

Jurisdiction


Printable Version
Full Committee Hearing- Nuclear Power
Monday, May 22, 2006

Chairman The Honorable Nils Diaz
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------




STATEMENT SUBMITTED
BY THE
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
TO THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE


CONCERNING
NUCLEAR POWER PROVISIONS
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005



PRESENTED BY
DR. NILS J. DIAZ
CHAIRMAN



SUBMITTED: MAY 22, 2006Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to appear before
you today to discuss, on behalf of the Commission,
the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's programs for new reactor
regulation. We appreciate the support
that we have received from the Committee, and we
look forward to working with
you in the future. We would also like to take this
opportunity to thank
Congress for the additional budgetary support that
was provided last year. These
resources are allowing the Agency to achieve
earlier completion of safety and
security programs and to begin structuring the
Agency for reviewing new
reactor applications. On a personal note, Mr.
Chairman, I am grateful for the
opportunity to serve this great country of ours
for almost 10 years, first as a
Commissioner and then as Chairman of the best
nuclear regulatory agency in the
world, and during extraordinary times. It has been
my privilege to have worked
with you to better serve the well-being of our
people.

The NRC is dedicated to the mission mandated by
Congress - - to ensure
adequate protection of public health and safety,
promote the common defense and
security, and protect the environment - - in the
application of nuclear
technology for civilian use. We are committed to
exercise this mandate with a
regulatory framework that is effective,
predictable, and that continues to meet the
changing demands of the country. To achieve this
goal, we have made
preparations and continue to put in place the
infrastructure needed to review the
announced new reactor licensing and certification
work, including the 13 announced
combined license (COL) applications beginning in
2007. I would like to
highlight our current and anticipated new reactor
regulatory activities, a new system
for licensing reviews, and new human capital and
space planning initiatives
designed to meet the new challenges posed by the
dynamic nature of today's
nuclear arena. The continued safe and secure
operation of the current fleet of
operating nuclear power plants remains the Agency'
s top priority; therefore, the
new reactor licensing activities are being
carefully planned to ensure the
continued safe operation of these facilities.

New Reactor Licensing Workload

The Commission's Strategic Plan establishes a
fundamental objective to:

Enable the use and management of radioactive
materials and nuclear fuels for
beneficial civilian purposes in a manner that
protects public health and
safety and the environment, promotes the security
of our nation, and provides for
regulatory actions that are open, effective,
efficient, realistic, and timely.

Consistent with this objective and our statutory
responsibility, the NRC has
been conducting reviews of Early Site Permit (ESP)
and Design Certification
(DC) applications, and is developing an efficient
infrastructure to conduct the
review of anticipated combined license (COL)
applications in the future.

As a result of the passage of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and concurrent
developments in U.S. energy demands, the NRC is
preparing for an increased
number of potential COL, ESP and DC applications.
The Energy Policy Act
incentives for new reactor construction
established a highly dynamic environment in
which new nuclear power plants are being seriously
considered to meet future
generation capacity, the need for which is
expected to increase by the year 2015.
Last year at this time, the NRC had been notified
of three potential COL
applications in the next few years. Today, the
number of expected COL applica
tions is 13 for a total of 19 units, and the
number of applications is expected to
increase in the near future. Some of these
applications are expected to
reference reactor designs already certified by the
NRC, while others are expected
to reference designs that are currently under NRC
review. We also expect to
be conducting reviews of additional ESP
applications, or equivalent
environmental reviews. We are preparing to review
and act on applications anticipated to
be submitted in the 2007-2008 time frame, and are
organizing accordingly. We
continue to assess our resource needs, which have
increased significantly, in
light of the very substantial increase in the
number of anticipated COL
applications and related work. The attached graph
1 shows the anticipated work
schedule based on industry submittals, public
announcements, and expected but as
yet unannounced applications.

Current New Reactor Licensing Activities

Current new reactor licensing activities are
expected to follow the
processes established under 10 CFR Part 52. Part
52 establishes the framework to
review ESP, CD, and COL applications.

The Commission recently proposed a revision to 10
CFR Part 52, to clarify it
and enhance its usability. The proposed amendments
incorporate the lessons
learned from previous regulatory reviews, to
enhance regulatory predictability
at the COL stage. Furthermore, in the Part 52
rulemaking, the Commission is
soliciting comments on an approach that would
facilitate amendments to design
certification rules after the initial
certification. With such a provision, a
detailed standard certified reactor design would
be able to incorporate
additional features that are generic to the design
and thereby encourage further
standardization. Also, changes to the limited work
authorization process are
being considered to expand the ability to initiate
site preparation work in
advance of COL issuance. The Commission plans to
issue the final rule by January
2007.

NRC's licensing reviews are supported by
regulatory guides and standard
review plans. The NRC staff is reviewing and
revising the regulatory guidance
documents associated with new reactor licensing.
These guidance documents
include a planned combined license application
regulatory guide which contains the
information that COL applicants need to provide in
their applications, and an
update of pertinent standard review plan (SRP)
sections for use by NRC staff
reviewing COL applications. The Draft Regulatory
Guide, which has been the
subject of numerous public meetings and workshops,
will be formally issued for
comment in June 2006. The NRC staff estimates that
the final regulatory guide
will be completed by December 2006, to support
prospective applicants who are
planning to submit COL applications in late 2007
and 2008. This schedule is
consistent with the schedule for the promulgation
of the revised Part 52 rule.
Complementary to the COL application regulatory
guide, the NRC staff is
updating the standard review plan to support the
anticipated new site and reactor
licensing applications. The staff is working with
the industry to complete the
standard review plan updates by the Spring of
2007.

To date, the NRC has received three ESP
applications, focusing on
environmental implications and emergency
preparedness, for sites in Virginia, Illinois,
and Mississippi which currently have operating
reactors on them. The NRC
staff has prepared safety evaluation reports for
all three sites, and has issued
draft environmental impact statements for public
comment for two of the sites
and has issued a final environmental impact
statement for one of the sites.
The agency will complete its remaining regulatory
reviews in an effective,
efficient, timely, and predictable manner. I note
that additional work is being
performed in connection with one application that
was recently significantly
revised and resubmitted by the applicant.
Adjudicatory proceedings associated
with the ESP applications are currently ongoing.
>From our experience with the
ESP reviews, we have identified numerous lessons
learned, for both the NRC and
industry, that will be used to improve the staff's
new reactor licensing
process in the future and will be implemented
prior to the next ESP application,
expected during the summer of 2006.

The agency's work on new reactor standardized
design certification has also
intensified. Three designs were previously
certified: General Electric's
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, Westinghouse's
AP600, and System 80+ designs.
The NRC recently certified the Westinghouse AP1000
reactor and codified it in
the NRC's regulations, as Appendix D to 10 CFR
Part 52. The NRC is currently
reviewing the General Electric Economic Simplified
Boiling Water Reactor
(ESBWR) design certification application and is on
schedule with respect to its
review. The NRC is conducting pre-application
activities for AREVA's U.S.
Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) design whose
design certification application is
expected in 2007. The NRC is also conducting
limited pre-application work for
the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and the
International Reactor Innovative
and Secure (IRIS), and is expecting additional
design certification
applications in the future.

To effectively review multiple COL applications in
parallel, the staff is
planning to implement a design-centered review
approach. We believe this
approach is crucial to achieving effective,
efficient, and timely reviews for
multiple applications. This approach is founded on
the concept of "one issue-one
review-one position for multiple applications" to
optimize the review effort and
resources needed to perform these reviews. The NRC
staff would use a single
technical evaluation for each reactor design to
support reviews of multiple
COL applications for the same technical area of
review, assuming that the
relevant components of the applications are
standardized. The design-centered
approach will focus its reviews by: 1) using
standardization and coordination of
approaches and applications; 2) requiring complete
and high-quality
applications; 3) increasing the use of the DC
rulemaking to codify issue closure; and 4)
using single technical evaluations to support
multiple COL applications. In
addition, to achieve consistency of the staff
reviews, the process for implemen
ting the design-centered review program will
require a multi-layered project
management team for each design, and will use
dedicated technical review
resources. The plans and schedules of these
reviews include an increased level of
detail and integration to achieve the requisite
level of control and
documentation. The benefits of this approach would
be enhanced by the full
participation of multiple entities in ensuring
that pertinent components of the
applications are standardized. A schematic
representation of the sequencing and use of
the design-centered review approach is shown in
graph 2. Significant
efficiencies are expected to be gained through the
use of the design-centered
approach.

New Reactor Construction Oversight

To prepare for the construction of new reactors
licensed in accordance with
10 CFR Part 52, a new construction inspection
program (CIP) is being
developed. The new CIP builds on the lessons
learned from the construction of the
existing fleet of operating reactors. The CIP
comprises four different parts,
early site permit inspections; pre-combined
license (Pre-COL) inspections;
inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance
criteria (ITAAC) inspections; and
non-ITAAC Inspections. These inspections will
cover all aspects of new plant
construction and operation from early site
preparation work, through construction, to
the transition to inspections under the reactor
oversight process (ROP) for
operating reactors. Half of the associated
inspection procedures are in place
and the remaining procedures are under development
and are scheduled to be in
place well before the start of on-site
construction activities.

Successful implementation of the CIP will require
four main functions: 1)
day-to-day inspections at the construction site by
resident construction
inspectors; 2) on-site inspections by specialist
inspectors; 3) off-site inspections
(e.g., vendor inspections); and 4) documentation
of inspection results and
public notification of the successful completion
of the ITAAC. ITAAC are part
of the combined license and define specific
requirements to be met prior to
operation. To gain staff efficiencies and
facilitate knowledge transfer, all
construction inspection management and resources
will be located in a single
region which will schedule all construction
inspectors nationwide.

The NRC performed an initial assessment of the
existing ROP for use with new
reactor designs which confirmed that the overall
ROP framework could be used,
including utilizing performance indicators and the
significance determination
process for evaluating inspection findings. The
Construction Inspection
Program will specifically address each new reactor
to be built, detailing the
steps that will be employed to integrate that
plant into the ROP as it transitions
from the construction phase into the startup and
operations phase.

Multinational Design Approval Program (MDAP)

The NRC is working with international regulators
on a multinational design
approval program intended to leverage worldwide
nuclear knowledge and operating
experience in a cooperative effort to review
reactor designs that have been
or are being reviewed and approved in other
countries. The first stage of the
MDAP has already begun. It involves enhanced
cooperation with the regulatory
authorities in Finland and France to assist NRC's
future design certification
review of the US EPR. Follow-on stages of the MDAP
could foster the safety of
reactors in participating nations through
convergence on safety codes and
standards, and other technical matters while
maintaining full national
sovereignty over regulatory decisions. Preliminary
work to more fully develop the
framework for consideration of a Stage 2 is
underway at the NRC and the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development's Nuclear Energy Agency.

Challenges to Success

The NRC recognizes that many challenges for new
reactor licensing activities
exist. Key challenges include effective
communication between the NRC and
the applicants, and the interrelationship between
the technical review and the
associated adjudicatory process. To successfully
complete the reviews within
the anticipated schedule, continuous clear,
effective, and timely communication
between the NRC and the applicant must occur.
Delays in providing or
responding to requests for information must be
avoided and any modifications to the
application need to be conveyed immediately so
that products can be
appropriately coordinated. In addition, the
technical review and adjudicatory process
for the application are interrelated and both are
required for the final
decision making process. Multiple products are
also needed to maximize the early
resolution of issues leading to a final
determination, including an ESP, DC and
COL. An applicant may decide to submit a license
application in a manner
different from the originally contemplated
sequence, such as choosing not to apply
for an ESP prior to applying for a COL or
selecting a design that has not
been certified through rulemaking. In such cases,
the technical review and
adjudicatory process performed for an ESP or DC
review will need to be included in
the COL review and could challenge the
predictability of the process and the
application review schedule. To meet these
challenges, we have implemented
organizational changes in our legal and technical
organizations, recruited
personnel, and are developing an integrated
planning tool to assist in coordinating
the applicant schedules.

The NRC has completed substantial preparation
activities and executed
reviews of supporting elements for COL
applications. We continue to incorporate the
lessons learned from current reviews into the
regulatory process to create a
stable and predictable regulatory process. As
such, the NRC is preparing to
conduct thorough and timely reviews of ITAAC and,
therefore, the use of the
Energy Policy Act Risk Insurance Program, due to
NRC delays should not be
necessary. As noted previously, when COL
applications are submitted, they should be
high quality, essentially standardized
applications that contain the safety
case and other required components in the level of
detail that will support
staff review and the adjudicatory process.
Anything less may challenge the
predictability of the licensing process.

The NRC understands and accepts its role in new
reactor licensing, the
success of which depends on many factors, most
notably the submittal of high
quality applications by the industry. With the
continued support of Congress, we
will carry out our responsibilities and meet the
challenges ahead.

Human Capital and Space Planning

As you know, the NRC's ability to accomplish its
mission depends on the
availability of a highly skilled and experienced
work force. In a recent ranking
of the Top 10 Federal Work Places by the
Partnership for Public Service and
American University's Institute for the Study for
Public Policy Implementation,
the NRC was designated one of the top three places
to work in the Federal go
vernment. In addition, the NRC was ranked first by
people surveyed who are
under 40 years of age. The Commission is very
proud of these rankings and strives
to improve the quality of the work environment for
NRC employees.
Nonetheless, the NRC continues to be challenged by
the substantial growth in new work at
a time when increasing numbers of experienced
staff are eligible to retire.
To address these challenges, the agency has
developed human capital strategies
to find, attract, and retain staff with
critical-skills and has developed a
space acquisition plan to accommodate these
additional employees.

The NRC is aggressively recruiting a mixture of
recent college graduates and
experienced professionals to meet the agency's
emergent work activities. The
current projection is that over 400 additional
FTEs will be devoted to new
work by FY 2008. The Commission is striving to
hire approximately 350 new
employees in FY 2006 to cover the loss of
personnel and to support growth in new
work. To date during this fiscal year, we have
already succeeded in recruiting
and hiring almost 300 new employees toward this
goal. Our aggressive efforts
to recruit, hire, and develop staff will continue
throughout Fiscal Year 2007
as we prepare for receipt of the first COL
applications. The agency expects
to have a critical hiring need for at least the
next five years.

The NRC closely monitors its voluntary attrition
rate including retirements,
which has historically been below six percent, and
will continue to monitor
this rate because it could increase as industry
competition for skilled
individuals increases and as eligible staff
retire. The agency uses a variety of
recruitment and retention incentives to remain
competitive with the private
sector. We continue to experience success
utilizing the provisions of the Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 and the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The NRC
has budgeted for continued and increased use of
these recruitment and
retention tools in the coming years.

Our steady growth and accelerated hiring program
have exhausted available
space at our Headquarters buildings. We have
developed and are implementing
strategies to obtain adequate space to accommodate
our expanding work force. We
are creating additional workstations within our
Headquarters buildings,
including building workstations in conference
rooms, and are moving our Professional
Development Center off-site to use the space it
currently occupies for new
employees. We are also seeking additional office
space in the immediate
vicinity of our headquarters complex to support
the expected growth of the agency.

The NRC will be continually challenged to maintain
adequate infrastructure
and the personnel needed to accomplish its
mission. However, with Congress'
help, the Commission is poised to meet these
challenges successfully through
the ongoing human capital planning,
implementation, and assessment process, the
space planning program, and the various tools
provided by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.

Conclusion

The Commission continues to be committed to
ensuring the adequate protection
of public health and safety and promoting common
defense and security in the
application of nuclear technology for civilian
use. To that end, the
Commission is dedicated to ensuring that our
agency is ready to meet the expected
demand for new reactor licensing. NRC's Part 52
processes are safety focused and
are stable, efficient, and predictable. We have
taken action to clarify Part
52, to ensure a clear regulatory and oversight
framework; to reorganize the
Agency and put in place the processes to ensure
timely review; to meet the NRC's
human capital and office space needs, and to seek
additional funding as
necessary. The Agency is prepared to meet the
challenge associated with new
reactors while maintaining strong oversight of the
current operating reactors. I am
convinced that the Agency has the technical and
legal know-how to make the
right decisions in a timely manner.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward
to continuing to work with the Committee. I
welcome your comments and qu
estions.



Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
364 Dirksen Office Bldg . Washington, DC 20510
202.224.4971

Home | Search | Text Only | Site Map | Help/Faqs



Full Committee Hearing- Nuclear Power
Monday, May 22, 2006

Managing Director The Honorable James Asselstine
Lehman Brothers, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD

James K. Asselstine
Managing Director
Lehman Brothers, Inc.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
Hearing on the nuclear power provisions contained
in the Energy Policy Act of
2005

May 22, 2006


Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.

My name is Jim Asselstine. I am a Managing
Director at Lehman Brothers,
where I am the senior fixed income research
analyst responsible for covering the
electric utility and power sector. In that
capacity, I provide fixed income
research coverage for more than 100 U.S. electric
utility companies, power
generators, and power projects. As a research
analyst, I also work closely with
the large institutional investors who have
traditionally been a principal source
of debt financing for the power industry.

I appreciate your invitation to testify at today's
hearing regarding the
nuclear power provisions contained in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. My testimony
will provide a financial community perspective on
the current industry
activities that may lead to applications to
construct and operate new nuclear power
plants, and the efforts by the federal government
to implement the nuclear
power provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that you, the Ranking
Minority Member, and the other
members of this Committee deserve enormous credit
for your efforts leading to
the enactment of comprehensive energy legislation
last year. Thanks to many
of the initiatives and incentives in the Act, the
industry is now embarking on
a new construction cycle including investments to
upgrade and expand
transmission and distribution system reliability,
to ensure environmental compliance
for our large coal-fired generation fleet, and to
add much-needed new baseload
generating capacity. These new investments will
require new sources of
financing for the industry.

The Energy Policy Act contained four provisions
that were intended to
facilitate and encourage industry commitments to
build and operate new nuclear power
plants in this country. First, the Act included a
20-year extension of the
Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance
protection to the public in the
event of a nuclear reactor accident. With the
previous expiration of the
Price-Anderson Act, insurance coverage for the
public remained in place for our
existing 103 operating nuclear units, but that
coverage would not have been
available for new plants. The 20-year extension of
the Price-Anderson Act corrected
this problem. Second, the Act provided a
production tax credit of 1.8 cents
per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts of
generating capacity from new
nuclear power plants for the first eight years of
operation. This production tax
credit is subject to an annual cap of $125 million
for each 1,000 megawatts
of generating capacity. A similar production tax
credit was provided, and has
historically been available, for certain renewable
energy resources. Third,
the Act provided standby support or risk insurance
for a new nuclear project's
sponsors and investors against the financial
impacts, including financing
costs, of delays beyond the industry's control
that may be caused by delays in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process
or by litigation. This
standby risk insurance for regulatory and
litigation delays provides protection
for the first six new nuclear units built. Up to
$500 million in protection is
provided for the first two new units, and 50
percent of the cost of delays up
to $250 million, with a six-month deductible, is
provided for units three
through six. Finally, the Act provided for federal
loans and loan guarantees for
up to 80 percent of the project's cost. These
federal loan guarantees were
made available to support the development of
innovative energy technologies,
including advanced nuclear power plants, that
avoid or reduce certain air
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Chairman, although we are still at an early
stage in the process and no
company has yet placed a firm order for a new
nuclear unit, there is clear
evidence from the level of activity within the
industry over the past nine months
that these provisions in the Energy Policy Act are
having their intended
effect of facilitating and encouraging new plant
development. Three companies,
Exelon, Dominion Resources, and Entergy, have
filed applications with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for early site permits
(ESPs), and the NRC review
process is now underway. Other companies have
announced that they are planning or
considering early site permit applications as
well. Of the three new plant
designs that appear to be of the greatest interest
to the industry, one has
received its design certification from the NRC,
and the review processes for the
remaining two are either underway or will begin
within about a year. Finally,
nine companies have announced that they are
preparing a total of 11
applications for a combined license (COL) for as
many as 19 new units, to be submitted
to the NRC in 2007-2009. Taken together, the
industry is investing more than
$1.5 billion in the engineering, design, license
preparation, and long-lead
time procurement activities needed to support
these applications. Over the past
nine months, those of us in the financial
community have become increasingly
familiar with the level of activity and the
seriousness of the industry's
efforts leading toward new plant commitments.

Mr. Chairman, the process of planning, developing,
licensing, building, and
financing a new nuclear plant is likely to be very
complex. From a financing
perspective, investors will need confidence that a
new nuclear plant can be
built on a predictable schedule and for a
predictable cost, that the cost will be
competitive with that of other available baseload
generating alternatives
such as coal, and that they will be protected
against the risk of licensing and
litigation delays at least until the new NRC
licensing process has demonstrated
a track record of successful performance.
Enactment of the provisions in the
Energy Policy Act was the first critical step in
meeting these financing
requirements, but much of the detailed work
remains ahead of us. It is therefore
critically important for this Committee and other
relevant committees of the
Congress to continue to actively monitor and
oversee the implementation of the
provisions in the Energy Policy Act. To that end,
I would offer a few
comments on the implementation of the provisions
in the Act to date.

With regard to the production tax credit, on May
1, 2006, the Internal
Revenue Service issued a bulletin providing
interim guidance on the eligibility and
allocation of the production tax credit for new
nuclear plants. Under the
Service's interim guidance, in order to qualify
for the tax credit, a company
must file an application for a combined license by
the end of 2008. Allocations
of the tax credits for the 6,000 megawatts would
subsequently be made for the
plants which commence construction by the start of
2014. The Service's
interim guidance seems to be sensible and
practical, and consistent with the
objectives of the statute. The guidance has the
effect of encouraging the early
filing of COL applications before 2009, but of
allocating the available tax
credits proportionately among all of the plants
that begin construction by 2014.
This should have the beneficial effect of
encouraging a larger number of new
applications, although the economic benefit on a
per plant basis could be reduced
if the total generating capacity of the eligible
plants exceeds 6,000
megawatts. Issuing final regulations implementing
this interim guidance will provide
certainty and predictability for financing
purposes. In addition, in order
to maximize the availability of alternative
financing sources, it would be
helpful if the final IRS regulations permitted the
transfer of the production tax
credits to passive equity partners who may not be
utilities or electric
generating companies.

Concerning the standby support or delay risk
insurance provision, the
Department of Energy has done substantial work to
develop its implementing
regulations. The Department has conducted an open
and collaborative process, starting
with the publication of its Notice of Inquiry and
a public workshop last year,
and more recently, with the publication of its
interim final rules. This is a
complex rulemaking, and the current public comment
period should provide an
opportunity to ensure that the provisions in the
rule are clear and workable.
The risk of cost increases due to regulatory and
litigation delay is a
significant concern for investors, and the
Department's final regulations will likely
be a critical ingredient in the ability to finance
the initial new plants.
One missing element in the Department's
implementing regulations is the
methodology for determining the cost to the
project sponsor of providing this delay
risk insurance. This will be a component in
calculating the overall project
cost and in assessing the value and availability
of the risk insurance
protection.

With regard to the loan guarantee provision in the
Act, the Department of
Energy has not yet issued a Notice of Inquiry or
proposed regulations designed to
implement this provision. The availability of
federal loan guarantees for up
to 80 percent of a project's cost, in conjunction
with the production tax
credit, offers the greatest potential to reduce
the cost of the initial new
nuclear plants to levels that are competitive with
other baseload generating
alternatives. In addition, for certain financing
models for a new nuclear plant,
such as ownership by an unregulated generating
company or use of a single asset,
non-recourse project finance structure, a federal
loan guarantee may be
required to provide the debt component of the
financing. Further, as is the case
with the standby risk insurance, the methodology
for determining the cost of
the loan guarantee to the project sponsor will be
a factor in assessing the
availability and value of the loan guarantee. For
these reasons, the Department's
implementation of the loan guarantee provision is
likely to be an important
component in ensuring the availability of
financing for the initial plants.
Given the importance of the loan guarantee
provision, the Department may wish to
consider an open and collaborative process for the
loan guarantee regulations
similar to the one it used in developing the
standby risk insurance
regulations.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer a few
comments on the NRC licensing
process. Although the standby delay risk insurance
provisions are very
helpful for the initial plants, it is clear that
investor confidence needed to
support the financing of a number of follow-on new
nuclear units will depend upon
the successful operation of the NRC licensing
process in these early cases.
Chairman Diaz and his colleagues on the Commission
invited me to participate in
a Commission meeting last fall with industry
representatives to discuss the
types and timing of new applications that may be
submitted for NRC review. It
was apparent from that meeting that the Commission
could well face the need to
review a sizable number of new applications of
differing types - design
certifications, early site permits, and combined
licenses - concurrently. Moreover,
the NRC has begun a major revision of its
regulations, regulatory guides and
standard review plans for new combined licenses at
the same time that the
industry is preparing its applications. The
potential number of applications, the
interaction of the various types of approvals, the
potential for duplication
of effort, and the need to coordinate the
development of new regulations and
regulatory guidance with the industry's license
application preparation work
all pose substantial challenges. I am confident
that the NRC can and will
exercise its independent health and safety
responsibilities. But if this process
is to work smoothly and efficiently, we will need
stability and continuity
within the NRC, active management involvement by
the Commission and the senior NRC
staff, and close coordination between the NRC
staff and the industry. The
NRC will also need sufficient resources to conduct
its reviews in an efficient
and timely manner.

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today, and this
completes my testimony.





Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
364 Dirksen Office Bldg . Washington, DC 20510
202.224.4971

Home | Search | Text Only | Site Map | Help/Faqs


*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Columbia Generating Station
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-06-013           May 24, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail:   
  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Energy
Northwest officials on June 1, to discuss the NRCs annual
assessment of safety performance at the Columbia Generating
Station during 2005. 

The 6 p.m. meeting at Energy Northwests Business Services
Center, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland, Wash., is open to
public observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be
available to answer questions on the plants safety performance,
as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe plant operation. 

Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the
nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV
Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an
opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local
officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting
with members of the community and answering any questions they
may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available
on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wnp_2005q4.pdf . 

Overall, Columbia Generating Station operated safely during the
period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and
performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved. 	In addition to the baseline (or
routine) level of inspections during 2006, the NRC will focus
attention on weaknesses in problem identification and
resolution. 

Two supplemental inspections were conducted earlier this year
and have verified that corrective actions have been taken to
address a number of safety system failures and unplanned reactor
shutdowns that occurred in the past. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are emergency preparedness and radiological safety. 

Current performance information for Columbia Generating Station
is available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WASH2/wash2_chart.html. 
 



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 24, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 22 NEWS.com.au: Beazley a nuclear hypocrite - PM -

PRIME Minister John Howard was facing an uphill battle to
convince Australians of the merits of nuclear power but was
refusing to back down on his push for a full scale debate. Mr
Howard has labelled Opposition Leader Kim Beazley a hypocrite
for ruling out nuclear power, while Labor taunted the Government
today over where it would site a nuclear reactor.

 The Government maintained there was a need for a national
nuclear discussion, including on whether Australia should move
to nuclear power generation, but Labor has promised there would
be no nuclear power if it wins government.

 "It does not stack up economically. It does not stack up
strategically and it does not stack up environmentally," Mr
Beazley said.

 The Australia Institute has named a host of sites, including
Victoria's Western Port Bay, Portland and Port Phillip Bay, the
Sunshine Coast in Queensland, south of Wollongong in New South
Wales and Port Stephens and the NSW central coast, as possible
locations for the nation's first nuclear plant.

 Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said he would "fight tooth and
nail" against any plans to build a plant in any part of his
state, a view echoed by his Victorian and NSW counterparts.

Government backbencher Greg Hunt, whose seat of Flinders takes in 
Western Port Bay and Port Phillip Bay, played down the prospect 
of a nuclear power station in his electorate.

 "It's a hoax, it's a fraud, it won't be happening in the next 30 
years ... I suspect it will never happen on Western Port or the 
Mornington Peninsula," he said.

 Mr Howard said Mr Beazley was a hypocrite because he is willing 
to allow uranium exports but does not want it used in this 
country.

 "Apparently it is alright to export uranium to other countries 
that will then produce nuclear power with all the problems he 
says are unacceptable in Australia," Mr Howard said.

 "Well in my view if nuclear power is unsafe, unacceptable and 
anti the environment, you shouldn't export uranium to any other 
country.

 "If you are not prepared to have those problems in your own 
country, it is a bit hypocritical to say other people can put up 
with the problems but Australia won't."

 Mr Howard has signalled a full scale national nuclear debate
when he returns to Australia tomorrow, and is expected to
announce an inquiry or a white paper to investigate the issue.

 While the government is refusing to pre-empt the discussion, it
believes nuclear energy may be inevitable, although, at the
moment, it remains economically unviable.

 "I don't know what the end of the debate will be, but I do know
this, that we face escalating oil prices, we do need to find
alternative energy," Mr Howard said.

 "There's no doubt that fossil fuels are very bad in relation to
greenhouse gas emissions. I think there has been a shift in
public opinion. People are more likely to look at nuclear power,
even if it's some time into the future, in a different way."

 In Parliament today, Labor demanded the Government give
certainty to people worried about a reactor in their suburb.

 Mr Beazley asked Acting Prime Minister Peter Costello: "Will
(the Government) nominate the proposed sites of its nuclear
reactors and their associated high-level nuclear waste dumps?"

 Mr Costello shrugged off the question, saying the government
welcomed the debate.

 "We have no hang-up at all about exploiting Australia's
resources to gain export income for this country," he said. 		 

*****************************************************************
 23 NEWS.com.au: Costello 'welcomes' nuclear debate - 

From: AAP

By Sandra O'Malley

 May 24, 2006

PRIME Minister John Howard is facing an uphill battle to
convince Australians of the merits of nuclear power but is
refusing to backdown on his push for a full scale debate. Mr
Howard has labelled Opposition Leader Kim Beazley a hypocrite
for ruling out nuclear power, while Labor taunted the Government
today over where it would site a nuclear reactor.

 The Government maintains there is a need for a national nuclear
discussion, including on whether Australia should move to
nuclear power generation, but Labor has promised there will be
no nuclear power if it wins government.

 "It does not stack up economically. It does not stack up
strategically and it does not stack up environmentally," Mr
Beazley said.

 The Australia Institute has named a host of sites, including
Victoria's Western Port Bay, Portland and Port Phillip Bay, the
Sunshine Coast in Queensland, south of Wollongong in NSW and
Port Stephens and the NSW central coast, as possible locations
for the nation's first nuclear plant.

 Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said he would "fight tooth and
nail" against any plans to build a plant in any part of his
state, a view echoed by his Victorian and NSW counterparts.

Government backbencher Greg Hunt, whose seat of Flinders takes in 
Western Port Bay and Port Phillip Bay, played down the prospect 
of a nuclear power station in his electorate.

 "It's a hoax, it's a fraud, it won't be happening in the next
30 years ... I suspect it will never happen on Western Port or
the Mornington Peninsula," he said.

 Mr Howard says Mr Beazley is a hypocrite because he is willing
to allow uranium exports but does not want it used in this
country.

 "Apparently it is alright to export uranium to other countries
that will then produce nuclear power with all the problems he
says are unacceptable in Australia," Mr Howard said.

 "Well in my view if nuclear power is unsafe, unacceptable and
anti the environment, you shouldn't export uranium to any other
country.

 "If you are not prepared to have those problems in your own
country, it is a bit hypocritical to say other people can put up
with the problems but Australia won't."

 Mr Howard has signalled a full scale national nuclear debate
when he returns to Australia tomorrow, and is expected to
announce an inquiry or a white paper to investigate the issue.

 While the Government is refusing to pre-empt the discussion, it
believes nuclear energy may be inevitable, although, at the
moment, it remains economically unviable.

 "I don't know what the end of the debate will be, but I do know
this, that we face escalating oil prices, we do need to find
alternative energy," Mr Howard said.

 "There's no doubt that fossil fuels are very bad in relation to
greenhouse gas emissions. I think there has been a shift in
public opinion. People are more likely to look at nuclear power,
even if it's some time into the future, in a different way."

 In Parliament today, Labor demanded the Government give
certainty to people worried about a reactor in their suburb.

 Mr Beazley asked Acting Prime Minister Peter Costello: "Will
(the Government) nominate the proposed sites of its nuclear
reactors and their associated high-level nuclear waste dumps?"

 Mr Costello shrugged off the question, saying the Government
welcomed the debate.

 "We have no hang-up at all about exploiting Australia's
resources to gain export income for this country," he said. 		 


*****************************************************************
 24 The Australian: Nuclear power's new look: smaller, cheaper 

 Joseph Kerr May 25, 2006 

NUCLEAR generation is a viable option for Australia, thanks to
recent advances that have made power stations much smaller,
safer and cheaper to build.

 Several different types of so-called fourth-generation nuclear
power plants are under development, according to one government
MP, that could be built for as little as $166million - far less
than the $4billion touted for larger plants. 

The claims that nuclear power was economically realistic for
Australia came as calls for power plants to be built near
Melbourne or at Port Stephens, on the mid-north coast of NSW,
were dismissed as a cruel joke. 

Local mayors attacked as "abhorrent" claims by left-wing think
tank the Australia Institute that Westernport Bay, south-east of
Melbourne, or Port Stephens would be ideal for nuclear plants
because they were near major power transmission lines and had
good transport access for fuel rods. 

Casey Mayor Kevin Bradford said calls to build a nuclear plant
on Westernport Bay were "irresponsible and inappropriate". 

"I don't know whether they're actually serious," Mr Bradford
said. "If they're serious, I'd be very concerned. If they're
just joking, well, it's not a very good joke." 

Greg Hunt, Liberal MP for the federal seat of Flinders, said a
nuclear power plant could not be located near the Mornington
Peninsula because a fault line running through the area meant it
would never be safe. "It isn't Krakatoa, but it is geologically
unstable," Mr Hunt said. 

Port Stephens Mayor Craig Baumann said he would rather see the
plant on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra. 

Port Stephens was a tourism destination, he said, and one of the
most beautiful places on the east coast. "The idea of putting
any power-generating plant on the shores of Port Stephens is
abhorrent," Mr Baumann said. "It's crazy." 

But Dennis Jensen, Liberal MP for the federal seat of Tangney in
Western Australia, yesterday insisted nuclear power plants were
a safe, clean option. 

Dr Jensen said that because they operated at lower temperatures,
the reactors never reached a point where a critical meltdown
could occur, so they could be smaller and needed fewer failsafe
mechanisms. 

He said some types could also use natural uranium as a fuel,
rather than the enriched uranium typically used by older
reactors, which was much more radioactive. 

And because they were modular in design, Australia could build
much smaller reactors -- making it cheaper to introduce nuclear
power. Conventional reactors typically produced at least a
gigawatt of power, Dr Jensen said, but the fourth-generation
reactors could be as small as 125megawatts. 

Colin Keay, an associate professor of physics at the University
of Newcastle, said they also produced far less waste. 

"The new fourth-generation nuclear reactors burn waste very
effectively," Dr Keay said. 

"Nuclear waste is really no longer an issue." 

Dr Jensen said decisions about whether to build a nuclear power
plant should be commercial ones made by power companies, not by
government. 

 The Australian 
*****************************************************************
 25 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pitches Plan to Expand Nuclear Power

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 25, 2006 12:01 AM

AP Photo PAPM106 

By JENNIFER LOVEN 

Associated Press Writer 

LIMERICK, Pa. (AP) - Calling nuclear power an over-regulated
industry that needs a jump-start from Washington, President Bush
on Wednesday pitched his plan to expand nuclear power generation
by dealing with radioactive waste, lessening regulations and
reviving nuclear fuel processing. 

The backdrop for the president's effort was the Limerick
Generating Station, a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corp.
about 40 miles from Philadelphia. Bush donned a white hard hat
for a brief tour, then spoke to employees in a sweltering tent
set up in the shadow of the plant's two enormous cooling towers. 

Bush argued that nuclear power is abundant, affordable, safe and
clean. 

``For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear power plants,'' Bush said. ``Other
countries are.'' 

Some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to
nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change
because reactors do not produce ``greenhouse'' gases as do
fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing
worries about reactor waste and safety. 

``The debate needs to fully address such vital issues as the
exorbitant cost of building new nuclear facilities, the
potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes,'' said Thomas B. Cochran,
director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear
program. 

Bush's quick visit to the Philadelphia area was also aimed at
helping vulnerable Republicans seeking re-election this fall -
though not all of the state's high-profile GOP candidates took
advantage of the presidential appearance. 

At a $1,000-a-ticket reception at a downtown hotel, Bush raised
$600,000 for the state party and for GOP Reps. Jim Gerlach and
Mike Fitzpatrick, prime Democratic targets who represent
suburban districts narrowly won by John Kerry in 2004. 

But other Republicans facing re-election did not appear
alongside Bush. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, in one of the
nation's toughest re-election fights, needed to cast votes in
the Senate, according to his campaign. Likewise, GOP Rep. Curt
Weldon, who represents another Philadelphia suburb that
Democrats are eyeing, remained in Washington to work. 

Bush's polling in Pennsylvania matches his nationally, where it
has dipped to record lows in the low-30s. 

Weldon press secretary John Tomaszewski said the lawmaker wasn't
invited and had votes all day in the House. Asked if Weldon was
distancing himself from the president, Tomaszewski said
``absolutely not - that's ridiculous.'' 

Limerick is the second nuclear power plant Bush has seen in less
than a year. He is the first president to visit a nuclear power
plant since former President Carter went to Pennsylvania's Three
Mile Island nuclear plant after it partially melted down in
1979, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Bush touted a range of ways he wants to make America less
dependent on hydrocarbons, including promoting ethanol-,
hydrogen- and battery-powered cars, clean-coal technology, wind
and solar power and liquefied natural gas. 

``If we haven't done something about our energy situation, we're
not going to be able to compete in the world,'' the president
said. 

There are 100 nuclear power plants scattered across 31 U.S.
states, but has an order has not been placed for a new reactor
since 1973. A broad energy bill Bush signed last summer provides
incentives for building again, and Bush said interest is up
eight-fold. 

The public is evenly divided on the question of building more
nuclear plants, recent polling has found. 

The administration also wants Congress to approve $250 million -
a small down payment - to accelerate a decade-long research
program into reprocessing nuclear fuel, which advocates say
would pose much less risk and reduce the amount of reactor waste
that eventually would have to be buried. 

The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the
1970s because of proliferation concerns. 

``Nuclear power helps us protect the environment and nuclear
power is safe,'' the president said. 

^--- 

Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling contributed to this
story from Washington. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power
Plant

News Release - Region I - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-034                          
May 24, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Entergy Nuclear Northeast on Wednesday, May
31, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety
performance at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant. The
period of performance to be discussed is January 1 to December
31, 2005. 

Entergy operates the plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the plants Joint News Center,
which is located at the Oswego County Airport, on County Route
176 in Fulton, N.Y. The NRC staff will present the results of
the assessment and be available to respond to questions or
comments from the public before the close of the meeting. 

As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety
performance of the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant during the
previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J.
Collins said. The meeting on May 31st will afford the public a
chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and to
pose any questions they might have regarding plant performance
or our oversight activities. 

Overall, the FitzPatrick plant operated safely during the
period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and
performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings
and performance indicators for the facility during 2005 were
determined to be green, the plant will receive a baseline (or
routine) level of inspections during the upcoming assessment
period. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are problem identification and resolution,
radiological safety and permanent plant modifications. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/fitz_2005q4.pdf . The
meeting notice, with the meeting agenda attached, is available
in the NRCs Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS)
under accession number ML060860280. The NRC slides will be
available in ADAMS under accession number ML061170003. ADAMS is
accessible via the agencys web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at
800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. 

Current performance information for FitzPatrick is available on
the NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FITZ/fitz_chart.html.   

 	Last revised Wednesday, May 24, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 27 Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook power upgrade is approved
 
Wed. May 24, 2006

By Shir Haberman shaberman@seacoastonline.com 

SEABROOK - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a
request by FPL Energy Seabrook to increase the generating
capacity of Seabrook Station by 1.7 percent. 

"This is the second and final phase of a planned power upgrade,"
said Alan Griffin, Seabrook Station spokesman. 

The first phase occurred following a refueling project in April
2005. That phase resulted in a generating capacity increase of
more than 5 percent, Griffin said. 

"We changed out some components and tweaked a number of
systems," he said. "The (existing generating capacities) of
nuclear plants, particularly Seabrook Station because it’s a
newer facility, are always well below what they were capable of
doing." 

NRC staff reviewed FPL evaluations that showed the plant’s
design can handle the increased power level. 

The NRC’s safety evaluation of the plant’s proposed power uprate
focused on several areas, including nuclear steam supply
systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical
systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences,
operations, and other technical specification changes. 

The power uprate for the unit, located 13 miles south of
Portsmouth, will increase its generating capacity from
approximately 1,173 megawatts electric to 1,193 megawatts. FPL
intends to operate Seabrook at the higher power level following
its spring refueling operations. 

The NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate
application in the Federal Register, providing the public an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or
hearing requests were received by the NRC. 

SAFETY EVALUATION 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s evaluation of the Seabrook
power uprate will soon be available through the NRC’s ADAMS
electronic document database by entering ML061360034 in the
search engine at the Web site,
www.adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. 

  Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
 28 Australian Financial Review: Nuclear costs highly relevant

  May 25 2006

Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen ("Nuclear power can be safe
and clean", Opinion, May 24) dismisses the economics of nuclear
energy as "one of the least important issues" in the "debate"
the Prime Minister finally wants to have.--> 	2006/05/25-->

Letters-->      

Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen ("Nuclear power can be safe and
clean", Opinion, May 24) dismisses the economics of nuclear
energy as "one of the least important issues" in the "debate"
the Prime Minister finally wants to have. 

However, beginning to attack human-induced global warming
quickly and efficiently will require huge investment. We simply
cannot afford a significant proportion of such investment to be
diverted towards a subsidised clunky expensive option with very
slow delivery times. 

In the past few weeks both the Australian Conservation
Foundation and WWF Australia have outlined cost-effective
strategies for reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions by
30 per cent to 60 per cent by 2030-2050. These strategies are
based upon energy efficiency, a less carbon-intensive fossil
fuel mix and renewables. 

By contrast the commonwealth government: 
  + Sets no targets on any time frame for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions beyond present levels.
 

  + Begins a nuclear debate with name-calling of anyone who may
not share the same view.
 

  + Says that a price for carbon is necessary but refuses to
countenance its introduction.
 

  + Caps its mandatory renewable energy target at a
world-trailing 2per cent.
 

  + Kneecaps a Victorian wind farm in South Gippsland through
supposed threats to a bird species that has never been recorded
at the site in question.

If the federal government has a greenhouse amelioration strategy
it behoves it to outline a timetable for emissions reduction
with targets set, at maximum, for every five years rather than
pointing vaguely to the need for 60 per cent reductions over 50
years while enacting policies which lead to increases in
emissions. 

If it wishes to have nuclear energy, despite all the historical
evidence of its subsidised ineffectiveness, as a component of
its energy strategy it needs to make an economically sensible
case to demonstrate that it will not simply act against the
implementation of better, faster and cleaner options. 

Bro Sheffield-Brotherton, Elsternwick, Vic. 

*****************************************************************
 29 AU ABC: Mayor calls for nuclear power debate
 
ABC Western Victoria

 Wednesday, 24 May 2006. 11:26 (AEDT)Wednesday, 24 May 2006.

 A Mayor from south-east South Australia says the region needs
to have a debate about the future of nuclear power. 

It follows the release of a report that lists Portland, in
south-west Victoria, as a potential site for Australia's first
nuclear power plant. 

Portland is about 100 kilometres from Mount Gambier, in
south-east SA. 

Mount Gambier Mayor Steve Perryman says he does not support the
city becoming home to a nuclear power plant, but a debate on
nuclear power's future in the district is needed. 

"Nuclear power should be considered as one of the options for
the future power needs for Australia, along with other forms of
energy provisions," he said. 

"Let's have the debate, let's have the community fully informed,
let's not jump to any conclusions, but let's keep everything on
the table at the moment and have the discussion." 

The Australia Institute, which released the analysis of the
potential nuclear power plant sites, says Portland is an ideal
site. 

Institute executive director Dr Clive Hamilton says Portland's
proximity to the ocean made it highly suitable. 

Dr Hamilton has welcomed councillor Perryman's calls for debate
on the merits of nuclear power, but Mount Gambier was not
considered as part of the analysis. 

"I suspect that it would be ruled out if there were not a very
large, permanent body of water there and that's really a crucial
consideration," he said. 

"But nevertheless, some of the benefits of building a nuclear
power plant at Portland could find their way to Mount Gambier." 

*****************************************************************
 30 AU ABC: Premiers line up to reject nuclear plant
 
ABC Queensland | Local News | Story 

 Wednesday, 24 May 2006. 16:33 (AEDT)Wednesday, 24 May 2006.

Nuclear debate ... Eastern premiers are cool on the idea. (File
photo)ABC 

Premiers of eastern states have rejected any moves to build a
nuclear power plant in their state, after a report released
yesterday on likely sites. 

The Australia Institute suggests several sites along the east
coast which it says would be ideal for a nuclear power plant, if
Australia moves in that direction. 

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he will fight "tooth and
nail" any move to build a nuclear power plant in Queensland. 

Mr Beattie has told State Parliament the Australian Institute
has suggested a power plant could be well placed on the Sunshine
Coast. 

"Over my dead body," he said. 

"I make this commitment today to the people of the Sunshine
Coast, there will be no nuclear power plant built on the
Sunshine Coast or Bribie Island, where it was suggested Bribie
Island was one of the sites, or anywhere else," he said. 

"It will not happen." 

The New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, says there is
legislation banning the construction of nuclear power plants in
his state. 

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has said he wants a "full
blooded" discussion about the nuclear industry in Australia. 

Mr Iemma says the current debate is pure politics. 

He says the Prime Minister should take advice from his own
ministers, who say the idea is not viable. 



Premier Steve Bracks says nuclear energy is not a viable option
for Victoria. 

"It's not cost competitive," he said. 

"If you look at the cost of nuclear generation in this state, it
is higher than gas, it's higher certainly than coal, it's higher
certainly than other forms of renewable energy." 



The Western Australian Premier, Alan Carpenter, says the Federal
Government's real agenda on a nuclear waste dump for his state
is becoming clearer by the day. 

Mr Carpenter has seized on comments by the federal Member for
Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase. 

Mr Haase has been reported as saying that Australia should
consider storing high level radioactive waste and that it would
be able to "charge like a wounded bull" for those services. 

Mr Carpenter says it is becoming quite obvious the Federal
Government is trying to soften up Western Australians for a
nuclear waste dump. 

He says it will never happen under his watch. 

"Why would I, as the Premier of Western Australia, with my kids
growing up in this state, want to see Western Australia become
the world's nuclear waste dump, because no one else wants to
take it and we're offered a big pile of money to take all that
waste?" he said. 

"We don't need to do it." 
Related Audio
 
A special report investigates benefits of nuclear power in
Australia.
 

In a special The World Today report the case for the new atomic
age is outlined by the people who would like to see it
introduced. 
Nuclear discussions see uranium share prices soar.
 

Already the speculation about nuclear power is fuelling investor
appetite for uranium stocks as hundreds of millions of dollars
is poured into uranium exploration companies. 

*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
 
                         FR Doc 06-4853 
[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)] 
[Notices] [Page 29990-29991] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24my06-134]                         
 
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
DATE: Weeks of May 22, 29; June 5, 12, 19, 26, 2006.
 
PLACE:  Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
STATUS: Public and closed.
 
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of May 22, 2006 Wednesday, May 24, 
2006 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex.1). 1:30 
p.m. All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda 
North Hotel, Salons D-H, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 
20852.
 
Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:50 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 
Meeting) Tentative. a. Andrew Siemaszko, Docket No. IA-05-021, 
Unpublished Licensing Board Order (Dec. 22, 2005) (Tentative). b. 
Final Rule: National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 
3150-AH48) (Tentative).
 
c. Immediately Effective Final Rule--10 CFR 73.57a ``Relief From 
Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check for Designated 
Categories of Individuals'' (Tentative).
 
Week of May 29, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1 p.m. 
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of June 5, 
2006--Tentative Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9 a.m. Discussion of 
Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Week of June 12, 
2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of 
June 12, 2006.
 
Week of June 19, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the week of June 19, 2006.
 
Week of June 26, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the week of June 26, 2006.
 
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292.
 
 
[[Page 29991]] Contact person for more information: Michelle 
Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
 
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. 
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: May 18, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-4853 Filed 5-22-06; 10:07 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 32 AU ABC: Beazley wants nuclear sites list

ABC Victoria 

 Wednesday, 24 May 2006. 19:27 (AEDT)Wednesday, 24 May 2006.

Nuclear debate ... Kim Beazley wants more detail on possible
sites (File photo)ABC 

The Federal Opposition has used Question Time in Parliament to
demand the Government rule out potential sites for a nuclear
reactor. 

The Prime Minister wants a debate on nuclear issues including
mining, exporting and enriching uranium, and the development of
a nuclear power industry. 

The Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is demanding more details. 

"Will it nominate the sites of its nuclear reactors and its
associated high level nuclear waste dumps?" he asked. 

The Acting Prime Minister, Peter Costello, answered by attacking
Labor's no new mines policy. 

He quoted union leader Bill Shorten as saying the way around
Labor's platform is to make every new mine part of an existing
operation. 

"You can only have three but they can have multiple sub branches
all over Australia. Sounds like a Labor Party branch stack to
me," he said. 

There is internal division within Labor ranks on whether to
abandon the no new mines policy. 

Premiers of eastern states have rejected any moves to build a
nuclear power plant in their states, after a report released
yesterday on likely sites. 

The Australia Institute suggests several sites along the east
coast which it says would be ideal for a nuclear power plant, if
Australia moves in that direction. 

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he will fight "tooth and
nail" any move to build a nuclear power plant in Queensland. 

The New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, says there is
legislation banning the construction of nuclear power plants in
his state, while his Victorian counterpart Steve Bracks says
nuclear energy is not a viable option for his state. 



Meanwhile, the Canberra Institute has suggested Jervis Bay in
the ACT for a nuclear plant. 

The Institute's Peter Conway says Jervis Bay has several
advantages from the Federal Government's point of view. 

"Jervis Bay fits the model perfectly. It is a deep harbour port,
there is a military base there, it is Commonwealth land, they do
not have to go through any environmental impact statements," he
said. 

"They could use their corporations power as they have previously
in the high court." 
Related Video
 
Howard, Beazley argue nuclear power
 

John Howard and the Kim Beazley have begun debating the issue of
nuclear power. 
Related Audio
 
A special report investigates benefits of nuclear power in
Australia.
 

In a special The World Today report the case for the new atomic
age is outlined by the people who would like to see it
introduced. 
Nuclear discussions see uranium share prices soar.
 

Already the speculation about nuclear power is fuelling investor
appetite for uranium stocks as hundreds of millions of dollars
is poured into uranium exploration companies. 

*****************************************************************
 33 AU ABC: Stanhope welcomes nuclear power debate

New South Wales
 
07:13 (ACDT)Thursday, 25 May 2006. 04:13 (AWST)

 Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says it is too early to rule out
the prospect of a nuclear power plant in the ACT. 

Prime Minister John Howard wants to initiate a national debate
about whether Australia should develop a nuclear energy
industry. 

In response, the Canberra Institute has suggested Jervis Bay in
the ACT as an ideal place for a power plant if the Government
decides to proceed. 

Mr Stanhope says he has an open mind about nuclear power and is
pleased to have a debate about alternative energy sources. 

"That's a debate we can't avoid and we can't pretend we can
avoid, no matter what preconceived notion we have or considered
position we have," he said. 

"So at this stage to be talking about the locations for nuclear
power stations is a bit precipitous. 

"Let's talk about the issue, let's talk about climate change,
global warming and the consequences of that for all of us, let's
talk about the need to embrace alternative sources of energy,
but let's not limit that to nuclear energy. 

"Let's include nuclear energy if, for no other reason, so that
we can assess it and if needs be, dismiss it." 

The Canberra Institute says if the Federal Government decides to
invest in nuclear power, it could bypass state governments and
build a plant on ACT land instead. 

The area was examined for a plant in the late 1960s but the
plans fell through. 

The institute's Peter Conway says a power plant in Jervis Bay's
would deliver economic benefits to the region. 

"The construction phase would be at least a minimum of 10 years,
the ongoing maintenance and control, the rebuilding of a harbour
down there and a port close to the Navy military base, it would
be an absolute boon to the area and it's up to governments to
work out that boon against other methods of creating
electricity," he said. 

*****************************************************************
 34 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear chief mulls 40 new NPP reactors by 2030
 
24/ 05/ 2006                                  

WASHINGTON, May 24 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Berezin) - Russia's
civilian nuclear chief said Tuesday that at least 40 new nuclear
reactors are needed by 2030 if nuclear power is to retain its
importance for the domestic energy market. 

"We need to build about 40 units just to keep the share of
nuclear power [in the energy market]," Sergei Kiriyenko said at
a press conference in Washington, where he is on a week-long
visit that ends Wednesday. 

"If we want to increase this share, we should develop [the
sector] faster," he said. 


		© 2005 RIA Novosti   





*****************************************************************
 35 RIA Novosti: Kiriyenko upbeat over U.S. opening nuclear market to Russian cos.

24/ 05/ 2006                                  

WASHINGTON, May 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear energy chief
has said he is optimistic that talks on lifting restrictions on
access to the U.S. market for Russian nuclear products and
services will produce a positive outcome. 

Sergei Kiriyenko, currently on a week-long visit to the United
States that ends May 24, said at a press conference Tuesday that
supplies of Russian low-enriched uranium to the United States
were a purely commercial rather than a political issue, and were
in both sides' interest. 

"We believe that this is a commercial issue, which we intend to
resolve in the framework of existing U.S. legislation,"
Kiriyenko said. "We are not demanding any preferential
treatment, any benefits or special conditions, but we are
demanding equal rights and equal opportunities for competition
on the U.S. market." 

Restrictions on imports from Russia of low-enriched uranium have
been in force since the Soviet era. Russia is currently allowed
to operate on the U.S. market without a 116% import duty only
through US Enrichment Corp. (USEC), a special intermediary
agent, under a 1993 HEU-LEU agreement under which Russian
high-enriched uranium from nuclear weapons is blended down to
its more benign low-enriched form for use in U.S. civilian
nuclear reactors. 

Kiriyenko said he had discussed the issue with officials from
more than 20 U.S. energy companies that generate more than 50%
of the country's electricity, and that many of them had fully
supported the idea of lifting restrictions. 

"We are ready to supply goods and services, and the American
companies that control this [electricity] market want to receive
these goods," Kiriyenko said. 

As Russia looks to diversify its markets for uranium supplies,
Kiriyenko also said the country had plenty of reserves for the
foreseeable future. 

"We have plenty of uranium reserves," he said. "For our internal
consumption, they will be enough for more than 50 years." 

He also said Russia planned to increase tenfold investment in
uranium prospecting and production. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 36 TheNewsTribune.com: A goodbye to the ghost of nuclear power past |
                 
News Tribune, Tacoma, WA - Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 5:18 PM   

THE NEWS TRIBUNE

 Published: May 23rd, 2006 01:00 AM 

The Trojan Nuclear Plant went out with a boom  the good kind. 

In just 10 seconds Sunday, explosives reduced the plants iconic
cooling tower to a 15-foot pile of rubble. While decommissioning
the Portland General Electric-owned plant will continue until
2024, Oregon has lost the most visible symbol of its long-ago
dalliance with nuclear power. 

The demolition was a dramatic symbol of nuclear powers failure
to meet expectations in the Northwest, but no one should think
it a death knell. 

Nuclear power is on the rebound in the United States. It
supplies 20 percent of the nations power already, even though
utility companies have not placed an order for a new nuclear
plant in more than two decades. 

The industrys contribution to the nations energy portfolio
could grow as nuclear technology advances and politicians look
for ways to cut emissions of carbon dioxide while still meeting
the nations energy needs. 

On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman told the
Senate Energy &Natural Resources Committee that 16 utility
companies have serious plans to build 25 new nuclear power
plants. 

This is no longer a flash in the pan. Industry is very
serious, Nils J. Diaz said. They are doing the work and
investing the resources. 

Here in the Northwest, much of nuclear powers bad reputation
stemmed from mismanagement by utilities and from 0nuclear
technology thats now out of date. Trojan was beset by financial
and safety problems before it shut down in 1993. In this state,
the Washington Public Power Supply System set out in the 1970s
to build five nuclear plants and ended up with the largest
municipal bond default in U.S. history, earning its
acronym-inspired nickname whoops. 

The nuclear power industry today is a different animal, with new
reactor designs that promise to make nuclear power safer and
more efficient. But challenges remain. Reactors may not spew
greenhouse gases, but they do produce nuclear waste. 

More than 50,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are scattered across
31 states because the federal government has yet to open the
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Trojans spent
fuel rods still await a place to go 13 years after the plant
ceased operations. Another stockpile sits at Hanford at the only
reactor WPPSS managed to finish. 

President Bush, a champion of nuclear power, has been pushing
nuclear-fuel recycling as a way to reduce the amount of waste.
Its a promising idea, but no replacement for a long-term
storage strategy. 

The latest generation of nuclear power technology could play a
role in meeting the nations energy needs in a way that is,
given the alternatives, environmentally responsible. But as the
Northwests experience proves, its not an enterprise to be
entered into lightly.   

 1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742 
© Copyright 2006 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy
Company   
*****************************************************************
 37 NRDC: KEY QUESTIONS ON NUCLEAR POWER MUST BE ADDRESSED, SAYS NRDC
 	
[Natural Resources Defense Council]                                                                    

[Press Release]   

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Press contact: Edwin Chen 202/289-2373

 Bush Speech Highlights Need to Put All Issues on the Table

WASHINGTON (May 24, 2006) -- Amid the rush to embrace nuclear
power as a solution to global warming, critical questions about
this technology are being overlooked, according to the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

President Bush's remarks today on nuclear power at the Limerick
Generating Station in Pennsylvania serves as a reminder that the
debate needs to fully address such vital issues as the
exorbitant cost of building new nuclear facilities, the
potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes, said Dr. Thomas B. Cochran,
director of NRDC's nuclear program. 

Until such matters are answered satisfactorily, we need to adopt
a realistic view toward the promises -- and the pitfalls -- of
nuclear power, Cochran said. 

"Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. That is why the
industry's K Street lobbyists ran to Capitol Hill to get some
$10 billion in taxpayer subsidies to build five or six new
nuclear plants. Subsidizing a few new nuclear plants is unlikely
to solve nuclear power's economic woes," Cochran said. 

A growing reliance on nuclear power globally also will increase
the risk of a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
according to Cochran. 

"The international regime meant to prevent countries from using
civilian nuclear technology and materials for weapons has major
unresolved problems. Today Iran is taking advantage of loopholes
in the existing safeguards regime to get close to a nuclear
weapons capability," Cochran added. "The same reactors and
fuel-processing facilities used for energy production can be
used to manufacture weapons. Only a few kilograms of this
material could destroy an area the size of Lower Manhattan." 

"At the same time, we still don't have a safe way to dispose of
high-level waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for
thousands of years. There simply are no geologic repositories in
operation anywhere in the world. And here in the United States,
the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain will leak far
worse than originally thought. And now the U.S. government is
trying to solve this problem by relaxing the disposal
regulations instead of searching for a new disposal site,"
Cochran said. 

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit
organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental
specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the
environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and
online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York,
Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

© Natural Resources Defense Council     
*****************************************************************
 38 Platts: Senate panel approves NRC commissioners' nominations

[The McGraw-Hill Companies]   

Washington (Platts)--23May2006
 
A Senate panel approved Dale Klein's nomination today for the NRC 
along with Commissioners Gregory Jaczko and Peter Lyons. Fourteen 
of the 18 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members 
who attended the meeting gave consent in a voice vote. 

The committee voted en bloc on the nominations of Klein, Jaczko, 
Lyons, and Molly O'Neill, nominee for an assistant administrator 
position at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Jaczko and Lyons were presidential recess appointments in January 
2005, and their nominations for a permanent seat on the NRC has 
been pending since February 2005. 

Klein, now an official at the Department of Defense, is to 
replace outgoing Chairman Nils Diaz. The full Senate is expected 
to soon consider all the nominations, a committee staffer said.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 39 RBC: Russia and US to draft peaceful nuclear energy use accord 
        
RosBusinessConsulting - News Online
 
RBC, 24.05.2006, Washington, D.C. 15:20:18.

Russia and the US have managed to set in motion the process of 
drafting a Russian-American agreement on the peaceful use of 
nuclear energy and lifting anti-dumping restrictions on uranium 
supplies from Russia to the US, head of the Russian Federal 
Nuclear Energy Agency (Rosatom) Sergei Kiriyenko said following 
his talks with US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, as quoted 
by the agency's Press Secretary Sergei Novikov.

      Commenting on the preparation of the bilateral agreement
on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Kiriyenko noted that the
text of the document would be scrutinized for at least a month,
and then it would have to be approved by the US Congress and the
Russian Federation Council. Both Russia and the US believe that
nothing is standing in their way to begin the work, the head of
Rosatom said, stressing that the agreement should not become a
tool to pursue other issues, no matter how crucial they may be.

      Kiriyenko also said that Russia and the US had managed to
advance in the negotiations on lifting anti-dumping restrictions
on Russian uranium exports to the US. In this respect, Russia
does not need preferential treatment, but equal access to the US
market, he noted. 

Please send your questions and comments to webmaster@rbc.ru
All rights reserved. © 1995 - 2006 RosBusinessConsulting.
*****************************************************************
 40 WH: President Discusses Energy During Visit to Nuclear Generating
Station in Pennsylvania

For Immediate Release
 Office of the Press Secretary
 May 24, 2006 

Limerick Generating Station
 Pottstown, Pennsylvania 

     [Fact sheet]  Fact Sheet: The Advanced Energy Initiative:
Ensuring A Clean, Secure Energy Future 
     [Fact sheet]  Advanced Energy Initiative 
     [Fact sheet]  In Focus: Energy 


3:29 P.M. EDT 

THE PRESIDENT:	Thank you all.	Please be seated. Thanks for the
warm welcome. If I talk too long, it's going to be even warmer.
(Laughter.) I really appreciate the chance to come to Limerick
Generating Station. I'm glad to see it in action. More
importantly, I was glad to see the people working here, glad to
meet them, glad to get to know them. I appreciate their strong
dedication to safety. I appreciate their dedication to the
consumers you serve. 

[President George W. Bush gestures as he addresses an audience
at the Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Pa., Wednesday,
May 24, 2006 , urging the the advancement of nuclear energy as
part of a diversified U.S. energy policy that will make America
less dependent on foreign sources of oil and more dependent on
renewable sources of energy.  White House photo by Kimberlee
Hewitt] This plant serves two million homes in the area, and it
does so in a way that does not require us to pollute the air.
It's a perfect example of how we can grow our economy and
protect our environment at the same time. And so thanks for
receiving me. I'm honored to be here. (Applause.) 

I thank John Rowe for introducing me, and thanks for coming over
from Chicago. Appreciate you being here. I want to thank Chris
Crane. I want to thank Ron DeGregorio. Thank you for having me,
Ron. I want to thank the Mayor, Sharon Valentine-Thomas, of the
Borough of Pottstown. Thanks for coming, Madam Mayor. I
appreciate you being here.	I want to thank all the folks from
the local government -- sorry about clogging the neighborhoods
coming through, but thanks. (Laughter.)	Appreciate you letting
me come by. 

I want to talk about how the United States of America can
continue to be the economic leader of the world. I think it's
important that we're the economic leader of the world, because
when you're the leader it helps the folks who live in your
country. See, it matters if we're on the cutting edge of change.
It matters to people working every day in America if we're
creating strong economic growth. 

Today we are creating strong economic growth. I mean, this
economy of ours is moving forward with a full head of steam.
It's the fifth year in a row of uninterrupted growth. Our
economy grew faster than any other major industrialized nation
in the world. We added 5.2 million new jobs since August of
2003. The national unemployment rate is 4.7 percent.
Productivity is high, and that's important. A productive society
will yield a higher standard of living for our people. Hourly
compensation grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the first
quarter of this year. Our workers are taking bigger -- home
bigger paychecks. The standard of living is on the rise.
After-tax income is up. Things are good. 

And the fundamental question is, can you keep them that way? And
there's a lot of competition in the world that creates some
uncertainty and anxiety amongst our people. And the temptation
for some is to say, well, we can't compete anymore so let's
protect ourselves and let's withdraw, let's become
isolationists.	I think that would be a wrong approach by our
country. See, we ought not to fear the future, we ought to shape
the future. We ought to be confident in our ability to be able
to compete and to remain the most innovative country in the
world. 

And so here are some ideas. First, if we want to be the economic
leader in the world so our people can prosper, we need to keep
taxes low. We need to be able to be a society that says, you get
to earn more of that which you earn. 

As you might recall, we went through a pretty tough time in this
country over the past five years. We had a recession, corporate
scandals, a stock market correction, a attack on our country, we
went to war to defend ourselves, we've had high energy prices,
and we had natural disasters.	And yet, this economy of ours is
strong. And I believe the reason why is, is because of the tax
cuts we passed in Washington, D.C. 

We believe that if you have more money in your pocket to save,
spend, or invest, the economy grows. And so one way to make sure
that we're the economic leader in the world is to make sure the
tax cuts we passed are permanent. Now, people say, well, if you
make the tax cuts permanent, you can't balance the budget. Well,
let me talk a little bit about how Washington works -- I've been
there long enough to be able to give you an accurate report.
(Laughter.) 

Don't believe it when they say they're going to raise your taxes
to balance the budget. They're going to raise your taxes and
figure out new ways to spend the money. The best way to balance
the budget is to keep pro-growth economic policies in place.
And, by the way, last year, because our economy was growing, we
generated $100 billion more for the treasury than we thought.
And this year, because of the economy growing strong, we're
generating better rates than we did last year. 

And so the best way to balance the budget is to keep growing the
economy so we collect more tax revenues, and be wise about
spending your money. See, in Washington, everything sounds good
there, every program sounds fantastic. But government, in order
to be wise about spending your money, has got to learn to set
priorities. And my priority is this: So long as we have a
soldier in harm's way, he or she will have what it takes to
achieve victory and secure America. (Applause.) 

We're on our way to cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
Congress is now debating a supplemental bill. It's money to help
fund our troops in Iraq, as well as helping the victims in
Katrina. And I've made it very clear that I intend to
participate with them in keeping the spending down. And if they
exceed the $92.2 billion request, plus monies for avian flu, I'm
going to veto the bill. See, that's one way you keep fiscal
discipline in Washington, D.C. 

We'll be competitive if we keep taxes low and be wise about how
we spend your money. We'll be competitive, by the way, if we're
smart about improving education for our people. See, this is a
global economy, whether people like it or not.	And the jobs of
the 21st century will be either here in America or wherever the
work force is trained to fill those jobs. And therefore, it's
important for us to make sure we educate our children early, and
emphasize math and science so our kids have got the skills
necessary to fill those jobs. 

We changed how we view public education in Washington.	We passed
the No Child Left Behind Act, see. It basically said we're going
to make sure we fulfill our commitment to Title I students, but
we're starting to ask some questions -- questions that I'm sure
are asked at this plant: Are you meeting objectives, for
example. If you set a goal, are you meeting those goals?	And so
we set some goals. How about every child learning to read at
grade level by the 3rd grade? That didn't seem like an
unrealistic goal to me.	As a matter of fact, it was a necessary
goal. 

And then we said to the states, you measure. We're going to get
you some money, but you measure to show us whether or not we're
meeting the goal. And if you're not meeting the goal, figure out
why. See, you can't solve a problem unless you diagnose the
problem. And so the No Child Left Behind Act basically says
we're going to diagnose problems early and solve them before
it's too late. This business about shuffling kids through the
school -- through our schools, based upon age, didn't work. It
wasn't fair. It wasn't right. And so the No Child Left Behind
Act says, we're going to measure early, and we're going to help
children who have fallen behind in reading early, and then we're
going to extend that to math. 

See, one of the interesting things is because we measure we know
that we're doing fine in math in the 8th grade. But children get
to high school, relative to other countries we're not doing fine
in math. And we better do something about it now if we want to
be the economic leader of the world. 

So we've got a plan to, one, make sure the same standards apply
to reading for early grades are applied to math. If we measure
in the 8th grade or 9th grade and you're falling behind, you're
going to get extra help. 

Secondly, advanced placement programs work. I bet I'm looking at
some folks out here who took AP when they were in high school.
AP means high standards. But we don't have enough teachers
around the country to teach AP, so we've got a plan to train
70,000 advanced placement teachers to keep raising those
standards. 

We want to have 30,000 adjunct professors in our classrooms in
high school and junior -- sometimes it's not cool to be involved
with science, and yet it is cool. And we need people who are on
the front lines of science explaining that. I went to a school
in Maryland the other day, and there was a NASA scientist there,
explaining to junior high kids why the sciences matter and why
it's fun to be in science. 

We're going to make sure our Pell grants -- which, by the way,
have expanded by a million kids since I've been the President --
continue to have incentives in there for children to take
rigorous academics coming out of high school and the first two
years college, and then if they maintain a 3.0 average, or are
taking math, science or critical language, there's an additional
$4,000 on top of their Pell grant. In other words, this is an
effort to make sure that we have a work force that can compete
in a global economy so we remain the economic leader of the
world. 

I want to talk about energy, see. If we don't get it right on
energy, we can have the most educated work force in the world,
but we're not going to be able to compete. We can have the
lowest taxes in the world, the least regulations, the fewest
lawsuits, but if we haven't done something about our energy
situation we're not going to be able to compete in the world. 

And so that's why I've come to this important power plant, to
talk about how the United States can have a diversified energy
policy that makes us less dependent on foreign sources of oil
and more dependent on renewable sources of energy. 

Now, one of the things I want to start off by telling the --
telling you all, and I hope others are listening, is that over
the past 30 years, our economy has grown three times faster than
our energy consumption. Isn't that interesting statistics? In
other words, we're becoming more technologically advanced. And
during that same period of time, we created more than 55 million
jobs while cutting air pollution by 50 percent. 

So what I believe the American people should understand is that
we can put policies in place that encourage economic growth, so
you've got a better standard of living, and at the same time,
become less dependent on energy from overseas and protect the
environment. 

So what do we need to do? Well, the first thing we got to do is
understand that we've got to change our driving habits over
time.	You've seen the price of gasoline going up. One of the
reasons why your price of gasoline is going up is because demand
for oil is increasing in places like India and China, and the
supply for oil is not meeting that demand. And the key
ingredient for gasoline is crude oil. So when the Chinese
economy is growing, or the Indian economy is growing, and that
demand is going up, so is your price at the pump. 

One way to make sure the price at the pump doesn't go up as
global demand increases for hydrocarbons is to figure out how to
drive our cars with different kinds of fuels, such as ethanol.
One of the really interesting developments that's taking place
now in America is the use of corn-based ethanol -- pretty cool
deal, isn't it, for the President to be able to say, you know,
we're growing a lot of corn -- (laughter) -- and we're less
dependent on foreign sources of oil. It's coming -- particularly
in the Midwest right now, there's a lot of ethanol pumps and
plants being developed there to manufacture ethanol from corn. 

We've got to do more, though, if we're going to become less
dependent on foreign sources of oil, when it comes to ethanol.
And so we're spending a lot of your money to develop
technologies that will enable us to be able to manufacture
ethanol from wood chips or switch grass. Somebody said, what is
switch grass? I said, well, it's grass that looks like a switch
that grows in dry country. (Laughter.) In other words, there's
all kinds of opportunities to manufacture ethanol, and we're
exploring ways to do so. America has always been on the leading
edge of technology and research and development, and here's an
area where we've got to stay on the leading edge of change. 

Another way to help reduce our use of gasoline is through hybrid
vehicles. They're coming, they're coming on the market. As a
matter of fact, the energy bill I signed actually will pay you
-- give you a tax credit if you buy a hybrid, to try to
stimulate demand through the tax code.	It makes sense.	But
there's going to be an additional breakthrough -- or additional
breakthroughs -- when it comes to hybrid vehicles, starting with
the development of a battery that will enable you to drive your
first 40 miles on electricity. And the federal government is
very much involved in this research. We're spending your money
again on research to help fund breakthroughs for battery
technologies that will enable you to drive a plug-in hybrid
battery. 

And, oh, by the way, on ethanol, just one thing I forgot to tell
you is that there are five million flex-fuel vehicles on the
road today. Flex-fuel means you can either have gasoline or
ethanol, or a combination of the two. You've probably got one
and you don't even know it. The technology -- the barrier to
change is not the automobile, it is the ability to make the fuel
in quantities -- economic quantities so we can get them to you
at the pump. 

The same with hybrid batteries, they're coming -- hybrid --
plug-in hybrid vehicles with new batteries -- they're coming
your way. And one of the reasons why is because the government
has entered into research partnerships with the private sector
to accelerate these technologies, all aimed at making us less
dependent on oil. 

A third way to help this country remain an economic leader when
it comes to the cars you drive is hydrogen. We spend about a --
over a billion dollars of research to bring hydrogen to the
marketplace. One fellow reminded me, wisely, it costs -- it
takes quite a bit of power to make hydrogen. An interesting way
to make hydrogen on an economic basis would be through nuclear
power.	But we're spending money and time and effort, all aimed
at making sure that the automobiles of the future will require
less crude oil. And we're close to some significant
breakthroughs. 

It's going to take time to move away from the hydrocarbon
economy to the hydrogen economy, and in the meantime, it seems
like it makes sense to me to do something about the refinery
capacity of the United States. If you're worried about the price
of gasoline, you don't like it when your price got over $3.00 --
and I don't blame you -- you might want to ask the question, how
come the government isn't working hard to expand refinery
capacity so that there's more gasoline? If you have more
gasoline on the market relative to demand, guess what -- it
takes the pressure off price. 

We haven't built a new refinery in the United States since the
1970s. The regulatory burden is a lot. You're kind of used to
that here in this industry. So we got to cut through all that
business.	If we're serious about helping our consumers and
getting more gasoline to the market, we got to have regulatory
relief. I suggested to Congress that we put new refineries on
abandoned military facilities. It seemed to make sense to me.
And so we need to be wise about these policies so that we can
say to the American people, we're on our way out of the
hydrocarbon era. But in the meantime, let's be thoughtful of the
consumers here in the United States. 

We're also going to need a lot of electricity in the future.
Electricity demand is projected to increase by nearly 50 percent
over the next 25 years.	That's a lot. And we better be wise
about how we implement a strategy to meet that demand --
otherwise, we're not going to be the economic leader; otherwise,
our people aren't going to be having the good jobs that we want
them to have; otherwise, your children and my children, our
grandchildren are not going to have a bright, hopeful America
that we want for them. 

Now, one of the things that people have got to understand is
that we get our -- we generate our electricity from four
sources: coal -- it's about 50 percent; nuclear power -- about
20 percent; natural gas -- 18 percent; and then other renewable
sources like hydroelectric, solar and wind power. And that's the
mix, that's the energy mix. 

Coal is by far the most abundant and affordable energy resource.
We got about 240 years at current rates of consumption. It's a
valuable asset for the United States. The problem is, coal isn't
-- when you burn it, it isn't clean. It doesn't meet our
standards. It's not -- it doesn't enable us to say you can grow
your economy and, at the same time, protect the environment like
we want. 

And so we're developing clean coal technology.	We're spending
over $2 billion in a 10-year period to be able to say to the
American people that we're using the money wisely to determine
whether or not we can have zero-emissions coal-fired power
plants. It's in our interests that we do that. It makes
sense.	About 2012, under the FutureGen initiative, we think we
will build the first power plant to run on coal and remove
virtually all pollutants. 

Natural gas is an important commodity.	By the way, we can
explore for natural gas in environmentally friendly ways. And we
ought to exploring for natural gas in the ANWR, as well as off
the Gulf Coast of the United States. (Applause.) 

Here's another interesting way to help make sure there's enough
natural gas for this economy to grow. By the way, natural gas,
as you know, is not just used for power. It's used for
fertilizers, a variety of uses. You can liquefy natural gas, you
can put it in a ship, and you can send it long distances and
still have an economic product. And there are places in this
world where there's a lot of natural gas -- a lot. And they're
building liquefied production facilities. And they put them on
these ships -- but we don't have any places to offload it in the
United States. We got some, but not enough. 

If we're really interested in diversifying our energy sources
and making sure the American people have got enough energy to
watch this economy grow, we have got to have LNG sites to
offload the gas from abroad. And so what we've done is I signed
a new bill, energy bill, that clarifies federal authority to
license new sites, that reduces the bureaucratic obstacles to
opening up the terminals, and streamlines the development. It's
in your interest that we enable liquified natural gas to come
into our country so that we can help take the burden off some of
the pricing pressures that we're inevitably going to feel with
demand going up and not enough electricity supply. 

Thirdly, about 6 percent of the continental U.S. is highly
suitable for the construction of wind turbines.	This is a really
interesting opportunity for the country -- they ought to put one
big one in Washington, D.C. (Laughter.) They say -- the experts
tell me that this area alone has the potential to supply up to
20 percent of our nation's electricity. I think that's an 
interesting opportunity. I don't know if it's true, or not, but 
it's certainly worth trying to find out, in order to make sure 
this country has got a bright future. And so we got $44 million 
for wind energy research. And the goal is to expand the use and 
lower the cost of wind turbine technology. 

In other words, we're constantly researching and looking. I don't 
know if you know this or not, but the federal government does 
spend money on research in a variety of fronts, and it should. 
And I intend to double the basic -- the budget for basic research 
over the next 10 years.        The iPod -- I like to ride my 
mountain bike and plug in the iPod. The technology for the iPod 
came as a result of federal research.   The Internet came about 
because of defense money research. 

So we're spending money on research. The reason I keep repeating 
that is, not only is it going to help us diversify our energy 
sources and make us competitive in the world, but it also helps 
make sure America is always on the leading edge of technological 
change. 

Solar energy -- the dream in solar energy is to develop 
technology so that someday, your house is like a little 
generating plant, and if you don't use the power you feed it back 
into the grid. It's possible, but it's not going to be possible 
if we don't spend money on research and development. So we're 
spending $150 million to combine government money with private 
research money in solar technologies to see if we can't help 
foster technologies that will be able to capture the sun, feed it 
into your house, generate enough electricity, and if you've got a 
little excess, feed it back into the grid. I think that's a 
pretty interesting idea, and it's certainly one worth exploring. 

Finally, I want to talk about nuclear power -- a subject you all 
are very familiar with. It is a really important way to meet our 
goals, which is to have abundant, affordable, clean, and safe 
sources of energy. The important thing for the American people to 
understand is this concept: One, nuclear power is abundant and 
affordable. In other words, you have nuclear power plants, you 
can say, we've got an abundant amount of electricity. And once 
you get the plant up and running, the operating costs of these 
plants are significantly lower than other forms of electricity 
plants, which means the energy is affordable. 

As I mentioned, nuclear power, it's the second leading source of 
electricity here. We have 100 nuclear power plants that operate 
in 31 states. Now, we haven't built one in a long period of time. 

People in our country are rightly concerned about greenhouse 
gases and the environment, and I can understand why -- I am, too. 
As a matter of fact, I try to tell people, let's quit the debate 
about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by 
natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that deal with 
the issue. Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of 
greenhouse gases. Without nuclear energy, carbon dioxide 
emissions would have been 28 percent greater in the electricity 
industry in 2004. Without nuclear power, we would have had an 
additional 700 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, and that's 
nearly equal to the annual emissions from 136 million passenger 
cars. Nuclear power helps us protect the environment. (Applause.) 

And nuclear power is safe. (Applause.) It is safe because of 
advances in science and engineering and plant design. It is safe 
because the workers and managers of our nuclear power plants are 
incredibly skilled people who know what they're doing. 
(Applause.) 

For the sake of economic security and national security, the 
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the 
construction of nuclear power plants. (Applause.) Other nations 
are.    Interestingly enough, France has built 58 plants since 
the 1970s, and now gets 78 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear power. I think that's an interesting statistic, isn't it? 
The United States hasn't ordered a plant since the 1970s, and yet 
France has not only ordered them, they built 58 plants. And 78 
percent of their electricity comes from nuclear power.  They 
don't have to worry about natural gas coming from somewhere else. 
They worry about it, but they don't have to worry about it to the 
extent that we do. 

China has nine nuclear plants in operation and they got -- plan 
to build 40 more over the next two decades. They understand that 
in order to be an aggressive nation, an economic nation that is 
flourishing so that people can benefit, they better do something 
about their sources of electricity. They see it. India -- I just 
came from India -- they're going to build some nuclear power 
plants. 

To maintain our economic leadership, we got to do it again. And 
so here's the strategy. First, in the energy bill I signed in 
2005, there are loan guarantees, production tax credits, federal 
risk insurance for the builders of new plants.  In other words, 
we said this is an industry that hadn't got much going since the 
'70s. It's an over-regulated industry. It's highly risky, because 
of the regulations to try to build a plant. People don't know 
this, but you get yourself a design for a nuclear power plant, 
you start spending money for plans and engineering plans and 
everything, you get building, and all of the sudden, somebody can 
shut you down. And that makes it awfully difficult to take risk 
if a lawsuit can cause you to spend enormous sums of money and 
have no productive use of the money spent. 

And so we got together with the Congress and said, well, how -- 
what can we do to create incentives to show the industry that 
we're serious about moving forward? Well, one is loan guarantees, 
and that gives investors confidence that this government is 
committed to the construction of nuclear power plants. Secondly 
is production tax credits, and those credits will reward 
investments in the latest advanced nuclear power generation. 

In other words, there's incentives -- loan guarantee is an 
incentive, tax credits are incentives, federal risk insurance. 
What the federal risk insurance says -- is offered for the first 
six new power -- nuclear power plants. And the insurance helps 
protect builders of the plants against lawsuits, or bureaucratic 
obstacles and other delays beyond their control. We have got 
what's called the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which is a $1.1 
billion partnership between the federal government and the 
industry to facilitate new plant orders. 

In other words, I have said we need more nuclear power plants, 
and here's a strategy to get them going, see. Here's a way to say 
to the industry we're serious about this. 

This time last year only two companies were seeking to build 
nuclear power plants. Now 16 companies have expressed an interest 
in new construction, and they're considering as many as 25 new 
plants, trying to get these plants -- construction started by the 
end of this decade. I want it to be said that this generation of 
folks had the foresight necessary to diversify our -- or to 
continue to diversify electricity supply, and recognize that 
nuclear power is safe, and we did something about it. We just 
didn't mark our time. We actually did something about it so a 
generation of Americans coming up will be able to have a better 
America. 

I understand the issue of waste, and we've got to do something 
about it. We've got to be wise about nuclear waste. I'm a 
believer that Yucca Mountain is a scientifically sound place to 
send the waste, and I would hope the United States Congress would 
recognize that, as well. 

I also recognize that we can do something on a reprocessing 
front. And so I got our administration to commit to the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership. I think you'll find this interesting 
-- at least I did. Under the partnership, America is going to 
work with nations that have already got an advanced civilian 
nuclear energy program, such as France and Japan and Russia, and 
we're going to use new technologies that effectively and safely 
recycle spent nuclear fuel.     In other words, we're coming 
together to say, how can we do a better job of reprocessing and 
recycling fuel. 

And the reason that's important, at least for our fellow citizens 
to understand, is it will reduce the amount of the toxicity of 
the fuel and reduce the amount we have to store. To me, it's a 
smart way to combine with others to reduce storage requirements 
for nuclear waste by up to 90 percent. It's a good way to work 
with other nations that are spending money on research and 
development, as well. It's a way to kind of leverage up an 
investment. We're going to -- I've asked Congress to spend $250 
million on this partnership. I hope they follow through with it. 
It is a necessary expenditure of money to make sure that the 
nuclear power industry can move forward with confidence, and the 
American people move forward with confidence, as well. 

And so here are some ideas -- not only ideas, this is what we're 
doing, this has gone from idea to action. What I'm telling you 
is, is that I understand the need to get off oil. I understand 
the need to work on renewable sources of energy. And I'm pleased 
to report we're working with Congress to do it. We're spending 
your money on research and development to find interesting 
technologies. You know, I hope that when my grandchildren and 
some of your children start taking their driver's test, they'll 
be cranking up a hydrogen-powered automobile, with hydrogen 
produced from electricity generated from plants such as these. 

We have a duty to think about the problems this country is going 
to face. Listen, this economy is good, and I want to keep it that 
way -- but I also want to make sure it's good 10 years from now.    
And I want to make sure that this global economy in this world 
that is becoming more connected is one that doesn't cause us to 
fear and to neglect our duties; that we put policies in place 
that enable us to remain confident; that we're an entrepreneurial 
society; that we're well-educated people, that we're willing to 
work hard to raise our families and put bread on the table.   And 
we've got to make sure we have good energy policy to do that. 

I want to thank you for giving me the chance to come and share 
with you today what the country is doing right now. I want to 
thank you very much for showing what is possible. I appreciate 
your hard work here. 

May God bless you all.	(Applause.) 

END		 4:02 P.M. EDT 

*****************************************************************
 41 Xinhua: China's energy demand to be mainly self-satisfied - senior planner   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-24 22:25:06   

    BEIJING, May 24 (Xinhua) -- China's energy demand will
mainly be met by its domestic supply which has great potential,
a senior Chinese economic planner said on Wednesday. 

    "China still has great potential in its domestic supply,"
said Zhang Guobao, vice minister of the National Development and
Reform Commission(SDRC), China's main planning body. 

    He made the statement at the ongoing international seminar
"Energy Security: China and the world", which was attended by
officials, experts and businessmen from 17 countries. 

    China has abundant coal resources, with the proved amount
accounting for a small percent of the total reserve, Zhang said.
"Thus, coal will still constitute the basis of China's energy." 

    Saying China's crude oil production will likely remain at
about 180 to 200 million tons per year for years to come, Zhang
said there is "the possibility of discovering new oil and gas
fields." 

    He also stressed the potential of China's hydropower,
nuclear power, wind power and other new resources. 

    Citing the research of energy experts, Zhang said "China's
energy demand will keep rising, and it will mainly be satisfied
by the domestic supply." 

    "In terms of energy consumption, China does not depend
heavily on the international market, so it is unnecessary to
overreact to increases in China's energy consumption," Zhang
said. 

    With the international price of oil at a high level, China
will "not increase its oil reserve by purchasing additional
crude oil on the international market," he said. Enditem   

      Editor: Luan Shanglin   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 THERECORD.COM: Our future is nuclear
               
BRENT WILLIAMS

(May 24, 2006) 

Regarding Don Ewing's May 2 letter, Phase Out Nuclear Power,
there are many opinions about what should be learned from the
Chernobyl accident.

The important lesson from Chernobyl can be paraphrased as: "It's
a very bad idea to test your seatbelts by cutting most of the
way through them and then slamming your car into a tree at 120
miles an hour."

Staying with the car analogy, Ewing suggests that because
somebody did this 20 years ago, we must all stop driving cars
because "there is still no guarantee that accidents won't
happen."

While the severity of the Chernobyl accident was impacted by
technical issues with the reactor design, the root causes of the
accident were cultural and political.

Nuclear power is safe, reliable, economical, environmentally
sound and part of the balanced energy mix that will power
Ontario into the future.

Brent Williams

Kincardine


160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 
519-894-2231
 
  [Torstar Digital] [City Media Group]   
*****************************************************************
 43 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
 
                         FR Doc E6-7867 
[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)] 
[Notices] [Page 29990] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24my06-133]                         
 
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information 
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of 
continued approval of information collections under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirements to be 
submitted 1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 
790, ``Classification Record''.
 
2. Current OMB approval number: NRC Form 790. 3. How often the 
collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who will be required or 
asked to report: NRC licensees, contractors, and certificate 
holder who classifies and declassifies NRC information.
 
5. The estimated number of annual respondents: 300. 6. An 
estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete 
the requirement or request: 20.
 
7. Abstract: Completion of the NRC Form 790 is a mandatory 
requirement for NRC licensees, contractors, and only certificate 
holder who classifies and declassifies NRC information in 
accordance with Executive Order 12958, as amended, ``Classified 
National Security Information,'' the Atomic Energy Act, and 
implementing directives.
 
Submit, by July 24, 2006, comments that address the following 
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary 
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate 
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden 
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be 
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide 
Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/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 about the information collection 
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda 
Jo Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F53, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC.GOV. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 16th day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7867 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 44 The Mercury: Limerick chosen for energy speech
             
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

05/24/2006

LIMERICK -- Few people should be surprised that President Bush 
decided to visit Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station 
today, a White House official said Tuesday.                                                  

That’s because "the president has been traveling the country 
talking about his energy proposals and nuclear energy plays a big 
part in that," said White House spokesman Alex Conant.

"The president outlined some of his positions in the State of the 
Union," said Conant, "and now he has been traveling the country 
spelling out some of the details."

Chief among the themes Bush has championed, said Conant, "is the
president’s belief that we must reduce our dependence on foreign
oil."

Now, as in the past, Bush has promoted the expansion of nuclear
energy as one way to wean the nation off what he described in
this year’s State of the Union as America’s addiction to oil.

More specifically, Bush has also proposed lifting the ban on
"re-processing" spent nuclear fuel, a ban imposed by presidents
Ford and Carter to counter fears of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Bush argues that technology has progressed to the point that
spent fuel can be re-processed safely, avoiding the creation of
the easily manipulated plutonium by-product used in nuclear
weapons.

This policy initiative is significant in Limerick which, like
many of the nation’s 103 nuclear plants, is grappling with the
problem of storing its spent fuel.

With the completion of the federal depository in Nevada’s Yucca
Mountain still years away, plants are now beginning to store
their fuel in "dry casks" outside the main reactor building.

Last month, Exelon announced plans to do just that, 

That plan will go before the Limerick Planning Commission,
although whether it will be on the commission’s June 1 agenda
has not yet been determined, according to township staff.

Conant said he was unsure if Limerick’s dry cask storage plans
contributed to the decision to have Bush visit the station.

However, he said, given the president’s energy policy plan, it
is certainly apropos.

Bush is also in the area for a Congressional fund-raiser in
Philadelphia, according to the White House.

"The president always enjoys visiting Pennsylvania and
Pottstown," Conant said in reference to Bush’s campaign visit in
2004 during his re-election campaign.

"And being here, near the Limerick plant, is certainly a good
opportunity for him to talk about his energy proposals," Conant
said. 

©The Mercury 2006                                       
*****************************************************************
 45 Japan Times: Steam leak halts reactor in Fukushima 

FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Tuesday it was
manually shutting down for inspection one of six reactors at a
power station in Fukushima Prefecture after discovering a
radioactive steam leak. 

There was no impact on the environment, according to the
utility. 

The shutdown came only half a day after Tepco restarted the
reactor following regular safety checks. 

The leak was in the No. 6 reactor of the company's Fukushima No.
1 nuclear power station, which straddles the towns of Okuma and
Futaba in Fukushima Prefecture. 

An engineer spotted steam escaping from a valve in the reactor's
piping system at around 11 a.m. Tightening the valve's shaft
seal had no effect on the leak, forcing the shutdown of the
reactor, company officials said. 

Tepco said it began shutting down the reactor manually at 1 p.m.
The reactor was to be completely shut down later in the day, the
officials said. 

The utility began restarting the reactor at midnight Monday. It
had been shut down for a scheduled inspection. 

The No. 6 reactor, with an output capacity of 1.1 million
kilowatts, is the biggest of the six at the power station, which
has a combined capacity of 4.7 million kilowatts. The Japan
Times: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 (C) All rights reserved 

 The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: PM calls for debate on nuclear energy
 
The World Today - Wednesday, 24 May , 2006  12:18:00
 
Reporter: David Mark

 ELEANOR HALL: Calls for a debate about nuclear energy in
Australia have reached critical mass in recent months, and now
the Prime Minister has started a chain reaction.

And he's not alone: the leaders of the United States and the UK
want to expand their dormant nuclear programs, while developing
countries are racing to use the atom to fuel their growing
economies.

Proponents of nuclear energy say reasonable debate has been
stifled in Australia for decades.

So today we bring you the case for the new atomic age, as sold
by the people who'd like to bring it to your home.

David Mark reports.

DAVID MARK: Nuclear power was once all the rage in Australia.
When the then Prime Minister Robert Menzies opened Australia's
Lucas Heights Reactor in 1958, the head of the Atomic Energy
Commission, CN Watson-Munro made this confident prediction. 

CN WATSON-MUNRO: Atomic energy is going to play a vital part in
the development of our world civil and industrial economy.

DAVID MARK: Things haven't proceeded at quite the rate Mr Watson
Munro was hoping - an abundance of coal has seen to that. But
the nuclear debate is once again on the march.

There are currently 24 nuclear reactors in construction around
the world and in recent days, both the United Kingdom and the
United States have talked about kick-starting their nuclear
industries, while Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, wants
a debate here.

So why is nuclear power back on the world's agenda?

Ian Smith is the Chief Executive of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation, the Federal Government's
nuclear advisory body. 

IAN SMITH: If you look at the trend around the world at the
moment, you would say that for Australia to meet what will
probably be international greenhouse gas emission targets, we
will probably have to use nuclear power as part of the option.
And that will be together with conservation, solar and wind
power.

DAVID MARK: Much of the anti-nuclear debate in recent decades
has been informed by two seminal events.

(Sound of ABC news theme)

NEWS REPORT 1 (archival): In one of the most serious nuclear
accidents ever reported in the United States, a Pennsylvanian
nuclear plant has been evacuated after a breakdown of the
cooling system.

NEWS REPORT 2 (archival): A hell of a lot of radiation has been
released inside the nuclear plant near Harrisburg Pennsylvania.

NEWS REPORT 3 (archival): It's now clear that the Soviet Union
has suffered one of the biggest disasters in the history of
nuclear power. An official Soviet announcement earlier today
said a nuclear accident had taken place at Chernobyl in the
Ukraine.

DAVID MARK: The spectre of Three Mile Island in 1979 and
Chernobyl seven years later, halted the nuclear industry, at
least in the West for the best part of 20 years.

But nuclear supporters say the two accidents were aberrations.

Professor Lesley Kemmeny has spent his entire career working in
the nuclear power industry. He was the Australian Foundation
Member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy and the
Australian observer at the Chernobyl plant in the aftermath of
the nuclear accident there.

LESLEY KEMMENY: The Chernobyl reactors are a reflection of a
poor design and of course things went terribly wrong when an
inexperienced operating crew mishandled that reactor.

DAVID MARK: Nuclear supporters like Ian Smith point to the fact
that the world's 440 nuclear reactors have operated for a
combined 12,000 years, with just two accidents, and only
Chernobyl, because it had no containment dome, resulted in
injuries and deaths.

IAN SMITH: The studies show that nuclear is 1,000 times safer
than LPG stations, 100 times safer than coal, oil and gas
stations, but that's not to say the industry has slowed down.

The industry is moving all the time to more and more safety,
more and more passive safety systems that don't rely on the
intervention of human operators.

DAVID MARK: The waste from nuclear power generation has a
half-life of thousands of years. How to safely dispose of the
waste is one of the criticisms constantly raised by the
anti-nuclear lobby.

LESLEY KEMMENY: People have learnt to fear nuclear energy
because it's connected with radiation and they have a perception
that it's a huge danger. In fact, it is not.

IAN SMITH: The technology is clearly available to store this
material safely. The problem is the social and political issue
to get accepted.

DAVID MARK: Ian Smith of ANSTO cites the cost of nuclear energy
as opposed to fossil fuels and renewables as another tick in its
favour.

IAN SMITH: In terms of all of the studies that I've read in
recent times from Finland, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
the United States, you will find that nuclear generation is
cheaper than any other form of power generation.

DAVID MARK: So how soon could Australia be producing Nuclear
power?

IAN SMITH: You could produce a one gigawatt reactor built within
36 months after the regulatory approval had been attained.

DAVID MARK: Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezahd is an applied nuclear
physicist at the University of Sydney. He's travelled the world
working on nuclear technology and was delighted when the Prime
Minister called for a nuclear debate.

HASHEMI-NEZAHD: That was the most nicest thing I've ever heard
from Mr Howard, because it is quite a courageous move and I
support it.

DAVID MARK: Dr Hashemi-Nezahd believes the current generation of
reactors are safe, but acknowledges they do have problems.

He's advocating Australia embraces a new generation of
accelerator-driven nuclear reactors, which he says are safer and
cheaper.

HASHEMI-NEZAHD: A prototype nuclear reactor in Duvna, Russia
will start in three years time to four years time. That's the
future of the nuclear reactors.

DAVID MARK: What would you say to the people of Australia who
may be concerned about nuclear accidents and what to do with
nuclear waste?

HASHEMI-NEZAHD: Trust a little bit your scientists, and number
two is that don't listen to people just straight with a
blind-eye and so on. Get into the depths of the thing. If
somebody tells you a nuclear reactor is unsafe, ask them why.

DAVID MARK: Nuclear Physicist, Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezahd. 

And his desire that Australia embraces the nuclear debate is
supported by the head of Australia's nuclear advisory body, Ian
Smith.

IAN SMITH: Get the facts, because the facts show that this is
the safest form of large scale power generation that the world
has had. It's just a matter of gaining social and political
acceptance that these methods are fine.

ELEANOR HALL: Ian Smith, the Chief Executive of the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology organisation ending that report
from David Mark.   

*****************************************************************
 47 AU ABC: Nuclear power doesn't stack up - experts
 
PM - Wednesday, 24 May , 2006  18:31:20
 
Reporter: Stephen Long

 MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister appears to have put the
question of nuclear power firmly on the agenda, but does nuclear
power make economic sense for Australia?

It was, after all, his Finance Minister who said it didn't and
wouldn't for a century.

By calling for serious consideration of nuclear power in
Australia, Mr Howard appears to be contradicting the findings of
the Government's own energy white paper.

Economics Correspondent Stephen Long.

STEPHEN LONG: When it comes to nuclear energy, it's very hard to
separate the economics from the politics, as Hugh Outhred, the
Director of the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at
the University of New South Wales, observes.

HUGH OUTHRED: The economics of nuclear power has always been a
difficult topic.

The problem, I guess, arises originally because nuclear power
grew out of the military programs that were started in the
United States and in countries like the UK, Russia, France, and
so on.

And that link to the military side and to government has never
really been broken.

STEPHEN LONG: Without the Manhattan Project there would have
been no nuclear power industry. And in various ways nuclear
energy in the United States has enjoyed a military cross-subsidy.

Even so, credible independent studies have found that it can't
now compete on costs with coal and gas fired plants. And as for
a country like Australia with abundant reserves of fossil fuels,
the answer seems clear.

Hugh Outhred:

HUGH OUTHRED: It's not economic in direct cost terms compared to
our coal fired power stations that we have in Australia. They're
very cheap by world standards, roughly half the cost of coal
fired electricity in countries that import coal, like, say, in
the United Kingdom. And so nuclear just simply can't compete
with that.

STEPHEN LONG: A view shared by Dr Chris Riedy of the Institute
for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.

CHRIS RIEDY: We haven't built power stations in the past, so
it's difficult to say what they would cost here. But on the
figures we've seen from overseas, I mean the UK and the US for
example, nuclear power stations just don't seem to stack up
economically.

Wind power is more cost effective. Natural gas power is more
cost effective. Energy efficiency is certainly more cost
effective.

So it's really difficult to see a strong economic case being
made for going down the path of nuclear power.

STEPHEN LONG: Well, some of the advocates say that nuclear power
would become viable if the coal fired generators were forced to
factor in the cost of fossil fuel emissions to the environment,
say, for instance, through a carbon tax.

CHRIS RIEDY: Nuclear power would become more competitive in that
case, but on the other hand so would all your renewable energy
technologies.

Wind power would become much more competitive. Solar power would
start to become more competitive. Biomass power would certainly
become more competitive.

So when these technologies are clean, efficient, and in most
cases well proven, it's difficult to see why you would choose to
favour nuclear power over those in that situation.

STEPHEN LONG: The Government's own white paper on energy is also
sceptical about the viability of nuclear power.

It affords it the status of a mere "reserve technology", in
other words a fallback option, ranking it in the quest for a
sustainable power source below cleaner coal, wind energy,
biomass and wave energy.

And Hugh Outhred says that in that context the Prime Minister's
comments on the need to debate nuclear power seem curious.

HUGH OUTHRED: If you look at the present Commonwealth
Government's policy, which is in the energy white paper that
they released in 2004, it doesn't rank nuclear energy highly. It
ranks it as a sort of a fallback option, rather than one of the
Government's leading options to respond to climate change.

STEPHEN LONG: In the United States, a major interdisciplinary
study at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) found that
nuclear energy should be considered as part of America's future.

Yet it concluded that it wasn't at present cost effective, that
little was known about the safety of the overall nuclear fuel
cycle, and that while geological disposal of nuclear waste was
technically feasible, its execution was yet to be demonstrated
and was not certain.

It also found that the current nuclear non-proliferation
safeguards aren't adequate to meet the security challenges of an
expanded nuclear industry, which raises the question of
insurance and liability. Unless the Australian Government is
willing to bear these costs like governments overseas, nuclear
power won't be viable.

MARK COLVIN: Stephen Long.   

*****************************************************************
 48 AFP: Nuclear power: safe, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly, says Bush - 

 Wed May 24, 7:18 PM ET 		 	 

POTTSTOWN, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush" /> 
touted nuclear power as a safe, inexpensive and 
environmentally-friendly way to meet America's growing energy 
needs. 

 "Nuclear power is abundant and affordable," the US President
said during a brief stop at a nuclear power station here. 

"It is a really important way to meet our goals, which is to
have abundant, affordable, clean, and safe sources of energy,"
the US president said at the Limerick Generating Station. 

"Once you get the plant up and running, the operating costs of
these plants are significantly lower than other forms of
electricity plants, which means the energy is affordable," Bush
said. 

The US president lamented that a new nuclear power plant hasn't
been built "in a long period of time" in America, and said that
the time is ripe to change that. 

"For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear power plants," Bush said, adding that
there is even a strong environmental argument for doing so. 

"People in our country are rightly concerned about greenhouse
gases and the environment, and I can understand why," he said. 

"Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of greenhouse
gases. 

"Without nuclear energy," the president continued, "carbon
dioxide emissions would have been 28 percent greater in the
electricity industry in 2004. 

"Without nuclear power, we would have had an additional 700
million tons a year of carbon dioxide, and that's nearly equal
to the annual emissions from 136 million passenger cars," said
the president. 

"Nuclear power helps us protect the environment." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 49 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate a waste - Iemma 

From: AAP                       

May 24, 2006                                             

NEW South Wales has legislation banning the construction of
nuclear power plants and that was not about to change, Premier
Morris Iemma said today. Mr Iemma today has labelled Prime
Minister John Howard's call for a debate on nuclear energy as a
waste of time.

 "In NSW there is legislation that bans the construction of
nuclear power plants, and that's something that's not going to
change," he said.

 Mr Iemma said Mr Howard's own ministers, including Treasurer
Peter Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin, did not
believe nuclear power in Australia was financially viable.

 Mr Iemma said the Prime Minister would be better off
concentrating the Federal Government's efforts on developing
practical energy alternatives and developing renewable energy
sources.

 "If (Mr Howard) wants to distract and waste time on a debate
... he can have his debate," Mr Iemma said.

He said Mr Howard should be putting his energies into practical 
alternatives that could help now rather than attempt to distract 
everybody.

 Mr Howard has called for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear
energy when he returns from overseas.

 Momentum is growing within federal government ranks for a
significant national discussion on nuclear issues, including the
creation of a atomic power industry in Australia, expanding
uranium mining and whether the nation should pursue uranium
enrichment. 		  		 		 		 			Search for more stories on this

*****************************************************************
 50 Salt Lake Tribune: Opportunity for terrorists

Article Last Updated: 05/23/2006 07:10:40 PM MDT  

  I am adding my expression of concern to those other tens of
thousands of Utahns who oppose the transferring of nuclear waste
products to Utah. 

   In the early days, prior to Utah receiving statehood, the
federal government sent Johnston's Army to enforce the will of
Eastern interests upon those early settlers. Easterners have
long profited from the benefits of nuclear power plants, but now
that those stockpiled rods of poison are of no use to them, they
want to send them to Utah. 

   It just makes no sense, especially when researchers tell us
that those materials can be safely and effectively permanently
disposed of at their present locations, to load them into
boxcars and send them all across the country 
to Utah or Nevada deserts. One derailment, one human error
resulting in an accident, and all hell breaks loose. 

   If I were a terrorist, or a lunatic bent on causing
additional pain upon innocent U.S. citizens, I'd be salivating
at the thought of those poisonous materials heading westward. 
    
   Gary C. Swensen 
   Taylorsville 
      
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 51 Deseret News: Is cancer Utah mill's legacy? 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 

Monticello residents to testify of ills they suffer 

By Elaine Jarvik 

Deseret Morning News 

MONTICELLO — The children called them "sand hills," a name that 
in retrospect is one of the heartbreaking details about this 
town's not-too-distant past. ['Image'] Stuart Johnson, Deseret 
Morning NewsBruce Adams, a San Juan County commissioner, lost a 
close friend to cancer. 

Surrounding the giant hills was a cattle fence, two simple 
strands of wire with plenty of space for a child to crawl 
through. So, the children played there, making forts in the 
hills of uranium mill tailings and in the contaminated water of 
the ponds and creek. And the grown-ups hauled away the tailings 
to make mortar for their houses, to pave their streets and to 
fill the sandboxes in their back yards. 

This was in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s, after the 
"uranium frenzy" of the 1940s and 1950s, and after the federal 
government abandoned the uranium mill on the south side of town 
— but before the government finally came back to clean up the 
site. 

"It was a paradise for kids," Bruce Adams remembers. 

After the uranium mill closed in 1960, he and his best 
friend, Alan Maughan, used to swim in the evaporation ponds. In 
1966, when he was 16 and captain of the Monticello High School 
basketball team, Alan died of leukemia. 

Forty years later, there have now been 24 leukemia 
deaths, 77 serious respiratory diseases and a total of 407 
cancers — and counting. 

"I have two more victims," said Adams on Tuesday when he 
ran into Barbara Pipkin at the courthouse. Pipkin wrote down the 
names — a woman and her son who had moved away from Monticello 
years ago. 

Pipkin is a member of VMTE, the Victims of Mill Tailings 
Exposure, a small committee formed two years ago to carry the 
banner for the on again-off again battle to get the federal 
government to pay attention to the health problems of 
Monticello. They want the government to do a "dose 
reconstruction" that will determine, as Pipkin says, "what we 
were contaminated with and at what levels." That includes not 
only radiation but toxic chemicals, she adds. 

This week the committee is having a victory of sorts. 

Representatives from the Utah Department of Health, the 
federal Centers for Disease Control and several other state and 
federal agencies will be in Monticello to listen to resident 
concerns. The UDOH and CDC will also release their own findings 
about the town's cancer rates. The town meeting is tonight at 
Monticello High School at 6 p.m. 

Townspeople aren't sure what to expect. But VMTE member 
Fritz Pipkin says, "They're not getting out of here telling us 
we don't have a cancer problem." 

The committee isn't confident that the state and the feds 
have all the necessary data, because they are apparently basing 
their numbers on Utah Cancer Registry statistics. The problem, 
city manager Trent Schafer says, is that lots of people have 
moved away and may have been diagnosed in other states. And some 
states don't have cancer registries. 

When the VMTE has asked the government for the names of 
former mill workers, they've been told that's classified 
information. Even the number of mill workers is classified, says 
committee member Steve Young, whose brother died four years ago 
of a rare cancer. 

The Monticello mill once processed uranium for the 
government's nuclear program, including the Manhattan Project 
that created the bombs dropped over Japan during World War II. 

The town itself — the land and the buildings — has been 
given a clean bill of health in recent years, following the U.S. 
Department of Energy's designation of the area as a Superfund 
site. The actual cleanup began in 1995 and was completed in 
2000. Today the mill site itself is a grassy drainage area with 
walking trails. And the government, under the 1990 Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act, has awarded financial compensation to 
many uranium miners, mill workers and ore haulers. 
['Image'] Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsAn ad taken out in 
the San Juan Record by Monticello residents Fritz and Barbara 
Pipkin seeks to find people from Monticello with cancer. Also, a 
city map shows homes of people with cancer. But what about 
the families, asks the VMTE? What about the townspeople whose 
windows were covered in yellow dust from the mill's stack? The 
dust, Barbara Pipkin says, ate holes in the screens, and in 
laundry hanging on the line. What about the children who hugged 
their daddy's legs when he came home from work, wearing his 
contaminated street clothes? The workers weren't given special 
uniforms to wear, even though when the DOE came back to clean up 
the sites they had big protective suits "like space men," Pipkin 
says. 

And what about her husband? Fritz Pipkin, who once swam 
in the mill's evaporation ponds and made forts in the tailings 
piles, was diagnosed three years ago with leukemia, at age 55. 
Last week he finished his latest round of chemotherapy, which 
required many trips to St. George. 

Monticello residents want a treatment clinic in 
Monticello. They also want a cancer screening facility, and they 
want monetary compensation for all victims. 

The Pipkins have created a map of the town, full of red 
and blue dots, each one representing a cancer (the blue dots 
from a 1993 health survey conducted by townspeople, the red dots 
from a 2005 survey). 

"That's an entire family," says Barbara, pointing to one 
square with seven dots. Five people have died; two daughters are 
still alive. The Pipkins have also made a poster called "Faces 
of Cancer." It includes 52 students who attended Monticello High 
from 1956 to 1966. The Pipkins estimate that's one in every 
seven students. 

VMTE member Craig Leavitt, 56, says that of his 
graduating class of 28, at least six have gotten cancer. 

"Our question is, 'Why have they forgotten us?' " says 
Steve Young about the Department of Energy. "How many people 
have to die?" 

['Image'] Historical PhotoA 1942 photo of Monticello shows 
housing for mill workers in the foreground and uranium mill in 
background. The mill closed in 1960. E-mail: 			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 52 Salt Lake Tribune: Idahoans demand Divine Strake info
  
Article Last Updated: 05/24/2006 12:35:10 AM MDT  

The Salt Lake Tribune  
    
  WASHINGTON - Members of Idaho's congressional delegation are
the latest to demand more information from the Pentagon about
Divine Strake, a massive detonation scheduled to take place at
the Nevada Test Site. "We just want to make sure that people are
safe," said Dan Whiting, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig,
R-Idaho. "Senator Craig recognizes the need for the test and the
weapons work that goes on in Nevada. We just want to make sure
we don't harm fellow Americans." Whiting said that, thus far,
the precautions appear to be adequate. The Defense Threat
Reduction Agency proposes detonating 700 tons of explosives
above a tunnel on the test site to help it make computer models
to predict ground shaking and tunnel damage. Utah Sen. Orrin 
Hatch and Rep. Jim Matheson have raised concerns about the 
possibility that soil contaminated by past nuclear testing at the 
Nevada site could become airborne and create a risk to Utah 
residents downwind. Air quality officials in Nevada have also 
asked the Pentagon and National Nuclear Security Administration 
for more information on the test, and a Nevada Indian tribe and a 
group of Utah Downwinders - individuals sickened by their 
exposure to fallout from Cold War tests - have sued to block the 
test. - Robert Gehrke   
                  

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 53 WFTV.com: Couple Finds Uranium In Bottom Of Tool Box

POSTED: 7:17 am EDT May 24, 					 					2006

CRESCENT CITY, Fla. -- A Putnam County couple got a startling 
surprise when they found a piece of depleted uranium at the 
bottom of a box of tools.

Susan and Lance Greninger called NASA because they had bought
the box at an auction near the Kennedy Space Center. A Hazmat
team from the fire department examined the metal and said it was
a solid piece of depleted uranium about the size of a child's
fist.

They closed the road in the front of the home for about five
hours just to be safe.

 The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder.
They said the piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard
to the community. They did say that if the couple had walked
around the house with the uranium in their pocket, they would
get radiation sickness.

 Authorities said the piece may have been part of a tool.
Depleted uranium can be used as a radiation shield and is
sometimes used as a ballast in commercial airliners and ships. 

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.

 
*****************************************************************
 54 KHOU.com: Did government expose Houston workers to radiation? 

 Houston Metro
   
10:56 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 

By Mark Greenblatt / 11 News Defenders 

Click to watch 11 News Defenders report
 
They're workers who labored for years in local plants and
refineries. Recently, some even have called them "American
heroes". So why do they feel so abandoned today? 


KHOU-TV 
Did government expose Houston workers to radiation? 

The 11 News Defenders have discovered a Cold War secret that hid
an injustice: Men who worked at local plants, believing they
were processing fertilizer, were actually handling uranium for
atomic weapons. 

And no one told them. 

These workers claim they were given no protective gear, no
breathing masks, and no warnings.They just worked in their
street clothes and at the end of the day came home caked in
"dust". 

What's worse, some say they were told if they asked what they
were working on, they would be fired. 

 Maria Cantwell(D-WA) ) letter to DOL,DHHS, and OMB

 DOL EEOICPA stats for Texas City Chemicals, Inc.

So for years they suffered from cancers and other illnesses
associated with radioactivity. 

And now, even though the government has come clean and promised
aid, not one local family has received a dime. 

"How could we be so ungrateful to people who sacrificed their
lives," Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston asked. 

And why did this happen? 

What the Defenders have found will shock and sadden you and even
give you hope. More headlines... 

 Copyright 2006, KHOU-TV  
*****************************************************************
 55 AU ABC: Nuclear accidents aberrations - supporters. 

24/05/2006. ABC News Online
 	
"Aberrations: Experts say the
Chernobyl disaster was caused by problems specific to that
plant." class="featurepic" />Aberrations: Experts say the
Chernobyl disaster was caused by problems specific to that
plant. Reuters 

Prime Minister John Howard's call for a debate on whether
Australia should embrace uranium enrichment and nuclear power
generation has generated the usual responses.

Anti-nuclear campaigners have voiced concerns about the safety
risk nuclear power poses and about the environmental impacts.

On the other hand, proponents argue that nuclear power is as
safe as any other form of power generation, and can be cheaper.

In this two-part series, The World Today's David Mark examines
these issues.
 
Nuclear power was once all the rage in Australia.

 When then-prime minister Robert Menzies opened Sydney's Lucas
Heights Reactor in 1958, the head of the Atomic Energy
Commission, CN Watson-Munro made this confident prediction. 

"Atomic energy is going to play a vital part in the development
of our world, civil and industrial economy," he said.

 Things have not proceeded at quite the rate Mr Watson-Munro was
hoping - an abundance of coal has seen to that. 
But the nuclear debate is once again on the march.

 There are currently 24 nuclear reactors under construction,
mostly in Asia where economic expansion is creating an
insatiable appetite for power and a demand for Australian
uranium.

 In recent days both the United Kingdom and the United States
have talked about kick-starting their nuclear industries, while
Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, wants a debate here.
Back on the agenda

 Ian Smith, the chief executive of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), says nuclear power
is back on the agenda as greenhouse gas emission targets begin
to bite.

 "If you look at the trend around the world at the moment you
would say that for Australia to meet what will probably be
international greenhouse gas emission targets, we will probably
have to use nuclear power," Mr Smith said.

 "That will be together with conservation, solar and wind power."

 Much of the anti-nuclear debate in recent decades has been
informed by two seminal events: the disaster at Three Mile
Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster three years later.

 But supporters of nuclear power say the two accidents were
aberrations.

 Professor Lesley Kemmeny was the Australian foundation member
of the International Nuclear Energy Academy and the Australian
observer at the Chernobyl plant in the aftermath of the disaster.

 He says the accident does not indicate that nuclear power
plants are more dangerous than any other type.

 "The Chernobyl reactors are a reflection of a poor design and
of course, things went terribly wrong when an inexperienced
operating crew mishandled that reactor," Professor Kemmeny said.

 Mr Smith points to the fact that the world's 440 nuclear
reactors have operated for a combined 12,000 years, with just
two accidents.

 Only Chernobyl, because it had no containment dome, resulted in
injuries and deaths.

 "The studies show that nuclear is 1,000 times safer than LPG
stations [and] 100 times safer than coal, oil or gas stations,"
Mr Smith said.

 "But that's not to say that the industry has slowed down, the
industry is moving all the time to more and more safety, more
and more passive safety systems that don't rely on the
intervention of human operators."

Nuclear waste

 The waste from nuclear power generation has a half-life of
thousands of years. 

How to safely dispose of the waste is one of the main concerns
of the anti-nuclear lobby.

 "People have learned to fear nuclear energy because it is
connected with radiation and they have a perception that it's a
huge danger. In fact, it is not," Mr Kemmeny said.

 Mr Smith said: "The technology is clearly available to store
this material safely.

 "The problem is the social and political issue to get accepted."
Costs

 Mr Smith cites the cost of nuclear energy as opposed to fossil
fuels and renewables as another tick in its favour.

 "In terms of all of the studies that I've read in recent times
- from Finland, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United
States - you will find that nuclear generation is cheaper than
any other form of power generation," he said.

 Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezahd, an applied nuclear physicist at the
University of Sydney, is advocating Australia embraces a new
generation of accelerator-driven nuclear reactors, which he says
are safer and cheaper. 

"A prototype nuclear reactor ... will start in three year or
four years' time," he said.

 Both experts say those who have doubts about nuclear power need
to become better informed.

 "Trust a little bit your scientists," Dr Hashemi-Nezahd said.

 Mr Smith said: "Get the facts because the facts show that this
is the safest form of large-scale power generation that the
world has had." 

*****************************************************************
 56 UPI: Auction find: Cylinder of depleted uranium
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

5/24/2006 1:29:00 PM -0400                              

PALATKA, Fla., May 24 (UPI) -- A Putnam County, Fla., couple
cleaning a box they bought at an auction found a cylinder with
the words "depleted uranium" and "freaked out," the wife said. 

Lance Greninger scraped off rust on the cylinder the size of a
child's fist Tuesday to find the warning and "it went downhill
from there," Susan Greninger told the Jacksonville (Fla.)
Times-Union. 

"We freaked out and we started calling people," she said. 

The couple called NASA since they had bought the box, which also
contained a tool to bend metal tubing, at an auction near the
Kennedy Space Center. 

Sheriff's police, volunteer firefighters and the Palatka, Fla.,
hazardous materials team soon converged on their house and
removed the cylinder of depleted uranium. 

"If you walked around with it in your pocket you would get
radiation sickness" but the cylinder was not a community danger,
said sheriff's police Maj. Keith Riddick. 

Afterward, Greninger said she and her mate calmed down with a
beer. 

"My husband was having a nervous breakdown," she said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 57 Guardian Unlimited: House Favors Scaling Back Bush Nuclear Bid

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 25, 2006 12:31 AM

AP Photo PAPM109 

By H. JOSEF HEBERT 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House appeared ready to scale back
President Bush's ambitious plan to resume nuclear fuel
reprocessing as part of an international program to boost
nuclear power. 

A broad spending bill, expected to be approved by the House
later Wednesday would cut Bush's request for the first
installment of the nuclear initiative in half, to about $130
million. An attempt to slash it by an additional $40 million was
rejected. 

The $30 billion spending measure funds the Energy Department,
related agencies and numerous federal water projects. 

While lawmakers expressed skepticism about the nuclear fuel
recycling proposals, dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, they plan to resume full funding for development of
a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada after several
years of reduced spending on the program. 

The Yucca project, which has yet to receive a license from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is years behind schedule with no
firm date for completion. It is designed to hold 77,000 tons of
used reactor fuel from commercial power plants and defense
facilities. 

The bill provides $545 million for Yucca in fiscal 2007
beginning in October, an increase of $95 million over this year.
It is the amount the president had requested. 

The House action came on a day that Bush, touring the Limerick
nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, called the expansion of
nuclear power and more construction of commercial reactors
essential ``for the sake of economic security and national
security.'' 

He urged Congress to give him the full $250 million for the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

The Senate is likely to do just that. Sen. Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., who heads the subcommittee that deals with energy
funding, said he planned to possibly seek more than $250
million. If he succeeds, the different spending levels would
have to be reconciled. 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for stepped-up
research into reprocessing nuclear fuel, instead of using it
once and then disposing it eventually in the planned Yucca
Mountain repository. And it would establish an international
program under which the United States would provide reactor fuel
to other countries and then retrieve it for reprocessing. 

The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in 1977
because of concern that it would make it easier to steal or
divert plutonium for a nuclear bomb. Bush's plan envisions a new
technology that would not separate pure plutonium, removing -
according to its advocates - the nonproliferation risks. 

But the House Appropriations Committee, in a report accompanying
the spending bill, said the Energy Department has not produced
the needed details about the program's cost - estimated into the
billions of dollars over several decades - or the certainty of
the proposed technology. 

``There's only a guess of how much it's going to cost ... $3
billion to $6 billion for a demonstration project,'' said Rep.
Ed Markey, D-Mass. And he said the proposed technology, while it
may no longer be useful for a nuclear bomb, would ``not be too
dangerous for terrorists to handle for a dirty bomb.'' 

But Markey's attempt to slash an additional $40 million from the
program was defeated 295-128. 

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who had pushed for the earlier
funding cuts to slow the program, said the additional reductions
would threaten its existence. 

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said he was concerned the Energy
Department might syphon money from a fund for developing a
permanent nuclear waste repository - essentially Yucca Mountain
if it completed - into the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

Barton proposed an amendment to bar such a move. The fund, which
totals more than $15 billion, is paid into by utilities that own
nuclear reactors. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 58 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor MP supports uranium enrichment - 

www.smh.com.au

May 25, 2006 - 6:04AM

Federal Labor frontbencher Martin Ferguson has thrown his
support behind uranium enrichment in Australia, saying
responsibility should not be left with "rogue nations". 

Mr Ferguson is challenging the Labor Party to embrace uranium
enrichment, which adds value to uranium exports but creates
toxic waste, The Australian newspaper reports. 

Despite pledging to ban nuclear power plants in Australia, Mr
Ferguson said "rogue nations" should not be left with the right
to enrich uranium. 

"As Kim Beazley has said, the debate is no longer about exports
but the conditions guaranteeing the peaceful use of Australia's
uranium," Mr Ferguson told The Australian. 

"That means enrichment is a live issue in Australia and
internationally because you don't want rogue nations having the
right to enrich uranium." 

Australia currently exports uranium for processing, where the
enriched uranium is worth thousands of dollars more per
kilogram. 

Enriched uranium is a key ingredient for most nuclear power
plants to generate energy. 	
© 2006 	AAP

auAAP
2006-05-25
 | | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.                                                          
*****************************************************************
 59 Beacon Journal: Uniontown dump raises concerns

05/24/2006 | 

Wed, May. 24, 2006 email this print this 
 
Group finds evidence of radiation issues, fears ground water
contamination

 By Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writer 

UNIONTOWN - A grass-roots group, still troubled by the
possibility of man-made radiation in a now-closed toxic waste
dump, wants two federal agencies to get involved. 

The Concerned Citizens of Lake Township is urging the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Defense Department to oversee
the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill off Cleveland Avenue
Northwest, said spokeswoman Chris Borello. 

She said those agencies should assume control of the site from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because of their
expertise in radiation issues. 

She also said that more needs to be done to control contaminated
ground water in and around Uniontown. 

Contamination is continuing to be flushed from the one-time sand
and gravel pit into the ground water and there are still serious
radiation issues, Borello told 60 people attending a public
forum on Tuesday night. 

Those findings were among the results of analysis by four
experts hired by Borello's group with a $50,000 federal grant
and presented to the public for the first time. 

``It's very clear why in good conscience we cannot walk away
from this site because of what we know,'' she told the audience.
``The more we've learned over the years, the greater the
concern.'' 

Terry Witsaman of the citizens group likened the new review to
an individual getting a second opinion on a medical problem. 

The monitoring well system around the old dumps needs to be
reinstalled so that a troubling water problem can be analyzed
further, said Julie Weatherington Rice of Bennett &Williams, a
Columbus-based environmental consulting firm. 

The acidity and alkalinity of the wells on and around the
landfill vary greatly and the acid level of some samples is a
thousand times greater than levels in water, she said. 

It is a mystery issue that was first raised with the U.S. EPA in
1999, but the agency never addressed those concerns, she said. 

It could be a troublesome issue because some toxic heavy metals,
including lead and arsenic, are soluble and move more freely in
water that is more alkaline and that threatens nearby ground
water, she said. 

Dr. Mark Baskaran, a professor of geochemistry at Wayne State
University in Detroit, cautioned that the Uniontown dump may
have radiation problems. 

If the radiation test results are accurate, there could be
radioactive waste buried in the dump, he said. 

There are possible troublesome levels of plutonium, tritium and
technetium-99, and the levels appear to show that the radiation
is not naturally occurring, he said. 

It appears that the tritium and plutonium could be coming from
buried deposits, he said. 

The U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA have both repeatedly said they do
not believe that radiation is an issue at the Uniontown dump.
They have also reported that the ground water is getting
cleaner. 

Borello's group has posted the reports at a new Web site: . 

Bob Downing can be reached at 330-996-3745
*****************************************************************
 60 Platts: BNG awarded 36-year, GBP230 million contract by UK's MoD

[The McGraw-Hill Companies]   

London (Platts)--24May2006
 
BNG has been awarded a 36-year, 230 million pound (US$434 
million) contract by the UK government's Ministry of Defence, 
MoD, to receive and store used fuel from the UK's nuclear 
submarine fleet at the Sellafield reprocessing complex.

A British Nuclear Group spokesman declined to provide figures for 
the amount of used fuel involved. BNG's specialist contracting 
company, Project Services, has been appointed the contract's 
managing agent. 

The MoD's used nuclear submarine propulsion fuel has been stored 
at Sellafield since 1968. In 1998, when the existing storage 
facility was nearing the end of its life and capacity, the MoD 
signed a major contract with BNG's parent, British Nuclear Fuels 
plc, BNFL, which was due to earn BNFL 70 million pounds over ten 
years.

It entailed the construction of a new submarine fuel storage 
facility known as the Wet Inlet Facility. This was constructed as 
an extension to Sellafield's Fuel Handling Plant, and started 
operating in 2003.

For similar stories, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics
Week at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 61 Chicago Sun-Times: Judge orders Exelon to action on tritium 

May 24, 2006

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS 

Will County judge on Wednesday approved a preliminary injunction
ordering Exelon Generation to take a number of steps to protect
public health and the environment at its Braidwood Nuclear
Generating Station, according to a pair of releases.

 Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney
James Glasgow, who filed suit against Exelon Corp., Commonwealth
Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Co., said in one release that
the order is the first step in addressing tritium contamination
at the Braidwood facility and nearby areas impacted by the
releases. 

Madigan also said the lawsuits continue to move forward and the
injunction is about “protecting public and environmental health
and safety now.”

 According to the order issued Wednesday, the release from
Madigan’s office said, Exelon must lower water levels in a pond
near Smiley Road and Center Street to cause adjacent
contaminated groundwater to drain into the pond. The pumped
water with tritium will be put in the station’s discharge pipe
(known as the "blowdown line") where it will mix with water from
the station’s cooling lake and be released into the Kankakee
River at acceptable Nuclear Regulatory Commission discharge
limits. 

Exelon said in a release that the tritium level would be less
than 1 percent of the acceptable drinking water limit. The
company said this phase of the remediation process could last
more than a year, but said its hydrologists expect the work to
quickly halt further movement of tritium in the ground and begin
shrinking the size of the area with elevated tritium levels
within six months, the Exelon release said. 

The release from Madigan also said: 


+ Exelon has installed and must maintain leak-proof barriers at
the base of each vacuum beaker pit and leak detection monitors
with remote alarms at the station control center. 


+ Exelon must institute a program of leak detection from the
blowdown line by weekly visual surveillance and monthly sampling
of groundwater along the four-plus miles of pipe from the plant
to the river.

 
+ Exelon must sample 280 private residential wells in and near
the village of Godley for tritium for five weeks, and present
results within 10 days of testing.

 
+ Exelon must provide bottled water to about 420 residences in
Godley and near the blowdown line until future testing shows no
higher levels of tritium in those wells.

 
+ By June 30, Exelon will complete an investigation of tritium
in the groundwater near the vacuum breaker valves and turbine
building.

 
+ By July 1, Exelon must submit a written plan to the Illinois
EPA for preventing groundwater contamination.

 
+ By Aug. 1, Exelon must submit a corrective action plan to the
EPA for reducing tritium levels in groundwater.

 
+ Exelon must submit a plan for future notification to the EPA
and residents of future tritium releases.

 
+ Exelon must reimburse Will County and the EPA for past and
future costs of investigating potential tritium contamination.

 Exelon Wednesday received a construction permit from Will
County to allow site work necessary for the remediation program,
the Exelon release said. This work includes laying a concrete
pad and installing new pipes under a road adjacent to the plant.

Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 62 The Mercury: ACE wants fuel casks protected
             
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

05/24/2006

LIMERICK -- The Alliance for a Clean Environment knows a plan to 
store spent nuclear fuel in casks at Exelon’s Limerick Nuclear 
Generating Station is not going to be stopped by protests.                                                        

While they’re not happy about it, ACE activists Lewis and Donna 
Cuthbert understand that the pools that hold spent nuclear fuel 
for a minimum of five years are nearly full -- and that the 
controversial federal depository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain is 
decades away from being ready to accept spent fuel assemblies.

What they want, the Cuthberts said in a recent interview, is for
the dry cask storage project at Limerick to be built to the
highest standard of safety-- to withstand everything from the
ravages of nature, to accidents, to a terrorist assault.

That desire grew after ACE held conversations with Kevin Kamps,
who works with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a
nuclear energy watchdog group that documents incidents and
issues with nuclear power.

High on the list of concerns about allowing the spent fuel to be
stored outside the building is exposure to a terrorist attack,
the Cuthberts said.

Kamps said a 1998 Army test showed that a commonly used missile
launched from a portable tripod two miles away penetrated the
wall of a cask designed to be much more robust than those
planned for Limerick.

He said a video of the test showed that a "gaping hole" in the
cask would breach radiation shielding resulting not only in a
radiation release that could harm civilians, but would expose
emergency responders to fatal levels of radiation "within
minutes."

Representations by utilities that the casks meet all government
requirements for resilience against attack should not be taken
at face value, Kamps said.

"The crazy thing about this is that this is a preventable risk,"
said Lewis Cuthbert. 

"With proper planning, these casks could be spread out so they
are not clustered together, compounding the risk," he said.
"They could be covered with earth, or at least have an earthen
berm built around them so they are not easily visible."

Kamps said spent fuel stored in Europe is "bunkered" inside a
building where it cannot be seen from the outside. "And they are
dispersed so you can’t attack all of them at once," Kamps said.

But so far, the plans for security at the Limerick site involves
mostly increased manpower, Lewis Cuthbert said.

"They are not keeping these casks as low-profile or out of the
line of sight," said Donna Cuthbert. "They’re telling us not to
worry about it, but an airplane hit the Pentagon, which is
practically ground level, while going 500 miles per hour."

"Haven’t we learned anything from 9/11?" Lewis Cuthbert asked.
"Until then, no one thought airplanes could be used as weapons."

He said ACE’s concern grows out of the increased exposure
presented by "dry-cask" storage. Until now, all spent nuclear
fuel was stored indoors, out of sight, making it difficult to
target.

But people should also know there are more issues related to
spent nuclear fuel storage than just terrorist attack, said
Kamps.

Kamps, who has tracked dry cask storage projects around the
country, said there are many examples of problems with the
systems.

One was documented in 1994 at a plant 30 miles outside
Kalamazoo, Mich. when a newly loaded cask was found to have
"faulty welds."

Repairing those weld became impossible, he said, when the
utility realized its plan to unload the casks had severe flaws.
"In the end, they left it alone and decided the faulty welds
didn’t pose a safety problem, a result the (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) blessed after the fact," said Kamps.

Kamps said a 22-year-old cask at a plant in Surry, Virg.
documented a leakage of helium, used to transfer heat away from
the fuel rods, that is difficult if not impossible to repair.
Other problems may occur and multiply unseen inside the sealed
casks, he said.

An accident or attack on these casks could have devastating
effects, ACE argues.

A 1982 report commissioned by the NRC and presented to Congress,
predicted the casualties resulting from an accident at every
nuclear plant in the nation.

Despite the fact that the population of the greater Pottstown
area has grown since the report was commissioned, the casualties
it predicts remain stunning enough, said Lewis Cuthbert.

The report, called a CRAC-2 Report and conducted by the Sandia
National Laboratories, predicts 74,000 deaths from radiation
exposure within one year, not counting cancers.

It would result in 610,000 radiation-related injuries and 34,000
cancer-related deaths over the lifetime of the exposed
population, according to the report.

"All we’re saying is that we, the NRC and Limerick Township
should be demanding the safest installation, not the cheapest,"
said Donna Cuthbert. "After all, we’re going to be living with
this stuff for a very, very long time." 

©The Mercury 2006                                       

  Copyright © 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved.  
*****************************************************************
 63 The Mercury: Exelon plans for spent fuel storage
             
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

05/24/2006

LIMERICK -- A display explaining plans to store used nuclear fuel 
on a concrete pad at Exelon’s nuclear generating station was 
among the most heavily visited during a recent open house at the 
Limerick Golf Club.
				 			
The project has become necessary, said project manager Kevin 
Carrabine, because the federal government is far behind schedule 
on the nuclear depository long planned for Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada.

"It was supposed to open in January of 1998, and now they’re 
saying it won’t open before 2015, if everything goes well," he 
said.

So far everything has not gone well.

The plans are very controversial, questions have arisen
regarding some of the science on which claims of long-term
safety had been based and many communities are questioning
whether transporting the spent fuel through their community on
its way to Yucca Mountain could put them at risk.

In the meantime, nuclear plants across the country, Limerick
included, have begun to run out of room in the tanks of water in
which all the plant’s spent fuel is cooled and stored for a
minimum of seven years.

Limerick has two units, one which went on line in 1986 and one
in 1990, making it one of the nation’s newer nuclear plants. 

Older plants ran out of space in their pools long ago, meaning
that "dry cask storage," as the method is called, has been in
use for at least 20 years, said Carrabine.

"It is a proven technology, and it is safe," he said.

Nuclear fuel is actually small ceramic pellets sealed in long,
vertical metal tubes, which are "bundled" into assemblies of 64
to 289 rods.

Each of the 24 steel and concrete canisters planned for Limerick
can hold 61 bundles, Carrabine said. 

Each year, the plant plans to fill four canisters, he said.

Although plans only call for 24 canisters, the approximately
three-foot thick concrete pad on which the canisters will rest
will be big enough to house about 90 canisters, said Carrabine.

"We hope never to have to use more than 25 or 30 casks," said
Carrabine, but better safe than sorry.

Because construction and loading of these casks has already
occurred at other nuclear plants, including Peach Bottom and
Oyster Creek, both owned by Exelon, Carrabine said the company
will have experienced personnel on hand to help with the project
in Limerick.

And because the company that will do the construction already
has a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no
new NRC approvals are needed for this project, only land
development approval from Limerick Township.

Those plans were submitted to the township planning commission
in April, Carrabine said.

Presuming those plans are approved, Carrabine said Exelon
expects the first cask to be loaded in 2008.

Protecting those casks, a concern heightened in the wake of the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is something else the company has
taken into consideration.

According to information provided by Exelon, tests on the casks
in which the spent fuel will be stored "proved highly resistant
to the impact of commercial aircraft, as well as difficult
targets to strike."

Responsibility for providing security at the 600-acre site rests
with Exelon security supervisor Brad Whitman. There is much
about security there that Whitman cannot talk about, for obvious
reasons.

However, he was able to talk about the extensive "force on
force" training in which the plant’s paramilitary security
personnel engage, using a laser system that helps guards improve
marksmanship and tactics with the AR-15-style weapons they use.

"We do look at intrusion scenarios," said Whitman, adding that
the "dry cask storage" will result in "an increase in force" for
his security team. 

©The Mercury 2006                                       
*****************************************************************
 64 AU ABC: Nuclear waste for Portland? 

ABC Victoria 

Wednesday, 24 May  2006  

Reporter: Irene Scott (online) 

Presenter: Kathy Bedford 

The Australian institute of public policy has flagged fives
sites in Australia for a nuclear waste dump; Portland is on the
list. 

Is Portland a likely candidate for the site of Australia’s first
nuclear waste facility? 

Before all the residents of Portland start building nuclear safe
bunkers, there is one thing we must stress; there still has been
no official decision whether or not Australia will even be
accepting nuclear waste, so any discussion of a site for a waste
facility is, at this time, hypothetical.

However, with that in mind, the Prime Minister has made it clear
that Australia will develop a nuclear power facility in the
coming decades and has opened discussion into the feasibility of
this industry. 

We hypothesised on the program last week that Victoria could
develop a waste facility to generate further income for the
state. However, considering there is still strong debate into
where a toxic waste facility should be built, surely the debate
into the location of a nuclear waste facility would be just as
vicious.

Dr Clive Hamilton, Australian institute of public policy, claims
that if Australia is serious about the Nuclear industry, then
now was the time to investigate sites for a waste facility.


Check list for a nuclear waste site: 1- Water supply 2- Near an
existing electricity grid 3- near a major electrical load centre
4- Good port facilities  



The public policy think tank pointed to several sites within
Australia including Port Stephens, the Central Coast, the area
south of Wollongong, Western Port in Melbourne, the Sunshine
Coast in QLD and Portland.

Could Portland, a tiny, western Victorian seaside hamlet become
home to Australia’s first nuclear waste facility? 

“I dare say there’s a pretty strong development lobby group in
Portland that could be cheering.” Dr Hamilton says. “On the
other hand, I don’t think there would be too many people who
would welcome a (nuclear) power plant in their backyard or even
within several kilometres of it.”

“But the reality is that if we’re going to have nuclear power in
Australia, the plant’s going to need to be on the coast, and
that’s we’re the majority of Australians want to live. So it’s
going to be hard to find places that are a long way from
populated areas.” 

So if it’s a reality, how do we decide which parcel of prime
coastal property should house the nuclear no-no. 

“We consulted a number of energy experts and asked them what the
criteria are for the siting of a nuclear power plant. There are
four or five main ones; first of all you need very large volumes
of water to cool the nuclear reactor both in it’s normal
operation and if there’s an emergency. So that means in
Australia it needs to be near the coast.”

“Secondly you need to be near major transmission lines. In other
words, you need to be near the existing grid, the national
electricity market, otherwise you’d have to build major
infrastructure to connect up to the grid which would add a lot
of cost.”


 If the government is serious about developing a nuclear
industry in Australia then Portland would be looking like a very
attractive prospect  



“You also need to be close to a major load centre. In other
words, a big demander of electric power. Of course in Portland
you’ve got a huge one down there with the smelter.”

“It also needs good port facilities because it’s likely that the
fuel rods that would power the station would be imported by sea
and then would need to be transported either on those huge low
loaders they use or possibly by train.”

“So Portland meets all of those criteria very well. I would have
thought that if the government is serious about developing a
nuclear industry in Australia." 

And serious is exactly what the Government is. They've set up a
committee to explore the industries feasibility for Australia
and the Democrats are calling for a Senate inquiry. Economically
this could be highly beneficial to Australia, but is it the
direction we should be heading? 


Some senior ministers have been speaking very strongly in favour
of, not just a debate, but for nuclear power itself  



“We don’t take strong stand one way or another.” Dr Hamilton
says. “I think we’re economists mostly and we tend to focus on
the economics of it and I think that nuclear power is probably a
pretty expensive way to go if we want reduce our greenhouse
gases. There are much cheaper, and dare I say it, much safer
ways of doing it with renewable energy.”

“For a while some of the commentators were saying that it was a
bit of a shadow play the Government was engaged in, but it is
looking a bit hairy now with the Prime Minister on several
occasions saying we need a serious debate and setting up this
internal inquiry.”

“Some senior ministers have been speaking very strongly in
favour of, not just a debate, but for nuclear power itself. With
some even talking about 15 years or so we would expect to have
some sort of nuclear power plants cropping up in Australia.”

“I think we need to take this seriously, and we’ve entered this
debate… by saying ‘lets have an honest debate and not talk about
nuclear power in the abstract, because we’re going to have a
nuclear industry in Australia and we’re going to have to put the
nuclear power plant somewhere’.” 


Last Updated: 24/05/2006 5:44:00 PM AEST 
Search ABC Victoria
*****************************************************************
 65 Knox News: K-25 racecourse plans upset some

Preservationists against idea to turn WWII site into track
                                                                                                
By BOB FOWLER, fowlerb@knews.com 

                                
May 24, 2006

OAK RIDGE - An ambitious proposal to build a $40 million 
racecourse at a former uranium enrichment complex is gaining 
traction with some, while others view it with outright 
skepticism. 

Still others, notably Oak Ridge preservationists, are vehemently 
against the plan by native son Eric Wilson to create what he's 
calling the Thousand Suns International Road Course at the former 
K-25 site. 

The 3.7-mile-long course would wind around the footprint of what 
was once the world's largest structure, the K-25 Building, most 
of which is being torn down. 

Wilson, now a Cookeville resident, says the K-25 site is ideal
as a road course for cars as well as motorcycles, and it could
become a mecca for racing events, drawing thousands of visitors
and their cash. 

Members of the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association
strongly object to the plan, saying it clashes with their effort
to keep as an historic site part of the U-shaped K-25 building. 

Association members say that part of the building should be
preserved to tell the story of the effort during World War II to
build the world's first atomic bomb. 

Under Wilson's plan, that portion of the K-25 building would
remain and grandstands for race fans would be built nearby. 

Wilson's proposal is akin to putting a racecourse on the
Gettysburg Civil War battlefield, association board member Mick
Wiest says. 

"It's not all about money, it's about the long-range picture,''
Wiest said. He said the National Park Service is doing a
feasibility study of possibly putting historic Oak Ridge sites
into the park system. 

"If they (the Park Service) thought K-25 was going to be turned
into a road course, that pretty much diminishes their whole
effort,'' Wiest said. 

Wilson's proposal is already far enough along that it's been
pitched to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Community Reuse
Organization of East Tennessee and city officials. 

Wilson has also invested in a noise study to see what impact a
high-speed racecourse would have on Rarity Ridge, a residential
development under way nearby. The study showed the effects would
be negligible, Wilson said. 

With needed infrastructure already available, the K-25 site, now
called East Tennessee Technology Park, is "very feasible'' for a
racecourse, he said. 

"It's almost a motor sports park already, once everything's torn
down,'' Wilson said of the ongoing demolition of much of the
K-25 site. "All that's missing is a ribbon of asphalt.'' 

"It's an idea that makes a lot of sense,'' Community Reuse
Organization of East Tennessee President Lawrence Young said of
Wilson's proposal. 

CROET is the nonprofit regional group charged with finding new
uses for old Department of Energy properties. 

"It took awhile for me to warm to it,'' Young said of Wilson's
plan. "Does it make sense from a land use standpoint?'' Young
asked. "I believe it does.'' 

Along with being compatible with historic preservation efforts,
the racecourse proposal should mesh with plans to put industries
on the site, Oak Ridge Mayor David Bradshaw said. 

Wilson's firm, Fast Visions of Tennessee LLC, is proposing a
course with a mix of high- and low-speed curves and a
backstretch where racecars could hit 200 mph. 

Wilson said he's in talks with major corporations to help secure
funding for the project. His Web site: www.thousandsuns
motorsports.com. 

Bob Fowler, News Sentinel Anderson County editor, may be reached
at 865-481-3625.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 66 KnoxNews: Nuke work proceeds; is new contract next?

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

May 24, 2006                                                            

There's no word yet on whether Foster Wheeler Corp. will get a 
new contract as a result of negotiations with the U.S. Department 
of Energy, but the company has promised not to halt the 
processing of nuclear waste at its Oak Ridge plant. 

"I can say we do not plan to have a work stoppage on June 1," 
Steve Fried, Foster Wheeler's president and chief operating 
officer, said this week. 

Other than that, Fried declined comment on the 18-month-old 
discussions with DOE. 

Foster Wheeler wants to convert its original DOE contract, which 
placed most of the financial burden on the company until certain 
production milestones were met, to a friendlier cost-plus-fee 
arrangement. 

The company last month told Oak Ridge employees at least some of 
the waste work would be suspended June 1 because of the contract 
dispute, and Fried essentially confirmed that a few weeks ago. 

"What we have told DOE is we believe that we are contractually 
entitled to operate the facility in the most efficient manner 
possible," Fried said. To do that would mean postponing some of 
the waste work until later, he said. 

Now, however, Foster Wheeler has backed off that position, and 
the situation could be improving. 

DOE's John Shewairy said: "We're working very hard to reach 
mutual agreement on contract issues. (Foster Wheeler) has a 
proposal on the table which is under review by DOE." 

He also said federal officials this week are negotiating a Foster 
Wheeler claim - called a request for equitable adjustment - as 
part of the ongoing talks with the company. 

Stay tuned. 


Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale and his counterparts in the 
region sent a letter this week to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel 
Bodman asking for more money for environmental cleanup activities 
in Oak Ridge. 

Boiled down, they're supporting a plan that would boost funding
- by an estimated $1.5 billion over a five-year period - to
clean up and/or demolish old nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex. 

Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge manager, has promoted the idea, as
have the contractors at ORNL and Y-12, but so far the money
hasn't made its way into the federal budget. 

In addition to Ragsdale, Rex Lynch of Anderson County, Robert
Ramsey of Blount County, George Miller of Loudon County and Ken
Yager of Roane County signed the letter to Bodman. 

"Cleanup of ORNL and Y-12 will remove legacy contamination and
greatly lessen risks to the environment and worker safety," the
letter said. 

The county mayors said there is a shortfall in cleanup funding
at Y-12 and ORNL, two of the Oak Ridge facilities with long-term
missions that are undergoing modernization. They also said DOE
plans to spend money for K-25 and other facilities and other
areas but suggested funding for Y-12 and ORNL was "essentially
not existent." 

That's a bit misleading because ORNL's Melton Valley - where
most of the lab's radioactive waste was buried in years past -
is one of the major areas currently receiving attention. 


+ 

When in doubt, be vague. That's the mantra of PR folks in Oak
Ridge. 

They hate nothing more than getting caught giving a date for
something to happen and having to explain why it didn't. Of
course, dates change, and that's almost always the case when it
comes to government contracting. 

DOE and its federal sibling, the National Nuclear Security
Administration, had planned to announce new security contracts
for Oak Ridge facilities back in February. After February
passed, a spokesman said the awards had been delayed until
mid-May. 

"We are taking extra time to hold discussions with the companies
whose offers were highly rated," said Steven Wyatt of the NNSA. 

Now that mid-May has come and gone, Wyatt's new response was
less specific. "We are continuing the evaluation process and
hope to announce an award early this summer," he said last week. 

Wackenhut, the incumbent contractor in Oak Ridge, recently had
its security services contract renewed at the Nevada Test Site. 

Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at .
This column is also available in the opinion section of
knoxnews.com.

      © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 67 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab drainage sites a threat, groups say

By Casey Phillips

Special to The Tribune

May 24, 2006

Operators of Los Alamos National Laboratory have 60 days to get
federal certification for 1,405 drainage sites or face a
potential lawsuit, environmental watchdog groups say. 

Under the umbrella LANL Water Watch, the groups announced plans
to sue at a news conference Tuesday on the banks of the Rio
Grande in Albuquerque. 

They say the lab violates the Clean Water Act because it has
ineffective pollution control at industrial storm water drainage
sites that feed into the Rio Grande. 

The Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico
Environment Department consider the 1,405 sites to be "areas of
concern," the groups say. 

"We're concerned that this is the tip of the iceberg," said
Brian Shields, executive director of Amigos Bravos, one group
involved with LANL Water Watch. "We're concerned about the
future of our drinking water." 

Shield said solid, hazardous and radioactive waste in water
sources near the lab could drain into the Rio Grande. 

"The contaminants are not in amounts that are alarming at this
point, but they are indicative that some real problems are
brewing," Shields said. 

Officials with the lab could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
  
2006 © The Albuquerque Tribune | | 
*****************************************************************
 68 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Feds want Hanford ban overturned

[seattlepi.com]     

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 

 U.S. can't add nuclear waste to site until existing material is
gone 

By SHANNON DININNY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

YAKIMA -- A voter-approved initiative that bars the U.S.
Department of Energy from shipping waste to the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation violates the federal government's authority over
radioactive waste and should be overturned, attorneys for the
federal government argued Tuesday. 

Initiative 297, now known as the Cleanup Priority Act, bars the
federal government from shipping waste to the south-central
Washington site until all existing waste there is cleaned up.
Washington state voters overwhelmingly approved the measure in
November 2004, but the federal government immediately filed suit
seeking to overturn it. 

The measure is an "unprecedented intrusion" into areas of
federal oversight, violating the federal government's authority
over nuclear waste and interstate commerce, said Ken Amaditz, an
attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is
representing the Energy Department. 

For that reason, the initiative should be overturned in its
entirety, Amaditz told U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald in
Yakima. 

The federal government can't just whisper the word "conflict"
and strike down an entire law without waiting to see how it is
applied, countered Assistant Attorney General Andy Fitz,
representing the state. The state is defending the initiative. 

Washington state already has authority to regulate hazardous
waste. State officials believe that authority extends to mixed
waste that includes radioactive materials, Fitz said. 

"Simply having radionuclides in the mix doesn't give the federal
government a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card," Fitz said. 

Assistant Attorney General Laura Watson said Washington state is
not seeking to gain economically or to reserve landfill space
for its own waste. Instead, the state wants to temporarily ban
both out-of-state and in-state waste from Hanford until the
existing trash is cleaned up. 

"The fact that everyone here agrees it will be a very long time
before waste is allowed in under the Cleanup Priority Act only
speaks to the severity of the problem at Hanford," she said. 

[advertising] Hanford was created in the 1940s as part of the
top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, then
continued to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons
arsenal for 40 years. Today, it is the nation's most
contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total
up to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035. 

At issue are the federal government's plans for disposing of
waste from nuclear weapons production nationwide. The Energy
Department chose Hanford to dispose of some mildly radioactive
waste and mixed low-level waste, which is both radioactive and
hazardous. 

Hanford also would serve as a packaging center for some
transuranic waste before it is shipped elsewhere for permanent
disposal. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive and can take
thousands of years to decay to safe levels. 

The other site chosen to accept the waste, the Nevada Test Site,
has a limited capacity and is scheduled to close in five years,
said David Kaplan, a Justice Department attorney. The state
can't simply resolve it's concerns by "immunizing itself from a
national problem," Kaplan said. 

But the federal government has mismanaged Hanford cleanup for
years, Fitz said. If Hanford was a private facility with similar
problems, "I can easily see the state taking the same action,"
he said. 

McDonald repeatedly questioned attorneys about accommodations
for citizens who might be less than pleased with progress at
Hanford, citing a "crawl-like pace," miscues and
misappropriations over two decades. But he also questioned state
attorneys about the need for the measure if the state already
believes it has authority over Hanford waste. 

In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that parts of the
initiative, sponsored by Hanford watchdog group Heart of America
Northwest, may stand even if McDonald finds that other parts of
it are unconstitutional. 

McDonald said he expected to issue a ruling within three weeks. 

The initiative has not been enforced pending resolution of the
case. 

Waste shipments to the site already had been halted under
another lawsuit.                 

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 69 DOE: United States and International Partners Initial ITER Agreement
 
  May 24, 2006
 
Paves the Way for Large-Scale, Clean Fusion Energy Project 

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM  Representing the United States, Dr. Raymond
L. Orbach, Director of the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE)
Office of Science, joined counterparts from China, the European
Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian
Federation today to initial an agreement to construct ITER, an
international fusion energy project.  Fusion energy is an
important component of President Bushs Advanced Energy
Initiative (AEI), given fusions potential to become an
attractive long-range option for the U.S. clean energy
portfolio.  In FY 2006, DOE allocated $25 million to ITER and
the President, as part of the AEI, has requested $60 million for
the project in FY 2007. 

As partners in ITER, we are pursuing the promise of unlimited,
clean, safe, renewable, and commercially available energy from
nuclear fusion, which has the potential to significantly
strengthen energy security, at home and abroad, Secretary of
Energy Samuel W. Bodman said.  

President Bush announced on January 30, 2003, that the U.S. was
joining the negotiations for the construction and operation of
this major international research project, whose mission is to
demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of
clean fusion energy.  The U.S. was one of the original
participants in the early design and R&D for ITER, and U.S.
participation in the ITER construction and operation phases
capitalizes on the previous investment. 

President Bushs initiative in joining ITER allows the United
States to share the combined experience and knowledge that will
result from the design, construction and operation of this vital
project at a greatly reduced cost to the individual partners. 
As the host, Europe will contribute 45.4 percent of the
construction cost, with the six other partners, including the
U.S., each providing 9.1 percent.  DOE laboratories will
subcontract with industry to build the components of ITER for
which the U.S. is responsible.  The U.S. total contribution to
the construction of ITER will be $1.1 billion. 

Initialing this agreement brings us one step closer to a viable
source of fusion power, with the potential to free the quickly
growing global economy and population from the looming
constraints of conventional energy supplies and their associated
environmental effects, Dr. Orbach said.  It is for reasons of
international peace, prosperity, and environmental security that
President Bush led the United States to participate in the ITER
project.  This is the first stand alone, truly international,
large-scale scientific research effort in the history of the
world.  It is quite striking that the seven parties to the
agreement represent more than half of the world's population. 

By initialing the ITER agreement, U.S. representatives and
international partners agree to formally conclude negotiations
and submit the agreement to their governments for final
approval.  

DOE will transmit to Congress the final initialed text of the
Joint Implementation Agreement to begin the 120-day review
required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  DOE provided a
number of briefings to Committees of jurisdiction in both the
House and the Senate during the negotiations process to
facilitate the 120-day review.  The Parties expect to sign the
formal Agreement this fall.  

Fusion energy, created when light atomic nuclei are fused
together at temperatures greater than those of the interior of
stars and far above the melting point of any solid container,
could provide significant amounts of electricity and also
generate hydrogen needed to power fuel cell vehicles of the
future.  Fusion power has the following advantages: 
  + Fusion is clean: It produces negligible atmospheric
emissions and zero greenhouse gas emissions. 
  + Fusion is safe: Reactors cannot melt down, and do not
generate the high-level, long-lasting radioactive waste
associated with nuclear power. 
  + Fusion is renewable: Commercial fusion reactors would use
lithium and deuterium, both readily available natural resources. 

President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative represents a 22
percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of
Energy (DOE) that will accelerate breakthroughs in the way we
power our cars, homes and businesses.  For FY 07, the AEI
requests more than $2.1 billion for research into cutting edge
technologies.  If we are successful in implementing the Advanced
Energy Initiative, we will reduce our oil consumption by 5
million barrels a day by 2025 and produce clean electricity for
millions of homes. 

DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure
U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific
disciplines.  The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio
of research at more than 300 colleges and universities
nationwide; manages 10 world-class national laboratories with
unmatched capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary
scientific problems; and builds and operates the worlds finest
suite of scientific facilities and instruments used annually by
more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all
areas of science. 

For more information about ITER, please visit
http://iter.energy.gov.
 
Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
*****************************************************************
 70 Hanford News: DOE audit finds area where Hanford can cut $14 million
 
This story was published Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The information technology costs for Hanford contractors could
be reduced by $14 million, according to an audit by the
Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. 

The audit looked at information technology services at DOE sites
across the nation from August 2004 to February 2006, including
comparing costs at Hanford to benchmarks set by an earlier DOE
study. 

It also compared information technology costs for 16 DOE field
offices and contractors across the nation, and found Fluor
Hanford had the highest costs. The study said Fluor Hanford
spent $7,539 per year on information technology support per
employee using its computer and other information systems. 

Costs at Hanford for different contractors and DOE offices
varied from $5,100 per user to more than $7,500, the audit
found. 

The lowest annual cost was at the Idaho National Laboratory,
which spent $3,660 annually per user. 

Many contractors do not actively track information technology
support services costs, although auditors believe that through
intensive data gathering they have tracked down enough
information to compare costs, according to the report. 

While calling Hanford costs too high, the report also praised a
program to pool information technology support there. Fluor
Hanford provides support services through Lockheed Martin
Information Technology to CH2M Hill Hanford Group, AdvanceMed
Hanford, DOE's Richland Operations Office and the Office of
River Protection. 

"This consolidated contract resulted in demonstrated savings in
excess of $23 million over the first three years of the
five-year contract," the audit said. 

Fluor Hanford has been able to reduce costs in the pool by
switching to a performance-based system in 2001 that assesses
internal charges for each call for information technology
service, said Fluor spokesman Geoff Tyree. 

The goal of saving $31 million by September 2006 was reached
last summer, 18 months early, he said. 

In addition, Fluor Hanford hired an information technology
consulting firm to benchmark its services, Tyree said. It found
costs were 20 percent below the commercial average, he said. 

"We believe we have good oversight and knowledge of our
information technology costs and believe our costs are
competitive," he said. 

The audit recommended that guidance be provided to DOE field
offices to ensure that contractor information technology support
services costs are adequately monitored and controlled. 

Field offices should also consider consolidating support service
contracts and review contracts for performance incentives, the
audit said. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 71 Tri-City Herald: Justice wants Hanford initiative tossed 

Published Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

YAKIMA -- The U.S. Department of Justice asked Tuesday that the
Hanford waste initiative passed by voters be declared
unconstitutional and overturned. 

U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald listened to arguments based on
written briefs filed over the last seven months, then said he
would rule on the motion for summary judgment in two to three
weeks. 

In 2004, voters in every county of the state but Benton and
Franklin approved the initiative intended to stop the Department
of Energy from bringing more waste to the Hanford nuclear
reservation until waste already there is cleaned up. 

But before it could become law as the Cleanup Priority Act, the
Department of Justice filed suit. 

"The CPA is an unprecedented intrusion into federal matters and
thus should be set aside," argued Kenneth Amaditz for the
Department of Justice. 

Congress has given the federal government the authority to
manage nuclear materials because they are critical to national
defense and security. But the state has been given authority by
Congress to manage certain hazardous chemical waste. 

The initiative targets only waste with a radioactive component,
which violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,
the federal government argued. The clause prohibits states from
regulating federal activities unless Congress has given its
clear consent. 

The initiative also discriminates against the federal government
by singling out Hanford from other hazardous waste sites in the
state, Amaditz said. 

Hanford is essential to federal plans to dispose of low-level
radioactive waste from across the country, said David Kaplan,
attorney for the Department of Justice. The Nevada Test Site is
the only other place designated for the disposal of mixed
radioactive and hazardous waste from across the nation, he said.
But it has limited space and will close in five years. 

By barring waste from being sent to Hanford, the state is
isolating itself from federal problems in violation of the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution, said Colin Deihl, arguing
for Fluor Hanford. 

Washington is not barring waste from being imported to the
state, only to Hanford as long as the nuclear reservation is not
complying with state and federal environmental laws, said Laura
Watson, arguing for the state. DOE could build a compliant
facility in Washington if it chose, she said. 

Hanford has not been singled out because it is a federal
facility, but because it's the only place in the state with such
massive contamination, said Andy Fitz, arguing for the state. 

DOE and Hanford are registered in the Environmental Protection
Agency's database as a "significant noncomplier," a designation
reserved for "exceptionally poor performance and/or recalcitrant
or repeat violators," the state said in court documents. 

Nearly all waste at Hanford, which produced plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program, is a mixture of radioactive
and hazardous chemical waste, Fitz said. Congress clearly has
intended for states to regulate that mixed waste, he said. 

"Simply having radionuclides in the mix doesn't give the federal
government a get-out-of-jail-free card," he said. 

The initiative does not expand the state's authority over
Hanford waste, but requires it to regulate the waste to the
fullest extent of its authority, the state argued. 

"The voters clearly said they were tired of having exceptions
carved out of generally applicable standards," said Gerald
Pollet, arguing in support of the initiative for Heart of
America Northwest. 

If the initiative is found to overstep the state's authority,
then it's just a short step further to question the state's
present authority to regulate Hanford waste, Fitz said. 

The question is whether the state or federal government gets to
make decisions, the judge said. 

There has been poor performance at the site, he said. 

"But you have to admit (the federal government) has spent a gold
mine of money the state did not have to spend and in many cases
made real progress," he said. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 72 Hanford News: Feds argue judge should overturn Hanford initiative
 
This story was published Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 

By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer 

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - A voter-approved initiative that bars the
U.S. Department of Energy from shipping waste to the Hanford
nuclear reservation violates the federal government's authority
over radioactive waste and should be overturned, attorneys for
the federal government argued Tuesday. 

Initiative 297, now known as the Cleanup Priority Act, bars the
federal government from shipping waste to the south-central
Washington site until all existing waste there is cleaned up.
Washington state voters overwhelmingly approved the measure in
November 2004, but the federal government immediately filed suit
seeking to overturn it. 

The measure is an "unprecedented intrusion" into areas of
federal oversight, violating the federal government's authority
over nuclear waste and interstate commerce, said Ken Amaditz, an
attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is
representing the Energy Department. 

For that reason, the initiative should be overturned in its
entirety, Amaditz told U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald in
Yakima. 

The federal government can't just whisper the word "conflict"
and strike down an entire law without waiting to see how it is
applied, countered Assistant Attorney General Andy Fitz,
representing the state. The state is defending the initiative. 

Washington state already has authority to regulate hazardous
waste. State officials believe that authority extends to mixed
waste that includes radioactive materials, Fitz said. 

"Simply having radionuclides in the mix doesn't give the federal
government a get-out-of-jail free card," Fitz said. 

Assistant Attorney General Laura Watson also said Washington
state is not seeking to gain economically or to reserve landfill
space for its own waste. Instead, the state wants to temporarily
ban both out-of-state and in-state waste from Hanford until the
existing trash is cleaned up. 

"The fact that everyone here agrees it will be a very long time
before waste is allowed in under the Cleanup Priority Act only
speaks to the severity of the problem at Hanford," she said. 

Hanford was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret
Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, then continued to
produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal for
40 years. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear
site. Cleanup costs are expected to total up to $60 billion,
with the work to be finished by 2035. 

At issue are the federal government's plans for disposing of
waste from nuclear weapons production nationwide. The Energy
Department chose Hanford to dispose of some mildly radioactive
waste and mixed low-level waste, which is both radioactive and
hazardous. 

Hanford also would serve as a packaging center for some
transuranic waste before it is shipped elsewhere for permanent
disposal. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive and can take
thousands of years to decay to safe levels. 

The other site chosen to accept the waste, the Nevada Test Site,
has a limited capacity and is scheduled to close in five years,
said David Kaplan, a Justice Department attorney. The state
can't simply resolve it's concerns by "immunizing itself from a
national problem," Kaplan said. 

But the federal government has mismanaged Hanford cleanup for
years, Fitz said. If Hanford was a private facility with similar
problems, "I can easily see the state taking the same action,"
he said. 

McDonald repeatedly questioned attorneys about accommodations
for citizens who might be less than pleased with progress at
Hanford, citing a "crawl-like pace," miscues and
misappropriations over two decades. But he also questioned state
attorneys about the need for the measure if the state already
believes it has authority over Hanford waste. 

Last July, the state Supreme Court ruled that parts of the
initiative, sponsored by Hanford watchdog group Heart of America
Northwest, may stand even if McDonald finds that other parts of
it are unconstitutional. 

McDonald said he expected to issue a ruling within three weeks. 

The initiative has not been enforced pending resolution of the
case. Waste shipments to the site had already been halted under
another lawsuit.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 73 Hanford News: Audit suggests DOE has too many vehicles in fleet; 119 vehicles
didn't meet usage standards at Hanford for 2005
 
This story was published Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The Department of Energy could save millions annually by getting
rid of contractor and government cars and trucks that are
underused, according to an audit by DOE's Office of Inspector
General. 

Hanford contractors had 119 vehicles that did not meet usage
standards in 2005 and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory had
13, the audit said. That included leased and owned vehicles. 

It found the percentage of underused vehicles at Hanford,
including the national laboratory, averaged 23 percent for 2004
and 2005, compared with 28 percent for all sites included in the
audit. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had an average of 62
percent of vehicles that are underused, and the Oak Ridge
Reservation in Tennessee had an average of 34 percent. 

DOE has a national standard that requires cars to be driven
12,000 miles per year and sport utility vehicles to be driven
7,500 miles. It sets different standards for different types of
trucks, such as fire trucks. 

However, sites also set local use standards based on individual
circumstances. At Hanford, that includes a formula that's based
on mileage and number of trips. In some areas of Hanford,
workers are required to use four-wheel drive vehicles. 

Percentage comparisons among sites were based on the local use
standards, all of which were significantly lower than the DOE
national standard, the audit said. 

"At the sites tested, if the contractors disposed of only those
vehicles whose utilization rates were less than 50 percent of
the local use standard, savings of $2.9 million per year are
possible," the audit report said. "Projected to the entire
Department of Energy fleet, using the same assumptions, savings
of as much as $9.1 million per year are possible." 

The audit found 69 vehicles were virtually unused, traveling
fewer than 1,000 miles each, in 2004 at sites that were included
in the survey. 

The audit broke out data at Hanford by contractors and reported
the average percentage of underused vehicles of those checked
for 2004 and 2005. It found 21 percent underused among Fluor
Hanford's 178 vehicles; 21 percent among Bechtel Hanford's 68
vehicles; 30 percent among CH2M HIll Hanford Group's 88
vehicles, and 35 percent among Bechtel National's 72 vehicles.
At PNNL, 15 percent of 81 vehicles were underused, the audit
said. 

Fleet managers at some of those contractors said they reviewed
vehicle use each quarter and notified drivers if vehicles were
underused, the audit said. However, that did not seem to improve
use rates, the audit found. 

Hanford contractors will be required to submit documentation
saying why they should keep underused vehicles, and Hanford's
local usage standards will be reviewed, Inés Triay, chief
operating officer for DOE's Office of Environmental Management,
told the Office of Inspector General. Hanford also will rotate
vehicles between high- and low-mileage assignments, she said. 

The audit report is posted at www.ig.doe.gov.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 74 Hanford News: Justice wants Hanford initiative tossed
 
This story was published Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

YAKIMA - The U.S. Department of Justice asked Tuesday that the
Hanford waste initiative passed by voters be declared
unconstitutional and overturned. 

U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald listened to arguments based on
written briefs filed over the last seven months, then said he
would rule on the motion for summary judgment in two to three
weeks. 

In 2004, voters in every county of the state but Benton and
Franklin approved the initiative intended to stop the Department
of Energy from bringing more waste to the Hanford nuclear
reservation until waste already there is cleaned up. 

But before it could become law as the Cleanup Priority Act, the
Department of Justice filed suit. 

"The CPA is an unprecedented intrusion into federal matters and
thus should be set aside," argued Kenneth Amaditz for the
Department of Justice. 

Congress has given the federal government the authority to
manage nuclear materials because they are critical to national
defense and security. But the state has been given authority by
Congress to manage certain hazardous chemical waste. 

The initiative targets only waste with a radioactive component,
which violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,
the federal government argued. The clause prohibits states from
regulating federal activities unless Congress has given its
clear consent. 

The initiative also discriminates against the federal government
by singling out Hanford from other hazardous waste sites in the
state, Amaditz said. 

Hanford is essential to federal plans to dispose of low-level
radioactive waste from across the country, said David Kaplan,
attorney for the Department of Justice. The Nevada Test Site is
the only other place designated for the disposal of mixed
radioactive and hazardous waste from across the nation, he said.
But it has limited space and will close in five years. 

By barring waste from being sent to Hanford, the state is
isolating itself from federal problems in violation of the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution, said Colin Deihl, arguing
for Fluor Hanford. 

Washington is not barring waste from being imported to the
state, only to Hanford as long as the nuclear reservation is not
complying with state and federal environmental laws, said Laura
Watson, arguing for the state. DOE could build a compliant
facility in Washington if it chose, she said. 

Hanford has not been singled out because it is a federal
facility, but because it's the only place in the state with such
massive contamination, said Andy Fitz, arguing for the state. 

DOE and Hanford are registered in the Environmental Protection
Agency's database as a "significant noncomplier," a designation
reserved for "exceptionally poor performance and/or recalcitrant
or repeat violators," the state said in court documents. 

Nearly all waste at Hanford, which produced plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program, is a mixture of radioactive
and hazardous chemical waste, Fitz said. Congress clearly has
intended for states to regulate that mixed waste, he said. 

"Simply having radionuclides in the mix doesn't give the federal
government a get-out-of-jail-free card," he said. 

The initiative does not expand the state's authority over
Hanford waste, but requires it to regulate the waste to the
fullest extent of its authority, the state argued. 

"The voters clearly said they were tired of having exceptions
carved out of generally applicable standards," said Gerald
Pollet, arguing in support of the initiative for Heart of
America Northwest. 

If the initiative is found to overstep the state's authority,
then it's just a short step further to question the state's
present authority to regulate Hanford waste, Fitz said. 

The question is whether the state or federal government gets to
make decisions, the judge said. 

There has been poor performance at the site, he said. 

"But you have to admit (the federal government) has spent a gold
mine of money the state did not have to spend and in many cases
made real progress," he said. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 75 PRWeb: CH2M HILL Tests hydroGEOPHYSICS Leak Detection Technology at Hanford
 
May 24, 2006   

CH2M HILL is testing a new type of leak detection technology at
two of Hanfords underground storage tanks to support safe
retrieval of radioactive waste. Multiple leak detection
technologies have been tested under EPA guidlelines and
hydroGEOPHYSICS has emerged at the lead. The test began in
January with results due in September. So far hydroGEOPHYSICS'
technology is working well. 

Tucson, AZ (PRWEB)May 24, 2006 -- A new type of leak detection
technology is being tested near two of Hanfords underground
storage tanks to support safe retrieval of radioactive waste.
 
This new technology, developed by hydroGEOPHYSICS Inc., will be
more sensitive to detection of smaller leaks, enable detection
of leaks in locations where drywell measurements may not detect
them, and provide data on the rate at which the leak is
occurring. CH2M HILL has invested five years in evaluating
several leak detection technologies through an EPA protocol down
selection process. The High Resolution Resistivity method
developed by hydroGEOPHYSICS performed best through the
preliminary competitive testing and is now operating under a
test deployment in two tank farms in support of retrieval
efforts at the request of CH2M HILL.
 
This approach is a non-invasive, ex-tank technique allowing the
data acquisition system to be attached to existing
infrastructure in the tank farm and significantly reducing any
risk of damaging the waste management systems. Completed
resistivity data sets acquired many times per hour allow for
real-time leak detection.
 
Weve successfully tested this technology in clean soil around
a mock underground tank well away from the tank farms, but it is
important to test it in an actual tank farm environment to learn
if underground pipes and other buried structures could
potentially interfere with the instrumentation readings, said
Chris Burke, CH2M HILL Project Manager in the S-Farm Closure
Operations Project.
 
The four-month-long test began in January, with final results
and report expected by the end of September 2006. The test calls
for the injection of up to 30,000 gallons of a non-radioactive,
low-hazard compound at varying times and rates to measure the
systems performance.
 
Its working very well, said Rick Raymond, CH2M HILL Senior
Director for the S-Tank Farm closure. The first injection in the
test, using the liquid, detected moisture within one day. 

Estimates vary, but 67 of Hanfords older single-shell tanks are
suspected to have leaked radioactive and chemical contents into
the surrounding soil. Even though the drainable liquid has been
removed from all of the 149 single-shell tanks, liquids are used
in the retrieval process to break up, dissolve and mobilize the
remaining sludge and salts.
 
About hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc. (HGI)
 
Founded in 1986, HGI is a geophysical consulting and services
firm providing innovative solutions for environmental, landfill,
mining, tank farm operators and architectural & engineering
firms. HGIs High Resolution Resistivity  Leak Detection &
Monitoring system is a leading data acquisition product
providing comprehensive and near real time identification and
quantification of containment breaches. Over 20 years of
continuous development allows HRR to accurately and
non-invasively represent contaminant plumes in native soil. To
compliment the results provided by HRR, HGI offers surveys
conducted with other geophysical methods including
electro-magnetics, magnetics, gravity and ground penetrating
radar.
 
### 

  Philip Williams   
  hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc.   
  
  520-647-3315   

© Copyright 1997-2005, PRWeb™. All Rights Reserved
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************