*****************************************************************
06/06/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.134
*****************************************************************
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 Guardian Unlimited: Incentives for Iran Include Plane Repairs
2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Give Iran Time on Nuclear Package
3 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Iran's Initial Response 'Positive'
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Western Proposal 'Positive'
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Receives Anti-Nuclear Incentives
6 Guardian Unlimited: Solana to offer Iran rewards
7 IRNA: Iran will disclose views on nuclear offer to "friends" - FM
8 BBC: Iran 'positive' on nuclear offer
9 IRNA: Russia's Putin terms as "positive" 5+1 accord on Iran
10 IRNA: IAEA seasonal meeting due next week
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani, Solana talk on proposals
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM stresses Iran's n-right
13 AFP: Iran says nuclear offer contains 'positive steps', 'ambiguities
14 AFP: Iran reaction 'heartening' but nuclear freeze still key issue -
15 AFP: Bush welcomes 'positive' Iran reaction
16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Won't Get on Board Rail Deal
17 Korea Times: NK Foreign Minister Finishes China Visit
18 Guardian Unlimited: Bodman: U.S. Can Handle Oil Disruption
19 US: Star-Telegram: Barton, staff ranked among top trip-takers
20 US: Seattle Times: $50 million in trips for Congress
21 US: ENS: $50 Million Cleanup of Ashtabula River Sediment Begins
22 US: New study finds $50 million in trips given to lawmakers /
23 [southnews] 666: Austarlia to go nuclear?
24 BBC: Israeli attack 'jump-started nuclear programme'
25 BBC: Australia in nuclear power review
26 AU ABC: Coal, gas and renewables promote their green credentials
NUCLEAR REACTORS
27 US: NRC: New Senior Resident Inspector Named at South Texas Project
28 NEWS.com.au: Political foes fight reactor
29 NEWS.com.au: No reactor in my state, says Debnam -
30 Australian: PM's nuclear path off track - Beazley
31 SABCnews.com: Erwin disguising pebble bed truth - Earthlife
32 US: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings
33 Guardian Unlimited" Australia Announces Nuclear Inquiry
34 Sydney Morning Herald: New chief already on N-board -
35 AU The Age: PM denies 'stacking' nuclear taskforce -
36 Sydney Morning Herald: N-task force will not consider locations -
37 AU: The Age: State fears over nuclear ban - National -
38 AU: The Age: Ziggy to chair nuclear inquiry -
39 AU ABC: Vic to fight any nuclear plant plans
40 BBC: MPs told of UK's nuclear dilemma
41 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and FirstEnergy Nucle
42 US: NRC: Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
43 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
44 Asia Times: Toshiba's buyout of Westinghouse clears hurdle
45 US: Newsday.com: Scientists skeptical of closing Indian Point --
46 AU ABC: Power and energy
47 US: New York Times: N.Y. Grid Could Stand to Lose Reactors, Panel Sa
48 AU ABC: Ex-Telstra chief to head nuclear review.
49 AU ABC: Ziggy Switkowski to lead nuclear inquiry
50 AU ABC: Nuclear physicist discusses impending review
51 AU ABC: PM defends appointment of nuclear task force chief
52 AU ABC: Govts climate change response lacks balance
53 AU ABC: Nuclear sites crucial to review, says Beazley.
54 SNA: Bulgaria's Third Nuclear Unit Switched to Grid
55 NEWS.com.au: Nuke inquiry considers coal tax -
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
56 US: Low-level radiation and health conference in Canada Aug 25-28,
57 US: [NYTr] Safety Concerns Halt US Bomb Test
58 NEWS.com.au: Howard exposes himself to fallout -
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
59
60 Belfast Telegraph: Demand for Sellafield to be closed
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
61 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers assured
62 Knox News: TVA extension keeps nuke plant plans alive
63 KnoxNews: ORNL tech park hot property
64 DOE: Secretary Bodman Announces $34.6 Million to Fund State
65 DOE: Under Secretary of Energy Highlights Advanced Energy
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Guardian Unlimited: Incentives for Iran Include Plane Repairs
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 10:16 PM
AP Photo VAH105
By ALLISON LINN
AP Business Writer
SEATTLE (AP) - A package of incentives aimed at persuading Iran
to curb its nuclear program reportedly includes a way to help
the country repair its fleet of aging civilian aircraft, which
for years has been hindered by sanctions.
Under strict sanctions, Iran has long been unable to get spare
parts for its fleet of more than 25-year-old Boeing planes
directly from the U.S. airplane maker. With Boeing Co. barred
from even communicating with the country, Iran can't have the
type of technical discussions that most airlines rely on to keep
a fleet healthy and safe.
Joel Johnson, an international trade analyst with the Teal
Group, said the ban has at times made it hard for Iran to be
informed of potentially life-saving safety issues.
Iran has frequently complained that the U.S. ban on parts has
undermined safety, and has blamed the ban for several deadly
crashes. It's an issue some U.S. officials have raised at
certain points.
William Reinsch, a high-ranking Commerce Department official in
the Clinton administration who is now president of the
Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council, said he was
among those who tried unsuccessfully over the years to relax the
ban in the name of safety.
``I was sort of taking the position, 'I'm sorry that they're the
enemy ... but I don't think it's good for anybody to have their
planes falling out of the sky,''' Reinsch said. ``That's not
what we as Americans ought to be for.''
Some analysts say Iran has likely had to rely on its own
engineers and manuals to maintain the aging civilian airplanes.
Johnson and others believe the country's airlines also may have
been able to get parts via repair facilities outside the United
States, but he believes it has been a difficult and complicated
process.
All that would change under an offer to Tehran that is part of a
bid to resolve a nuclear standoff with Iran. Diplomats told The
Associated Press that the United States had upped the ante on
what had initially been a European offer to supply Airbus parts
by agreeing to provide Boeing aircraft parts for Iran's fleet.
Just days earlier, Washington had broken with decades of
official policy of no high-level diplomatic contacts with
Tehran, announcing it was ready to join in multinational talks
with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.
The diplomats spoke about the spare parts offer on condition
they not be identified because they had not been authorized to
release the information.
The State Department on Tuesday declined to comment.
Iran operates four narrow-body 727s and six wide-body 747s,
Boeing spokeswoman Amanda Landers said. Iran also has two
single-aisle 737-200s, and one 737-200 freighter in storage,
Boeing said. The Chicago-based airplane maker last delivered a
plane to Iran in 1980, making its fleet of Boeing aircraft well
over 25 years old.
Landers said Boeing would assess the fleet and sell Iran any
spare parts needed if the U.S. agrees that Boeing can do so.
Iran also operates 17 Airbus airplanes, including one A321,
eight A310s and eight A300s, spokesman Justin Dubon said. Dubon
said only eight of those airplanes were bought directly from
Airbus and it wasn't immediately clear how old the planes are.
``Airbus is looking at this and will follow any international
rules,'' Dubon said.
While Iran is eager to have easy access to airplane parts,
Johnson said he believes the country also may be hoping the deal
will clear the way for the country to eventually purchase new
airplanes as well.
``They really need to replace their fleet,'' Johnson said.
---
Associated Press writers Laurence Frost in Paris and George Jahn
in Austria contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Give Iran Time on Nuclear Package
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 8:16 PM
AP Photo VAH107
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States said Tuesday it will give
Iran ``a little bit of space'' to consider a package of
incentives and threats meant to avert a nuclear standoff, but
repeated that the offer is not open-ended.
``It's a matter of weeks, not months,'' State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack said, echoing the vague deadline set
out by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the package
was presented to Tehran.
U.S. officials would not discuss specifics of the package,
saying that Iran needs time to review it and ask questions in
private. They also would not characterize the initial,
noncommittal response from Iran's top nuclear negotiator.
``We want to give this every opportunity to succeed,'' McCormack
said. ``The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage,''
he added. ``We want to give them a little bit of space to
consider what's in the package, both on the positive as well as
the negative side.''
The package includes a promise of western technical help in
developing peaceful civilian nuclear energy if it stops
enriching uranium, a waiver of U.S. legal restrictions to allow
export of some agricultural technology, access to U.S. aircraft
parts to upgrade Iran's aging fleet and U.S. and European
backing for Iran to join the World Trade Organization, diplomats
and others said.
The proposal was agreed on last week by the United States,
Britain, France, China and Russia - the five veto-wielding
members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany. Those
nations would be expected to move for Security Council sanctions
such as travel and financial restrictions on Iranian officials
if Tehran does not take the deal or if negotiations fell apart.
Western officials described the package on condition of
anonymity because negotiations among the six nations presenting
it were private, and because Iran had not yet replied.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana laid out the
potential rewards and consequences in a visit to Tehran.
Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the initiative
contains ``positive steps'' but also some ``ambiguities.''
Rice was expected to speak by phone with Solana to discuss his
visit and Tehran's response, her spokesman said.
``There are robust measures on both sides, both the incentive
side as well as the disincentive side,'' McCormack said. ``It
presents the Iranian government with a very clear choice on both
sides of the road.''
The Bush administration would not say exactly how long they will
refrain from discussing specifics of the package, but White
House press secretary Tony Snow put the onus on Iran.
``If the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities, then we'll be able to discuss more
openly what the incentives are, and we certainly hope that
that's the case,'' Snow said.
---
AP reporter George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Iran's Initial Response 'Positive'
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 10:46 PM
AP Photo TXLM111
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that Iran's
initial response to a package of incentives and threats on the
nuclear impasse ``sounds like a positive step to me.''
``We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously,'' Bush
said in Laredo, Texas, where he was speaking about immigration
overhaul. ``The choice is theirs to make.
``I have said the United States will come and sit down at the
table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their
enrichment in a verifiable way,'' Bush said. ``So it sounds like
a positive response to me.''
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana laid out the
potential rewards and consequences Tuesday during a visit to
Tehran. He later told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by
phone that the Iranians had said they would need time to
consider the proposal, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack
said.
Solana called the discussions ``very useful and constructive,''
McCormack said.
Bush said in Laredo that he wanted to resolve the issue with
Iran diplomatically.
Earlier in the day, the administration said it would give Iran
``a little bit of space'' to consider the package but added that
the offer was not open-ended.
``It's a matter of weeks, not months,'' McCormack said, echoing
the vague deadline set out by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice before the package was presented to Tehran.
U.S. officials would not discuss specifics, saying that Iran
needed time to review the package and ask questions in private.
``We want to give this every opportunity to succeed,'' McCormack
said. ``The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage.''
The package includes a promise of Western technical help in
developing peaceful civilian nuclear energy if Iran stops
enriching uranium, a waiver of U.S. legal restrictions to allow
export of some agricultural technology, access to U.S. aircraft
parts or new Boeing Co. planes to upgrade Iran's aging fleet and
U.S. and European backing for Iran to join the World Trade
Organization, diplomats and others said.
The proposal was agreed on last week by the United States,
Britain, France, China and Russia - the five veto-wielding
members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany. Those
nations would be expected to move for Security Council sanctions
such as travel and financial restrictions on Iranian officials
if Tehran does not take the deal or if negotiations fall apart.
Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the initiative
contains ``positive steps'' but also some ``ambiguities.''
``There are robust measures on both sides, both the incentive
side as well as the disincentive side,'' McCormack said. ``It
presents the Iranian government with a very clear choice on both
sides of the road.''
The United States reversed course last week and offered to
bargain directly with the Iranians if they first put disputed
nuclear development on hold. The Bush administration accuses
Iran of bankrolling terrorism and criticizes anti-Semitic
statements by its leader.
Although some in the administration worry about conferring
legitimacy on Iran's leaders by talking face to face, Rice
decided about six weeks ago that only direct U.S. involvement
could revive European-led talks that stalled last year.
The package presented to Tehran on Tuesday would be on the table
for any new talks involving the United States.
---
Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna and Nedra Pickler
in Laredo contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Western Proposal 'Positive'
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 11:46 PM
AP Photo VAH104
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writers
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran and the United States had a rare moment
of agreement Tuesday, using similar language to describe
``positive steps'' toward an accord on a package of incentives
aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed
offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in
building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include
allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for
joining the World Trade Organization.
Tehran is under intense international pressure to accept the
deal in exchange for putting on hold a uranium enrichment
program that the West fears could lead to the creation of
nuclear weapons.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said the proposals
had ``positive steps'' but that talks were needed to clear up
ambiguities. Iran promised to study the proposals seriously, but
gave no timeframe for a response.
And Bush, using the same language, said Iran's initial response
``sounds like a positive step.''
``We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously,'' the
president said in Laredo, Texas. ``The choice is theirs to make.
I have said the United States will come and sit down at the
table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their
enrichment in a verifiable way.''
One diplomat in Vienna described the U.S. offer of nuclear
technology as particularly significant because it would, in
effect, loosen a decades-long American embargo on giving Iran
access to ``dual use'' technologies - equipment with both
civilian and military use.
Crucially, the deal does not demand that Iran outright give up
its uranium enrichment program - only suspend it, although
likely for a long time. Two earlier diplomatic initiatives by
Europe and Russia crumbled over the past year because each
demanded Iran scrap enrichment completely - a stumbling block
because of the program's wide popularity with the Iranian
public.
Iran's leaders fiercely defend their nuclear program as a source
of intense national pride, and say the purpose of the enrichment
program is to create fuel for electricity - not nuclear weapons,
as the U.S. claims.
Enrichment is the centerpiece of a nuclear program that the
Iranian government has touted as a technological achievement,
proving Iran is on a level with developed Western nations. Iran
has dismissed past demands that it give up its right to
enrichment as an arrogant insult from Western nations afraid of
a high-tech Muslim nation. But it has signaled it would accept
some limits.
For the West, enrichment is the center of fears over Iran's
intentions. Enrichment can produce either material for a nuclear
warhead or fuel for a nuclear reactor.
The latest proposal was revealed a week after Washington changed
strategy on Iran and - in an apparent acknowledgment that it
lacked support for sanctions against the Islamic republic -
conceded to entering into direct talks with Iran under certain
conditions. The latest proposal appeared to be even more of a
concession on the Bush administration's part - a major attempt
to sweeten the package for Iran in a bid to win concessions over
the nuclear program.
Most importantly, the United States is now offering to provide
Iran some nuclear technology, diplomats in Vienna told The
Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity in
exchange for discussing some details of the package.
It had been known that the deal included European offers of help
in building light-water nuclear reactors for a peaceful energy
program. But there had previously been no suggestion the
Americans would also agree to help build a nuclear program for a
country they frequently paint as a threat to world security.
John Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said any such
offer would be tied to strict monitoring conditions.
``Iran has to be fully compliant in terms of inspectors on site,
cameras and tracking equipment,'' Wolfsthal said. ``All that is
standard operating procedure with countries with light-water
reactors.''
In Washington, State Department Sean McCormack declined to go
into specifics of the proposal. He said diplomacy ``is at a
sensitive stage'' and the United States wants Iran to have a
chance to review the proposal without having it discussed
publicly.
He refused to offer a time frame, but said the Iran's timetable
to consider the package was ``weeks, not months.''
Asked about reports that the offer of Western technology
includes U.S. technological assistance, McCormack said: ``Well,
I've seen a lot of reports flying around the past couple days
about what may or may not be in this package. I would just
caution everybody, until we actually are able to discuss what is
in the package in public, take reports with a grain of salt.''
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange
for discussing details, said that the United States and Europe
agreed to back Iran's membership in the World Trade
Organization,
The United States would also lift some sanctions - including
allowing Iran to buy the much-needed airplane parts - and join
with Europeans in direct negotiations with Iran over the future
of Iran's nuclear program.
Diplomats said Monday that the United States additionally agreed
to open the door for Europe to sell Tehran new Airbus planes.
Iran's commercial fleet is largely made up of Boeings purchased
before the 1979 revolution, and Tehran frequently complains that
the U.S. ban on parts has undermined safety. U.S. pressure has
also prevented Iranian attempts to purchase new Airbus aircraft.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the
package to Iranian officials Tuesday in Tehran.
``The proposals contain positive steps and also some
ambiguities, which must be removed,'' Larijani said afterward.
Larijani did not identify the ambiguities but said he discussed
them with Solana and that more talks would be required. ``We
hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again after we
have carefully studied the proposals,'' he said.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran would give the
proposals ``careful study'' and then ``we will inform our
friends of Iran's views.''
Solana said of the meeting: ``I have a feeling that it has been
very, very constructive,'' and said the two sides would have
more contacts in the coming days.
In the talks, Solana also ``carried a message'' about potential
penalties if Iran refuses the offer. But he withheld telling the
Iranians the specific threats - including the possibility of
U.N. sanctions - so as not to jeopardize the ``positive''
atmosphere, said one diplomat in Vienna.
If Tehran does not accept, the package threatens Iran with a
travel ban against its ruling religious leaders and government
officials involved in the nuclear program, plus a freeze of
Iranian financial assets abroad, U.S. officials and diplomats in
Vienna have said.
The current package's lack of a demand for scrapping enrichment
entirely could prove key, said Iranian political analyst Mostafa
Kavakebian, who predicted Iran would accept temporary suspension
of uranium enrichment but would reject any permanent halt.
In past days, Iranian leaders have combined tough talk with
signals that they are open to a deal - perhaps an attempt to
portray to the Iranian public that they remain firm, even as
they consider reversing their refusal to suspend enrichment.
----
Jahn reported this story from Vienna, and Dareini from Tehran.
AP correspondent Anne Gearan contributed from Washington.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Receives Anti-Nuclear Incentives
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 12:46 PM
AP Photo XHS108
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A package of incentives that represents a
major initiative by world powers to persuade Iran to curb its
nuclear program contains ``positive steps'' but also some
``ambiguities,'' the country's top nuclear negotiator said
Tuesday.
Speaking on state television after receiving the proposals from
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Ali Larijani called the
talks with Solana ``constructive'' and said Iran would respond
after studying the incentives.
The United States along with the four other veto-wielding
members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, France, Russia
and China - drew up the package with Germany in a meeting in
Vienna on Friday.
Solana, who arrived in Tehran on Monday night, met Larijani for
two hours at the Supreme National Security Council building in
central Tehran. Journalists were barred from the building.
``The proposals contain positive steps and also some
ambiguities,'' Larijani said.
He did not identify the ``ambiguities,'' but he said he had
discussed them with Solana and that more talks would be
required.
``We hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again
after we have carefully studied the proposals,'' he said.
``This is a framework of cooperation that requires taking
careful steps from the outset,'' Larijani said.
State-run television, in Persian, quoted Solana after the
meeting as saying that the talks were ``constructive'' and that
he looked forward to a ``bright future.''
Solana was to explain the details of the package but go no
further. The EU envoy, who is heading a seven-person delegation,
later met Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki before leaving
Iran later Tuesday.
Mottaki said before the meeting with Solana that Iran will take
its time to study the package.
``We will study the package without haste but with care. We will
offer our proposals to the European side'' after studying the
package, he told the state-run television.
Iran says its nuclear development is for peaceful production of
nuclear energy, but Washington, the European Union and others
accuse Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear arsenal.
The incentives package offers economic and political rewards if
Tehran relinquishes domestic uranium enrichment, which is used
to generate power but can also produce weapons-grade uranium for
nuclear warheads. It also contains the implicit threat of U.N.
sanctions if Iran remains defiant.
In a breakthrough last week, the United States agreed to join in
multinational talks on the package.
Its contents have not been made public. But an earlier draft
shared in part with The Associated Press offered help in
building nuclear reactors and a guaranteed supply of fuel as
well as an offer to supply European Airbus aircraft for Tehran's
civilian fleet.
Diplomats revealed Monday that Washington has sweetened the
offer originally drawn up by France, Britain and Germany by
saying it will lift some bilateral sanctions on Tehran such as a
ban on Boeing passenger aircraft and related parts if Iran
agrees to an enrichment freeze.
One of the diplomats also said Washington would be prepared to
take some ``dual-use'' technology off its banned list of exports
to Iran. The term is used for products and material that have
military as well as civilian uses. The diplomat declined to go
into details.
Iranian officials have sent conflicting signals on the
initiative, reflecting a possible struggle within the leadership
on how to react. Additionally, the U.S. offer to join in direct
talks with Iran might have taken Tehran's top officials off
guard.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, normally a hard-line critic of
the United States who insists that Tehran has a right to
enrichment, said over the weekend that a breakthrough in
negotiations was possible and welcomed the U.S. offer to join
talks, while rejecting preconditions.
But threats by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to
disrupt the world's oil supply if Tehran is punished over its
nuclear program reflected Tehran's nervousness.
Although other Iranian officials have repeatedly ruled out using
oil as weapon, his comments propelled oil prices to $73 a barrel
Monday. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter and the
second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries.
---
Associated Press Writer George Jahn contributed to this report
from Vienna, Austria.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: Solana to offer Iran rewards
Staff and agencies
Tuesday June 6, 2006
The European Union's foreign policy director, Javier Solana, is
to meet Iranian officials today to present a package of rewards
and penalties aimed at stopping the country's uranium enrichment
programme.
The package of measures, agreed in secret by security council
members plus Germany last week, includes US offers to lift a ban
on the delivery of some sensitive technologies.
Proposals include waiving trade sanctions to allow Iran to
purchase aircraft parts and agricultural technologies from
American firms, according to the New York Times.
A commitment to support Iran's plan for a nuclear programme for
civilian use and to back Iran's membership of the World Trade
Organisation are also within the package, according to the paper.
The offers are dependent on an agreement by Iran to suspend its
enrichment and reprocessing activities, which are seen by the US
as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
A range of penalties could be brought to bear if Tehran refuses,
including the threat of UN sanctions, a travel ban on Iranian
leaders and a freeze on Iranian financial assets.
Arriving in Tehran after a three-day tour of the Middle East, Mr
Solana said the nations backing the Iran proposal hoped for "a
new relationship on the basis of mutual respect and trust".
He is to present the package to the Iranian foreign minister,
Manouchehr Mottaki, and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, later today.
Officials with Mr Solana stressed that his mission was to
present the package as it is, making clear he would not
negotiate with the Iranians.
Mr Mottaki said Iran would review the package after today's
meeting and respond. He did not give a timetable.
He said: "If there is the political will to solve Iran's nuclear
issue without any attempt to politicise it, I think we can come
to a comprehensive agreement."
The five permanent members of the security council - Britain,
China, France, Russia and the US - plus Germany, agreed on the
package in Vienna last week but declined to make the proposal
public.
It offers both economic and political incentives if Tehran
relinquishes domestic enrichment, which is used to generate
power but can also produce weapons-grade uranium for nuclear
warheads.
The package also includes disincentives if Iran refuses,
including the implicit threat of UN sanctions, a travel ban
against Iran's ruling religious leaders and government officials
involved in the nuclear programme and a freeze of Iranian
financial assets abroad.
The package is not thought to include any specific threat of
military action if Iran refuses to suspend the programme.
It is not clear whether it includes a guarantee that the US will
not attack Iran if it agrees to suspend uranium enrichment - the
subject of intense debate in Vienna.
The US last week agreed to join multilateral talks if Tehran
suspends enrichment. Iranian officials have since sent
conflicting signals on the initiative, reflecting a possible
struggle within the leadership over how to react.
Some commentators have suggested the American offer to join
direct talks might have caught the Iranian government off guard.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - normally a hardline
critic of the US who defends his nation's right to enrichment -
welcomed the US offer over the weekend and said a breakthrough
in negotiations was possible.
But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has
threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if Tehran is
punished over its nuclear programme. Iran is the world's fourth
largest oil exporter.
The offer to lift sanctions on American-made airplanes and parts
is seen as a major step by the US, which put the restrictions in
place after the 1979 revolution.
The sanctions forbid Iran from shopping for new spare parts for
its civilian airlines and are regularly blamed for plane crashes.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: Iran will disclose views on nuclear offer to "friends" - FM
Tehran, June 6, IRNA
Iran-FM-Nuclear
Iran will brief friends of its views on Europe's latest proposal
to resolve the nuclear issue after it has discussed them,
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Tuesday.
Mottaki was speaking to reporters after an hour of talks with
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
He said Solana's current visit to Tehran is "important" and
said he would expect Iran to carefully review Europe's latest
offer.
Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security
Council -- Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France
-- plus Germany (5+1 Group) met in Vienna, Austria on Thursday
and approved a package of incentives for Iran in exchange for
suspension of its nuclear activities.
The EU foreign policy chief, who arrived in Tehran Monday
evening, told reporters at Mehrabad International Airport upon
his arrival that he hoped the package could trigger a "new
relationship" based on trust and confidence.
*****************************************************************
8 BBC: Iran 'positive' on nuclear offer
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 June 2006
[Nuclear technician at Isfahan]
Iran has said it will not suspend uranium enrichment
Incentives aimed at persuading Iran to halt sensitive atomic
research contain "positive steps" and "ambiguities", its chief
nuclear negotiator has said.
Ali Larijani spoke after receiving the proposal, agreed by world
powers last week, from the EU foreign policy chief.
The proposals have not been made public but the BBC News website
has learned that they include light water reactors and permission
to buy US plane parts.
Tehran says it will consider incentives but refuses to halt
enrichment.
'Constructive'
Mr Larijani's remarks following his two-hour meeting with Javier
Solana were surprisingly upbeat, and here has been a notable
absence of angry anti-Western rhetoric, the BBC's Frances
Harrison in Tehran reports.
NUCLEAR OFFER
Iran allowed to buy spare part for civilian aircraft made by US
manufacturers Restrictions lifted on the use of US technology in
agriculture Provision of light water nuclear reactors and
enriched fuel Support for Iranian membership of World Trade
Organisation From Western diplomatic sources
The Iranian negotiator said they had held "constructive" talks
and Tehran would respond after studying the incentives.
Europe was right to try to use diplomatic negotiations to solve
the problem and Iran was open to resuming talks to try to find a
logical and well-balanced solution, he added.
Mr Larijani said the proposals contained some ambiguities that
needed resolving without specifying what they were.
However, he talked of the need to resume negotiations to find a
logical solution.
National pride
The US says it has been heartened by Iran's initial response.
For his part, Mr Solana said he hoped Tehran's reply would be
positive.
"Now that the proposal is on the table, I hope we will receive a
positive response which will be satisfactory to both sides," he
said after talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Mr Mottaki said Tehran would examine the proposals carefully and
he was hopeful a final agreement could be reached.
NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY
28 April: UN nuclea watchdog say Tehran has ignored calls to halt
uranium enrichment Early May: UN debates draft resolution calling
for halt to uranium enrichment Mid-May: EU countries work on
proposals to try to induce Iran to curb atomic programme 31 May:
US offers to join direct talks with Iran, in major policy shift 1
June: US, Russia, China and three EU states agree on package of
incentives and penalties 6 June: EU foreign policy chief presents
proposals in Tehran
Our correspondent says the signs are much more hopeful than last
year, when the Europeans offered a package of incentives that
Tehran swiftly rejected as too little and too vague.
But she adds that Iran has turned the nuclear issue into one of
national pride, and that does it make it difficult to back down
without being seen to compromise the country's fierce sense of
independence.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will not
abandon its right to nuclear technology under Western pressure
and demands that Iran must give up uranium enrichment are
unacceptable.
The six powers who drew up the package say Iran should suspend
its uranium enrichment programme before any negotiations can
begin.
Incentives
The proposals were agreed by the UK, China, France, Germany,
Russia and the US in Vienna.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the proposals gave new hope
for a diplomatic solution.
Western diplomatic sources have confirmed to the BBC News
website that they include permission for Iran to buy spare parts
for civilian aircraft made by US manufacturers, and the
provision of light water nuclear reactors and enriched fuel.
Other incentives are said to include the lifting of restrictions
on the use of US technology in agriculture and support for
Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation.
Western nations fear Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear
weapons, while Tehran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful
energy purposes.
The US earlier warned Iran a rejection of the proposals could
bring UN-imposed penalties.
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: Russia's Putin terms as "positive" 5+1 accord on Iran
Moscow, June 6, IRNA
Iran-Russia-US
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday described as
"positive" the recent accord made by foreign ministers of the
United Nations five permanent member states plus Germany on
Iran's nuclear program.
In a meeting with former US secretary of state, Henry
Kissinger, in a Moscow neighborhood, Putin said he believed that
the latest joint steps taken on the Iranian nuclear issue
demonstrated that Russia and the United States "are capable of
finding a compromise in any circumstance," reported the Russian
news agency Itar-Tass.
It further quoted Putin as saying that the views of Russia and
the US "are far from being invariably identical, but in general
we understand each other, and we find compromises."
The Russian president also said that Moscow and Washington's
"Joint counteraction to terrorism remains crucial."
He said he had had a telephone conversation with his US
counterpart the other day.
For his part, Kissinger said he was perfectly aware of the
great importance the two countries' leaders attached to
bilateral cooperation, and "that was most well seen in the
six-party accord on Iran and the role Russia played in making
those agreements a reality," Itar-Tass added.
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: IAEA seasonal meeting due next week
Vienna, June 6, IRNA
Austria-IAEA-Seasonal Meeting
The 35 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
(IAEA) Board of Governors are scheduled to attend the agency's
seasonal meeting in Vienna Monday June 12.
The meeting will open by a statement on the related issues to be
read by the IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
Though no separate report on Iran's nuclear issue is expected to
be presented by ElBaradei at the upcoming meeting, he may point
to the matter in his inaugural speech.
It has been announced officially that technical cooperation of
world countries with the agency, implementation of the Safeguard
Agreement in those countries and the IAEA future plans will be
high on the agenda of the meeting.
Meanwhile, the UN nuclear watchdog's collaboration in nuclear
programs on the international scene, including nuclear research
and experimentation, will also be discussed in the meeting.
*****************************************************************
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani, Solana talk on proposals
2006/06/06
Tehran, June 6 - Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)
Secretary Ali Larijani and the European Union Foreign Policy
Chief Javier Solana evaluated their one and half and hour talk
as positive and constructive.
"We need more negotiation and analysis before arriving at
conclusions on the 5+1 group proposals submitted to the Islamic
Republic of Iran by the European Union Foreign Policy Chief,"
Ali Larijani said at the end of his talks with Solana.
For his part, Solana lauded the generosity of the Iranians
during his trip to Iran and expressed agreement with Larijani's
views on the necessity of further negotiations on the issue.
Javier Solana will meet with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
in an hour.
He has come to Iran to present 5+1 Group's proposal to the
Iranian authorities and will leave the country for Brussels to
convey the message of the Iranian side to EU.
SAM
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM stresses Iran's n-right
2006/06/06
Tehran, June 6 - Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here Friday
night said access to nuclear energy is a legal right of Iran as
a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Mottaki was speaking to reporters upon his arrival here from a
day-long visit to Oman.
"I hope the 5+1 Group's latest session reached a positive
outcome on the use of nuclear energy," he said.
The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana arrived in
Tehran Monday night to submit to Iran a package of Western
proposals.
"Iran will cooperate with the European Union if talks with
Solana turn out to be positive," Mottaki said.
"Trapped in the regional conflicts in Palestine, Afghanistan and
Iraq, the United States cannot afford another crisis in the
region," he added.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: Iran says nuclear offer contains 'positive steps', 'ambiguities'
Tuesday June 6, 12:08 PM
[Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani]
TEHRAN (AFP) - An international proposal aimed at resolving the
crisis over Iran's disputed nuclear drive contains "positive
steps" but also "ambiguities", the Islamic republic's top
national security official has said.
"There are positive steps in the proposal, and there are also
some ambiguities that should be cleared up," Ali Larijani said
on state television Tuesday.
"We consider that the European will to solve the issue through
talks is a correct step, and we welcome this," he said, after
receiving the proposal from EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana.
The package was drawn up by Britain, France and Germany and is
backed by the United States, Russia and China.
It offers a variety of incentives and offers of fresh
multilateral talks -- including the first substantive contacts
with the United States in 26 years -- if the country agrees to
suspend uranium enrichment work, which can make both reactor
fuel and weapons.
"We had good dicsussions," Solana said. "Now that the proposal
is on the table, I hope we will receive a positive response
which will be satisfactory to both sides."
Western officials have said Iran -- which has so far refused to
freeze enrichment work -- will be expected to give its response
within a matter of weeks.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=]
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Iran reaction 'heartening' but nuclear freeze still key issue - US
Tue Jun 6, 4:51 PM ET
ARTESIA, United States (AFP) - The United States cautiously
welcomed Iran" /> Iran's early reaction to an international
proposal to end the crisis over its nuclear program, calling it
"heartening."
But White House spokesman Tony Snow stuck by Washington's
position that progress in talks aimed at resolving the dispute
required Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment work, which can
make both reactor fuel and weapons.
"I would expect there to be a series of comments and
characterizations over the next few days. It's obvious, and I
think it is heartening that they will be taking them seriously,"
said Snow.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
the issue was at a sensitive stage and that Iran needed "space"
to consider the package of options presented by European Union"
/> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana "because we
want to give this every opportunity to succeed."
"The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage that this
package has been presented to the Iranian government; we want to
give them a little bit of space to consider what's in the
package, both on the positive as well as the negative side,"
McCormack said.
Earlier, Iran said the internationally-brokered
carrots-and-sticks proposal, details of which have not been
formally disclosed, contained "positive steps" but also
"ambiguities."
The proposal, designed to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear
weapons, was drawn up by Britain, France and Germany and backed
by the United States, Russia and China.
"At this point the Iranians are now just beginning to have a
glance at the offers -- 'offer' is the wrong term -- at the
incentives and disincentives packages that have been offered
them," said Snow.
"If the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities, then we'll be able to discuss more
openly what the incentives are, and we certainly hope that
that's the case," said Snow.
The White House spokesman, speaking to reporters as President
George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushtraveled here to push
his immigration reform proposals, declined to say whether the
United States would be willing to sweeten the deal for Iran.
"No, I'm not going to negotiate, even from Air Force One," he
said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Bush welcomes 'positive' Iran reaction
Tue Jun 6, 6:04 PM ET
LAREDO, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" />
President George W. Bushcautiously welcomed Iran" /> Iran's
"positive" initial reaction to an internationally crafted
proposal aimed at ending the crisis over Tehran's nuclear
program.
"We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously. The
choice is theirs to make," the president said in Texas as he
pushed his immigration reform plan. "I want to solve this issue
with Iran diplomatically."
"I have said the United States will come and sit down at the
table with them, so long as they are willing to suspend their
enrichment in a verifiable way," he said. "So it sounds like a
positive response to me."
Earlier, Iran said the carrots-and-sticks proposal, backed by
the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany,
contained "positive steps" but also "ambiguities."
The package, presented by European Union" /> European
Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana, offers a variety of
incentives and fresh multilateral talks if Tehran agrees to
suspend uranium enrichment work, which can make both reactor
fuel and weapons.
"There are positive steps in the proposal, and there are also
some ambiguities that should be cleared up," Iran's top national
security official, Ali Larijani, said on state television.
That came after European Union foreign policy chief Javier
Solana had unveiled the initiative, which aims to ensure that
Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, to Tehran.
The offers Iran trade, technology and diplomatic incentives if
the country agrees to suspend uranium enrichment work -- a
process to make reactor fuel but which can be extended to make
weapons. Tehran denies it seeks atomic weapons.
Although the United States has not ruled out military action,
diplomats say it has helped sweeten the package by offering to
lift certain sanctions if Iran agrees to an enrichment freeze.
Washington, whose ties with Tehran were severed more than two
decades ago, has banned most US trade and investment in the
Islamic republic since the mid-1990s.
Larijani did not elaborate on what the "ambiguities" were -- but
Iran will undoubtedly have questions over the scope and duration
of a nuclear suspension.
Iranian officials have signalled they may be willing to hold off
on industrial-scale enrichment, but that "research" work cannot
be halted.
White House spokesman Tony Snow called Iran's opening response
"heartening" but stuck by Washington's position that progress in
talks aimed at resolving the dispute required Tehran to freeze
uranium enrichment work.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
the issue was at a sensitive stage and that Iran needed "space"
to consider the package of options "because we want to give this
every opportunity to succeed."
"The diplomacy, I would say, is at a sensitive stage," he said.
"We want to give them a little bit of space to consider what's
in the package, both on the positive as well as the negative
side."
While being offered carrots, Iran also faces the stick of robust
Security Council action, including a range of possible
sanctions, if it rejects the offer and continues what the West
fears is a covert weapons drive.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Won't Get on Board Rail Deal
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 1:46 PM
By BO-MI LIM
Associated Press Writer
JEJU, South Korea (AP) - South Korea on Tuesday failed to
persuade North Korea to renew its commitment to test runs of a
cross-border train service that the communist country abruptly
canceled last month.
A joint statement adopted at the end of inter-Korean economic
talks did not include a revival of the train plans, which were a
high-profile part of efforts toward reconciliation between the
Cold War rivals.
But, in a move seen as increasing pressure on its neighbor,
Seoul made the train test runs a precondition for further
economic aid.
South Korea pledged to provide raw materials to the North to
help it produce clothes, shoes and soap as part of an accord
reached last year, but only when the ``right conditions are
created,'' according to the statement adopted at the South's
southern island of Jeju.
The ``right conditions'' would be when the train test runs take
place, South Korean spokesman Kim Chun-sig told reporters.
``Without the railway test runs, there won't be any provision of
raw materials for the North's light industries,'' Kim said.
``This kind of agreement is more powerful than simply setting a
date'' for the tests, he said.
In a separate document, the South said it would provide the
North $80 million in raw materials this year in exchange for
rights to invest in North Korean mining operations for
development of mineral resources.
The document said Seoul would begin shipments of the materials
in August, which indicates the railway tests should be conducted
before then, Kim explained.
The trial runs scheduled last month would have been the first
time trains crossed the frontier in more than half a century.
But Pyongyang called off the tests at the last minute, citing a
lack of a military protocol to guarantee travelers' safety
through the Demilitarized Zone, which separates the two Koreas
and is subject to an armistice agreement signed at the end of
the 1950-53 Korean War.
The North has refused to discuss the military protocol,
demanding that changes to the sea border between the countries
be discussed first.
The cancellation of the test-runs also dimmed the prospects of
former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung traveling by train
when he visits the North later this month to meet with leader
Kim Jong Il.
The two Koreas had agreed that the former South Korean leader
would travel by land to Pyongyang on June 27 for a four-day
trip, without specifying the mode of transportation. The two
sides are to hold talks later this week to discuss the logistics
of Kim's visit.
On Tuesday, the two Koreas also agreed to hold a working-level
meeting later this month for discussions on simplifying customs
for South Koreans when they cross the border for work at a joint
venture industrial zone in the North Korean border city of
Kaesong.
The two sides also decided to seek ways to pursue joint projects
in a third country, the statement said.
The next round of economic talks will be held in September in
Pyongyang.
Although the two Koreas remain technically at war, their
relations have significantly warmed since their leaders'
one-and-only summit in 2000. The Korean War ended in a
cease-fire, not a peace treaty.
Greater economic cooperation between the sides has been hampered
by the latest standoff over the North's nuclear weapons
aspirations.
Pyongyang has refused to return to six-nation disarmament talks
since the U.S. blacklisted a bank where the North held accounts
citing its alleged complicity in counterfeiting and money
laundering.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
17 Korea Times: NK Foreign Minister Finishes China Visit
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
BEIJING (Yonhap) ¤Ñ North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun
returned to Pyongyang on Tuesday after wrapping up an eight-day
trip to China, according to diplomatic sources.
During the trip, Paek looked around China's economic heartland
and sought ways to break the impasse in the six-nation talks on
his country's nuclear weapons program in a series of meetings
with Chinese leaders.
In talks with his Chinese counterpart Li Zhaoxing, he explained
Pyongyang's position on efforts to resolve the nuclear crisis.
The details of the meeting have yet to be disclosed.
Before his departure for Pyongyang, Paek visited Guangzhou, the
administrative center of China's Guangdong Province, where North
Korean leader Kim Jong-il traveled during his secret trip to
China in January.
The six-party talks, involving South and North Korea, the
United States, China, Russia and Japan, have been stalled since
November, with Pyongyang protesting U.S. accusations that North
Korea is counterfeiting American dollars and trafficking
contraband.
06-06-2006 21:23
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: Bodman: U.S. Can Handle Oil Disruption
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 4:31 PM
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumers wouldn't suffer undue hardships in
the event Iran disrupts Persian Gulf oil supplies because the
Bush administration has a plan ``if push were to come to
shove,'' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday.
Bodman told reporters that in such a scenario, the government
would tap its emergency oil reserve. He said he doesn't
anticipate an oil supply disruption and said he was speaking
hypothetically.
As to any sharp reduction of Iran oil or a disruption in the
supply line, Bodman said, ``We certainly can handle it for a
while. ... There is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we have
other approaches.''
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last weekend
that if his country is punished because of its nuclear program,
Tehran is prepared to disrupt the world's oil supply, including
production cuts.
Khamenei said the United States and its allies would be unable
to secure oil shipments passing out of the Persian Gulf through
the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the Indian Ocean.
Other Iranian officials repeatedly have ruled out using oil as a
weapon, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice downplayed the
Iranian oil threat because oil revenues are extremely important
to the country.
Nevertheless Khamenei's remarks propelled oil prices to $73 a
barrel on Monday. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil
exporter and the second-largest producer in the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Oil prices receded Tuesday as crude supplies remain adequate.
Light, sweet crude for July delivery on the New York Mercantile
Exchange fell 11 cents to $72.49 a barrel.
Bodman, meeting with reporters after a speech at an electricity
forum, suggested that there seems to be plenty of oil available.
He said Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told him that Saudi
Arabia recently cut back production by 100,000 barrel a day
``because he isn't finding customers.''
Bodman said he is convinced oil producers want ``to keep the
market well supplied. It's in their interest as well as the
interest of consumers.''
Oil industry analysts also have said the market remains
well-supplied and that there are signs global demand growth is
weakening.
``What I've been hearing from traders is that there is oil
available in the market that is not being bought,'' said
Ann-Louise Huttle, head oil analyst for Wood Mackenzie.
However, she said, concerns about possible disruptions to the
flow of oil around the world is keeping prices high and
volatile.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
19 Star-Telegram: Barton, staff ranked among top trip-takers
06/06/2006 |
By MARIA RECIO STAR-TELEGRAM WASHINGTON BUREAU
[JOE BARTON]
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, and his staff members
took more than 250 trips worth more than $350,000 from private
sources, placing him in the top 11 of nearly 700 House and Senate
members according to a comprehensive study of congressional
travel from January 2000 to June 2005 that examined trips and
expenditures.
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, headed the list.
Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
since February 2004, ranked second among 46 Texans on the list.
However he makes no apologies for the excursions, surveyed as
part of a critical review of privately funded travel by
lawmakers released Monday by the Center for Public Integrity,
American Public Media and Northwestern University's Medill News
Service
"Chairman Barton's committee oversees government policy on
nearly everything between death and taxes, including the
Internet, Medicaid, Medicare, cancer research, safe drinking
water, nuclear weapons, traffic safety, heart disease, clean
air, gasoline supplies, the antifreeze in your radiator and the
caller I.D. on your telephone," said Barton press secretary
Karen Modlin in a statement.
"He and his staff go where the knowledge and ideas are because
doing a good job requires it," she said.
Barton, who made 10 privately paid trips to Las Vegas during the
time period, told the Star-Telegram last year that he is asked
to speak at conventions by trade groups such as the Consumer
Electronics Association that conduct their meetings in the
Nevada city. "I don't see anything wrong with it," the Arlington
Republican, who enjoys playing poker, told the newspaper last
year.
DeLay, the former majority leader who leaves Congress on Friday,
reported 216 trips for himself and his staff members valued at
more than $500,000, the highest in the study.
DeLay spokesperson Shannon Flaherty said, "it's because he's had
about three times the amount of staffers as other offices."
DeLay, who is under indictment in Texas for alleged money
laundering of illegal corporate contributions, has been
criticized by watchdog groups and Democrats for lavish travel
arranged by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Among Tarrant County lawmakers, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth,
and her staff members reported 26 trips valued at $126,500,
placing her 10th among the Texans on the list. The list includes
members who have retired, including Rep. Larry Combest,
R-Lubbock, who left Congress in 2003 and reported 213 trips
worth $224,000 - putting him third among the Texas frequent
fliers.
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, reported 70 trips valued at
$176,000, while Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, listed 21
trips worth $23,000 and Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, had four
trips valued at $6,000.
Maria Recio 202-383-6103 mrecio@krwashington.com
*****************************************************************
20 Seattle Times: $50 million in trips for Congress
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Close-up $50 million in trips for Congress
By Seattle Times news services
U.S. DISTRICT COURT/ AP
A photo introduced at the trial of former Bush administration
staffer David Safavian shows, from left, Jack Abramoff, an
unidentified man, lobbyist Ralph Reed, Safavian and Rep. Bob Ney,
R-Ohio, during an August 2002 trip to Scotland. After giving
advice to Abramoff on government work, Safavian joined a trip
arranged by Abramoff.
WASHINGTON Join Congress, see the world. Join a congressman's
staff, see more of it.
Private groups, corporations or trade associations many with
legislation that could affect them pending before Congress
paid nearly $50 million since 2000 to send members of Congress
and their staffers on at least 23,000 trips overseas and within
the United States, according to a study released Monday.
The trips included at least 200 journeys to Paris and 150 to
Hawaii, room rates of up to $500 a night and trips on corporate
jets that cost up to $25,000 a trip, according to a report by
the Center for Public Integrity, American Public Media and
Northwestern University's Medill News Service.
"Some trips seem to have been little more than pricey vacations
often taken in the company of spouses or other relatives
wrapped around speeches or seminars," the report said. "In many
instances, trip sponsors appeared to be buying access to elected
officials or their advisers."
Congressional aides took more than 70 percent of the trips, the
study found. While the travel isn't illegal, the report shines a
light on how business is often done in Washington. It comes in a
congressional election year when one of the biggest issues is
corruption.
Key findings
From January 2000 through June 2005, lawmakers and their aides
took at least 23,000 privately funded trips with a total value
of almost $50 million.
Almost three-quarters of the trips were taken by staffers, who
often influence how their bosses view issues and vote.
Ethics rules require that such trips be educational or
investigative, but many were to vacation destinations at least
200 to Paris, 150 to Hawaii and 140 to Italy.
Of the two dozen congressional offices on which trip sponsors
spent the most money, 15 were Republican.
Of the 25 lawmakers who each accepted more than $120,000 worth
of travel for themselves, 17 were Democrats.
At least 11 offices accepted more than $350,000 each in travel.
Top beneficiaries included the offices of Reps. Tom DeLay,
R-Texas, and Don Young, R-Alaska.
The Center for Public Integrity
Of the 25 individual lawmakers who accepted more than $120,000
worth of travel during the period, 17 were Democrats. Of the two
dozen congressional offices on which private trip sponsors spent
the most money, 15 were Republican, the study said.
Ethics violations
The analysis also found many apparent violations of ethics
rules. For instance, the study found that at least 90 trips were
sponsored or co-sponsored by firms registered to lobby the
federal government. Ethics rules do not allow lobbyists to pay
for congressional travel, but House and Senate ethics committees
virtually never enforce such rules, according to the analysis.
Congress remains deadlocked on legislation that would restrict
contacts with lobbyists and impose new ethics standards on
members. As scandals have emerged the past two years, lawmakers
moved to ban privately financed travel and do away with meals
and gifts from lobbyists. Eventually, both the House of
Representatives and Senate passed versions of ethics
legislation, though neither banned privately financed travel.
Negotiations to reconcile bill differences haven't begun.
Under current law, lobbyists are prohibited from paying for
congressional travel. But a federal investigation into former
lobbyist Jack Abramoff uncovered a scheme in which Abramoff used
nonprofit groups to pay for extravagant Scottish golf outings
for members and staffers.
A separate study by Political Money Line, a nonpartisan
Washington watchdog group, has found that the number of
privately financed trips by members of Congress fell this year.
Between 2000 and 2005, members logged an average 1,100 trips a
year. As of April of this year, members had reported 291 trips.
Advocates of tighter ethics rules said the decline reflects
public attention to the Abramoff scandal and others.
"As soon as the attention starts to fade, the travel will start
to increase," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a
watchdog group.
The study released Monday found that Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas,
and his aides accepted about $500,000 in trips since 2000. DeLay
is resigning from Congress on Friday under a cloud cast by the
investigation into Abramoff, who arranged trips for him.
The top 10 travelers identified in the study are all members of
the House and include Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Spokesman Kevin Madden said Boehner met all congressional
requirements for his travel, including prompt and public
disclosure.
"Relieves taxpayers"
"Travel funded by private interests relieves taxpayers of having
to cover the costs of educational travel," Madden said.
In addition to Boehner's office, those that accepted more than
$350,000 each in travel, include the offices of lawmakers in
party leadership positions or who serve as chairmen in key
committees, such as Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who chairs the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
According to the study, among the top corporate sponsors of
travel was General Atomic, a San Diego-based high-tech firm that
has developed surveillance aircraft as well as wireless and
laser technologies.
The company spent $660,000 on 86 trips for lawmakers, staff and
spouses from 2000 to mid-2005, the study said.
General Atomic, which developed the Predator spy plane, said in
a statement Monday that the trips help expose lawmakers to its
products and facilities. It added that congressional ethics
committees review the travel agendas before each trip.
The Aspen Institute, a self-described nonpartisan organization,
spent about $3.5 million more than any other group to send
lawmakers to places like the Bahamas to study Brazil and Finland
to study Islam.
The group, which is largely funded by private foundations, spent
twice as much on Democrats as on Republicans, according to the
study.
But James Spiegelman, an institute spokesman, said the
organization is not trying to influence members of Congress.
"The purpose of the Aspen Institute is to be a nonpartisan forum
for dialogue," he said.
Other organizations that spent top dollar to pay for
congressional travel included the Nuclear Energy Institute,
which spent $1.1 million; American Israel Education Foundation,
about $950,000; and the Confederation of Indian Industry,
$540,000.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
21 ENS: $50 Million Cleanup of Ashtabula River Sediment Begins
Environment News Service (ENS)
ASHTABULA, Ohio, June 5, 2006 (ENS) - Crews have begun to
remove contaminated sediment from the bottom of the Ashtabula
River, and today federal, state and local offficials gathered in
the city of Ashtabula to officially kick off the three year, $50
million project.
From the 1940s through the late 1970s, discharges of
contaminants from industries throughout the river's 137 square
mile drainage basin settled in the mud along the river’s last
two miles. In addition to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the
river bottom is polluted with low-level radioactive material,
heavy metals and other chemicals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen
Johnson joined Ohio Governor Bob Taft, U.S. Congressman Steven
LaTourette, other government officials and local partners to
celebrate the start of cleanup along a one mile stretch of the
river bottom.
[river] The 5th Street Bridge looking upstream, or southeast, on
the Ashtabula River. The 5th Street Bridge serves as the
boundary of the Ashtabula River Great Lakes Legacy Act Project.
(Photo courtesy EPA) "This is such an important day for the
community, and one that was a long time coming," said
Congressman LaTourette, an Ohio Republican. "I've been working
with local officials, the Ashtabula River Partnership and the
EPA for 12 years, and the effort even predates my time in
Congress. A lot of people were very patient, and a lot of people
never gave up hope that this day would come. Our long-awaited
reward will be a vibrant and clean Ashtabula Harbor."
The Ashtabula River flows into Lake Erie, one of the five Great
Lakes that together contain one-fifth of the Earth's
freshwaaaaaa. The cleanup project is the first to be carried out
in Ohio under the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, which provides
for cleanup of 31 toxic hot spots known as "areas of concern"
around the Great Lakes.
The cleanup plan involves dredging the sediment and pumping it
through a three mile long pipeline to a disposal facility near
State Road and the upper reaches of Fields Brook, a stream that
flows into the Ashtabula River. There is concentrated industrial
development around Fields Brook and east of the river mouth.
Workers will remove about 500,000 cubic yards, or 12.5 tons, of
contaminated sediment and provide new habitat in the river. In
the process, the river will be deepened, allowing for the return
of commercial navigation.
The Ashtabula means "river of many fish" in the Iroquois
language. Some species of fish still live there but PCB
pollution caused the Ohio Department of Public Health in 1997 to
post warning signs to advise limiting consumption of fish caught
from the river.
[river] The Ashtabula River cleanup will be conducted in the
area outlined in red. (Photo courtesy EPA) The goal of this
Legacy Act cleanup is to reduce contamination to safe levels so
fish consumption warnings will no longer be necessary, said
Johnson. "Just like a father handing down the skills of tying a
fishing lure, EPA and our partners are determined to hand down a
cleaner, healthier river to the next generation of Ashtabula
anglers."
Costs are being split evenly by EPA and the Ashtabula City Port
Authority and its partners. The state of Ohio is providing $7
million as part of the Port Authority's cost share.
"The state of Ohio is proud to invest $7 million to help match
the federal investment and advance the cleanup and restoration
of the Great Lakes," said Governor Taft.
The work is being done in close cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and is scheduled for completion in 2008. The
Corps will also conduct navigation dredging downstream of the
project area and will complete its work in 2009.
"Removing contaminated sediments under the Legacy Act combined
with our expanded navigation dredging will provide immense
ecological benefits to the Ashtabula River and Lake Erie," said
Corps of Engineers Brigadier General Bruce Berwick.
"These actions will also provide substantial economic benefits,
assuring the future for the Port of Ashtabula, which moves more
than 10 million tons of coal annually and ranks among the top 50
busiest ports in the country and the top 10 on the Great Lakes."
[excavator] An excavator does preliminary clearing in the
landfill that will contain the contaminated sediment
permanently. (Photo courtesy EPA) "This important project is a
win-win not only for the community of Ashtabula, but for all
inhabitants downstream as well," said Fred Leitert, co-chairman
of the Coordinating Committee of the Ashtabula Partnership. "We
are looking forward with great enthusiasm and appreciation to
this important day."
Contaminated sediment is one of the major reasons many Great
Lakes fish are not safe to eat in unlimited quantities. It also
harms aquatic habitat and pollutes sources of drinking water.
This has been a long-term and persistent problem throughout the
entire Great Lakes basin. There are still millions of cubic
yards of contaminated sediment to be removed from the Great
Lakes.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorizes $270 million in funding
over five years for cleanups of contaminated sediment hot spots.
Three earlier Legacy Act cleanups have addressed smaller hot
spots.
In 2004, the first year funds were available, Congress
appropriated $9.9 million.
In 2005, Congress appropriated $22.3 million, and $29.6 million
is available this year.
Cleanups of Black Lagoon, an inlet of the Detroit River in
Trenton, Michigan, as well as Newton Creek/Hog Island Inlet in
Superior, Wisconsin, were completed last year.
Another project at Ruddiman Creek in Muskegon, Michigan, was
finished last month and more projects are expected.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 New study finds $50 million in trips given to lawmakers /
$500-a-night hotel rooms paid for by private groups
+ $500-a-night hotel rooms paid for by private groups" /> 
Site Menu | Search
SFGate Home [|] Business [|] Sports [|] Entertainment [|] Travel
| Jobs [|] Real Estate [|] Cars SFGate News Web by [Google]
[San Francisco Chronicle]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New study finds $50 million in trips given to lawmakers
$500-a-night hotel rooms paid for by private groups
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 now part of stylesheet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-->
+ Printable Version
+ Email This Article
Washington -- Members of Congress, their spouses and staffers
have accepted nearly $50 million in travel paid for during the
last five years by corporations, trade groups and nonprofits,
according to a report released Monday.
While much of the travel was for legitimate congressional
business, the study found that many trips were to vacation
destinations such as Hawaii, Paris and Las Vegas, and included
$500-a-night hotel rooms, rides on corporate jets, spa
treatments and golf excursions.
The report found that at least 90 trips, with a value estimated
at $145,000, were sponsored or co-sponsored by lobbyists, an
apparent violation of ethics rules that ban lobbyists from
paying for congressional travel.
Earlier this year, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.,
proposed banning all privately funded travel, saying the system
had been abused after several top lawmakers took expensive
golfing trips to Scotland paid for by disgraced lobbyist Jack
Abramoff and his clients.
But Hastert and other GOP leaders have backed off the idea,
settling instead for a provision in the recently passed lobbying
reform bill that would suspend all privately funded trips
through the end of the year.
The new study, called "Power Trips," was the product of nine
months of research by the Center for Public Integrity,
Northwestern University's Medill News Service and American
Public Media, a producer of public radio programs, which
collected data from congressional travel disclosure forms
covering January 2000 through mid-2005.
The study's authors found that many of the top sponsors of
privately funded travel have major business interests before
Congress.
One San Diego-based military contractor, General Atomics, spent
about $660,000 on 86 trips for lawmakers, aides and their
spouses. Some of the trips, to places including Australia and
Turkey, were valued at more than $25,000 each. Most of the
travelers were aides to top lawmakers on the Armed Services,
Homeland Security and Appropriations committees.
General Atomics makes the Predator, an unmanned spy plane, and
during some of the visits, congressional staffers participated
in sales meetings where company officials pitched the drone
planes to foreign governments, according to the report.
The company, in a statement released Monday, said it had cleared
all its trips in advance with the House and Senate ethics
committees.
Industry groups also are major sponsors of congressional trips.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the Washington lobbying arm of the
nuclear power industry, has spent $1.1 million since 2000 taking
lawmakers and staff on tours of nuclear plants in France, Spain,
Japan and Nevada's Yucca Mountain, site of a proposed nuclear
waste repository.
"We believe it's very important, given that nuclear energy can
be a fairly complicated technology, to allow people to see
first-hand what is involved," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman
for the group.
Two Taiwanese trade groups -- the Chinese National Association
of Industry and Commerce and the Chinese International Economic
Cooperation Association -- devoted nearly $3 million to sponsor
about 600 trips to Taiwan to promote business ties between the
two countries.
While the trips may be educational, sponsors of the new study
said they also are planned to give corporations or trade groups
special access to lawmakers and their top aides.
"If you have the member of Congress and his wife that you are
entertaining royally, riding in a corporate jet, staying in a
$550-a-night hotel with spa treatments and golf and tennis,
there is a level of obligation that accrues," said Wendell
Rawls, acting executive director of the Center for Public
Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
"You don't have to go back to that congressman or senator and
remind them of what you did for them."
Congressional leaders were among the top recipients of trips
paid by private groups. New House Majority Leader John Boehner,
R-Ohio, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., former House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Hastert were among the
list of lawmakers whose offices took more than $350,000 in trips
since 2000.
In the Bay Area, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, topped the list of
congressional offices in private travel, taking $248,000 in
trips. The travel included an $11,000 trip to Cape Town, South
Africa, paid for by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and
the South African Institute for International Affairs, and a
$9,600 trip to India sponsored by the Confederation of Indian
Industry, a business group. Much of the travel was to events
where Lee was a featured speaker.
"It's appropriate, if she is asked to speak somewhere, for the
people who are asking her to speak to pay for that -- as opposed
to the taxpayer," said Nathan Britton, Lee's spokesman.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, was second among Bay Area lawmakers
with $218,000 in private travel, including a $10,000 trip to New
Zealand for the lawmaker and his wife, Annette, sponsored by the
International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural
Resources, an environmental group mostly funded by industry. But
most of the travel by Pombo's office was by staffers on the
House Resources Committee, which Pombo has chaired since 2003.
Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, also was a frequent traveler,
accepting $201,000 in private trips since 2000. Along with his
wife, Cynthia, he visited Helsinki, Finland ($8,000), the Cayman
Islands ($7,000), Moscow ($8,700), Cancun, Mexico ($7,900), Rome
($8,800), Jamaica ($6,800) and Puerto Rico ($6,200) in trips
sponsored by the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan group known for
putting on policy seminars in exotic spots.
The new report has proven embarrassing for some lawmakers. Rep.
Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., had to file an amended disclosure form
after researchers found that he violated House rules by taking
his son and his wife on a trip to Cuba in 2002. Under House
rules, private groups can pay the costs of only one relative
traveling with a lawmaker, so Rangel reimbursed the costs of his
son's travel.
On his original travel form, Rangel had listed the sponsor of
the trip as the Minneapolis-based Sian Ka'an Conservation
Foundation. But after the foundation reported it had not paid
any travel costs, Rangel acknowledged the trip had been paid for
by the Cuban government and a top Democratic Party fundraiser,
grocery mogul John Catsimatidis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional travel
A new report found that members of Congress, their relatives and
staffers accepted nearly $50 million in travel paid by private
groups during the last five years. Among the highlights of the
study:
-- Of the 23,000 trips since 2000, about 2,300 trips cost more
than $5,000, at least 500 cost $10,000 or more, and 16 cost
$25,000 or more.
-- Congressional travelers took at least 200 trips to Paris, 150
trips to Hawaii and 140 trips to Italy.
-- At least 90 trips, costing an estimated $145,000, were fully
or partly paid for by lobbyists, an apparent violation of
congressional ethics rules.
-- One San Diego-based military firm, General Atomics, spent
$660,000 on 86 trips for lawmakers, spouses and staffers to
places including Turkey and Australia.
-- The Association of American Railroads spent $450,000 on more
than 160 trips for lawmakers and staff.
-- Lawmakers' trips included a summit on welfare reform in
Scottsdale, Ariz., and a seminar on Social Security at Beaver
Creek Ski Resort in Colorado.
-- At least 150 travel disclosure forms filed by lawmakers and
their staff did not list who paid for the trip.
Source: Center for Public Integrity; Northwestern University's
Medill News Service; American Public Media
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 3
[Buy The San Francisco Chronicle]
Get up to 50% off home delivery of the Chronicle for 12 weeks!
[Bay Recruiter Top Jobs]
NURSING
Aide: Live-in . Asst 6 mentally
NURSING
DIRECTOR OF NURSING Immed
PROJECT
MANAGER CIVIL ENGINEER (Water
REAL
Estate Sales *FREE TRAINING! Quick
Redevelopment
$3,479 - $4,228/mo apply by 6/30/06
Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency
RESTAURANT
EXECUTIVE CHEF Nominated "Best
RETAIL
All types of Manager Positions
Bloomingdale's
RETAIL
Retail Positions Available
Bloomingdale's
RETAIL
OPENING SOON IN SAN FRANCISCO!
adidas
RETAIL
Retail Mgt &Sales Bay Area locations
Swatch
SALES
Outside. Electric Supply Company
SALES
Sales Terr. Mgr Companion Animal
Fort Dodge Animal Health
SALES
Medical Sales Pro min. 3 yrs exp.
Hitachi Medical Systems America
SALES
Inside Sales Assistant
SALES
Timeshare Sales w/ San Mateo showroom
Global Intervals
+ About Top Jobs
+ View All Top Jobs
Back To Top
SFGate Home [|] Business [|] Sports [|] Entertainment [|] Travel
| Jobs [|] Real Estate [|] Cars San Francisco Chronicle Sections
Datebook Commentary Sports News Bay Area Business ©2006 San
Francisco Chronicle | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds |
FAQ | Site Index | Contact
*****************************************************************
23 [southnews] 666: Austarlia to go nuclear?
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:08:38 -0500 (CDT)
"Cabinet has approved the establishment of a prime ministerial taskforce
to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia,"
Australian PM Mr Howard said today.
He said the task force would have extensive terms of reference.
"Australia does hold up to 40 per cent of the world's known, low-cost,
recoverable uranium reserves and there is significant potential for
Australia to increase and add value to our uranium extraction and exports.
"A lot of recent developments in global energy markets have renewed
international interest in nuclear energy as a technology that might over
time meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel and
environmental costs associated with oil and gas.
Mr Howard said the inquiry would look into uranium enrichment and
whether nuclear power stations would be economically viable in Australia.
"I've always maintained that holding the reserves of uranium that we do,
it is foolish to see ourselves as simply an exporter of uranium,'' he
said. "I think we should also look at the value-added process, which is
principally enrichment, and we should also look at whether (a) nuclear
power station in Australia (would) become economically feasible.''
_______________________________________
N-debate: PM ready for fear campaign
Andrew Fraser
The Canberra Times, Australia Tuesday, 6 June 2006
The Federal Government continued to seek to turn the nuclear debate away
from possible power-plant sites on the eve of a cabinet meeting today
which will look at who should conduct a review of Australia's
nuclear-energy needs.
Prime Minister John Howard said he was ready for a fear campaign over
possible sites and dismissed suggestions that a proper review must
include potential sites.
"If it is economically feasible, then people will come forward with
investments, then you start talking about sites," he said.
Promising that his review would include "a lot of experts", not
necessarily exclusively from industry or academia, Mr Howard said
provision would be made for peer review of the experts' conclusions.
His positioning ahead of the cabinet meeting came as Liberal MP Alby
Schultz tempered his criticisms of senior Government colleagues for not
being told of a nine-year-old cabinet submission containing 14 potential
sites - including two near Goulburn in his electorate - for a second
Australian nuclear research reactor.
Drawing a distinction between the siting of the new research reactor
(which went on to the site of the existing nuclear facility at Lucas
Heights in Sydney's south) and a power plant, Mr Schultz said the 1997
list, published at the weekend, "has nothing to do with the current debate".
Mr Howard, too, described the list as "a complete furphy".
"That was about the site for the building of the new reactor which had
been at Lucas Heights," he said. "We decided to have it at Lucas Heights
again."
The minister who brought the 14-site submission to cabinet, Peter
McGauran, said yesterday, "This dates back nine years; no action was
taken and so there was no need to begin any consultation process with
stakeholders including Members of Parliament.
"The research reactor produces medical radioisotopes, which have short
lives, so it had to be close to Sydney Airport.
"We would have been negligent in our duty if we had not considered other
sites, even though there was only ever a remote possibility the reactor
would be shifted from Lucas Heights."
Mr Schultz, who got a briefing yesterday from senior advisers to the
Prime Minister, welcomed the broader debate and Mr Howard's announcement
of a review.
Asked if a proper debate could be held given the prospect of different
cost implications for different sites, Mr Schultz said there were other
issues that had to come first, including constitutional authority. He
suggested that the states would have to cede their responsibility for
electricity generation to the Commonwealth via the Council of Australian
Governments process.
He restated his objections to the Goulburn region as a potential site,
given the need for water to cool a power plant and the region's chronic
shortage of water.
On World Environment Day, federal and state Labor, the Greens and
Democrats restated yesterday their opposition to developing a
nuclear-power industry.
Morris Iemma said, "While ever I'm Premier of NSW, there won't be any
nuclear power plants in NSW."
Federal environment shadow minister Anthony Albanese said, "If John
Howard thinks nuclear energy is 'inevitable', he should say where he'll
put the nuclear reactors."
Mr Albanese noted that the chief executive of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation, Ian Smith, had said Australia would
need four or five nuclear power plants near major east coast cities and
towns to have a viable nuclear-power industry.
"Communities have a right to be alert and alarmed at the Howard
Government's future plans for nuclear reactors and waste dumps at
unnamed sites," he said.
Democrats leader Lyn Allison said Mr Howard's review was too narrow and
misled the public into thinking nuclear energy was the only option to
Australia's power-generation needs.
"It is not possible for a nuclear-power industry to be developed in time
to combat climate change," Senator Allison said.
"It would take 10 to 15 years for nuclear power to be generated."
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=political
&story_id=485347&category=Political&m=6&y=2006
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
24 BBC: Israeli attack 'jump-started nuclear programme'
Last Updated: Monday, 5 June 2006
[Dr Imad Khadduri (image: property of same)]
Dr Khadduri left Iraq in 1998 and now lives in Canada
As part of a series marking 25 years since Israel bombed Iraq's
Osirak nuclear reactor, former Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr Imad
Khadduri speaks to the BBC News website:
We had just finished a day's shift work and were bac at our homes
around 1800 [1500 GMT] that day.
I heard the explosions all the way from my home, which is about
25km [16 miles] away.
I ran to the roof for a better view, and witnessed the smoke
plumes rising from the area of the Tuwaitha Research Centre
[where the Osirak reactor was located] and watched the Israeli
planes flying west into the sunset.
It was immediately clear that they were Israeli airplanes.
IRAQ'S OSIRAK REACTOR
Destroyed Israeli warplanes on 7 June 1981 before it could be
fuelled 10 Iraqi soldiers and one French researcher killed Attack
condemned by UN Security Council
Factfile: How it was bombed Witness: 'All hell broke out' Cockpit
footage
The next day, we saw the extent of the damage. A few shift
workers were injured.
Many of us had a lump in our throat for our shattered efforts as
we began to clear some of the rubble.
Until Israel's attack, we were only dabbling with some
calculations relating to nuclear fuel burn-up and criticality
calculations - nothing sophisticated and focused.
After the Israeli attack, we discussed among ourselves our gut
reaction that a political decision would now come forth ordering
us to make the bomb. Soon enough, it did.
We were psychologically ready for it. We embarked upon it
full-heartedly. Investment and resources were heavily poured
into the programme over the next 10 years.
That period saw attempts being made in the following scientific
and technical areas, which are all part of a nuclear weapon
programme:
+ research projects in uranium enrichment or plutonium
production from spent nuclear fuel
[UN inspectors visit unidentified ruined Iraqi nuclear facility
in the 1990s (image: IAEA)]
UN inspectors visit a ruined Iraqi uranium enrichment site in the
1990s
+ exact manufacturing techniques for the casting of the core
of the bomb
+ a workable design for the bomb itself with accurate
explosive lenses
+ a suitable design for enabling the bomb to be carried in a
long-range rocket head
+ a sophisticated command and control system for the guidance,
delivery, release and detonation of the bomb
Iraq managed exceedingly well in hiding the scope of its
programme from foreign intelligence eyes - whether it was
Mossad, the CIA or MI6 - until after the 1991 [Gulf] war.
When the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors
arrived they finally managed to put the pieces of the programme
together on the ground, but only over a period of one year after
that war.
Iran is now in a much better position, after learning from
Iraq's experiences in its nuclear weapon programme.
It is more prepared, in terms of tight security and deep
covertness, than was Iraq in hiding the critical aspects of its
nuclear weapon programme from foreign intelligence.
A tight security apparatus and tight control - like that in Iraq
during the 1980s when it engaged fully in its nuclear weapon
programme - ensures Iran against actual spies roaming around, or
inside, its nuclear establishments.
That would be the only reliable source on the scope of their
programme.
Interview taken by Patrick Jackson, BBC News
*****************************************************************
25 BBC: Australia in nuclear power review
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 June 2006
[Australian Prime Minister John Howard]
The panel will study the economic feasibility of nuclear energy
Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has announced a
study into whether the country should develop nuclear power.
Experts will assess whether Australia should shift some of its
energy production from coal and gas to nuclear energy, which it
has so far shunned.
The panel will present a report to the government by the end of
the year, Mr Howard said.
The move is likely to spark opposition in Australia from both the
environment and coal lobbies.
"Cabinet has approved the establishment of a prime ministerial
task force to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear
energy in Australia," Mr Howard told journalists.
It is foolish to see ourselv as simply an exporter of uranium
Prime Minister John Howard
The inquiry would address whether it was "economically feasible
to contemplate the establishment of nuclear power stations in
this country", he said.
Mr Howard said the private sector would be responsible for
building power stations, not the government.
Former Telstra head Ziggy Switkowski has been appointed to head
the inquiry.
Debate
The move is likely to lead to considerable debate in Australia,
both over environmental issues and the cost of developing a
nuclear power industry.
At the moment, the majority of Australia's energy comes from coal
and Australia is also the world's largest coal exporter.
Critics argue that Australia does not need nuclear power because
of its huge coal resources. Environmentalists have also been
consistently opposed to any domestic nuclear power industry.
[The Lucas Heights reactor near Sydney] Australia currently only
has one research reactor
But the Meteorology Bureau's announcement in January that 2005
had been Australia's hottest year on record prompted renewed
fears of global warming.
Australia is one of only two major industrialised nations not to
have signed the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, the other being the US.
Nonetheless, Australia faces international pressure to reduce
emissions, and nuclear power could be one way to do it.
Australia currently has one small research reactor, located at
Lucas Heights in Sydney.
It also holds 40% of the world's known uranium reserves and
recently signed an export deal with China.
"It is foolish to see ourselves as simply an exporter of
uranium," Mr Howard said.
He told Australian radio that he believed attitudes to nuclear
power were changing.
"I am not persuaded as yet, although in my bones I think there
has been a fundamental change," he said. "But I want to see the
evidence."
*****************************************************************
26 AU ABC: Coal, gas and renewables promote their green credentials
The World Today - Tuesday, 6 June , 2006 12:50:00
Reporter: David Mark
ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister's call for a debate on nuclear
power has prompted other energy industries to try to wrest back
the initiative in the electricity public relations war.
John Howard says nuclear energy should be considered, in part
because it may help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But now coal, gas and the renewable power industries are hitting
back, selling their green credentials.
David Mark reports.
DAVID MARK: In Australia, coal is king.
It accounts for around 74 per cent of electricity production in
this country, but the industry is taking the nuclear threat
seriously.
The coal industry is talking itself up as a potentially green
industry, despite the fact that it currently accounts for 35 per
cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
The Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, Mark
O'Neill, points to the $300 million his industry has put towards
the Coal 21 Fund, an industry and government program to reduce
greenhouse emissions.
MARK O'NEILL: The primary technology that is being investigated
is capturing carbon dioxide when it leaves the power station
after you've used either coal or natural gas, and pressurising
it and putting it deep underground into geological formations
that we know will hold it for millions of years.
DAVID MARK: This is called sequestration?
MARK O'NEILL: Called sequestration.
DAVID MARK: Now, your critics say that this technology doesn't
yet exist. It's not proven.
MARK O'NEILL: Those critics would be… would be wrong. Injecting
C02 into geological formations has been going on for years and
years in the oil and gas industry. It's primarily being used to
force oil and gas out of reservoirs, so you pump CO2 into those
reservoirs to pressurise the reservoirs to help you extract oil
and gas.
DAVID MARK: Well, if the technology's existed for such a long
time, as you say, why are you not doing it now?
MARK O'NEILL: The key to doing it cost effectively is to focus
on the technologies that are about to capture it at the power
station in the first place.
The key challenge for us is to get the cost of doing that at a
very large scale down so that it's more cost competitive.
DAVID MARK: And how far off is that? When might we see
sequestration of CO2 in Australia?
MARK O'NEILL: Full-scale, I would say we're looking at early…
the early years of next decade.
DAVID MARK: Is that just PR talk?
MARK O'NEILL: Oh, no, absolutely not. We're hoping to have at
least one project in Queensland injecting CO2 by the end of this
decade. We would anticipate a similar situation in New South
Wales and possibly two projects in Victoria.
DAVID MARK: Gas comes second in energy production, accounting
for 17 per cent of electricity generated in Australia.
Its proponents, like the Western Australian Premier Alan
Carpenter, have also come out fighting, saying it's plentiful.
ALAN CARPENTER: It is a… an abundant supply of energy for
Australia's future.
DAVID MARK: And cleaner.
RICK BRAZZALE: Emissions from gas are a fraction of what the
coal industry emissions, perhaps around a third, and perhaps
even less if we use it in cogeneration mode.
DAVID MARK: That's Rick Brazzale, the Executive Director of the
Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
Rick Brazzale's organisation represents the gas industry as well
as the renewable energy sector, which includes hydro, wind,
solar and biomass electricity producers
Renewables produce no greenhouse gas emissions and account for
around nine per cent of Australia's electricity generation. The
vast bulk of that comes from hydro power.
The problem is that these technologies are more expensive. And
so electricity producers, who are looking for the cheapest
product available, are sticking with coal. And there's little
incentive for them to change.
RICK BRAZZALE: In Australia at the moment we have a renewable
energy target that's been successful in supporting the growth of
renewable energy.
DAVID MARK: That figure is around two per cent.
RICK BRAZZALE: That's correct.
But that program is essentially complete, and so there's very
little scope for any new renewable power projects. So we've seen
that industry pretty well stall at the moment.
DAVID MARK: Across Australia, how many projects are currently
being shelved that could be up and running? And if they were,
what percentage of the electricity market would they account for?
RICK BRAZZALE: There's more than 5,000 megawatts of renewable
energy projects that have been shelved, and they could provide
around five per cent of Australia's power needs. So this is
technology that's available now, that could be rolled out, but
there's just not a market for it at the moment.
DAVID MARK: Rick Brazzale says if the Federal Government is
serious about reducing greenhouse emissions, it needs to force
business to invest in renewables.
RICK BRAZZALE: Government's important role is to provide an
economic framework that's going to drive private sector
investment. And to do that you need to put in place some sort of
pricing signal or recognise the pollution that conventional
coal-fired power stations produce, and recognise that there's a
cost for that.
So you can do that through market-based mechanisms, like the
renewable target, or things like emissions trading. But business
is not going to invest in lower greenhouse emission technology
unless there's a financial incentive to do that.
ELEANOR HALL: And that's Rick Brazzale, the Executive Director
of the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy,
ending David Mark's report.
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: New Senior Resident Inspector Named at South Texas Project
News Release - Region IV - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
No. IV-06-014 June 6, 2006
CONTACT: Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Arlington, Texas,
have selected John Dixon as the new senior resident inspector at
the South Texas Project nuclear plant.
South Texas Project operates the plant near Bay City, Texas. The
NRC has two inspectors assigned to the plant, which has two
reactors. Dixon joins Resident Inspector Joe Taylor. He replaces
Jeff Cruz, who accepted a position at NRC Headquarters in
Bethesda, Maryland.
John Dixons experience and commitment to safety will help the
NRC ensure that South Texas Project conducts operations with the
highest safety standards to protect the public health and
safety, said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett.
Dixon joined the NRC in 2002 as a reactor engineer and project
engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects. He is currently a
resident inspector at Arkansas Nuclear One, where he has worked
since 2003. He has a Bachelors degree and a Masters degree in
nuclear engineering from Texas A&M University. Before joining
the NRC, Dixon worked for Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory where
he achieved Submarine Engineer qualifications and taught Naval
Nuclear Propulsion in Charleston, S.C.
Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC
resident inspectors. They serve as the agencys eyes and ears at
the facility, conducting regular inspections and monitoring
significant work projects.
The South Texas Project resident inspectors can be reached at:
361-972-2507.
Last revised Tuesday, June 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
28 NEWS.com.au: Political foes fight reactor
(06-06-2006)
From: AAP
VICTORIA'S Labor government and its Liberal opponents have become
unlikely bedfellows to fight off any moves to build a nuclear
reactor in the state. Both sides of politics went on the
offensive as the Federal Government was finalising details of an
inquiry into nuclear power to be headed by former Telstra boss
Ziggy Switkowski.
Environment Minister John Thwaites warned the Federal Government
could try to foist a reactor on the state by building on
Commonwealth land.
Mr Thwaites has sought assurances from Canberra that it will not
use its powers to override state legislation banning nuclear
power plants.
"We are concerned that the Commonwealth may seek to get around
this legislation and seek to have nuclear power facilities on
Commonwealth land in Victoria," he said.
"We don't want the Commonwealth to use a loophole to get around
our anti-nuclear legislation."
Mr Thwaites and state Energy Minister Theo Theophanous accused
Prime Minister John Howard of using the nuclear debate to mask
his inaction on renewable energy.
Mr Theophanous said Mr Howard was ignoring long-standing calls
for a national carbon emissions trading scheme to combat
greenhouse gases.
"Instead he goes off talking about nuclear power when he knows
it's not going to get up. He knows it won't work on cost basis.
"He's prepared to go down the path of a furphy to divert
attention from the real problem which is that he has nobbled
renewable energy in this country."
Both ministers were forced to defend accusations they were
themselves mounting a scare campaign about Canberra's nuclear
intentions, as a distraction from the state's heavily polluting
brown coal power industry.
"You can't talk about having nuclear power plants without
talking about where you put them," Mr Thwaites said.
Meanwhile, state Opposition energy spokesman Phil Davis said
the Liberals were opposed to nuclear power in the state purely
on commercial grounds.
The state economy was dependent on its powerful manufacturing
sector which in turn relied on low-cost electricity generated by
cheap and abundant brown coal, Mr Davis said.
"It is in our interests to ensure that brown coal remains the
fuel of choice but only on the basis of clean technologies," he
said.
But Mr Davis refused to say whether he supported or opposed
nuclear power in principle, if it were to become commercially
viable.
"The threshold question is: is it commercially viable, is it
competitive?
"The answer is quite clear from all the available evidence ...
that presently that is not the case.
"It is not commercially viable so we don't even have to address
the question."
And he took a shot at Mr Thwaites for trying to "beat up for
all he's worth" the possibility of a federally-imposed nuclear
site.
"John Thwaites is just having a bit of a political tussle.
"It's not relevant to the debate about whether or not nuclear
is commercially viable. Let's get back to basics."
*****************************************************************
29 NEWS.com.au: No reactor in my state, says Debnam -
From: AAP
June 06, 2006
NEW South Wales Opposition Leader Peter Debnam would not support
the building of a second nuclear rector in the state if he wins
government, he said today. Prime Minister John Howard today
announced a wide-ranging investigation into nuclear power
generation by a panel of experts, but has refused to say where
he thinks any potential reactors should be located.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma has said a nuclear reactor will not be
built in NSW while he is premier.
Today, Mr Debnam at first deflected questions on the nuclear
debate, saying he would leave those to Mr Howard.
But when pressed, Mr Debnam said he also would not support a
nuclear reactor.
"I can pretty well guarantee that," Mr Debnam said when asked
if he would give the same guarantee as Mr Iemma.
Advertisement:
"I think Morris Iemma is saying in the next nine months
there won't be a nuclear power station in NSW.
"I can understand his point of view on that, it's a 10-20 year
planning cycle for any power plant of that nature.
"From my point of view I can make the same guarantee."
Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
30 Australian: PM's nuclear path off track - Beazley
This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP
June 06, 2006
PRIME Minister John Howard wants to lead Australia down the path
to nuclear power, opposition leader Kim Beazley said.
"We should not go down the road to nuclear power, that's where
John Howard wants to send us – make no mistake about that," Mr
Beazley said in Perth today.
Earlier today, Mr Howard announced an inquiry into nuclear
energy in Australia to be headed by nuclear physicist and former
Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski.
The taskforce would review uranium mining, processing and
nuclear energy in Australia.
However Mr Beazley said Mr Howard should be focusing on
renewable energy, which Australia has in abundance, rather than
narrowing the energy debate to the viability of nuclear options.
"We need renewables not nuclear reactors ... alternative
energy, that's what the debate is about," Mr Beazley said.
He said Mr Howard's decision to hold an inquiry that would look
at the economic viability of nuclear power, but not reveal
proposed sites, was "ultimate arrogance". "If you are going to
get a nuclear industry going you have got to put the reactors
near cities.
"Therefore you must say, if you are going to do the economics
of it properly, where the reactors will go."
He said Western Australia was the fastest growing area of the
country.
"If they decide to slot nuclear power down the east coast they
will slot it here as well."
He also said the inquiry "would produce whatever John Howard
wants it to produce" by way of recommendations on nuclear power.
Labor supports uranium mining but believes the terms of sale
were no longer tough enough.
Mr Beazley did not say whether Labor would rule out uranium
enrichment, but said it had "similar problems" to nuclear power.
Nuclear power was an old technology that was not needed in
Australia, he said.
"If you elect a Labor Government there will be no reactors," Mr
Beazley said.
Terms © The Australian
*****************************************************************
31 SABCnews.com: Erwin disguising pebble bed truth - Earthlife
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005 SABC
June 06, 2006, 20:15
Earthlife Africa, an environmental rights group, has said that
Alec Erwin, the public enterprises minister, is continuing to
disguise the truth about the planned pebble bed modular nuclear
reactor.
Maya Aberman, the campaign coordinator of Earthlife, was
reacting to Erwin's statement in Parliament this week that the
reactor offered a "plausible and cost-competitive" way of
providing power to South Africa's coastal towns and cities.
Aberman said that since its inception, costs and schedules on
the reactor project had continued to escalate.
In 1998, the demonstration plant was expected to be completed in
2003, and in 1999 was expected to cost R2 billion. By last year
the project was expected to cost R14.5 billion and completion by
2010 seemed unlikely in light of the fact that the design had
not been finalised.
Uranium enrichment an energy intensive process
Erwin also claimed South Africa’s uranium resources ensured
security of supply. In fact, Aberman said, uranium needed to be
enriched before it could be used to generate nuclear power.
Enrichment is not done in South Africa and is an "incredibly"
energy intensive process, she added.
"Erwin fails to appreciate the tremendous resources we are
gifted with in the form of wind and sunshine that could be used
to generate electricity that is truly clean," said Aberman. -
Sapa
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings
FR Doc 06-5163
[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Notices] [Page 32601-32602] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jn06-70]
agency holding the meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
date: Weeks of June 5, 12, 19, 26, July 3, 10, 2006.
place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
status: Public and closed.
matters to be considered: Week of June 5, 2006 Wednesday, June 7,
2006 9 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1 & 3).
Week of June 12, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of June 12, 2006.
Week of June 19, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of June 19, 2006.
Week of June 26, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of June 26, 2006.
Week of July 3, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of July 3, 2006.
Week of July 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of July 10, 2006.
* * * * * Additional Information The Affirmation of ``Andrew
Siemaszko, Docket No. 1A-05-021, unpublished Licensing Board
Order (Dec. 22, 2005)'' which was tentatively scheduled on
Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 12:55 p.m. has been rescheduled
tentatively on Friday, June 2, 2006, at 3:30 p.m. * * * * * * The
schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301)
415-1292.
[[Page 32602]] Contact person for more information: Michelle
Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * *
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, of would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: June 1, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-5163 Filed 6-2-06; 10:21 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited" Australia Announces Nuclear Inquiry
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday June 6, 2006 8:31 AM
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Australia will study whether to start
a nuclear power industry, the prime minister said Tuesday.
Prime Minister John Howard said his Cabinet agreed to appoint a
panel of experts to investigate whether Australia should start
shifting its reliance on coal and gas energy to nuclear power.
He said the panel will study the economic feasibility of nuclear
power stations in Australia, adding that any station would be a
private venture, rather than government built.
Howard's push in recent weeks for a nuclear power debate in the
world's largest coal-exporting nation has surprised many
observers, because nuclear energy was not covered by a
government policy document on cleaner future energy technologies
released less than a year ago.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
34 Sydney Morning Herald: New chief already on N-board -
www.smh.com.au
June 7, 2006
THE man appointed to head the Federal Government's inquiry into
nuclear power, the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, is also
on the board of Australia's peak nuclear research body.
Dr Switkowski early this year began a four-year term on the
board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation.
He will chair a panel that includes the head of the Australian
National University's research school of physical sciences and
engineering, George Dracoulis, and the Reserve Bank of Australia
board member Warwick McKibbin.
Professor Dracoulis said yesterday there was a need for a
"rational" debate on nuclear power. "It's certainly hard for
experts and non-experts to judge some of the things that are
said."
Professor McKibbin has written extensively about the need to
create a carbon pricing system to provide an incentive for
business and households to look at other forms of energy.
As part of the inquiry, the Chief Scientist, Professor Jim
Peacock, will oversee a review of scientific literature on
nuclear power. The inquiry has been criticised by environment
groups.
Stephanie Peatling
*****************************************************************
35 AU The Age: PM denies 'stacking' nuclear taskforce -
www.theage.com.au
June 6, 2006 - 8:59AM
Prime Minister John Howard denies he has stacked his hand-picked
taskforce to investigate nuclear power in Australia with people
in favour of the controversial energy source.
Mr Howard has named three members of a taskforce to investigate
the viability of nuclear power in Australia.
He said the taskforce, headed by former Telstra boss and nuclear
physicist, Ziggy Switkowski, contained experts in the field who
were not biased towards nuclear power.
The other members named are nuclear physicist George Dracoulis
and prominent economist Warwick McKibbin.
Chief scientist Jim Peacock, a proponent of nuclear power, will
support the review.
Mr Howard said Dr Switkowski's membership of the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) would not
influence his findings.
"To get from a limited pool of experts that there are in this,
to get somebody who really knows what he's on about, or she's on
about, to do this inquiry," he told the ABC TV's 7.30 Report.
"You have to really get people who have some kind of involvement
in the industry or have a deep knowledge of it."
He said Dr Switkowski had the right background of nuclear
physics, commercial skills and public governance.
And Mr Howard said he was not deterred by the fact Dr Switkowski
was sacked by the Telstra board.
"We thought he did a good job in his previous position, the
government did," Mr Howard said.
"We didn't sack him."
Mr Howard said he had an open mind on the three frames of
reference on the inquiry - increasing uranium mining, uranium
enrichment and nuclear power stations.
"I've got an open mind of the three of them," he said.
He said the government had not looked into renewables over the
past decade because they were not economically viable.
"Because the judgment has been made by the government over that
time based on the information we have that the economics of
renewables are so heavily negative that has to be a case of huge
government subsidies to further boost the renewables industry,"
he said.
© 2006 AAP
| Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
36 Sydney Morning Herald: N-task force will not consider locations -
www.smh.com.au
Phillip Coorey
June 7, 2006
A PRIME MINISTERIAL task force would examine every stage of the
uranium cycle except how many nuclear power stations might be
needed and where they would be built.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, announced a six-member task
force yesterday, to be headed by the former Telstra boss and
nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski.
After a long cabinet debate on nuclear power, including the
political risk of embracing the technology, Mr Howard said he
was yet to be convinced and did not envisage nuclear power
stations being built "over the next two to three years".
But he said a perceived softening of public opinion towards
nuclear energy made it worth examining. "My mind is open. I'm
not persuaded yet, but in my bones I feel there has been a
fundamental change.
"There are always political risks in particular doing something
like this, but there are political and long-term national costs
in sitting on your hands and ignoring reality.
"Why not give ourselves the protection, the luxury, the
opportunity of having a proper investigation of it now when we
have time, when we have the policy freedom to do so?"
The task force must report by the end of the year. It will
examine the capacity to increase uranium mining, the potential
for enriching the mineral into nuclear fuel, the feasibility of
nuclear power, and how to deal with the toxic waste generated.
Professor George Dracoulis, a nuclear physicist from Canberra's
Australian National University, and Warwick McKibbin, an
economics professor from the same university, will also be part
of the task force. The other three members will be announced
today.
Mr Howard rejected Greenpeace's complaint that the task force
was stacked with pro-nuclear experts. "I want people who are
expert and also people who are clear-headed and open-minded
about the pros and cons."
He said the location and number of power stations need not be
dealt with for the "foreseeable future" and he had yet to turn
his mind to overcoming the objections now voiced by all states.
The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, accused Mr Howard of
returning to the past by "rehashing old debates about nuclear
reactors".
Labor opposes nuclear power and instead wants efforts dedicated
to developing renewable energy sources.
"Australia needs renewables, not reactors," Mr Beazley said.
He said Mr Howard was being disingenuous by shying away from the
number and sites of any nuclear power stations. "A nuclear
inquiry that does not examine reactor locations is nothing short
of arrogant."
Mr Howard dismissed the assault as predictable. "That's to be
expected of a negative, backward-looking, old-fashioned,
bankrupt-of-ideas Opposition."
He conceded, however, that there was merit in also examining
other future forms of energy and hinted that plans were in the
pipeline to do so.
But nuclear energy warranted a separate review because a
combined examination "could become a survey of everything under
the sun", Mr Howard said.
Earlier yesterday, the gas industry added its opposition to the
pursuit of nuclear power, saying natural gas was plentiful,
cheap and clean, and did not have the waste and security issues
associated with nuclear energy.
| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
37 AU: The Age: State fears over nuclear ban - National -
www.theage.com.au
Jane Holroyd
June 6, 2006 - 4:35PM
+ REPORT Introducing nuclear power
Victoria has made an appeal to the Federal Government amid fears
the Commonwealth could overturn state legislation banning
nuclear power plants.
An expert in constitutional law has warned the states would be
"powerless" to stop the Commonwealth from approving nuclear
power stations.
Victoria's Labor government and its Liberal opponents today both
moved to fight off any moves to build a nuclear reactor in the
state.
Meanwhile, an independent report has identified areas in Port
Phillip Bay, Western Port Bay and Portland in Victoria's
south-west as ideal sites for a nuclear power plant.
NSW and Queensland state governments have also vowed to block
any plans to build plants on their land.
Both sides of politics went on the offensive this afternoon as
the federal government finalised details of an inquiry into
nuclear power to be headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy
Switkowski.
Loophole fears
Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites warned the federal
government could try to foist a reactor on the state by building
on Commonwealth land.
Mr Thwaites has sought assurances from Canberra it will not use
its powers to override the state ban.
"We are concerned that the Commonwealth may seek to get around
this legislation and seek to have nuclear power facilities on
commonwealth land in Victoria,'' he said.
"We don't want the Commonwealth to use a loophole to get around
our anti-nuclear legislation.''
States 'powerless'
Professor George Williams, director of the Gilbert and Tobin
Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW, said state
governments were powerless under the law to stop the
Commonwealth if it decided that nuclear energy was feasible and
desirable.
"There really is very little that the state governments can do,"
Professor Williams told theage.com.au.
"That's because the Commonwealth has exclusive power over its
own lands and not only that, it has a special power that allows
it to acquire any person's land, so long as they give just
terms."
Professor Williams pointed to examples when federal governments
had acquired land for airports using `aquisition of property
power' in the constitution.
"They could just say, `This is the bit of land we want. We're
going to pay you fair market value but now it's ours'," said
Professor Williams.
"Even if the (Victoria) government passed a special law to try
and prevent it, the constitution says that where there is a
conflict between Commonwealth and state laws, that the
Commonwealth law prevails."
People power
People power would be the only way to block Commonwealth
projects, Professor Williams said, pointing out that staunch
opposition to nuclear waste dumps in South Australia had forced
a federal backdown.
Just last week people power had scuttled government plans to
sell the Snowy Hydro scheme, he added.
"If the state did have a capacity to block the sale, it would
lie in the realm of politics and community agitation, not legal
remedies," said Professor Williams.
Liberals oppose nuclear
State Opposition energy spokesman Phil Davis said the Liberals
were opposed to nuclear power in the state purely on commercial
grounds.
The state economy was dependent on its powerful manufacturing
sector which in turn relied on low-cost electricity generated by
cheap and abundant brown coal, Mr Davis said.
"It is in our interests to ensure that brown coal remains the
fuel of choice but only on the basis of clean technologies,'' he
said.
But Mr Davis refused to say whether he supported or opposed
nuclear power in principle, if it were to become commercially
viable.
theage.com.au, with AAP
| Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
38 AU: The Age: Ziggy to chair nuclear inquiry -
www.theage.com.au
June 6, 2006 - 4:15PM
+ REPORT Introducing nuclear power
Former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski will chair a federal
government inquiry into nuclear energy in Australia, Prime
Minister John Howard announced today.
"Cabinet has approved the establishment of a prime ministerial
taskforce to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear
energy in Australia," Mr Howard told reporters.
"The task force will be chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the
former managing director of Telstra and a well-respected nuclear
physicist."
Mr Howard said two other members of the task force were the
country's foremost nuclear physicist, Professor George
Dracoulis, from the Australian National University, and Reserve
Bank board member, Professor Warwick McKibben.
Three other members would be named tomorrow.
Australia's chief scientist, Jim Peacock, would support the
review.
Mr Howard said he did not expect to have nuclear power stations
in Australia within the next two or three years.
He said the task force would have extensive terms of reference.
"They recognise that Australia's energy sector has played a key
role in our sustained economic growth and our capacity to
reliantly access competitively priced power and optimise the
value of our energy resources has been a major element in our
economic prosperity," he said.
"Australia does hold up to 40 per cent of the world's known,
low-cost, recoverable uranium reserves and there is significant
potential for Australia to increase and add value to our uranium
extraction and exports.
"A lot of recent developments in global energy markets have
renewed international interest in nuclear energy as a technology
that might over time meet growing demand for electricity without
the fuel and environmental costs associated with oil and gas.
"I don't expect to have nuclear power stations in Australia
within the next two or three years."
Mr Howard said the inquiry would look into uranium enrichment
and whether nuclear power stations would be economically viable
in Australia.
"I've always maintained that holding the reserves of uranium
that we do, it is foolish to see ourselves as simply an exporter
of uranium," he said.
"I think we should also look at the value-added process, which
is principally enrichment, and we should also look at whether
(a) nuclear power station in Australia (would) become
economically feasible."
He also said private companies, not the federal government,
would build any nuclear power stations.
"The Commonwealth itself won't be constructing nuclear power
stations, they are things that are likely to be constructed by
the private sector," he said.
Mr Howard said he wanted the review to be completed by the end
of the year.
He said the review could be a watershed in Australian history.
"I recognise that this is very much one of those reviews that
are, time from time, needed in a country's history to see
whether we ought to take a change in direction," he said.
"My mind remains open, I am not persuaded as yet, although in my
bones I think there has been a fundamental change, but I want to
see the evidence."
Mr Howard said he expected a fear campaign by opponents, but he
believed the public's view on the issue had changed.
"I know that the Labor Party and others will run a fear campaign
on this, well let them do it. That will not deter me and it will
not deter the government," he said.
"I suspect that the Australian public's attitude has changed a
bit on this."
Mr Howard likened the debate over uranium to the wool industry.
"I don't think they want to have a re-run of our historical
experience with wool processing, where we had the best wool in
the world but we had to send it somewhere else to be processed,"
he said.
"I think the public is worried about energy security for the
years ahead.
"I think they like the idea of the fact that we've got a lot of
coal and natural gas. I think they are aware of our rich
endowments of uranium."
AAP
*****************************************************************
39 AU ABC: Vic to fight any nuclear plant plans
ABC Victoria | Local News | Story
Tuesday, 6 June 2006. 10:20 (AEDT)Tuesday, 6 June 2006. 09:20
The Victorian Government says it would fight any moves by the
Commonwealth to locate nuclear power plants in the state.
Federal Cabinet will today examine a proposal for a wide-ranging
review of the nuclear industry.
Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites says state
legislation would prohibit a nuclear power plant being built.
"However, we are concerned given the action in relation to
industrial relations where the Commonwealth used the
corporations power to get extra power for the Government that
they might try to use that power to impose a nuclear power
station on Victoria," he said.
*****************************************************************
40 BBC: MPs told of UK's nuclear dilemma
Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 June 2006
Mr Blair has raised the prospect of ne nuclear power stations
Rejecting nuclear power will contribute to climate change, the
boss of energy giant EDF has warned MPs.
But Vincent De Rivaz said building new nuclear plants meant
burying nuclear waste for 400 years in the hope technology
emerged to deal with it.
He said there was a need to find new power sources and a
decision was needed now if nuclear was to fill that gap.
The UK's existing nuclear power plants, which provide 20% of
electricity, will soon be decommissioned.
If they were not replaced with a new generation then coal and
gas would be used and Britain would fail to meet its carbon
reduction targets, said Mr De Rivaz.
He told the cross-party Trade and Industry committee low carbon
emissions made nuclear energy a key part of "fixing the power
crunch".
Cross party support for nuclear was one of the factors that
would be key in attracting private investment.
Review due
Paul Golbey, chief executive of E. ON UK - better known as
Powergen - warned there was "no silver bullet" - demand would
only be met by deploying a variety of different energies.
Both witnesses to the inquiry agreed that if new nuclear power
stations were built, it would be wise to consider placing them
on current sites where there was existing infrastructure and
often public acceptance because of the employment provided
locally.
Last month Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser said nuclear
power should be used to meet around 30% of Britain's energy
needs.
Sir David King said as many as 20 new nuclear plants could be
needed to increase the power generated by the current 12 sites
from the current 12%.
And the prime minister recently signalled his support for the
nuclear option.
Mr Blair told the CBI annual dinner in May the issue was "back
on the agenda with a vengeance".
The government's energy review is due out in July.
*****************************************************************
41 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and FirstEnergy Nuclear
FR Doc E6-8705
[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32601]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn06-69]
Generation Corp.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
Amendment to
Facility Operating License
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has
granted
the request of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and
FirstEnergy
Nuclear Generation Corp. (the licensees) to withdraw its January
5,
2005, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating
License
No. NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1,
located in
Ottawa County.
The proposed amendment would have revised Technical
Specification
(TS) 3/4.3.2.1, ``Safety Features Actuation System [SFAS]
Instrumentation,'' to permit a single inoperable SFAS functional
unit
to be placed in a bypassed condition indefinitely.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of
Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on
February 15,
2005 (70 FR 7765). However, in response to answering the NRC
staff's
request for additional information (RAI) dated November 23,
2005, the
licensees conducted a preliminary risk evaluation and determined
that a
full risk evaluation was too resource intensive and may not
yield
acceptable results. As a result, the licensees did not submit a
formal
response to the RAI. Subsequently, by letter dated April 21,
2006, the
licensees withdrew the proposed change.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated January 5, 2005, and the
licensees'
letter dated April 21, 2006, which withdrew the application for
license
amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee,
at the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems
(ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web
site,
. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at
1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen J. Campbell,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of
Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-8705 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
FR Doc E6-8706
[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Notices] [Page 32614-32615] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jn06-72]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a new
guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has
been developed to describe and make available to the public such
information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for
implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques
that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated
accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of
applications for permits and licenses.
Regulatory Guide 1.205, ``Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,''
provides guidance for use in complying with the requirements that
the NRC has promulgated for risk-informed, performance-based fire
protection programs that meet the requirements of Title 10, Sec.
50.48(c), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.48(c))
and the referenced 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) standard, NFPA 805, ``Performance-Based
Standard for Fire Protection for Light- Water Reactor Electric
Generating Plants.'' In accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(a), each
operating nuclear power plant must have a fire protection plan
that satisfies General Design Criterion (GDC) 3, ``Fire
Protection,'' of Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for
Nuclear Power Plants,'' to 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing
of Production and Utilization Facilities.'' In addition, plants
that were licensed to operate before January 1, 1979, must meet
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, ``Fire Protection
Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January
1, 1979,'' except to the extent provided for in 10 CFR 50.48(b).
Plants licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, are required to
comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a), as well as any plant-specific fire
protection license condition and technical specifications.
Section 50.48(c), which the NRC adopted in 2004 (69 FR 33536,
June 16, 2004), incorporates NFPA 805 by reference, with certain
exceptions, and allows licensees to voluntarily adopt and
maintain a fire protection program that meets the requirements of
NFPA 805 as an alternative to meeting the requirements of 10 CFR
50.48(b) or the plant-specific fire protection license
conditions. Licensees who choose to comply with 10 CFR 50.48(c)
must submit a license amendment application to the NRC, in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. Section 50.48(c)(3) describes the
required content of the application. The Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) has developed NEI 04-02, ``Guidance for Implementing a
Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10
CFR 50.48(c),'' Revision 1, dated September 2005, to assist
licensees in adopting 10 CFR 50.48(c) and making the transition
from their current fire protection program (FPP) to one based on
NFPA 805. This regulatory guide endorses NEI 04-02, Revision 1,
because it provides methods acceptable to the NRC for
implementing NFPA 805 and complying with 10 CFR 50.48(c), subject
to the additional regulatory positions contained in Section C of
this regulatory guide and the approval authority that 10 CFR
50.48(c) grants to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The
regulatory positions in Section C include clarification of the
guidance provided in NEI 04-02, as well as any NRC exceptions to
the guidance. The regulatory positions in Section C take
precedence over the NEI 04-02 guidance.
All references to NEI 04-02 in this regulatory guide refer to
Revision 1 of NEI 04-02. All references to NFPA 805 in this
regulatory guide refer to the 2001 Edition of NFPA.
The NRC previously solicited public comment on this new guide by
publishing a Federal Register notice (69 FR 60192) concerning
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1139 on October 7, 2004. Following the
closure of the public comment period on December 15, 2004, the
staff considered all stakeholder comments in the course of
preparing Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC staff's responses to
public comments received on the draft regulatory guide are
available electronically in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061100235.
In particular, the revisions in this new guide include additional
guidance regarding the plant change process, including risk
acceptance thresholds for changes that may be made without prior
NRC review and approval. In addition, this new guide includes
guidance for the fire probabilistic safety analyses that
licensees use to risk-inform the fire protection program.
The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in
connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as
well as items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are
currently being developed. You may submit comments by any of the
following methods.
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at (301)
415-5144.
Requests for technical information about Regulatory Guide 1.205
may be directed to Paul W. Lain at (301) 415-2346 or via e-mail
to . Regulatory guides are available for inspection or
downloading through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory
Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room
at .
Regulatory Guide 1.205 is also available electronically in the
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
at , under Accession ML061100174.
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301)
415-3548, and by e- mail to . Requests for single copies of draft
or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an
automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft
guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by
e-mail to ; or by fax to
[[Page 32615]] (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be
accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and
Commission approval is not required to reproduce them.
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of
May, 2006.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Brian W. Sheron,
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E6-8706 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
43 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
FR Doc E6-8709
[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Notices] [Page 32615] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jn06-73]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for
public comment a draft of a revised guide in the agency's
Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to
describe and make available to the public such information as
methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing
specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the
staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated
accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of
applications for permits and licenses.
The draft Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.193, ``ASME Code Cases
Not Approved for Use,'' is temporarily identified by its task
number, DG-1135, which should be mentioned in all related
correspondence. Like its predecessors, this proposed revision
lists the Code Cases that the NRC has determined are not
acceptable for generic use as specified in Section III, ``Rules
for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' and Section
XI, ``Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant
Components,'' of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code
promulgated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME). (In so doing, this guide complements Revision 34 of
Regulatory Guide 1.84, ``Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code
Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,'' and Revision 15 of
Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice Inspection Code Case
Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,'' which list the Code
Cases that the NRC has determined to be acceptable alternatives
to applicable provisions of Section III and Section XI,
respectively.) Licensees may request NRC approval to implement
one or more of the Code Cases listed in Revision 2 of Regulatory
Guide 1.193, as provided in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), which permits
the use of alternatives to the Code requirements referenced in 10
CFR 50.55a, provided that the proposed alternatives result in an
acceptable level of quality and safety. To do so, a licensee must
submit a plant-specific request that addresses the NRC's concern
about the given Code Case.
The NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide
DG- 1135, and comments may be accompanied by relevant information
or supporting data. Please mention DG-1135 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments on this draft regulatory guide submitted
in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the
public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will
not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any
of the following methods.
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
E-mail comments to: . You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at . Address questions about our rulemaking
Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail .
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301)
415-5144.
Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide
DG- 1135 may be directed to Wallace E. Norris, at (301) 415-6796
or . Comments would be most helpful if received by July 14, 2006.
Comments received after that date will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration
only for comments received on or before this date. Although a
time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with
items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or
improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available
through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides
in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at . Electronic copies are also available
in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061210425.
In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301)
415-3548, and by e- mail to . Requests for single copies of draft
or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an
automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft
guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by
e-mail to ; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests
cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted,
and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them.
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of
May, 2006.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, James T. Wiggins,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E6-8709 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
44 Asia Times: Toshiba's buyout of Westinghouse clears hurdle
TOKYO - Toshiba said Monday that its acquisition of nuclear power
plant manufacturer Westinghouse Electric Co. has been approved by
a US government committee that reviews possible national security
issues related to foreign direct investment.
Obtaining approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in
the United States had been seen as a major hurdle for Toshiba
since it agreed in February with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to
buy Westinghouse for US$5.4 billion, or about 600 billion yen. An
application for the committee's approval was filed in April.
The panel's judgment had been a focus of attention as the deal
could impact U.S. national security. But opposition did not
materialize because Toshiba opted to form a Japan-U.S. alliance
by including American partners such as major construction firm
Fluor Corp.
To share the load of its investment, Toshiba is also inviting
Marubeni Corp. and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. to
join the alliance.
Although Toshiba has yet to clear anti-monopoly reviews in the
US and Europe, it expects to complete by September all
procedures for obtaining Westinghouse shares.
(Asia Pulse/Nikkei)
Online Ltd. Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon,
Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
*****************************************************************
45 Newsday.com: Scientists skeptical of closing Indian Point --
By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer
June 6, 2006, 1:43 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Closing the Indian Point nuclear power plants
would be costly and difficult, but it could be done if the state
and power companies moved quickly and built big new facilities, a
group of scientists said Tuesday.
A report by a National Academy of Sciences committee said there
is no technological barrier to replacing the twin nuclear power
plants on the banks of the Hudson River, but a host of financial
and regulatory hurdles are in the way.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, many residents around the plants in
Buchanan, N.Y., north of New York City, have worried they are at
risk to radiation exposure if terrorists attacked Indian Point.
Federal regulators and the private company that runs Indian Point
have repeatedly insisted the site is secure, but that has not
stopped the criticism.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Westchester, who wants to close Indian Point,
had sought a scientific review to determine how New York could do
that and still have a reliable power supply. The committee's
findings suggested the growing energy demands in the metropolitan
area would make shutting down the reactors difficult.
"The committee has identified no insurmountable technological
barriers to the replacement of Indian Point's capacity, energy
and ancillary services, but significant financial,
institutional, regulatory and political barriers also would have
to be overcome to avoid threatening reliability," the group said
in a 280-page report.
At a news conference in White Plains, N.Y., Lowey said the
report's bottom line was, "We can meet the region's increasing
energy demands without Indian Point." Speaking next to a poster
showing energy-efficient air conditioners and fluorescent light
bulbs, she said the goal could be accomplished with
conservation, transmission improvements and "modest new
generation."
The problem, the report argues, is that Indian Point now cranks
out nearly one-quarter of the power consumed by the region
encompassing New York City and its suburbs, and demand for power
is growing fast.
"Even with the Indian Point units operational, New York state
will require system reinforcements, above those already under
construction, as soon as 2008 in order to meet its projected
demand for electricity and maintain system reliability," the
committee found.
The report, by design, took no position on whether Indian Point
should be closed. Several members of the committee attended
Lowey's news conference, but the chairman, Lawrence Papay of the
National Academy of Engineering, said they were there to answer
questions, not to support Lowey's position.
The committee warned that generating capacity in the New York
City area may be outstripped by peak demand in as little as
three years.
Indian Point is a 2,000 megawatt facility, and the state's power
needs are expected to grow between 1,200 and 1,600 megawatts by
2010.
The experts also suggested public resistance, bureaucratic delay
and market forces may slow the expansion of needed power plants
until the demand reaches a crisis point.
"New generating capacity may not be available until reserves are
dangerously low. Forestalling a crisis may require extraordinary
efforts on the part of policy makers and regulators," the report
said.
A spokesman for the plants' owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast,
praised the report, saying, "It's actually a good illustration
of the value of the plant."
"They not only point out the hurdles that would have to be
overcome to close the plant, they point out the toxic gases, the
contribution to global warming, seeing electricity costs rise,"
said spokesman Jim Steets.
The New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an
industry group, said the report shows "that in the real world of
politics, our economy and our environment it would be extremely
difficult to replace this critical element of our energy
infrastructure."
The scientists envision two scenarios, one which would close
Indian Point at the end of the decade, and one that would shut
the two plants in 2013 and 2015.
The earlier closure "would be much more difficult to accomplish"
at a time when "New York will have very little if any excess
capacity," they wrote.
The plants could be retired in 2013 and 2015 if New York ramped
up its energy production by bringing 500 more megawatts to the
system every year for a decade.
But replacing Indian Point wouldn't be cheap. Depending on who
would pay for closing Indian Point, those extra costs could end
up in residents' power bills.
A separate study commissioned last year by Westchester County
concluded that Entergy should be offered up to $1.4 billion to
voluntarily shut down Indian Point. Steets said Tuesday, "There
certainly hasn't been any movement in that direction."
Lowey said that amount would be "subject to negotiation."
____P>
Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald in White Plains, N.Y.,
contributed to this report.
http://www.newsday.com.
*****************************************************************
46 AU ABC: Power and energy
ABC Kimberley WA
Tuesday, 6 June 2006
Presenter: Vanessa Mills
[photo of ]
How will Australia meet its future energy needs?
How will we power our homes, offices and industry in the future?
Will it be nuclear? Will it be sunshine?
The energy debate is set to heat up – and here in Western
Australia we’re holding alot of the cards; natural gas, uranium,
big tides and abundant sunshine.
There’ll be a Federal government review into the nuclear
industry, but Premier Carpenter wants to hold back some of the
state’s gas from export, while MP Wilson Tuckey wants tidal
power to run the country.
Nic Wills-Johnson is an energy economist with the Planning and
Transport Research Centre in Perth.
The cost is likely to decide which energy source we'll exploit.
Mr Wills-Johnson doesn't think holding back gas for use in WA
will work economically.
He says nuclear power has a huge start up cost that is unlikely
to be met by Australia's small population and industry base.
Transporting the power generated by tides over vast distances
isn't necessarily viable either.
So what's left?
Sunshine.
But Mr Wills-Johnson says large scale solar technology remains
as costly as nuclear generators.
He's hopeful that advancements in technology will see solar
harnessed because it's abundant and best of all, from the
economist's point of view, it's free.
Energy economist; Nic Wills-Johnson
Last Updated: 6/06/2006 12:20:00 PM AWST
*****************************************************************
47 New York Times: N.Y. Grid Could Stand to Lose Reactors, Panel Says -
By MATTHEW L. WALDPublished: June 6, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 6 — New York's electrical grid could get along
without the Indian Point nuclear reactors, but replacing their
output would be difficult and expensive, according to a report
by a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences. Skip
A blogabout New York politics, from Hillary Clinton to Rudy
Giuliani, from Albany to City Hall, and everything in between.
Go to Blog »
The report, released today, said electric demand is growing so
fast in the region that even if the reactors stay in operation,
simply keeping the lights on in peak summer periods will be a
challenge in coming years.
Congress provided $1 million for the study, under a bill
sponsored by Nita Lowey, a Westchester Democrat who says the
reactors should be closed because of the risk of release of
radiation through accident or terrorist attack. Ms. Lowey's
office said, in an announcement, that the report showed that "we
can continue to meet New York States energy needs without Indian
Point." But the 280-page report cited major obstacles to doing
so.
"While the committee is optimistic that technical solutions do
exist for the replacement of Indian Point, it is considerably
less confident that the necessary political, regulatory,
financial and institutional mechanisms are in place to
facilitate the timely implementation of these replacement
options," the report said. At the moment building any power
plant in New York State is difficult, the report said, because a
law that governed environmental reviews and permits for new
plants was allowed to expire in 2003.
The amount of generating capacity under construction now is
inadequate to meet peak demand in 2009, and the shortfall would
be far larger if Indian Point closes, it said.
The report said the alternative to Indian Point, unpopular with
some environmentalists, was in part another kind of energy plant
that environmentalists do not like: ports for tankers carrying
liquefied natural gas. And forcing the reactors to close would
run counter to another environmental effort, the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is supposed to start cutting
carbon dioxide output in the region in 2008, the study pointed
out. They represent more than 99 percent of the generating
capacity in Westchester County.
The two reactors make up only about 5.3 percent of the state's
generating capacity but they produce 10.1 percent of its energy,
the study said, because they are low-cost producers and are run
around the clock, nearly all year long. Closing them would push
electricity rates up, but it did not say how much.
Some activists have tried for decades to close the plants, but
the campaign drew more momentum after the attacks of Sept.11,
2001; American Airlines 11, the plane that hit the North Tower
of the World Trade Center, flew down the Hudson River, over
Indian Point, on the way.
Indian Point's two operating reactors have licenses that expire
in 2013 and 2015, but Entergy, the owner, has invested heavily
in both plants, working to raise their power output, and is
expected to seek 20-year extensions of their licenses. The
company is building a storage pad outside the buildings to house
casks of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel, because the
waste will soon fill the pools that were designed to hold it.
But the fuel has become a confounding factor in the debate; as
the report noted, if the reactors were closed, the vulnerability
of the fuel to attack would not initially change.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
48 AU ABC: Ex-Telstra chief to head nuclear review.
06/06/2006. ABC News Online
Appointed: Mr Switkowski will lead a five-member review panel.
Prime Minister John Howard has announced that former Telstra
chief executive Dr Ziggy Switkowski will head the Federal
Government's inquiry into the viability of a domestic nuclear
power industry.
Mr Howard says federal Cabinet has approved a prime ministerial
task force to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear
energy in Australia.
Dr Switkowski will head a panel of five experts, which will also
include nuclear physicist Professor George Dracoulis and
Professor Warwick McGibbon of the Australian National University.
The three other panel members will be named tomorrow, while
Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, will support the
review.
Mr Howard says Australians need to keep an open mind on uranium
enrichment and nuclear power.
"There is significant potential for Australia to increase and
add value to our uranium exports," he said.
"It is foolish to see ourselves simply as an exporter of
uranium ... I think we should also look at the value-added
process.
"We should also look at whether a nuclear power station is
becoming feasible."
Mr Howard says the inquiry will also look at issues of waste
and safety.
"One of the additional members of the committee is forecast to
be someone who is skilled in safety," he said.
'Fundamental change'
The Prime Minister stresses that he does not expect to see
nuclear power stations built in Australia in the next two to
three years.
But he says nuclear power is likely inevitable.
"I am not persuaded as yet, although in my bones I think there
has been a fundamental change," he said.
"But I want to see the evidence."
Mr Howard also says he thinks the Australian public is warning
to nuclear power.
"I think they are aware of our rich endowment of uranium," he
said.
"I don't think they want to have a rerun ... with wool
processing, where we had to spend it somewhere else for
processing."
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says Australia should not
go down the nuclear power path.
"John Howard is side-tracking what ought to be the real energy
debate here because he's got an obsession about nuclear power,"
he said.
"Liberals have always had obsessions about nuclear power - the
obsessions when they wanted nuclear weapons in the 1960s,
Malcolm Fraser picked it up in the 1980s, now John Howard picks
it up."
'Open mind'
Professor Dracoulis, who is the head of nuclear physics at the
Australian National University, says he brings an open mind to
the inquiry.
"I don't have a fixed position on whether nuclear power, for
example, or enrichment are things that Australia should go
into," he said.
"I'm very happy that we'll have the opportunity to get some
facts on the table, examined I think in a rational way on a
level playing field, as people like to say."
Mr Howard says if nuclear power stations are built in
Australia, they will not be built by the Commonwealth.
He says any decision on sites would largely be down to the
businesses building them.
The review panel will report back by the end of the year.
*****************************************************************
49 AU ABC: Ziggy Switkowski to lead nuclear inquiry
PM - Tuesday, 6 June , 2006 18:10:00
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
MARK COLVIN: For better or worse, Ziggy Switkowski became a
household name for his years at the helm of Telstra. But before
that, his background was in nuclear science and it's to the
nuclear world that he's returned tonight, courtesy of the Prime
Minister.
Mr Howard named Dr Switkowski to head the inquiry into uranium
mining, processing and nuclear energy, which he announced this
afternoon. The Prime Minister cited a change in public attitudes
toward nuclear issues as part of his reasoning.
The inquiry is to report back by the end of the year.
From Canberra, Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath
reports.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The new inquiry into nuclear power, headed by
nuclear power supporters, illustrates just how the uranium
debate changed today. In effect the goal posts have been moved.
The key political question is no longer will the ALP change its
policy to allow an expansion of uranium mining, but will the
country as a whole embrace or reject the enrichment of uranium
and the use of nuclear power? And will the long term cost work
in the Prime Minister's political favour or against him?
Some key Liberals believe he's gone too far because nuclear
power still isn't economically viable. But others, who favour an
expansion of the nuclear industry, believe today has been a
crucial first step.
JOHN HOWARD: Cabinet has approved the establishment of a prime
ministerial taskforce to review uranium mining, processing and
nuclear energy in Australia.
The taskforce will be chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the former
managing director of Telstra and a well-respected nuclear
physicist.
It will include five other members, two of them I announced this
afternoon, Professor George Dracoulis, Professor Warwick
McKibbin, well known as an economist on the board of the Reserve
Bank.
There'll be two other people who will, I'm sorry, three other
people who will be named as members of the task-group. We're in
a process of establishing their precise availability.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Ziggy Switkowski is not only a nuclear
physicists, he's also on the board of ANSTO, the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. He was appointed on
January the first this year.
How independent can this inquiry be when ANSTO is the one of the
main supporters of nuclear power in Australia?
But the Prime Minister says this is fair dinkum, and it's time
to look at enrichment and nuclear power, and he says attitudes
have changed.
JOHN HOWARD: I've been surprised by the number of
environmentalists who have said they are prepared to look again
at nuclear power as an energy source. I've always maintained
that holding the reserves of uranium that we do, it is foolish
to see ourselves simply as an exporter of uranium.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The President of the Australian Conservation
Foundation, Professor Ian Lowe disputes the claim that attitudes
towards nuclear power have changed.
IAN LOWE: In the 1960s people were positive about nuclear power.
We then had the Ranger inquiry, and the evidence that nuclear
power was contributing to the problems of weapons and waste. And
the public has been consistently hostile to nuclear power since
then. And all of the surveys I've seen suggest that people still
recognise that those problems haven't been solved.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The Prime Minister says that with the growing
energy need, with the greenhouse gas threat, the Government
would be ignoring its duty if it didn't look at this.
IAN LOWE: I think the Government is ignoring its duty in looking
just at nuclear power as a response to energy and climate
change, rather than having a broad-based review that looks at
how we ensure we have a clean, safe, affordable energy basis for
the future.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: And the renewable sector is also concerned.
Susan Jeanes is CEO of Renewable Energy Generators Australia.
She is also a former Federal Liberal parliamentarian.
SUSAN JEANES: We are obviously disappointed that it doesn't
include any reference to renewables. We'll have to have a look
at the terms of reference and see whether or not we have any
opportunity to put any input into the process.
But it does seem that if your challenge is climate change and
energy policy and the interaction of them, that you would only
include one component of the longer term solution.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: John Howard says this is a serious review and
he wants a report by the end of the year.
JOHN HOWARD: This is an important examination for Australia, and
there are always risks, political risks in particular, in doing
something like this. But there are political and long-term
national costs in sitting on your hands and ignoring reality.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Opposition leader Kim Beazley has rejected
the scope of the inquiry.
KIM BEAZLEY: We're for renewables, not reactors. We say what you
should be looking at is the enormous potential for solar power,
for gas-to-liquid technologies, and for creating clean coal.
Australia is blessed with massive supplies of coal, of gas, and
of sunlight - alternative energy sources. That is what the
debate should be about.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But in his comments this evening Kim Beazley
has virtually confirmed that the question of mining has become
less important. It's as if that decision has already made.
KIM BEAZLEY: But uranium mining and export is one thing, nuclear
reactors in Australia is something entirely different. We don't
believe they stack up economically. We don't believe they stack
up environmentally, and we don't think they stack up
strategically.
We should not go down the road of nuclear power, that is where
John Howard wants to send us, make no mistake about that. He
might have drifted into this debate, but that's where he intends
to end up.
MARK COLVIN: Kim Beazley ending that report by Catherine
McGrath.
*****************************************************************
50 AU ABC: Nuclear physicist discusses impending review
PM - Tuesday, 6 June , 2006 18:14:00
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk
MARK COLVIN: One of the prime ministerial appointments, as we
heard, is the nuclear physicist, Professor George Dracoulis.
He heads the Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian
National University in Canberra, and he's been a nuclear
physicist for more than 30 years.
Professor Dracoulis told Alexandra Kirk that he came to the
review with no preconceived ideas. He was neither for nor
against nuclear power generation.
GEORGE DRACOULIS: Well I hope with come here with an open mind,
at least, I don't have a fixed position on whether nuclear
power, for example, or enrichment are things that Australia
should go into.
I'm very happy that we'll have the opportunity to get some facts
on the table, examined, I think, in a rational way, on a level
playing field, as people like to say, because I think a lot of
things tend to come off the cuff in the media. And it's
certainly hard for non-experts and even experts to judge the
validity of some of the things that are said.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: You say that you don't have a set view on
whether Australia should produce nuclear energy or not. But
having worked in the field in nuclear physics for more than 30
years, you haven't thought about this deeply?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: I have thought about it extensively, and I
think there's no doubt that worldwide that modern nuclear power
has a place, and I think will be a necessary component in a
mixture of technologies …
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So you see it as inevitable, say, for Australia?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: … renewables, for example.
But Australia's position, without prejudging the situation of
course, depends, like each individual country does, on both
politics and economics. And Australia is a country that's
resource-rich. For climate change reasons, burning coal is less
than a healthy thing.
But these are all things that one has to balance up, I believe,
in the long term, and some of the judgments that will have to be
made will be ones that affect the longer term. I think that's
what has to be looked at carefully.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Prime Minister says it's foolish to see
Australia solely as an exporter of uranium, that it should be
looking at value-adding to the process, for example, enrichment,
and then the next step, if nuclear power stations become
economically feasible. Do you think that it is a bit of a waste
if we only export uranium as a raw product?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: Well I think … I've always felt it's a waste
that we export materials and don't value-add, and that has
nothing to do with nuclear physics. It seems to me that selling
off the resources before you've added any value and then buying
them back at a higher value is not a very sensible approach.
Whether, again, that is something that one should apply directly
to things like enrichment, that has to be looked at.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: You are going to be working with Dr Ziggy
Switkowski, a fellow nuclear physicist, he's going to be the
chair of the inquiry. He's also on the board of ANSTO, which is
a big supporter of the nuclear industry. Is that a concern?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: Oh, I don't think that … I think that Ziggy
Switkowski is very experienced, and certainly will be
even-handed in that. He's on the board of ANSTO, only appointed
recently, I believe, but I don't think he'll be speaking for
ANSTO.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you think it is time that Australia made a
decision whether to embrace nuclear power or not?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: I think it's certainly very timely. I think
it's probably running a bit late if anything. I think we should
have been able to discuss these things a bit more openly a bit
earlier.
Part of the problem, if it is a problem, is that there are some
people who are against nuclear power or nuclear anything, and
they will probably remain so independent of any debate.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: You don't see the mood changing, as the Prime
Minister has suggested?
GEORGE DRACOULIS: I think the mood's definitely changed, and I
think there are probably generational changes. There are people
who were involved in anti-nuclear debates and even nuclear
disarmament, for example, from decades ago, some of those things
are not less important, but sometimes less relevant to a new
generation.
MARK COLVIN: Nuclear physicist Professor George Dracoulis, who's
just been appointed to the Prime Minister's uranium and nuclear
review, speaking to Alexandra Kirk.
*****************************************************************
51 AU ABC: PM defends appointment of nuclear task force chief
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 7.30 Report
Broadcast: 06/06/2006
Reporter: Kerry O'Brien
KERRY O'BRIEN: The debate the Prime Minister says we have to
have - that could ultimately pave the way to nuclear power and
uranium enrichment in Australia. Mr Howard has today announced a
task force, led by former Telstra chief executive and one-time
nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, to review uranium mining and
processing, as well as the viability of nuclear energy. The
Prime Minister has made plain that his review will not consider
suitable sites for nuclear power stations - the most risky
political aspect of the nuclear debate - because he says it
would be putting the cart before the horse. Mr Howard joins me
now.
Prime Minister, you're on the record as saying that you believe
nuclear power is inevitable for Australia one day, but you're
setting this inquiry up with no preconceived goals?
JOHN HOWARD, PRIMER MINISTER: No, I'm not. That's my sense that,
one day - could be generations into the future - it could be
shorter than that, there will be nuclear power in Australia one
day. I'm setting this up to try and get the facts. They don't
have riding instructions. I want to know the economics, I want
to know the safety aspects. I want to look at whether there's
validity in adding value to our vast uranium reserves. I want to
find out whether it's possible to further expand uranium mining.
I think the answer to that last question would be fairly
straight forward. But I'm not an expert and one of the things
about this is that because it hasn't been debated for a
generation, there's not a lot of material around on it. A lot of
the preconceptions people have are rooted in either the sort of
anti-nuclear past of the 1960s or the resurgence of the
anti-nuclear feelings of the 1980s after the accidents at
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think we've moved on a whole
generation from then and people surprisingly who opposed it in
the past, like James Lovelock, who founded Greenpeace, and a
person like Tim Flannery. I don't know whether he opposed it in
the past, but he's certainly now saying as a leading
environmentalist that it's something we ought to look at.
KERRY O'BRIEN: We all know the "Yes, Minister" line that you
don't set up an inquiry unless you know the outcome in advance.
I know that you'd deny that in this case, I'm sure. But aren't
you throwing this inquiry's credibility somewhat into doubt by
appointing a chairman with a perceived possible conflict of
interest?
JOHN HOWARD: Because of his membership of ANSTO?
KERRY O'BRIEN: Yes.
JOHN HOWARD: No, because to get from a limited pool of experts
that there are in this, to get somebody who really knows what
he's on about or she's on about to do this inquiry you have to
really get people who have got some kind of involvement in the
industry or a deep knowledge of it.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But this isn't just involvement. Ziggy Switkowski
is a director of ANSTO, an organisation that runs Australia's
only nuclear reactor. But also is clearly pro-nuclear power in
Australia. Surely that at least muddies the waters of Dr
Switkowski's credibility as chairman of this unbiased inquiry?
JOHN HOWARD: Yes, except, Kerry, that he's not commercially
involved. I mean, ANSTO is an authority, it's not a company that
is involved. I mean, if I were to appoint somebody to it who had
some connection with another energy source, would it then be
said that that person was anti-nuclear? I think you can end up
with an inferior group of people, and if you are too suspicious
of the motives of and the background of people - he's a nuclear
physicist, Ziggy Switkowski. He's a proven person in the
commercial area. He's got strong public administration skills.
That's a good combination for something like this.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But when you say "he's got a proven track record
in the commercial world and strong public administration", I
mean Dr Switkowski was essentially sacked by his last board as
chief executive of Telstra. But you've asked him to head up what
will be seen as one of the most important Government inquiries
for decades, particularly if it does ultimately pave the way for
the embrace of nuclear power, or even uranium enrichment?
JOHN HOWARD: Yes, well we've thought he'd done a good job in his
previous position, the Government did, we didn't sack him.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But the board you appointed did.
JOHN HOWARD: There's no point in going back over that. He's got
the essential background and he'll be supported by Professor
Dracoulis from the ANU. Most people tell me he's about the
foremost nuclear physicist in Australia and Warwick McGibbon I'd
named a strong economist. I'll be naming three more people
tomorrow. We'll just have to check their availability and
together, the six of them will give quite a blend and a balance.
But you can't have an investigation into something as technical
as this without having a number of people on it who are
whiz-bang nuclear physicists, because it's a very complicated
business and it's an area where laymen tread very carefully.
Certainly political laymen like myself.
KERRY O'BRIEN: You've announced a peer review to test the
voracity of the Switkowski inquiry's findings, but the person
you're getting to set up that peer review, your own chief
scientist Jim Peacock, is also known to support nuclear energy.
Doesn't that risk weakening the credibility of the process?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, he's the chief scientist. Everybody who
mattered thought he was a great appointment as a chief
scientist. What I - I want some people to carry out a peer
review so I say to the chief scientist, because he
intellectually holds a particular point of view, well you're not
considered. And it is a little bit of a criticism, even a slur
on the professional integrity of somebody like Jim Peacock to
say, "Well because in the past you've expressed support for
nuclear power I'm going to disqualify you." Does that mean I've
got to get somebody that's anti-nuclear power?
KERRY O'BRIEN: Not at all, Mr Howard. But the point is that you
know, it is long said, it is an established principle of
Government and of the judiciary and in our system of public
governance, you don't just conduct an inquiry like this to be
independent. It has to be seen to be independent. You've
indicated that you might consider another inquiry into other
energy sources like solar and wind, but what does it say about
where your head's at that you've already got a nuclear power
inquiry up and running at short notice before you even consider
a similar inquiry for these other energy sources that have been
in the front-line of the debate for the whole 10 years of your
Government?
JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, we've already done an enormous amount in
relation to coal and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
coal. We brought down an energy paper, white paper, two years
ago and we established a joint Government industry fund to
invest in technologies that would lead to cleaner coal. We're
already doing an enormous amount there.
KERRY O'BRIEN: We're talking about renewables, we're talking
about all these other forms of renewables.
JOHN HOWARD: If you're really serious about our energy future -
and I think this is an area where the Australian community has
some anxiety - you look at that. You look at coal, and you look
at nuclear.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But you've looked at coal, you're looking at
nuclear and you're saying you might also look at these other
things.
JOHN HOWARD: I indicated today that there would be other facets
of our examination of our energy security that the Government
would be saying things about in the near future.
KERRY O'BRIEN: You watch China very closely so I'm sure you're
familiar with their program to build nuclear power stations, but
isn't China also planning to get twice as much energy from wind
and solar as it is from nuclear?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, China is trying to get energy from all
sources, and that's sensible and what I would say to the
Australian public is that we should be open-minded enough to try
and get energy from all sources. We shouldn't say, "Well it's
either got to be nuclear, or coal, nuclear or fossil fuels or
renewables", and there is more renewable energy now than there
were 20 years ago. There was virtually none 20 years ago. Why
shouldn't we be open-minded enough to look at all of the
alternative sources? That's all I'm asking that this inquiry
will do.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But why haven't you been open-minded enough over
the past 10 years to make a much more vigorous effort to
actually establish a much more viable renewable energy industry
in Australia in these areas of solar and wind where we also have
an enormous natural resource bank?
JOHN HOWARD: Because, Kerry, the judgment has been made by the
Government over that period of time based on the information
that we have, that the economics of renewables are so heavily
negative that there hasn't been a case absent, huge Government
subsidies to further boost the renewables industry.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Isn't that also going to be true of the nuclear
power industry?
JOHN HOWARD: I don't know about that.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Well you know about it for the renewables without
having an inquiry.
JOHN HOWARD: But it is possible for the economics of the two
energy sources to be different, and I think what has happened
with the nuclear energy source is that it could well be that the
economics or the perceived economics of that have shifted far
more than in relation to renewables and when you get - I know
you'll criticise it because it's ANSTO - but when you get a
report prepared by ANSTO that suggests that the economics of
nuclear power have altered dramatically over the last few years
you have to take some notice of that. And it's one of these
areas -
KERRY O'BRIEN: There's also been criticism of the person who
conducted the inquiry.
JOHN HOWARD: But, of course, there will be criticism of anybody
who advocates nuclear power by the people who are opposed to
nuclear power.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Isn't it true both ways? You seem to be -
JOHN HOWARD: There is an element of that, I accept that.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But you seem to be making an argument for saying
it's OK and in fact we have no choice but to have people who are
pro-nuclear power running this inquiry. But somehow or other
it's not credible or it's not possible to have people who might
start from a philosophical position opposed to nuclear power or
a practical scientific position opposed to nuclear power.
Somehow or other they're discredited before the process even
starts?
JOHN HOWARD: Hang on Kerry, in fairness to Professor Dracoulis,
who's one of the people I named this afternoon, I heard him on
radio this evening make it very clear that he has an open mind.
He has not to my understanding been other than seen as a real
expert in this area and it's a bit unfair to say that he is seen
and labelled as being pro-nuclear power. He's seen and labelled
quite correctly as an expert in this area and when you see all
of the people - and there'll be another three to be named - I
think it will represent a very balanced group. Sure, some people
who are seen as in favour, but overwhelmingly, people who will
bring a balanced expertise to something that's very complicated.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Mr Howard, the most cynical explanation I've
heard for your sudden interest in a nuclear debate is that you
have no intention of embracing the political risky option of
trying to sell Australians on the embrace of nuclear power
stations, that you're really softening us up to accept another
agenda of seriously increased uranium mining and uranium
enrichment. What do you say to that?
JOHN HOWARD: Well I've got an open mind on the three of them, I
really do. That is cynical and it's wrong. I have got an open
mind and if you look at the terms of reference, you'll see it
looks at expanding uranium mining, and I would have thought
consistent with the economics that's a no-brainer. The
possibility of enrichment - and I think a lot of Australians
like the idea of adding value to our natural resources - and I
think the third one, which is nuclear power stations, is
something that I also have an open mind about. I mean, I have
the hunch in my bones that in years into the future you're going
to have nuclear power in a lot of places we don't have it,
nuclear power generation. But certainly to look at the three of
them given the energy challenges this country has, is the
sensible thing to do, to shut your mind against it in the
negative way the Opposition has done, might be populist politics
but, in the long run, is not serving the national interest.
KERRY O'BRIEN: John Howard, thanks for talking with us.
JOHN HOWARD: Thank you.
*****************************************************************
52 AU ABC: Govts climate change response lacks balance
Lateline - 06/06/2006:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline
Reporter: Margot O'Neill
TONY JONES: While the Prime Minister has called for a nuclear
power debate, some of Australia's largest companies believe the
Federal Government's response to climate change lacks balance
and could prove unworkable. The companies, which include
bankers, insurers, recyclers and natural gas producers, claim
investment in Australia's future energy infrastructure is at
risk because the government is delaying action to protect the
interests of some mining companies. Meanwhile, a new documentary
by former US Vice-President Al Gore has upset the American
fossil fuel industry. Margot O'Neill reports.
FILM CLIP: From Paramount classic pictures, the film that's
shocked the world.
MARGOT O'NEILL: It's Hollywood meets PowerPoint presentation -
and it stars global warming activist and former US vice
president Al Gore.
AL GORE: Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand
refugees and then imagine 100 million.
MARGOT O'NEILL: American climate change sceptics who are partly
funded by big fossil fuel companies have hit back with a TV
campaign hailing the virtues of carbon dioxide.
ADVERTISEMENT: Carbon dioxide - they call it pollution, we call
it life.
MARGOT O'NEILL: In Australia, the argument is not over whether
climate change is a problem, but over how much time we have to
act. According to a powerful new coalition of Australian
bankers, insurers and energy companies, called the Business
Roundtable on Climate Change, Australia has a 'go slow' policy
as a result of influence wielded by some mining companies.
TONY WOOD, ORIGIN ENERGY: I think the resources sector certainly
has made a very strong argument to government about their
concerns, in relation, not so much to whether we respond to
climate change, because I think most industry now has accepted
that, but how quickly we should do so. I think that is reflected
by government policy. Other industries need to make it clear
that they're concerned, otherwise you will get, to some extent,
an imbalance in this process, and that's what we've seen to
date.
MARGOT O'NEILL: The Roundtable includes the companies Westpac,
IAG - which is Australia's largest insurer, and the natural gas
company, Origin Energy. They want the Government to adopt a
national carbon emissions trading scheme, which would put a
price on carbon pollution - making greenhouse emissions a
business cost and pushing the market to cleaner alternatives.
TONY COLEMAN, IAG: It is entirely possible with existing
technologies to materially reduce our carbon emissions in
Australia by about 60% by 2050, and to do that with minimal
impact on economic growth. It can be done with technologies that
do not include nuclear power.
MARGOT O'NEILL: It's an action plan that doesn't wait for
longer-term possibilities like nuclear power or carbon
geosequestration technology - which promises to clean up
coal-fired power stations by burying carbon emissions. While
they both could be part of longer term solutions, the Business
Roundtable says the Government should move now to introduce a
carbon price or risk the marketplace ignoring green
technologies.
TONY WOOD: If you're looking at some of those lower-emission
technologies such as clean coal or gas, you'd want to know that
no-one else would be given protection from a carbon price, so
it's the very fact that we don't have clarity about a carbon
price is the first question - we need to understand that no-one
will be given a carbon holiday,
MARGOT O'NEILL: John Daley represents the Australian Industry
Greenhouse Network, whose members include many fossil fuel
companies. He says the industry is happy to support a carbon
price, but only after technologies like geosequestration becomes
viable - and that could take up to 20 years. In other words, we
should all wait.
JOHN DALY, AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK: We have time
to do this. That's why the real effort should be focusing on
those technologies so that we can develop those alternatives for
that future out in that time frame. Many will be ready for
deployment on a fairly extensive scale within 10, 15, 20 years -
and that is okay.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Mark O'Neill from the Australian Coal
Association is also unimpressed with the Business Roundtable's
plan.
MARK O'NEILL, AUSTRALIAN COAL ASSOCIATION: At the moment, you've
got players in there like banks and insurance companies that can
sit on the sidelines and say we need to do more about climate
change but I don't see them putting their hands in their
pockets. Perhaps, foe example, the banks could siphon off some
of their bank fees into public-good activities like funding
research and development and demonstration of new technologies -
that would be a real contribution.
MARGOT O'NEILL: But Tony Coleman from IAG says there can be no
more delays.
TONY COLEMAN: We need to do more and we need to do it quite
quickly. The facts are that climate change and global warming
are accelerating at the moment. All of the scientific data is
confirming that. Major icons like the Great Barrier Reef of
Australia, which will be pretty much destroyed if temperatures
rise by 2 degrees Centigrade. And that of course means a lot of
export dollars won't be earned anymore.
MARGOT O'NEILL: The Federal Government could yet find itself
caught in the crossfire between some of Australia's largest
business titans. Margot O'Neill, Lateline.
*****************************************************************
53 AU ABC: Nuclear sites crucial to review, says Beazley.
07/06/2006. ABC News Online
(File photo) (ABC)
The Federal Opposition says nuclear power is unaffordable and
should not be pursued.
The former Telstra Chief and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski
has been appointed to run an inquiry into nuclear energy and
uranium mining.
The Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says the Prime Minister wants
the review to endorse nuclear power.
"That is what the Prime Minister would sincerely hope from it,
something to justify his position," he said.
"But it's already based on a fraudulent set of economic
assumptions, you cannot do a proper economic study of it that
gives you any degree of finality without determining exactly
where you are going to base your reactors."
But John Howard says he has an open mind about what the inquiry
might find.
"To shut your mind against it in the negative way the
Opposition has done might be populist politics, but in the long
run is not serving the national interest," he said.
"And when you see all of the people, and there'll be another
three to be named, I think it will be a very balanced group."
Controversial choice
Environmentalists have attacked the Government's appointment of
Dr Switkowski to head the inquiry
Dr Switkowski is a board member of the nuclear agency, ANSTO.
Alec Marr from the Wilderness Society has criticised the
appointment.
"The whole process is atrocious and Mr Switkowski is just your
classic government yes man," he said.
Mr Beazley will not make it personal.
"I have gripes with the whole process, I'm not going to
personalise it by attacking the various members of this," he
said.
The Prime Minister says it is only natural that nuclear
physicists have been appointed to the inquiry into nuclear power.
"You can't have an investigation into something as technical as
this without having a number of people on it who are whizz bang
nuclear physicists," he said.
Three more panel members will be announced today.
*****************************************************************
54 SNA: Bulgaria's Third Nuclear Unit Switched to Grid
Sofia News Agency
Business: 6 June 2006, Tuesday.
Unit 3 of Bulgaria's only operating nuclear power plant has been
switched back onto the grid after scheduled repair works.
The reactor has been off since April 22, during which time the
other three units operated at increased power, Kozloduy's press
office announced.
During the maintenance, the equipment underwent preventive
repair as scheduled and the 440 MW reactor was refuelled for
operation during the new fuel cycle.
Kozloduy, which is Bulgaria's only nuclear power producer, has
closed units 1 and 2 under pressure from the EU, and in 2002
committed to shut down Soviet-type units 3 and 4 by the end of
this year.
There has been much controversy whether the closures are
necessary, or the reactors might be safe enough to keep working
for several more years.
A day earlier Economy and Energy Minister Rumen Ovcharov
announced plans to partially dismantle equipment at two
mothballed reactors at Kozloduy as a guarantee to the EU that it
will not attempt to reopen the facilities.
The move comes in response to a recent letter by European
Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn calling for the ministry "to
further demonstrate its commitment to the closure of the two
reactors, and the forthcoming shutdown of two more by end-2006.
In a special action plan to put forward in Brussels on Tuesday,
the ministry commissioned the Kozloduy authorities to request
permission by the country's nuclear regulator "to dismantle
equipment (at reactors number one and two) not related to the
safe storage of spent fuel in the reactors' pools."
The plan added that the nuke's authorities also have to request
a change in the operation permits of reactors number three and
four "with a view to their closure".
The latest commissioned reactors of Kozloduy - five and six -
are of a more modern design and will remain in service.
Official estimates have shown that after closing the reactors
Bulgaria will probably withdraw from its position as top energy
exporter in the Balkans.
Rumen Ovcharov has tried to downplay all speculation on possible
re-opening of the nuclear units by saying that Bulgaria "will
close everything it had promised to".
novinite.com
The Team | Link to us | Partners | BGtop All Rights Reserved ©
Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
ISO 9001:2000 Certified
Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news
provider in English that informs its readers about the latest
Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily
online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News
Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish
*****************************************************************
55 NEWS.com.au: Nuke inquiry considers coal tax -
By Steve Lewis and Joseph Kerr
June 07, 2006
[Ziggy Switkowski / Pic: Colin Murty]
Ex-Telstra ... Ziggy Switkowski will head the PM's nuke
taskforce.
A CARBON tax on coal will be considered as part of John Howard's
inquiry into nuclear energy that could lead to more uranium
mines and the introduction of nuclear power plants. Setting up
an explosive pre-election battle with Labor, the Prime Minister
yesterday announced former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski would
head a taskforce to consider ways to "add value" to Australia's
significant uranium reserves.
Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile last night said he believed
nuclear energy could be operating within 20 years, despite
strong community concerns over the placement of power plants.
However, senior mining industry figures said they believed the
inquiry was designed more to increase the number of uranium
mines and to spark the creation of an enrichment industry than
to usher in nuclear power plants.
"This is classic John Howard," said a senior mining industry
figure. "He wants to open up the three mines policy and create a
justification for a value-adding industry and at the same time
open up the discussion about the safe storage of nuclear waste."
But he described the immediate-term prospect of nuclear power
plants as a "furphy". "They are at least 25 years away," he
said.
The inquiry was also being launched in the context of global
pressures on greenhouse gas emissions and would open up the
opportunity to discuss issues such as clean coal technology.
In announcing the inquiry yesterday, Mr Howard acknowledged a
growing number of environmentalists believed nuclear energy,
with its lower air pollution levels, was a viable alternative to
coal.
The taskforce will examine the scope for Australia to make
better use of its vast uranium reserves, which make up 40 per
cent of world supplies.
This will include enrichment of uranium and potentially
establishing a brace of nuclear power plants to generate
electricity and reduce the reliance on coal.
Any economic analysis of nuclear power would also have to
consider putting a tax on carbon pumped into the atmosphere by
other energy sources, particularly coal, key members of the
taskforce believe.
While the federal Government is currently opposed to a tax on
carbon, two members of the taskforce are pushing for a full
reckoning of all the costs of energy production and are open to
carbon taxes.
Taskforce member George Dracoulis, the head of the Department of
Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, said
comparisons between nuclear, renewable and fossil-fuel power
generation needed to take into account all costs.
"It's hard to beat (coal) in Australia if you don't charge some
premium for emissions because it's a very cheap resource in
Australia," he said.
Another taskforce member, Warwick McKibbin, stressed it was
important to consider different means of energy production as
part of the debate.
The Reserve Bank board member also wanted to keep open the idea
of putting a tax on carbon, an idea that has the potential of
making nuclear energy commercially viable.
"Whatever decisions are made should be based on a full
comparison of all the costs and benefits, including whether
there's a tax on carbon or not because that makes a big
difference in any of these decisions," Professor McKibbin said.
The potential for the introduction of carbon taxes has been one
of the drivers behind extensive research into clean coal
technologies. Four proposed plants utilising the technology are
at various stages of development in Queensland.
CS Energy is converting a unit at its Callide A power station in
Biloela, central Queensland, to clean coal technology; Stanwell
Energy is trialing a coal gasification (where the hydrogen is
separated from carbon monoxide in coal which also allows a
concentrated stream of carbon dioxide) plant at Emerald; the
Centre for Low Emission Technology is building a small-scale
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant for
carbon capture and storage; while the CSIRO is trialing a
gasifier at Pullenvale.
The CSIRO is also building a post-combustion CO2 capture unit in
Newcastle in partnership with Rio Tinto.
In Victoria, Monash Energy is developing a plant at the Otway
Basin, using the gasification of brown coal to produce the
equivalent of 60,000 barrels of synthetic diesel a day.
And the CRC for Greenhouse Technology is trialing a
sequestration plant in the Otway Basin that will capture carbon
dioxide from natural gas reserves and test storage capabilities.
After convincing cabinet colleagues to back the inquiry, the
Prime Minister left the way open for government subsidies to
help nuclear power become viable.
Careful to avoid a major public backlash, Mr Howard said he did
not expect nuclear power stations in Australia "within the next
two or three years". But he left open the prospect of such
stations operating in the medium-term.
Labor immediately vowed to oppose the introduction of nuclear
energy and overturn any decision to establish nuclear power
plants. "If you elect a Labor government there will be no
reactors," Kim Beazley said.
The threat of a campaign against nuclear power prompted derision
from Mr Howard, who described Labor as a "negative,
backward-looking, old-fashioned, bankrupt-of-ideas Opposition".
Australia should consider ways to value-add to uranium, Mr
Howard said, instead of simply exporting it to countries that
have embraced nuclear power.
"I've always maintained that holding the reserves of uranium
that we do, it is foolish to see ourselves as simply an exporter
of uranium," he said. "We should also look at the value-added
process, which is principally enrichment, and we should also
look at whether (a) nuclear power station in Australia (would)
become economically feasible."
Taking on one of the biggest challenges of his political career,
Mr Howard was careful not to lock the Government into embracing
nuclear power.
But he believes "in my bones" there has been a fundamental
change in community attitudes towards nuclear power.
Mr Howard said the inquiry would not consider possible locations
of nuclear plants.
But Mr Beazley said an inquiry that does not examine locations
was "nothing short of arrogant."
Additional reporting: Nick Leys, Sid Maher
*****************************************************************
56 Low-level radiation and health conference in Canada Aug 25-28,
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:46:59 -0700
X-Skip-Spam-Check: yes - Relay From Host = adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) encourages those interested
in ionizing radiation and health issues to register now to attend:
Lessons Before & Since Chernobyl--21st Low Level Radiation & Health
Conference 1985-2006
at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
August 25-28, 2006
Lessons before and since Chernobyl
The aim of this conference is to present and discuss the latest research
results on the health effects of exposure to low and very low doses of
radiation. This conference has been organized to provide an
interprofessional forum, offering a unique mix of presentations from
leading experts along with substantial time for open and roundtable
discussion.
The conference aims to present state-of-the-art scientific research from
world leaders in the field and to make the findings accessible to
specialists and non-specialists who work with or are otherwise concerned
about radiation exposure. Accurate knowledge concerning low level radiation
exposures is of major importance for the future of medical imaging and
environmental radiation protection. Topics that will be addressed include
aspects of cellular impact, genomic instability, microbeam to study
bystander effect and low dose radiation therapy for non-malignant
conditions. Global perspectives regarding the ethical and political
concerns of low dose radiation will also be presented.
Registration/ accommodation forms are now available at
http://www.geocities.com/lorad_2006
Please note that registration closes June 12th, after which late fees apply.
Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact
lowrad@mcmaster.ca
This conference is the next in a series designed to update people on the
latest research into Low Level Radiation and Health. It has traditionally
been held in Europe and this is the first time in North America.
Invited Speakers include Professor Colin Seymour, McMaster University;
Professor Bill Morgan, University of MD Baltimore; Dr Marianne Sowa,
Pacific Northwest Labs; Dr. Ron Mitchel, AECL Chalk River; Professor Steve
Wing, University of North Carolina; Professor Fiona McNeill, McMaster
University; Professor Deborah Oughton, Oslo University; Dr. Ian Fairlie,
Independent Consultant; Dr. Keith Baverstock, University of Kuopio; Dr. Tom
Hinton, University of Georgia; Prof. Carmel Mothersill, McMaster University
and others.
Dont forget to sign NIRSPetition for a Sustainable Energy Future, at:
http://www.nirs.org/petition/index.php?r=ft
and use the Invite your friends to signfeature to ask everyone you know to
sign!
*****************************************************************
57 [NYTr] Safety Concerns Halt US Bomb Test
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 16:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[St. George knows well what the consequences are of nuclear testing. They
were in the direct line of the fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear
weapons in the 1950s and their cancer rates became infamous. St. George is
also the home of the anti-testing victims' group Downwinders.-NY Transfer]
sent by Dave Muller (activ-l)
St. George Daily Spectrum (Utah) - Jun 2, 2006
http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/OPINION01/606020328/1014&template=printart
Editorial
Ensure bomb delay sticks
A huge conventional-explosives test blast known as Divine Strake has
been postponed indefinitely by U.S. officials.
When trust has been broken, restoring it can be an astronomical feat as
Southern Utah residents and the federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency
have jointly discovered.
Anti-nuclear activists, Downwinders, the Winnemucca Indian Colony and
Utah and Nevada congressional lawmakers diligently pressed the
government to address health and safety concerns surrounding the
detonation of the non-nuclear, 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
bomb called Divine Strake.
The urgency for convincing, no-risk information is based on fear of the
past repeating itself. Consider governmental assurance that nuclear
tests in the 50s and 60s posed no harm to Western States - when the
truth was that the government had full knowledge from scientific
evidence that it would.
Divine Strake was originally intended to be set off today. The
large-yield explosive is comprised of the same material as the bomb that
destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in
1995, but 280 times larger.
Because studies are lacking with respect to the open-air blast's impact
on the environment from potential radioactive fallout left over from
nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1947 to
1992, lawsuits were filed that pushed the test date to June 23.
After U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George in Las Vegas recognized
that more time was needed to determine the bomb's overall effects, he
ruled against the explosion. The DRTA maintains that its sole purpose is
to collect information about penetrating underground bunkers and is not
intended as a precursor to resume nuclear testing.
Now the blast has been indefinitely postponed, leaving citizens to "wait
and see" what happens next. But we believe playing the waiting game will
only facilitate the government's pursuit of digging a big hole somewhere
in the nearly 1,400 square miles of the test site, packing it with the
1.4 million pounds of fuel oil and fertilizer and setting it off to find
out if it would perforate an 1,110-foot tunnel located directly under
the massive hole.
The fact that the bomb's detonation has been suspended means there is
some level of safety still in question. We need to unfalteringly hold
the government accountable to answering such a question in order to
regain the trust once given freely without reservation. While we must
exercise patience, it doesn't mean we abandon involvement in the process.
Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jim Matheson did their part, and as their
constituents, we must keep them armed with our vigilant participation,
lest risk being victimized again. Rebuilding trust takes grueling,
intensive work, not just on the government's end but on our end as well.
Let's make sure as Southern Utahns that we do our part and keep our eyes
and ears open and alert to the issue.
***
UPI - May 30, 2006
U.S. scrubs big 'Divine Strake' test blast
LAS VEGAS, May 30 (UPI) -- A huge conventional-explosives test blast
known as Divine Strake has been postponed indefinitely by U.S. officials.
The National Nuclear Security Administration announced Friday that next
month's event at the Nevada Test Site would be put on hold so that
further environmental studies could be carried out.
The scheduled June 2 detonation of some 700 tons of ammonia nitrate and
fuel oil had no direct nuclear component; however questions were raised
by opponents and members of Congress in the run-up to the test about the
possibility that radioactive fallout in the soil left over from Cold War
atomic could be stirred up, the Salt Lake Tribune said.
The explosive is basically a pit dug over an existing tunnel on the test
site and filled with material brought in by a parade of tanker trucks
and set off with 30 pounds of C-4 plastic explosives. The test is
intended to measure the impact of huge blast on hardened sites buried
deep below the surface in what the NNSA environmental impact statement
called "a geological setting that simulates the characteristics of
important potential global adversarial targets."
The agency said such devices had been detonated in the past at the White
Sands, New Mexico, installation without any ill effects.
The sheer magnitude of blast, however, had anti-nuclear activists
denouncing Divine Strake as a cover for development of a new generation
of tactical nuclear "bunker buster" weapons.
May 31, 2006
Safety concerns halt bomb test
700-ton Divine Strake test would be 125 times Oklahoma City bombing
By James Hohmann
NEVADA TEST SITE, Nev. A planned 700-ton test explosion scheduled for
Friday in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was put on hold by
the federal government last week.
While the test has not been cancelled, anti-nuclear activists claimed
victory in stopping the ammonium nitrate and fuel oil blast expected to
create a 10,000-foot mushroom cloud that could be viewed from the city.
By comparison, the explosion was projected to be 280 times larger than
the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, or about one-twenty-fifth the power of
the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima.
During a tour of the site last week, an official assured The Daily that
the test would be safe. But many environmental officials and local
Native American tribe leaders were unsatisfied with the environmental
impact data provided by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). They
worried that the large blast would kick up radioactive dust from
extensive nuclear testing conducted near the site from the 1950s through
the early 1990s.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) explained its
actions as being taken to clarify and provide further information
regarding background levels of radiation from global fallout in the
vicinity of the Divine Strake experiment, according to a statement
released last Friday, following a U.S. District Court hearing in Reno,
Nevada .
Before the announcement, site and federal officials had firmly defended
the safety of the test, saying there was no radioactively contaminated
soil in the vicinity of the detonation site.
According to John Spahn, a Bechtel contractor and former manger of the
HazMat center program at the Nevada Test Site, The test will take place
about two miles from the nearest underground [nuclear] test and four
miles away from ground zero for the closest above-ground test.
The government withdrew this finding with last weeks announcement.
The Western Shoshone Indians had filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction,
claiming that the test would irreversibly harm tribal lands.
They say that government hasnt provided the needed assurance [that]
nearby tribal lands would [not] be threatened. said David Cherry, the
communications director for Rep. Shelley Berkley, (D-Las Vegas). He
expressed support for the lawsuit, saying that the Shoshones claims had
good documentation.
Bob Hager, the attorney representing the Shoshones, told The Las Vegas
Review-Journal over the weekend that the government had cancelled a June
8 federal court hearing regarding the project. According to Hager, the
government delayed the experiment because it cannot provide evidence
demonstrating the tests safety. Originally scheduled for June 2, the
testing had already been rescheduled for June 23 before its indefinite
postponement.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), welcomed the delay in an official statement.
This represents a change of heart from last week, when a Reid
spokeswoman told The Daily that the Senate minority leader supported the
test after being given assurances in a classified briefing.
They showed us the test will be absolutely non-nuclear and conventional
in nature, said that spokeswoman, Sharyn Stein. At the end of the
meeting, he said he would not object because he feels they have taken
the proper steps to do the test safely.
The NNSA had said that the $23 million test would allow defense planners
to understand the structural integrity of deep, underground tunnels when
targeted with massive firepower. Since no plane can hold 700 tons of
explosives, a hole dug at ground level would be filled with the
explosives, and scientists would measure their impact on an existing
tunnel 1,100 feet under the surface.
The ability to destroy underground tunnels has become a military
priority as fears about bunkers deep in Iran and North Korea have
intensified. Some worried the operation would foreshadow the return of
nuclear testing ended by the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The real concern is that this is in some ways a precursor to new
nuclear testing and development, Cherry said. There are some things
that dont square up. All along, weve always said, why do they need to
test something with 700 tons of explosive?
Controversy ensued after several news outlets reported on the magnitude
of the planned blast.
I dont want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that
youll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing
nuclear weapons, said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, in May.
The State of Nevada had expressed some initial concerns about the
project but seemed to accept federal government assurances that the test
would not threaten the health of those downwind.
The governor mostly deferred to NSA on this one, said Bob Loux,
director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. Well see what
happens but its not a huge issue for us.
Based on state support and federal assurances, other members of the
Nevada congressional delegation were not opposed to the test.
In November of 2005, my office received a report on the plan to test
the explosive charge in Nevada, said U. S. Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.).
This report, along with the states subsequent approval of the planned
test, addressed my initial concerns about Nevadans safety.
Nevadans werent the only ones alarmed. Since Utah has the dubious
distinction of being downwind from Nevada, its political leaders are
even more concerned about the test. Clusters of cancer patients match
the dispersal patterns of radiation from after nuclear testing conducted
at the site decades ago. Its congressional delegation issued some of
strongest rebukes.
After reading comments about mushroom clouds and low yield nuclear
weapons, I was greatly concerned, and expressed as much to the director
of DTRA, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Ut.) said. I advised them to put all the
health and safety data out on the table so that peoples fears about
being once again exposed to radioactive contamination could be
addressed. I am very pleased to see that these agencies have acted on my
advice.
A Divine Strake Coalition of 41 organizations formed to oppose the test.
On Sunday, about 300 protesters gathered at the entrance to the site to
celebrate the postponement.
On a tour of the site that included the location of the Divine Strake
tests, visitors largely supported the test.
Im not a proponent of nuclear weapons or anything, but its something
necessary to do in order to protect the state, said Tom Harrington, a
retired math teacher from Chicago. We need to learn how to react if
something happens. Thats what survival is all about.
The project name, Divine Strake, refers nautically to a continuous line
of plating from the stem to stern of a ship. In bomb manufacturing, the
term strake refers to the rail that attaches the bomb to the launch
platform.
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
58 NEWS.com.au: Howard exposes himself to fallout -
From: Comment by Steve Lewis
June 07, 2006
JOHN Howard has taken a massive political gamble, exposing the
Government to a vibrant scare campaign from Labor. The Prime
Minister spent several hours yesterday convincing his cabinet
colleagues of the merits of a full-blooded nuclear inquiry.
It will take much longer to convince a sceptical community of
the benefits of going nuclear.
But Australia, with 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves,
must have this debate.
We should look to a future where Australia can value-add to this
precious mineral, not simply export it to energy-guzzling
nations such as China.
The shift in global energy dynamics and the emergence of safer
nuclear technologies will help the Government sell the benefits
of gradually introducing nuclear power to Australia. Provided
the economics stack up.
Senior Cabinet ministers were last night bracing themselves for a
robust debate on nuclear energy. They are wary of selling it too
hard to the community, despite an obvious change in sentiment in
recent years.
Unfortunately, Kim Beazley has effectively locked Labor out of
this emerging debate.
The Labor leader panicked in the face of internal concerns over
the ALP's "no new mines" policy.
By firmly ruling out the prospect of nuclear power, he has done
himself and his party a disservice.
Labor may get a short-term boost from playing the politics of
fear but it will not endear itself to the business community,
which is looking for signs of more responsible policy from the
ALP, post-Mark Latham.
Mr Beazley has made some modest progress in recent months.
Turning his back on the nuclear debate is not one of his finer
moments, though.
Search for more stories on this topic on , our news archive
| | | Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
59
Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Maya Miller fought on behalf of Nevada
Return to the referring page.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Today: June 06, 2006 at 7:13:29 PDT
Letter: Maya Miller fought on behalf of Nevada
Thank you so much for the wonderful editorial on June 2 about
Maya Miller, but I would be remiss in not pointing out one small
fact. You mention that "most recently she opposed plans to build
a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain." There is nothing recent
about Maya's opposition to Yucca Mountain. I believe it is
important to know that if not for Maya we might already have
nuclear waste in this state. When Maya learned 32 years ago that
Nevada was one of the states being considered for a national
repository, she took action.
In October of 1974 activists Susan Orr and Katherine Hale set
off around the state to rally support against transporting
nuclear waste from around the country to Nevada because Maya
asked them a simple question: What do you think we should do?
The response of Nevadans to what they thought about nuclear
waste coming to the state? We don't want it. Citizen Alert was
born and 31 years of activism was born. Because of the "birth"
of Citizen Alert and Maya Miller, our governors (well, except
for one former unenlightened one, Bob List), Clark County
commissioners, Las Vegas councilmen and almost every elected
official (well, the enlightened ones) consistently oppose this
insane project.
Maya not only funded Susan and Katherine's travel around the
state but continued on a regular basis until her death. She also
very generously financially supported Citizen Alert.
So, Maya Miller, that remarkable woman, has forever left her
footprints all over this state, and I am forever grateful for
her presence!
Peggy Maze Johnson, Las Vegas
Editor's note: The writer is executive director of Citizen
Alert, a Nevada-based environmental advocacy group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the referring page.
Las Vegas SUN main page
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions or problems? Click here.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
60 Belfast Telegraph: Demand for Sellafield to be closed
By Noel McAdam 06 June 2006
The Irish Government has vowed to oppose any expansion of
nuclear power provision on the British mainland.
And it has again reiterated its concerns over Sellafield, which
Dublin insists must be closed.
The warnings came at the latest meeting of the British-Irish
Council in London, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister John
Prescott.
Irish Environment Minister Dick Roche said: "Sellafield
represents a potentially serious threat which must be removed."
With Prime Minister Tony Blair giving a nod in the direction of
nuclear power provision, Mr Roche voiced concern at reports that
the current UK energy review could involve the building of new
nuclear power plants.
"The Irish Government will strongly oppose plans to expand
nuclear energy in these islands.
"Any decision to replace the current ageing British nuclear
plants with new facilities is short-sighted," he added. Back
© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI)
*****************************************************************
61 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers assured
Sick ex-workers can count on benefits, OMB boss promises
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
June 6, 2006
The Bush administration says it won't reduce compensation for
sick former Rocky Flats workers, despite a memo implying that it
planned such cuts for budget reasons.
Congress had been alarmed about a memo from the Office of
Management and Budget that indicated the program would be cut,
even though aid was promised to all nuclear weapons workers who
were sickened or died because of exposure to radiation and toxic
chemicals on the job.
If pursued, the memo's proposals might have left some workers
unpaid, even if their claims were identical to earlier claims
from other workers.
In a letter to Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., new OMB chief Rob
Portman promised that "the administration is not pursuing any
program changes" to reduce the costs of compensation for the
atomic bomb workers.
Udall had been particularly concerned about a pending decision
on a petition from Rocky Flats asking that all of its workers
with certain cancers be given the $150,000 compensation without
having to prove that the cancer was caused by their work.
The petition says that records of exposure at Rocky Flats are so
inaccurate that proving a connection is impossible.
Portman addressed that concern directly, stating that the
administration would take no steps to stop the approval of such
petitions "in order to minimize benefit payments."
Portman also said the $686 million cut in the program's budget
for 2007 was based on estimates "and is not a ceiling on benefit
payments."
He said the program's 2006 budget was unusually high because a
backlog of claimants is expected to be paid this year.
Udall welcomed the OMB promise.
He said it was reassuring to know that the White House "will not
change the program to cut benefits to entitled workers."
Claims have been filed on behalf of more than 52,000 sick or
dead former nuclear weapons workers nationwide in one part of
the program.
In another part, nearly 40,000 claims have been filed. There is
significant overlap.
In the portion of the program covering cancer and certain other
illnesses, nearly half of the 52,000 workers have been denied, a
quarter have been paid and the rest of the cases are pending.
At Rocky Flats, 2,412 workers have applied to that part of the
program, with 346 having been paid and 1,172 having been denied
benefits.
The remaining cases are pending.
imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5438 site
Site Map| Photo Reprints| Corrections 2006 © The E.W.
*****************************************************************
62 Knox News: TVA extension keeps nuke plant plans alive
By REBECCA FERRAR, ferrarr@knews.com
June 6, 2006
TVA has extended an agreement with the Southern Co. that could
lead to construction of one of the first nuclear plants in more
than three decades.
The "memorandum of intent" with Southern Co. of Atlanta expired
June 1 and has been extended by the two utilities for six months.
The two are looking at a joint project at the mothballed
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant near Scottsboro, Ala.
"It’s clearly to determine if a project would be beneficial to
TVA and the Southern Co.," said Jack Bailey, TVA vice president
of nuclear generation development. "If both parties determine
it’s feasible and beneficial to enter into a contract, we would
do so. Otherwise, either party could walk away at any time. It
doesn’t obligate us."
The memorandum allows the two companies to explore the
feasibility of a partnership to build a new plant, said TVA
spokesman John Moulton.
Get details in tomorrow’s News Sentinel.
Business writer Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357.
Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
63 KnoxNews: ORNL tech park hot property
Official credits Pro2Serve for sparking overwhelming interest in
private venture
By BOB FOWLER, fowlerb@knews.com
June 6, 2006
OAK RIDGE - Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been "overwhelmed
with expressions of interest" since last week's announcement that
a unique, private-sector technology park is planned next to
ORNL's campus, an official said Monday.
Engineering firm Pro2Serve's willingness "to go first (in the
park) and pave the way is worth its weight in gold," said Alex
Fischer, the lab's technology transfer chief, responsible for
helping private businesses grow from lab technology.
"It takes it (the park) from being a dream on paper to a
reality," Fischer said.
Members of the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board in special
session Monday granted everything sought by Pro2Serve to ease its
move next to the lab.
Approved were:
$250,000 a year for eight years.
+ A resolution asking Oak Ridge City Council to award a $250,000
grant that Pro2Serve will repay during the tax abatement term and
use to match other grants.
+ An application to the state for a $750,000 grant to help
extend water and sewer lines and other infrastructure to the
site.
"This support really is necessary for us to go ahead and keep
these corporate headquarters here," Pro2Serve President and CEO
Barry Goss said.
Industrial Development Board Chairman Doug Janney said the
company's plans meet all Oak Ridge and Roane County requirements
for tax abatements.
Now headquartered in the former Roane State Community College
Oak Ridge campus building on Oak Ridge Turnpike, Pro2Serve wants
to build a $16 million, 100,000-square-foot National Security
Engineering Center at the new tech park.
Goss said other possible sites were examined both in and outside
Oak Ridge but didn't meet the company's high-tech, high-security
needs, Goss said.
The 10-year-old company, whose main customer is the U.S.
Department of Energy, has 200 employees scattered around four
office buildings in Oak Ridge, Goss said.
He said Pro2Serve plans to double its staff within the next
three to four years.
Construction of the company's new headquarters is expected to
begin later this year and be completed by the spring of 2008.
DOE is leasing the initial 8.7 acres for the tech park to the
Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, a nonprofit
group that finds new private sector uses for old or underused
DOE assets.
Long-term, CROET President Lawrence Young said, CROET expects to
have the land transferred to its ownership and be available for
sale.
During the lease period, buildings on land leased by CROET would
be subject to local property taxes, Young said.
Another 30 acres may become available for the park, Fischer
said.
Bob Fowler, News Sentinel Anderson County editor, may be reached
at 865-481-3625.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
64 DOE: Secretary Bodman Announces $34.6 Million to Fund State
Energy Efficiency Priorities Across the Country & Touts Strong
Economic Growth
June 2, 2006
STORRS, CT Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will award a
total of $34.6 million to states, five territories and the
District of Columbia to improve energy efficiency throughout the
nation. The funding, from DOEs State Energy Program (SEP), can
provide significant savings for consumers, businesses and states
to increase energy efficiency of homes and buildings.
One of the biggest sources of energy we have in this country is
the energy that we currently waste. By investing in energy
efficient technologies government, businesses, and homeowners
can conserve energy and save money, Secretary Bodman said.
Secretary Bodman made the announcement after touring the
University of Connecticuts Global Fuel Cell Center to highlight
hydrogen as a fuel source for the future with Rep. Rob Simmons
(CT-2nd). As part his Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI),
President Bush requested $289 million, in FY 2007, for the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative a $1.2 billion effort to accelerate
the development of hydrogen fuel cells and affordable
hydrogen-powered cars.
Later today, Secretary Bodman will tour DOEs Brookhaven
National Laboratory in Upton, New York, to discuss the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the importance of the role
of science and education. Brookhaven is one of ten DOE Office
of Science laboratories. As part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush has set a course for
doubling the government funding in the physical sciences to
ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and
innovation for decades to come.
After touring the laboratory, Secretary Bodman will meet with
students from John F. Kennedy and Bellport Middle Schools,
competitors in DOEs National Science Bowl®, as well as with
local students who participate in Brookhavens Office of
Educational Programs (OEP). OEP is designed to engage students
in educational events and research opportunities with the
Brookhaven Laboratory, a program also supported by the American
Competitiveness Initiative.
Secretary Bodman also touted the 75,000 jobs created nationwide
last month and the positive impacts research and development of
new technologies will have on strengthening Americas energy and
economic security. The unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is the
lowest since July 2001. Secretary Bodman discussed positive
impacts research and development of new technologies will have
on strengthening Americas energy and economic security. The
economy has created 5.3 million jobs since August 2003, and
about 2 million of those were created over the past 12 months.
America has experienced five straight years of growth in
productivity, and per capita personal income continues to rise.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure.
We have the strongest economy on earth and the energy sector
provides the fuel for it to expand, Secretary Bodman said.
Under the Presidents leadership we are working to strengthen
our energy mix and expand our scientific might to remain the
worlds economic leader.
Secretary Bodman highlighted ways industry, government and
educational institutions can contribute to the success of the
Advanced Energy Initiative and the American Competitiveness
Initiative through continued emphasis on research and
development of new technologies. Together, these initiatives
will continue to increase Americas economic vitality through
the development of alternative energy sources and will provide
our next generation of scientists and researchers with the
educational foundation necessary to compete in the 21st century.
As part of a broader effort to highlight the Bush
Administrations economic and energy initiatives a number of DOE
principals participated in events around the country. DOE Under
Secretary David Garman toured and offered remarks at the General
Motors Advanced Technologies Facilities in Honeoye Falls, New
York, with Rep. Randy Kuhl (NY-29th). DOE Assistant Secretary
for Policy and International Affairs Karen Harbert toured and
highlighted the opening of PNMs Solar Generating Station a
new solar photovoltaic plant - outside of Albuquerque, New
Mexico. And Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Andy Karsner kicked off the Energy Efficient
Car Showcase with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6th) in Frederick,
Maryland, to promote President Bushs AEI.
Please find below the SEP grant awards to states, territories,
and the District of Columbia:
State & FY 2006 Distribution
Alabama $543,000
Alaska 264,000
Arizona 500,000
Arkansas 424,000
California 2,269,000
Colorado 540,000
Connecticut 514,000
Delaware 236,000
District of Columbia 223,000
Florida 1,193,000
Georgia 769,000
Hawaii 246,000
Idaho 274,000
Illinois 1,456,000
Indiana 837,000
Iowa 494,000
Kansas 442,000
Kentucky 567,000
Louisiana 657,000
Maine 314,000
Maryland 642,000
Massachusetts 786,000
Michigan 1,229,000
Minnesota 745,000
Mississippi 400,000
Missouri 688,000
Montana 257,000
Nebraska 338,000
Nevada 294,000
New Hampshire 294,000
New Jersey 1,005,000
New Mexico 314,000
New York 2,014,000
North Carolina 787,000
North Dakota 246,000
Ohio 1,370,000
Oklahoma 491,000
Oregon 450,000
Pennsylvania 1,394,000
Rhode Island 272,000
South Carolina 486,000
South Dakota 238,000
Tennessee 660,000
Texas 1,984,000
Utah 344,000
Vermont 238,000
Virginia 774,000
Washington 620,000
West Virginia 383,000
Wisconsin 773,000
Wyoming 228,000
American Samoa 170,000
Guam 177,000
Northern Marianas 170,000
Puerto Rico 433,000
Virgin Islands 184,000
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
65 DOE: Under Secretary of Energy Highlights Advanced Energy
Technologies to Sustain Americas Economic Growth
June 2, 2006
HONEOYE FALLS, NY U.S. Under Secretary of Energy David Garman
today visited the General Motors (GM) Advanced Technologies
Facility in Honeoye Falls, New York, with Rep. Randy Kuhl
(NY-29th), to tour the facility and view new advanced energy
technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells. Under Secretary
Garman discussed the importance of the development of hydrogen
and other renewable energy sources as a key to diversifying our
nations energy mix. The advancement of hydrogen is a key
element of President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI),
which seeks to invest in the development of clean and reliable
energy technologies to reduce dependence on foreign energy
sources.
The commitment of our automotive partners like GM through their
leadership and investment in the research and develop of
advanced technologies will help keep America on the road of
advancement toward a hydrogen economy, Under Secretary Garman
said.
In addition to emphasizing GMs contribution to the AEI, Under
Secretary Garman discussed the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI), which will continue to further Americas
economic vitality by providing Americas next generation of
scientists and researchers with the educational foundation
necessary to compete in the global economy.
GM has been involved in automotive fuel cell research and
development since the mid-1980s and has partnered with Shell
Hydrogen to participate in DOEs National Hydrogen Learning
Demonstration Project. The demonstration project is a unique
collaboration of automobile and energy industry partners and the
federal government to assess hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and
infrastructure technology. The goal of the project is to allow
for a commercialization decision by manufacturers by 2015 with
the potential to see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in showrooms by
2020.
Under Secretary Garman highlighted ways industry, government and
educational institutions can contribute to the success of the
AEI and ACI through continued emphasis on research and
development of new technologies. Together, these initiatives
will continue to increase Americas economic vitality through
the development of alternative energy sources and will provide
our next generation of scientists and researchers with the
educational foundation necessary to compete in the 21st century.
During todays event, Under Secretary Garman also touted the
nations strong economy, underscored by new unemployment figures
released today. 75,000 jobs were created nationwide last month
and the unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is the lowest since
July 2001. Under Secretary Garman discussed positive impacts
research and development of new technologies will have on
strengthening Americas energy and economic security. The
economy has created 5.3 million jobs since August 2003, and
about 2 million of those were created over the past 12 months.
America has experienced five straight years of growth in
productivity, and per capita personal income continues to rise.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure.
As part of a broader effort to highlight the Bush
Administrations economic and energy initiatives a number of DOE
principals participated in events around the country. Secretary
of Energy Samuel W. Bodman joined Congressman Rob Simmons
(CT-2nd) at the University of Connecticuts Global Fuel Cell
Center to highlight hydrogen as a fuel source for the future.
Secretary Bodman also spoke at Brookhaven National Laboratory in
Upton, NY, to emphasize the importance of science and math
education for Americas youth as part of the ACI. DOE Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Karen Harbert
toured and highlighted the opening of PNMs Solar Generating
Station a new solar photovoltaic plant - outside of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. And Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner kicked off the
Energy Efficient Car Showcase with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6th)
in Frederick, Maryland, to promote President Bushs AEI.
For more information on the AEI, visit: .
For more information about the ACI, visit: .
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************