*****************************************************************
06/01/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.130
*****************************************************************
   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 Welcomes Report Urging Broad Steps To Prevent Terrorists From 
2 SPIEGEL Interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3 After Us Offer Of Talks, UN Atomic Watchdog Urges Iran To Suspend Nu
4 Deal with Iran?
5 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett in top level talks on Iran
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says It's Prepared to Talk With Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Welcomes Dialogue, Rejects Condition
8 Guardian Unlimited: US reverses 27-year Iran policy and offers talks
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran prepared to hold talks with US
10 BBC: Powers agree Iran nuclear package
11 Reutes: Blix panel prods Israel, Iran to shun nuclear arms
12 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Going face to face
13 AFP: Iran rejects US conditions for nuclear talks 
14 AFP: Major powers agree on far-reaching proposals on Iran - 
15 AFP: Pakistan welcomes US policy shift on Iran
16 Guardian: Comment is free: Spinning on the 'axis of evil'
17 AFP: World powers meet on Iranian nuclear program 
18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Nuclear Envoy Invited to North Korea
19 AFP: North Korea invites US envoy, issues "strongest" threat 
20 AFP: US rejects North Korean overture 
21 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Whistle isn't all that blows 
22 US: reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Silencing whistle-blowers
23 US: TomPaine.com: Gagging Public Employees
24 US: csmonitor.com: Bush energy plan whacks conservation | 
25 IPS: PAKISTAN: Villagers Pay the Price of Nuclear Ambitions
26 The Telegraph: Uranium debate scrapped   
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
27 US: PG&E WANTS MORE OF YOUR MONEY - AGAIN!!
28 US: Forbes: The Joys Of Going Nuclear?
29 US: Grist: Public not sold on nuclear power 
30 Sydney Morning Herald: Company puts out lights and gives switches th
31 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear remains too expensive to curb emissio
32 EUobserver: Norway keen to tame Russian energy tiger
33 US: Platts: NRC okays license transfers to Exelon for three PSEG 
34 US: POAC: NRC OKs transfer of nuclear plant licenses
35 US: NRC: NRC Staff Approves Transfer of Operating Licenses for Salem
36 UPI: Slovenia mulls more nuclear energy
37 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee back at full power
38 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear power no panacea
39 US: Times Argus: States file challenge over Yankee's relicensing pla
40 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY relicensing faces challenge
41 US: NRC: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Environmental Assessment and
42 US: NRC: Notice of License Termination and Release of Building 7304 
43 US: Boston Globe: Vt., Mass., activists raise questions about Yankee
44 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting June 15 on Proposal to Establish
45 US: Boston Globe: Reilly calls for NRC hearing on Pilgrim - 
46 US: Vermont Guardian: NRC vetoes lone commissioner’s safety concerns
47 US: Cape Cod Times: Radiation monitors missing at Pilgrim 
48 The Australian: PM denies nuclear point scoring | | 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
49 US: AZ Daily Star: Arizona researcher: Depleted uranium can still ma
50 US: AP Wire: Bush admin. to continue nuke worker plan
51 US: Nevada Observer: Big Bomb Blast Put On Hold To Relief Of Downwin
52 US: OpEd News: Uproar Downwind
53 US: TownOnline.com: Forum on depleted uranium tonight at college
54 US: Arizona Republic: NAU research finds new risks from uranium 
55 US: Deseret News: Tests won't hurt Utah, Army says
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
56 reviewjournal.com: LETTERS: Taxpayers not funding Yucca Mountain Joh
57 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Draft Standard Review Plan for 
58 US: PRN: Louisiana Energy Services: LES Disposal Plan Validated 
59 Nevada Observer: Yucca Turmoil Seems To Not End -- Congressional Hea
60 Whitehaven News: Council responds to dump plans
61 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca said 'bogged down' 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
62 SF New Mexican: LANL Company pledges to lead lab to next level 
63 SF NewMexican: Lab puts final touches on official takeover  
64 SPI: Nike missile-type pollution found in Hutterite wells near Spoka
65 Hanford News: Murray: Cleanup money to be a challenge
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Annan Welcomes Report Urging Broad Steps To Prevent Terrorists From Getting Wmds
 
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:00:26 -0400

X-Fingerprint: news11-admin@lists.un.org-127.127
 

ANNAN WELCOMES REPORT URGING BROAD STEPS TO PREVENT TERRORISTS FROM 
GETTING WMDS
New York, Jun  1 2006  5:00PM
Secretary-General Kofi Annan today <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2064">welcomed 
a new report calling for broad steps 
to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) from falling into 
terrorist hands – ranging from outlawing them completely to convening 
a world summit on the issue – after receiving it from chief 
author Hans Blix, a former chief United Nations arms inspector for 
Iraq. 

On receipt of the 231-page document produced by the Independent Weapons 
of Mass Destruction Commission, which Mr. Blix chaired, a 
spokesman for Mr. Annan called it “an important contribution to the 
debate on disarmament and non-proliferation” and urged the international 
community “to study the report and consider its recommendations.”

Arguing that nuclear, biological and chemical arms are “the most 
inhumane of all weapons” capable of vast, indiscriminate and long-lasting 
destruction, the report points out that so long as any country 
has these weapons others will want them. “So long as any such 
weapons remain in any State’s arsenal, there is a high risk that 
they will one day be used, by design or accident,” the authors 
note, warning that “Any such use would be catastrophic.”

Stocks remain “extraordinarily and alarmingly high,” including 27,000 
nuclear weapons, of which around 12,000 are still actively deployed.

While acknowledging that weapons of mass destruction “cannot be uninvented,” 
the report stresses that they can be outlawed, as biological 
and chemical weapons already have been, and their use made 
unthinkable. “Compliance, verification and enforcement rules can, 
with the requisite will, be effectively applied. And with that 
will, even the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond 
the world’s reach.”

In the face of a mounting loss of momentum in disarmament and non-proliferation 
efforts – as evidenced by the failure of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty (NPT) Review
Conference and the inability of the 2005 World Summit to agree on 
any WMD issue, the authors put forward a number of specific recommendations 
for action. 

The report calls for disarmament and non-proliferation to be pursued 
through a “cooperative rule-based international order, applied 
and enforced through effective multilateral institutions, with 
the UN Security Council as the ultimate global authority.”

There is an urgent need to revive “meaningful” negotiations on reducing 
the danger of present arsenals, preventing proliferation, 
and outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all, the 
report argues. 

The report calls for convening a world summit on disarmament, non-proliferation 
and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction “to 
generate new momentum for concerted international action.”

In order to reduce the danger of present arsenals, the report calls 
for securing all weapons of mass destruction and all WMD-related 
material and equipment from theft or other acquisition by terrorists. 
Nuclear weapons must be taken off high-alert status to cut 
the risk of launching them by error, while there should be “deep 
reductions” in strategic nuclear weapons. All non-strategic nuclear 
weapons should be placed in centralized storage and withdrawn 
from foreign soil.

Other recommendations call for a ban on the production of fissile 
material for nuclear weapons, a phase out of the production of highly 
enriched uranium, the adoption of ‘no-first-use’ pledges, assurances 
not to use atomic arms against non-nuclear-weapon States, 
and no development of nuclear weapons for new tasks.

The report further calls for bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban 
Treaty into force and reviving the fundamental commitments 
of all NPT parties, namely that the five (declared) nuclear-weapon 
States must negotiate towards nuclear disarmament and the non-nuclear-weapon 
States must refrain from developing nuclear weapons. 


Ultimately, the report points to the need to outlaw all weapons of 
mass destruction “once and for all.”

In his preface to the report, Mr. Blix sounds a note of cautious 
optimism. “At the present time it seems to me that not only successes 
in the vital work to prevent proliferation and terrorism but 
also progress in two additional areas could transform the current 
gloom into hope,” he writes, calling for bringing the Comprehensive 
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force and negotiating a 
global treaty to stop the production of fissile material for weapons.

“In both these areas the United States has the decisive leverage,” 
he says. “If it takes the lead the world is likely to follow. If 
it does not take the lead, there could be more nuclear tests and 
new nuclear arms races.” 

Mr. Blix echoed this point during a press conference held in New 
York today in conjunction with the report’s launch. “If there were 
to be ratification by governments of the CTBT including in the 
US where it was turned down by the Senate a number of years ago then 
this would change the atmosphere completely,” he said, adding 
that he didn’t see “any sign” of this happening at present.

“The US is opposed to a ratification but the reality is probably 
that if the US were to ratify then China would; if China did then 
India would; if India did Pakistan would; if Pakistan did then Iran 
would. So it would set in motion a good domino effect,” he said.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) is established 
on an initiative by the late Foreign Minister of Sweden, Anna Lindh, 
acting on a proposal by then United Nations Under-Secretary-General 
Jayantha Dhanapala. The Swedish Government invited Dr. Blix 
to set up and chair the Commission.
 2006-06-01 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 SPIEGEL Interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
 
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:16:46 -0500 (CDT)

SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 30, 2006, 12:01 AM
URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,418660,00.html

SPIEGEL Interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"We Are Determined"

In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discusses
the Holocaust, the future of the state of Israel, mistakes made by the United
States in Iraq and Tehran's nuclear conflict with the West.

AP
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "By siding with Iran, the Europeans
would serve their own and our interests."

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, you are a soccer fan and you like to play soccer. Will
you be sitting in the stadium in Nuremberg on June 11, when the Iranian
national team plays against Mexico in Germany?

Ahmadinejad: It depends. Naturally, I'll be watching the game in any case. I
don't know yet whether I'll be at home in front of the television set or
somewhere else. My decision depends upon a number of things.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Ahmadinejad: How much time I have, how the state of various relationships are
going, whether I feel like it and a number of other things.

SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you
might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not important. I didn't even understand how that came
about. It also had no meaning for me. I don't know what all the excitement is
about.

SPIEGEL: It concerned your remarks about the Holocaust. It was inevitable that
the Iranian president's denial of the systematic murder of the Jews by the
Germans would trigger outrage.

Ahmadinejad: I don't exactly understand the connection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news
that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised
after all?

Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active
around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn't surprised. We were addressing the
German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent
when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know
whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are
you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60
years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans --
unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are
posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take
place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question
is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not
in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe,
one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this
regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...

Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves
to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the
opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth
will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and
more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every
type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime
actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility
for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into
a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical
occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to
research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there
were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews,
there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest
doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that
the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of
the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the
present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in
history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another.
And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial
groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research
to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European
governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced
of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the
Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of
scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust
occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite
position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an
impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion
on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will
contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the
Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts
have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and
impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for
all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on
historical events and do not put them in prison.

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?

Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are
people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the
German-Canadian Ernst Z|ndel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman
Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests,
although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with
certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the
atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very
timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the
Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not
Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews
have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people
today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the
Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are
against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a
Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these
60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That's just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by
the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet,
we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the
systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next
subject.

Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today's
youth play in World War II?

SPIEGEL: None.

Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why
should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people
committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years
ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a
group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course
of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can't do anything about it. But there is a
sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our
fathers or grandfathers.

Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held
legally responsible?

SPIEGEL: Not legally but morally.

Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German
people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the
right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so
greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why
should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up
of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that
horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to
this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that
they have grappled critically with their past.

Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that.

Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German
people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are
right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic
as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How
much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage
by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody's hostage;
SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany's past and the Germans' crimes. We're
not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make
one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply
stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel,
where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the
Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in
Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the
war?

Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is
amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60
years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the
fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we
also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region
finally. But don't you share that responsibility?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust
won't bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we
have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are
honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That's not what we said, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we're talking about the Holocaust because we want to
talk about the possible nuclear armament of Iran -- which is why the West sees
you as a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a threat.
Of course you're free to make your own judgment.

SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How
long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of
Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start
spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can
that go on?

SPIEGEL: We're here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring
country, for example, told SPIEGEL: "They are very keen on building the bomb."
Is that true?

Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European
governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal
system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the
world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries,
including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)
in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to
produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right
of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the
disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now
look at what's happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with
IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the
inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their
cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its
reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is
one side of this matter.

SPIEGEL: IAEA doesn't quite share your view of this matter.

Ahmadinejad: But the other side is that there are a number of countries that
possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons
to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that they are
worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic energy.
We say that these powers are free to monitor us if they are worried. But what
these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the nuclear fuel cycle
because deviation from peaceful use might then be possible. What we say is
that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These
powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and
unsustainable.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, the key question is: How dangerous will this
world become if even more countries become nuclear powers -- if a country like
Iran, whose president makes threats, builds the bomb in a crisis-ridden
region?

Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nucleaar-weapons
arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased
organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don't need any
weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we
have never attacked another country.

SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow
the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous
regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology.
Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been
opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.

We stand by our statements because we're honest and act legally. We're no
fraudsters. We only want to claim our legitimate right. Incidentally, I never
threatened anyone - that, too, is part of the propaganda machine that you've
got running against me.

SPIEGEL: If this were so, shouldn't you be making an effort to ensure that no
one need fear your producing nuclear weapons that you might use against
Israel, thus possibly unleashing a world war? You're sitting on a tinderbox,
Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to say two things. No people in the region are afraid of
us. And no one should instill fear in these peoples. We believe that if the
United States and these two or three European countries did not interfere, the
peoples in this region would live peacefully together as they did in the
thousands of years before. In 1980, it was also the nations of Europe and the
United States that encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack us.

Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom
this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and
Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and
threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European
nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust
researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize
Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The
Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel
its right to existence.

Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas
in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for
the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want.
In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also
give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have the right to their own state, but in our view
the Israelis naturally have the same right.

Ahmadinejad: Where did the Israelis come from?

SPIEGEL: Well, if we tried to work out where people have come from, the
Europeans would have to return to east Africa where all humans originated.

Ahmadinejad: We're not talking about the Europeans; we're talking about the
Palestinians. The Palestinians were there, in Palestine. Now 5 million of them
have become refugees. Don't they have a right to live?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, doesn't there come a time when one should accept that
the world is the way it is and that we must accept the status quo? The war
against Iraq has put Iran in a favorable position. The United States has
suffered a de facto defeat in Iraq. Isn't it now time for Iran to become a
constructive power of peace in the Middle East? Which would mean giving up its
nuclear plans and inflammatory talk?

Ahmadinejad: I'm wondering why you're adopting and fanatically defending the
stance of the European politicians. You're a magazine, not a government.
Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that the winners of
World War II would remain the victorious powers for another 1,000 years and
that the German people would be humiliated for another 1,000 years. Do you
think that is the correct logic?

SPIEGEL: No, that's not the right logic, nor is it true. The Germans have
played a modest, but important role in post-war developments. They do not feel
as though they have been humiliated and dishonored since 1945. We are too
self-confident for that. But today we want to talk about Iran's current
mission.

Ahmadinejad: Then we would accept that Palestinians are killed every day, that
they die in terrorist attacks, and that houses are being destroyed. But let me
say something about Iraq. We have always favored peace and security in the
region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the
war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We
were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that
he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under
the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost
their lives under the rule of the occupying forces. Fortunately, the Germans
haven't been involved in this. We want security in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has
practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the
Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill
people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very
close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are
related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy
pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center
of civilization.

SPIEGEL: What are you trying to say?

Ahmadinejad: We have always said that we support the popularly elected
government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job. They
have sent us messages several times asking us for help and cooperation. They
have said that we should talk together about Iraq. We publicly accepted this
offer, although our people do not trust the Americans. But America has
responded negatively and insulted us. Even now we're contributing to security
in Iraq. We will hold talks only if the Americans change their behavior.

SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy provoking the Americans and the rest of the world now
and then?

Ahmadinejad: No, I'm not insulting anyone. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Bush
was polite.

SPIEGEL: We don't mean insult, but provoke.

Ahmadinejad: No, we feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the
American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war
makes no sense. Why is there war when there is reason as well?

SPIEGEL: Is your letter to the president also a gesture toward the Americans
that you wish to enter into direct negotiations?

Ahmadinejad: We clearly stated our position in this letter on how we view the
problems in the world. Some powers have befouled the political atmosphere in
the world because they consider lies and fraud to be legitimate. In our view
that is very bad. We believe that all people deserve respect. Relationships
have to be regulated on the basis of justice. When justice reigns, peace
reigns. Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not
criticize them.

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept.
11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented
without the coordination with secret and security services or without the
far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include
so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed
Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say
who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a
military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are
responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned
the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

SPIEGEL: In this letter you also write that Western liberalism has failed.
What makes you say that?

Ahmadinejad: You see, for example you have a thousand definitions of the
Palestian problem and you offer all sorts of different definitions of
democracy in its various forms. It does not make sense that a phenomenon
depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the
phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way.
We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to
reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance -
such as justice. Iran and the West agree on this.

SPIEGEL: What role can Europe play in the resolution of the nuclear conflict,
and what do you expect of Germany?

Ahmadinejad: We have always cultivated good relations with Europe, especially
with Germany. Our two peoples like each other. We're eager to deepen this
relationship.

Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake
was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed
and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a
special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support
Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to
be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the
nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't
want to see that happen.

SPIEGEL: What will happen now in the conflict between the West and Iran?

Ahmadinejad: We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a
result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some
European countries are opposed to us. I sent out a message on the nuclear
issue, asking why the Europeans were translating the Americans' words for us.
After all, they know that our actions are aimed toward peace. By siding with
Iran, the Europeans would serve their own and our interests. But they will
suffer only damage if they oppose us. For our people is strong and
determined.

The Europeans risk losing their position in the Middle East entirely, and they
are ruining their reputation in other parts of the world. The others will
think that the Europeans aren't capable of solving problems.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Stefan Aust, Gerhard Spvrl and Dieter Bednarz in
Tehran.

.. it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red
Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a
deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report
does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber.
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/18220.php
*****************************************************************
 3 After Us Offer Of Talks, UN Atomic Watchdog Urges Iran To Suspend Nuclear Activities
 
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:00:32 -0400

X-Fingerprint: news11-admin@lists.un.org-127.127
 

AFTER US OFFER OF TALKS, UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG URGES IRAN TO SUSPEND 
NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES
New York, Jun  1 2006 11:00AM
The United Nations atomic watchdog agency has again called on Iran 
to suspend uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, 
the condition set by the United States for joining in talks with 
the Islamic Republic aimed at ensuring that its nuclear programme 
is solely for peaceful purposes.

International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2006/prn200611.html">IAEA) 
Director-General Mohammed 
ElBaradei welcomed yesterday’s US announcement of its readiness 
to join the European Union-led talks “once Iran responds positively 
to the IAEA Board of Governor’s call for the suspension of 
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as a confidence-building 
measure.

“Dr. ElBaradei strongly encourages Iran to create the conditions 
necessary for the resumption of these talks, with US participation, 
with a view to achieving a comprehensive settlement that is acceptable 
to both the international community and Iran,” the Agency 
added in a statement.

Mr. ElBaradei, who has consistently called for talks to resolve diplomatically 
suspicions that Iran’s atomic programme is aimed at 
producing nuclear weapons, discussed the issue with US Secretary 
of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington last week. 

Earlier this year, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council, 
which can impose sanctions, after Mr. ElBaradei 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 Iranian 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.
 2006-06-01 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/
*****************************************************************
 4 Deal with Iran?
 
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:04:40 -0500 (CDT)

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________

	Thursday, June 1, 2006

	Deal with Iran?

SELIG HARRISON, asiaintern@ciponline.org,
http://www.ciponline.org/asia/articles/011806harrison.htm
    Available for a very limited number of interviews, Harrison is 
director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and 
author of five books on nonproliferation and Asian affairs. He said 
today: "What Iran's going to say is that they agreed to suspend their 
uranium enrichment before because the European Union had promised 
security as well as economic incentives, but the EU never delivered on 
the security guarantees because we [the U.S.] wouldn't go along with it."
    Added Harrison: "I'm struck by the fact that the U.S. government 
doesn't seem to understand the need for an equitable approach. Rice made 
the demand for a suspension of enrichment as a condition for 
negotiations because the administration doesn't want a gun pointed at 
its head -- and then she points a gun at their head by saying that 'all 
options are on the table.'"

SIMIN ROYANIAN, ciwhr@yahoo.com
    Royanian is co-founder of Women for Peace and Justice in Iran. She 
said today: "Addressing the Iranian need for security guarantees is 
crucial."

ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN, ervand_abrahamian@baruch.cuny.edu
    Author of the article "Iran: The Next Target?" and co-author of 
"Inventing the Axis of Evil" and author of "Iran Between Two 
Revolutions," Abrahamian said today: "Mostly, the administration is 
trying to improve its image because it was looking as though Iran was 
willing to negotiate and the U.S. was not. So this is targeted more at 
the Europeans than the Iranians. If the U.S. insists that Iran must stop 
all nuclear activity, including peaceful activity, then that's a 
non-starter for Iran and the U.S. government knows this. Iran did stop 
enrichment before and nothing was forthcoming from Washington; I can't 
imagine that Iran would stop enrichment at this point. Still, the bottom 
line is whether the U.S. is willing to let Iran have a limited research 
enrichment program."

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org

For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
     http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett in top level talks on Iran
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Thursday June 1, 2006 6:33 AM

Foreign secretary Margaret Beckett is to meet US secretary of
state Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers to discuss
measures to tackle Iran's nuclear programme. 

UN Security Council members, along with Germany, will meet in
Vienna to progress a package of incentives and threats to be
presented to Tehran. 

Western nations - especially the US - fear that Iran is
enriching uranium in a bid to create a nuclear weapon, not for
civil energy use as the Iranian regime claims. 

Britain, France and Germany have been pressing for measures
designed to end the deadlock. 

And on Wednesday Ms Rice announced the US would join direct
talks with Iran if it halted nuclear activities. 

But Russia and China - which both wield vetoes at the council -
have made clear they would not accept any implicit threat of the
use of force. 

On Wednesday night Ms Beckett said the US would "give added
weight" to the Vienna talks. 

"We are all striving to reach a diplomatic solution," she added. 

"The European side's goal is to present a serious and
substantial offer of co-operation, which demonstrates to Iran
the benefits that would flow from compliance with the IAEA's
successive resolutions, rather than the further isolation which
would result from their failure to do so. 

"I urge Iran to respond positively to this opportunity." 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says It's Prepared to Talk With Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 1, 2006 11:16 AM

AP Photo DCHG104 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States and international
partners are close to a deal that would offer Iran economic
incentives if it gives up nuclear activities that could produce
a bomb, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says. 

Rice was meeting Thursday with foreign ministers from the
European nations that led stalled talks with Iran last year and
would help present any new deal. The United States said
Wednesday it is now willing to join those talks if Iran suspends
suspect activities and returns to the table. 

``We are agreed with our European partners on the essential
elements of a package containing both benefits, if Iran makes
the right choice, and costs, if it does not,'' Rice said
Wednesday before leaving Washington for Vienna. 

Iran's foreign minister welcomed the idea of direct talks, but
rebuffed the U.S. condition that Tehran first must suspend
uranium enrichment. 

``Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but (we) won't
give up our (nuclear) rights,'' the state-run Iranian television
quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying Thursday. 

The shift in U.S. tactics was meant to offer the Iranians a last
chance to avoid punishing sanctions. ``We hope that in the
coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this
proposal,'' Rice said. 

Mottaki's statement issued at about the same time Rice was
arriving in Austia was the country's first direct reaction to
the U.S. offer. 

``We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear
rights but we are prepared, within a defined, just framework and
without any discrimination, to hold dialogue about (our) common
concerns,'' he said. 

The package outlined Wednesday by Rice would be on the table for
any new talks including the United States. Previous talks among
Iran, Britain, France and Germany foundered last year. Iran
insists its nuclear work is peaceful and aimed at developing a
new energy source. 

The U.S. shift came with pressure growing on the Bush
administration from European allies and others to talk directly
to Iran. It also came on the eve of a six-nation meeting in
Vienna, focused on finishing the package and ending months of
disagreement between the United States and Russia on how to
persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment. That process can make
fuel for nuclear power reactors or the fissile core of warheads. 

The U.S. offer for talks is conditioned on Iran suspending its
enrichment of uranium and related activities and allowing
inspections to prove it. European nations and the Security
Council have demanded the same thing, but Iran has refused to
comply. 

The foreign ministers or their equivalents of the United States,
China, Russia, France and Britain - the permanent Security
Council nations - plus Germany hope to approve the incentives
Thursday in Vienna. They also will consider tough council
penalties, including possible sanctions, if Iran remains
defiant. 

Iran's oil minister said late Wednesday in Caracas, Venezuela,
that his country won't negotiate on its nuclear research program
with the United States, and he blamed the U.S. for pushing oil
prices higher through threats against his government. 

``We're never going to negotiate the cycle of nuclear fuel that
we have been able to achieve with the efforts of our country's
scientists,'' Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh told the
Venezuela-based TV station Telesur, according to a partial
transcript of his remarks. 

In Tehran on Wednesday, the official Iranian news agency
initally criticized the U.S. offer as ``a propaganda move.'' 

``It's evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only accepts
proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the nation
and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet such
interests,'' IRNA said. 

Iran did voluntarily suspend uranium enrichment activities
before the European talks stalled, but resumed and stepped up
its program this spring. 

The resolution being considered in Vienna, as outlined to the AP
by diplomats familiar with a draft version of the text, calls
for imposing sanctions under the U.N. Charter. But it avoids any
reference to a specific article of the charter that can trigger
possible military action to enforce any such resolution. 

The proposal also calls for new consultations among the five
permanent Security Council members on any further steps against
Iran. That is meant to dispel complaints by the Russians and
Chinese that once the screws on Iran are tightened, the council
would move automatically toward military involvement. 

The possible sanctions include a visa ban on government
officials, freezing assets, blocking financial transactions by
government figures and those involved in the country's nuclear
program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the shipping of
refined oil products to Iran. 

The Bush administration believes Russia and China would support
sanctions or other harsh steps if new talks fail to persuade
Iran to permanently abandon nuclear efforts, a senior
administration official said. Rice will be working to reaffirm
such support on Thursday. 

The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because
the secretary was continuing talks with other countries. 

The United States has had no high-level, direct talks with the
Iranians since the two countries cut diplomatic ties following
the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by radicals in
1979. U.S. officials have said direct talks could appear to
legitimize a regime the United States believes supports
terrorism. 

Russia and China, as veto-holding members of the U.N. Security
Council, have held up a U.S. drive to impose sanctions or other
tough measures on Iran if it did not back down. Both are
commercial partners of Iran. 

On Wednesday, the U.N. ambassadors from China and Russia said in
New York that the U.S. announcement showed it was more serious
about finding a diplomatic solution to the dispute. Chinese
Ambassador Wang Guangya added that the U.S. offer to talk to
Iran should be unconditional. 

Iran rejected a previous offer from France, Britain and Germany.
The European trio broke off talks with Iran in August after Iran
resumed activities linked to enrichment. 

--- 

On the Net: 

State Department: http://www.state.gov 

CIA World Factbook on Iran:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Welcomes Dialogue, Rejects Condition
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 1, 2006 5:31 PM

AP Photo VAH102 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's foreign minister on Thursday welcomed
direct talks with Washington on his country's disputed nuclear
program but rebuffed a U.S. proposal that Tehran must suspend
uranium enrichment as a condition. 

A prominent hard-liner, however, called the U.S. proposal as
``blackmail'' and urged the government to reject it. 

Mottaki's statement was the country's first direct reaction to
an announcement by the United States on Wednesday that it is
willing to join other countries for face-to-face talks with
Iran, as long as Tehran stops enriching uranium. 

And while Mottaki also criticized Washington's overture, his
response marked the first time since 1979 that a top Iranian
official welcomed talks with the United States on relations
between the two bitter enemies. 

``Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but (we) won't
give up our (nuclear) rights,'' state-run television quoted
Mottaki as saying. 

``We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear
rights but we are prepared, within a defined just framework and
without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about (our)
common concerns,'' he added. 

Hossein Shariatmadari, a senior hard-liner, dismissed
Washington's offer. 

``There is nothing in the offer other than repeating the illegal
demand (that Iran halt enrichment) and their blackmail,''
Shariatmadari said in the daily Kayhan newspaper. 

Iran's state-run radio also said in a commentary that setting
preconditions means the U.S. doesn't believe in dialogue. 

On Thursday, President Bush that the standoff over Iran's
suspected nuclear program is headed for the U.N. Security
Council if Tehran continues with uranium enrichment. 

``We'll see whether or not that is the firm position of their
government,'' Bush said at the White House. ``If they continue
their abstinence, if they continue to say to the world `We
really don't care what your opinion is,' then the world is going
to act in concert.'' 

Bush's comments came as top international officials including
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prepared to meet in Vienna
to discuss a deal offering Iran economic incentives if it gives
up nuclear activities that could produce a bomb - or hitting it
with penalties if it doesn't. 

Rice said Wednesday that the United States will come to the
negotiating table as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends
its enrichment and reprocessing activities. She said the United
States was taking the move to underscore its commitment to a
diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success. 

Mottaki criticized Rice's statement, saying it does not give a
``new and logical solution to resolve the nuclear issue.'' 

The foreign minister also said that there was no evidence that
enrichment activity had deviated from peaceful aims, so Iran
would continue enriching uranium. 

Still, Mottaki's comments mean the administration of hard-liner
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone farther on U.S. relations
than his reformist predecessor. Mohammad Khatami had called for
an opening in the wall of mistrust between the two countries
through athletic and cultural exchanges but didn't dare to
appear willing to hold direct, high-level talks with Washington. 

Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad's government agreed to hold
direct talks with the United States on stabilizing its neighbor
Iraq but not on U.S.-Iranian relations. The status for those
talks is still unclear, with Iranian officials saying recently
they didn't feel they were necessary. 

Mottaki's comments also underline a shift in Iran in recent
weeks away from tough statements and fiery denunciations of
Europe or the United States over their position on Tehran's
nuclear program. 

In April, Ahmadinejad said he didn't care about U.N. Security
Council resolutions when the council gave Tehran 30 days to halt
its uranium enrichment activities. Since then, his government
has taken a lighter tone. 

The United States and several European countries believe Iran is
using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear
weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program aims to generate
electricity, not bombs. 

Iran has said it will not give up its right under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear
fuel but it has indicated that it was prepared to suspend
large-scale uranium enrichment. 

Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the
first time, using 164 centrifuges. Enrichment can produce either
fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead - but tens
of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large
scale. 

Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment
involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the
program to 54,000 centrifuges. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: US reverses 27-year Iran policy and offers talks
 
Julian Borger in Washington and Ian Traynor

Thursday June 1, 2006

The Guardian             

The US yesterday reversed a 27-year-old policy of isolation 
towards Iran and offered to join multilateral talks on its 
nuclear programme, on condition that Tehran suspended uranium 
enrichment and cooperated with UN inspectors.

The policy, which President George Bush labelled "robust 
diplomacy", is also contingent on Russia and China agreeing to 
sanctions if the offer is rejected by Iran. That deal has not 
been reached, and a package of sticks and carrots will be 
negotiated at a meeting in Vienna today of foreign ministers from 
the permanent five members of the UN security council - the US, 
Britain, France, Russia and China - and from Germany.

There have been sporadic contacts between the US and Iran over 
Afghanistan, but the multilateral talks Washington is offering 
would represent the first high-level negotiations since 1979, 
when US diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran. "I thought it was 
important for the United States to take the lead, along with our 
partners. And that's what you're seeing. You're seeing robust 
diplomacy," Mr Bush said. "I believe this problem can be solved 
diplomatically, and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."

Unveiling details of the offer before leaving for Vienna, the
secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "As soon as Iran
fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing
activities, the United States will come to the table with our
EU-3 colleagues [Britain, France and Germany] and meet with
Iran's representatives."

Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear diplomacy at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "There's no
question this is a major policy shift, but we don't yet know
this is going to lead a diplomatic breakthrough. There are
people in both capitals that don't want these negotiations to
happen."

But he said the announcement marked a tactical victory for
Washington's doves. "This is another sign of the decline of the
ideologues and the rehabilitation of the pragmatists," he said.

Ms Rice said the US offer was limited to taking part in European
talks with Iranian negotiators on nuclear issues, and would not
involve bilateral meetings or represent a first step towards
re-establishing diplomatic contacts. "This is not a grand
bargain," she said, adding that the aim was to present Iran a
choice between two clear paths: cooperation with added
incentives, or confrontation with a rising tariff of sanctions.

The foreign ministers' meeting is to start tonight at the
British ambassador's residence in the Austrian capital. The
Europeans and the Russians have been pressing the Americans to
engage with Iran for weeks, in the belief US involvement offers
the only chance of avoiding a potential international disaster.

"This important statement by the US administration reinforces
our hope that out of the current discussions we will be able to
establish a new and cooperative relationship with Iran," said
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief.

The EU troika of Britain, France, and Germany would resume talks
with Tehran on a broad package of political, trade, security,
and nuclear rewards, in return for Iran reinstating its freeze
on uranium enrichment and allowing intrusive inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Parallel to the EU-led
talks, the security council would adopt a binding resolution
obliging Iran to suspend enrichment, and ordering economic
sanctions against it if it balked at the deal on offer.

The resolution has been worded to avoid any mention of possible
military action further down the road, at the Russians'
insistence.

Iran's official state news agency, Irna, dismissed the offer as
propaganda. "It's evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only
accepts proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the
nation and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn't
meet such interests," the agency said. "Given the insistence by
Iranian authorities on continuing uranium enrichment, Rice's
comments can be considered a propaganda move."

The sticking point is the enrichment programme at Natanz, the
basis of Iran's nuclear energy project which can also furnish
the fissile material for warheads. Tehran has to freeze that
programme for the talks to resume. But it says enrichment work
is "irreversible".

A passage in the European offer talks of "regional security
arrangements [with] guarantees for territorial integrity and
political sovereignty"; a US signature on such an agreement
would mean no US policy of "regime change", nor attempts to
destabilise the regime.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran prepared to hold talks with US
 
World powers close to Iran proposal 

Mark Tran and agencies

Thursday June 1, 2006            

[US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice ] 

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Photograph: Getty
   

 World powers meeting in Vienna are close to agreeing on a
package of incentives and penalties to be presented to Iran over
its programme of uranium enrichment.

"The four are in agreement," said a diplomat familiar with the
talks, referring to France, Germany, Britain and the United
States, all of whom are participating in the talks. A European
official also said Russia and China appeared close to signing
onto a deal.

The US had earlier reverted to sabre-rattling by threatening to
take Tehran to the UN security council unless it stopped uranium
enrichment, a process that can produce material for nuclear bombs

One day after the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice held out 
the possibility of formal contacts with Iran for the first time 
for 27 years, George Bush struck a harsher note.

"We'll see whether or not that is the firm position of their
government," Mr Bush said after a meeting with his cabinet at
the White House. "If they continue their obstinance, if they
continue to say to the world, 'We really don't care what your
opinion is', then the world is going to act in concert."

His comments came as foreign ministers from the five permanent
members of the UN security council and Germany met in Vienna to
discuss carrot and stick measures to cajole Iran into halting
uranium enrichment.

Mr Bush hinted at Russian support for action at the security
council that could lead to sanctions against Iran.

He said he "got a positive response" from the Russian president
Vladimir Putin during a conversation on Tuesday. "We expect to
Russia to participate in the United Nations security council,"
Mr Bush said he had told the Russian leader. "We'll see whether
or not they agree to do that."

But Mr Bush was more circumspect about the possibility of
Chinese support after discussions earlier today with the Chinese
president Hu Jintao.

"They understood our strategy," Mr Bush said. "The most positive
thing about all the conversations I had is there's uniform
agreement that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon.
And we'll discuss tactics and strategies to make sure the
international community speaks with one clear voice."

Earlier, the Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said
Iran was open to talks with Washington, but rejected a US
demands to stop enriching uranium first.

"We will not give up our nation's natural right [to enrichment],
we will not hold talks over it. But we are ready to hold talks
over mutual concerns," he said in Tehran.

Mr Mottaki also said the US administration had to change its
behaviour if it wanted to establish new relations with Tehran.
The Iranian news agency, IRNA, dismissed the US offer as "a
propaganda move".

The US moved to seize the diplomatic high ground when Ms Rice
yesterday opened the door to the first formal high-level
contacts since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.

Ms Rice said Washington was prepared to join multilateral talks
on its nuclear programme on the condition that Tehran suspended
enrichment. Her offer followed a long letter from the Iranian
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Mr Bush earlier this month.

Ahead of today's meeting in Vienna, the British foreign
secretary, Margaret Beckett, said she believed ministers would
agree on a "substantial" deal during the talks.

"The European side's goal is to present a serious and
substantial offer of cooperation, which demonstrates to Iran the
benefits that would flow from compliance ... rather than the
further isolation which would result from their failure to do
so," she said.

The proposals to be presented to Iran include an offer to help
build a light-water nuclear reactor, which is seen as less of a
threat than the country's uranium enrichment programme.

The package also carries the threat of sanctions if Iran refuses
to suspend uranium enrichment. Sanctions would include a ban on
arms sales, no transfer of nuclear technology, no visas for
Iranian leaders and officials and a freeze on Iranian assets.

There would also be an embargo on shipping refined oil products
to Iran. Although a leading producer of crude oil, it is short
of petrol and other oil derivatives.

If Tehran rejects the offer, the US, Britain and France would
return to the UN security council to table a resolution setting
a deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme
or face sanctions.

In expressing willingness to enter talks with Iran alongside its
European allies, the Bush administration is laying the ground
for isolating Tehran should it reject what is on offer.

However, Russia and China have shown little desire to put Iran
into diplomatic deep freeze.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said any offer to
be put to Tehran must be "suitable to all sides", while it
remained unclear how China might react to any proposed
punishments if Iran spurns the package on offer.

The Israeli ambassador to the US today praised the Washington
talks offer.

"Their goal is to stop the Iranian nuclear activity ... and I
think they made the right step [by] transferring the dilemma to
the Iranians," Danny Ayalon told Israeli Army Radio on Thursday.
"I think that all the options are on the table."
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 BBC: Powers agree Iran nuclear package
 
Last Updated: Friday, 2 June 2006
 
[Iranian technicians]                           

Iran may be offered help with its civilian nuclear programme                                                             

Six major world powers have agreed a package combining incentives 
and penalties to try to induce Iran to curb its nuclear 
programme. 

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the international 
community was willing to resume talks with Iran if it halted 
sensitive nuclear activities. 

Ms Beckett said action would be taken in the United Nations 
Security Council if Iran did not comply. 

The move follows a US offer to join in talks if Iran halted 
enrichment. 

The next step in this process will be a face-to-face meeting 
between the Europeans and the Iranians where the agreed package 
will be presented. 

It is hoped the meeting will be held in the next few days. 

Tehran has maintained that its nuclear activities are aimed at 
energy production, but the Western allies suspect it of trying to 
build a nuclear weapon. 

Talks between Iran and European powers have been suspended since 
Iran resumed uranium enrichment. 

'Basis for discussion' 

Speaking on behalf of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and 
China, Ms Beckett said there were now two paths ahead for Iran. 

	

	
                                                        We urge 
Iran to take t positive path and to consider seriously our 
substantive proposals which would bring significant benefits to 
Iran                [ src=] Margaret Beckett UK foreign secretary 
Last diplomatic throw of the dice?                              

	 

"I am pleased to say that we have agreed a set of far-reaching 
proposals as a basis for discussion with Iran," she said. 

"We urge Iran to take the positive path and to consider seriously 
our substantive proposals which would bring significant benefits 
to Iran." 

She said action in the UN Security Council would be halted if 
Iran complied but would go ahead if it did not. 

No details of the proposal will be released until Iran is briefed 
on the proposal, she said. 

However, it is thought it may offer help with Iran's civilian 
nuclear programme and guaranteed supplies of reactor fuel, as 
well as various trade advantages and security guarantees. 

Correspondents at the talks say the recent diplomatic initiatives 
have been carefully stage-managed and the six foreign ministers 
presented a united front. 

The intention was to set out a very clear choice for Iran, they 
say, but it is not clear how tough Russia and China will allow 
the Western powers to be. 

Major policy change 

The US said on Wednesday it would join EU states in talks if Iran 
halted sensitive nuclear activity, but Iran responded that it 
would talk only if it was allowed to continue uranium enrichment. 

	 		

			
                                                        [Iranian 
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki]                           Mr 
Mottaki ruled out any compromise on enrichment                                                          

                                 Analysts say the US move was a 
major policy change and an attempt to regain the initiative in 
the Iran nuclear issue. 

Both Russia and China have so far opposed UN sanctions against 
Iran. 

But analysts say the US may have done a deal with these countries 
behind the scenes - that if Iran rejects the US offer of talks, 
Moscow and Beijing will then support a tough new UN Security 
Council resolution. 

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says it looks as if Iran has 
been waiting to see what comes out of the Vienna meeting before 
deciding what path to take. 

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US 
would come to the table when Iran fully and verifiably suspended 
its enrichment and reprocessing activities. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki welcomed the idea of 
talks with the US but ruled out any compromise on enrichment. 

Washington broke off diplomatic ties with Iran in 1979 and the 
two sides have had little official contact since. 

Iran has frequently spoken of its willingness to negotiate with 
any country except Israel about its nuclear programme. But 
Washington has previously refused to countenance such talks. 

The Bush administration has been under growing pressure - both 
from within the US and from European allies - to make an overture 
to Iran to break the diplomatic deadlock.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 11 Reutes: Blix panel prods Israel, Iran to shun nuclear arms
                                
Thu 1 Jun 2006 1:02 PM ET                                       

By Irwin Arieff

 UNITED NATIONS, June 1 (Reuters) - Iran and Israel should shun
uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activities as
part of a new drive to free the Middle East of weapons of mass
destruction, a panel led by former U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix
said on Thursday.

 The recommendation was one of 60 put forward by the 14-member
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission to help the world free
itself of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

 Blix, who led the U.N. search for mass destruction weapons in
Iraq launched months before the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, turned
the report over to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan three years
after the commission was set up at the initiative of the Swedish
government.

 Blix's inspectors found no mass destruction weapons while in
Iraq but had to cut short their mission when the war began. U.S.
experts later also failed to find any banned arms.

 The independent commission, in its 231-page report, also called
for negotiations to continue to convince Iran to suspend
sensitive enrichment-related programs, as called for by the U.N.
nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna as well as by the U.N.
Security Council.

 Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, says it wants
only to produce electricity but major Western powers accuse it
of using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for the
production of atomic weapons.

 Israel is widely assumed to already have nuclear weapons but
has never acknowledged them and -- unlike Iran -- is not a
member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 On other global challenges, the commission called for the
pursuit of a verifiable international agreement holding North
Korea to a 1992 commitment to keep the Korean peninsula free of
nuclear arms, nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment.

 It said major powers acknowledging nuclear arsenals should
provide legally binding assurances to those countries without
atomic arms that they will not come under nuclear attack.

 It called on all nuclear powers that have not yet ratified the
comprehensive global test ban treaty, including India and
Pakistan, to do so.

 It pressed Russia and the United States to agree on mutual
steps "to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert" and
launch negotiations on a new treaty aimed at slashing their
strategic arms by at least half.

 The new pact should include a legally binding commitment to
irreversibly dismantle weapons that would be withdrawn, the
commission advised.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.                                              [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Going face to face

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree> Alex Bigham[Alex Bigham] 

In the hall of mirrors, Iran may quietly be welcoming
Washington's offer of talks. 

Alex Bigham

June 1, 2006 12:05 PM 

In the battle for hearts and minds between Washington and Iran, 
the US has played a tactical trump card in its offer to resume 
negotiationswith the Islamic republic. 

Breaking 27 years of silence is rightly seen as a major shift in 
American policy. It ends the anomaly where the only channel the 
US had with one of the major powers in the Gulf was the Swiss 
government. The clever part is that the offer is not 
unconditional - it is hedged with preconditions for dialogue, 
most notably that Iran must suspend its nuclear enrichment 
activities. 

Washington is seemingly in a no-lose situation. They either get 
the uranium suspension they want, or if the Iranians refuse the 
offer, they can go back to the Russians and the Chinese and say 
they have tried to engage but that the diplomatic route is 
exhausted. The Americans will then be in a much stronger position 
to demand tough action including possible sanctions, and they may 
already have had a private reassurance from the Russians along 
those lines. The announcement yesterday was as much aimed at 
third parties on the UN security council as it was at the 
Iranians. 

Both sides are obsessed with history - the US about the 
humiliation of the hostage taking, the Iranians about the CIA 
backed ousting of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. So why are we now 
seeing these tentative moves towards a diplomatic resolution? In 
Washington, it illustrates the ascendancy of Condi Rice over the 
hardline axis of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who are 
tarnished by domestic scandals and the debacle of Iraq. Her 
vision of transformational diplomacy is flavour of the month in a 
White House desperate for a positive story to boost the 
president's appalling personal ratings. Britain and the EU will 
no doubt have played a role - the announcement came just days 
after Tony Blair visited Washington where he held private talks 
on Iran with Bush. The UK favours engagement, and if any European 
leader could persuade President Bush toward engagement, it was 
his oldest and most trusted ally. 

A visit to the Golestan Palace in Tehran illustrates the crucial 
role that mirrors play in Iran's glittering cultural history. The 
moves by both parties are currently reflecting each other - the 
American offer yesterday is a response to the letter from 
President Ahmadinejad, which was the first missive from an 
Iranian president since ties were severed. President Bush's 
initial reaction to the letter was to dismiss it as irrelevant 
because it didn't mention the nuclear row. Similarly, Iran has 
made a first response to the US offer, rejecting it as 
"propaganda" and according to Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr 
Mottaki, rejecting the precondition of a suspension of uranium 
enrichment. 

Iran's reaction is unsurprising - intensely proud nationalists 
cannot be seen to be being bribed back to the table. We should 
wait until the US offer has had serious consideration to see how 
Iran has reacted. The initial statements asserted Iran's 
"natural" right to nuclear power in a way which still leaves room 
for manoeuvre. 

While many in the west obsess over Iran's hardline president, we 
should remember that it is the supreme leader, Ayatollah 
Khamenei, who has the final say over all matters of national 
security and foreign policy. He publicly came out in favour of 
the letter from Ahmadinejad so seems to be predisposed towards 
some sort of negotiated settlement. 

Deciphering Iran's position on a particular issue on any one day
is like searching through a hall of mirrors, but Iran may
quietly be welcoming Washington's offer of talks. There is a
desperate need for the west to understand better the Islamic
republic's internal political structures. When I visited Iran,
one official with links to the president told me that when Iran
determines its foreign policy it has to go through 16 different
channels to get approval, which can leave negotiating partners
perplexed. 

There are promising signs: despite public pronouncements, the
Iranians are extremely keen to negotiate - the Foreign Policy
Centrehas received many offers from government figures to
organise private, track two diplomacy between the west and Iran.
An official from the supreme national security council, whose
secretary, Ali Larijani, is a key figure in the negotiations,
described the offer as good if it's not for an unlimited time
frame. Others have suggested that Iran will be prepared to
suspend industrial scale production if they can keep the 164
centrifuges in Natanz. The US may not like this - but it may be
necessary for Iran to save face. After all, you don't need to be
a rocket scientist to realise that 164 centrifuges will not make
a nuclear bomb. The trust needed for a long-term solution will
only come now the US is directly engaged. 

For the moment, America has the upper hand in the battle for
hearts and minds - but don't underestimate the Iranians. They
are tough, savvy negotiators, with a nationalistic president who
knows how to sway public opinion. There is new hope for a
peaceful solution, which we warmly welcome, but there is many a
slip between cup and lip. 



About webfeeds  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 
2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered 
office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: Iran rejects US conditions for nuclear talks 

 by Farhad Pouladi Thu Jun 1, 6:35 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranrejected US conditions for talks over 
its controversial atomic programme, saying it was ready for 
negotiations but unwilling to freeze sensitive nuclear work. 

 "We support dialogue in a fair and unbiased atmosphere, but we 
will not talk about our undeniable and legitimate rights, because 
this is the right of our people according to international laws 
and treaties," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told 
reporters. 

"We are ready to talk about common concerns and if the conditions 
are such in a way that we have outlined ... we are ready to 
negotiate with all parties," he said, giving the Islamic 
republic's first reaction to the US proposal. 

In what has been regarded as a major policy shift, US Secretary 
of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceannounced Wednesday 
that Washington was ready to enter the European-led negotiations 
on Iran's nuclear ambitions if Tehran suspended uranium 
enrichment. 

Enrichment can be extended from making civilian reactor fuel to 
the core of a nuclear weapon, but Iran insists its activities are 
strictly peaceful and therefore enshrined as a "right" under the 
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

But Mottaki said that Rice's statement -- which also touched on 
US concerns over Iran's human rights record and its alleged 
support for terrorism -- "did not have any new words in it". 

"They have repeated their old old words. A new solution and a 
logical solution for the nuclear issue was not seen in the 
declaration," he said of the offer for the first substantive 
talks since diplomatic ties were broken off 26 years ago. 

"Maybe they wanted to cover up their crimes in the region. First 
and foremost, the US should be held acountable for their crimes 
in Iraq" /> Iraq, Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan, the prisons of 
Guantanamo and (Baghdad's) Abu Ghraib" /> Abu Ghraib(jail)," he 
added. 

Iran's refusal to halt enrichment, in line with UN Security 
Council and International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International 
Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) demands, leaves the country exposed to 
sanctions. 

The United States, Europe, Russia and China were to meet in 
Vienna on Thursday to continue talks on a carrot-and-stick 
approach to the crisis -- trade and other incentives if Iran 
complies and sanctions if it refuses. 

Iranian officials have indicated Tehran may be willing to limit 
itself to research-scale work using only a small number of 
centrifuges, the machines that spin uranium gas in order to 
refine it. 

But the US position is that even one centrifuge is too much, 
otherwise Iran will acquire the "break-out" capability for making 
nuclear weapons. 

Diplomats in Washington and Vienna said the US offer to hold 
talks with Iran was linked to an effort to get China and Russia 
to ease categorical opposition to UN sanctions if negotiations 
stalled. 

"What they (China and Russia) have agreed is that if Iran does 
not accept this offer of negotiations or does not negotiate in 
good faith, we will return to the (UN) Security Council" for 
sanctions, a senior US official said. 

"It's a kind of moment of truth for Iran," Rice also told CBS 
television. 

According to an early draft text seen by AFP, the possible 
sanctions include an arms embargo on Iran -- something Russia, a 
key arms supplier to Iran, and China, a major consumer of Iranian 
oil, resist. 

On the benefits side, the EU-3 proposal says world powers should 
help Iran build light water reactors for its civilian nuclear 
energy program. 

But Iran's frosty response to Washington's offer comes despite 
widespread international support for the proposal. 

"Today a real chance has appeared to achieve such a resolution. 
We call on Iran to respond to it constructively," the Russian 
foreign ministry said. 

"We welcome the US gesture to solve the issue through talks," 
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said, while 
cautioning that Beijing was "not supportive of the arbitrary use 
of sanctions in international issues". 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Major powers agree on far-reaching proposals on Iran - 

 Thu Jun 1, 4:37 PM ET 		 	 

VIENNA (AFP) - Major world powers have agreed on a package of 
benefits for Iran" /> Iranto suspend sensitive nuclear fuel work 
but threatened sanctions if Tehran refuses to comply, Britain's 
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said. 

 "I am pleased to say that we have agreed a set of far-reaching 
proposals as a basis for discussion with Iran," Beckett told 
reporters after a meeting in Vienna of Britain, China, France, 
Germany, Russia and the United States. 

She said the European states "are prepared to resume negotiations 
should Iran resume the suspension of all enrichment-related and 
reprocessing activities." 

Beckett said that if Iran halted enrichment, which makes fuel for 
nuclear power reactors but also atom bomb material, "we would 
suspend action in the Security Council," where the United States 
and the European trio seek sanctions against Iran. 

"We have also agreed that if Iran decides not to engage in 
negotiation, further steps will have to be taken in the Security 
Council," Beckett said. 

"So there are paths ahead. We urge Iran to take the positive
path and to consider seriously our substantial proposal which
would bring significant benefits to Iran," she added. 

Beckett did not give details of what had been agreed. She said
"we are now talking to the Iranians about our proposals." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: Pakistan welcomes US policy shift on Iran

 Thu Jun 1, 1:33 AM ET 		 	 

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan welcomed a decision by the United 
States to join multilateral negotiations with Iran" /> on its 
nuclear programme as a step towards a diplomatic settlement of 
the crisis. 

 "The statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> 
indicating willingness of the United States to talk to Iran along 
with the EU-3 is a positive development," the foreign ministry 
said in a statement on Thursday. 

"We hope (it) would lead to a reduction of tensions and 
negotiations for a diplomatic solution of the Iranian nuclear 
issue." 

Rice said on Wednesday that Washington was ready to join direct 
negotiations led by European states Britain, France and Germany 
(EU-3) on Iran's nuclear program provided Tehran suspends all its 
uranium enrichment activities. 

The US offer came on the eve of a meeting in Vienna of the five 
permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, 
France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany. 

The offer would be the first substantive talks with Iran since 
diplomatic ties were broken off 26 years ago. 

Pakistan which tested a nuclear bomb in May 1998, has been
calling for a negotiated settlement to the Iranian nuclear row. 

"Pakistan has always supported a diplomatic solution of this
problem and opposed resort to the use of force," the statement
said. 

Pakistan's own nuclear programme came under international
scrutiny when Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered the father of
Pakistan's nuclear programme, confessed in February 2004 to
leaking secrets to Iran, North Korea" /> and Libya. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian: Comment is free: Spinning on the 'axis of evil'

Spinning on the 'axis of evil'
 
America should talk with Iran without preconditions, just as it
is with North Korea. 


June 1, 2006 03:01 PM | 

George Bush described to join the European Union troika -
Britain, France and Germany - in its talks with Iran on the
nuclear issue provided Tehran suspended its enrichment and
reprocessing activities, as "robust diplomacy". 

In reality Bush's move is more an example of spin rather than a
grand diplomatic gesture. 

For over a year the US has been actively involved in the EU Iran
talks. It was at Washington's insistence that the EU troika
reneged on its promise to include supply of a light water
civilian nuclear power plant to Tehran in the package that it
offered Iran last August. The Iranians were so angered by the
reneging on this issue they concluded that the Europeans were
negotiating in bad faith.
 
What the US has proposed now amounts to stepping out behind the
curtain and sitting at the table along with the Europeans.
 
It was in his January 2002 state of the union speech that Bush
described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil". With
Iraq now under Anglo-American occupation this axis now consists
only of Iran and North Korea. 

So a comparison between North Korea and Iran is apt. 

According to the CIA, Pyongyang has weapons-grade plutonium for
half a dozen bombs. North Korea claims to have assembled an atom
bomb or two, a statement that remains unverified. It withdrew
from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 2003. It also
has the most advanced missiles in the world after the US and
Russia. 

By contrast, Iran has only just enriched uranium to a degree
suitable for civilian power plants. Having achieved this on an
experimental basis, it has not increased the number of cascades
of the uranium-enriching centrifuges as it had said it would do.
It remains a signatory to the nuclear NPT, and its nuclear
activities are being conducted under the watchful eyes of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Its
medium-range missiles are capable of carrying only conventional
weapons. 

Washington's response is inversely proportional to the nuclear
threat posed by the two remaining members of its "axis of evil". 

For several years now the Bush administration has been engaged
in multilateral talks with North Korea, involving South Korea,
Japan, China and Russia. In his periodic statements on North
Korea, ruled by the communist dictator, Kim Jong Ill, Bush never
says, "the military option is on the table". The multilateral
talks have been stalemated since last October. Why? Pyongyang
wants cast iron guarantee from Washington about its acceptance
of the communist regime coupled with its public abdication of
any aggressive action against it. Only then would North Korea
discuss dismantling its nuclear weapons programme. 

By contrast, despite Iran's still under-developed nuclear
programme, Bush never misses the chance to reiterate the
existence of a military option on his table - a statement
repeated by the US secretary of state, Condi Rice, yesterday.
Washington has reiterated its precondition of Iran suspending
its uranium enrichment before it joins any multilateral
negotiations with Iran. 

What Tehran has offered the Bush administration is bilateral
talks without any preconditions. The Iranian president, Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad's open letter to Bush last month was clear
indication of this. Earlier, in May 2003, the Iranian government
made a covert approach to the White House through the American
interests section at the Swish embassy in Tehran for direct
negotiations. It got no response. 

If Bush is intent on conducting "robust diplomacy", he should
seriously consider Tehran's proposal to return its nuclear issue
to the IAEA and expand the EU troika's negotiating team to
include not just the US but also South Africa (which decided to
dismantle its atom bombs in 1994), and Malaysia, the current
chair of 107-strong the Non-Aligned Movement. 

Accepting this proposal would truly be a "grand gesture" by
Bush. 


  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: World powers meet on Iranian nuclear program 

June 1, 10:32 PM 
    

VIENNA (AFP) - Foreign ministers of the world's major powers
gathered bidding for a breakthrough in the crisis over Iran's
nuclear program after a dramatic US offer to join talks with
Tehran. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who unveiled the offer
-- 26 years after Washington and Tehran broke off diplomatic
relations -- flew into Vienna for talks with her opposite
numbers from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. 

She said the United States would join multi-party talks if Iran
suspended its uranium enrichment, the key process behind what
Washington suspects is a covert atomic weapons program but
Tehran insists is for peaceful energy. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected those
conditions in a first public reaction from Tehran, saying it was
ready for talks but unwilling to freeze enrichment. 

"We support dialogue in a fair and unbiased atmosphere but we
will not talk about our undeniable and legitimate rights,
because this is the right of our people according to
international laws and treaties," he told reporters. 

Nevertheless, diplomats are hopeful the meeting in Vienna could
lead to a compromise on a carrots-and-stick approach, with
Tehran offered incentives to allay Western fears but the threat
of sanctions if it fails to do so. 

The talks were due to start at 6:00 pm (1600) at the British
ambassador's residence here after a series of consultations
between the various sides. 

Non-proliferation analyst Mark Fitzpatrick said Washington's
about-turn on talks with Iran was a "win-win situation for the
Bush administration," as it had now "made a significant
concession to agree to engagement as the Russians and many
others have been asking." 

Fitzpatrick, speaking to AFP from London's Institute for
International and Strategic Studies think tank, said Washington
"wants the Russians and Chinese to buy in to a UN Security
Council resolution" to oblige Iran to suspend its enrichment --
something it has so far refused to do. 

Diplomats in Vienna said one compromise could be for Iran to
keep spinning centrifuges that enrich uranium but leave them
empty of the feedstock uranium gas. 

"Renewing feeding is a matter of decision," one said. 

The other key issue is the US insistence that Russia and China
sign on to Security Council sanctions against Iran if Tehran
refuses to accept a package of incentives in return for
guaranteeing it would not make nuclear weapons. 

The package, drafted by European Union negotiating troika
Britain, France and Germany, was at the centre of Thursday's
talks here. 

Diplomats in Vienna said US participation in multi-party talks
depended on Russia and China agreeing to the threat of UN
sanctions on Iran. 

China, in comments by foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao,
welcomed the US offer to join talks with Iran, but said it
remained opposed to "arbitrary" sanctions. 

Russia meanwhile called on Iran to respond "constructively" to
the US call, its foreign ministry said in a statement. 

A senior European diplomat said the United States would have a
tough time getting Russia and China to agree to a firm
commitment to sanctions, outlined in a list the EU troika drew
up alongside the incentives package. 

The diplomat said that Thursday's meeting, while "important, is
not the end of the story." 

"What we get now is momentum," the European said. 

"Momentum is created. That's the positive thing. But the
momentum is not the solution. The hope is that it could initiate
a positive reaction." 

Fitzpatrick said Russia and China "don't have to sign up to
sanctions right now. It's a two-step process." 

"What the United States wants is Russian and Chinese agreement
on a plan forward that includes as a next step a Security
Council resolution making suspension of uranium enrichment
mandatory with a short deadline, at the end of which would come
a second resolution endorsing sanctions," he added. 

   Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Nuclear Envoy Invited to North Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 1, 2006 11:46 AM

By BURT HERMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Thursday invited the
chief U.S. nuclear envoy to visit the communist nation if
Washington proves its commitment to an agreement last year in
which the North pledged to abandon its nuclear weapons program. 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has
previously expressed a desire to visit the North if it would
help restart the six-nation arms negotiations, although he has
said many factors would determine if such a trip could be made. 

``If the United States has made a political decision to truly
carry out the joint declaration, (we) again invite the head U.S.
delegate in the six-party talks to visit Pyongyang and directly
explain (it) to us,'' an unnamed spokesman for the North's
Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run
Korean Central News Agency. 

The joint declaration refers to a September agreement in which
the North pledged to abandon its nuclear development in exchange
for aid and security guarantees. No progress has since been made
on implementing the pact, and the arms talks haven't been held
since November. 

The two sides have made other contacts, including meetings
between diplomats in New York and encounters in China and Japan. 

Pyongyang has refused to return to talks until Washington lifts
financial restrictions against the communist nation for alleged
illegal activity, including counterfeiting. The United States
says the issues are unrelated and that the North should return
without conditions. 

In its statement, Pyongyang accused the United States of
``shunning contacts'' with the North, and repeated its call for
a relaxation of U.S. financial restrictions as a condition for
the country's return to the six-nation talks. 

``If the United States increases pressure while antagonizing us,
we cannot but take super hardline steps to safeguard our right
to survive and sovereignty,'' the North said. 

Top U.S. State Department officials were in Austria on Thursday
for meetings on the Iranian nuclear crisis and were unavailable
for comment. 

The United States engaged in direct talks with North Korea that
led to a 1994 agreement on halting the North's nuclear
development in exchange for acquiring two nuclear reactors and
other aid. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also
visited the North in October 2000 - the highest-level American
official ever to travel to the country. 

The two nations don't have formal diplomatic relations. 

But U.S. officials say the North admitted in late 2002 to a new
secret uranium enrichment program, prompting Washington to
abandon the earlier nuclear deal. Since then, the United States
has pursued diplomacy with the North through nuclear talks
hosted by China that include Japan, Russia, the United States
and the two Koreas. 

On Wednesday, the United States, South Korea, Japan and the
European Union formally shut down a New York-based reactor
project from the 1994 deal. 

The South Korean Unification Ministry, which is in charge of
dealings with the North, lamented the end of the project to
build the light-water reactors, which are believed to be
difficult to divert for the production of weapons-grade uranium. 

But Japan blamed North Korea, saying it violated the spirit of
the program long ago. 

``I think we can say the significance of the project was already
lost,'' Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said at a regular
news conference in Tokyo. 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: North Korea invites US envoy, issues "strongest" threat 

 by Charles Whelan Thu Jun 1, 7:55 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Koreainvited US envoy 
Christopher Hill to Pyongyang in an apparent bid to renew stalled 
talks over its nuclear weapons programme. 

 But it also threatened to take the "strongest" but unspecified
measure if Washington maintained a "hostile policy" towards the
Stalinist state. 

The country's foreign ministry spokesman said Hill, a US
assistant secretary of state, would be welcome in Pyongyang if
Washington sincerely wanted to uphold a joint statement agreed
last September at six-party talks. 

"If the United States has sincerely made a political decision to
implement the joint statement, we again invite the US chief
delegate to six-way talks to visit Pyongyang and explain it
directly to us," he told the official Korean Central News Agency
(KCNA). 

North Korea, meeting with six-party delegates from China, Japan,
Russia, South Korea" /> South Korea, and the United States,
agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in September in return
for aid and diplomatic concessions. 

But in November it launched a boycott of the talks after
Washington imposed sanctions aimed at curbing Pyongyang's
alleged illicit financial activities, including money
laundering. 

In the KCNA report, monitored in South Korea by Yonhap news
agency, Pyongyang threatened retaliation if Washington stepped
up pressure against the communist regime. 

"If the United States keeps a hostile policy and steps up
pressure on us we have no other choice but to take our strongest
measure to defend our sovereignty and the rights for our own
survival." 

Pyongyang said last year that it had nuclear weapons. Recent
reports that North Korea could be preparing to test fire a
ballistic missile have triggered unease in South Korea and
Japan. 

North Korea invited Hill to Pyongyang for unconditional talks
last September but nothing came of the approach to the US envoy
who has in the past said he was prepared to go to the communist
country. 

Since then the six-party peace process has stalled and North
Korea has been preoccupied by US financial restrictions
including a ban on a Macau bank which Washington accused of
assisting Pyongyang in money-laundering. 

North Korea has said it would stay away from further talks until
Washington lifts the ban which has blocked some 24 million
dollars in North Korean funds, according to the US government. 

The foreign ministry spokesman accused Washington of stealing
the money. 

"We will surely get back the money stolen by the United States,"
he said. 

Hill was in Beijing and Seoul last week for talks on the nuclear
standoff, during which he stressed that Washington was not
prepared to make concessions to bring Pyongyang back to talks. 

"They invited Hill before and they have never disinvited him so
this doesn't really look so surprising," said Peter Beck, Seoul
director of the International Crisis Group. 

Potentially more interesting, he said, was a planned visit by
Hill's State Department deputy Kathleen Stephens to the Kaesong
industrial park in North Korea. 

South Korean media reports said Stephens was expected to go on
Friday to the complex just inside North Korea's border. 

Washington has so far been lukewarm about Kaesong and other
North-South cooperation projects, while focusing instead on
applying pressure on North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons. 

"If the visit comes off it could be interesting," said Beck. 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: US rejects North Korean overture 

 Thu Jun 1, 4:34 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House rejected North Korea" /> 's 
suggestion that the lead US envoy to talks on its nuclear program 
come to Pyongyang, saying six-nation diplomacy was the way out of 
the crisis. 

 But US officials, speaking privately, would not rule out direct
contacts at some point to advance efforts to rein in North
Korea's development of atomic weapons. 

"The United States is not going to engage in bilateral
negotiations with the government of North Korea," White House
spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. 

"We're going to continue to do it through the appropriate
forum," he said referring to six-way talks among the United
States, the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan. 

Snow was responding to a North Korean invitation to Christopher
Hill, the head of the US delegation to the multilateral talks,
to go to Pyongyang in an apparent bid to jump start the stalled
negotiations. 

"The United States sticks by its position, which is North Korea
has to return to the six-party talks. It also has to go ahead
and fulfill the obligations in the September agreement," he
said. 

North Korea's foreign ministry spokesman said on Thursday that
Hill, a US assistant secretary of state, would be welcome in
Pyongyang if Washington sincerely wanted to uphold a joint
statement agreed last September at the multilateral talks. 

"If the US has a true political intention to implement the joint
statement we kindly invite once again the head of the US side's
delegation to the talks to visit Pyongyang and directly explain
it to us," the North Korean spokesman told the official Korean
Central News Agency (KCNA). 

In September, North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear
program in return for security guarantees, diplomatic
concessions and energy aid. 

But two months later, it launched a boycott of the talks after
Washington imposed financial sanctions aimed at curbing
Pyongyang's alleged US dollar counterfeiting and money
laundering activities. 

The State Department made it clear Thursday that the United
States was already involved in direct talks with North Korea
within the six-party negotiation process. 

"Well, I don't think the issue here is really direct talks
between the United States and North Korea. We have direct talks
with the North Koreans in the context of the six-party talks,"
acting State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. 

A senior US administration official told AFP that North Korea
had not formally invited Hill. 

"No-one has received any communication from the North Koreans,
all we've seen is some press reports. North Korea has not
extended, to us, any invitation," the official said on condition
he not be named. 

A State Department official, also speaking on condition of
anonymity, stopped short of categorically rejecting the North
Korean invitation. 

Hill has said previously that he would go to North Korea if it
was determined "by the collective powers that be" that it would
be a useful thing to do in order to advance the six-party talks,
the official said. 

"So I think people need to take a look at this and figure out
exactly what it is and see if there is anything there that would
warrant determining that 'yes, now is the time that this would
be a useful gesture,'" the official said. 

"I didn't want to rule it out out of hand but I didn't want to
make it sound like there is anyone saying 'this is a great idea,
let's do it tomorrow'," said the official, noting that Hill was
currently "doing some personal travel." 

North Korea declared last year that it had nuclear weapons,
deepening a standoff which began when the United States accused
the communist state in 2002 of secretly enriching uranium, a
process that could lead to manufacture of nuclear bombs. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Whistle isn't all that blows 

June 01, 2006 

Supreme Court pares free speech rights for government 
whistle-blowers 

First Amendment rights for government whistle-blowers took a hit 
earlier this week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a 
California prosecutor who voiced concerns over the validity of a 
search warrant. 

Richard Ceballos was a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles 
when he alerted his supervisors that it appeared false 
information was contained in an affidavit that was used to obtain 
a search warrant. Ceballos investigated the affidavit after a 
defense attorney had contacted him about the inaccuracies. 

Ceballos followed administrative procedure by following up with a 
memo to his supervisors. But prosecution of the case went 
forward, and Ceballos claims he was demoted for speaking up. 

In its 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said that "when public 
employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the 
employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment 
purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their 
communications from employer discipline." 

This decision undoubtedly will have a chilling effect, as 
government employees now know that exposing public waste, fraud 
or corruption leaves them open to being demoted or losing their 
jobs. Many are likely to think it better to simply turn a blind 
eye and say nothing. 

Without government whistle-blowers, Americans may never have 
learned of prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, the misinformation that 
led the nation into a war with Iraq or the role of insiders who 
illegally leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative. 

And the Supreme Court's ruling comes during a time when testimony 
in litigation over the release of the painkiller Vioxx shows that 
a U.S. Food and Drug Administration epidemiologist claims he was 
harassed for revealing that 140,000 heart attacks and strokes had 
been associated with the drug. 

According to the Associated Press, the 22-year FDA employee said 
agency workers who try to block a drug's approval or otherwise 
limit its marketability are "severely reprimanded, pressured, 
criticized and threatened." 

And now, they have no First Amendment protections if they speak 
up. 

The failure of the Supreme Court to fully protect the free speech 
rights of public employees who have the courage to reveal 
government corruption is disgraceful. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 22 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Silencing whistle-blowers
 
Jun. 01, 2006

Does the freedom of speech mean a government employee can't be 
punished by his supervisors for "blowing the whistle" on what he 
perceives as malfeasance? 

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday reviewed a 
lower court ruling that Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard 
Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo 
questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a 
search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming 
he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the 
lie. 

But the justices overturned that lower court decision Tuesday,
denying Mr. Ceballos relief. The ruling was seen as the clearest
sign yet of the Supreme Court's political shift toward statism
-- a willingness to defer to the convenience and prerogatives of
those who run government agencies -- following the retirement of
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Samuel Alito. 

A year ago, Justice O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that
encouraged whistle-blowers to report sex discrimination in
schools. But on Tuesday, her replacement joined in the slim
majority. 

Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy wrote for Tuesday's majority. "We reject, however, the
notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the
expressions employees make pursuant to their professional
duties." 

Justice Kennedy said if Mr. Ceballos' superiors thought the memo
was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.
"Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official
communications ... promote the employer's mission," Justice
Kennedy wrote. 

Parrot the party line, or get busted back to proverbial foot
patrol? So the "mission" of the Los Angeles County prosecutor's
office is to present a uniform and reassuring face to the public
-- not to investigate possible police misconduct? 

Of course a thorough probe into charges of official malfeasance
will tend to be "inflammatory" -- to inflame public outrage and
demands for reform. That's bad? 

Critics predict the ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos could have a
sweeping impact for the nation's 20 million government
employees, silencing police officers who fear retribution for
reporting department corruption -- even FBI agents exposing
inaction in the face of terrorist plans. 

"I think government employees will be more inclined to keep
quiet," Mr. Ceballos responded in a telephone interview. 

"Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing
and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's
stake in the efficient implementation of policy," wrote Justice
David Souter, in dissent. 

In fact, the best argument in favor of the decision is that
whistle-blower status has been misused to stymie the normal
function of government agencies, often with costly effect. Right
here in Southern Nevada, it was Assemblyman Wendell Williams,
the political sugar daddy of provisional community college
employee Topazia "Briget" Jones, who was able to demand in 2003
that she be granted whistle-blower status there, thwarting the
process of cutting her loose from what amounted to a patronage
job. 

Supporters of the ruling said it would protect government
agencies' ability to hand out required negative performance
reviews or demotions without fear of frivolous lawsuits filed by
disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistle-blowers. 

Possibly. But at what cost to the public's right to know? 	   


Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 23 TomPaine.com: Gagging Public Employees

--Rachel Joy Larris | 

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:11 PM 

              
Yesterdays Supreme Court decision involving whistleblowers sets 
up a   situation for public employees who witness gross 
negligence or wrong-doing by their bosses. If they speak up 
internallywhich is almost always the first way employees try to 
handle problems (Who throws a press conference to announce their 
bosss bad behavior?)they can be fired. Yet, in some cases, 
public employees can be held liable for not speaking up. 
Certainly this is true of district attorneys' offices where 
failure to disclose evidence is a major crime for prosecuting 
attorneys. However, speaking up still got the defendant in this 
case in trouble. 

The case involved a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles who 
believed that a sheriff's deputy had lied on a search warrant 
affidavit and therefore the affiliated case should be dropped. 
Richard Ceballos, the district attorney, said that initially his 
boss agreed with him but, after being challenged by the sheriffs 
department, caved to their demands and allowed the case 
to proceed with the evidence included. When Ceballos justifiably 
questioned why his boss had changed his mind about the 
admissibility of the evidence, he was punished for pointing out 
his bosss unethical behavior, demoted and transferred to another 
department. (Interestingly, the case that started Cabellos' 
problems, , not only went forward but was won by the state, after 
the trial judge denied the defense's motion challenging the 
contested warrant.) 

In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the district 
attorneys office handled Ceballos ethical complaints correctly. 
This is a major departure from the  rights of public employees: 

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment bars the 
government from retaliating against workers for speaking out on 
matters of public importance. In a landmark 1968 ruling, it held 
that a school board acted unconstitutionally when it fired a 
teacher for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing the 
allocation of school funds. In 1979, in an opinion by Chief 
Justice William Rehnquist for a unanimous court, a teacher's 
comments to her supervisor were held to be protected. Mr. 
Ceballos's actions should have fallen under these precedents. 

Justice Kennedy in particular cited the fact that because 
whistleblower protections exist, Ceballosor any public 
employeedoesnt need First Amendment rights to protect his 
ability to point out superiors screw-ups or ethical lapses that 
are in the public interest. 

 The powerful network of legislative enactmentssuch as 
whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes[is] available to 
those who seek to expose wrongdoing. 

Except that, well, really they dont work. As  points out, 
numerous whistleblowers get fired and fail to receive the 
benefits of this so-called powerful network of legislative 
enactments. 

Anyone who works with whistleblowers or who bothered to read the 
daily newspaper would know that this claim is completely 
fallaciousespecially see the , the , or . 

The decision seems to be an attempt to carve out bright-line 
rules where in the past situational details were taken 
into account by court. We should expect more of these kinds of 
decisions in the future. Remember John Roberts testimony during 
his hearing alleging that his role is simply to call   

As   points out, this ruling is about a desire to create a firm 
line of protected and unprotected speech, even when that rule 
doesnt make much practical sense as applied; even when it 
conflicts with previous decisions regarding public employees 
First Amendments rights. 

Balancing tests are messy, ad hoc, and difficult to apply fairly. 
Ceballos tries to avoid the balancing test by carving out a new 
bright line rule. If the statement is made as part of the 
employee's duties, or in the employee's capacity qua employee, 
there is no first amendment protection at all. It is as if the 
statement were not a matter of public concern or a contribution 
to public discussion. 

The result is that employees get some first amendment protection 
only if their speech is outside of their duties and 
responsibilities as employees. Conservatives love hard and fast 
rules. What they hate is wishy-washiness that acknowledges any 
deviation from original text readings.  that not every 
situation is going to be clear-cut, thats why we have judges. 

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the majority 
opinion "misguided." 

"The proper answer to the question 'whether the First Amendment 
protects a government employee from discipline based on speech 
made pursuant to the employee's official duties' is 'Sometimes,' 
not 'Never,' he writes. 

But, as Balkin points out, there really isn't going to be a hard 
and fast rule regarding public employees First Amendment rights. 

I am sympathetic to the Court's desire to reduce the burden of ad 
hoc balancing by creating a bright line rule of no protection. 
But in this case, the Court's decision doesn't really create a 
bright line rule, because the boundaries of what is within an 
employee's job description may turn out to be quite contestable, 
and will be contested in future cases. 

Whenever you need a clear example of why presidential elections 
matter and how they affect the Supreme Court, remember this case. 
Justice Souter (who wrote the lead dissent) would probably have 
written the lead opinion had Justice Alito not taken OConnors 
place on the bench. 

TomPaine.com.]                                                                                    [ /]                                                                                                                                                  
*****************************************************************
 24 csmonitor.com: Bush energy plan whacks conservation | 

from the May 31, 2006 edition 	
 
More than a dozen efficiency efforts are set for trims or
elimination as the administration pushes long-term projects.

 By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 

A few years ago a little-known US Energy Department program 
helped produce a design technology for lightweight cars and 
trucks that in 2004 alone saved the nation 122 million barrels of 
oil, or about $9 billion. 

Even without that breakthrough, the tiny Industrial Technologies 
Program routinely saves the United States $7 worth of energy for 
each dollar it spends, proponents say.                  

So, with energy prices spiking and President Bush pushing for
more energy research, the ITP would seem a natural candidate for
more funding. In fact, its budget is set to get chopped by a
third from its 2005 level. It's one of more than a dozen
energy-efficiency efforts that the Energy Department plans to
trim or eliminate in a $115 million cost-saving move. 

The push to solve the nation's energy woes are bumping up
against the federal government's budget problems. To be sure,
the Bush administration is anxious to fund its new Advanced
Energy Initiative - long-term research into nuclear, coal, wind,
solar, and hydrogen power. But to accomplish that, it is cutting
lesser-known programs like ITP whose payoffs are far more
near-term. 

"This is the worst time to be cutting these programs," says
William Prindle, deputy director of the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington think tank. "At this
point in time, with high energy prices and pressures, you'd
think maybe we'd want to invest in a suite of energy-efficiency
programs that make a dent right away." 

If Congress accepts the Energy Department's proposed 2007
budget, it will cut $152 million - some 16 percent - from this
year's budget for energy-efficiency programs. Adjusting for
inflation, it would mean the US government would spend 30
percent less on energy efficiency next year than it did in 2002,
the ACEEE says. 

Such cuts reflect a shift in priorities toward programs that
could offer much bigger energy breakthroughs, the Energy
Department says. 

"Tough choices had to be made, and we had to realign
priorities," writes Christina Kielich, a DOE spokeswoman in an
e-mail. "Some programs within the energy- efficiency budget have
reached a point to be considered mature technologies" that
require less funding. 

To others, it's a penny-wise and pound-foolish move,
particularly ironic for a nation hard-pressed to reduce energy
bills. 

"Because of high gas prices and energy prices, I just wouldn't
have expected a program that helps the little guy, small
business, to take this kind of hit," says Michael Muller, a
Rutgers University engineering professor and national
coordinator for the ITP's Industrial Assessment Centers. "They
haven't said it doesn't work. They say it's because of other
higher priorities." 

One energy-efficiency program on the chopping block is the Heavy
Vehicle Propulsion and Ancillary Subsystems. It helps improve
the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks, one of the nation's
biggest oil consumers. That program is "zeroed out" in the 2007
budget request. 

The same fate awaits the $4.5 million Building Codes
Implementation Grants program. It helps states adopt more
energy-efficient requirements for new buildings, the nation's
largest consumer of electricity and natural gas. 

The $8 million Clean Cities program has helped clean-fuel
technologies, like buses that run on compressed natural gas, get
to market. But it's slated for a $2.8 million cut. 

Dr. Muller's Industrial Assessment Centers program annually
conducts about 600 energy audits and trains a new crop of about
250 new energy-efficiency engineers. The $7 million program,
which is estimated to save enough power to supply half a million
homes each year, wins plaudits from the small businesses that
have been able to reduce their costs. 

But budget cuts slated for 2007 would trim the program by a
third, slashing the number of its university-based auditing and
training programs from 23 to 16. Savings: about $2.4 million. 

"I hope the ITP cuts do get restored," says Larry Kavanagh, vice
president of manufacturing and technology for the American Iron
and Steel Institute, a Washington trade association. "It saved
the auto industry a lot of weight in its cars - and the country
a lot of energy." 

These programs are minuscule compared with the big-ticket
research programs envisioned by the White House. Mr. Bush's
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, for example, would cost $1.2 billion
over five years. 

Proponents of the small-scale efficiency programs point out that
the ITP, with 1/20th of the budget, has already saved more oil
than the hydrogen-fuel program would save, if successful, by
2025. 

But others are skeptical of the value of most Department of
Energy programs and especially energy-efficiency programs. They
say the latter should be provided by the private sector, not
government. 

"When energy prices are high, you don't need to subsidize
conservation efforts," says Jerry Taylor, director of natural
resource studies for the Cato Institute, a Washington think
tank. "These are subsidies that qualify as corporate welfare." 

One of the nation's priorities is improving the security and
reliability of the electric grid. One option for doing that
sooner, rather than later, is the emerging technology of
"distributed generation." Under that approach, the nation would
build more but much smaller power plants so that small
businesses and even individual homes could have them. 

True, such systems would burn costly natural gas - but at twice
the energy efficiency of today's grid - to produce both heat and
electricity for homeowners. If such systems caught on, they
could vastly reduce load demand on central power stations and
slash the need to build new power plants. 

But that vision of the future may be delayed, since the DOE's
"distributed energy" program has been cut in half and the
remainder is being heavily earmarked by federal lawmakers for
specific projects that they favor. The program is slated to be
terminated in 2008, observers say. 

"Hurricanes, terrorism, and blackouts have given us so many
reasons to emphasize distributed generation, and instead we're
putting emphasis on new forms of centralized power," says John
Jimison, executive director of the US Combined Heat and Power
Association, a Washington advocacy group. "It's too bad it's
getting cut because it was a very modest program." 

There may be a glimmer of hope for energy-efficiency programs.
The House Committee for Energy and Water Development
subcommittee moved last week to restore some funding to ITP and
hybrid technology for heavy trucks. The committee voted earlier
this month to fully fund the president's $2.1 billion Advanced
Energy Initiative. Special Offer: Subscribe to the Monitor and

    
  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 IPS: PAKISTAN: Villagers Pay the Price of Nuclear Ambitions
 
Inter Press Service News Agency     Friday, June 02, 2006 10:12 
GMT       

Zofeen Ebrahim 
							 
KARACHI, May 31 (IPS) - ''We've been treated worse than 
animals,'' says Nazeer Buzdar, his voice cracking with emotion 
over the telephone. "We were the ones who helped make Pakistan a 
nuclear power. But now that we're suffering, there is no one to 
even hear us out." 

Buzdar was speaking to IPS from Baghalchur, a remote tribal 
village, unremarkable except for its uranium mines, in moutainous 
Dera Ghazi Khan district, some 400 km north of this southern port 
city. 

From 1978 to 2000 Baghalchur provided the secretive Pakistan
Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) with the ‘yellow cake' it needed
for its nuclear programme, the success of which was dramatically
announced to the world, in 1998, through a series of tests. 

In 2000, by PAEC's own admission, "mining was stopped on the
exhaustion of uranium". But that was when the villagers'
troubles began because the site was then converted into a
storage and disposal site for radioactive uranium waste.

 And now, Baghalchur is back in the headlines -- this time as an
embarassment to the PAEC. The local people have gone to the
Supreme Court with a complaint that nuclear waste dumped in the
area had contaminated the environment and affected the health of
both humans and animals. 

Affected are some 50,000 people who live in hamlets scattered
around Baghalchur and the 500,000-strong population of nearby
Dera Ghazi Khan town. The area is dominated by Balochi tribes.

 According to Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist and
internationally-known peace activist, the fact that ordinary
villagers, who are normally frightened of confronting the
government on even minor matters, have dared to take the
powerful PAEC to court was a sign of the enormity of the
problem. 

"I think this shows how desperate they have become for their own
safety and the safety of their livestock. It is truly
unfortunate that the PAEC is not listening to them and is merely
trying to cover up its tracks, while using its clout in the
courts to prevent their access to justice," he says.

 "We had one of the finest pedigreed livestock in this part of
the country, but now they don't survive. It is normal to find
cows developing large hooves that fester. We have been observing
this for the past three years," says Buzdar. 

He also speaks of abnormalities among the local people. "I can
give you scores of examples but in my own family, my
sister-in-law recently gave birth to twin daughters, and both
had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. One of
the twins died after a month. You will find many born with no
palate. Our children are forever falling sick and most run very
high temperatures and then die, mostly of cancer.'' 

PAEC has defended itself in a press statement that said the body
"performs surveillance of the area for the presence of
radioactivity in water, vegetation and air, and as per the
survey, no radioactivity has been found in any of these sources.
There is, therefore, no reason for a large-hoofed cow due to
radiations."

 It added: "The areas in use are fenced and guarded, with no
chances of unauthorised entry. Hundreds of PAEC workers had been
involved in mining uranium from Baghalchur during 30 years of
mining operation, who maintained a residential colony at this
site. Thanks to foolproof safety measures, no adverse radiation
effects were ever detected in any of them or their family
members." 

But Buzdar contests that. "About six months back, the commission
started dumping close to 1,000 drums into the front yard of its
facility. This is fenced and guarded but we could see the drums
from across the road where we live. When this was reported in
the media about two months ago, the drums were removed from
sight and taken indoors," explains Buzdar.

 Complaints by the local people to the border military police
proved to be in vain. "We even held a protest rally one night to
stop the activity, but even that did not get us any positive
results." 

Buzdar, along with other locals then lodged a formal complaint
in the Supreme Court. The apex court has asked the PAEC to
provide evidence that could dispel the fears of the villagers. 

Under intesne media scrutiny, PAEC has stuck to its guns,
vehemently denying allegations of radioactive leakage from the
stored drums. In an interview with IPS over e-mail and
telephone, a PAEC spokesman insisted that "only
uranium-contaminated solid waste is being stored/disposed at
Baghalchur" and that ‘'storage prior to disposal is an
internationally accepted practice".

 While the Baghalchur villagers wait for the verdict of the apex
court with confidence nuclear physicists are sceptical. 

Prof. Khalid Rashid, a former PAEC employee who currently
teaches Mathematical Modelling and Simulation at the Bahria
University, in Islamabad, says what is important is to carry out
a survey that would reveal ‘'the effects on health of the people
of Baghalchur''. 

Looking at the records for the last 30 years, that are kept in
the district hospital, would give some clue, says Rashid. He
added that, as far back as in 1982, a medical doctor at the
hospital had told him that the incidence of leukemia among
Baghalchur residents was about six times higher than the
national average. 

But, however much the commission tries to argue about safe
storage and disposal, experts say that nuclear waste disposal is
major issue the world over. 

"There is no perfectly safe option," says Rashid. "This is an
unsolved problem and the real price of nuclear power as well as
of nuclear weapons." He listed various options for disposal that
seemed to belong in the realm of science fiction: "Storing it
deep underground in geologically stable areas; entombment under
the seabed, nuclear transmutation and shooting nuclear waste
into the space or the sun." 

"The safety and environmental problems that uranium mining
brings, as in the case of Baghalchur, are of two kinds,'' said
Hoodbhoy. ‘'On the one hand dangerous chemical poisons (such as
arsenic, uranium, molybdenum, and other heavy metals) find their
way into the soil, air, and water. But still more threatening is
the radon gas and its various radioactive products. Near uranium
mines, there are tiny dust particles containing various
radionuclides. Easily spread by the wind, this dust creates
cancers and genetic damage.''

 Nuclear power cannot be produced without risk, says Rashid.
‘'Radioactive waste will be produced and there is always the
possibility of an accident. The radioactive dirt will stay on
for thousands of years. The nuclear lobby is bankrupt and more
interested in business than the welfare of the people."

 Through the debate, the PAEC has continued to make its claims
of foolproof safety. ""We know what we're doing. There is no
crisis and there is no evil going on," said the PAEC spokesman.
‘' We have no interest in creating an unsafe environment for the
citizens of Pakistan.'' 

Asked if the PAEC has carried out any scientific analysis of the
area in question the spokesman says: "We do periodic monitoring
as per international standards and our technical personnel were
sent to the area to check leakages after media reports."

 "Not one person from the commission has visited the area in
months,'' was Buzdar's response to that claim. 

Dr A.H Nayyar, visiting fellow, Sustainable Development Policy
Institute, who is also a physicist and peace activist refuses to
buy the PAEC line. "Some six or seven years ago, workers at the
mines and milling plant in D.G. Khan had gone on strike for not
being provided proper safety gear, and sufficient health
facilities. Nobody knows what happened to the strike or the
strikers. But it goes to prove that the commission was not
taking care of all the safety aspects." 

According to Zia Mian, currently research scientist with the
programme on science and global security at Princeton
University, the PAEC has ‘'hidden behind walls of secrecy since
it was founded 50 years ago. It has never been accountable to
parliament, the law, or the public. Nuclear facilities and the
radioactive materials they process are far too dangerous to
people and the environment to be managed without strong
independent legal and public accountability''. 

"Nuclear operators, in our case the PAEC, are not always known
to be careful abut protecting the public against harmful
radioactivity. It is because of this lack of trust that nuclear
regulatory authorities are established to act as a watchdog.
Like any regulatory authority, this has also to be independent
but the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) has had a
questionable history,'' says Nayyar.

 So far, the PNRA has made no statement on the issue and,
according to Nayyar, "it is conspicuous by its quietness, even
when so much has appeared in the press and the highest court is
dealing with the matter." (END/2006) 
						 

  Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 The Telegraph: Uranium debate scrapped   

Calcutta : Northeast
 
  Thursday, June 01, 2006 

  OUR CORRESPONDENT   
  
Shillong, May 31: The much-touted open debate between two
political heavyweights in Meghalaya on the controversial uranium
mining issue has been nipped in the bud. 

The stage for the debate was set when leader of Khun Hynniewtrep
National Awakening Movement (KHNAM) Paul Lyngdoh challenged
chief executive member (CEM) of Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council (KHADC) H.S. Shylla to an open debate on the issue. 

Lyngdoh had chosen Nongstoin, the district headquarters of West
Khasi Hills, as the venue for the debate. The proposed uranium
mining site is also located in the district. Shylla had accepted
the challenge, but the district administration denied him
permission. 

The political atmosphere in Meghalaya is surcharged with
allegations and counter-allegations between the KHADC and
anti-uranium mining groups, mainly the KHNAM. Shylla is a senior
Congress leader in the state and an ex-president of the Khasi
Students’ Union (KSU). Paul Lyngdoh is also an ex-president of
the KSU and his party KHNAM is an ally in the ruling
Congress-led Meghalaya Democratic Alliance (MDA) government. 

Later, Lyngdoh had suggested Shillong as the alternative venue,
which was again accepted by Shylla. However, the district
administration appears not too keen on giving permission for the
same.   

   Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 27 PG&E WANTS MORE OF YOUR MONEY - AGAIN!!
 
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:45:17 -0700


<x-flowed>
lang="en-US">
3949f9.jpg
<http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/06.01.06-june06newsletter>Click to 
open in your Browser

PG&E WANTS MORE OF YOUR MONEY - AGAIN!!

Message from Rochelle:

The prospect of 20 more years of high-level radioactive waste that will be 
stored in our community for generation upon generation is being discussed 
this month before the California Public Utilities Commission. Though the 
licenses for Diablo Canyonâ€™s operation do not expired until the mid 
2020â€™s, PG&E has asked for $19 million from its ratepayers â€“ thatâ€™s 
us - to do an in house feasibility study of license renewal. If this study 
is allowed to proceed, California could find itself in the facing the same 
overwhelming challenge Vermont is facing today 
<http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/052006/NRCVeto.shtml>http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/052006/NRCVeto.shtml

PG&Eâ€™s and the nuclear industries track record for predicting what could 
go wrong at each reactor is abysmal and cannot be relied upon for future 
energy forecasts. For example, the $500 million estimate for construction 
morphed into a final $5.7 billion price tag between application and final 
license to operate. The licensing process took at least a decade longer 
than anticipated.

The CPUC staff recognized that it would not be either reasonable or prudent 
to pass the full costs onto PG&E ratepayers. The staff recommended that 
$4.4 billion not be allowed to be passed on in rates, as it was PG&Eâ€™s 
inability to find an offshore earthquake fault and to design the reactors 
to correct blueprints that caused this x fold increase.

After closed door settlement meetings, PG&E agreed to be paid only for 
power produced at a very health cost per kilowatt rather than risk a review 
of the reasonableness of construction costs. A very generous per kilowatt 
price was allotted and PG&E shareholders were to be held financially 
responsible for costs of all refueling outages, any new NRC regulations, 
downtime and the costs of any replacements.

The stateâ€™s now infamous deregulation legislation did much more than 
place California in economic uncertainty. AB 1890, PG&Eâ€™s bankruptcy and 
the CPUC bailout reversed the 1989 Commission decision. Without any review 
of previous cost overruns, the CPUC placed the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant 
in traditional cost-of-service ratemaking. Ratepayers would have been 
livid-if they had known.

In 2002, the CPUC decided that PG&E ratepayers would now be responsible for 
all costs at Diablo Canyon. The timing of the decision is certainly 
questionable when seen in light of: new NRC security requirements extended 
refueling outages as plants age and components must be more closely 
monitored, construction of onsite high-level radioactive waste storage 
facility(s) and large component replacements (steam generators, turbine 
rotors, reactor vessel heads), all being charged to ratepayers. Faulty 
large components failed half-way through the operating life of Diablo 
Canyon and conveniently when shareholders were not longer financially 
responsible. It seems an unlikely coincidence that all major costs of 
continuing to operate and secure the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant were not 
deemed necessary until shareholders liability was removed.

Now PG&E wants ratepayers to fork over $19 million to determine if a 
nuclear plant designed in the 1960â€™s, constructed in the 1970â€™s and 
undergoing well over a billion dollars in component replacements eighteen 
years before the current license expires is in PG&Eâ€™s best interest. The 
public can assume PG&Eâ€™s study will find that its cash cow should 
continue to operate.

Why is PG&E pushing for this study so far in advance? There are several 
reasons. First, under the current administration license renewals are being 
granted at record speed (less than 2 years for most approvals). Second, 
PG&Eâ€™s old reactors will have shiny new parts in the next couple of years 
and even though many more components will likely fail (or fail again); the 
old plant will look pretty good after the current replacements. Third, the 
CPUC has given the utility virtually everything it has asked for since 
placing its nuclear plant in rates, but someday it might become more that a 
lapdog agency. Finally, the California Energy Commission has recommended an 
independent analysis of all costs/benefits/and risks of that stateâ€™s 
continued reliance on aging nuclear plants and PG&E would like undermine 
this analysis by doing its own extremely costly study. The CPUC should not 
allow this self-serving end run around a responsible sister agency.

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club will ask the CPUC 
to deny PG&Eâ€™s request for an in house study of license renewal. We will 
ask that the Commission carefully consider the industryâ€™s inability to 
predict nuclear costs in the past and not allow this crystal ball forecast 
to determine cost-effective, safe, and reliable energy needs in the future.

We need your help (letter to be sent to CPUC, CEC, Gov, oversight 
committees). Please use this link to access our action letter to Gov 
Scharzenegger 
<http://a4nr.org/actionLetters/06.01.06-governorschwarzenegger/view>http://a4nr.org/actionLetters/06.01.06-governorschwarzenegger/view 
We need your donations. Though the CPUC does allow for compensation for 
intervenors, funding is not reimbursed for one to two years. We need you to 
help spread our message, please send this newsletter to your e-lists.

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility 
www.a4nr.org (858) 337 2703

Editor's Note: Much has been happening in the world of nukes since we last 
sent a newsletter. You will notice a number of articles at the bottom of 
this message. We also encourage you to check out the website at 
<a4nr.htm>a4nr.org There are many sections listed on the left side of the 
page. Especially check out News/Events and the library, which both contain 
lots and lots of information! Molly

<http://a4nr.org/elements/psupporters/howToSuggest>394a80.jpg


Upcoming Events

Important events for the Alliance
    * The First National Conference on Precaution
    * The conference features over 35 workshops on: * More than 50 model 
local, state and national policies and programs from Europe, Canada and the 
U.S.; * Effective precautionary tools, such as alternatives assessments to 
find safer substitutes, health studies, full-cost accounting of 
pollutionâ€™s â€œhidden costsâ€ and getting out of the â€œrisk assessment 
box;â€ * Collaborative strategies to build a broader movement for 
precaution among diverse groups; and * Trainings on community organizing, 
fundraising, campaign strategies, advocacy, media outreach, messaging and 
running for political office. This national event will bring together 
groups working on conservation, disease prevention, environmental justice, 
green purchasing, health, pesticides, toxic and nuclear pollution 
prevention and more to build a stronger movement to protect our health and 
environment.
    * <http://a4nr.org/news/precautionconference>Read more


Breaking News

Here's the latest news
    * Champagne Threatened By Radioactive Leak
    * France's world-famous Champagne region may have been exposed to 
radioactive waste from a nearby nuclear site. . .low-level radioactive 
waste is leaking into groundwater less than 10 kilometers (6 miles) from 
the famous Champagne vineyards.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/failures/06.01.2006-rednova>Read more
    * IS IT ALL OVER FOR NUCLEAR POWER?
    * According to projections by the International Energy Agency and a 
handful of energy industry experts, 2005 was the first year nuclear power's 
electricity output dropped behind that of small-scale plants producing low 
or no carbon dioxide emissions - and that's not counting large 
hydroelectric projects on the low-carbon side of the balance sheet.
    * <http://a4nr.org/news/04.26.2006-newscientist>Read more
    * Radioactive waste leaks into aquifer in France
    * RADIOACTIVE waste from a storage site in Normandy, France, is leaking 
into groundwater used by dairy cattle, says a report by a French 
laboratory, ACRO.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/failures/05.24.2006-sydneymorningherald>Read 
more
    * Plymouth nuclear critics back off
    * Two environmental groups continue to object but say they canâ€™t 
afford a fight -- This is why California must decide BEFORE utilities are 
allowed (if allowed) to file with NRC
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/library/folder.2006-03-24.4862377158/06.01.2006-patriotledger>Read 
more
    * New IEER book: Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear 
Power to Combat Global Climate Change
    * This is THE book if you have been waiting for a careful and thorough 
analysis of the risks of using nuclear energy to combat global warming. It 
is meticulously researched. Were there no alternative, the severity of the 
threat facing humankind and other species from global climate change might 
well warrant serious consideration of the risks of nuclear energy. 
Fortunately, this book convincingly shows that there are far safer 
economical alternatives.
    * <http://a4nr.org/news/news_item.2006-06-01.4581698856>Read more
    * New NIRS Report Challenges All U.S. Radioactive Waste Policies
    * A new report from Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) 
finds that all of the stated U.S. radioactive waste policies have failed, 
and/or hold no potential for success. The group recommendedâ€”as it did 12 
years agoâ€”that an independent Blue-Ribbon Commission be established to 
start from ground zero and establish new, workable, 
scientifically-defensible radioactive waste policies. Had the U.S. done 
this 12 years ago, about seven billion dollars would have been saved that 
have been spent on a pyrrhic effort to open the proposed and unsuitable 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste dump.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/waste/03.28.06-nirs>Read more
    * Nuclear industry adopts new detection, disclosure policy on 
radioactive releases into groundwater
    * The nuclear industry said Tuesday it will more closely monitor and 
keep local and state officials informed about releases of radioactive water 
into groundwater from power plants, though it said such releases have not 
posed a health risk.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/safety/05.09.2006-sandiegotribune>Read more
    * Radioactive water leaks from Japan plant
    * About 105 gallons of coolant water containing radioactive material 
leaked from an inactive nuclear power reactor in western Japan, but there 
was no danger of radiation escaping the plant, its operator said Tuesday.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/failures/05.16.2006-cnews>Read more
    * Temporary Nuclear Storage May Be Needed
    * The Bush administration says it is willing to store temporarily 
nuclear power plant waste somewhere other than the delayed Yucca Mountain 
project in Nevada but needs congressional approval to do so.
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/library/waste/waste.yuccamtn/05.16.2006-newyorktimes>Read 
more
    * Radioactive isotope found in third well at Indian Point plant
    * Radioactive strontium 90 has spread to a third well at Indian Point 
and has been found at levels three times the amount allowed in drinking 
water -- within 150 feet of the Hudson River.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/safety/03.22.2006-poughkeepsiejournal>Read more
    * Nuclear plants inspecting for radioactive water leaks
    * After finding radioactive water leaks at five nuclear plants in three 
states, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear power industry met 
Wednesday to find ways detect and stop the problem.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/safety/03.22.2006-greenvillenews>Read more
    * GAO: Quality assurance problems still hamper nuclear waste dump
    * Quality assurance problems still hinder progress at the nation's 
proposed nuclear waste dump a year after the discovery of alleged paperwork 
fraud by project scientists, congressional investigators said Thursday.
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/library/waste/waste.yuccamtn/03.23.2006-lasvegassun>Read more
    * Radioactive water found at Palo Verde
    * Arizona Public Service Co. discovered radioactive water near a maze 
of underground pipes at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station this week 
and plans more tests to ensure that the tainted water hasn't leaked into 
the area's water supply.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/safety/03.04.2006-arizonarepublic>Read more
    * US nuclear plant leaks fuel health concerns
    * Years of radioactive waste water spills from Illinois nuclear power 
plants have fuelled suspicions the industry covers up safety problems and 
sparked debate about the risks from exposure to low-level radiation.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/safety/05.03.2006-independentonline>Read more
    * Radioactive Russian roulette
    * The nuclear power industry and its friends in Washington want to 
build the first new reactors in 30 years. But to do so, the illusion of a 
"solution" to the radioactive waste dilemma must be maintained. A growing 
mountain of lethal atomic waste - currently 55,000 tons - has piled up at 
scores of atomic power plants in dozens of states, with nowhere to go. It 
is stored in stopgap facilities such as indoor pools and outdoor silos. 
Last summer, the National Academies of Science (NAS) reported that the 
wastes are vulnerable to terrorists and are essentially radioactive bull's 
eyes risking catastrophic downwind releases if attacked. Expanding such 
targets undermines national security.
    * <http://a4nr.org/library/waste/02.24.2006-vermontguardian>Read more


Recent Articles

Recent articles of interest posted on the ANR website
    * bosmbcouncil.letters
    * Letters from San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and Morro 
Bay City Council to CA Energy Commission supporting CEC's recommendation to 
"evaluate the long-term implications associated with the continuing 
accumulation of spent fuel at California's operating [nuclear power] 
plants, including a case-by-case evaluation of public safety and ratepayer 
costs of on-site interim storage of spent fuel versus transporting spent 
fuel offsite for interim storage."
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/support/BOS%%20and%%20Morro%%20Bay%%20Letters.pdf>Read more
    * Contact information for CA Assembly Members

    * <http://a4nr.org/support/assemblycontactlist>Read more
    * Resolution to oppose license renewal for SONGS
    * Radioactive waste must not continued to be produced in an earthquake 
active coastal zone when no permanent storage site exists.
    * <http://a4nr.org/support/sanonofreresolution>Read more
    * Resolution to Oppose Diablo Canyon Relicense
    * Radioactive waste must not continued to be produced in an earthquake 
active coastal zone when no permanent storage site exists.
    * <http://a4nr.org/support/diablocanyonresolution>Read more
    * FEMA map - Persons living within 10 mi. of nuclear power plants
    * National Total: 4,873,774 Persons live within 10 miles of Nuclear 
Power Plants
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/library/safety/librarysafetyemerplanning/FEMA%%20Populations%%20with%%2010%%20miles%%20of%%20nuclear%%20power%%20plants.pdf>Read 
more
    * Vermont House Bill S.124
    * An act relating to a certificate of public good for extending the 
operating license of a nuclear power plant
    * 
<http://a4nr.org/library/folder.2006-03-24.4862377158/05.03.2006-vermontbill>Read 
more


What you can do to help:

    * How To Become a Supporter
    * Quick, easy, effective, impressive. A contribution to the alliance 
will be a lasting and visible benefit to all. And it's simple to do.
    * <http://a4nr.org/elements/psupporters/howToBecome>Read more
    * 10 Things You Can Do To Help

    * <http://a4nr.org/articles/10thingstohelp>Read more
    * How To Help
    * To help the Alliance, come to a4nr.org and make a donation, join our 
mailing lists, or become a Supporter.
    * <http://a4nr.org/elements/howToHelp/help1>Read more

----------
You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends. 
You may change your preferences at... 
<http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm>http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm 
You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of 
most of our pages at <http://a4nr.org>a4nr.org  
</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 3949f9.jpg: 00000001,624191a6,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 394a80.jpg: 00000001,624191a7,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 28 Forbes: The Joys Of Going Nuclear?
 
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:48:38 -0700


<x-flowed>
The Joys Of Going Nuclear?
<javascript:fdcBioWindow('jessicaholzer')>Jessica Holzer, 05.25.06, 6:00 AM ET

Is nuclear energy enjoying a renaissance? Electrical utilities certainly 
think so.

No new nuclear plant has been proposed since the 1970s. But now, three 
companies, Exelon (nyse: 
<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=EXC>EXC 
- <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=EXC>news - 
<http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=EXC>people 
), Dominion Resources (nyse: 
<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=D>D 
- <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=D>news - 
<http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=D>people 
) and Entergy (nyse: 
<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=ETR>ETR 
- <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=ETR>news - 
<http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=ETR>people 
), have filed applications for site permits with the government, and 16 
companies have said they're planning to apply for licenses to build and 
operate up to 25 new plants.

On Wednesday, at Excelon's Limerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphia, 
President <http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/12/gwbush.html>George W. Bush 
gushed about the joys of nuclear power and trumpeted Nuclear Power 2010, 
his initiative to get more plants built. That was his second appearance at 
a nuclear reactor since last June, when he visited a reactor in Maryland. 
And it was the second time a sitting president has visited a nuclear 
reactor site since Jimmy Carter's appearance at Three Mile Island.

Utilities famously backed away from nuclear power in the decades after that 
1979 accident. But their cold feet werent caused so much by environmental 
concerns as financial ones: Once the massive construction costs are 
factored in, nuclear plants simply aren't as profitable as their 
competitors, coal and gas-fired plants.

"It's not as if Greenpeace killed the industry. Guys in pinstripe suits on 
Wall Street killed the industry," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the 
Cato Institute in Washington.

The specter of caps on carbon emissions--which many in the power industry 
believe are inevitable--certainly increases the appeal of nuclear power, 
which is emissions-free. But even with the run-up in natural gas and coal 
prices, nuclear is not profitable without a raft of government subsidies. 
Still, with the largess it extracted from the government last year, the 
nuclear industry may have put even the ethanol lobby to shame.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended insurance coverage to the public in 
case of a reactor accident at any new plant for 20 years. It provided for a 
generous production tax credit and federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of 
the project's cost. The government even agreed to step in and eat the cost 
of any delay in plant construction related to litigation or government 
red-tape--a huge prize for plant sponsors and investors given the massive 
capital costs associated with building a nuclear plant.

These new subsidies were lavished on top of old ones, including the biggest 
one of all: the government's shouldering the problem of nuclear waste. It 
is little wonder that nuclear is getting a second look.

But even with all this corporate welfare, those generating electric power 
are timid about diving in. "We've not made a decision to build, but we are 
very interested," said Sandy Robinson, a spokesperson for Southern Co. 
(nyse: 
<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=SO>SO 
- <http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=SO>news - 
<http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0&name=&ticker=SO>people 
).

A huge hurdle is the licensing process, which was streamlined more than ten 
years ago but still remains untested. Like in the refining industry, 
getting the license to build and operate nuclear reactors is so costly and 
arduous--it can run several years and cost millions--that power companies 
have formed consortia to pool legal expenses in order to test it.

And there are other uncertainties. Once nuclear plants are up and running, 
they are far more profitable than gas or coal-fired plants. But the 
construction costs can boggle the mind. There were huge cost overruns in 
the construction of the last generation of nuclear plants, and many of them 
did not get to full capacity for years after they were built. In an 
environment of rising interest rates, the power industry and Wall Street 
might shy away from such unpredictable and capital-intensive projects, says 
Taylor of the Cato Institute.

Given the costs, it isn't obvious to many environmentalists that nuclear 
power is going to help solve the problem of climate change. To have an 
impact, the country would have to triple the amount of nuclear power 
produced today, which would require making it more affordable and solving 
the thorny issue of what to do with spent fuel, says Lee Lane of the 
Climate Policy Center in Washington.

And building more nuclear power plants won't do much to improve our energy 
independence either, since they compete with coal- and gas-fired plants. 
The U.S. imports just a small portion of the natural gas it uses and is 
blessed with a more than 150-year supply of coal. All this makes one wonder 
why the Bush administration is plugging so hard for nuclear.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 Grist: Public not sold on nuclear power 

| Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist Magazine

Posted by David Roberts at 4:24 PM on 31 May 2006 
		 
A new survey (; ) done by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC),
commissioned and released by the , finds what I at least
consider good news: 

According to the survey, Americans favor developing clean
renewable energy alternatives and strategies -- including
increased conservation, solar energy and wind power -- that can
be delivered more rapidly than nuclear power. 

The new CSI survey found that more than three out of five
Americans (61 percent) say the nation can't "afford to wait ...
to put in place part of the solution to the energy crisis and
global warming" if "building more nuclear power plants will take
a decade or more in the U.S. and cost tens of billions of
dollars." Only a third said the U.S. could wait for more nuclear
power plants to come on-line as a way to dealing with today's
energy and climate woes. 

A key survey finding: Politics does not seem to be a factor when
it comes to supporting or opposing nuclear power and other
energy alternatives. A nearly identical 60 percent of
conservatives, 62 percent of independents and 68 percent of
liberals agree with the 61 percent of Americans who think the
nation can't afford the wait and expense associated with
erecting more nuclear power plants. 

I tend to think that public support for nuclear power will rise
in direct proportion to the amount of disinformation Bush and
his industry flacks are able to inject into the public sphere. 

Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
 [a beacon in the smog (tm)] ©2006. Grist Magazine, Inc. All
*****************************************************************
 30 Sydney Morning Herald: Company puts out lights and gives switches the flick - 

www.smh.com.au

Wendy Frew Environment Reporter

June 2, 2006
 	 	
EVERY night the Sydney skyline is illuminated by the city's
office towers, their lights ablaze. 

But at one office tower, when the staff go home the lights go
out. 

In the largest energy efficiency upgrade to an existing office
in Australia, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers is
saving power and money, and cutting its greenhouse gas emissions
without flicking a switch. 

Installation of a new lighting system means that each day when
the first staff member walks out of the lift and to his or her
desk, sensors pick up the movement and turn on the lights. When
no movement has been detected for more than 20 minutes the
lights go out. 

The company will save 630 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year,
equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions generated by 140
cars. If all office tenants in the city saved energy at this
rate, it is estimated it would provide enough surplus energy to
power 13,000 homes. 

In the middle of a fierce national debate about the greenhouse
gases associated with coal-generated electricity and the risks
of nuclear power, it was a timely reminder that curbing
electricity use was part of the solution to climate change, said
the managing director of Big Switch Projects, Gavin Gilchrist,
who managed the project for PricewaterhouseCoopers. 

Economic modelling endorsed by all Australian governments showed
that commercial building owners and tenants could cut their
energy use by between 30 and 70 per cent, and that implementing
those savings would deliver strong economic growth, jobs and big
greenhouse gas reductions, Mr Gilchrist said. 

"As we debate energy policy in Australia, it's well worth
remembering that the cheapest way to meet future energy needs is
to stop wasting the stuff in the first place." 

PricewaterhouseCoopers had made a global commitment to reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions because it made environmental and
business sense, said the firm's Australian infrastructure
director, Jay Lomax. 

"Lighting is the big-ticket item, and that is where the big
energy drain is," said Mr Lomax, explaining why the firm spent
$1 million over six months to upgrade the lighting in its 32,000
square metres of office space at Darling Park, where 2400 staff
work. 

Each group of employees is in a zone controlled by one sensor.
When that zone has been empty of staff for more than 20 minutes
the lights go out. 

Electricity is saved not just overnight and at weekends but also
during the day when staff are away from their desks at meetings
or working off-site with clients. 

The project entailed removing 8000 ceiling tiles, dragging 40
kilometres of cable through ceiling spaces and installing 1600
sensors. Electricians plugged in 4800 electrical connections to
finish the job. 

Mr Lomax said it would take five years to recoup the $1 million
spent on the system, but in the four months since its
installation the firm had already cut its energy use by 15 per
cent. 

Refits were also being carried out at the company's office
towers in Perth, Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane. 

"The reaction from staff has been really positive. They
understand why we are doing it and the benefits to the broader
community." 

| | | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.                                                           
*****************************************************************
 31 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear remains too expensive to curb emissions - 

www.smh.com.au

June 2, 2006
 	 	
THE nuclear industry is unlikely to be competitive with fossil
fuels or some renewable energy technologies any time soon
because of its large set-up and waste costs, a report finds. 

At a time when the Government was promoting nuclear energy as an
affordable climate change solution, the report found Australia
would not be able to make significant greenhouse gas emission
cuts without supporting further big investments in renewable
energy. Written by the energy consultants McLennan Magasanik
Associates for the industry body Renewable Energy Generators of
Australia, the report says nuclear energy may be cost
competitive before 2016, with some kinds of highly efficient
fossil fuel power generation backed by carbon capture and
storage. When carbon capture is eventually commercially
available, it will add dramatically to the cost of
fossil-fuel-fired electricity. 

Nuclear power could also be competitive with natural gas
combined-cycle power and carbon capture after 2045. 

"Even though nuclear energy had the advantage over fossil fuels
of low emissions, some renewable technologies were likely to be
as cost-effective," the report said. 

Nuclear power's ability to deliver a lot of power in plants that
generated low greenhouse gas emissions was offset by its long
construction time (three to seven years) and community
opposition, the report said. 

The Prime Minister, John Howard, is expected to soon announce an
inquiry into what role nuclear energy could play in curbing
climate change. There is widespread agreement in scientific and
political circles that greenhouse gases must be cut by about 50
per cent by 2050 to stabilise the world's climate. 

Wendy Frew 

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. <img
*****************************************************************
 32 EUobserver: Norway keen to tame Russian energy tiger

 01.06.2006 - 09:55 CET | By Andrew Rettman

 EUOBSERVER / HAMMERFEST - Joint Norway-Russia gas projects in
the Barents Sea could help soothe future EU-Russia relations as
Norway seeks to export its energy social model eastward. 

"Close cooperation between Norway and Russia in this region
could be in the interests of both these countries and all of
Europe," Norway's energy minister Odd Roger Enosken told
EUobserver in Oslo on Tuesday (30 May). 

The proposed cooperation is likely to see Norway's
state-controlled Statoil and Norsk Hydro help develop Gazprom's
massive Stockman gas field in the Arctic Circle in a scheme
worth over €30 billion that could start production by 2015. 

The project would involve sharing state-of-the art offshore
technology with Russia, while encouraging Moscow to take up
Norway's new "Integrated Management Plan for the High North" - a
key future energy supply zone for Europe and the US. 

The Norwegian management plan, adopted by Oslo in April, is
designed to maximise oil and gas yields while protecting the
Arctic wilderness, safeguarding traditional cod fishing and
sharing wealth with local communities. 

But the plan also has political content, with Norwegian
diplomats explaining that Russian adoption of Nordic
environmental and social values in the north could nudge Moscow
toward wider European market economy norms. 

"A project of this scope is like a marriage for many decades. It
requires political trust from both sides," one Norwegian
official said. 

The country's foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Store, was more
explicit while unveiling future Arctic policy in Tromso last
November. 

Sea of peace
 "We want to see the Barents Sea developed into a sea of
cooperation, a peace project," he said. "It can become an
important northern contribution toward integrating Russia more
closely into European cooperation structures."
 
Norway has honed its Russian diplomacy in a 35-year dispute over
an oil-rich 173,000 square kilometre section of the Barents Sea,
with talks restarting in 2005 after a two-year hiatus and with
burgeoning traffic on the Norway-Russia land border signalling
improving post-Cold War relations. 

"The [territory dispute] talks have lasted over 30 years, so we
will probably have a solution about 30 years from now," another
diplomat quipped, in the sanguine Nordic style that stands in
contrast to recent provocative US and Polish statements on
Moscow's energy policy. 

"We see ourselves as a good broker," the official added, with
Norwegian experts also helping ease international tension over
Bolivia's recent renationalisation of its energy sector and with
Oslo to host Sri Lanka conflict resolution talks on 8 June. 

Russia and Norway are the EU's two biggest energy suppliers,
with Russia feeding 24 percent of Europe's gas demand and 27
percent of oil and Norway shipping 13 percent gas and 16 percent
oil. 

The stakes are set to rise in future, with US geologists
estimating that up to a quarter of the world's so-far
undiscovered oil and gas reserves will be found in the Arctic
Circle, most of them in Russian territory. 

Chalk and cheese 
But the two energy supply heavyweights could hardly be more
different in terms of EU relations.
 
Norway, a NATO and European Economic Area member, has been a
trusted EU supplier for over 50 years, squirreling away oil cash
in vast pension funds and building a social model that sees it
top polls as the best place in the world to live. 

Its environmental credentials are relatively high compared to
European standards - if a sea eagle gets mangled in one of
Norway's wind power turbines, the story makes the national news. 

Russia broke EU trust in January by stopping gas supplies to EU
transit state Ukraine in what many European and US diplomats see
as naked political punishment for Ukraine's 2004 pro-western
shift. 

Bits of Moscow's old nuclear submarine fleet are silently
rotting on the Kola Peninsula, while Russian oil tankers
criss-crossing Arctic waters are closely watched for oil spills
by Norwegian and US satellite stations on the Svalbard
archipelago. 

"When you see traces of what has been going on with respect to
hydrocarbon production in Soviet times, you might be scared,"
Tromso university geologist Tore Vorren indicated. 

"They have not been taking much care of the environment." 
*****************************************************************
 33 Platts: NRC okays license transfers to Exelon for three PSEG 
plants
 
Washington (Platts)--31May2006
 
NRC has approved license transfers to Exelon for the three plants 
operated or partially owned by Public Service Enterprise Group, 
the agency announced today. 

Exelon and PSEG announced in December 2004 their planned merger. 

The approval covers Hope Creek, Salem, and Peach Bottom. PSEG 
owns and operates Hope Creek, operates and jointly owns (with 
Exelon) Salem, and jointly owns Peach Bottom, which Exelon 
operates. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said even cases such as 
Peach Bottom's, in which a partial owner becomes a full owner, 
require a license transfer. 

In a press release, the NRC said its approval is contingent on 
the transfer of decommissioning funds and adequate proof of 
insurance. 

Those steps, in turn, are dependent on the completion of other, 
still-pending regulatory reviews of the Exelon-PSEG merger.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 34 POAC: NRC OKs transfer of nuclear plant licenses
 
[PressofAtlanticCity.com]                                                                             

Public Service Enterprise Group's licenses on the Salem and Hope 
Creek reactors in Lower Alloways Creek Township will go to Exelon 
as part of a merger. The transfer went into effect Tuesday and 
the NRC announced the move Wednesday. " /> 

By DANIEL WALSH Staff Writer, (856) 794-5111 Published:

Thursday, June 1, 2006 Updated: Thursday, June 1, 2006 
                
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a transfer of 
licenses for the Salem County nuclear plants. 

Public Service Enterprise Group's licenses on the Salem and Hope
Creek reactors in Lower Alloways Creek Township will go to
Exelon as part of a merger. The transfer went into effect
Tuesday and the NRC announced the move Wednesday. 

The transfer is just one regulatory move necessary for the two
companies to complete their proposed merger. They're still
awaiting several approvals on the merger, most notably from New
Jersey and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

In their review, NRC staff considered numerous issues, including
financial viability and the maintenance of decommission funds,
according to the NRC's announcement Wednesday. 

Exelon currently owns or operates 17 nuclear plants, including
the Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township, Ocean County. The
company runs the three reactors in Lower Alloways Creek Township
for PSEG. 

The proposed merger would give Exelon control of more than half
the power generation in the East, according to New Jersey Public
Interest Research Group, one of many groups to criticize the
merger with claims it would drive up consumers' electric costs. 
 	 	 					 		 	 

*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: NRC Staff Approves Transfer of Operating Licenses for Salem, Hope Creek and Peach Bottom
 
News Release - 2006-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-076     May 31, 2006   


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the
transfer of operating licenses for the Salem, Hope Creek and
Peach Bottom nuclear power plants from Public Service Enterprise
Group Nuclear LLC to Exelon Generation Company LLC, due to the
pending merger of the licensees parent companies. The staff's
approval of the license transfers became effective on May 30,
contingent on the transfer of decommissioning funds and adequate
proof of insurance. 

On March 3 and 4, 2005, the companies submitted applications to
the NRC for the license transfers. The applications were
supplemented by letters submitted May 24 and Oct. 6, 2005. Major
issues considered by the NRC included financial qualifications
as well as transfer and maintenance of accumulated
decommissioning funds. 

A copy of the NRC's approval order and accompanying safety
evaluation report, including the staffs consideration of public
comments concerning the license transfers, is available on the
NRCs Web site from the agencys online document database, ADAMS,
by entering ML060310533 at this address:
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. Help in using ADAMS
is available by calling the NRCs Public Document Room at
800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 .   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 31, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 36 UPI: Slovenia mulls more nuclear energy

United Press International - Energy - 

6/1/2006 9:07:00 AM -0400                               

LJUBLJANA, Slovenia, June 1 (UPI) -- Slovenian Environment and
Spatial Planning Minister Janez Podobnik has pushed nuclear
power as a clean source of energy with no greenhouse gas
emissions. 

"As nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, and as the
supply of primary fuels depends less on current political
situation, it would be reasonable to continue with nuclear
energy production in the future," he said Wednesday, according
the Slovene news agency STA. 

The comments come a day after the Dnevnik newspaper reported
that the country's Economy Ministry, in a bid to secure the
nation's future energy supply, would build a second 1,000 MW
reactor at the Krsko Nuclear Power Plant, or NEK, after 2020. 

Plans are now focusing on finding a location for a repository
for low and intermediate-low nuclear waste, the newspaper said.

 														
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 37 Rutland Herald: Yankee back at full power

Rutland Vermont News & Information

June 1, 2006 

The Associated Press   
  
VERNON — The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant returned to full
power Monday after replacement of a pump motor that
short-circuited and caused a low-level emergency.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion,
said federal inspectors approved the steps that Vermont Yankee
has taken to address the problem.

"Our interest is whether they are being thorough and doing
everything they can to make sure the plant is operating safely,"
he said. "We didn't see any areas where their work was not
thorough and appropriate."

The short-circuit caused smoke to appear in the plant's turbine
building and a low-level emergency was declared May 24.

The problem caused the plant to shut down two of six pumps that
feed water back to the reactor after it is condensed from steam.

Sheehan said the short-circuit did not cause a fire. The
fire-suppression system turned on when a surge protector became
hot, he said.

Both Williams and Sheehan said there's no evidence that the pump
problem was related to the plant's recent 20 percent power boost.

"At this point, we have no indication of that," Williams said.
"But we will continue to look at all aspects."

Williams said Vermont Yankee is investigating whether the pump
had been forced to work harder during the power boost.
   
    		
                © 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 38 Rutland Herald: Nuclear power no panacea

Rutland Vermont News & Information
                                        
June 1, 2006 

By Robert Lincoln   
  
Many observers of the conversation on viable new energy sources 
point to an outdated source of electrical production — nuclear 
power. After a Rutland Herald commentary (May 25), I felt 
compelled to, with the aid of many sources including the Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service, respond and clarify a number of 
points in this area.

The article points to the concern of carbon dioxide emissions, 
saying, "This source does not emit carbon dioxide and, therefore, 
does not contribute to the greenhouse effect." This is a 
perpetuation of a myth. It is with great amusement that I read, 
only occasionally, how someone convinces friends or relatives 
that commercial nuclear generation is somehow magically without 
pollution.

While atomic reactors are not surrounded by clouds of carbon 
smoke, the nuclear fuel chain is a major contributor to global 
warming. The nuclear fuel pellet fabrication process and the 
gaseous diffusion enrichment plants consume enormous amounts of 
carbon-producing, global-warming-contributing energy. In 
addition, krypton-85 builds up proportionately and causes 
modification of the atmosphere's electric field, which could 
affect the hydrologic cycle. So the next time you see a pretty 
picture of our local nuclear plant without carbon smoke above it, 
picture many plants miles to the southwest producing pollution 
soon to be drifting over our Green Mountains, and try to have a 
good laugh at our foolishness.

The article continues with comparisons to other countries.
Stephen Thomas is a senior research fellow at the Public
Services International Research Unit in the University of
Greenwich, London. From 1979-2000, he was a member of the Energy
Policy Programme at SPRU, University of Sussex. He is a member
of the editorial board of Energy Policy (since 2000), the
International Journal of Regulation and Governance, and he is a
founding member of a network of academies in Northern European
countries (the REFORM group) examining policy aspects of the
energy systems. He was a member of the team appointed by the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to carry out
the official economic due diligence study for the project to
replace the Chernobyl power plant.

He points out, worldwide, the ordering rate for new nuclear
stations has been at a low ebb for at least 20 years. Once of
the reasons behind this is the poor economic performance of many
existing plants. This has occurred mainly because moves in the
past decade to competitive electricity markets, which favor
low-capital-cost generation options that are quick to build and
for which the performance can be guaranteed, have
characteristics that nuclear designs do not possess. He states
further that nuclear generation capacity in Britain will
continue to fall sharply in the next decade, reducing its
contribution from about 25 percent of power needs to less than
10 percent. Also a number of major countries have actual or de
facto nuclear phase-out policies, including Sweden, Italy,
Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.

There are also three reasons why forecasting the cost of power
from a nuclear plant is difficult:


+  All experience of nuclear power suggests that unproven
processes — decommissioning and waste disposal — have not been
proven on a commercial scale and could easily cost more than
expected, therefore incurring the strong risk that forecasts of
these costs could be significantly too low.


+  There is no clear consensus on how provisions to pay for
decommissioning should be arranged.


+  Perhaps most important, there is a lack of reliable,
up-to-date data on actual nuclear plants. Utilities are
notoriously secretive about the costs they are incurring.

Finally, he spoke to the issue of spent fuel disposal, which
Vermont may soon have to deal with. The issue of spent fuel is
difficult to evaluate. Reprocessing is expensive, but most
importantly, the plutonium produced may be used for
weapons-grade material. This is relevant in that recent Defense
Department statements claim the "U.S. is awash in plutonium." A
deadly thought! Reprocessing merely splits the spent fuel into
different parts and does not reduce the amount of radioactivity
to be dealt with.

In addition, reprocessing creates a large amount of low- and
intermediate-level waste because all the equipment and material
used in reprocessing becomes radioactive waste. The collapse of
British Energy and our own West Valley, N.Y., facilities are
good examples.

So, therefore, what are the most professionally recommended
alternatives? The professional opinion of many energy experts is
that the best alternative is to address — now, not later —
energy-efficiency programs, which are cheaper often than new
power generation and can be brought on line more quickly and at
less environmental cost.

William C. Walbridge, general manage of a Sacramento utility,
explained it best. "It is obvious that this country uses far
more electricity per capita than most other major industrial
countries, that much of this electricity is wasted, and that
programs to reduce this waste should become a major part of this
country's efforts … to bring to the attention … as forcefully
and frequently … the need to place mandatory conservation
programs into effect."

Robert Lincoln of Rutland is a retired special educator.
   

© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 39 Times Argus: States file challenge over Yankee's relicensing plan

Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 
June 1, 2006 

By Daniel Barlow Rutland Herald   

BRATTLEBORO — The states of Vermont and Massachusetts and a
nuclear watchdog group have raised concerns with Vermont
Yankee's plan to seek an operating license renewal and are
asking federal regulators to hold hearings on the matters.

The two states and New England Coalition asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in filings last week for legal standing in
the federal approval process as the Vernon-based reactor seeks a
20-year extension of its license, which expires in 2012.

The three groups raise a total of 10 safety and
environmental-related contentions in their combined 181 pages of
filings to the NRC on May 26, including what the condition of
plant materials such as the concrete surrounding the reactor
will be after 40 years of use.

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly filed his state's
motion following a request from the Franklin Regional Council of
Governments over concerns that a radiological release could blow
across the northern part of the state.

Reilly's filing notes that he does not oppose the license
renewal, but that he does have safety concerns with the
continued storage of spent nuclear fuel on site at the Vernon
plant. Specifically, he states that spent fuel is dangerous
because it likely is a terrorist target.

"The Attorney General is concerned that Entergy and the NRC have
not adequately informed the public regarding the risks of a
severe accident in the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool during the
license renewal term, nor have they implemented adequate design
measures to avoid such an accident," the filing states.

Rob Williams, a spokesman for Entergy Vermont Nuclear, the owner
of the plant, said officials were still reviewing the filings
Wednesday. He said the plant "meets every applicable federal and
state regulation" and that their application for license renewal
is consistent with regulation.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission process with the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board is a very open avenue to have issues
formally addressed," Williams said.

"We expect to participate in the process," he said.

The quasi-judicial body called the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board, an arm of the NRC, will review the filings and determine
if the three entities meet the requirements for achieving party
status, according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the
commission.

The ASLB also will determine if the contentions raised by the
three entities have merit, he said.

Ray Shadis, a technical adviser to the NEC, said five of the six
of the contentions in their filing relate to the aging of
physical components in the plant. The other raises concerns
regarding the environmental impact of increasing the temperature
of their discharged water.

Concerns raised by the state of Vermont, participating in the
process via the Department of Public Service, include the
adequacy of the building core past the 40 years, storage of the
spent fuel on-site and the condition of security equipment at
the plant.

Vermont's filing noted that the state has "firmly established
values associated with land use" and asks for Entergy to supply
more information regarding the long-term storage of the spent
fuel at the site in lieu of any political movement on
establishing a national depository for the waste.

"It follows that it is reasonable to expect that at least a part
of spent fuel to be generated at VY during the period of an
extended license will remain at the site for a much longer time
than evaluated … and perhaps indefinitely," the filing reads.

Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com.
   
© 2006 Times Argus
*****************************************************************
 40 Brattleboro Reformer: VY relicensing faces challenge

  By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff  


Thursday, June 1 BRATTLEBORO -- Vermont, Massachusetts and a
nuclear watchdog group are hoping to add an extra level of
scrutiny to Vermont Yankee's bid to operate another 20 years. 

Both states and the New England Coalition applied this week for
what would amount to a quasi-judicial review of Yankee's license
renewal. The request must survive a tough set of federal
guidelines, but if it does, it would mean a protracted and more
costly relicensing process for the plant's owners, and
intervening parties. 

The challenge is being handled by the Department of Public
Service in Vermont and by the attorney general's office in
Massachusetts. 

The odds are against the states and New England Coalition. So
far federal regulators have approved 44 applications for license
renewal. In only a few of those cases were there requests for
this type of review, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC.
And of those few requests, none have been granted. One,
regarding the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, is under appeal. 

But the state of Vermont and the coalition have passed muster
with the NRC before, when they petitioned for a similar review
of the plant's power uprate. That still-pending case is being
handled by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -- the same
board that would lead special hearings on license renewal. 

To win the special review on relicensing, the states and the
coalition must prove they have standing in the matter -- that
is, that they, or the people they represent, will be affected by
another 20 years of Vermont Yankee operation. They must also
demonstrate serious concerns about either plant safety or
maintenance. 

The New England Coalition is raising five concerns regarding
plant equipment and maintenance, and one about the impact the
plant has on the Connecticut River. The Department of Public
Service addresses the reliability of a federal engineering study
done on the plant. And the Massachusetts Attorney General filed
questions about a possible terrorist attack on the plant's spent
fuel pool. 

The request for a quasi-judicial review must first be OK'd by
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Once past that threshold,
the approval can be appealed by plant owners, which Sheehan said
it would likely be. Then it's up to the full,
president-appointed NRC to decide whether Vermont, Massachusetts
and the New England Coalition have raised valid concerns. 

Vermont Yankee's 40-year license was issued in 1972. It supplies
fully one-third of the state's power supply. Since plant owners
Entergy Nuclear announced last fall plans to relicense the plant
-- one of the oldest in the country -- public opposition has
been mounting. 

Concern among legislators has spiked, too; as a result,
lawmakers passed a bill this session that would give them a
chance to review Entergy's license renewal, as well. 

It's no surprise that Entergy is seeking a license extension.
When the Mississippi-based company bought the plant in 2002, the
state's review of the sale included talks of relicensing. And
when the state's Public Service Board approved the transaction,
it did so with a provision that would give the state's
ratepayers a bonus in the case of a license extension. 

The sale agreement dictates that the state's utilities would
split evenly any wholesale power contracts above $60 per
megawatt-hour, or 6 cents per kilowatt hour. 

Right now, Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public
Service Corp. are paying between $42 and $45 per megawatt-hour,
less than half the current going rate in New England. 

Kristi Ceccarossi can be reached at .com or (802) 254-2311, ext.
160. 

» (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 
05301-9242                    
*****************************************************************
 41 NRC: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Environmental Assessment and
 
                         FR Doc E6-8448 
[Federal Register: June 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 105)] 
[Notices] [Page 31223-31226] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01jn06-105]                         
 
Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Exemption of Waste 
Shipments From Certain Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Ramsey, Project 
Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-8F42, 
Rockville, MD 20555-0001, Telephone (301) 415-7887; fax (301) 
415-5955; e-mail kmr@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff is considering the issuance of a license 
amendment to Materials License SNM-124, to Nuclear Fuel Services, 
Inc. (NFS) (the licensee), to exempt it from certain safety 
requirements when shipping low-level radioactive waste. The NRC 
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this 
amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. 
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate and, therefore, an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.
 
 
[[Page 31224]] II. Environmental Assessment Background The NFS 
facility in Erwin, Tennessee is authorized, under License SNM-124 
to manufacture high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. In addition, 
NFS is authorized to blend highly enriched uranium (HEU) with 
natural uranium and manufacture low-enriched nuclear reactor 
fuel. These activities generate low-level radioactive waste 
contaminated with small amounts of enriched uranium. In addition, 
ongoing decommissioning activities generate large quantities of 
soil and debris contaminated with enriched uranium. Regulations 
in 10 CFR define enriched uranium as special nuclear material 
(SNM) and specify safety requirements when SNM is shipped. On 
June 20, 2005, NFS requested an exemption from certain safety 
requirements when the SNM is shipped as contamination on 
radioactive waste (Ref. 5). On December 16, 2005, and March 24, 
2006, NFS provided additional information to support its request 
(Ref.
 
6 and 7).
 
Review Scope The purpose of this EA is to assess the 
environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment. It does 
not approve the request. This EA is limited to the proposed 
exemption and any cumulative impacts on existing plant 
operations. The existing conditions and operations for the Erwin 
facility were evaluated by the NRC for environmental impacts in a 
1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1) and a 
2002 EA related to the first amendment for the Blended 
Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Project (Ref. 2). The 2002 EA 
assessed the impact of the entire BLEU Project, using information 
available at that time. A 2003 EA (Ref. 3) and a 2004 EA (Ref. 
4), related to additional BLEU Project amendments, confirmed the 
FONSI issued in 2002. The present EA sets forth information and 
analysis for determining that the issuance of a FONSI is 
appropriate, and that an EIS will not be prepared in connection 
with the exemption request now being considered.
 
Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NRC Materials 
License SNM-124 to exempt shipments of low-level radioactive 
waste contaminated with SNM from certain safety measures normally 
required for such shipments. The exemption would authorize less 
stringent measures. The proposed action is limited to safety 
measures for waste shipments only. No change to processing, 
packaging, or storage operations is requested, and no 
construction of new facilities is requested.
 
Need for Proposed Action The proposed action is being requested 
because NFS has generated a large quantity of low-level 
radioactive waste from decommissioning activities and normal 
operations. This waste contains SNM which is not readily 
separable from the waste and is uneconomical for further uranium 
recovery processing. When waste packages meeting disposal site 
requirements are grouped together for a shipment, the total 
quantity of SNM can exceed the threshold requiring more stringent 
safety measures. To avoid the need for more stingent measures, 
NFS is making waste shipments with smaller quantities of SNM. 
This results in shipments that are not fully loaded and requires 
additional shipments to dispose of the waste. NFS believes that 
the more stringent measures are inappropriate for waste bearing 
incidental SNM in the form of contamination.
 
Alternatives The alternatives available to NRC are: 1. Approve 
the license amendment as described; or 2. No action (i.e., deny 
the request). Affected Environment The affected environment for 
the proposed action is the vicinity of the vehicle used to 
transport the waste to a disposal facility.
 
The affected environment for the no action alternative is the NFS 
site. The NFS facility is located in Unicoi County, Tennessee, 
about 32 km (20 mi) southwest of Johnson City, Tennessee. The 
facility is about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest of the Erwin city 
limits. The affected environment is identical to the affected 
environment assessed in the 2002 EA related to the first 
amendment for the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). A full description of 
the site and its characteristics is given in the 2002 EA. 
Additional information can be found in the 1999 EA related to the 
renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1). The site occupies about 28 
hectares (70 acres). The site is bounded to the northwest by the 
CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad property and the Nolichucky River, 
and by Martin Creek to the northeast. The plant elevation is 
about 9 m (30 ft) above the nearest point on the Nolichucky 
River.
 
The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of residential, 
industrial, and commercial areas, with a limited amount of 
farming to the northwest. Privately owned residences are located 
to the east and south of the facility. Tract size is relatively 
large, leading to a low housing density in the areas adjacent to 
the facility. The CSX railroad right-of-way is parallel to the 
western boundary of the site. Industrial development is located 
adjacent to the railroad on the opposite side of the 
right-of-way. The site is bounded by Martin Creek to the north, 
with privately owned, vacant property and low-density residences.
 
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives 1. 
Occupational and Public Health Proposed Action The risk to human 
health from the transportation of all radioactive material in the 
U.S. was evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on 
the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes 
(Ref. 8). The principal radiological environmental impact during 
normal transportation is direct radiation exposure to nearby 
persons from radioactive material in the package. The average 
annual individual dose from all radioactive material 
transportation in the U.S. was calculated to be approximately 0.5 
mrem, well below the 10 CFR part 20 requirement of 100 mrem for a 
member of the public. The proposed action would result in fewer 
shipments. Fewer shipments would expose fewer members of the 
public to radiation, reduce nonradiological truck emissions, and 
reduce the risk of injuries from traffic accidents. However, the 
reductions would be so small that the differences would be 
negligible.
 
Occupational health was also considered in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of 
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (Ref. 8). The average 
annual occupational dose to the driver(s) is estimated to be 8.7 
mSv (870 mrem), which is below the 10 CFR Part 20 requirement of 
50 mSv (5000 mrem). The Department of Transportation (DOT) 
regulations in 49 CFR 177.842(g) require that the radiation dose 
rate may not exceed 0.02 mSv (2 mrem) per hour in any position 
normally occupied in a motor vehicle. The proposed action would 
not cause dose rates to the driver exceeding the DOT limit.
 
The NRC staff is evaluating the possibility of an incident due to 
transportation of this material. Incidents involving SNM were 
considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 
Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes 
(Ref.
 
 
[[Page 31225]] 8). The NRC staff concluded that the risks of an 
incident in transit, resulting in a significant release, were 
sufficiently small to constitute no significant adverse impact on 
the environment. The staff will approve the proposed amendment 
only if it concludes that the safety measures are adequate to 
protect public health and safety, and the environment, based on 
the statements and representations in the application. A detailed 
discussion of this evaluation will be provided in the Safety 
Evaluation Report for the amendment if it is approved.
 
Under the proposed action, the doses to the public and to the 
workers are not increased beyond those considered in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of 
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (Ref. 8). Therefore, 
shipment of these materials as proposed would be consistent with 
the previous assessment of environmental impacts and the 
conclusions reached.
 
No Action Denying this amendment request would not result in any 
significant difference in the risk to the public health from 
radiological materials. If this amendment request is denied, the 
licensee would be required to ship the contaminated waste more 
frequently in smaller quantities. The larger number of shipments 
is also consistent with the assessment of environmental impacts, 
and the conclusions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other 
Modes (Ref. 8). As noted above, the level of nonradiological 
truck emissions and the risk of injuries from traffic accidents 
would be higher, but the differences would be negligible.
 
The occupational health impacts would not change significantly as 
a result of denial of this amendment request. Occupational doses 
at the facility may be slightly higher as a result of the larger 
number of shipments that workers must prepare, however, the 
facility will continue to implement NRC-approved radiation safety 
procedures for handling radioactive materials. Thus, the dose to 
workers under the ``no action'' alternative will remain within 
acceptable regulatory limits.
 
2. Effluent Releases, Environmental Monitoring, Water Resources, 
Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Demography, Biota, Cultural and 
Historic Resources Proposed Action The NRC staff has determined 
that the approval of the proposed amendment will not impact 
effluent releases, environmental monitoring, water resources, 
geology, soils, air quality, demography, biota, or cultural or 
historic resources under normal transport conditions.
 
No Action The NRC staff has determined that denial of the 
proposed amendment will not impact effluent releases, 
environmental monitoring, water resources, geology, soils, air 
quality, demography, biota, or cultural or historic resources at 
or near the NFS site.
 
Conclusion Based on its review, the NRC has concluded that the 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are not 
significant and, therefore, do not warrant denial of the proposed 
license amendment. Based on an evaluation of the environmental 
impacts of the proposed license amendment, the NRC has determined 
that the proper action is to issue a FONSI.
 
Agencies and Persons Contacted On January 11, 2005, the NRC staff 
contacted the Deputy Director of the Division of Radiological 
Health in the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC) concerning this EA. On February 2, 2006, the 
Deputy Director responded that TDEC reviewed the draft EA and had 
no comments (Ref. 9). The NRC staff has determined that the 
proposed action will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act.
 
Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action 
is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause 
effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is 
required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act.
 
References 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental 
Assessment for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. 
SNM-124,'' January 1999, ADAMS No. ML031150418. 2. U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment for Proposed 
License Amendments to Special Nuclear Material License No. 
SNM-124 Regarding Downblending and Oxide Conversion of Surplus 
High- Enriched Uranium,'' June 2002, ADAMS No. ML021790068. 3. 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact for the BLEU Preparation 
Facility,'' September 2003, ADAMS No. ML032390428. 4. U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Oxide Conversion 
Building and the Effluent Processing Building at the BLEU 
Complex,'' June 2004, ADAMS No. ML041470176. 5. Nuclear Fuel 
Services, ``Request for Exemption,'' June 20, 2005, ADAMS No. 
ML051810254. 6. Nuclear Fuel Services, ``Response to Request for 
Additional Information Concerning Request for Exemption of 
Low-Level Waste from Definitions in 10 CFR 73,'' December 16, 
2005, ADAMS No.
 
ML053610013.
 
7. Nuclear Fuel Services, ``Response to Second Request for 
Additional Information Concerning Request for Exemption of 
Low-Level Waste from Definitions in 10 CFR 73,'' March 24, 2006, 
ADAMS No. ML061090569.
 
8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0170, ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of 
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes,'' December 1977, 
ADAMS No. ML022590355.
 
9. D. Shults, Tennessee Division of Radiological Health, e-mail 
to K. Ramsey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``EA for NFS 
Exemption,'' February 2, 2006, ADAMS No. ML060370160. III. 
Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the 
NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of 
amending NRC Materials License SNM-124 to exempt shipments of 
low-level radioactive waste contaminated with SNM from certain 
safety requirements. On the basis of this EA, the NRC has 
concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed amendment and has determined not to 
prepare an EIS for the proposed amendment.
 
IV. Further Information The documents referenced in this notice 
contain sensitive information, and may be made available only 
upon
 
[[Page 31226]] a showing that applicable security requirements 
have been met.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Gary S. Janosko, Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of 
Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-8448 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 42 NRC: Notice of License Termination and Release of Building 7304 
 
                         FR Doc E6-8449 
[Federal Register: June 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 105)] 
[Notices] [Page 31223] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01jn06-104]                         
 
(Vault) Property in Fort Belvoir, VA, for Unrestricted Release 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of License Termination and Site Release for 
Unrestricted Use.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom McLaughlin, Materials 
Decommissioning Section, Division of Waste Management and 
Environmental Protection, NRC, Washington, DC 20555; telephone 
(301) 415-5869; fax (301) 415-5397; or e-mail at tgm@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing 
notice that it is terminating license 19-10306-02 for the U.S. 
Department of the Army, (Army or licensee), and releasing the 
Building 7304 (Vault) property in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for 
unrestricted use. The Army's request for an amendment to 
authorize decommissioning of its former radioactive waste storage 
facility in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was previously noticed in the 
Federal Register on December 28, 2004 (69 FR 77779), with a 
notice of an opportunity to request a hearing.
 
The Army provided a final radiological status survey to 
demonstrate the site meets the license termination criteria in 
subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. In addition, NRC staff conducted 
independent in-process measurements of residual contamination 
remaining at the site.
 
The NRC staff has evaluated the Army's request, has reviewed the 
results of the final radiological survey, has performed 
in-process confirmatory measurements throughout the site 
property, and has determined that the site cleanup meets the 
unrestricted release dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. The 
Commission has concluded that the site is suitable for release 
for unrestricted use, and has terminated the license for the Fort 
Belvoir, Virginia property. The staff prepared a Safety 
Evaluation Report (SER) to support the proposed action.
 
II. Further Information In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the 
NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' details with respect to this action, 
including the SER, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agency-wide Document Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the document 
``License Termination Letter and Safety Evaluation Report'' is 
ADAMS No. ML061090356. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if 
there are problems in accessing a document located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These 
documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at NRC, Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, 
Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-8449 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 43 Boston Globe: Vt., Mass., activists raise questions about Yankee relicensing -
              
Boston.com
 
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant for an extra 20 years. 

[The Associated Press] 

June 1, 2006 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --Vermont, Massachusetts and an anti-nuclear
group have asked federal regulators for heightened review of
Entergy Nuclear's request to continue operating its Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant for an extra 20 years.

The two states and the group New England Coalition all have
asked to participate in a quasi-judicial federal review of the
relicensing request. If granted, the new license would allow
Vermont Yankee to continue producing electricity through 2032.

History suggests the trio may have a tough time. Federal
regulators have approved 44 license renewal applications and
granted the higher level of review in only a few, said Neil
Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vermont Yankee is on the banks of the Connecticut River in
Vernon, near both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

To be granted the review they seek, Vermont, Massachusetts and
the coalition must prove they represent people who would be
affected by another 20 years of the plant's operation and that
there are serious safety or maintenance concerns.

Vermont, through its Public Service Department, has questioned
whether the building core is adequate to permit relicensing. It
also objected to storage of spent fuel on the plant grounds and
wants a review of security equipment.

Vermont has "firmly established values associated with land
use," it said in asking for more information about storage of
spent fuel if there is no national resolution of fuel storage.

"It follows that it is reasonable to expect that at least a part
of spent fuel to be generated at VY during the period of an
extended license will remain at the site for a much longer time
than evaluated and perhaps indefinitely," the filing reads.

Massachusetts raised the specter of terrorism, questioning
whether the plant might be a target because of the storage of
the spent fuel.

"The attorney general is concerned that Entergy and the NRC have
not adequately informed the public regarding the risks of a
severe accident in the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool during the
license renewal term, nor have they implemented adequate design
measures to avoid such an accident," according to documents
filed by Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office.

Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said the plant "meets
every applicable federal and state regulation."

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission process with the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board is a very open avenue to have issues
formally addressed," Williams said. "We expect to participate in
the process."[ /]  © 

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. 

*****************************************************************
 44 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting June 15 on Proposal to Establish “Technology Neutral” Requirements
for Licensing New Reactors

News Release - 2006-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-078     June 1, 2006   
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with interested
stakeholders June 15 in Rockville, Md., to clarify the agencys
approach in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on changes
to requirements for commercial nuclear power plants. 

The meeting will run from 9 a.m. until noon in room T9A1 of Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville. The NRC
staff is not actively seeking comment on the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking at this meeting, but will clarify the
general approach and questions being asked in the document. The
staff will also describe information to be added to the draft
document in July, and seek input on the format, topics and
agenda for a workshop on this issue, currently planned for Aug.
22 and 23. The public is invited to provide comments and ask
questions throughout the meeting. 

The changes being considered would establish a comprehensive set
of requirements applicable to all nuclear power plant
technologies, informed by risk analyses and based on performance
criteria. These new requirements would be included in NRC
regulations as a new 10 CFR Part 53 and would be intended
primarily for any new nuclear power plant. They would also be
available to current plants as an alternative to existing
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50. 

Comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be
accepted through Dec. 29, although comments received before Aug.
4 would be most beneficial to the NRC. Comments should include
the identification number RIN 3150 AH-81 in the header or
subject line. Comments may be mailed to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. They may be e-mailed to
SECY@nrc.gov, via the NRCs rulemaking Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov, or through the Federal Rulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments may also be faxed
to the Secretary at 301-415-1101, or hand-delivered to 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m. on federal workdays. 

For more information on the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking or the meeting, contact NRC staff members Joseph
Birmingham (telephone 301-415-2829, e-mail jlb4@nrc.gov) or Mary
Drouin (telephone 301-415-6675, e-mail mxd@nrc.gov).   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, June 01, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 45 Boston Globe: Reilly calls for NRC hearing on Pilgrim - 

 
By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent  |  June 1, 2006 

After searching all 12 storage tubes in the Pilgrim nuclear
power plant's spent fuel pool, workers discovered that nine --
not two -- neutron detectors are missing. On a separate front
last week, Attorney General Thomas Reilly intervened in the
plant owner's application to extend Pilgrim's operating license
for 20 years.

The missing devices hold only low levels of radiation, but
federal regulations require nuclear reactors to account for them
because they contain uranium-235 , which can be used to make
weapons.

Officials initially said two were missing but late last week
that number jumped to nine, as plant officials tried to track
the missing pen-sized devices used to measure reactivity in fuel
rods.

At week's end, Pilgrim officials concluded that all nine
detectors were probably shipped to a low-level waste facility in
Barnwell , S.C., decades ago when federal rules for tracking
uranium-235 were less stringent, and that the shipment was not
properly recorded.

Plant workers ``don't expect to find them" inside the reactor,
said Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino . He said the amount of
radiation in the detectors is too low to make weapons.

On a separate front, the attorney general last week filed a
motion seeking a federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing
on the request by Pilgrim's parent, Entergy Corp., to extend the
plant's license to 2032. Pilgrim's ongoing storage of spent fuel
in high-density storage racks in the spent fuel pool ``poses a
significant and reasonably foreseeable environmental risk of a
severe fire and offsite release of a large amount of
radioactivity," his brief states.

Reilly said that while he does not oppose the extension of
Pilgrim's license, he wants to prevent the NRC from granting it
before addressing what his brief called ``the risk of a severe
accident" in the plant's spent fuel pool.

Used nuclear fuel rods -- nuclear waste -- are stored inside the
reactor. Critics have said that makes the plant vulnerable to
radioactive releases by accident or by terrorist attack.

By 2012 , when the current license is set to expire, the plant
will be holding approximately 3,000 fuel assemblies in the pool.

Reilly also cited ``increased appreciation" for the possibility
of a terrorist attack on nuclear plants. His is one of two
challenges filed. The other is from a Duxbury-based non profit
citizens group, Pilgrim Watch , which also raised the nuclear
waste storage issue as well as other health concerns related to
the plant.

The NRC, which will rule on license renewal, permits motions for
a public hearing only if there is new information not considered
in previous reviews. Reilly contends that scientific information
-- including technical studies by NRC staff and the National
Academies of Sciences -- has continued to build the case for the
risk posed by high-density storage of spent fuel rods inside the
reactor.

NRC staff members have contended at public meetings in Plymouth
this year that pool storage of spent fuel rods is safe. Further,
in reviewing challenges to relicensing other plants, the NRC has
rejected arguments about spent fuel storage as beyond the scope
of the relicensing review.

Concerns over nuclear waste storage, along with issues such as
plant security and emergency planning, are part of the NRC's
ongoing monitoring of nuclear facilities, NRC spokesman Neil
Sheehan said. NRC's rules on relicensing limit its review to
plant aging and environmental impacts, he said.

In response to contentions raised by Pilgrim Watch, NRC
officials have said the amount of radioactivity in leaked water
is unlikely to damage the environment, and its health experts
have said Pilgrim poses no disease risk to the area population.

A quasi-judicial board within the NRC will rule soon on the
motions to intervene by Reilly and Pilgrim Watch. If the
petitioners or the plant owner are unhappy with the rulings,
said Sheehan, they can appeal to the presidential commission
that oversees NRC activities. The NRC is also pondering how to
respond to the question of the missing detectors.

``We place great emphasis on accountability of materials in the
spent fuel pool," Sheehan said last week. The federal agency, he
said, was ``still looking at how to respond" to the failure to
account for the detectors.

Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. [ /] ©
Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. More: 

*****************************************************************
 46 Vermont Guardian: NRC vetoes lone commissioner’s safety concerns

By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian 

Posted May 31, 2006 

Four of the nations top five nuclear regulators have overruled a
move to stay the Vermont Yankee (VY) power boost until appeals
about its safety are resolved  action that could have altered
the way the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews some power
uprates. 

In a decision dated May 25, four of the five-member Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) disagreed with Commissioner Gregory
Jaczko, who in a March 8 memo to his colleagues expressed
concerns about the way the NRC staff approved a controversial 20
percent extended power uprate (EPU) at Vermont Yankee. 

Jaczko is a former aide to Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, who opposes
plans to build a high-level nuclear waste facility at Yucca
Mountain, and nuclear critic Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA. The
commissioner is seen as the panels most safety-conscious member. 

In his memo, he pointed out that the NRC staff finding of no
significant hazards  which is required before an uprate can
proceed  was issued far later in the VY uprate process than
normal. The finding was made Jan. 5  two years after Vermont
Yankee filed its uprate application  and following a
comprehensive safety evaluation in which the NRC placed so many
conditions on the extended power uprate that one critic took to
calling it an experimental power uprate. 

It appears that in complex cases like that confronting the NRC
in Vermont Yankees application, the agency has misapplied the
implementation of the no significant hazards consideration
determination, Jaczko wrote. 

NRC staff subsequently approved the uprate on March 2, despite
three safety contentions accepted by the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (ASLB), the NRCs quasi-judicial panel that
reviews safety concerns. One contention filed by the state of
Vermont was later dropped, but two others, filed by the
Brattleboro-based New England Coalition (NEC), are to be heard
in the fall. 

NEC technical advisor Ray Shadis pointed out that the ASLB does
not accept contentions lightly. In fact, NEC is the first
outside party to be granted intervenor status before the board
on an uprate. Before agreeing to review a contention, the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board must thoroughly vet the argument to
show that there is a real, credible dispute over a safety issue
with the licensee, Shadis noted. 

Jaczko said these factors point to complex situation at Vermont
Yankee, and raise questions about the way the staff reviews
extended power uprates. 

I have significant doubts about the validity of the immediate
effectiveness of the Vermont Yankee extended power uprate
license amendment, he wrote in the memo. I believe that the
commission owes itself and its external stakeholders to stay the
effectiveness of the requested license amendment until the
outcome of the pending adjudication on this amendment. The
commission should also direct the staff to re-establish the
policy that extended power uprates, those over 7 percent, are
likely to involve a significant hazards consideration
determination. 

In the case of VY, Jaczko said NRC staff appeared to have
analyzed those hazards away through its safety analysis. 

This implementation of the NSHC [no significant safety hazards
consideration] determination process misses the point of the
process and its intent. If the staff had to make its reasonable
assurance of public health and safety finding before it could
conclude its NSHC determination, then the NSHC determination is
no longer a tool to determine the necessity of a prior hearing,
but instead simply becomes a tool to allow an amendment to be
issued while a hearing is pending, he wrote. 

Under federal law, NSHC standards should be applied with ease
and certainty, and should not be applied to doubtful or
borderline cases. 

The VY determination was obviously complex  more of an analysis
regarding whether there were significant hazards rather than an
analysis of whether the application involved significant hazards
considerations, Jaczko wrote. 

In a response endorsed by his other three colleagues, NRC
Commissioner Peter Lyons argued, Nowhere in any of the
legislative history of the [Atomic Energy Agency] or the
commissions regulations is it said that if the staff is unable
to make a determination regarding the existence of a significant
hazards consideration with ease and certainty a prior hearing is
required. 

Neither the statute nor the commissions regulations requires
that a notice of opportunity for a hearing include a proposed
finding as to whether the propsed action involves a significant
hazards consideration, Lyons replied. 

Shadis called that argument a masterpiece of equivocation. 

The commission is taking refuge in an overly legalistic stance
to avoid the substance of the argument that significant safety
issues have been raised, he said. The staff should not, in the
face of that, file a finding of no significant hazards and issue
a license. 
Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general
comments.
 
   | | Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern 
Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 
(toll-free)

 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | 

Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
 This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/052006/NRCVeto.shtml 
*****************************************************************
 47 Cape Cod Times: Radiation monitors missing at Pilgrim 

(June 1, 2006)
 
 By KEVIN DENNEHY
 STAFF WRITER

Nuclear officials cannot account for nine of 12 instruments
containing small amounts of radioactive material once kept at
the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth.

A recent inventory of spent fuel at the plant yielded no
evidence of two radiation monitors containing highly radioactive
uranium 235, a Pilgrim spokesman said yesterday.

 Plant officials say the material was likely shipped off site
during the mid-1980s as a low-level radioactive material to a
federal waste facility in Barnwell, S.C.

 ''It looks like we have a bookkeeping problem we have to
resolve,'' said David Tarantino, a spokesman for the
Entergy-owned plant. ''It's highly likely they're gone.''

 The instruments, which are about half the size of a piece of
pencil lead, would have been inserted into a reactor core to
measure power levels.

 Plant officials had expected to find the instruments inside the
plant's spent fuel pool. That is where Entergy keeps decades
worth of spent fuel at the bottom of a 40-foot-deep pool,
adjacent to the reactor.

 The missing material weighs less than a quarter-gram, Tarantino
said.

 Before 1987, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not
regulate material at sizes smaller than 1 gram.

 An spokeswoman for the agency yesterday told The Patriot Ledger
that if the instruments were moved off site, the plant's
radiation alarms should have sounded.

''We don't consider this a public health or safety threat,''
said Diane Screnci, ''but it is important that they find out
what happened to the devices.''

 Kevin Dennehy can be reached

 at kdennehy@capecodonline.com.

(Published: June 1, 2006)           

Copyright © 2006 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 48 The Australian: PM denies nuclear point scoring | | 

  + NEWS.com.au

This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP 
 By Sandra O'Malley June 01, 2006 

PRIME Minister John Howard has spurned suggestions his
enthusiasm for a national nuclear debate was an attempt to
damage Labor, saying two ministers urged him to consider the
matter months ago.

 Nuclear issues dominated a trip by Mr Howard to North America
and Europe last month, leading to questions about why the
domestic matter was given such prominence during an overseas
itinerary.

 It was speculated Mr Howard's sudden interest was designed to
create dissent among the opposition, which has differing views
on expanded uranium mining, as well as the benefits of
enrichment and nuclear energy.

 While overseas, Mr Howard signalled a desire for a full-blooded
nuclear debate, signalling plans for an inquiry into issues such
as uranium mining and enrichment and nuclear power generation.

 Speaking to mining industry leaders today, Mr Howard said the
idea was put to him months ago by Resources Minister Ian
Macfarlane and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, a previous
science minister.

 "(It) is not something that was plucked out of the air by me
during the last few weeks with malign political intent in
relation to those who sit opposite me," he said.

 "As Ian Macfarlane will know, it's something that both he and
Brendan Nelson ... began raising with me, and putting the
desirability of it to me, some months ago.

 "I think it is an important debate."

 Mr Howard vowed to persevere with plans for a nuclear inquiry
in the face of growing community opposition to the prospect of
nuclear power in Australia.

 The Government believed it was hypocritical to sell uranium to
other countries for power generation and then refuse to consider
nuclear energy in Australia on the basis that it may be
dangerous.

 "For ... these reasons the Government has come to the view that
(it is necessary to have) a proper expert inquiry into all
aspects of nuclear power, whether it's desirable and economic
that we have the possibility of uranium enrichment," Mr Howard
said.

 "We have a very well settled policy ... in relation to uranium
mining and uranium export, but all aspects of the fuel cycle
should be examined in this inquiry."

 Labor has promised it won't allow nuclear power in Australia if
it wins the next election.

 Mr Howard predicted an examination on the pros and cons of
nuclear power and uranium enrichment would stir up a fear
campaign.

 He pointed to a report by left-wing think tank The Australia
Institute on possible locations for a nuclear power station as
an example of the anticipated scaremongering.

 "(But) I want to make it clear that the Government intends to
persevere with the inquiry and I hope to say something in more
detail about the nature and scope of this inquiry," Mr Howard
said.

 "We intend to persevere with it, irrespective of the reaction
of that kind that may arise in the future." 

Privacy Terms © The Australian 
*****************************************************************
 49 AZ Daily Star: Arizona researcher: Depleted uranium can still make people sick
                     
The Associated Press

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.01.2006

PHOENIX - Uranium's heavy-metal properties can make people sick, 
independently of the element's radiation and radon gas, according 
to a research project led by a Northern Arizona University 
biochemist.

"People assume that if the uranium is not radioactive, it's 
harmless. We're finding that's not the case," said NAU biochemist 
Diane Stearns.

Heavy metals are metallic elements with high atomic weights, such 
as mercury, cadmium, arsenic and lead. If they get into the 
bloodstream, they can bind with DNA particles to interrupt 
cellular communication and cause diseases.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission treat depleted, or "non-radioactive," uranium as a 
hazardous material, but the Department of Defense continues to 
use it for anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds.

The department also has declined to clean it up from military 
sites.

While the harmful effects of heavy metals such as mercury and 
lead are well known, Stearns and her team are the first to 
identify this trait in uranium and to show that when it binds 
with DNA, the cells acquire mutations.

Stearns is optimistic the research could lead to new rules for 
handling depleted uranium. It also could lead to tests for 
exposure to the heavy-metal properties of uranium as well as the 
radiation and radon gas it emits as it decays.

The program, funded by the Native American Cancer Research 
Project, is also having other effects.

A number of Navajo researchers are working on Stearns' team, 
gaining knowledge they can take back to the reservation.

Widespread and largely unregulated uranium mining on the Navajo's 
vast reservation from the 1940s through 1960 left the Navajos 
with a legacy of disease and death.

The reservation, which sprawls across northeastern Arizona and 
northwestern New Mexico, has about 1,300 abandoned uranium mines. 

Blocks from the mines have been used as building materials and 
groundwater has been contaminated in some areas.

Hertha Woody, a research assistant in Stearns' laboratory, 
believes her work enables her to help other Navajos better 
understand the health hazards of uranium and take precautions.

"I want to stay in research and go back to the reservation to 
work," she said. "There are so many issues there."

Woody grew up in Shiprock, N.M., not far from a huge mound of 
uranium tailings left by an abandoned mill.

"I grew up seeing this pile, and I knew it could make people 
sick," Woody said. "But I didn't know why."

A federal cleanup is under way at Shiprock, where the air and 
groundwater are being carefully monitored for contamination.

| www.azstarnet.com Â®

*****************************************************************
 50 AP Wire: Bush admin. to continue nuke worker plan

06/01/2006 | 
 
 NANCY ZUCKERBROD Associated Press 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will continue to support a
benefits program for Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers,
President Bush's budget director says. 

Rob Portman pledged to support the five-year-old program in a
letter to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. 

The letter, which Obama released Thursday, was written about
three months after a White House budget document discussing ways
to scale back the program became public. 

That earlier document, first reported by The Associated Press,
stated that the White House would lead an interagency working
group to develop ways "to contain growth in the costs of
benefits" provided under the program. It also stated that the
working group would discuss whether "administration clearance"
should be required before groups of workers are deemed eligible
for compensation. 

In his letter to Obama, Portman said the administration "is not
pursuing any changes to modify benefit costs" of the program. He
also said it was not instituting any White House-led interagency
workgroup. 

"This administration will also continue to meet the statutory
requirement that the Advisory Board reflect a balance of
scientific, medical and worker perspectives," Portman said about
a review board that oversees the program. 

Worker advocates say there should be more workers on the
advisory board. Two workers are on the 11-person board. 

Under the program, workers get $150,000 plus medical benefits. 

"This letter doesn't allay all of my concerns, but it's an
important step in the right direction," Obama said Thursday.
"This is an issue I will monitor closely to ensure that
budgetary decisions don't trump the advice of scientists and
prevent injured workers from receiving the compensation they
deserve." 

*****************************************************************
 51 Nevada Observer: Big Bomb Blast Put On Hold To Relief Of Downwinders
  
Vol. 3,  No. 15 

         June 1, 2006           
 Nevada's Online State News Journal 		
   

Federal Judge Wants Answers Before Blast Can Be Rescheduled

The 700-ton non-nuclear blast scheduled for later this June at 
the Nevada Test Site has been postponed indefinitely according to 
federal judge Lloyd George.  Set to go off at the same location 
that above ground nuclear tests took place 50 years ago, many 
felt the blast would put nuclear waste into the atmosphere.

Several groups including Native American tribes, conservationist 
organizations, and those that call themselves "downwinders," that 
is living down wind from the old nuclear bomb testing, have been 
putting together strong arguments against the big bomb test 
called Divine Strake.

Reno attorney Robert Hager filed court papers on behalf of many 
groups to stop the test.  Federal District Judge Lloyd George 
said he wants answers about the safety of the test within four to 
six weeks, and he said he won't stand for any bureaucratic delays 
on the part of the test site or justice department officials.

The test has been controversial from the beginning following a 
rather misplaced comment that it would put a mushroom cloud over 
Las Vegas.  That kind of talk brought instant complaints from 
Nevada's congressional delegation and an apology from an 
administration official at the test site.  Government officials 
have called the blast an opportunity to test what is called hard 
shell buried targets or bunker busters.  Citizen Alert, a 
conservationist organization in Las Vegas has said the blast is 
no more than an opportunity to see what a low-yield nuclear 
device would do to a deep bunker type target.

The blast was to be made up of about 700-tons of ANFO, that is 
ammonium nitrate mixed with diesel fuel, not nuclear in any way.

*****************************************************************
 52 OpEd News: Uproar Downwind

  May 31, 2006

by Robert C. Koehler   

That "perfectly safe" mushroom cloud that was supposed to rise
10,000 feet over the Nevada Test Site this month will have to
remain a mere gleam in Donald Rumsfeld's eye for the time being.

The security state, which had planned to jump-start its WMD
program with a supposedly conventional explosion large enough to
mimic the effects of a small nuclear weapon, has run smack into
the ghosts of its own fraudulent past. The citizens downwind of
the test site, the furious sons and daughters of the victims of
earlier testing and earlier lies, have forced the government to
regroup.

A serious legal challenge in U.S. District Court and general
outrage among the locals - the largely conservative residents of
Nevada, Utah, Idaho - have complicated the plans of the
Departments of Energy and Defense to set off a major
above-ground explosion at the site, the first since 1962,
without public input or even a legitimate environmental impact
statement. The big bang known as Divine Strake, a 700-ton
concoction of ammonium nitrate, fuel oil and God knows what
else, is on indefinite hold.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, in a press release
issued May 26, worded the retreat ever so gingerly: It is
"withdrawing its Finding of No Significant Impact" for Divine
Strake.

Come again?

Can a finding withdrawn really have been a "finding" in the
first place? You can imagine the awkwardness for a government
agency that, at that delicate point of contact with the public,
must maintain a certain level of credibility. The NNSA had
already OK'd Divine Strake as a go for June 2. If locals hadn't
challenged this, the sky over Las Vegas would be lighting up
tomorrow. But the uproar among the downwinders - who have born
the consequences of our Cold War-era nuclear testing program in
the form of shattered health and lost loved ones - was
sufficient to force, first, a three-week delay of the blast and
now indefinite postponement.

The agency's official explanation is that it must regroup in
order to find a way to explain, as spokesman Darwin Morgan told
me, "what will happen with the background radiation once it's in
the dust clouds." The naturally occurring radiation in the soil
is what the public had been asking about, he said - which, FYI,
is untrue. The downwind public is far more concerned about
unnaturally occurring radiation: The Divine Strake blast site is
only a mile from a hot spot left from a previous nuclear test.
The public is also worried that the allegedly non-nuclear blast
might usher in a new era of "low yield" nuclear testing.

The government was faced with "a lot of political fallout,"
Preston Truman of the organization Downwinders said. "You have
(Utah Sen. Orrin) Hatch being hit with petitions in St. George.
The Salt Lake City mayor demanded there be a hearing in Salt
Lake City. Also, (Idaho Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo)
demanded hearings in Boise. These politicians simply had to do
something to cool it down or they'd be in trouble."

And, oh yeah, the NNSA's sudden concern about background
radiation is, he said politely, "a meadow muffin." This is how
much credibility the Department of Energy, which lied to the
residents for four decades, has in these parts.

Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, whose father, Scott, the former
governor of Utah, died from fallout-related multiple myeloma at
age 61, noted, "We in Utah are extremely skeptical when we're
told not to worry."

He's also skeptical that no larger Bush administration agenda
lies behind Divine Strake. "I do think the administration does
have an interest in developing new nuclear weapons," he said,
citing three common-sense reasons to prevent this from happening:

First, the "low yield" weapons (e.g., the bunker buster)
Rumsfeld and Co. want to perfect would hurtle humanity into
unprecedented danger because they're actually meant to be used,
unlike the doomsday nukes of the Cold War era. Second,
developing these weapons at the same time we're trying to stop
nuclear proliferation sends utterly the wrong message to the
world. And third, nuclear weapons testing causes illness and
death, which is something downwinders - his constituents, his
own family - "won't forget."

In the breathing space that has opened up before the DoD and DoE
attempt to reschedule Divine Strake (count on it), we may also
want to consider the warnings of Patricia Axelrod, a Reno,
Nevada-based weapons-systems analyst and expert in Gulf War I
illnesses, who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the
safety and legality of the blast.

"I will say to you they are busily engaged in camouflaging the
true nature of this test," said Axelrod, a self-described "tough
Irish broad" who has pushed the Nevada Attorney General's Office
to the edge of its tolerance of knowledge-seeking citizens in
her quest for Divine Strake-related documents. "After conducting
my research I'd say it's highly likely Divine Strake would
employ radioactive elements, including depleted uranium."

"If the U.S. drops a nuclear weapon in a conflict, we lose,"
Matheson said. I'll second that, adding: We also lose if we drop
one on ourselves.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is
an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated
writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com
or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

© 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006     
*****************************************************************
 53 TownOnline.com: Forum on depleted uranium tonight at college

The Upper Cape Codder

 Thursday, June 1, 2006 

Final Commons vote due June 15

    State Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth, and Cape Codders for 
Peace and Justice are co-sponsoring a forum on depleted uranium 
ammunition. The forum will be at 7 p.m. Thursday in the cafeteria 
at Cape Cod Community College. U.S. Rep William Delahunt and 
state Sen. Robert O'Leary also plan to attend.

    Patrick said, "It's impossible for me to understand how our 
government can expose our kids and millions of Iraqis - the very 
people we claim to be liberating - to almost certain health 
problems, deformed children and death. We must do everything we 
can to stop this from happening."

    The forum will feature several specialists in this field who 
will answer questions.

© Copyright of CNC and .
*****************************************************************
 54 Arizona Republic: NAU research finds new risks from uranium 

[azcentral.com

An elemental concern 

Max Jarman 

Jun. 1, 2006 12:00 AM 						 

Research under way at Northern Arizona University could make it 
safer to mine and handle uranium in Arizona and around the world. 

A project led by NAU biochemist Diane Stearns has found that 
uranium's heavy-metal properties can make people sick, 
independently of the element's radiation and radon gas. 

The findings have far-reaching implications for people living 
near abandoned uranium mines in the Southwest and for the 
military, which uses depleted, or "non-radioactive," uranium for 
anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds. 

"People assume that if the uranium is not radioactive, it's
harmless," Stearns said. "We're finding that's not the case." 

Heavy metals are metallic elements with high atomic weights,
such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic and lead. If they get into the
bloodstream, they can bind with DNA particles to interrupt
cellular communication and cause diseases.

 The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission treat depleted uranium as a hazardous material, but
the Department of Defense continues to use it. The department
also has declined to clean it up from military sites. 

The harmful effects of heavy metals such as mercury and lead are
well known, but Stearns and her team are the first to identify
this trait in uranium and to show that when it binds with DNA,
the cells acquire mutations. 

Stearns is optimistic that the research could lead to new rules
for handling depleted uranium. It also could lead to tests for
exposure to the heavy-metal properties of uranium as well as the
radiation and radon gas it emits as it decays. 

But the program, funded by the Native American Cancer Research
Project, has another benefit. It is helping young Navajos come
to terms with the tragic effects and lingering health hazards
brought by earlier uranium mining on their vast reservation in
Arizona and New Mexico. 

Widespread and largely unregulated uranium mining on the
reservation from the 1940s through 1960 left the Navajos with a
legacy of disease, death and fear. A number of Navajo
researchers are working on Stearns' team and are gaining
knowledge they can take back to the reservation to help others. 

Hertha Woody, a 26-year-old research assistant in Stearns'
laboratory, grew up in Shiprock, N.M., not far from a huge mound
of uranium tailings left by an abandoned mill. 

"I grew up seeing this pile, and I knew it could make people
sick," Woody said. "But I didn't know why." 

Working with Stearns, Woody learned how radon gas permeates the
lungs of miners like her uncle, eventually causing cancer. She
also learned that uranium can migrate into water and can harm
the kidneys. 

"Back home, the San Juan River runs next to the tailings pile,"
she said. "People swim, fish and get water from the river." 

A federal cleanup is under way at Shiprock, where the air and
groundwater are being carefully monitored for contamination. 

But there are an estimated 1,300 abandoned uranium mines on the
reservation. Blocks from the mines have been used as building
materials, and in some areas, groundwater has been contaminated. 

Woody believes her work enables her to help other Navajos better
understand the health hazards of uranium and take precautions. 

"I want to stay in research and go back to the reservation to
work," she said. "There are so many issues there." 



Reach the reporter at max.jarman@arizonarepublic .com or (602)
444-7351.

Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 Deseret News: Tests won't hurt Utah, Army says
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, June 1, 2006                           

Decision says Dugway is no risk to environment                                                   

By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News                                          

After five years of deliberation, the Army has decided that 
continuing chemical and biological defense tests at Dugway 
Proving Ground will not hurt the Utah environment.

['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic       

The Army gave public notice Wednesday that it has adopted a 
"programmatic environmental impact statement" that it began in 
2001 to look at cumulative effects of such testing at numerous 
sites nationally, including Dugway. It finds no dire impacts.

       But critics say the new document may be designed mostly
to help the Army avoid detailed future study of any new testing
and missions that it may propose at Dugway.

       Steve Erickson, director of the Citizens Education
Project, said the Army can now refer to findings in that newly
adopted document to allow simple, additional "environmental
assessments" on new proposals instead of much more intensive
"environmental impact statements."

       "But they've been doing that anyway in recent years. This
is an attempt to paper over their backside. But it's not like
they've ever done a good one (environmental study on impacts)
anyway," said Erickson, a longtime critic of Dugway.

       The Army said in a record of decision that environmental
impacts of continued biological and chemical defense testing at
Dugway and other sites nationally "will be negligible to minor
and mitigable."

       In reaction, Erickson said sarcastically, "Gee, they've
never had problems at Dugway before, so why should they in the
future?"

       Several problems have occurred there, ranging from a 1969
nerve gas accident that killed 6,000 sheep in nearby Skull
Valley (which some ranchers say also led to health problems for
their families) to disclosures that the base secretly aimed some
biological arms at human volunteers to test effects.

       The Deseret Morning News also disclosed in recent years
that scientists at Dugway designed at-sea tests that exposed
many Vietnam-era sailors to biological arms, and Dugway spread
toxic chemicals from airplanes nationwide to simulate how more
deadly chemical and biological arms might disperse in winds.

       The new document, however, said, "All practicable means
to avoid or mitigate environmental harm . . . have been adopted."

       For example, it notes that Dugway now uses "simulants" in
outdoor tests instead of actual, deadly chemical and biological
agents against which it is testing defenses.

       "Simulants are required for outdoor . . . testing,
because the release of biological or chemical agents to the open
air is strictly prohibited by law," the new study says.

       It said that any biological simulants used are those
"commonly found in nature that have been determined to present
minimal risk to humans or the environment."

       Laboratory testing at Dugway — where actual deadly
chemical and biological agents are still used — presents little
environmental impact, the study said, because of tight security,
state-of-the-art filtering and careful handling of agents.

       It said any use of human volunteers in testing is also
closely regulated and subject to laws designed to protect and
fully inform volunteers.

       The newly adopted study says the Rhode Island-size Dugway
base in Tooele County is the Defense Department's "major range
and test facility base" and "primarily serves as a
chemical-biological testing center."

       It notes that Dugway also holds a license for
radiological testing and may use radioactive substances as
tracer materials. It says the base also uses open-air laser
testing, noting that many detector systems use lasers.

E-mail: lee@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company           [ /]                                                           
*****************************************************************
 56 reviewjournal.com: LETTERS: Taxpayers not funding Yucca Mountain Johnny
 
  Jun. 01, 2006

To the editor: 

In your May 27 editorial, both you and Rep. Shelley Berkley 
attribute funding for the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain 
Johnny cartoon character to taxpayers. You further question 
Johnny's honesty, suggesting he is a propagandist. 


Perhaps you should consult Yucca Mountain Johnny on where the
money for the program comes from. It does not come from
taxpayers, as you and Rep. Berkley erroneously stated. The
program, including Yucca Mountain Johnny's portion of the Web
site, is supported by a user fee added to nuclear consumers'
electric bills. 

Perhaps Yucca Mountain Johnny is not the propagandist here! 

DAN KANE 

LAS VEGAS 


Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 57 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Draft Standard Review Plan for DOE Waste Determinations
 
News Release - 2006-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-077     June 1, 2006   


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a
draft Standard Review Plan for the agencys technical reviews of
the Department of Energys waste determinations regarding cleanup
efforts at several DOE sites. 

The draft review plan provides guidance to the NRC staff in
implementing the agencys role in the waste determination process
and the NRCs monitoring activities under the 2005 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That act gave DOE authority to
manage certain wastes, known as incidental wastes, from
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at DOE sites in South
Carolina and Idaho as low-level wastes provided the NDAAs
criteria can be met. The act gave NRC a consultation role in
DOEs waste determinations and a monitoring role in waste
disposal actions taken by DOE. 

Incidental waste is material resulting from the reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel that does not need to be disposed of as
high-level waste in a geologic repository, because the residual
radioactive contamination is sufficiently low that it does not
represent a hazard to public health and safety, provided the
waste is properly isolated from the environment. Consequently,
incidental waste can be managed as low-level waste. DOE uses
technical analyses documented in a waste determination to
evaluate whether waste is incidental or high-level waste. 

The draft review plan includes guidance for NRC staff in
evaluating non-high-level waste determinations developed by DOE
under the NDAA at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and
the Idaho National Laboratory, as well as similar determinations
at the Hanford site in Washington state and the West Valley
Demonstration Project in upstate New York. The review plan draws
upon NRCs experience in providing technical advice to DOE in
earlier waste determinations prior to passage of the NDAA, as
well as the agencys technical review of DOEs saltstone
determination at the Savannah River Site under the NDAA. That
review was completed and issued in December. 

In November, the NRC held a public meeting to obtain input on
the scope of the Standard Review Plan and published a Federal
Register notice requesting comments. In December, the NRC
published in the Federal Register interim guidance for
performing concentration averaging for waste determinations. The
interim guidance is included in the draft Standard Review Plan
and is again open for comment. 

The draft Standard Review Plan is available on the NRC Web site
at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1854
 . Public comments will be accepted through July 31. Comments
may be submitted to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Mail
Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; by e-mail to NRCREP@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301)
415-5397, Attention: Anna Bradford.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, June 01, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 58 PRN: Louisiana Energy Services: LES Disposal Plan Validated 

National Enrichment Facility :: 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., May 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Today the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a summary of a partial
initial decision regarding three of the contentions filed by
Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen
(NIRS/PC) challenging the licensing and operation of the
National Enrichment Facility (NEF) to be located outside Eunice,
New Mexico. The complete decision will be released following
review for proprietary information. 

The ruling rejected all challenges related to the plausibility
of the private sector deconversion strategy and the disposal of
the depleted uranium hexafluoride as a low-level radioactive
waste. 

"We are pleased with the ASLB's ruling today," said Louisiana
Energy Services (LES) President, Jim Ferland. "Today's ruling
confirms that our preferred option, sending the depleted uranium
to a private deconversion facility and disposing of the
end-product at a licensed near-surface disposal facility is a
plausible and acceptable strategy." 

The Board also ruled that in regard to establishing a financial
assurance funding level for byproduct disposition, that some
portions of the private deconversion and disposal cost estimates
did not have an adequate basis. As a result, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is likely to require LES to utilize a
back-up option (Department of Energy disposal) to establish the
proper funding level. 

"The method utilized to calculate the decommissioning funding
level is relevant, but whether based on private or public sector
estimates, the Settlement Agreement with the State of New Mexico
overrides the calculated figure and requires that LES
financially assure $7.15/kgU generated," Ferland stated. "This
is another example of the Settlement Agreement negotiated by the
State working to protect the public interest." 

LES overall schedule remains on track with a license expected in
late June and construction starting in the fall. 

The NEF project will provide more than 210 permanent jobs and
more than 1000 multi-year construction jobs in Southeast New
Mexico. It will use a proven technology that has operated safely
in Europe for 30 years. 

When the license application is approved, the NEF will introduce
the world's most advanced uranium enrichment technology into the
U.S. and provide an alternative domestic enrichment supply
source to U.S. nuclear energy companies. 

LES is a partnership of major nuclear energy companies. Partners
include Urenco and U.S. energy companies Duke Power, Entergy and
Exelon.   


Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely 
responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and 
conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply. 

Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights 
Reserved. A United Business Media company. <img border="0" 
*****************************************************************
 59 Nevada Observer: Yucca Turmoil Seems To Not End -- Congressional Hearings On Budget

Vol. 3,  No. 15          June 1, 2006           

 Nevada's Online State News Journal             

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Welcomes New Congressional 
Appointees

by Johnny Gunn

In hearing after hearing Congress is learning what many in Nevada 
take as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: 
DOE speaks in tongues, and they aren't English.  New Mexico 
Senator Pete Domenici (R) is a strong supporter of nuclear 
energy, but has come to the conclusion that the Department of 
Energy doesn't know what it's doing.  He was quoted on Capitol 
Hill saying confusion is rampant, time frames are out of whack.  
Other senators are asking why DOE is looking to return to a 'one 
canister fits all' approach when that idea was discarded a decade 
ago.

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has not been licensed 
despite more than 20-years of bureaucratic bungling and misdeeds.  
Now four names have been brought before congress to be confirmed 
as members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  All four 
new members are generally in favor of the Yucca project.  They 
are Edward Sproat, Dale Klein, Gregory Jaczko, and Peter Lyons.

Sproat is an executive of the nuclear energy industry and is now 
the director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management for DOE.  That makes him head of the Yucca repository 
project.  Klein is with the defense department, and Jaczko and 
Lyons have been serving on the NRC temporarily and now 
permanently.

Some believe these appointments will allow DOE to move forward 
with the licensing.  The Yucca project cannot go forward without 
licensing, and many believe that even with the favorable 
appointments that can't happen for at least another 20 years.

One thing standing in the way is a lack of forthrightness by DOE.  
In a paper released by Bob Loux of the Nevada Nuclear Projects 
Agency, a division of Nevada state government, "Two separate 
independent federal investigations, both reported on April 25 
paint a devastating picture of the untrustworthiness of the 
Department of Energy's scientific case for putting a nuclear 
waste repository in Yucca Mountain."  Loux says the results 
confirm much of what Nevada has been saying for years.

The first report was the DOE Inspector General's criminal 
investigation into whether USGS scientists working on the project 
had falsified research data as indicated in a series of their 
e-mails.  The second report, which Loux says overlaps the first, 
was the General Accounting Office's congressional testimony on 
DOE's chronic and continuing quality assurance failures.

That the e-mail affair was not an isolated problem seems to have 
been accepted even by Energy Secretary Bodman who said that the 
culture of the Yucca Mountain organization was "reflected in" the 
USGS e-mail affair.  "To say this," Loux says, "is to admit as 
clearly as can be that one cannot have confidence in the 
scientific underpinnings of the entire project."

Senator Domenici is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and he seemed to want to throw his hands in 
the air in complete exasperation when DOE representatives said 
more time is needed on the one hand, and on the other said they 
want to begin work or a second repository.  It is well known that 
the amount of high level nuclear waste currently on the ground 
will fill Yucca Mountain to capacity.  Domenici has become a 
strong believer in reprocessing the waste into usable fuel.  He 
told the committee he does not see spent fuel rods being placed 
underground at Yucca.

Nevada Senator John Ensign (R) released this statement in 
reaction to comments by Domenici that new recycling technology 
should be pursued because of Yucca Mountain's problems and 
delays.  "Delays, questionable science, fraud, and mismanagement 
have brought the misguided Yucca Mountain project to the point 
that its most enthusiastic supporters are beginning to doubt it 
will ever become reality."

Ensign went on to say, "When the Chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee starts talking openly about recycling 
technology, it's a day for Yucca opponents to celebrate."  In the 
meantime monetary problems for recycling took a hit in the House 
of Representatives when the House Appropriations Committee 
reduced the recycling budget by about $30 million.

The program is called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), 
and the house authorized only $120 million for the program.  That 
is about half of what the president had asked for.  Domenici 
however said in Senate Committee that he plans to allocate every 
dime the president asked for, "and more if I can find it."

One thing holding up licensing, besides all discussed above, is 
standards for radiation that might leak over a period of years at 
Yucca Mountain.  The National Academy of Science (NAS) found 
fault with EPA standards that only extended to 10,000 years.  NAS 
said the high level nuclear waste won't reach its highest level 
of potency for about 250,000 years.  EPA then set one million 
years as their standard, but with a two-tier approach to 
radiation leakage.

Current standards suggest that 15-30 millirems should be the 
highest a human should receive.  An X-ray will expose one to 
about ten millirems while a mammogram exposes a patient to about 
30 millirems.  EPA wants the standards for time following the 
first 10,000 years of storage to rise to 350 millirems.  
Scientists are decrying the effort saying that even 150 millirems 
is unacceptable.

*****************************************************************
 60 Whitehaven News: Council responds to dump plans

Published on 01/06/2006
                                                        
CUMBRIA County Council has given a qualified green light to a 
possible nuclear waste dump for the county.
 
The council has issued a response to the draft recommendations 
laid out by CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) on 
how Britain's radioactive waste should be dealt with in the 
future.
 
The response expressed broad support for the recommendations, 
describing them as â€˜realistic and acceptableâ€™ and praising 
CoRWM for its extensive and meaningful engagement with the public 
and stakeholders throughout the entire CoRWM process.
 
However, Cumbria has stressed that phased geological disposal is 
the best way forward. It argues that deep geological disposal 
without the option to retrieve the waste for a period of time, 
would deny future generations the opportunity to review a 
siteâ€™s performance or take advantage of other options arising 
from technological advances. CoRWM is urged to retain the phased 
geological disposal option.
 
The response raises concerns about the lack of discussion on the 
number and location of stores and stresses that storage should be 
as close to where the waste arises as possible and not all 
centralised at Sellafield.
 
It says: â€œIs it fair that one community should carry the 
nation's burden or is it more equitable to share that burden and 
ask communities to take on the responsibility for â€˜theirâ€™ 
wastes?â€
 
*****************************************************************
 61 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca said 'bogged down' 

May 31, 2006

 PROGRESS REPORTED 

By STEVE TETREAULT 

WASHINGTON - There are remaining technical questions about the 
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the 
Department of Energy is making progress on them, a science expert 
said.

 No way, insisted an official for the state of Nevada. DOE "is 
bogged down in a morass of technical, legal and managerial 
problems and it is unrealistic to imagine the project can pull 
itself out."

 Meanwhile, an Energy Department executive said more time is 
needed for a project redesign. But at the same time, DOE is 
setting up a task force to study the need for a second 
repository, since the first one is projected to be full almost as 
soon as it might open.

 The widely divergent messages aired at a congressional hearing 
on Tuesday finally caused several senators to snap in frustration 
and issue some of the sharpest criticism to date over delays at 
Yucca Mountain. One senator said he will step up efforts to 
reshape the repository program to reflect a new emphasis on waste 
reprocessing.

 "Confusion is rampant, time frames are all out of whack," said 
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the chairman of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. Domenici said he called the hearing 
to assess progress "or lack of progress" at the Nevada site.

 Many lawmakers thought Yucca Mountain was settled when Congress
voted for the site in 2002. "Except we now find this is not the
case at all," Domenici said, as the Energy Department has faced
legal and quality assurance setbacks and undertook a redesign
last fall. 

"I'm not here to pour water on anybody's parade but at what
point do we think we need to look at something else" while Yucca
Mountain "spins its wheels," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

 The Energy Department has not issued a revised Yucca schedule
yet, with experts saying it could be 2015 or 2020 before nuclear
waste might be accepted at the site.

 "In terms of why this is so hard, the simple fact is this has
never been done anyplace anywhere around the world," with the
safety requirements DOE must meet, said Paul Golan, acting
director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.

 Golan said delay was partly due to DOE redirecting toward a
design that would use a single canister style to ship, store and
dispose of nuclear waste. Golan said the change would simplify
fuel handling and make it safer.

 But Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., noted DOE abandoned a similar
multi-purpose canister a decade ago. And Sen. Jim Bunning,
R-Ky., a repository advocate, charged DOE "has dragged its feet
from the beginning."

 "Congress has an obligation to get the job done and we don't
need bureaucrats to get in the way constantly," Bunning said.
"Changing from one canister to another? Using that excuse to say
we are going to start over? Give me a break ... and now we are
talking about a second repository? Do you know how foolish that
looks to the American people?"

 Bunning also blamed Nevada for delays, saying DOE has taken
extra time "to ensure the people of Nevada are as safe as
possible. It would be more productive for all of us to work with
DOE to complete this project as safely and quickly as possible."

 Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
rejected the advice. He said Kentucky would react the same as
Nevada in fighting what it considers an unsafe endeavor.
"Flogging Nevada certainly isn't the answer," Loux said
afterwards.

 Loux contended Yucca Mountain was found to be flawed around
1995 but the government moved forward anyway while covering up
problems.

 "DOE decided to compensate for the bad site with better
packaging," Loux said.

 The Bush administration has asked Congress to pass a bill that
would speed repository licensing and groundwork in Nevada. 

But Domenici said that approach is outdated. He said he will
reshape the bill to reflect the Department of Energy's new push
into nuclear waste reprocessing, which could alter the form and
reduce the radiotoxicity of the waste shipped into the mountain
if development is successful.

 "It is going be clear we will not be putting spent fuel rods
into Yucca Mountain," Domenici said.

 Domenici said the bill also contained a "big vacuum" in that it
does not allow for waste to be removed from power plants and
stored at temporary locations while work continues in Nevada.
Golan said DOE is open to the idea of temporary storage if
Congress authorizes interim sites.

 The Energy Department got an endorsement from John Garrick ,
chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a
panel of independent science experts.

 The board "believes that the DOE has made meaningful progress
over the last year," Garrick testified. While the group has
questioned DOE's grasp of certain geology and corrosion matters,
"The board believes that the technical work is doable."


For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 62 SF New Mexican: LANL Company pledges to lead lab to next level 

By ANDY LENDERMAN | 

June 1, 2006

A newly created private company officially takes over Los Alamos 
National Laboratory today, and congressional leaders are hopeful 
the lab will be open with the public and encouraging for 
scientists.

No formal ceremonies or speeches are scheduled for today's 
handoff from the University of California to Los Alamos National 
Security LLC. But it's the official end of an era, which began in 
1943 when the University of California managed a project to 
create the world's first atomic bomb.

"I have full confidence that the scientists of LANL will continue 
to lead the way in finding solutions to our nation's biggest 
problems, whether it's weapons programs, advanced science or 
developing sources of energy," U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., 
said in a statement. 

The lab's management contract was put out for a competitive bid 
in 2003 by Congress. Several security and safety scandals helped 
drive the discussion over what to do with the lab.

Michael Anastasio, a nuclear physicist, is the new lab director. 
He has pledged to uphold the lab's mission, which is to maintain 
the nation's nuclear-weapons stockpile and engage in scientific 
research.

"I look forward to working with the new leadership team at the 
lab," Domenici said. "... I've told them that they should always 
try to be as open and forthright as possible about what is 
happening at LANL, even if the news is problematic."

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also stuck up for scientists in 
his statement. He said he hopes "the new management will give 
great emphasis to encouraging the highest quality scientific work 
and intellectual contributions."

Anastasio's spokesman Jeff Berger said the National Nuclear 
Security Administration selected the new manager for a job, which 
is to enhance science and business practices, including safety 
and security, at the lab.

"Mike Anastasio has made it clear that his goal is to make Los 
Alamos the premier national-security science laboratory well into 
the century," Berger said.
z Ninety-six percent of University of California employees took 
job offers with the new company, Bernie Pleau of the NNSA said. 
And Los Alamos National Security will be doing more of its own 
oversight on how it runs the lab, Pleau said.

NNSA Director Linton Brooks has asked his agency's Los Alamos 
office to handle oversight in a new way, Pleau said. "He believes 
the responsibility of the federal government is to establish what 
we want, and the responsibility of the contractor is to figure 
out how to get it to us," Pleau said.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or 
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.                                                                    
 		   			 		   	 		 						
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 63 SF NewMexican: Lab puts final touches on official takeover  


By ASSOCIATED PRESS             

June 1, 2006                                            

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - A new management team has taken over at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Los Alamos National Security, a team affiliated with Bechtel 
Corp. and the lab's former sole manager, the University of 
California, took over at midnight Thursday.

The new lab director, Michael Anastasio, said every employee of 
the lab has a role in its success.

"With our highly skilled team of nuclear experts and industry 
leaders, we'll put top science and scholarship together with 
leadership, innovation and best business practices and a clear 
goal _ make Los Alamos the premier national security science 
laboratory for the 21st century," Anastasio said.

It was the first new management team at the lab since its 
beginnings in 1943 as a top-secret project to develop an atomic 
bomb during World War II.

"The transition to a new era in the lab's management is now fully 
under way," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in a news release 
Wednesday. "I hope that as it continues to unfold, the lab's 
commitment to the highest quality science in pursuit of the 
national interest remains as vigorous as it has been in the 
past."

The lab's management contract was put out for bid after a series 
of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement at 
the nuclear weapons lab. The Bechtel-UC team was given the new 
contract in December.

Four top-level managers were kept on as part of the new group's 
21-member management team.

Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., issued a statement praising employees for 
their contributions to the lab's safety and security.

"Whether it is on issues of national security or those of 
particular importance to New Mexico, like making water resources 
more sustainable, the employees of LANL play a significant role 
in strengthening our nation," Udall said.

The contract runs through Sept. 30, 2013, and may be renewed for 
up to 20 years. It includes a maximum performance incentive fee 
of between $60 million and $73 million a year.                                                                  
 		   			 		   	 		 						
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 64 SPI: Nike missile-type pollution found in Hutterite wells near Spokane
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com] [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Thursday, June 1, 2006 · Last updated 6:26 a.m. PT 

Spokane 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS                    

SPOKANE, Wash. -- Pollution has been found in 19 water wells on
property owned by Hutterite families in the Deep Creek area, and
environmental experts say the source appears to be a Cold
War-era missile battery. 		

Three toxic chemicals have been found in the wells west of
Spokane near Riverside State Park, one a common military engine
degreaser and the other two typically found in rockets such as
those in Nike anti-aircraft guided missiles, Environmental
Protection Agency officials said. 		

"The combination of these three chemicals is fairly unique," an
EPA remedial project manager, Harry Craig, told The
Spokesman-Review. "The only places that I've seen that is at
rocket motor facilities" in California and at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal in Colorado. 		

The agency reported the findings May 16 to the Army Corps of
Engineers, which is responsible for the cleanup of military
pollution. Corps spokesman Steve Cosgrove told the newspaper
Wednesday a decision on cleanup is likely months away. 		

"The sample areas EPA is looking at are quite a ways away (from
the Nike site) and scattered around," Cosgrove added. "At this
point we don't have sufficient information." 		

The degreaser could have come from the cleaning of agricultural
machinery and the other chemicals from fertilizer, he said. 		

 [advertising] Craig, however, countered that it was unlikely at
least two of the chemicals would have been used in agriculture
in dryland farming of the kind practiced by Hutterites, a deeply
religious people who live a communal lifestyle with some modern
conveniences. Hutterite beliefs stem from the same Anabaptist
origins as those of the Amish and Mennonites. 		

Nike missiles were installed in the mid-1950s as the last line
of defense against a potential bomber attack on targets such as
Fairchild Air Force Base, also west of Spokane, or the Hanford
nuclear reservation north of the Tri-Cities in southcentral
Washington. 		

As the bomber threat subsided with the development of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Nikes were removed by
1966. 		

The installation at Deep Creek, in an alignment typical for the
Nike, included a launch area where the missiles were kept in
underground magazine, and a control and firing center with radar
and computer systems within 3 1/2 miles. 		

EPA began testing two years ago at a well once owned by the
military between the two sites, and results released last year
showed the presence of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a solvent
linked to liver, kidney and lung cancer. 		

Subsequent testing found perchlorate, a salt used as a primary
ingredient in solid rocket fuel, in nearby 19 wells, including
five in which investigators also found N-nitrosodimethylamine,
or NDMA, an igniter for rocket fuel, and two with TCE. 		

TCE levels were as high as 210 parts per billion, compared with
EPA's "maximum contaminate level" of 5 parts per billion. 		

NDMA, considered much more toxic and suspected of causing
cancer, was found at levels as high as 2.6 parts per trillion.
EPA has not established a maximum level considered safe for
NDMA, but the agency has set a tentative cleanup goal of 1.3
parts per trillion. 		

Perchlorate, which can disrupt thyroid function and the central
nervous systems of fetuses and infants and also is suspected in
some forms of cancer, registered up to 2.1 parts per billion,
below the preliminary remediation goal of 3.6 parts per billion.
		

Mike LaScuola, a Spokane Regional Health District environmental
health specialist who was assigned to discuss the findings with
the affected families, said the long-term health risks appear to
be low at those levels. 		

"What we are trying to tell folks is, `We found this in your
water. We don't know how long it's been there. It's not an
immediate health risk," LaScuola said. 		

Even so, filter systems have been installed at wells
contaminated with TCE, said Renee Dagseth, an EPA community
involvement coordinator. 		

--- 		

Information from: The Spokesman-Review, 	                 

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 65 Hanford News: Murray: Cleanup money to be a challenge
 
This story was published Thursday, June 1st, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Getting adequate money for Hanford cleanup will be a challenge
this year, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., during a visit to
the Tri-Cities on Wednesday. 

With the war in Iraq and other issues putting pressure on the
federal budget, senators and representatives are looking at
anything they can take out of the budget, she said. 

"We're a big target because we're a big number," she said. 

It's not just Congress that the Washington delegation has to
convince of the importance of paying for cleanup of the nuclear
reservation, but also the Department of Energy. 

DOE's Office of Science is resisting a proposal to increase
spending by $10 million for Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory's new buildings, she said. 

"Back at headquarters, people in key positions do not want to
hear the arguments," she said. 

The administration proposed a budget of about $8 million to
build replacement buildings for the national lab in Richland.
Now nearly 1,000 scientists and other lab employees work in
buildings in Hanford's 300 Area that are scheduled to be
demolished because of radioactive and hazardous chemical
contamination in the area. 

"Investing more money this year will not only clean up the 300
Area faster, but save money," Murray said. 

The House budget for Hanford in fiscal year 2007 already
includes an extra $17 million for new laboratory and office
space thanks to U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. 

The extra money would allow PNNL to vacate buildings in the 300
Area sooner and could reduce cleanup costs over the next decade
by $100 million. 

Adding more money to this year's budget for lab replacement
would not increase the overall cost of the replacement project,
Murray said. 

Money to build the Waste Treatment Plant, or vitrification
plant, also may be a tough sell to fellow members of Congress,
she said. 

She's being asked when the plant will be finished and what it
will cost, as the cost has nearly doubled over the last 18
months under preliminary estimates. 

"Until they get answers, they are reluctant to spend large sums
of money," Murray said. 

Congress needs cost and schedule information as soon as
possible, but may not have it until 2007, she said. 

"That makes the job difficult, but not impossible," she said. 

Wednesday, Bechtel National was expected to submit a detailed
updated cost and schedule estimate for the project to DOE. 

Preliminary estimates put its cost at $11.3 billion and its
start of operation in 2017 or 2018. The Army Corps of Engineers
should have those numbers validated for DOE by mid- to late
summer. 

In addition, work on a new earthquake study for the plant is
expected to start this month and likely will not be completed
for at least a year. A study of the ground under the plant in
2004 showed key parts of the building might not withstand a
severe earthquake. 

The 2004 study depended on a bore hole drilled 500 feet deep,
but the expanded study will have five bore holes up to 2,000
feet deep. 

The Senate has yet to consider Hanford's 2007 budget, but the
House budget includes $600 million. That's a compromise between
the $690 million in the administration's budget and the $510
million that the Government Accountability Office says is needed
in 2007 under project changes it is recommending to address
management and technical problems. 

Among other changes, it wants a continued halt to construction
of facilities that would handle the most radioactive waste until
their design is 90 percent complete. 

It's understandable that people want to better understand the
challenges of the plant before construction proceeds, she said. 

"But 90 percent is a very constricting number," and no one seems
to know exactly what it means," she said. "It could cost us in
the long run." 

Murray also is concerned that DOE is proposing to slow down the
retrieval of radioactive waste from Hanford's oldest tanks as
construction on the vitrification plant slows down, she said.
The plant will be used to turn the waste into a stable glass
form for disposal. 

DOE's budget proposal would reduce spending on the tanks by $52
million, she said. 

Murray toured the vitrification plant and the 300 Area on
Wednesday morning, then spoke at a Tri-City Industrial
Development Council lunch in Pasco and met briefly with the
media.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. 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> 
    
*****************************************************************