*****************************************************************
06/09/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.137
*****************************************************************
   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 Report On Iran's Nuclear Safeguards Sent To UN Atomic Agency Board
2 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad: Iran to Talk, U.S. Gave In
3 Guardian Unlimited: Cleric Urges Iran to Reject Nuclear Deal
4 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran boosts hopes of end to nuclear standoff
5 IRNA: ElBaradei repeats the same charge on centrifuges contamination
6 AFP: France, Britain send message to Iran, discuss nuclear energy, d
7 AFP: Senior Iran cleric says uranium enrichment to continue - 
8 AFP: Bush: Iran has weeks to avert UN action 
9 AFP: Iran confirms stepping up nuclear activities 
10 AFP: Iran warns nations to show self-restraint in discussing its nuc
11 IRNA: Deputy FM in Japan for nuclear talks 
12 IRNA: Iran will not negotiate its inalienable right - President 
13 IRNA: Soltanieh: IAEA's Iran report bears no new point - Irna
14 IRNA: Solana to brief EU ministers on Tehran visit - 
15 Xinhua: U.S. diplomat to visit DPRK next week   
16 US: DNFSB: Notice of Meetings; Sunshine Act
17 Xinhua: China, US hold defense talks on closer military ties   
18 HindustanTimes.com: 'Approval for N-deal will strengthen relationshi
19 TheTribune: India firm on no concessions in N-deal
20 IPS: JAPAN: U.S-India Nuclear Deal Shakes Pacifist Position
21 AFP: US House panel to decide whether to okay nuclear deal with Indi
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
22 US: NRC: Oral Comments to Be Accepted on June 26 and 27 Regarding Pr
23 Guardian Unlimited: PM signs nuclear deal with France
24 Guardian Unlimited: PM seals French nuclear power deal
25 Guardian Unlimited: Energy at top of agenda, says Blair
26 London Times: Brown's backing clears way for a nuclear future - 
27 Guardian Unlimited: Tories refuse to give guarantees to nuclear powe
28 AU: SMH: Beazley must be careful not to fall into Howard's clever nu
29 AU The Age: Aussies agreeing to nuclear power - poll - 
30 RIA Novosti: Putin calls for increased role of nuclear energy
31 RIA Novosti: Russia to build 2 nuclear power units a year from 2007
32 BBC: Tories dilute backing for nuclear
33 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability
34 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
35 AFP: France, Britain to work more closely on nuclear energy
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
36 US: Guardian Unlimited: Hanford Downwinders' Wait Hasn't Ended
37 US: Daily Advertiser: Atomic veterans to hold reunion in Pineville
38 News & Star: Leak let us down
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
39 US: IPS-English ENERGY: Not All See Enough Uranium
40 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield faces stiff penalty after admitting s
41 US: Alamogordo Daily News: WIPP finds one supporter 
42 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Appeals court rules in favor of nuclear react
43 AU: Mining Environmental Management: Nuclear waste welcome here?
44 US: IPS: ENERGY: Not All See Enough Uranium
45 News & Star: Sellafield firm faces big Thorp leak fine
46 Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR WASTE OFFICE 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
47 Guardian Unlimited: DOE Computers Hacked; Info on 1,500 Taken
48 Hanford Watch
49 Knox News: Energy official to visit OR
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Report On Iran's Nuclear Safeguards Sent To UN Atomic Agency Board
 
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:00:06 -0400


 
REPORT ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS SENT TO UN ATOMIC AGENCY BOARD
New York, Jun  9 2006  2:00PM
Just following the start of European Union-led talks with Iran over 
its nuclear ambitions, the United Nations International Atomic 
Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/iran_sg.html">IAEA) 
today announced that its report on nuclear verification 
in the country has been circulated to the Agency’s member States, 
which will convene next week in Vienna.

“The document’s circulation is restricted and unless the IAEA Board 
decides otherwise the Agency cannot authorize its release to the 
public,” the atomic watchdog said in a statement.

The report, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the 
Islamic Republic of Iran, was issued by Director General Mohamed 
ElBaradei. It covers developments since April. 

An earlier report by Dr. ElBaradei, submitted on 28 April to the 
Board and UN Security Council, concluded that Iran continues to enrich 
uranium, and the IAEA can make no further progress in determining 
whether the country is carrying out illicit nuclear activities 
because the Government is not cooperating with its work.

According to the report, Iran’s uranium conversion campaign “is still 
ongoing.” Iran has continued to feed UF6 gas – used for uranium 
enrichment – into large-scale machinery built for that purpose 
in March. Enriched uranium can be used for peaceful purposes, such 
as generating energy, or for making nuclear weapons. The Tehran 
Government denies claims by the United States and other countries 
that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran had been called on to re-establish full and sustained suspension 
of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including 
research and development, to be verified by the Agency. The 
IAEA Board has also asked Tehran to reconsider the construction of 
a research reactor moderated by heavy water.

Other requirements put forward by the Board in a resolution adopted 
in February call for Iran to ratify and implement the Additional 
Protocol, which grants the IAEA expanded rights of access to information 
and sites, as well as extra authority to use the most 
advanced technologies during the verification process. Pending ratification, 
the Board said Iran should continue to act in accordance 
with the provisions of the Protocol, which the country signed 
in December 2003.

That same year, it was discovered that Iran had carried out secret 
nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under 
the NPT.

Iran voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment activities, which can 
produce material for nuclear energy or for weapons, in 2004 while 
negotiating with European Union nations France, Germany and Britain 
(the so-called EU-3) on its programme, but resumed the process 
last August.

The IAEA Board meeting will run from 12 to 16 June.
 2006-06-09 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad: Iran to Talk, U.S. Gave In
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Friday June 9, 2006 4:31 AM
 	
AP Photo VAH101 
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 
Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president said Thursday his regime is
ready for talks over its nuclear capabilities, but he sent mixed
signals on how much is open for negotiation and suggested Tehran
has the upper hand in its showdown with the West. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated Iran's position that uranium
enrichment is an untouchable national right, a clear jab at the
West two days after Iran received a package of economic and
technological incentives to suspend the program. 

But he also offered some signs of flexibility without
specifically mentioning the proposal. In a speech at an
industrial city, he said Iran would hold dialogue on ``mutual
concerns'' with foreign powers - including the United States -
if they took place ``free from threats.'' 

A report to the U.N. nuclear agency's board, meanwhile, said
Iran slowed enrichment over the past month but picked up the
pace Tuesday, the day the proposal for talks was delivered.

There was no indication in the report, obtained by The
Associated Press, that the two events were linked. 

While the slowdown in enrichment could reflect a decision by
Iran to send a positive signal before talks, a senior U.N.
official said it also could be the result of technical
difficulties. The official agreed to discuss the confidential
report only if not quoted by name. 

Ahmadinejad portrayed Iran as having forced Washington and its
allies to accept the Islamic regime's ``greatness and dignity''
and increasingly bend to it before possible talks, which could
include the United States after a nearly 27-year diplomatic
freeze. Western nations, led by the U.S., worry Iran's uranium
enrichment technology could become the backbone for a nuclear
arms program. Iran insists it only seeks electricity-producing
reactors. 

``The nation will never hold negotiations about its definite
rights with anybody, but we are for talks about mutual concerns
to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena,''
Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Qazvin, about 60 miles
northwest of Tehran. 

In a major policy shift, the United States agreed last week to
join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided
Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. Tehran has
welcomed direct talks with Washington, but rejected any
preconditions. 

Ahmadinejad did not say whether Iran would accept the Western
package of incentives, which were presented Tuesday by the
European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. 

Its contents have not been made public, but diplomats have said
the package includes economic rewards and a provision for some
U.S. nuclear technology if Iran halts enriching uranium - a
major concession by Washington. World powers also have suggested
the length of the proposed enrichment suspension could be
subject to negotiation, diplomats said. 

The offer, however, also contains the implicit threat of U.N.
sanctions if Iran remains defiant. 

Iran's initial reaction to the package was relatively upbeat.
But Tehran has said it will only announce its position after
carefully studying the package. Solana said he expects a reply
within ``weeks.'' 

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the U.S. offer
for direct talks with Iran was a ``big step forward.'' France's
foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, gave a similar
assessment and added that ``it is up to the Iranians to
respond.'' 

Ahmadinejad's speech, broadcast live on Iranian state
television, hit back with hard-line rhetoric. 

Iran's ``enemies must know that whether the Iranian nation is
going to hold talks or not, whether you frown or not ... the
Iranian nation will not retreat from the path of progress and
obtaining advanced technology one iota,'' he said. 

He also praised Iran for standing up to ``international
monopolists,'' a reference to the United States and its allies. 

They have ``been defeated in the face of your resistance and
solidarity and have been forced to acknowledge your dignity and
greatness,'' Ahmadinejad told the crowd. 

In Vienna, Austria, the report circulated to the 35-nation board
of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had slowed
uranium enrichment in recent weeks but also continued
experiments with the technology. 

The document also said U.N. inspectors had made little progress
on clearing up worrying aspects of Tehran's past nuclear
activity. 

Specifically, the three-page report said Iran still declined to
clarify Ahmadinejad's statements that his country had
experimented with advanced centrifuges that speed up enrichment, 
Iran also refused to provide more information on a document
showing how to compress fissile material into the shape used for
warheads, the report said. Tehran also declined to allow
interviews of nuclear officials linked to potentially worrying
finds by inspectors, it said. 

The senior U.N. official, who is familiar with the report, said
it contained nothing that significantly hardened or diminished
concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions since the last IAEA
report in late April. 

--- 
Associated Press writer George Jahn in Vienna, Austria,
contributed to this report. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Cleric Urges Iran to Reject Nuclear Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 9, 2006 1:01 PM
 	
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 
Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top hard-line cleric on Friday came out
against a Western incentive package aimed at persuading Iran to
suspend uranium enrichment, reflecting conservative pressure on
the government to reject the offer. 

It was not immediately clear if Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati's
comments in any way represented the Iranian government. Jannati
is the head of the powerful Guardian Council, a constitutional
watchdog arbitrating between the parliament and the government.

He is not considered a government official. 

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in
all state matters, has overruled hard-liners previously in the
nuclear dispute. 

``The package they have presented is a package (that is) good
for them. It's not good for Iran,'' Jannati said in his Friday
prayer sermon. 

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana,
presented the package to Iran on Tuesday. 

Its contents have not been made public, but diplomats said the
package includes economic rewards and a provision for some U.S.
nuclear technology if Iran halts enriching uranium. 

Together with Germany, the five veto-wielding members of the
U.N. Security Council - the United States, France, Britain,
China and Russia - have only demanded that Iran suspend uranium
enrichment, and not permanently halt it. 

The offer, however, also contains the implicit threat of U.N.
sanctions if Iran remains defiant. 

Iran's initial reaction to the package was encouraging. But
Tehran has said it will only announce its position after
carefully studying the package. Solana said he expects a reply
within ``weeks.'' 

Jannati said Iran must continue enriching uranium. 

``We have to maintain enrichment to the level of 3.5 to 5
percent. They have no choice but to accept it,'' Jannati added.

Uranium enriched to this level is used in nuclear reactors to
produce electricity. It needs to be enriched to more than 90
percent for use in a warhead. 

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, has 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. 

In a major policy shift, the United States agreed last week to
join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided
Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. Tehran has
welcomed direct talks with Washington, but rejected any
preconditions. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran boosts hopes of end to nuclear standoff
 
Robert Tait in Tehran

Friday June 9, 2006

The Guardian             

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, boosted hopes of a
breakthrough in the international standoff over his country's
suspected nuclear weapons programme yesterday by backing talks
over "mutual concerns and misunderstandings".

The Iranian president responded after it emerged that Washington
would allow the Islamic regime to keep some capacity to enrich
uranium if a deal was reached over its nuclear programme. Europe
and the US had previously insisted that Iran permanently cease
uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce an
atomic bomb. That has now been diluted to a demand that it be
suspended during renewed negotiations over an improved
incentives package.
 			 		 			 			Article continues
In a televised speech, Mr Ahmadinejad seized on the
U-turn to claim a victory that put Iran in a powerful
negotiating position: "International monopolists have been
defeated in the face of your resistance and solidarity and have
been forced to acknowledge your dignity and greatness," he told
an audience in the north-western city of Qazvin.

"The Iranian nation will never hold negotiations about its
definite rights with anybody, but we will talk about mutual
concerns and solving misunderstandings in the international
arena."

Mr Ahmadinejad hedged his offer with warnings that Iran would
not surrender to threats. He did not mention a UN incentives
offer delivered to Tehran this week by the EU's foreign policy
chief, Javier Solana, as part of a possible deal. But his
endorsement of talks corresponded with the upbeat reception
given the package by Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, who has described it as "positive" and a basis for
negotiations.

The speech echoed an 18-page letter Mr Ahmadinejad sent to
George Bush last month, in which he lambasted American actions
while calling for "new solutions" to global problems.

But as the Iranian leader was softening his stance, the UN
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna, reported that Tehran had begun a fresh phase of uranium
enrichment.

IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei said in a report to his governing
board that Iran was pressing ahead with installing more cascades
of centrifuge enrichment machines. The report said Iran resumed
feeding "UF6" uranium gas into its pilot 164-centrifuge cascade
in Natanz on Tuesday after a pause of several weeks to do test
runs of the machines without UF6.

Analysts interpreted Mr Ahmadinejad's latest comments as an
attempt to influence Iran's stance on the nuclear talks, over
which the ultimate arbiter is the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei.

"We are moving away from confrontation and the situation seems
to be getting better step by step," said Saeed Leylaz, a
Tehran-based analyst. Mr Leylaz did not believe Mr Ahmadinejad
made the ultimate decisions, however. "He is simply trying to
influence the process. I don't believe uranium enrichment is an
issue for the country. Much more important are security
guarantees, removal of sanctions and fair access to global
markets, especially in technology and foreign investment. If you
resolve those points reaching agreement on uranium enrichment
will be relatively easy."

Mr Ahmadinejad's support for talks may undercut the position of
one of his main political adversaries, the pragmatic former
president Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Mr Rafsanjani, Iran's leading advocate of detente with the west,
was forced to abandon a speech in the holy city of Qom this week
by religious radicals, who branded him an "appeaser".
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: ElBaradei repeats the same charge on centrifuges contamination -
      
, June 8, IRNA
-- 
Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Mohamed ElBaradei on Thursday once again repeated contamination
of centrifuges Iran has bought from abroad to highly enriched
uranium.

 Iranian mission to IAEA has so far provided the agency with
information that the contamination had originated from abroad
and examination of the centrifuges by the agency's inspectors
admitted that traces of enrichment dated back to before Iran
purchased them.

 It is surprising that the IAEA director general has renewed the
same charge taken from the environmental samples in his report
to the Board of Governors meeting, despite, Iranian explanations
so far to clear the charge.

 In the current atmosphere that Iran is studying the EU package
in good faith, the IAEA director general was expected to take
steps to remove the misunderstanding, but, renewal of the same
charge the agency brought against Iran two years ago does not
conform with the international resolve to end the dispute with
an outlook to forward instead of raising the already solved
matters.

*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: France, Britain send message to Iran, discuss nuclear energy, defence - 

 by Phil Hazlewood Fri Jun 9, 1:04 PM ET 
		 	 
PARIS (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair have 
sent out a strong and united message to Iran to halt its 
controversial nuclear programme as they met for talks here. 

 The two leaders said both countries were at one in their aims
to bring a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the crisis as Iran
admitted to having stepped up its uranium enrichment activities.
 
"We call upon the Iranian authorities to consider the positive
route in a constructive spirit and not to opt for the route to
long-term isolation," Chirac, Blair and key ministers from both
governments said in a statement. Failure by Tehran to suspend
the programme, which the West believes is a front for developing
atomic weapons, is threatening the long-term stability of the
Middle East region, they added.
 
"We call upon the Iranian authorities to co-operate fully with 
the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency " /> ) and to 
suspend their activities connected with enrichment, including 
research and development."
 
The Iran nuclear situation dominated questions at a post-talks
news conference, despite the two countries also announcing a
series of measures which will see Paris and London working more
closely in a range of areas.
 
These include Britain potentially benefiting from France's
nuclear expertise if it decides to build new atomic power plants
and greater co-operation in defence and security matters.
 
The talks also saw the two countries commit afresh to resolving 
the ongoing conflict between Israel " /> and the Palestinian 
Authority " /> , welcome the new government in Iraq " /> and 
support peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
 
Other commitments included renewed joint efforts to tackle 
climate change and world poverty.
 
But on the Iran crisis, in which Britain and France have been 
heavily involved in seeking incentives for the Islamic republic, 
Chirac said the international community's call was "the voice of 
reason".
 
"There has been enough proliferation already. What we need to do 
first and foremost is put a stop to proliferation. This is not 
about Iran, it is about proliferation," he said.
 
For his part, Blair said everyone wanted a diplomatic solution to 
the crisis, where the rights and wishes of the international 
community, as well as those of Iran, were respected.
 
"We are in a better chance of doing that now. But the bottom
line is... that Iran has got to comply with its obligations and
people want to facilitate that," he added.
 
The talks, at the French president's official residence, were
marked by none of the disagreements that have clouded previous
Franco-British summits.
 
Flashpoints have included the two countries' differing stances
over military action in Iraq in 2003 and the disputed European
Union
" /> budget last year.
 
Chirac admitted that France and Britain had "argued, often
fought" each other in the past, but "today we are, happily, and
more and more so, in a period of solidarity, agreement and good
relations".
 
Blair, who spoke English during the news conference but was
spotted testing his French with Chirac as they left for lunch,
said both countries benefitted much more when they worked
together.
 
"I am more and more sure that the future of France and Britain
is a future in which our destinies are inextricably linked," he
added.
 
The summit is likely to be one of the last for both men. France 
goes to the polls in May next year to elect a new president. 

Observers believe it unlikely Chirac, now 73, will stand for his 
third term. Blair, who has said he will not stand for a fourth 
straight term of office, is widely tipped to stand down next 
year, making way for Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Senior Iran cleric says uranium enrichment to continue - 

 Fri Jun 9, 12:52 PM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - A cleric close to Iran " /> Iran's supreme leader 
has said Tehran would not suspend its nuclear program of uranium 
enrichment, a day after the UN nuclear watchdog said it had 
actually accelerated the sensitive work. 

 "We must have uranium enrichment between 3.5 to 5 percent and 
they have to accept it," Ayatollah Ahmad Janati told worshippers 
at Friday prayers in the capital.
 
Janati heads the powerful legislative watchdog the Guardians
Council, and is regarded as a close ally of the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
 
Tehran has already announced enrichment to a level of 4.8
percent, sufficient to produce reactor fuel.
 
It says it only wants to enrich to make fuel which, when highly
refined, can also be used to make nuclear weapons.
 
Khamenei has not yet responded publicly to an offer from the
five permanent members of the United Nations
" /> United NationsSecurity Council (Britain, China, France,
Russia and United States) and Germany, aimed at pushing Tehran
to suspend uranium enrichment.
 
On Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implicitly rejected
such a possibility, while ensuring that Iran remained open to
negotiations on the package, which contains both incentives and
threats of sanctions.
 
"We will negotiate about common concerns and for clearing up
misunderstandings in the international atmosphere, but we will
never negotiate about what kind of technology we want to use,"
Ahmadinejad said.
 
"You should know that the Iranian nation will never negotiate
about its definite rights with anyone," he told the 5+1 group
that submitted the offer on Tuesday.
 
Iran considers uranium enrichment to be its right under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 
The International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> International Atomic Energy Agencysaid on Thursday that
Iran accelerated its enrichment activity on June 6, either
coincidentally or in a deliberate gesture.
 
This was the same day European Union
" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana visited
Tehran to present the package.
 
In its report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, the IAEA
said inspectors noted during a May 2 visit to the Natanz
enrichment facilities that Iran had practically ceased
enrichment, by supplying only two centrifuges.
 
But on Tuesday, activities resumed at full capacity on the
164-centrifuge cascade, the report said.
 
Iran has also produced 118 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride gas at
its Isfahan plant since August. The "new conversion campaign"
that began June 6 involved more than 30 tonnes of uranium ore
being converted into uranium gas, a senior UN official said.
 
An Iranian official confirmed Friday the accelerated activity.
 
"Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas
into centrifuge machines," the student news agency ISNA quoted
him as saying.
 
"Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade
by the end of the current year (March 2007)," he noted, adding
that all the material used in uranium enrichment facilities has
been produced domestically. 

The international proposal would come into effect if Iran
suspends enrichment. 

The West insists that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment over
fears that it plans to make nuclear bombs. 

Tehran has ignored both the IAEA and a UN Security Council
resolution calling on it to halt this activity. 

The authors of the international package have said they are
encouraged by Iran's initial reaction, because officials have
not rejected it outright. 

They are now waiting for Tehran's official response, expected in
the next few weeks. 

The IAEA board of governors is due to discuss Iran in Vienna on
Monday.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Bush: Iran has weeks to avert UN action 

 Fri Jun 9, 2:43 PM ET 
		 	 
CAMP DAVID, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush 
said that Iran had "weeks, not months" to agree to freeze 
sensitive nuclear activities or face UN Security Council 
punishment. 

 "We've given the Iranians a limited period of time -- you know,
weeks, not months -- to digest a proposal to move forward. And
if they choose not to verifiably suspend their program, then
there will be action taken in the UN Security Council," said
Bush.
 
His remarks came as Iran said it had accelerated its uranium
enrichment.
 
Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, in an interview
published Friday, said Iran has until a Group of Eight summit in
July to consider the incentives package.
 
Leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) -- Britain, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States -- are to
meet July 15-17 in Saint Petersburg.
 
Bush, speaking as he met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh
Rasmussen at the US presidential retreat Camp David, said they
had discussed the Iran nuclear standoff and how to solve the
problem diplomatically.
 
"And the problem is that Iranians want to have a nuclear weapon,
and they shouldn't have one," the US president said at a joint
news conference.
 
Tehran insists it wants to develop nuclear energy purely for
peaceful purposes, and in defiance of international concerns has
resumed uranium enrichment, which can be used to produce energy
and weapons.
 
Iran considers uranium enrichment to be its right under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 
Rasmussen said he was pleased the United States had joined his
European allies in presenting an incentives package to Iran
aimed at defusing the crisis.
 
The carrot-and-stick package presented by European Union
" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana on Tuesday
includes the threat of UN sanctions if Iran refuses to halt the
sensitive activities.
 
The package was drawn up by Britain, France and Germany and
backed by the United States, Russia and China.
 
"It's now up to the Iranians to take advantage of this window of
opportunity," the Danish premier said.
 
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not yet
responded publicly to the offer by the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council and Germany.
 
At a G8 meeting of finance ministers Friday in Saint Petersburg,
Japan's Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki said he had discussed
possible financial sanctions against Iran with US Treasury
Secretary John Snow
" /> John Snow.
 
An Iranian official in Tehran confirmed his country had stepped
up its nuclear activities, following a report by the
International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations
" /> United Nations's Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that it had
done so.
 
"We expect everybody will have self-restraint," Iran's
ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told AFP about the
35-nation IAEA board of governors's meeting starting in Vienna
Monday.
 
Soltanieh said it was a "coincidence" and not meant as a
provocation that Iran re-started crucial enrichment work on the
same day that the EU's Solana was in Tehran presenting the
proposal.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: Iran confirms stepping up nuclear activities 

 Fri Jun 9, 8:14 AM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - An Iranian official has confirmed that the country 
has stepped up its nuclear activities, following a report from 
the UN atomic agency that said Iran " /> has accelerated uranium 
enrichment. 

 "Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas
into centrifuge machines," the student news agency ISNA quoted
an unnamed official as saying on Friday.
 
"Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade
by the end of the current year (March 2007)," he noted, adding
that all the material used in uranium enrichment facilities has
been produced domestically.
 
A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> obtained by AFP on Thursday said that Iran had accelerated
uranium enrichment on June 6, the same day world powers asked it
to halt the work and open talks to guarantee it will not make
nuclear weapons.
 
On that Tuesday, European Union
" /> foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran to
present a package of benefits aimed at enticing Iran to suspend
uranium enrichment.
 
Enriched uranium makes nuclear reactor fuel, and in a highly
refined form can produce atom bomb material.
 
"Iran is continuing its installation work on other 164-machine
cascades," said the report from the IAEA chief, Mohamed
ElBaradei.
 
Iran built the cascade as a pilot plant for what it hopes will
eventually be an industrial plant of more than 50,000
centrifuges, used to refine the uranium 235 isotope.
 
Iran started last August to make feedstock uranium hexafluoride
gas, which it then fed into centrifuges in February this year.
It produced enriched uranium beginning in April.
 
The quality of enriched uranium being produced in April was
appropriate for nuclear reactor fuel and was not the
highly-enriched variety needed to make weapons.

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Iran warns nations to show self-restraint in discussing its nuclear program - 

 Fri Jun 9, 8:00 AM ET 
		 	 
VIENNA (AFP) - A senior Iranian official has warned nations to 
show "self-restraint" at a high-level meeting of the UN atomic 
agency next week and not endanger the diplomacy engaged over 
Tehran's nuclear program. 

 "We expect everybody will have self-restraint," Iran " /> Iran's 
ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency " /> 
International Atomic Energy AgencyAli Asghar Soltanieh told AFP 
about the meeting starting in Vienna Monday of the IAEA's 
35-nation board of governors.
 
The board had in February found Tehran in violation of
international nuclear safeguards, opening the door to possible
UN sanctions against Iran.
 
Since then, the five permanent UN Security Council members plus
Germany have engaged in separate diplomacy offering to discuss
with Iran a package of benefits if it suspends uranium
enrichment that raises fears of Tehran making an atom bomb.
 
Soltanieh warned that the IAEA board members "should be careful
that this diplomacy will work."
 
The IAEA has often been a forum for the United States and key
European countries, which are among those proposing the benefits
package, to attack Iran for hiding sensitive nuclear work.
 
Soltanieh said Iran has a "positive approach" to new talks and
that nothing should happen at the board "to affect this more or
less positive environment."
 
There should be a "smooth meeting and let the thing go," said
Soltanieh, referring to letting diplomacy take its course.
 
Diplomats from IAEA member states said they did not expect any
fireworks in Vienna next week.
 
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the package from
the six world powers, which also evokes the possibility of
sanctions if Iran does not comply, to Iranian leaders in Tehran
on Tuesday.
 
Soltanieh said it was a "coincidence" and not meant as a
provocation that Iran re-started crucial enrichment work on the
same day.
 
Iran had Tuesday begun a new cycle of introducing feedstock gas
into a 164-centrifuge production line to make enriched uranium,
which can be nuclear reactor fuel but in highly refined form
also atom bomb material.
 
This was "a matter of coincidence, nothing intentional. The
technical people are doing their work. It is just a technical
matter," Soltanieh said.
 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 IRNA: Deputy FM in Japan for nuclear talks 

Tokyo, June 9, IRNA

Japan-Iran-Nuclear 

Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs,
Abbas Araqchi, arrived in Japan on Friday on a day-long visit to
hold talks with senior Japanese officials.

 During his stay here, Araqchi is scheduled to meet with Foreign
Minister Taro Aso and his Japanese counterpart Tsuneo Nishida.

 Talking to IRNA, Araqchi said his visit to Tokyo falls within
framework of consultations between the two countries on key
international issues.

 "The visit seems to have more significance under current
circumstances particularly after a recent visit by the European
Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Tehran," he said.

 He added the Iranian and Japanese officials are to discuss
Iran's nuclear issues and latest developments within the case.

 "We are willing to be aware of different views on Iran's
nuclear case and exchange views (with Japanese officials)," the
deputy foreign minister further stated.

 Araqchi, who arrived in Tokyo after he wound up an official
visit to China, held separate meetings with Chinese Foreign
Minister Li Zhaoxing and his deputy Cui Tiankai in Beijing and
discussed Iran's nuclear case and proposals prepared by the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council --
Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States -- plus
Germany (Group 5+1) and presented to Tehran by Solana.


*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: Iran will not negotiate its inalienable right - President 

, June 9, IRNA

-- 

Iran will not negotiate its inalienable rights, President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday night.

 President Ahmadinejad, who arrived in the northwestern province
of Qazvin Thursday morning along with members of his cabinet,
made the remark while addressing families of martyrs and war
veterans of the province.

 "We intend to hold talks (with states) on international issues.

 (Certain countries) spread propaganda that if they officially
recognize Iran's right to have access to nuclear fuel cycle, it
will be tantamount to giving a major concession to our nation.

 "They should not think that if they hold talks with Iran, it
means they have given a concession to the country.

 "They should know that it is the Iranian nation which accepts
to negotiate with them on international issues. This is the
Iranian nation who is giving procession to them," he said.

 He added, "They make decisions against Palestine, Iraq and
Afghanistan. We intend to hold talks with them on roots of
corruption, discrimination and cruelties.

 "In that case, peace will be established in the world and
nations throughout the world will enjoy welfare.

 "The Iranian nation insists on its inalienable rights and will
never give them up."
 The president stated, "Our nation raises flag of invitation to
justice and humanity. My letter to (the US President George W.

 Bush) has been written about increasing problems in the world."
Head of Supreme National Security Council further added the
Iranian nation is powerful and a real superpower.

 The president and his cabinet ministers are scheduled to hold a
session in the provincial capital by the same name (Qazvin) to
discuss provincial problems and needs before rounding up their
two-day visit.

 President Ahmadinejad's current provincial visit is his 14th to
various provinces of the country since the start of his
initiative of bringing the government closer to the people.

 He and his cabinet have already visited the provinces of South
Khorasan, Sistan-Baluchestan, Ilam, Qom, Hormuzgan, Bushehr,
Chahar Mahal and Bakhtiari, Lorestan, Golestan, Kohgilouyeh and
Boyer Ahmad and Khorassan Razavi, Zanjan, and Markazi.		 				 		
			
*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: Soltanieh: IAEA's Iran report bears no new point - Irna
 
Vienna, June 9, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Soltanieh 

Iran's ambassador and envoy to the International Atomic Energy
Agency Ali-Asghar Soltanieh said on Thursday that the Agency's
Iran report is the shortest report of its kind, containing
measures taken over recent months.

 Soltanieh told IRNA the report bears no new point, saying that
the IAEA will continue with its investigations about uranium
enrichment and sources of pollution.

 He criticized the IAEA report which claimed full implementation
of the NPT additional protocol by Iran is a requisite for the
IAEA investigation. He stressed, "Iran voluntarily implemented
the additional protocol for three years."
 He said Iran's envoy will at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna
on Monday recite the NAM statement, which was issued in Malaysia
recently in support for Tehran's peaceful nuclear program.





*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Solana to brief EU ministers on Tehran visit - 

June 9, IRNA

-- 
EU foreign ministers are to be briefed at their next General
Affairs Council meeting by High Representative Javier Solana on
his visit to Tehran this week, Britain's European Minister Geoff
Hoon has revealed.

 In a written parliamentary statement published Friday, Hoon
said that the E3 will also advise their colleagues about last
week's Vienna meeting when agreement was reached to offer new
proposals to Iran over its nuclear program.

 The two-day Luxembourg meeting, starting on Monday, would also
continue preparations for the EU-US summit on June 21, with the
presidency and Commission engaging the US on the draft
declaration between now and the summit, he said.

 Council declarations were expected to be made on Iran, Iraq,
Lebanon, Africa, the Western Balkans and on the Middle East
Peace Process.

 At his monthly press conference in London, Prime Minister Tony
Blair Thursday welcomed the US offering to enter into EU direct
talks with Iran as "very sensible."

 "I think that is a big step forward, it indicates that America
wants to find a diplomatic solution to this," Blair said, adding
that US President George W Bush "wants and believes a diplomatic
solution can be found."

 "If we are able to find a way through this that would be all to
the better and it would show also an international community
coming together on a common basis, which would be good for the
future," he told journalists.


*****************************************************************
 15 Xinhua: U.S. diplomat to visit DPRK next week   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-06-09 15:45:57   

    SEOUL, June 9 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Ambassador to Seoul Alexander
Vershbow will visit Kaesong, a border city of the Democratic
People's Republic Korea (DPRK), on Monday together with other 75
foreign diplomats in Seoul, the South Korean Foreign Ministry
said on Friday. 

    The visit "is expected to make a contribution to improving
and increasing the international community's understanding of
the Kaesong industrial complex," the ministry said in a
statement. 

    Vershbow will be the second senior U.S. official to visit
the Kaesong industrial complex this month. 

    Kathleen Stephens, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state
for East Asian and Pacific affairs, visited the industrial
complex in Kaesong last week. Steephen was the first
highest-ranking U.S. official to visit DPRK since the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue dispute erupted in October 2002. Enditem


  Editor: Wang Yan   

*****************************************************************
 16 DNFSB: Notice of Meetings; Sunshine Act


                         FR Doc 06-5310 

[Federal Register: June 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 111)] 
[Notices] [Page 33442] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09jn06-26]                         

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
 
    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the 
Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public hearing 
and meeting described below. The Board will conduct a public 
hearing and meeting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286b and invites any 
interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical 
information, or data concerning safety issues related to the 
matters to be considered.

TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9 a.m., July 19, 2006.

PLACE: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing 
Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 
20004-2001. Additionally, as a part of the Board's E-Government 
initiative, the meeting will be presented live through Internet 
video streaming. A link to the presentation will be available on 
the Board's Web site (http://www.dnfsb.gov ).

Status: Open. While the Government in the Sunshine Act does not 
require that the scheduled discussion be conducted in a meeting, 
the Board has determined that an open meeting in this specific 
case furthers the public interests underlying both the Sunshine 
Act and the Board's enabling legislation.

Matters to be Considered: This public hearing and meeting is the 
second in a series concerning the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
and National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 
incorporation of safety into the design and construction of new 
and existing DOE defense nuclear facilities. The Board is 
responsible, pursuant to its statutory charter, to review and 
evaluate the content and implementation of standards relating to 
the design and construction of such facilities. 

The Board has previously observed the need for improvement in the 
incorporation of safety early in the design of certain new 
defense nuclear facilities. These observations led to the initial 
public hearing and meeting on safety and design, which the Board 
convened on December 7, 2005. At that hearing, the Board explored 
DOE's safety policies, expectations and processes for integrating 
safety early into the design and construction of new facilities 
and the modification of existing facilities. The Board heard 
testimony from DOE and NNSA officials concerning recognition of 
deficiencies in this area, and DOE's and NNSA's plans and 
commitments to revise its relevant Orders and Manuals to ensure 
integration of safety early in the design and construction 
process. This second hearing on safety in design will focus on 
actions taken by DOE and NNSA to improve incorporation of safety 
early in the design process, and will examine progress concerning 
relevant commitments made prior to and at the first hearing. 

The Board again expects to hear presentations from both DOE and 
NNSA senior management officials concerning integration of safety 
into design. The Board may also collect any other information 
relevant to health or safety of the workers and the public, with 
respect to safety in design, that may warrant Board action. The 
public hearing portion of this proceeding is authorized by 42 
U.S.C. 2286b.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Grosner, Deputy General 
Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 
788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to speak at the hearing may 
be submitted in writing or by telephone. The Board asks that 
commentators describe the nature and scope of their oral 
presentation. Those who contact the Board prior to close of 
business on July 18, 2006, will be scheduled for time slots, 
beginning at approximately 12:30 p.m. The Board will post a 
schedule for those speakers who have contacted the Board before 
the hearing. The posting will be made at the entrance to the 
Public Hearing Room at the start the 9 a.m. hearing and meeting. 

Anyone who wishes to comment or provide technical information or 
data may do so in writing, either in lieu of, or in addition to, 
making an oral presentation. The Board Members may question 
presenters to the extent deemed appropriate. Documents will be 
accepted at the meeting or may be sent to the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board's Washington, DC office. The Board will 
hold the record open until August 19, 2006, for the receipt of 
additional materials. A transcript of the meeting will be made 
available by the Board for inspection by the public at the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Washington office and 
at DOE's public reading room at the DOE Federal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. The Board 
specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise 
regulate the course of the meeting and hearing, to recess, 
reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the meeting and hearing, conduct 
further reviews, and otherwise exercise its power under the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

    Dated: June 7, 2006. A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman. [FR Doc. 
06-5310 Filed 6-7-06; 1:36 pm] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 17 Xinhua: China, US hold defense talks on closer military ties   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-06-09 07:15:05   

    BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China and the United States on
Thursday held their eighth annual round of defense consultations
on building closer military ties. 

    "This forum is one of the most important forums for the
interactions between the two defense ministries," said Assistant
to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman, who leads the
U.S. delegation. 

    Zhang Qinsheng, Assistant to the Chief of the General Staff
of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), heads the Chinese
delegation. 

    As part of the growing China-U.S. military ties, Thursday's
consultations came a month after a visit to China by Commander
of U.S. Forces in Pacific William Fallon. 

    During his visit, Fallon invited a Chinese delegation to
observe a U.S. military exercise in Guam in June, the first
invitation of its kind extended by the United States. 

    "This is a positive signal worthy of attention in China-U.S.
military relations," said Yang Yi, director of the Institute for
Strategic Studies, National Defense University of China. 

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said on
Thursday that China has accepted the offer to observe the
exercise with the code name of "Valiant Shield 2006." 

    "The improvement of our military-to-military relations is
necessary because it is an important part of improvement of our
overall relations," Rodman said at the beginning of Thursday's
consultations. 

    The U.S. delegation consists of representatives from the
Defense Department, the Joint Staff, the Pacific Command and the
State Department. 

    "Our delegation is a large one because we have a lot of
useful businesses we can do together," Rodman said, stressing
this year is "a good year in fulfilling the commitment of
leaders of the two countries." 

    Officers from the Chinese Defense Ministry, Navy, Air Force,
the Second Artillery Force and the General Staff of the PLA
attended the consultations. 

    "The two sides held candid, friendly and constructive
discussions on international issues, regional security,
bilateral ties and military construction," said a statement
issued by the Chinese Defense Ministry after the one-day
closed-door consultations. 

    The statement said the two sides showed positive spirit and
initiative in promoting bilateral military ties, and the
consultations were helpful to boosting mutual understanding and
trust. 

    "There are many things that came out of the meeting, which
we will follow up on and at different levels," Rodman, who
called eight "a lucky number" while referring to the eighth
round on Thursday morning, said after the consultations. 

    "Both sides had a number of specific ideas of new areas of
cooperation or new activities," he said. 

    "We also had very high-quality discussions on regional
issues and issues about the nuclear policy," he said. 

    "The China-U.S. military exchanges like Thursday's defense
consultations will help boost the mutual trust and promote
China-U.S. constructive and cooperative relations," said Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. 

    Late on Thursday afternoon, General Liang Guanglie, Chief of
the General Staff of the PLA, had a meeting with Rodman and his
entourage. 

    China and the United States are currently faced with good
opportunities to develop military ties, Liang said. 

    He urged leaders of defense departments of both countries to
consider the importance of military ties "from a strategic and
long-term perspective." 

    "We should step up exchanges and promote military ties in an
all-round manner and in various fields," Liang said. 

    "If we have questions or concerns, the right thing to do is
to ask and discuss," Rodman told Liang. 

    The annual consultations began in 1997, following an
agreement between then Chinese President Jiang Zemin and his
U.S. counterpart Bill Clinton. Enditem
                                
  Editor: Lu Hui   
*****************************************************************
 18 HindustanTimes.com: 'Approval for N-deal will strengthen relationship'

  Friday, June 9, 2006|15:44 IST   

Press Trust of India

Expressing confidence that the initial legislation pertaining to
the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal will be "flagged" in the
Congress "in the near future", Minister of State for Industries
Ashwani Kumar has said the pact was essential for the growth of
strategic partnership between the two countries.

Interacting with Indian journalists in Washington, the Minister
of State for Industries Ashwini Kumar maintained that the
Indo-US relationship has entered a new phase.

"This is a historic moment to cement further Indo-US engagement
across a very wide variety of common goals and concerns. To this
end, I will be engaging with a large number of people", he said.

"I am confident that the initial legislation will be flagged in
the near future. The general sense that I had got during this
visit is that there is wide support in principle for the nuclear
deal despite certain issues that need to be addressed," Kumar
said.

Calling the latest report of the New York based Council on
Foreign Relations as a decisive endorsement of the utility of
the (nuclear) deal to both sides, Kumar said that India has put
all the cards on the table and would want the deal as outlined
in the July joint statement.

"Nothing that is inconsistent with the July statement or going
beyond the July statement can be accepted by India. The Indian
position has been made clear on more than one occasion and the
US is fully conscious of the sensitivities in India.

"It is clearly understood that the Indian government will stick
to the position that has been endorsed by the Indian
Parliament," Kumar said.   
    
*****************************************************************
 19 TheTribune: India firm on no concessions in N-deal

Chandigarh, India - Main News
 
 T.R. Ramachandran Tribune News Service 

New Delhi, June 9

 Even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is believed to have
received a revised draft of the Indo-US agreement of July 18,
2005, and the subsequent one of March 2 this year, the
Congress-led UPA government is unlikely to make any concessions. 

Sources said the revised draft was thrown up when Foreign
Secretary Shyam Saran met the US Undersecretary of State for
Political Affairs Nicholas Burns in London recently, but this
remained outside the realm of discussions.

They said the think tank in the US was pushing for including
certain other aspects in the agreement to get the endorsement of
the US Congress.

However, the government’s stand was clear and the Bush
administration was aware of India’s track record in the nuclear
sphere coupled with the self-imposed moratorium on carrying out
nuclear tests, they said.

The American Congress is holding hearings on the proposed
legislation to enable the US enter into civil-nuclear energy
cooperation with India and allow the Bush administration to
approach the nuclear suppliers group to adjust its policies to
make an exception in the case of India.

It is unclear if the US Congress will accord its approval before
the deadline in the first week of July after which there will be
a recess. Thereafter, the US Congress is expected to be busy
with new elections.

Even if the US Congress presses for some additional
conditionalities beyond the agreements of July, 2005, and March
this year, the Manmohan Singh government has made its position
clear that no new conditionalities will be acceptable. 

The country’s nuclear programme initially had not separated the
civilian and strategic activities. This is no longer the case.
It is widely believed in the nuclear establishment that India
should end its nuclear isolation and use civil-nuclear
cooperation with other advanced countries to rapidly increase
nuclear power capacity without compromising on the nuclear
deterrence or the freedom to pursue the three-stage programme,
including thorium utilisation. 

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in her testimony to the
Congress in April had strongly supported the Indo-US agreement
on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and urged the support of
the Senate. Ms Rice had argued that the agreement was good for
America and India.

During his visit to this country, President Bush had stated,
“India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the USA
because we are partners in the case of human liberty.” 

*****************************************************************
 20 IPS: JAPAN: U.S-India Nuclear Deal Shakes Pacifist Position

Inter Press Service News Agency     Saturday, June 10, 2006
  
 Suvendrini Kakuchi 

TOKYO, Jun 9 (IPS) - A controversial agreement on nuclear energy 
between Washington and Delhi is proving to be a diplomatic 
headache for Japan, say analysts here. 

"There is a lot at stake for Japan in this looming diplomatic 
crisis that is testing Tokyo's staunch support for the NPT 
(Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) and its position as a leading 
advocate of a non-nuclear weapons world," said Yoko Waki, 
professor of international relations at Keio University, about 
growing U.S pressure on Japan to support its agreement with 
Delhi, concluded in March. 

India is not a member of the NPT. 

Japan is the only country in the world to have suffered the
consequences of nuclear attacks -- in 1945 the U.S. military
dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The disaster
led to Japan's defeat and the end of the Second World War. As a
result, the country's post-war pacifist constitution restricts
the development of nuclear weapons. 

Japan, the world's second largest aid donor, has used its
financial clout to pressure countries to stop developing nuclear
weapons, a policy that prompted its ban on aid to India after
that country conducted five underground nuclear tests in May
1998. 

But Japan's traditional position is now facing a challenge, say
analysts. They point to an upcoming summit between U.S.
President George W Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koziumi on Jun. 29, when Japan's support for India's nuclear
industry -- including transfer of technology, expertise and
financial backing -- is expected to be discussed. Any deals,
some analysts say, may be forged much against the public's
deeply anti-nuclear weapons feelings. 

"There is the possibility of Japan changing its current stance
that has expected India to join the NPT," Professor Masao
Fukunaga, a South Asian expert at Aichi Women's University based
in Nagoya, said in an interview. 

The 'Asahi Shinbun' newspaper, quoting Japanese government
sources, reported last week of a raging internal debate and the
possibility of officials issuing a "basic understanding" of the
U.S. agreement with India that was formally signed Mar. 2. 

Proponents support Washington's argument that the nuclear power
deal enables inspections of India's civilian nuclear facilities,
thus strengthening the nonproliferation structure and boosting
India's economic growth. Opponents, reported Asahi, worry about
the deal's lack of guarantees for inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the fact that
nuclear power carries the threat of weapons proliferation. 

"We are strongly against Japan accepting the U.S.-India nuclear
deal that will increase a nuclear weapons race in that region.
The agreement is irresponsible because it does not take into
consideration the risks posed by nuclear weapons and is based
heavily on economic greed given the growing needs of the energy
market in Asia," said Hideyuki Ban, head of the Citizen's
Nuclear Information Network, a leading anti-nuclear movement. 

Ban told IPS that India's rising economy has made nuclear power
an important energy source and advanced nuclear technology
countries such as the United States and Japan can be important
suppliers. 

Nuclear power generates around three percent of India's total
energy compared to over 30 percent in Japan, which has developed
nuclear fuel cycle facilities including the prototype
fast-breeder reactor that produced plutonium. 

In contrast, nuclear power expert at the Japan Energy Policy
Institute, Keiji Kanda, thinks the government should back the
US-India deal, which he says reflects changing global politics. 

"In contrast to Iran or Pakistan, India's nuclear power
development can be trusted and (India) is a respected country in
Japan. The new agreement is an advantage to Japan, which has to
have a closer partnership in the changing Asian regional
politics that has seen the growth and influence of India," he
added in an interview. 

Kanda explains that the NPT could be out of date given new
trends in international relations and calls for closer
cooperation between developed countries -- more reason for Japan
to back away from its traditional pacifist stance. 

A breakthrough for Japan, say experts, could be the Global
Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP), announced by the U.S. State
Department in May. It advocates for Japan, China, France,
Britain and Russia joining hands to develop new and more
efficient ways to produce nuclear fuel that could be provided to
other countries, while also safeguarding nuclear proliferation. 

Ban says large Japanese corporations such as Hitachi Electrical
Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation are eager to export
Japanese nuclear power technologies. 

Hitachi is already constructing an Advanced Boiled Water nuclear
power plant in Taiwan. 

There is also rising interest in nuclear power in Japan due to
rising oil prices and global warming, boosting the government's
support for the energy source that is touted as cheap and
environmentally conscious. 

But activists say they will fight against the expansion of
nuclear power. "An accident in a plant can cause hundreds of
death through radiation contamination. Also, there is the threat
of nuclear arms proliferation. We will oppose any move in Japan
to expand this energy," Atsuko Nogawa of Greenpeace Japan told
IPS.

  Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: US House panel to decide whether to okay nuclear deal with India
     
Friday June 9, 01:27 PM 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - After poring over it for nine months, a
powerful panel of the US House of Representatives will decide
this month on a controversial civilian nuclear deal with India,
a congressional staffer said.
 
The House International Relations Committee will "in the later
half" of June decide whether to endorse or give conditional
approval to the deal, the staffer told AFP, speaking on
condition of anonymity on Thursday.
 
The panel's findings would then be submitted to the full House
for consideration.
 
Committee chairman Henry Hyde, a Republican, "does have some
concerns about the proposed civilian nuclear agreement and is
studying ways to addressing those," said the staffer, suggesting
the deal would receive only conditional approval.
 
Reports suggested this week that Hyde, whose support is
critical, had decided to back the deal, first agreed upon in
September and endorsed six months later by President George W.
Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
 
The deal would allow India, not a signatory of the nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), access to long-denied civilian
nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its
atomic reactors under international safeguards.

But the agreement does not have the wide and bipartisan backing
in Congress.
 
Some legislators want to first have a look at a set of
safeguards under which India and the United States would
implement the deal.
 
The safeguards would be incorporated together with other
technical details in another bilateral agreement, which the
lawmakers also wanted to study before endorsing the deal.
 
The safeguards are being negotiated between India and the global
atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
while moves to frame the bilateral agreement reportedly hit a
snag after India refused to accept a provision barring it from
conducting atomic tests.
 
The Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, an
influential think tank, said in a report released Thursday that
Congress should adopt a two-stage approach -- "formally
endorsing the deals basic framework, while delaying final
approval until it is assured that critical nonproliferation
needs are met."
 
It called for "patience and a few simple fixes" that it said
"would address major proliferation concerns while ultimately
strengthening the strategic partnership."
 
The council's approach "is clearly in the same spirit" as plans
unveiled by Democratic Representative Tom Lantos, who had called
lawmakers to welcome the deal but hold off on a vote to change
US nuclear law until the final pact was negotiated, said Lynne
Weil, the lawmaker's spokeswoman.
 
The US Congress would have to amend a law prohibiting nuclear
cooperation with India, barred from obtaining foreign nuclear
technology for developing and testing nuclear weapons and not
signing the NPT.
 
Another Democratic lawmaker, Howard Berman, has introduced a
bill that, instead of authorizing a specific exception in US law
for India, would set conditions to be met by non-NPT members
before gaining access to US nuclear technology.
 
The Bush administration says the deal offers a crucial energy
alternative to rapidly-growing India and would elevate relations
between the world's largest and oldest democracies to a new
strategic height.
 
But several American weapons experts have warned that forging a
civilian nuclear agreement with non-NPT member India would not
only make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades
Iran and North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent to
other countries with nuclear ambitions.
 
   Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Oral Comments to Be Accepted on June 26 and 27 Regarding Proceeding on Vermont
Yankee Power Uprate

News Release - Region I - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, 
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-06-036                          
June 9, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  
  
Individuals who are not a party to the Atomic Safety & Licensing
Board Panel (ASLBP) hearing regarding the Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant power uprate will have an opportunity to offer comments on
matters of concern related to the proceeding on Monday, June 26,
and Tuesday, June 27. The remarks, which will be transcribed,
will be received by the three-member ASLBP handling the hearing.
 
Known as limited appearance statements, the comments will be
accepted from 6:30 to 10:30 p.m., as needed, on June 26 at the
Latchis Theatre, at 50 Main St. in Brattleboro, Vt. (Directions
are available on the theatres web site at:
http://www.latchis.com/location.html[exit icon] .) They will
also be accepted at the same location from 9 a.m. to noon and
from 1:30 to 4 p.m., as needed, on June 27.
 
The purpose of the limited appearance statements is to allow
members of the public to alert the Board and the parties to
areas relating to the uprate and the admitted contentions in
which evidence may need to be adduced (brought forward), and to
assist the Board in its consideration of these issues, a notice
on the sessions issued by the ASLBP states.
 
Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have submitted a
timely written request to do so will be given priority when it
comes to the speaking order at the sessions. To be considered
timely, a written request must either be e-mailed, faxed or sent
by regular mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. EDT on Tuesday,
June 20. Requests can be e-mailed to: hearingdocket@nrc.gov;
faxed to: (301) 415-1101; or mailed to: Office of the Secretary,
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Copies of requests
should be e-mailed to: jmr3@nrc.govand ksv@nrc.gov; faxed to:
(301) 415-5599; or mailed to: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, c/o:
Jonathan Rund, Esq., Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3 E2C, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
 
In September 2003, Entergy Nuclear applied to the NRC for a
20-percent power uprate for Vermont Yankee, which is located in
Vernon, Vt. Subsequently, the Vermont Department of Public
Service (DPS) and the New England Coalition (NEC), a public
interest group, filed requests for a hearing on the proposal. An
ASLBP was formed to hear the requests and ruled in November 2004
that the DPS and NEC had established standing and that each had
submitted admissible contentions.
 
On March 2, 2006, the NRC staff announced that it had approved
the power uprate after more than two years and more than 11,000
staff-hours of review.
 
The Vermont DPS notified the ASLBP on May 2, 2006, of its
intention to withdraw from the hearing and seek dismissal of its
contentions. The ASLBP has since granted that request.
 
As such, there are currently two NEC contentions still under
consideration in the hearing process. One has to do with large
transient testing as a condition of the power uprate; the other
pertains to the ability of the plants cooling towers to
withstand an earthquake and other natural phenomena without loss
of capability to perform its safety functions at the higher
power level.
 
In addition to receiving limited appearance statements, the
board intends to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the remaining
contentions. That hearing will take place during the weeks of
Sept. 11 and Oct. 16 at a location still to be determined.
   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 09, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: PM signs nuclear deal with France
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Friday June 9, 2006 4:43 PM
 	
Prime Minister Tony Blair gave the strongest signal yet of his
intention to green-light a new generation of nuclear power
plants by signing an agreement with France to share expertise on
the controversial technology.
 
The Franco-British Nuclear Forum agreed with President Jacques
Chirac at a summit in Paris will initially involve exchanges of
technical know-how, but is expected to lead to contracts for
French firms to take a share in the construction of the
estimated 12 plants needed to replace the UK's ageing reactors.
 
Mr Blair said Britain had a lot to learn from France, which has
invested heavily in nuclear power since the 1970s and now
derives 80% of its electricity from that source.
 
The PM insisted he was not pre-empting the results of next
month's Government energy review, but said future generations
would not forgive him for ducking the "obvious" answers to
Britain's energy problems.
 
And a senior British official told reporters there would
"clearly be a nuclear element" in the review.
 
Speaking at a press conference in the Elysee Palace during the
annual Franco-British summit, Mr Blair said that the nuclear
power stations which currently provide 20% of Britain's
electricity would be phased out within 20 years, while the UK
would go from being 80-90% self-sufficient in gas and oil to
80-90% dependent on imports.
 
"Therefore if I look at it from the point of view of energy
security, or the point of view of clean energy and climate
change, to be in a position where we can't even replace the
existing nuclear capacity seems to me to be a very big problem
that we have to address," he said.
 
"I'm aware it is a very controversial issue. I think of course
there should be a very full public debate.
 
"But I think that this is a classic case that the decisions we
take today as political leaders will be felt in 15, 20 or 30
years time and I don't want people looking back and saying,
'What were those guys doing when the facts were very clear and
very obvious to them?'"
 
He added: "The fact that France has such a long tradition in
this area gives us an opportunity to cooperate together and
learn from each other, and should we take the decision to
replace the UK's nuclear power stations it allows us a very
fruitful exercise between France and Great Britain for the
future."
 
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
 
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: PM seals French nuclear power deal
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Friday June 9, 2006 1:23 PM
 	
Tony Blair has sealed an agreement with France to share
expertise on nuclear power.
 
It is the latest signal that he is planning to give the green
light to a new generation of atomic power plants in the UK.
 
At the annual Franco-British summit in Paris, Mr Blair and
French President Jacques Chirac agreed to set up a bilateral
nuclear forum to bring together ministers, business and experts
from either side of the Channel.
 
The move will be seen as further confirmation that the
Government's upcoming energy review will pave the way for the
construction of a dozen or more power plants to replace the UK's
ageing reactors.
 
And it will raise speculation that Britain plans to model its
nuclear network on France, which has invested heavily in atomic
technology since the 1970s and now derives around 75% of its
electricity from this source.
 
Mr Blair's aides insisted he was not pre-empting the energy
review - expected in the summer - pointing out that Britain
already has nuclear power stations and shares concerns with
France over issues such as the decommissioning of waste and
protection of the environment.
 
In a communique released after talks at the Elysee Palace, the
two leaders said: "We have agreed to explore in the short term
and further develop the opportunities of working together in the
civil nuclear field.
 
"To that end we have agreed to establish a regular
Franco-British Nuclear Forum, involving representatives from
government, industry and technical experts.
 
"The Forum will provide a vehicle to discuss Franco-British
nuclear co-operation, including research, skills,
decommissioning and waste management."
 
There has so far been no official confirmation that the energy
review will take the nuclear option, but Mr Blair is thought to
favour this route to prevent Britain becoming over-reliant on
imported oil and gas for its electricity generation. He recently
told a meeting of the CBI that nuclear power was "back on the
agenda with a vengeance".
 
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 25 Guardian Unlimited: Energy at top of agenda, says Blair
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Friday June 9, 2006 1:38 PM
 	
Prime Minister Tony Blair said that a new agreement with France
to share expertise on nuclear power showed energy policy was
"right at the top of the agenda".
 
A bilateral nuclear forum to bring together ministers, business
and experts from either side of the Channel has been agreed
between Mr Blair and French President Jacques Chirac at the
annual Franco-British summit in Paris.
 
"The establishment of a British-Franco nuclear forum will allow
us to discuss all the policy issues. One thing is for sure, this
policy, for reasons of energy security, is right at the top of
the agenda. We have so much that we can work on together."
 
Pointing to growing concern about climate change, Mr Blair
added: "The more evidence that accumulates, the more pressing
and urgent it becomes."
 
It is now "more necessary" to have an international framework
for tackling the problem, he said.
 
He said energy security and climate change were the two things
that have "pushed our two countries towards an energy policy as
a major factor in our own politics, domestically but also in
European politics".
 
Mr Blair is in the French capital for what will probably be his
last annual Franco-British summit with Mr Chirac.
 
The French President's term of office comes to an end in April
next year and he has indicated he will not stand for a third
time.
 
Their talks have also taken in the next steps on the
Anglo-French joint aircraft carrier project, the Middle East,
Iran, Afghanistan and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, as well
as efforts to break the deadlock at the World Trade Organisation
talks on fairer trade.
 
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
 
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 26 London Times: Brown's backing clears way for a nuclear future - 

  The Times                        June 10, 2006   

By Philip Webster, Political Editor
 		   		 		
GORDON BROWN backs more nuclear power stations in Britain
in a move today that makes it certain that the Government will
soon approve the commissioning of new plants. 

Any hopes of anti-nuclear campaigners and many Labour MPs that a 
change of prime minister might see a reversal of Labour’s 
pro-nuclear stance will be extinguished by the Chancellor’s 
article in The Times today in which he explicitly supports new 
stations. 

At the same time he clears away one of the last remaining areas
of potential policy difference with Tony Blair, helping what
most politicians believe will be a handover of power within 12
months. 

The Government’s energy review is due to report within weeks.
The widespread expectation is that it will recommend that the
power gap will have to be filled by a mix of more renewable
sources, greater fuel efficiency and nuclear stations, probably
built on existing sites. 

Mr Brown has never uttered anti-nuclear sentiments but his
emphasis has always been on the need to justify the long-term
costs of waste disposal and decommissioning. 

Today he leaves no doubt. Mr Brown writes that over the coming
weeks and months “we will demonstrate our enhanced flexibility
with further reforms in planning, skills and labour markets, and
in energy policy, including new nuclear”. 

A Treasury source said yesterday that the Chancellor had
accepted the argument in principle for more nuclear stations and
would do what was necessary to achieve them. He added that Mr
Brown still believed that the key issue was to hammer out the
commercial and financial details to ensure that it represented
the best deal for the country. 

Sources said that companies were watching the situation to see
whether they were to be given a blank cheque, and they needed to
know that the Government would be hard-headed in negotiations
over new building. “But Gordon is up for nuclear, no doubt.” 

Mr Brown’s endorsement of nuclear power came as Mr Blair gave
yet another hint that his own mind was made up. After a summit
in Paris with President Chirac, the Prime Minister said that a
new agreement to share nuclear expertise showed that energy
policy was “right at the top of the agenda”. A bilateral nuclear
forum will bring together ministers, business and experts from
each side of the Channel. 

Mr Blair said: “The establishment of a British-Franco nuclear
forum will allow us to discuss all the policy issues. One thing
is for sure: this policy, for reasons of energy security, is
right at the top of the agenda.” 

He insisted that he was not pre-empting the results of the
energy review. But people would look back with anger in 20 or 30
years if today’s politicians ducked the decisions that could
secure electricity supplies for the future. 

Mr Blair said: “We have 20 per cent of our electricity today
from nuclear power. In 15 or 20 years’ time, that’s gone. Today
we are 80 or 90 per cent self-sufficient in gas and oil. In 15
or 20 years’ time we will be importing 80 to 90 per cent. 

“The decisions we take today will be felt in 15, 20 or 30 years’
time, and I don’t want people looking back and saying, ‘What
were those guys doing, when the facts were very clear and very
obvious to them?’ ”

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited: Tories refuse to give guarantees to nuclear power industry
 
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Friday June 9, 2006

The Guardian             

The Tories have taken a significant step away from their
traditional support for nuclear power by rejecting key financial
demands from the industry. The party's stance could stymie
government plans to build a new generation of nuclear power
stations, because the industry wants cross-party consensus
before it undertakes a programme that could take decades to
complete.

The Tories have been fast changing tack on the issue as David
Cameron has embraced a green agenda, including a strong role for
renewables and micro-generation. Alan Duncan, the shadow
industry secretary, is conducting the party's own energy review,
focusing on the future provision of electricity. He will publish
his party's views soon after the government's energy review next
month.
 			 		 			 			Article continues
The Tories are set to oppose giving a guaranteed price
on the grid for nuclear-generated electricity, or a fixed quota
for this power, two of the demands most vociferously advanced by
the nuclear industry. By refusing to offer any subsidy or
guarantees, the Tories will leave the industry struggling to
convince investors that it has secured the long term regulatory
framework to make the huge necessary capital investment.

The nuclear industry has lobbied the Conservatives as well as
the government, underlining the role of power in cutting UK
carbon emissions. But Mr Duncan is instinctively opposed to
nuclear power, and questions whether the industry has come up
with any long term solution to the issue of waste disposal. He
questions whether uranium, the primary resource needed for
nuclear power, will come from secure sources in the medium term.

He believes the whole energy supply industry, including
technology. is in a state of flux, and that Mr Blair is wrong to
place such emphasis on nuclear power as a safe means of reducing
carbon emissions. Mr Duncan's review may support a speeding up
of the planning process, to prevent lengthy reviews on
construction at sites, such as Sizewell B.

The Tory proposals will be one of the few hard pieces of the
party's policy to appear this year. But while rejecting any help
for the industry, it will not go so far as to rule out new
nuclear stations in principle on grounds of safety.

At his monthly press conference yesterday, Tony Blair kept open
the possibility of increasing the amount of electricity the UK
gets from nuclear plants. "I can't see how you're going to
secure energy supply in the future unless you replace at least
the nuclear power stations that are going to be decommissioned,"
he said.

The UK is facing an energy gap since the current stations are
ending their useful life. The government's chief scientific
adviser, Sir David King, a long term advocate of the nuclear
industry, has said he would like to see the nuclear share of
energy use rise to 30%, or even 40%, where it was a decade ago,
and up from 19% currently.

Email comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 28 AU: SMH: Beazley must be careful not to fall into Howard's clever nuclear trap - 

Opinion

Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au
 
Michael Duffy

June 10, 2006
 	 	
WATCHING the Prime Minister announce his nuclear taskforce
reminds us how important team work is to successful government.
Sure, John Howard is a clever guy, but he wouldn't be where he
is today without Kim Beazley and Kerry O'Brien.
 
Left to himself, Howard is a fairly low-key public character,
even lacking definition. But he comes alive when faced with
strident criticism, acquiring strength and meaning. Beazley and
O'Brien are not as relentless as the more moralistic Howard
haters, but even so they sometimes go too far, in the process
reminding swinging voters why they elected Howard.
 
When there's a specific fact to be dragged from a politician,
O'Brien is just about the best interviewer in the country, but
his conversation with the Prime Minister on The 7.30 Report on
Tuesday night was more inquisition than interrogation. O'Brien
seemed to approach meltdown as he fired off seven questions
regarding the choices of people to run this and related nuclear
inquiries. I was interested for a while. Naturally we're all
concerned that the taskforce might be a distraction from the AWB
affair, and wonder if it was wise to appoint as its head Ziggy
Switkowski, a director of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation. It looks as if Howard is up to his old
tricks again.
 
But that's hardly news, and in any case we know he's not going
to fess up on television and admit he's made a political
appointment. What would have been interesting, although we never
got there, would have been to learn more about the inquiry.
 
I suspect many people are genuinely interested in nuclear power
and want to know more about it before making up their minds, not
just on whether Australia should have nuclear energy (which
seems unlikely) but on the role we might play in the nuclear
cycle, including mining, enrichment and the storage of waste.
 
Beazley is really playing into Howard's hands by portraying this
as an argument about Australia going nuclear. On June 6 he said:
"Australians know that a government that blocks wind farms for
the sake of one parrot, but advocates nuclear reactors up and
down our east coast, has lost touch with Middle Australia."
 
I'm with him on the parrot, but the Government, despite the
personal views of some ministers, is not advocating nuclear
reactors on the east coast or anywhere else. Beazley just made
that up. After flip-flopping all over the place he decided to be
bold by making a stand on a Government position that doesn't
even exist. Voters notice these things.
 
The real issue is not a Coalition policy that doesn't exist but
a Labor one that does: the federal ALP's opposition to new
uranium mines and also to Australia's participation in any other
part of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment.
 
Last week I talked to a senior Labor politician in Adelaide and
was struck by just how important uranium is going to be for the
economic future of South Australia, which appears to have 40 per
cent of the world's known uranium reserves (although the miners
haven't yet found the limits to the Roxby Downs ore body). I was
told cheerfully that if the demand for uranium keeps growing,
South Australia will become "the Saudi Arabia" of nuclear power.
(Now there's an interesting change from Don Dunstan's "Athens of
the south".) It's going to be tough when they lose more
manufacturing, but thanks to uranium the state's economy looks
assured for the next 75 years.
 
They're not going to let the rest of the ALP get in the way, and
the prediction is for a feisty debate at the party's federal
conference next April, an election year. Howard's nuclear
taskforce will have reported by then, possibly not too long
before, so the public will follow the debate with particular
interest. With Labor leaders deeply divided on the issue,
Beazley could face the policy equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
 
Labor really ought to sort this out now, but with nuclear
opponents, such as environment spokesman Anthony Albanese, stuck
in a 1980s anti-nuclear mind-set, it isn't likely.
 
One thing that's emerged in recent weeks is how much the science
and technology of nuclear power have changed since Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island. There's so much we need to know before making
up our minds on this. For instance, how good are the new forms
of reactor technology, which are potentially much cheaper and
safer than existing models? They include thorium reactors, the
"pebble-bed modular reactor", and the Canadian CANDU reactor,
which does not require enriched uranium.
 
Then there's the issue of a modest carbon tax, which might make
renewable as well as nuclear energy more viable in Australia and
encourage the faster development of clean coal power stations.
 
Albanese said in May that there's a significant anti-nuclear
constituency out there but no pro-nuclear one. He's probably
right, but I'd argue there's a lot of people who haven't made up
their minds and want to know more, who realise the nuclear
pessimism of the 1980s is not the last word on the matter. Maybe
it's time to accept that improvements in science and technology
have created new opportunities, and approach the future with
renewed, if cautious, optimism.
 
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. <img
*****************************************************************
 29 AU The Age: Aussies agreeing to nuclear power - poll - 

www.theage.com.au

June 9, 2006 - 10:49PM
 	 	
Almost half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the
thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a
poll shows.
 
A Morgan Poll has revealed that 49 per cent of Australians
approve of nuclear power plants, while 37 per cent disapprove of
their use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 14
per cent are undecided.
 
But the poll shows 87 per cent of Australians are concerned
about the disposal of nuclear waste if plants are introduced
here.
 
Twelve per cent of people say they are not concerned about the
waste while one per cent are undecided.
 
Morgan research surveyed 594 Australian men and women aged 14
and over on June 7 and 8.
 
The poll reported 54 per cent of respondents agreed Australia
should continue developing and exporting uranium for peaceful
purposes.
 
But 36 per cent said we should not produce uranium.
 
Pollster Gary Morgan said after much debate on the nuclear
industry, more Australians approved than disapproved of the
introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil, and
gas plants to stop greenhouse gas emissions.
 
"However, with 87 per cent of Australians concerned about the
disposal of nuclear waste the government needs to assure
Australians that there will be no adverse effects if nuclear
energy is introduced," Mr Morgan said.
 
The release of the poll comes after Prime Minister John Howard
announced an inquiry, to be headed by nuclear physicist and
former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, would investigate
Australia's nuclear options.
 	
© 2006 	AAP

Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. <img
*****************************************************************
 30 RIA Novosti: Putin calls for increased role of nuclear energy
 
09/ 06/ 2006                                  

NOVO-OGAREVO, June 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's president called
Friday for an increased role of nuclear power to provide a
sustainable energy future for the nation. 

Addressing a gathering of top nuclear industry officials,
Vladimir Putin said, "The percentage of nuclear fuel in the
country's energy balance is 16%, and if we do nothing in this
area, but just keep on moving at today's pace, it will drop to
1-2% by 2030." 

Putin said Russia's nuclear industry needs a boost as only one
gigawatt of nuclear power capacities is launched in the country
every five years, as compared with up to three gigawatts
launched in the Soviet Union annually. 

At the start of 2006, Putin tasked the government to prepare a
program for bringing the share of nuclear power in overall
electricity production up to 25%. 


© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 31 RIA Novosti: Russia to build 2 nuclear power units a year from 2007
 
09/ 06/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW REGION, June 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will start
constructing two nuclear power units a year inside the country
beginning in 2007 to make the country competitive on the world
markets, Russia's top nuclear official said Friday.

 President Vladimir Putin met top nuclear officials to discuss
the nuclear-power industry's development and ways to make it
more competitive. 

"We must have an adequate system for managing the [nuclear]
sector to be competitive on world markets," said Sergei
Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power.

 He also told the conference at the presidential residence in
Novo-Ogaryovo outside Moscow that four to five nuclear power
units would be built a year in 2009-10.

 The official continued that plans were in place to develop
hydro- and thermo-power sectors, and added that spending on
geological prospecting and uranium extraction would be tripled.

 Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov in
turn said nuclear energy had been in the focus of a discussion
between his ministry and the nuclear power agency for several
days.

 Ivanov also said the ministry had invited the agency's experts
to some facilities and showed them nuclear safety systems and
strategic management achievements.

 President Vladimir Putin said in January that global
infrastructure should be established to give all interested
countries access to nuclear energy with reliable guarantees that
the nuclear non-proliferation regime would be observed.
Putin also said Russia was ready to build an international
center "to offer nuclear fuel cycle services, including
[uranium] enrichment under the control of the IAEA."

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 32 BBC: Tories dilute backing for nuclear
 
Last Updated: Friday, 9 June 2006
 
Mr Blair has raised the prospect of ne nuclear power stations
                                 
The Tories appear to be weakening their traditional
support for nuclear power as debate on a new plants gathers
pace. 

Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan says he opposes
subsidies or price guarantees for nuclear firms. 

His words came as Tony Blair announced a new agreement with
France to share nuclear expertise. 

Speaking after talks with French President Jacques Chirac, Mr
Blair said it showed energy policy was "right at the top of the
agenda". 

Mr Blair denied he was prejudicing the government's energy
review, which is due to report next month. 

But he told reporters in Paris he would face "a very big
problem" if he was expected to rule out the replacement of
Britain's ageing reactors. 

"But I think that this is a classic case that the decisions we
take today as political leaders will be felt in 15, 20 or 30
years' time and I don't want people looking back and saying
'what were those guys doing, when the facts were very clear and
very obvious to them?'." 

'Honest economics needed' 

Earlier, Mr Duncan said he did not think a cross-party consensus
was needed before new nuclear plants could be built. 

But he made clear the Tories did not think governments should
underwrite the nuclear industry. 

"We, like the government, are not looking at a subsidy regime
for nuclear power," he said. 

"They must justify their own arguments with honest economics and
a proper regime for their waste. 

"That means no price guarantee and no volume guarantee for
nuclear power. Everyone to do with nuclear power has to answer
difficult questions about the honesty of the economics and the
safety of their waste handling." 

But a spokesman for the Nuclear Industry Association said it was
not asking for subsidies or price guarantees. 

It was confident a new generation of plants could be built
without financial help from the government, he said. 

Mr Duncan's comments appear to make cross-party consensus on
building a new generation of nuclear power plants unlikely. 

The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their opposition to
new stations. 

Leader Sir Menzies Campbell said this week: "New nuclear power
is not the answer to climate change. It would come too late. It
is far too expensive. And it is just too risky." 
*****************************************************************
 33 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability
 
                         FR Doc E6-8975 
[Federal Register: June 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 111)] 
[Notices] [Page 33494-33495] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09jn06-100]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing 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.
 
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 8.38, entitled ``Control of Access 
to High and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants,'' 
describes an acceptable program for implementing the requirements 
of Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 
Part 20), ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation.'' In 
particular, 10 CFR 20.1101, ``Radiation Protection Programs,'' 
requires licensees to develop and implement a radiation 
protection program appropriate to the scope of licensed 
activities and potential hazards. To augment that requirement, 10 
CFR 20.2102, ``Records of Radiation Protection Programs,'' 
requires licensees to document those radiation protection 
programs. An important aspect of such programs at nuclear power 
plants is the institution of a system of controls that includes 
procedures, training, audits, and physical barriers to protect 
workers against unplanned exposures in high and very high 
radiation areas.
 
Toward that end, 10 CFR 20.1601 provides specific requirements 
applicable to controlling access to high radiation areas, while 
10 CFR 20.1602 provides additional requirements to prevent 
unauthorized or inadvertent entry into very high radiation areas. 
Appendix A to the revised guide augments this guidance with 
recommended procedures for good operating practices for 
underwater diving operations in high and very high radiation 
areas. In addition, Appendix B summarizes past experience with 
very high and potentially very high radiation areas, so that 
pertinent historical information is readily accessible.
 
Dose rates in areas of nuclear power plants that are accessible 
to individuals can vary over several orders of magnitude. High 
radiation areas, where personnel can receive doses in excess of 
the regulatory limits in a relatively short time, require special 
controls.
 
Very high radiation areas require much stricter monitoring and 
controls, because failure to adequately implement effective 
radiological controls can result in radiation doses that result 
in a significant health risk. Thus, it is important that 
licensees have effective programs for controlling access to high
 
[[Page 33495]] and very high radiation areas because of the 
potential for overexposure.
 
The primary purpose of this revision is to clarify the 
terminology related to the physical barriers that licensees could 
use to prevent unauthorized personnel access to high and very 
high radiation areas. The original version of Regulatory Guide 
8.38 used the term ``inadvertent entry'' with two different 
connotations. As used in Section 1.5, ``Physical Controls,'' the 
term was intended to connote ``not a willful violation.'' In 
several other sections, however, ``inadvertent entry'' was used 
to mean ``an accidental, or unintended, entry.'' This disparity 
led to inconsistent readings of the staff's regulatory position 
by licensees and other stakeholders.
 
Consequently, in preparing this revision, the NRC staff rewrote 
Section 1.5 to eliminate the use of the term ``inadvertent 
entry,'' and provide additional guidance on the acceptability of 
physical barriers used to control access to high radiation areas.
 
The staff also revised Section 1.6, ``Shielding,'' and Section 
4.2, ``Materials,'' to explicitly state the staff's regulatory 
positions, which were only implied in the original version. In 
addition, the staff updated Appendix B to include recent 
references that discuss industry experiences with high and very 
high radiation areas.
 
Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 8.38 does not change previous 
staff positions. Therefore, this revision does not constitute a 
backfit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The NRC previously 
solicited public comment on this revised guide by publishing a 
Federal Register notice (70 FR 58490) concerning Draft Regulatory 
Guide DG-8028 on October 6, 2005. Following the closure of the 
public comment period on December 5, 2005, the staff considered 
all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide 8.38. The staff's responses to all comments 
received are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061350247.
 
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 Revision 1 of Regulatory 
Guide 8.38 may be directed to Harriet Karagiannis at (301) 
415-6377 or by 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 .
 
Electronic copies of Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 8.38 are also 
available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061350096.
 
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 31st day of 
May, 2006.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Sheron, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. E6-8975 Filed 6-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc E6-8976 
[Federal Register: June 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 111)] 
[Notices] [Page 33493-33494] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09jn06-99] [[Page 
33493]]
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct 
Materials License No. 37-02766-01, for Unrestricted Release of a 
Fox Chase Cancer Center Facility In Philadelphia, PA AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Willie J. Lee, Health Physicist, 
Medical Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 
U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of 
Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406; telephone (610) 337-5090; fax (610) 
337-5269; or by e-mail: .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 37- 
02766-01. This license is held by Fox Chase Cancer Center (the 
Licensee), for several facilities, including its MRI Building 
(the Facility), located at 333 Cottman Avenue in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release 
of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this 
action in a letter dated November 8, 2005. The NRC has prepared 
an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed 
action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the 
EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The 
amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the 
publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action 
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's November 8, 
2005, license amendment request, resulting in release of the 
Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 37-02766-01 was issued 
to American Oncologic Hospital in 1957, transferred to Fox Chase 
Cancer Center in 1985, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been 
amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the 
Licensee to use Hydrogen- 3, Carbon-14, Phosphorus-32, and 
Phosphorus-33 for purposes of research and development activities 
on laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
 
The Facility is situated on 17,900 square feet, and consists of 
general office and laboratory space. The Facility is located in a 
mixed residential/commercial area. Within the Facility, use of 
licensed materials was confined to Rooms M019, M144, M153, and 
M157, with an approximate area of 1600 square feet total.
 
In September of 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities at 
the Facility and initiated a survey of the Facility. Based on the 
Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of 
the Facility, the Licensee determined that decontamination 
activities were not required. The Licensee conducted surveys of 
the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate 
that the affected areas were free of contamination and the 
Facility meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for 
unrestricted release.
 
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting 
licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted 
demolition of its Facility.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical 
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows 
that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides 
with half-lives greater than 120 days: Hydrogen-3 and Carbon-14.
 
The Licensee conducted a final status survey on October 21 and 
November 4, 2005. This survey covered Labs M019, M144, M151, 
M153, M155, M156, M157, and adjacent hallways. The Facility 
contained seven labs; however, only four (M019, M144, M153, and 
M157) involved the use of byproduct material. The final status 
survey report was attached to the Licensee's supplemental 
information submitted in support of the amendment request dated 
January 31 and February 2, 2006. The Licensee elected to 
demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for 
unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the 
screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the 
radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels 
(DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose 
criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum 
amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, 
and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC 
requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted 
release. The Licensee's final status survey results indicated 
that the affected areas were free of contamination and thus were 
below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As 
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The 
NRC concludes that the Licensee 's final status survey results 
are thus acceptable.
 
Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected 
environment and any environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking 
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed 
Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, 
ML042320379, and ML042330385). Accordingly, there were no 
significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive 
material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file 
records and the final status survey report to identify any 
non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment 
surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the 
environment were identified. The NRC has found no other 
radiological or non- radiological activities in the area that 
could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
 
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for 
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, 
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only 
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, 
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply 
denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not 
feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring 
that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be 
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities 
cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey 
data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 
20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, this denial of 
the application would result in no change
 
[[Page 33494]] in current environmental impacts. The 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action 
alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative 
is accordingly not further considered.
 
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action 
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the 
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred 
alternative.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this 
Environmental Assessment to the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection for review on March 30, 2006. On May 5, 
2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
responded by email. The State agreed with the conclusions of the 
EA, and otherwise had no comments.
 
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also 
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity 
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared 
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this 
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental 
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the 
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for license amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at .
 
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to 
this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession 
numbers.
 
1. NRC License No. 37-02766-01 inspection and licensing records.
 
2. Letter dated November 8, 2005, requesting that the MRI 
Building at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, be released for unrestricted use [ADAMS Accession 
No. ML053220642]. 3. Letter dated January 31, 2006, providing 
additional information for MRI Building Decommissioning at Fox 
Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [ADAMS Accession 
No. ML060340527]. 4. Letter dated February 2, 2006, providing 
additional information for MRI Building Decommissioning at Fox 
Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [ADAMS Accession 
No. ML060400106]. 5. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance.'' 6. Title 10 Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for 
License Termination.'' 7. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 
Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic 
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'' 8. NUREG-1496, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking 
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed 
Nuclear Facilities.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if 
there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents 
may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located 
at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 1st day of June 
2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pamela J. Henderson, Chief, Medical Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region I.
 
[FR Doc. E6-8976 Filed 6-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 AFP: France, Britain to work more closely on nuclear energy

 Fri Jun 9, 8:36 AM ET 
		 	 
PARIS (AFP) - France and Britain have announced that they will
work more closely in the civil nuclear field at a time when
London is widely expected to restart the country's atomic energy
programme. 

"We have agreed to explore in the short term and further develop
the opportunities of working together in the civil nuclear
field," the two countries said in a joint statement after a
summit in Paris.
 
"To that end we have agreed to establish a regular
Franco-British Nuclear Forum, involving representatives from
government, industry and technical experts."
 
The announcement comes weeks before the British government is
expected to publish a review into the country's future energy
needs to combat dwindling North Sea oil and gas reserves.
 
The report, ordered by Tony Blair
" /> Tony Blairlate last year, is tipped to propose the
construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants,
combined with renewable energy sources.
 
Blair signalled his stance on the matter last month when he said
that nuclear energy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance",
prompting immediate interest from at least one energy firm in
France.
 
France has invested heavily in atomic energy since the 1970s,
where nuclear reactors are the main source of electricity.
 
Britain currently has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most
of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing about 25 percent
of the country's electricity. Natural gas provides about 40
percent.
 
The two countries said Friday in the statement that the new
forum will provide "a vehicle to discuss Franco-British nuclear
co-operation, including research, skills, decommissioning and
waste management".
 
Greater ties will be established between the governments'
foreign affairs and industry ministries to help the process,
they added.
 
The announcement was among a wide number of agreements made in
the energy sector.
 
Both stated their commitment to ensuring greater security of
energy supply, including through diversification, both of which
are likely to figure prominently at next week's European Council
meeting in Brussels.
 
They agreed to call for "enhanced and more effective" dialogue
between the European Union
" /> European Unionand major energy-producing countries, transit
countries or major consumer countries, especially with Russia.
 
On climate change, they expressed their support for more
efficient and sustainable energy systems and pledged to push for
a new international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Any agreement should involve in particular emerging, fuel-hungry
economies like China and India, they added.
 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 36 Guardian Unlimited: Hanford Downwinders' Wait Hasn't Ended
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Friday June 9, 2006 6:31 PM
 	
AP Photo WAAS903 
By SHANNON DININNY 
Associated Press Writer 

RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) - At south-central Washington's Hanford
nuclear reservation, government workers continue cleaning up the
mess: clearing debris, tearing down buildings, and freeing soil
and groundwater of the toxic, radioactive brew left from 40
years of plutonium production for the nuclear weapons arsenal. 

Residents who have lived downwind of the site continue their
work as well - the work of waiting. 

Since 1990, more than 2,300 people have sued over health
problems they believe were caused by exposure to radioactive
emissions from Hanford over the years. 

A judge dismissed six of the 12 initial cases. A jury rejected
four more during two trials last year. Just two people, who
suffered from cancer, won damages against the government and the
contractors that managed the federal site at the time. The
awards totaled about $550,000. Both sides have appealed all of
the rulings. 

The government, meanwhile, has spent millions of dollars
defending the cases. For some, that point - and the plaintiffs'
lack of success at trial - would raise questions about the
viability of the remaining cases. 

But Darlene Martin, whose husband of 45 years died from cancer,
said the two victories give her hope. The losses are a ``slap in
the face'' to the people who are sick or who lost loved ones,
she said. 

``Why not take those millions of dollars and make restitution to
these people?'' Martin asked. ``I want them to say: 'Yes, we did
it, and yes, it did cause this cancer, and yes, it did kill your
husband.''' 

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.

Contractors operated reactors and other facilities that
historical documents say resulted in intentional and accidental
releases of toxic chemicals and radiation. 

Residents only learned of the emissions when the government
declassified thousands of documents in 1986. 

People in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and the Marshall Islands have
received compensation for being exposed to radiation during the
atomic buildup. Downwinders at the Hanford site have had a more
difficult time. 

``Most of the people who have been harmed by the nuclear weapons
program in the United States have received some kind of
compensation, one way or another,'' said Louise Roselle,
plaintiffs' attorney based in Cincinnati. 

But in Eastern Washington, ``the government refuses to recognize
the harm and has not compensated them,'' she said. ``That's hard
to explain.'' 

Health studies have offered differing opinions on whether
Hanford downwinders suffered substantial or chronic exposures
that threatened their health. 

The downwinder cases are largely based on the release of
iodine-131, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear weapons
production. 

Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid, which regulates the
body's metabolism. Most of the plaintiffs have thyroid
conditions, such as cancer, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism.

To succeed at trial, plaintiffs had to prove they were ``more
likely than not'' harmed by radioactive iodine gases released
during Hanford operations. 

That can be difficult to prove, in part because thyroid
disorders are not caused only by exposure to radiation. 
Richard Eymann, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the
two victories show downwinders with cancers can win their cases.

And attorneys learned a great deal from the losses, particularly
that they need to simplify their case. 

``We're very confident in retrying those cases and additional
cases, that we can prevail,'' he said. 

Attorneys for the contractors have said all along it is not
possible to link their clients' activities to the downwinders'
health. The government, which indemnified the contractors under
the Price-Anderson Act, must pay any damage awards. 

The verdicts proved that most of the claims have no merit, said
Kevin Van Wart, whose Chicago law firm is representing General
Electric Co., E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. and UNC Nuclear Inc. 

``For us, the prospect of a successful defense is only going to
get stronger - and the score is already 10-to-2,'' Van Wart
said. 

A new wrinkle was added in March, when a jury awarded more than
$553 million to more than 12,000 residents near the Rocky Flats
nuclear site outside of Denver. The jury ruled that Energy
Department contractors allowed plutonium from the weapons plant
to contaminate nearby land. 

Attorneys have said that state and federal laws will likely
limit the payout to $352 million, in a case that also dates back
16 years. The defendants plan to appeal. 

Regardless, the Colorado verdict should change the way the
federal government views its risk in downwinder cases, said
Roselle, who also was a plaintiffs' attorney in the Rocky Flats
case. 

If it were a corporation instead of the federal government, the
defendant might say, ``Maybe I need to limit my risk. Maybe I
need to settle these cases,'' Roselle said. 

Nothing in the Colorado case applies to Hanford, Van Wart
countered. The Rocky Flats case was a class-action case
involving property damage, while Hanford involves a series of
personal injury claims where the key issue is causation. 

A settlement offer remains on the table, Van Wart said. Under
the proposal, those with thyroid cancer who had met a set
threshold for exposure would receive $150,000. Those with
thyroid diseases or nodules would receive less, he said. 

Eymann called the settlement offer unworkable. By his
estimation, the total offer amounts to about $15 million -
nowhere near enough to cover his clients' medical bills. 

``I just know that the settlement figure would be less than we
would receive by verdicts overall,'' he said. 

Darlene Martin agrees. Her husband Dave, who grew up in the
small town of Connell northeast of Hanford, died last fall at
age 66. 

``We watched him die for nine years, inch by inch. In the end,
he couldn't see and he couldn't talk. All he could do was
squeeze my hand,'' she said. ``Dave made us promise that we
would not let this drop, that we would continue on, and I'm
keeping my promise.'' 

--- 
On the net: 
http://www.hanford.gov 
http://www.downwinders.com 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 37 Daily Advertiser: Atomic veterans to hold reunion in Pineville

www.theadvertiser.com - Lafayette, LA
 
  The reunion of the Atomic Veterans will be held 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. June 17 in Kees Park Convention Center on Hwy. 28 E and
Palmetto Street in Pineville.
 
Participants in all nuclear tests conducted since the first test
July 16, 1945 in Alamogordo, N.M. are eligible to attend,
according to member and Lafayette resident J.N. “Buz” Broussard.
Also eligible are nuclear munitions handlers, loaders and
fursers, as well as nuclear submariners, POWs in Japan, workers,
civilians at the nuclear manufacturing facilities and their
survivors.

Survivors of nuclear veterans may inquire as to the possibility
of delayed benefits and Dependents Indemnity Compensation on
behalf of deceased veterans whose deaths are linked to more than
24 forms of cancers and illnesses caused b y ionizing radiation
illnesses. The secret classification that once applied to
nuclear-related occupations has been lifted; veterans are now
free to apply for Veterans Administration benefits.

For further information, contact Rod Guidry, commander of the
National Association of Atomic Veterans, Louisiana Chapter at
(318) 473-9863 or visit naav.com.
 
Originally published June 9, 2006

 Copyright ©2006 The Advertiser
*****************************************************************
 38 News & Star: Leak let us down
       
Published on 09/06/2006

British Nuclear Group has admitted three charges brought by the 
Health and Safety Executive after 83,000 litres of radioactive 
material leaked from a fractured pipe in Sellafieldâ€™s Thorp 
reprocessing plant. 

Whitehaven magistrates have sent the case to crown court after 
deciding that their sentencing powers were not enough. 

Thorp is still shut following the leak, which is estimated to 
have cost Â£50 million. The long-term damage to west Cumbria 
could be even greater. 

West Cumbriaâ€™s reliance on the nuclear industry is well 
documented but incidents like this can only throw that 
relationship in doubt. 

The nuclear industry must prove its safety and competence. Thanks 
to this leak, British Nuclear Group has done itself and west 
Cumbria no favours. 

*****************************************************************
 39 IPS-English ENERGY: Not All See Enough Uranium
 
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:02:13 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS EU WD EN=20
ENERGY: Not All See Enough Uranium
By Julio Godoy

PARIS, Jun 9 (IPS) - Uncertainty hovers over the extent of uranium reserv=
es, and over the health and environmental impacts of nuclear power plants=
=2E

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Ec=
onomic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a group of 30 rich nations), cl=
aim in a new report that there is plenty of uranium to guarantee the futu=
re development of nuclear energy.

The report estimates that 4.7 million tonnes of conventional uranium can =
be mined for less than 130 dollars a kilogram, just above the current pri=
ce, to provide enough fuel for nuclear power plants for the next 85 years=
=2E

But the report suggests that more uranium is around for mining at a highe=
r price. =94Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phos=
phates, the study estimates that more than 35 million tonnes are availabl=
e for exploitation.=94

Luis E. Ech=E1varri, director of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, who toge=
ther with Yuri Solokov of the IAEA presented the report in Paris eariler =
this month, said uranium producing countries such as Niger, Brazil, Austr=
alia and Namibia have reported new deposits of the material.

=94There is likely enough uranium to fuel nuclear power plants for the ne=
xt 150 years,=94 Ech=E1varri said. =94In other words, if any country want=
s to launch a new nuclear energy programme, because of security of other =
energy supply or climate change concerns, uranium resources are not a lim=
iting factor.=94

The promotion of nuclear power remains controversial. Germany and Sweden =
have decided to phase out their present nuclear power plants, but others =
such as Finland and France have launched construction of new reactors. A =
handful of other countries, including Britain, China, India and the Unite=
d States are planning to build new ones.

The IAEA-OECD report, also known as the 'Red book' of uranium market evol=
ution, claims that =94continuing advances in nuclear technology will allo=
w a substantially better utilisation of the uranium resources. Reactor de=
signs are being developed and tested that are capable of extracting more =
than 30 times the energy from uranium than today's reactors.=94

The report adds that for these expectations to be fulfilled, =94a continu=
ed strong market and sustained high prices (for uranium) will be necessar=
y for resources to be developed within the timeframe required to meet ura=
nium demand.=94 That means that construction of new reactors is essential=
  for the agencies' forecasts to be met.

Opponents of nuclear power dismiss these claims as propaganda to boost th=
e construction of new nuclear reactors.

Stephane Lhomme, spokesperson for the French network of anti-nuclear orga=
nisations =94Sortir du nucl=E9aire=94 (Phase out nuclear power) told IPS =
that =94similar affirmations have been made for decades, based on the hop=
e that technological advances in nuclear power technology such as the so-=
called 'fast breeder reactors' would provide for uranium eternally.=94

Fast breeder reactors are supposed to produce more uranium than they cons=
ume, providing, theoretically, for an everlasting supply of nuclear fuel.=
  But such reactors need a special cooling medium, and no effective medium=
  has been found yet.

So far, Lhomme said, these technological advances have been a fiasco. =94=
Although the fast breeder reactor technology has been in use for decades,=
  no reactor of this type functions regularly today.=94

Reactors of this kind are functioning in Russia but without producing ele=
ctricity that is cost-effective, given the costs of running and cooling t=
he plant.

The French fast breeder reactor Superph=E9nix was disconnected in 1996 af=
ter more than 10 years of tests, several major accidents, and without eve=
r producing a usable watt of electricity, Lhomme said. It was officially =
shut down in 1997.

The French accounts office says the reactor cost more than 11 billion dol=
lars. It left a heavy radioactive heritage yet to be disposed of.

Lhomme said independent estimations of uranium reserves vary between 50 a=
nd 150 years. =94But if generation of nuclear power increases by, say, 20=
  percent, uranium resources would last only a coupe of decades.

Silva Herrmann, researcher at the Austrian environmental organisation Glo=
bal 2000 says estimations rest on too many projections to permit accuracy=
=2E

=94If we assume that nuclear power would grow linearly starting in 2010, =
the world's nuclear reactors online by 2030 would have consumed some 4.5 =
million tons of uranium,=94 she said. =94That would represent the total u=
ranium reserves estimated today in the OECD/IAEA Red book.=94

In such a scenario the nuclear reactors constructed after 2010 would not =
be rentable. =94The new reactors would run out of fuel a decade or so bef=
ore the huge investment needed for their construction had been paid off,=94=
  Herrmann said.

In addition, she said, extraction of uranium is associated with enormous =
environmental and health risks.

=94To obtain 33 tons of uranium exploitable as nuclear combustible, you h=
ave to extract 440,000 tons of uranium from mines,=94 she said. =94At the=
  end of the mining and transformation process, you can use less than 1 pe=
rcent of the total amount extracted originally. More than 99 percent of t=
he material mined first is toxic waste.=94

The health consequence of this exercise can be serious, she said. =94The =
mining and processing of uranium produces as a side effect radon, a cance=
r provoking gas.=94

The average presence of radon in Western European countries such as Germa=
ny is about 50 Becquerel per cubic metre (bq/m) of air, Herrmann said. =94=
In places were uranium mines exist, the radon concentration reaches some =
3,000 bq/m, sometimes even up to 100,000 bq/m.=94

In the former German Democratic Republic, where uranium mines were exploi=
ted from 1946 until 1990, more than 7,000 mine workers died of lung cance=
r due to contamination with radon, Herrmann said. (END/IPS/EU/WD/EN/JG/SS=
/06)



=20
=3D 06091244 ORP009
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield faces stiff penalty after admitting safety breach
 
Terry Macalister and David Adam

Friday June 9, 2006
The Guardian 		 

The operator of the Sellafield nuclear plant being prepared for
privatisation by the government faces an unlimited fine after
pleading guilty yesterday to safety breaches following a
radioactive leak.

The case against British Nuclear Group was referred to Carlisle
crown court for sentencing on July 7 after magistrates at
Whitehaven decided the accident deserved a stiffer penalty than
the £15,000 they could impose.

Acid containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of
plutonium escaped from a damaged pipe at the thermal oxide
reprocessing plant, Thorp, at the Sellafield site, about 11
miles south of Whitehaven in Cumbria. The spillage at the UK's
largest atomic complex was discovered by BNG officials in April
2005 but is understood to have gone unnoticed for eight months
before that.
 			 		 			 			Article continues
The accident has cost £50m and the facility remains out of action 
although BNG hopes it will be able to obtain regulatory approval 
to restart the facility later this summer.

BNG, which is to be sold to the private sector next year, told
the court that all the leaked radioactive material had been
contained within Thorp, that no one had been injured, and that
there had been no risk to the public.

Later it said in a statement: "We deeply regret the incident and
have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by the HSE. This
matter has been referred to the crown court for sentencing and
clearly we cannot comment on the details of the case while legal
proceedings are under way."

An inquiry report into the accident makes clear that the
breaches relate to failures by the company to make and comply
with written instructions, and ensure that safety systems were
in good working order and leaks were detected.

Martin Forwood, a spokesman for Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive
Environment, said: "BNG's own investigation into the accident
admitted significant levels of negligence and incompetence by
Thorp workers as ... contributing to the accident."
 
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 Alamogordo Daily News: WIPP finds one supporter 

BY WALTER RUBEL SANTA FE BUREAU CHIEF

Jun 9, 2006, 04:30 pm 

SANTA FE -- A nuclear chemist said he supported proposed permit
changes for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, but he was the only
supporter at a public hearing Thursday morning.

The state Environment Department published proposed changes to
the WIPP permit in November, 2005. Under the changes, WIPP would
be allowed to accept remote-handled waste. The changes also
modify waste characterization and the volume of waste stored and
disposed of at WIPP.

A public hearing on the proposed changes began May 31 in
Carlsbad, and will continue through today in Santa Fe. Hearing
examiner Rip Harwood said he would make a recommendation to
Environment Secretary Ron Curry after listening to all of the
public comments.

Three sessions were held Thursday. At the morning session,
Roberto Villarreal, a nuclear chemist from Los Alamos National
Laboratory who has also worked at a nuclear production facility
in Idaho, supported the proposed changes.

He said storing the waste at WIPP would be much safer than
storing it on the site where it was generated, as is being done
now.

"Most of the remote-handled waste that will be going to WIPP has
been around for 20 or 30 years," Villarreal said. "It's much
safer to take it out of the generation sites. The safest place
for this is the WIPP site."

Villarreal said he participated in an eight-year study at LANL
on the effect the nuclear waste is expected to have over the
years on the brine in WIPP site. He said there would be no
long-term migration from the site.

Those who opposed the permit changes expressed concerns that go
far beyond WIPP and the possible impact the changes could have
on the environment of the area. They were concerned that the
changes could lead to greater proliferation of both nuclear
energy and weapons.

"I don't think we should be accepting waste from outside of New
Mexico," said Marlene Perrott of the Partnership for Earth
Spirituality. "The generating plants should find a way to take
care of their own waste. If they don't, we should have a
moratorium."

Julie Sutherland said she was afraid that New Mexico would
become the nation's nuclear dumping ground. "I'm concerned that
these shipments will be the small pox blankets of the new
millennium," she said.

Marilyn Holt said the waste being considered is for WIPP is
potentially deadly. And, she said this could be a "foot in the
door" in case plans to dispose of stronger waste at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada fall through.

Harwood said he appreciated those "global" concerns, but said
his focus was on the specific changes in the permit.

Environment Secretary Ron Curry said last month that the
proposed changes were arrived at after lengthy negotiations with
a variety of stake holders. He said a final decision won't be
made until after a review and evaluation of the public comments.

A draft of the proposed permit modifications is available at
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/wipp/

Walter Rubel can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com.
         
2005 Alamogordo Daily-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 42 Salt Lake Tribune: Appeals court rules in favor of nuclear reactor
foes 

Article Last Updated: 06/09/2006 12:33:24 AM MDT 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

An appeals court ruling in California last week has brought 
new hope for Utah lawyers fighting proposed nuclear reactor 
waste storage in Skull Valley. 

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 
ruled Friday in favor of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 
and the Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club, which insisted 
that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should analyze the 
environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on an oceanside 
nuclear waste storage site on California's Central Coast. 

Several times the judges mentioned the commission's arguments 
against undertaking a similar study for the proposed Skull 
Valley site in Tooele County. Over the objections of the State 
of Utah and others, that site received a license last year to 
store up to 44,000 tons of high-level radioactive reactor waste 
in 4,000 steel and concrete containers. 

Three times in the agency's eight-year review of Skull 
Valley the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rebuffed Utah's 
requests to examine terrorist risks. Basically, the commission 
said such an attack is too unlikely to be considered a threat. 

The appeals court judges said it didn't make sense for the 
agency to say, on the one hand, it takes terrorism seriously, 
and on the other that it won't allow the question to be 
discussed as part of the environmental review process. 

"It appears as though the NRC is attempting, as a matter of 
policy, to insist on its preparedness and the seriousness with 
which it is responding to the post-Sept. 11 terrorist threat, 
while concluding, as a matter of law, that all terrorist threats 
are remote and highly speculative," wrote Judge Sidney Thomas in 
the 9th Circuit Court opinion. 

Assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor said 
Wednesday the commission's reasoning in both cases was 
identical, and she hinted that the Washington, D.C., appeals 
court judges now considering the state's appeal of the Skull 
Valley license might have a similar outcome. 

The Skull Valley project is a joint enterprise of the Skull 
Valley Band of Goshute Indians, which is housing the storage 
site on its reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, 
and Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of utility companies. 

fahys@sltrib.com 
*****************************************************************
 43 AU: Mining Environmental Management: Nuclear waste welcome here?

Australia has the right combination of factors

Australia is being suggested as the most logical choice of
dumping ground for the worldâ€™s nuclear waste.

This view was promoted by one of the countries own nuclear
physicists, Dr Geoff Hudson, at the 2006 Uranium Conference in
Adelaide last month, as the only international solution for the
disposal of waste when all the key factors have been taken into
account.

Dr Hudson told delegates that, even with economic favours aside,
there was no sound reason for Australia â€œnot to do the world a
favourâ€.

â€œFrom our own self-interest first, it is safer for Australia
if we store world nuclear waste here than have it sitting
somewhere else over a fault line where the risk of accident and
biosphere release is high.

â€œWorldwide nuclear waste to date is 200,000 tonnes in total,
but it is dense and could all be stored on just a few hectares
of land around 20 metres high. This is miniscule.

â€œRealistically, there are only several potential storage sites
that should be considered in terms of sovereign stability,
geographic stability, and high difficulty factors for terrorist
access and transport minimisation.

â€œThe Yucca area 140 kilometres from Las Vegas in the United
States is on a fault line and too close to too much
infrastructure; the areas of the Pacific Rim are too high risk;
Europe is out because you would need Geiger counters at every
checkpoint; yet Australia outperforms on all these factors.

â€œWe offer the stable geographic plates, it only needs one
small calm port and the shipments would be confined to single
ship visits.â€

Economically, Dr Hudson said an Australia nuclear storage area
could earn as much as A$750 million a year from the United
States; double that if it took all of Europeâ€™s nuclear waste;
or somewhere near A$20 billion in revenue in 10-15 years.

The nuclear industry in the US already pays 0.1 cents per
kilowatt hour to fund disposal measures so the potential revenue
stream is already being generated,â€ Dr Hudson said.

â€œThe secret to public acceptance pf nuclear issues is to
oppose fuel enrichment and fuel reprocessing as these are the
only technological links between nuclear power and the
development of nuclear weapons,â€ Dr Hudson said.

â€œWe need our leaders to pursue these issues with the nuclear
users overseas.â€ (April 10) 					
 					

+     All Content Copyright Mining Journal 2006, all rights
*****************************************************************
 44 IPS: ENERGY: Not All See Enough Uranium

Inter Press Service News Agency     Saturday, June 10, 2006

Julio Godoy 
							 
PARIS, Jun 9 (IPS) - Uncertainty hovers over the extent of 
uranium reserves, and over the health and environmental impacts 
of nuclear power plants. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a 
group of 30 rich nations), claim in a new report that there is 
plenty of uranium to guarantee the future development of nuclear 
energy.

 The report estimates that 4.7 million tonnes of conventional 
uranium can be mined for less than 130 dollars a kilogram, just 
above the current price, to provide enough fuel for nuclear power 
plants for the next 85 years.

 But the report suggests that more uranium is around for mining 
at a higher price. "Based on geological evidence and knowledge of 
uranium in phosphates, the study estimates that more than 35 
million tonnes are available for exploitation."

 Luis E. Echávarri, director of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency,
who together with Yuri Solokov of the IAEA presented the report
in Paris eariler this month, said uranium producing countries
such as Niger, Brazil, Australia and Namibia have reported new
deposits of the material.

 "There is likely enough uranium to fuel nuclear power plants
for the next 150 years," Echávarri said. "In other words, if any
country wants to launch a new nuclear energy programme, because
of security of other energy supply or climate change concerns,
uranium resources are not a limiting factor."

 The promotion of nuclear power remains controversial. Germany
and Sweden have decided to phase out their present nuclear power
plants, but others such as Finland and France have launched
construction of new reactors. A handful of other countries,
including Britain, China, India and the United States are
planning to build new ones.

 The IAEA-OECD report, also known as the 'Red book' of uranium
market evolution, claims that "continuing advances in nuclear
technology will allow a substantially better utilisation of the
uranium resources. Reactor designs are being developed and
tested that are capable of extracting more than 30 times the
energy from uranium than today's reactors."

 The report adds that for these expectations to be fulfilled, "a
continued strong market and sustained high prices (for uranium)
will be necessary for resources to be developed within the
timeframe required to meet uranium demand." That means that
construction of new reactors is essential for the agencies'
forecasts to be met.

 Opponents of nuclear power dismiss these claims as propaganda
to boost the construction of new nuclear reactors.

 Stephane Lhomme, spokesperson for the French network of
anti-nuclear organisations "Sortir du nucléaire" (Phase out
nuclear power) told IPS that "similar affirmations have been
made for decades, based on the hope that technological advances
in nuclear power technology such as the so-called 'fast breeder
reactors' would provide for uranium eternally."

 Fast breeder reactors are supposed to produce more uranium than
they consume, providing, theoretically, for an everlasting
supply of nuclear fuel. But such reactors need a special cooling
medium, and no effective medium has been found yet.

 So far, Lhomme said, these technological advances have been a
fiasco. "Although the fast breeder reactor technology has been
in use for decades, no reactor of this type functions regularly
today."

 Reactors of this kind are functioning in Russia but without
producing electricity that is cost-effective, given the costs of
running and cooling the plant.

 The French fast breeder reactor Superphénix was disconnected in
1996 after more than 10 years of tests, several major accidents,
and without ever producing a usable watt of electricity, Lhomme
said. It was officially shut down in 1997.

 The French accounts office says the reactor cost more than 11
billion dollars. It left a heavy radioactive heritage yet to be
disposed of.

 Lhomme said independent estimations of uranium reserves vary
between 50 and 150 years. "But if generation of nuclear power
increases by, say, 20 percent, uranium resources would last only
a coupe of decades.

 Silva Herrmann, researcher at the Austrian environmental
organisation Global 2000 says estimations rest on too many
projections to permit accuracy.

 "If we assume that nuclear power would grow linearly starting
in 2010, the world's nuclear reactors online by 2030 would have
consumed some 4.5 million tons of uranium," she said. "That
would represent the total uranium reserves estimated today in
the OECD/IAEA Red book."

 In such a scenario the nuclear reactors constructed after 2010
would not be rentable. "The new reactors would run out of fuel a
decade or so before the huge investment needed for their
construction had been paid off," Herrmann said.

 In addition, she said, extraction of uranium is associated with
enormous environmental and health risks.

 "To obtain 33 tons of uranium exploitable as nuclear
combustible, you have to extract 440,000 tons of uranium from
mines," she said. "At the end of the mining and transformation
process, you can use less than one percent of the total amount
extracted originally. More than 99 percent of the material mined
first is toxic waste."

 The health consequence of this exercise can be serious, she
said. "The mining and processing of uranium produces as a side
effect radon, a cancer provoking gas."

 The average presence of radon in Western European countries
such as Germany is about 50 Becquerel per cubic metre (bq/m) of
air, Herrmann said. "In places were uranium mines exist, the
radon concentration reaches some 3,000 bq/m, sometimes even up
to 100,000 bq/m."

 In the former German Democratic Republic, where uranium mines
were exploited from 1946 until 1990, more than 7,000 mine
workers died of lung cancer due to contamination with radon,
Herrmann said. (END/2006) 

  Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 News & Star: Sellafield firm faces big Thorp leak fine
 						
Published on 09/06/2006

By staff reporter
 
SELLAFIELD operators British Nuclear Group have admitted three 
charges brought by the Health and Safety Executive following a 
massive radioactive leak which went undetected at the Thorp plant 
for months.
 
The company pleaded guilty to breaching the Sellafield site 
licence conditions when it appeared at Whitehaven Magistrates 
Court yesterday.
 
It now faces an unlimited fine after magistrates decided that 
their sentencing powers were not enough. They could only fine BNG 
up to Â£15,000 â€“ based on a maximum of Â£5,000 per charge - and 
have sent the case to crown court, where there is no upper limit 
on what the company can be fined.
 
The charges relate to the leak of 83,000 litres of highly 
radioactive liquor from a fractured pipe within the Feed 
Clarification Cell at Thorp. It had gone undetected for nine 
months.
 
The Â£1.8bn reprocessing plant is still shut following the 
incident. Lesley Latham, on behalf of the HSE, told the court 
that they were notified of the incident on April 20 last year, 
although it was discovered the previous day.
 
She said: â€œThis is a very serious case in which BNG, as the 
site operator and licence holders, fell well below the standard 
required.â€
 
Under the conditions of the Nuclear Installations Act (1965)
BNG, as Thorpâ€™s operator, is required to make and comply with
written instructions; to ensure safety systems are in good
working order and to ensure radioactive material is contained
and, if leaks occur, to make sure they are detected and
reported. 

Andrew Carr, for BNG, said that the company accepted the
evidence as presented by the HSE, but claimed that the leak had
presented no risk to health and safety or to the environment. 

BNG said in a statement, â€œWe deeply regret the incident and
have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by the HSE. This
matter has been referred to the Crown Court for sentencing and
clearly we cannot comment on the details of the case whilst
legal proceedings are underway.â€ 

Since the leak, estimated to have cost Â£50million, BNG has been
giving Thorp staff training in â€œbehaviour and technical
mattersâ€.
 
Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive
Environment, said: â€œWe trust that the Crown Court hands down
the tough penalties that such a case deserves.â€
 
The case was adjourned until July 7. 

AThompson@cngroup.co.uk
 
*****************************************************************
 46 Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR WASTE OFFICE 

June 9, 2006

Commissioners turn aside bids for no-bid contracts 
COUNTY MAKING OFFER FOR ON-SITE OVERSIGHT 

By MARK WAITE PVT 

Dale Hammermeister, who recently stepped down as director of the
Nye County Nuclear Waste and Federal Facilities Office, was
rebuffed by Nye County commissioners Tuesday when he requested a
no-bid $95,000 consulting contract to continue overseeing the
nuclear waste program.

 "I do have concerns with this. The person didn't want to be
manager, they were leaving the area, now we're going to enter
into a high dollar contract," Nye County Commissioner Patricia
Cox said.

 Cox added the only way to build the local economy is to have
people living in the community. Hammermeister's firm, GeoSystems
Analysis Inc., is based in Reno.

 "It'd be pretty difficult for us to competitively bid this
piece of work because of Dr. Hammermeister's unique knowledge
about what needs to be done," said Dave Swanson, acting director
of the Nye County Nuclear Waste and Federal Facilities Office.

 "We're over a barrel because we have no one overseeing the
science in this program," Commissioner Joni Eastley said.

 Cox said the county should go out for proposals. If no one else
applies, commissioners can hire Hammermeister's firm, she said.

 A $60,000 non-competitive bid by his wife Susy Hammermeister
for nuclear oversight was also denied.

 "To say no one is qualified in the United States is stretching
it," Cox said. "It's not just handing over a cushy contract to
an inside firm."

 Eastley said county officials should consider hiring a manager
for the office to fill Hammermeister's place.

 Swanson said the county is making an offer to an individual to
be the on-site representative for that job. In addition, Swanson
assured Eastley, "We have a talented group of scientists to
assist us."

 The county has received applications from 13 individuals
interested in the Nuclear Waste and Federal Facilities Office
manager position, which have been forwarded to a committee
consisting of Interim County Manager Ron Williams, Interim
Assistant County Manager Rick Marshall and Swanson.

 But Nye County Commissioner Gary Hollis, the county
commission's liaison on nuclear waste, recommended Swanson not
be part of the review committee.

 After the request was turned down, Swanson told commissioners,
"Dale could've completed this work a lot more efficiently."

 Swanson's memo stated Hammermeister had been instrumental in
defining the roles and objectives of the Independent Science
Investigation Program for the past five years.

 The program is in the last year of a five-year cooperative
program with the U.S. department of Energy.

 Swanson said Hammermeister had also been working on several
technical projects.

 Some of Hammermeister's work would have included technical
reports on groundwater impacts in the Lathrop Wells area, plans
for alternate sources of long-term funding of scientific work to
assess Yucca Mountain impacts and a technical review of strategy
AND planning documents.

 Susy Hammermeister would have edited documents to meet industry
and agency standards on the Community Protection Plan, Amargosa
Desert Village concept plan, public safety cooperative
agreement, and the economic benefits study of the proposed
Nevada rail and other work.

 While the Hammermeisters' bids weren't approved, Nye County
Commissioners approved a contract not to exceed $250,000 with
the Nevada Environmental Monitoring and Research Institute, or
NEMRI, to study impacts to the county's nuclear waste repository
program from President Bush's proposed Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership.

 The president's proposal would promote nuclear energy to meet
growing electricity demands by having nations with secure
nuclear capabilities provide fresh fuel and recycled fuel to
other nations who agree to use nuclear energy for generating
power.

 The emphasis on recycling nuclear fuel may delay the Yucca
Mountain program, according to Swanson's memo to commissioners.

 "There's a lot of people who think the recycling of nuclear
fuel makes Yucca Mountain obsolete, and it doesn't," said Don
Baepler, founder and director of NEMRI.

 Baepler said a demonstration project on recycling nuclear waste
in Pahrump would be a 20-year project. He said 98 percent of the
energy in the spent fuel rods is still available for recycling.
The radioactive material has a 300- to 500-year half-life,
Baepler said.

 "This process does not produce pure plutonium. So it would be
very difficult for anyone to convert it into weapons grade,"
Baepler said.

For comment or questions, please e-mail 
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 47 Guardian Unlimited: DOE Computers Hacked; Info on 1,500 Taken
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 9, 2006 10:46 PM
 	
By H. JOSEF HEBERT 
Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A hacker stole a file containing the names and
Social Security numbers of 1,500 people working for the Energy
Department's nuclear weapons agency. 

But in the incident last September, somewhat similar to recent
problems at the Veterans Affairs Department, senior officials
were informed only two days ago, officials told a congressional
hearing Friday. None of the victims was notified, they said. 

The data theft occurred in a computer system at a service center
belonging to the National Nuclear Security Administration in
Albuquerque, N.M. The file contained information about contract
workers throughout the agency's nuclear weapons complex, a
department spokesman said. 

NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks told a House hearing that he
learned of the security break late last September, but did not
inform Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman about it. It had occurred
earlier that month. 

Brooks blamed a misunderstanding for the failure to inform
either Bodman or Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell about the
security breach. Brooks' NNSA is a semiautonomous agency within
the department and he said he assumed DOE's counterintelligence
office would have briefed the two senior officials. 

``That's hogwash,'' Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, told Brooks. ``You report directly to the
secretary. You meet with him or the deputy every day. ... You
had a major breach of your own security and yet you didn't
inform the secretary.'' 

Bodman first learned of the theft two days ago, according to his
spokesman, Craig Stevens. 

``He's deeply disturbed by the way this was handled,'' Stevens
said. He said Bodman has asked the department inspector general
to investigate why the security breach was not made known
sooner. 

Barton, R-Texas, called for Brooks' resignation because of his
failure to inform Bodman and other senior DOE officials of the
security failure. 

The House Energy and Commerce oversight and investigations
subcommittee learned of the security lapse late Thursday, on the
eve of its hearing on DOE cyber security, said Rep. Ed

Whitfield, R-Ky., chairman of the panel. 

The issue dominated lawmakers' questioning of DOE officials at
the hearing. After an open session, the subcommittee continued
questioning Brooks and other officials about it at a closed
session because of the security implications. 

Although the compromised data file was in the NNSA's
unclassified computer system - and not part of a more secure
classified network that contains nuclear weapons data - the DOE
officials would provide only scant information about the
incident during the public hearing. 

Brooks said the file contained names, Social Security numbers,
date-of-birth information, a code where the employees worked and
codes showing their security clearances. A majority of the
individuals worked for contractors and the list was compiled as
part of their security clearance processing, he said. 

Tom Pyke, DOE's official charged with cyber security, said he
learned of the incident only a few days ago. He said the hacker,
who obtained the data file, penetrated a number of security
safeguards in obtaining access to the system. 

Stevens said Bodman, upon learning of the incident, directed
that the individuals be immediately told their information had
been compromised. 

Brooks acknowledged that no attempt was made to notify the
individuals until now. He declined to elaborate because of
security concerns, but indicated he could tell the lawmakers
more in the closed session. 

``If somebody got that information from your file, wouldn't you
be a little concerned if nobody told you?'' Rep. Diane DeGette,
D-Colo., asked Brooks. 

``Of course I would,'' he replied. 

The Energy Department spends $140 million a year on cyber
security, Gregory Friedman, the DOE's inspector general, told
the committee. But he said that while improvements have been
made, ``significant weaknesses continue to exist,'' making the
unclassified computer system vulnerable to hackers. 

Last fall, a so-called ``Red Team'' of DOE computer specialists
- seeking to test the security safeguards - succeeded in hacking
into and gaining control of a DOE facility's computer system,
the panel was told. 

``We had access to sensitive data including financial and
personal data.... We basically had domain control,'' said Glenn
Podonsky, director of DOE's Security and Safety Performance
Assessment. ``We were able to get passwords, go from one account
to another.'' 

Podonsky did not name the facility. 

But in response to questioning, he said that during the test it
was learned that an actual penetration of a DOE computer system
had occurred, leading to the theft of the files containing
information about the 1,500 contract workers. 
--- 
On the Net: 
Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov 
National Nuclear Security Administration:
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 48 Hanford Watch

, Portland, Oregon

Introduction 

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste
dump in the Western Hemisphere and a major Northwest
environmental issue. It is a serious long-term threat to the
Columbia River, which Oregon depends on for power generation,
farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation. (more)
 

Mission
 
Our mission is to educate the public on Hanford cleanup issues,
and work to increase public participation in the Hanford
decision making process. 

Web links
 
















Office of River Protection
 




HW president 
Website by 
    
Hanford cleanup needs stable funding, better management
 Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, May 26
 The cleanup of the 580 square miles of Hanford Nuclear
Reservation concerns everyone in the Pacific Northwest. We would
like Congress to support stable funding for all Hanford cleanup
activities. We cannot achieve success without stability. 

The greatest environmental threat facing the nation, 54 million
gallons of high-level toxic waste sitting adjacent to the
Columbia River in Hanford's tanks, pose a greater risk to the
public and to the environment as each year passes. Sixty-seven
tanks out of the 177 buried tanks have been known to leak in the
past, threatening the Columbia River again (which was the most
irradiated river in the Western Hemisphere in the 1980s).
Eventually all tanks will leak.
 
Due to the Department of Energy's poor management of Hanford for
many years, and due to Bechtel's underestimation of the cost of
the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) and its fast track build/design
approach which compromises safety, the project is 11 years
behind schedule and the cost has nearly doubled from $4.3
billion to over $11 billion. If the Waste Treatment Plant is not
built in a timely fashion the Columbia River, the life-blood of
the Northwest, will eventually become poisoned. The Government
Accounting Office (GAO) has recommended that Bechtel slow down
its design/build fast tracking of the project and that DOE
change its management approach. The GAO has made this last
recommendation many times in the past to no avail.
 
Other serious problems exist. Currently, the completion of the
work at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), an old plutonium
processing plant and the K Basins (two very toxic buildings
housing spent nuclear fuel rods from the 9 Hanford reactors) has
been set back because of reduced funding. We are very concerned
that curtailing funding will compromise the clean up of the K
Basins and the PFP, two of the three biggest threats to public
and environmental safety. Limiting funding now will result in
much higher costs in the future. (more)
     
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting on New Reactor
Issues
 Dennis Spurgeon, Asst. Sec. for Nuclear Energy, April 27
 Program Goal: Pave the way for industry decisions to build new
advanced light water reactor nuclear plants in the United States
that will begin operation early in the next decade. ()
 

Hanford tank waste plant must be built right 
Tom Carpenter & Robert Alvarez, Seattle Times, May 25
 The Hanford nuclear site in Southeastern Washington is back in
the news, this time regarding serious program breakdowns in the
safety and inspection systems at the Department of Energy's
Hanford waste-treatment plant, a project intended to process 55
million gallons of highly radioactive waste stored in 177 tanks,
one-third of which have leaked a significant amount of waste
into soil and groundwater that feeds the nearby Columbia River.
()
 

Nuke waste site calamity reflects industrial crisis
 Megan Tady, The NewStandard, May 9, 2006
 May 9 – Residents of the Pacific Northwest are alarmed that
about one million gallons of nuclear waste have seeped from
tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington
State to form an underground plume that is inching toward the
Columbia River. But the environmental destruction is only the
beginning of their worries. (more) 


Update on Plutonium Finishing Plant cleanup
 Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, April 30, 2006
 One of the original concerns of Hanford Watch in the early
1990s was the disposition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant
(PFP). One of the first Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
hearings Hanford Watch helped get the public to was on this very
issue, how to stabilize PFP's 18 metric tons of plutonium
bearing materials (half-life 24,500 years). This was one of the
three worst nightmares facing the Department of Energy (DOE) in
the U.S. weapons complex. (The other two were the K-Basins at
Hanford located 400 yards from the Columbia River and the 177
tanks of highly radioactive waste.) (more) 
  
*****************************************************************
 49 Knox News: Energy official to visit OR

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

June 9, 2006                          
                                  
OAK RIDGE - Clay Sell, the U.S. deputy secretary of energy, will 
tour the government's Oak Ridge facilities today and receive 
briefings from federal officials here, a spokesman confirmed 
Thursday. 

It reportedly will be Sell's first visit to Oak Ridge since he 
was sworn in as the Department of Energy's No. 2 officer in March 
2005. 

Before joining the U.S. Department of Energy, where he
also serves as the agency's chief operating officer, Sell was
President Bush's special assistant for legislative affairs. He
promoted the president's legislative agenda in the U.S. Senate,
with a primary focus on energy policy, natural sources, budget
and appropriations, according to a White House press statement. 

"We're honored to have him here for the day," said John
Shewairy, DOE's public affairs director in Oak Ridge. 

Shewairy confirmed Sell's visit but offered few details, other
than to say that Sell would visit the Spallation Neutron Source
- the $1.4 billion research center that recently produced its
first neutrons - and other facilities at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. He said Sell also would visit the nearby Y-12
National Security Complex. 

No public appearances are planned, Shewairy said. 

"He's just going to get a couple of briefings on the Oak Ridge
missions and operations," he said. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
 					
    © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************