*****************************************************************
06/20/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.146
*****************************************************************
   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 [NYTr] US Spurned Iranian Overtures in 2003
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Weighing Response to Nuclear Offer
3 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad 'has 70% approval rating'
4 Guardian Unlimited: Bush wrongfooted as Iran steps up international 
5 Guardian Unlimited: EU offers Iran last-minute nuclear talks
6 Reuters: Bush seeking EU resolve on Iran, to hear grumbles
7 IRNA: Turkish FM backs Iran's right to nuclear energy 
8 AFP: Iran still undecided on West's nuclear offer - foreign minister
9 AFP: Bush heads for Europe with tough stance on Iran 
10 AFP: Bush heads for Europe with tough stance on Iran
11 IRNA: EU regards statements from Iran as "encouraging" 
12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Gives Iran an Ultimatum on Uranium
13 [NYTr] US Activates Missile "Defense," Citing N.Korean Test
14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Doesn't Address Missile Plans
15 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Declares Right to Test Missiles
16 RIA Novosti: Putin aide dismisses N.Korean missile reports as "psych
17 Comment is free: North Korea tweaks the tiger's tail
18 IPS-English POLITICS-US: Strategy Paper Reveals Bush Won't
19 US: Washington Post: Early Warning 
20 IRNA: Beckett declines to raise Israel's nuclear weapons with Livni 
21 American Enterprise: Lessons of the Nuclear Age
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
22 US: [NukeNet] Thorium Reactors - A New Type of Nuclear Reactor
23 US: NRC: NRC Creates New Office of National Materials Program, Reorg
24 TorontoSun.com: Ontario energy plan ripped
25 US: Fredericksburg.com: Public gains time with reactor plan
26 US: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings
27 RIA Novosti: Putin orders government to launch national technology p
28 BBC: Nuclear power 'stings' taxpayers
29 IndianExpress.com: N-deal approval unlikely this year
30 Platts: Dutch utility Delat investigates new nuclear build
31 Independent: N-plants can be built without subsidy, British Energy i
32 TheStar.com: Watchdog blasts nuclear plan
33 ePolitix.com: Nuclear power 'a bad deal for the taxpayer'
34 US: NRC: Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2; Notice of Consideratio
35 US: NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement
36 Telegraph: Profits power ahead for nuclear group
37 US: The Day: Millstone Permit Process Upheld  
38 US: The Day: Irradiated Milk Claim Disputed  
39 NEWS.com.au: Call for 'safer' nuclear fuel - Energy Crisis - 
40 Guardian Unlimited: 'Nuclear will cost billions'
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
41 RIA Novosti: Ex-minister Adamov's defense files case vs. prosecutors
42 Platts: US-Russia threat reduction program extended another seven 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
43 UBC: RosAtom to give 2.5 times more subsidies to solve 
44 US: CBS: Heroes Of The Cold War Out In The Cold, Many Workers Who De
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
45 US: Platts: NRC might issue exemption in July, allowing OPPD to load
46 reviewjournal.com: 19 vehicles removed from Yucca fleet
47 Tallahassee Democrat: Yucca holds a key to clean energy
48 SNP: SNP Warns Against Scotland Becoming Nuclear Dump  
49 US: TimesUnion.com: Agency forecasts cleanup stoppage 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
50 New on Tri-Valley CAREs' website June 19, 2006
51 AP Wire: Top nuke official hopes MOX program at SRS will make stride
52 Las Vegas SUN: Mixed signals received on Test Site blast 
53 Tri-City Herald: Group says DOE should consider restarting FFTF 
54 WATE: K-29 demolition going as planned in Oak Ridge
55 KnoxNews: DOE postpones pension change plan
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] US Spurned Iranian Overtures in 2003
 
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:41:55 -0400 (EDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Tim Murphy (activ-l)

Jerusalem Post - Jun 17, 2006
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150355517833

US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003

By JPost.com Staff

Officials in US President George W. Bush's administration turned down a 2003
Iranian offer to begin talks with the US, recognize Israel, and end support
of Palestinian terror organizations, The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The proposal, which arrived via fax along with a letter of authentication by
a Swiss ambassador, was ignored. Reports have circulated in the past that
Iran had extended its hand to the US, but the document itself was only
recently obtained by the Post - reportedly from Iranian sources - and
confirmed as genuine by both American and Iranian officials.

Former administration officials said that in failing to consider the
overtures made by Teheran, the US missed an opportunity to prevent Iran from
achieving nuclear capability. Flynt Leverett, who was at that time a senior
director of the National Security Council, said that the proposal was "a
serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for
US-Iranian rapprochement."

"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not
enriching uranium," Leverett told the Post.

The document details Iran's aims: ending sanctions, development of nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes, and a recognition of its "legitimate
security interests." Iran also agreed to discuss a number of US demands:
full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" on terrorism,
coordinated efforts in Iraq, cessation of "material support" for terror
organizations, and accepting the 2002 Saudi solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United
States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," said
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who when Teheran faxed its proposal was
serving as Bush's national security adviser. "Now it is Iran and the
international community, and Iran has to answer to the international
community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in," Rice
said.

Other than Rice, White House and State Department officials refused any
further comment on the Iranian offer.


       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Weighing Response to Nuclear Offer
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 20, 2006 9:46 PM

AP Photo VAH102 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and JASPER MORTIMER 

Associated Press Writers 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has not yet responded to a Western
proposal over its nuclear program because of deep differences
within its regime about what to say. 

When it does answer, Tehran is likely to dodge a straightforward
``yes'' or ``no'' and instead try to force the United States and
Europe into further negotiations, a senior lawmaker and analysts
said Tuesday. 

The offer, presented by European Union foreign policy chief
Javier Solana during a June 6 visit, provides a range of
incentives for Iran to impose a moratorium on uranium
enrichment, a process that can produce material for nuclear
generators or bombs. 

But if Iran rejects the deal, President Bush warned Monday, it
can expect U.N. Security Council action and progressively
stronger political and economic sanctions. The U.S. and Europe
are pressing for a quick answer. 

``It's a historical moment,'' said liberal political analyst
Issa Saharkhiz, a former civil servant. ``Iran either has to
agree to cooperate or go for confrontation. That's why it is
taking Iran time to respond.'' 

Powerful conservatives have told the government to reject the
proposal drawn up by the United States, Britain, China, France,
Russia and Germany. 

``The package they have presented is a package good for them.
It's not good for Iran,'' said hard-liner Ayatollah Ahmad
Jannati in a Friday prayer sermon broadcast nationally. 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani have said Iran likes parts of the package, but wants
changes - a piecemeal acceptance that is not what the six powers
intended. 

If Iran accepts the package, it has to suspend its uranium
enrichment entirely before the six powers will start
negotiations on a framework for its nuclear program. 

Such a step would be politically difficult. Since Iran resumed
enrichment this year after a three-year suspension, President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly vowed never to halt it again. 

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a former deputy foreign minister who now
chairs the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, said Iran
could only respond when a consensus has been reached. 

``A consensus has to be achieved before preparing a final
response to the package,'' he said. 

A former presidential adviser, Mohammad Reza Tajik, said there
were two different views on how to reply. 

``One is to come up with a counter-package, and the other is to
accept part of the Western package and seek amendments to other
parts,'' said Tajik, a political science professor at Shahid
Beheshti University in Tehran. 

The response is expected to come from the Supreme National
Security Council, a body that groups politicians, military
officers and intelligence figures chosen by supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

The parliament's foreign affairs chief Boroujerdi forecast that
Iran would give a mixed response. 

``Our views are different from the views of the countries
offering the package. So our proposals will be different from
the contents of the package,'' Boroujerdi told The Associated
Press on Tuesday. He declined to elaborate. 

Andrew Hess, an expert on Iran at the Fletcher School at Tufts
University, said the political factions are arguing over how to
respond, with several factors weighing heavily. These include
Iran's ideological struggle with the United States, the needs of
the economy and the country's technological requirements, he
said. 

The economy is limping along despite high oil prices. A shortage
of high tech has been highlighted by a spate of aircraft
accidents, blamed on a U.S. embargo on selling spare parts. 

Notably, the Western incentives include the sale of aircraft and
spare parts from the United States and Europe. 

The day Solana delivered the package, Iran began a new round of
tests of its 164 centrifuges for enriching uranium, said Mark
Fitzpatrick, an expert on non-proliferation at the International
Institute of Strategic Studies in London. 

``It's very much in Iran's interests to take as much time as it
is allowed (to respond) so it can further its enrichment
program,'' Fitzpatrick said. 

The 164 centrifuges are far short of the hundreds or thousands
needed to fuel a nuclear reactor program - much less to produce
a warhead, which Iran denies is its goal. 

The tests are designed to show Iran can keep a cascade of
centrifuges running for a long time and has mastered enrichment
technology, Fitzpatrick said. 

But that doesn't make it easier to accept a suspension. 

``They are maybe trying to find the right formula to save face
and allow some of their research and development program to
continue,'' Fitzpatrick said. 

``They are likely to respond with an answer that will not fully
satisfy the other side, and then there will be further
negotiations,'' he added. 

The leading Iranian official in favor of a positive response is
thought to be former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. While he is
not a member of the Supreme National Security Council,
Rafsanjani has supporters on the body. 

Behind him is a body of public opinion opposed to a worsening of
relations with the West. Nobody knows whether they are in the
majority, but some Iranians have let it be known they don't want
to fight the world without a strong justification. 

``They see a disaster taking place in Iraq, and they certainly
don't want that to spread to Iran if the U.S. decides to use
force (against Iran),'' said Hess. 

And across the Persian Gulf, ``they see Arab states' economies
are booming'' because of trade and technology transfers from the
West. 

--- 

Associated Press writer Jasper Mortimer contributed to this
report from Cairo, Egypt. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad 'has 70% approval rating'
 
Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall in Tehran

Tuesday June 20, 2006 The Guardian             

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] 

Escorted by his bodyguards, the Iranian president, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad, shakes hands with well wishers. Photograph: Vahid 
Salemi/AP

 The popularity of Iran's controversial leader, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, is surging almost a year after he unexpectedly won
closely contested presidential elections, Iranian officials and
western diplomats said on Tuesday.

Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly
meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said, as
matters stand, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a
second term in 2009. The perception that the president was
standing up to the US over the nuclear issue was also boosting
his standing.

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said 
Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran 
University. "I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He 
portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's 
comfortable communicating with ordinary people."

While there are no reliable national opinion polls in Iran,
western diplomats acknowledged that support for Mr Ahmadinejad
is growing, defying widespread predictions after last June's
election that he would not last more than three months.

"An indication of his power is the way he has whipped up public
opinion on the nuclear energy issue," a western diplomat said.
"If there was an election today, he would win." It was possible
that Mr Ahmadinejad could become a liability to the government
if Iran were taken to the UN security council, he added. "But I
think in that situation, he gets stronger."

Vahid Karimi, of the government-affiliated Institute for
Political and International Studies, said: "Certainly his
popularity is increasing. People like what he says. It's not so
much because he stands up to the west but because he's not
corrupt. This is very important." Independent Iranian sources
said many people were surprised that Mr Ahmadinejad had not
turned out to be as socially conservative as many expected. His
attacks on the privileges enjoyed by some among Iran's ruling
clerical elite and his recent unsuccessful attempt to allow
women to attend football matches had made a big impact.

Mr Ahmadinejad's rising political fortunes run counter to
American attempts to isolate Iran, which it brands a rogue
state. US officials have described the Iranian president as a
threat to world peace and claim that he faces a popular
insurrection at home.

Professor Hadian-Jazy said Mr Ahmadinejad was initially
surprised by the furore that greeted his outspoken criticism of
Israel and apparent denial of the Holocaust. "Coming from his
background it was not uncommon to say that stuff. He never
thought that as president it would be different. But once he got
the reaction, he realised it could establish him as a strong
leader among Muslims. It was a calculated move."

Palestinian rights are strongly supported by Iran. But the
president's anti-Israeli statements made an even bigger impact
in the Arab world, said Sayed Mohammad Adeli, Iran's former
ambassador to Britain and head of the Econotrend thinktank.
"They see Ahmadinejad's resistance as admirable. He has become a
hero of the people on the street."

Mohammad Atrianfar, founder of the leading reformist newspaper
Shargh and an ally of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the president's rival,
said Mr Ahmadinejad would not have it all his own way. "The
reform movement is alive, despite last year's defeat," he said,
although he added it would take some time to regroup. Meanwhile,
the government was mishandling economic policy, and that could
be its undoing.

"The present economy, due to the rate of oil prices, is in a
good situation. But the management of the state sector is very
bad. I can compare him to a wicked child who has inherited a
large amount of money and goes on a spending spree. He has taken
horrid and rushed decisions."

Mr Atrianfar said that windfall oil revenue was being squandered
through state handouts to impoverished provinces and commodity
subsidies. But there was insufficient investment in long-term
projects and infrastructure, foreign investment was falling, and
the country was suffering capital flight and a brain drain.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Bush wrongfooted as Iran steps up international charm offensive 

Simon Tisdall

Tuesday June 20, 2006
 		 
Bush administration officials like to describe Iran as a country 
isolated from the outside world. Its outlaw government's 
policies, and especially its nuclear activities, have earned it 
the distrust of the international community, the fear of its 
neighbours and, they say, the rightful label of a "rogue state".

But in recent weeks, as Tehran's uranium enrichment dispute with 
the US, Britain and other western European countries has moved 
towards a denouement, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has 
launched an energetic diplomatic counter-offensive. Defying US 
containment efforts, Iran is pursuing its own policy of regional 
engagement. And to Washington's growing unease, it seems to be 
working.

"The Americans are making a big push to isolate Iran. But they 
are making a big mistake. We are not Burma," said Vahid Karimi of 
the government-funded Institute for Political and International 
Studies. "We have plenty of friends."

Mr Ahmadinejad's latest success came at last weekend's meeting
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a pan-Asian economic
and security grouping dominated by China and Russia. Iran hopes
to win full SCO membership soon.

The Iranian leader said his talks with China's president, Hu
Jintao, and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, were "very
fruitful". Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in
the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in Opec as an oil
exporter.

As Mr Ahmadinejad spoke in Shanghai, a senior Chinese minister,
Ma Kai, was in Tehran expressing interest in extended joint oil,
gas and petrochemical projects. "The economies of China and Iran
are closely tied together," he said.

Much the same may be said of Iran's growing business with
Russia. Mr Putin said he wanted more collaboration with Iran
aimed at winning control over downstream energy supplies to
"third countries", presumably including Europe. "We are talking
about setting up a joint venture on the basis of Russian and
Iranian deposits ... We support these initiatives with our
Iranian partners," Mr Putin told the Itar-Tass news agency.

Mr Putin also said Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, was
"willing to take part in the construction of an
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline". The US has strongly urged
both India and Pakistan to shelve the pipeline plan as part of
its efforts to isolate Iran.

Mr Ahmadinejad has not been slow to spell out the political and
strategic implications of his Shanghai hobnobbing with China and
Russia, on whose support the US will depend if it seeks UN and
other sanctions on Tehran in the nuclear dispute. "Under the
present situation, when policies of certain states [are] based
on unilateralism, threats and destruction, the SCO can play a
crucial role in establishing a justice-based system for the
region and the world conducive to peace and stability," he said.

Iran's diplomatic fightback is taking place on other fronts
across the Arab and Islamic spheres. "Iran is coming into its
own," said Seyed Muhammad Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to
Britain and the head of Econotrend, a respected independent
thinktank in Tehran. "Iran's regional profile has never been
higher in modern times. Our neighbours are ever more convinced
that Iran is being unfairly treated by the Americans."

To drive home the point, Tehran is actively building closer
links with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and other central
Asian countries. Mr Ahmadinejad is planning a Tehran summit of
Caspian Sea littoral states to discuss how to stop "foreign
intervention" in the area. Iran also recently wooed a Washington
favourite, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, in Tehran, and is
busily mending fences with Pakistan.

It has won the support of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab
League for its nuclear stance. Its envoys have recently visited
Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and some north African states. It has
reportedly become the biggest single state contributor of funds
to Palestine in the wake of the west's ostracism of the Hamas
government.

And in a groundbreaking move earlier this month, Ali Larijani,
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and the second most influential
government figure after Mr Ahmadinejad, met Egypt's president,
Hosni Mubarak, in Cairo. It was the highest-level contact
between the two countries since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Mr
Ahmadinejad's outspoken hostility to Israel has won him a big
following in the Arab world, Tehran officials say. And that is
something Egypt, its notional leader, cannot entirely ignore.

"Shanghai was a big success," Dr Karimi said. "All our
neighbours support our [nuclear] policy, even Mubarak. We are
successful in building up relations. That is why the American
position is changing ... They thought we were encircled because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're not. That's why they want to
talk to us now." #comments { 	font-size:70%;

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: EU offers Iran last-minute nuclear talks
 
Simon Tisdall and Ewen MacAskill in Tehran

Tuesday June 20, 2006
 		 
[The EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. Photograph: Sean 
Gallup/Getty ImagesThe EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. 

Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images] Mr Solana hopes to persuade 
Iran to accept the west's nuclear package. Photograph: Sean 
Gallup/Getty Images
 

 The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has made an
unexpected private offer of last-minute talks to persuade the
Iranian government to accept the west's nuclear package.

Sources in Tehran said on Tuesday that Mr Solana had had
telephone conversations with Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian
nuclear negotiator, in an attempt to clarify "ambiguities" in
the joint offer from the United States, Britain and other
European countries.

Iran has so far declined to respond formally to the offer that
includes a range of incentives should it agree to suspend
uranium enrichment. Although it has described the package as a
"positive step forward", Tehran has said some of the elements
are vague and uncertain.

Saeid Jalili, deputy minister of foreign affairs, confirmed in an 
interview that renewed discussions were under way. "My colleagues 
have talked with Mr Solana over the phone and the gentleman has 
expressed a willingness to come and explain the ambiguities. That 
is good, and we welcome that.

"So far we have not arranged anything. It is just an expression
of willingness."

A western diplomat confirmed the EU initiative. "We have offered
them a further meeting. It would be semi-private and there would
be no press conferences." He said the meeting could take place
in Vienna or Tehran.

Mr Solana's offer has underlined the high stakes riding on
Iran's acceptance of the western package, designed to halt the
long-running dispute over its controversial nuclear activities.

The EU said on Monday it expected to have a formal response -
and hopefully an acceptance of the offer - by the end of the
month. The western diplomat agreed there was a de facto
deadline: "Time is important. The G8 foreign ministers meet at
the end of the month and the G8 [leaders] in mid-July. They will
say what is Iran's response to our proposals."

But Iran has publicly insisted it will not be pressurised and
will accept no pre-conditions for talks. The foreign minister,
Manouchehr Mottaki, said this week the package was being debated
by expert committees. Iran's final word is expected to come from
the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or from Mr Larijani.

The US president, George Bush, warned Iran on Monday that
Washington "would not waver" from its insistence that Tehran
cease all enrichment activities at its Natanz nuclear facility.
If Iran did not comply, he implied the US would refuse to
participate in future negotiations.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Reuters: Bush seeking EU resolve on Iran, to hear grumbles
                                
Tue 20 Jun 2006 6:04 PM ET                                      

By William Schomberg

 VIENNA, June 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush,
hoping to capitalise on improving ties with Europe, will urge
his key allies on Wednesday to push ahead with the possibility
of sanctions against Iran.

 But the U.S. leader will also face complaints from European
Union leaders that his administration remains too heavy-handed
in its focus on security.

 Bush has yet to regain the confidence of many Europeans after
the 2003 war in Iraq.

 From the Guantanamo Bay prison to strict U.S. visa requirements
and concern about controls on foreign investment, Europeans are
frustrated that the United States is still showing too little
consideration towards its trans-Atlantic partners.

 "If Europe and America go hand in hand, then I think we can
actually achieve something," said Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang
Schuessel, whose government holds the rotating EU presidency.

 But he kept up Europe's criticism of how prisoners are held
without charge at Guantanamo and the abuse of Iraqi detainees.

 "We cannot have an area where law does not apply. Under no
circumstances can torture be applied ... It needs to be said,"
Schuessel told reporters on Tuesday before hosting Bush in
Vienna for an EU-U.S. summit.

 Also at the summit will be European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso but the leaders of key governments such as
Britain, France and Germany were not due to attend.

 Washington has said it will join European talks with Tehran
that are conditional on Iran giving up uranium enrichment -- a
step in the production of nuclear weapons -- in return for an
offer of incentives.

 SANCTIONS

 But Bush will stress on Wednesday that the United States and
Europe must not ease up on Iran and should ensure that the
threat of punishment such as sanctions remains real.

 "If Iran does not accept this offer then we return to the U.N.
Security Council. That's all part of the way forward," White
House national security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters
travelling with Bush to Vienna on Air Force One.

 Europe's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said as he arrived
in Vienna he hoped Iran would move more quickly in responding to
the incentives offer.

 Bush's attention on Wednesday may be distracted by signs North
Korea was preparing a long-range missile launch.

 In a gesture towards the EU's concerns, the United States
seemed ready to sign a summit declaration including a reference
to respect for human rights in the fight against terrorism.

 "Consistent with our common values, we will ensure that
measures taken to combat terrorism comply fully with our
international obligations, including human rights law, refugee
law and international humanitarian law," said a draft version of
the declaration, which was obtained by Reuters.

 As well as Iran and security issues, the summit gives the EU
and United States a chance to discuss their differences that are
blocking a new global trade round and ways of reducing the risk
of disruption to energy supplies from key producers like Russia.

 They are also likely to agree to start discussing climate
change, a success for Brussels after it failed to get Washington
to even talk about global warming for several years.

 (additional reporting by Steve Holland on Air Force One and
Paul Taylor and Mark John in Brussels)

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.                                              [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Turkish FM backs Iran's right to nuclear energy 

, June 20, IRNA
-- 

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul here Monday expressed his
country's support for Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes.

 Gul met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the
sidelines of the 33rd meeting of foreign ministers of the
 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which opened in
the Azeri capital, Baku, on Monday.

 The Islamic Republic of Iran demands nuclear energy to promote
the welfare and development of its nation, Gul said.

 Turkey welcomes a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case
while also supporting the right of all countries to produce
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he added.

 Today there is an optimistic atmosphere for continuation of
nuclear talks, he said, and added that experience has shown that
ideas or plans that are imposed on others will bear no fruit.

 Turkey believes that Iran has been rational and wise in its
approach to the issue, Gul said, and "as a friend and
neighboring country of Iran, Turkey hopes Tehran's nuclear case
would be solved peacefully through negotiations."

 The two ministers also exchanged views on expansion of bilateral 
relations as well as on recent regional and international 
developments.

 The Turkish minister voiced his country's willingness to
promote ties with Iran in all fields, saying the two countries
enjoy great potentials to further expand bilateral cooperation.

 He pointed to the various areas for boosting bilateral economic
cooperation including in construction of oil and gas pipelines,
and stressed the importance of holding regular exchange of views
and consultations between the two capitals.

 He welcomed Iran's initiative of hosting a conference of
foreign ministers of Iraqi neighboring states and expressed hope
it would help restore stability in Iraq.

 Mottaki, for his part, expressed Iran's firm determination to
promote all-out ties with various states, particularly its
neighbors, and called for the use of all available resources
toward this end.

 He said consultations between Iraq's neighboring states would
have tremendous significance in efforts to bring security,
stability and tranquility to the country, and said that the
continuing instability and terrorist attacks in the country are
its main problems.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to promoting
security in Iraq and non-interference in its internal affairs,"
he said.

 "The presence of foreign forces is the main cause of
instability and continuing terrorist acts in Iraq," he said.

 The Iranian minister, giving a synopsis of the country's stance
in the nuclear issue, said Iran was still "studying the package
of incentives of the Group 5+1 carefully" and reiterated that
negotiations will be key to resolving its nuclear case.

 A package of incentives was offered to Tehran early this month
by the 5+1 Group (US, Russia, China, France, Britain plus
Germany) to convince it to give up all its uranium
enrichment-related activities and resume talks to settle the
dispute over its nuclear program.

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has viewed the incentives
package as "a step forward" in resolving the nuclear dispute.

 The US has offered to join talks to resolve the issue but
insists Iran must suspend all enrichment-related activities
before talks can begin.

 "A comprehensive solution to the case will be based on a
recognition of Iran's right (to nuclear energy) and removal of
concerns of other sides," Mottaki said.

 During their meeting, Mottaki and Gul discussed topics that are
to be taken up in this foreign ministerial conference of the OIC
and the final statement that is to be issued upon its conclusion.

 They also exchanged views on subjects likely to be taken up in
the next session of the Iran-Turkey Joint Economic Commission
and the urgent need to activate the commission.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran still undecided on West's nuclear offer - foreign minister -
                           
 by Sabina Aliyeva Tue Jun 20, 9:55 AM ET 		 	 

BAKU (AFP) - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said 
Tehran had yet to make up its mind over a deal offered by Western 
governments aimed at defusing the standoff over its nuclear 
program. 

 "It is not decided yet," Mottaki told reporters on the sidelines 
of a pan-Islamic conference in the capital of Azerbaijan, as US 
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushupped the 
pressure on the Islamic republic ahead of a US- European Union" 
/> European Unionsummit. 

Mottaki said Iran" /> Iranstill had "doubts" over a
carrot-and-stick plan to coax Iran into negotiations over its
nuclear program, which the United States and Europe fear could
be hiding atomic weapons development. 

"I can't say for the time being when the answer will be
finalized. There can be some questions and doubts which should
be clarified," he said, speaking in English. 

The United States and its partners -- Britain, France, Germany,
as well as Russia and China -- have made Iran's suspension of
uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities a condition for
talks on Tehran's atomic program. 

So far Tehran has indicated it rejects that pre-condition. 

International negotiators have set a June 29 deadline for Iran
to respond but Mottaki said Iran was "working on the proposal of
the six countries" and denied there was any time limit. 

"When this package was offered no deadline was given for our
answer." 

Bush leaves Tuesday for a US-EU summit in Vienna that will
examine, among other issues, the package offer to Iran. 

On Monday, he warned of "progressively stronger political and
economic sanctions" if it refuses to freeze sensitive nuclear
activities in return for talks. 

Mottaki called Bush's comments a "threat" and "unacceptable." 

"It's as though some have forgotten that the time of threats is
over. Threats are unacceptable in today's world," he said,
adding that "the political rights of Iran must be respected." 

With Iran suggesting that it will soon unveil its own proposal
for ending the crisis over its atomic programs, Bush signalled
that the suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing was
not negotiable. 

"If Iran's leaders want peace, and prosperity, and a more
hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer,
abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, and come into
compliance with their international obligations," Bush said in a
speech to the graduating class at the US Merchant Marine Academy
in King's Point, New York. 

Mottaki is due to visit Italy on Wednesday for talks with his
counterpart Massimo D'Alema, the semi-official Fars news agency
reported. 

Mottaki also attacked what Tehran perceives as Western-sponsored
ethnic unrest in Iran after members of the ethnic-Azeri minority
in the country rioted in May in protest over the publication of
an offensive cartoon in an Iranian newspaper. 

"Any plan to make divisions among Iranian people was always
defeated," Mottaki said, adding: "We do not let a third party to
interfere in our relationship." 

Mottaki said all of Iran's minorities had a place in its
society. 

"Iranian, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Baluchistani, Kurdish: All have
important roles in running the country," he added. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: Bush heads for Europe with tough stance on Iran 

 Tue Jun 20, 8:40 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush" /> leaves for a US- 
European Union" /> summit in Vienna that will examine, among 
other issues, a carrot-and-stick plan to coax Iran" /> into 
negotiations over its nuclear program. 

 On Monday, Bush turned the pressure on Teheran, warning of
"progressively stronger political and economic sanctions" if it
refuses to freeze sensitive nuclear activities in return for
talks. 

With Iran suggesting that it will soon unveil its own proposal
for ending the crisis over its atomic programs, Bush signalled
that suspending uranium enrichment and reprocessing was not
negotiable. 

"If Iran's leaders want peace, and prosperity, and a more
hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer,
abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, and come into
compliance with their international obligations," Bush said in a
speech to the graduating class at the US Merchant Marine Academy
in King's Point, New York. 

The United States and its partners -- Britain, France, Germany
as well as Russia and China -- have made Iran's suspension of
uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities a condition for
talks on Tehran's atomic program. 

"The United States has offered to come to the table with our
partners and meet with Iran's representatives as soon as the
Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium
enrichment and reprocessing," said Bush. 

"If Iran's leaders reject our offer, it will result in action
before the (UN) Security Council, further isolation from the
world, and progressively stronger political and economic
sanctions," he said. 

Iran, which denies US charges that it seeks nuclear weapons
under cover of a civilian atomic program, said Monday it was
preparing a counter-offer as officials rejected that key
stipulation. 

"I have a message for the Iranian regime: America and her
partners are united. We have presented a reasonable offer.
Iran's leaders should see our proposal for what it is: A
historic opportunity to set their country on a better course,"
said the US president. 

The US-backed offer, presented to Iran on June 6, involves
incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to temporarily
halt the sensitive nuclear activity and cooperate with the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> . 

Bush also said he respected Iran's "legitimate desire" for
civilian nuclear energy -- as long as it comes "with proper
international safeguards." 

Later in the day, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin" />
spoke by telephone and agreed to close ranks on Iran. 

"The presidents agreed on the importance of remaining united in
their efforts to press Iran to suspend all enrichment activities
and begin negotiations on the incentive package," a White House
official said. 

Bush and Putin also agreed on a common stance with regards to
North Korea" /> 's nuclear weapons program, the official added. 

In Vienna, diplomats told AFP that when EU foreign policy chief
Javier Solana presented the US-backed offer on June 6, he told
Iran that world powers expected an answer by June 29 to their
offer. 

"June 29 (when G8 foreign ministers are to meet in Moscow) is
more or less a deadline," a senior European diplomat said. 

A second diplomat, who like the first asked not to named due to
the extreme sensibility of the consultations, stressed that the
timing remained flexible, as the goal was to get a positive
response from Iran. 

"If they ask for a little bit more time, I'm sure that we will
give it to them," the diplomat said. 

In Tehran, state television quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
as calling for "a just and equal dialogue with no preconditions"
and saying that a counter-offer was in the works. 

"Our experts are examining the proposal, after the examination
... Iran's views will be submitted to the other party," he said
in a meeting with Iran's top officials and supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

US officials have accused Iran of trying to divide the United
States and its partners, but Bush insisted: "We've all agreed on
a unified approach to solve this problem diplomatically." 	 		
			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Bush heads for Europe with tough stance on Iran

 Tue Jun 20, 11:42 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush" /> President George 
W. Bushleaves for a US- European Union" /> European Unionsummit 
in Vienna that will examine, among other issues, a 
carrot-and-stick plan to coax Iran" /> Iraninto negotiations over 
its nuclear program. 

 On Monday, Bush turned the pressure on Teheran, warning of 
"progressively stronger political and economic sanctions" if it 
refuses to freeze sensitive nuclear activities in return for 
talks. 

With Iran suggesting that it will soon unveil its own proposal
for ending the crisis over its atomic programs, Bush signalled
that suspending uranium enrichment and reprocessing was not
negotiable. 

"If Iran's leaders want peace, and prosperity, and a more
hopeful future for their people, they should accept our offer,
abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, and come into
compliance with their international obligations," Bush said in a
speech to the graduating class at the US Merchant Marine Academy
in King's Point, New York. 

The United States and its partners -- Britain, France, Germany
as well as Russia and China -- have made Iran's suspension of
uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities a condition for
talks on Tehran's atomic program. 

"The United States has offered to come to the table with our
partners and meet with Iran's representatives as soon as the
Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium
enrichment and reprocessing," said Bush. 

"If Iran's leaders reject our offer, it will result in action
before the (UN) Security Council, further isolation from the
world, and progressively stronger political and economic
sanctions," he said. 

Iran, which denies US charges that it seeks nuclear weapons
under cover of a civilian atomic program, said Monday it was
preparing a counter-offer as officials rejected that key
stipulation. 

"I have a message for the Iranian regime: America and her
partners are united. We have presented a reasonable offer.
Iran's leaders should see our proposal for what it is: A
historic opportunity to set their country on a better course,"
said the US president. 

The US-backed offer, presented to Iran on June 6, involves
incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to temporarily
halt the sensitive nuclear activity and cooperate with the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency. 

Bush also said he respected Iran's "legitimate desire" for
civilian nuclear energy -- as long as it comes "with proper
international safeguards." 

Later in the day, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin" />
Vladimir Putinspoke by telephone and agreed to close ranks on
Iran. 

"The presidents agreed on the importance of remaining united in
their efforts to press Iran to suspend all enrichment activities
and begin negotiations on the incentive package," a White House
official said. 

Bush and Putin also agreed on a common stance with regards to
North Korea" /> North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the
official added. 

In Vienna, diplomats told AFP that when EU foreign policy chief
Javier Solana presented the US-backed offer on June 6, he told
Iran that world powers expected an answer by June 29 to their
offer. 

"June 29 (when G8 foreign ministers are to meet in Moscow) is
more or less a deadline," a senior European diplomat said. 

A second diplomat, who like the first asked not to named due to
the extreme sensibility of the consultations, stressed that the
timing remained flexible, as the goal was to get a positive
response from Iran. 

"If they ask for a little bit more time, I'm sure that we will
give it to them," the diplomat said. 

In Tehran, state television quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
as calling for "a just and equal dialogue with no preconditions"
and saying that a counter-offer was in the works. 

"Our experts are examining the proposal, after the examination
... Iran's views will be submitted to the other party," he said
in a meeting with Iran's top officials and supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

US officials have accused Iran of trying to divide the United
States and its partners, but Bush insisted: "We've all agreed on
a unified approach to solve this problem diplomatically." 	 		
			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 IRNA: EU regards statements from Iran as "encouraging" 

Brussels, June 20, IRNA

EU-US-Iran 

Iran is to dominate the foreign policy agenda of the summit 
between the European Union and the United States in Vienna on 
Wednesday.

 "There will be a lively exchange on Iran," a senior EU diplomat 
told journalists in Brussels Tuesday.

 He underlined the "striking degree of cooperation" between the
US and the EU on Iran saying that the message to Tehran is that
there are two paths, cooperation
 or the United Nations Security Council.

 The diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the
EU expected a reply from the Iranians on the new EU package to
resolve the nuclear issue "soon."

 "We have heard a number of encouraging statements from all
members of the Iranian government," said the diplomat noting
that Iranian officials have also spoken of ambiguities and
difficulties that needed to be cleared up.

 The diplomat said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana did not
go to Tehran "with a spirit of saying here it is, accept it or
reject it, but we said here are some ideas on a cooperative
basis of solving the problem."
 Solana traveled to Tehran early this month to present a new
package to Iran to resolve the nuclear issue.

 Commenting on Iran's rejection of any preconditions for the
talks, the diplomat said if negotiations with Iran begin
formally, "it would be difficult for us to accept to discuss
about the program while the program is running."

 He welcomed the American involvement in negotiations with Iran
and said Russia and China might also join the international
talks to resolve the nuclear issue.

 On energy, leaders are expected to step up EU-US cooperation to
a strategic level and to promote a set of principles for
responsible energy policies worldwide.

 Palestine, Balkans, Sudan, Somalia and the promotion of
democracy are expected to be discussed during the one-day summit.

 "EU-US relations have strengthened considerably over the last
year and we are working together systematically to address
common economic, political and environmental challenges," said
EU President Barroso in a press statement.

*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Gives Iran an Ultimatum on Uranium
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 20, 2006 1:01 AM

AP Photo NYEB101 

By DEB RIECHMANN 

Associated Press Writer 

KINGS POINT, N.Y. (AP) - President Bush told Iran on Monday that
nations worldwide won't back down from their demand that Tehran
suspend uranium enrichment. 

``Iran's leaders have a clear choice. We hope they will accept
our offer and voluntarily suspend these activities so we can
work out an agreement that will bring Iran real benefits,'' Bush
said a day before leaving for Vienna, Austria, where he will
talk with European Union officials who are leading efforts to
resolve the nuclear dispute. 

If Iran's leaders reject the offer, they will face action before
the U.N. Security Council and progressively stronger political
and economic sanctions, Bush said during a commencement speech
at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. 

Bush discussed Iran with Russian President Vladimir Putin on
Monday during an 18-minute phone call Putin placed to Bush.
``The presidents agreed on the importance of remaining united in
their efforts to press Iran to suspend all enrichment activities
and begin negotiations on the incentives package,'' said Kate
Starr, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. 

On Sunday, Iran accused the United States of trying to sway
European nations from a possible compromise. The Iranian foreign
ministry said U.S. insistence that negotiations be conditioned
on Tehran's suspension of uranium enrichment has narrowed the
scope of possible solutions, and made it more difficult for all
parties to reach an accord. 

Bush made it clear he would not budge. He said allowing Iran to
enrich uranium, a process that can make nuclear fuel for a power
plant or fissile material for an atomic bomb, would present a
grave threat to the world. 

``The United States has offered to come to the table with our
partners and meet with Iran's representatives as soon as the
Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium
enrichment and reprocessing activities,'' Bush said. ``I have a
message for the Iranian regime: America and our partners are
united. We have presented a reasonable offer. Iran's leaders
should see our proposal for what it is - a historic opportunity
to set their country on a better course.'' 

On June 6, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana
presented a package of rewards and possible penalties to Iran.
The package was drawn up by the five permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council - the United States, Britain, China,
France and Russia - and Germany. 

The package calls on Iran to suspend, not permanently halt,
uranium enrichment as a condition for the start of talks,
although the negotiations are aimed at getting Iran to agree to
a long-term moratorium on such activity. 

Iran says enriching uranium is its country's right. Iranian
officials say they are reviewing the package and will propose
amendments. 

Bush is the first American president to address a graduating
class at the academy. He spoke there at the request of former
White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, who briefly studied
there in the 1960s and hitched a ride on Air Force One to share
the stage with the president. 

``When he was a plebe, he was stuffed in a duffel bag and run up
the flagpole,'' Bush said about his former chief of staff who
left the school when he married. 

The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy was created following a 1934
fire in which 134 people died aboard the passenger ship Morro
Castle. Congress acknowledged the need for maritime-training
standards and passed the Merchant Marine Act that created the
academy in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the
school in 1943 in Kings Point. 

Kings Point graduates work as deck officers aboard container
ships, oil tankers, passenger cruise ships and other vessels.
Others remain on land and have become engineers in shipbuilding
companies and work in a variety of port operations, including
security, while some opt for military careers. Since the Sept.
11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the academy has played a leading
role in developing international training standards for maritime
security. 

``From this campus, every man and woman could see the black
smoke rising from the Twin Towers,'' Bush said. ``Within hours,
your midshipmen were working side-by-side with the Coast Guard
and Marine division of the New York City Fire Department,'' Bush
told the midshipmen seated on a sunny football field at the
academy outside New York City. 

``Over the next nine days, you moved firefighters and police and
emergency response teams into ground zero. You moved tons of
food and water supplies. The heroic response to that terrible
day showed the spirit of America, and the spirit of this fine
academy.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writer Frank Eltman in Kings Point, N.Y.,
contributed to this report. 

--- 

On the Net: 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: http://www.usmma.edu 

White House: www.whitehouse.gov 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 [NYTr] US Activates Missile "Defense," Citing N.Korean Test
 
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:41:05 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[Bush will not be happy until he returns us all to the dark days of
Cold War "duck and cover" paranoia of the 1950s.-NY Transfer]

The Irish Times - Jun 20, 2006
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0620/breaking84.htm 

US activates missile defence system 

The United States has activated its ground-based interceptor
missile-defence system amid concerns over an expected North Korean
missile launch, a US defence official said today.  

Pentagon officials declined to say whether they would try to shoot down
any missile launched by the reclusive communist state, but other US
officials have said that is unlikely, assuming the launch is aimed at
open water.

Many US experts say Pyongyang has a legal right to test and there are
questions about the accuracy of US missile defences.

Pyongyang had no immediate comment, but a North Korean official said
earlier the country does not feel bound by pledges to halt test firings
of long-range missiles.

A US defence official confirmed a Washington Times report that the
Pentagon had switched its multibillion-dollar missile-defence system
from test mode to operational.

"It's good to be ready," the official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff, asked whether the United States would try
to shoot down a North Korean missile, said: "We have a limited
missile-defence system ... We don't discuss the alert status or the
specific capabilities."

The United States has built a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced
radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down an
enemy missile. Test results have been mixed, but officials had
previously said the system could be activated on short notice

) 2006 ireland.com 

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Doesn't Address Missile Plans
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 20, 2006 12:46 PM

AP Photo SEL801 

By BURT HERMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea lashed out at the United
States over its plans to build a missile defense shield Tuesday
but did not directly address concerns that it is preparing to
test-fire a missile capable of reaching the United States. 

There were conflicting reports about whether a missile launch
was imminent. 

Japan's public broadcaster NHK said Tuesday that satellite
images showed fueling vehicles still positioned around the
suspected launch site in the country's northeast, but workers
spotted near the head of the missile Monday weren't visible
Tuesday. 

The launch site appears to be guarded by about 1,000 troops, the
report added. 

U.S. officials in Washington said Monday that the missile was
apparently fully assembled and fueled, but Japan's Deputy Chief
Cabinet Secretary Jinen Nagase said Tuesday he could not confirm
that fueling had been completed. 

South Korea's spy agency also believes North Korea hasn't yet
completed fueling the rocket because the 40 fuel tanks seen
around a launch site weren't enough to fuel a projectile
estimated to be 65 tons, Yonhap news agency reported, quoting
lawmakers who attended an intelligence briefing. 

Bad weather over the purported launch site in North Korea on
Tuesday also dimmed chances of an immediate launch. The area was
cloudy, with rain expected through Wednesday morning, said
South's Korea Meteorological Administration. 

North Korea's apparent moves toward testing a long-range
ballistic missile have spiked tensions in the region and drawn
warnings of serious repercussions from the United States and
others. 

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the North
that it will face consequences if it launches a missile, calling
it a ``very serious matter.'' 

North Korea responded Tuesday by saying that U.S. moves to build
a missile shield are fueling a dangerous arms race in space. 

``The world is not allowed to avert its face from the grave
situation in which it is facing the danger of a nuclear shower
from the blue sky,'' the North's Minju Joson newspaper wrote in
a commentary, according to the country's Korean Central News
Agency. 

North Korea also criticized a Japanese move to buy missiles and
associated equipment from the U.S. to upgrade its missile
defense system, claiming it showed an intent to become ``a
military giant'' and mount ``overseas aggression,'' the North's
main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in commentary carried by
KCNA. 

As tensions grew, meanwhile, the U.S. staged war games in the
western Pacific on Tuesday with 22,000 troops, 280 aircraft and
three aircraft carriers. 

U.S. officials have said that the missile, believed to be a
Taepodong-2, has a firing range of 9,300 miles and could reach
as far as the U.S. West Coast. Most analysts, however, say North
Korea is still a long way from perfecting technology that would
make the missile accurate and capable of carrying a nuclear
payload. 

The North's missile program has been a major security concern in
the region, adding to worries about its pursuit of nuclear
bombs. North Korea shocked its neighbors when it test-fired an
earlier missile version over northern Japan in 1998. 

In Seoul on Tuesday, Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea's
ruling party, said, ``The government explained to North Korea
the serious repercussions a missile launch would bring and
strongly demanded that test fire plans be scrapped.'' 

The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Alexander Vershbow, said the
U.S. would like to achieve normal relations with the North,
saying a missile test ``would only further compound North
Korea's isolation and put it more apart from the international
community.'' 

China, the North's staunchest ally, said it had ``taken note of
the report that North Korea is likely to fire a missile,''
according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. She declined
to elaborate further. 

Japan has said that a new launch would threaten Japanese
security and violate an agreement North Korea signed in 2002 and
reaffirmed in 2004. Rice said it would also end a self-imposed
moratorium on test firings that North Korea has observed since
1999 and a disarmament bargain it struck with the United States
and other powers last year. 

After its last long-range missile launch in August 1998, the
North had said it was seeking to put a satellite in orbit.
Pyongyang is widely expected to make a similar claim if it goes
ahead with another test launch. 

North Korea claims it has nuclear weapons, but isn't believed to
have a design that would be small and light enough to top a
missile. The North has boycotted international nuclear talks
since November over a U.S. crackdown on its alleged illegal
financial activity. 

Despite the latest standoff, North and South Korea opened two
days of meetings in the North Korean border city of Kaesong on
Tuesday to work out details over expanding a joint industrial
zone there. Some experts believe the South would curtail its
economic cooperation with the North in the event of a missile
launch. 

Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung is also set to travel
to Pyongyang next week to reprise the historic June 2000 summit
between leaders from the North and South, although the reports
of a possible missile test were complicating the arrangements,
one of the former president's aides said Monday. 

--- 

Associated Press reporters Jae-soon Chang and Kwang-tae Kim in
Seoul and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to this report.
	 
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Declares Right to Test Missiles
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 20, 2006 9:31 PM

AP Photo GFX215 

By JOSEPH COLEMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - North Korea declared Tuesday it has a right to
carry out long-range missile tests, despite international calls
for the communist state to refrain from launching a rocket
believed capable of reaching the United States. 

The bristling statement from North Korea to Japanese reporters
in Pyongyang came as France and the U.N. secretary-general
raised the alarm over what are believed to be the reclusive
nation's preparations for a test of the Taepodong-2, with a
range of up to 9,300 miles. 

The North's declaration prompted Japan and South Korea to pledge
to cooperate to stop Pyongyang's apparent plans for a launch. 

The United States and Japan have said they could consider
sanctions against the impoverished state and push the U.N.
Security Council for retaliatory action should the launch go
ahead. Pyongyang demonstrated its ability to hit Tokyo when it
fired a missile over northern Japan into the Pacific in 1998. 

``This issue concerns our autonomy. Nobody has a right to
slander that right,'' the Kyodo News agency quoted North Korean
Foreign Ministry official Ri Pyong Dok as telling Japanese
reporters. 

Kyodo also quoted Ri as saying the North is not bound by the
joint declaration at international nuclear disarmament talks
last year or a missile moratorium agreed to by Tokyo and
Pyongyang in 2002. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il reaffirmed
the moratorium - in place in practice since 1999 - in 2004. 

Ri told reporters his remarks represented Pyongyang's official
line on the matter, but refused to comment on whether the North
would push ahead with the missile test, saying it was
inappropriate for a diplomat to give further information, Kyodo
said. 

The harsh rhetoric could sour hopes that North Korea might
scuttle the test in the face of international criticism. But it
was unclear whether the comments indicated a willingness to go
ahead with the launch, or reflected North Korea's penchant for
threatening bluster as a bargaining tactic. 

The international campaign to block the launch widened Tuesday,
with the French government and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
calling for a halt to test preparations. 

``I hope that the leaders of North Korea will listen to and hear
what the world is saying. We are all worried,'' said Annan, who
was in Paris. He called for all parties in the standoff to avoid
an escalation of tensions. 

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking after
talks with Annan, said any North Korean missile test must draw a
``firm and just'' international response. 

China, North Korea's staunchest ally, urged calm. 

``We hope that under the current circumstances, relevant parties
can do more in the interest of regional stability and peace,''
said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. 

Information on the test preparation remained scant and
contradictory Tuesday. Especially unclear is whether Pyongyang
has completed injecting fuel into the missile - a move some
experts consider irreversible and a clear sign the country
intends to launch. 

Japan's public broadcaster NHK reported Tuesday that U.S.
satellite images suggest the North was still fueling its
missile. And a U.S. official in Washington, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said Monday that U.S. intelligence
indicated North Korea had finished fueling. 

However, Japan's Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Jinen Nagase
said Tuesday that Japan could not confirm that fueling was
complete. And South Korea's spy agency, the National
Intelligence Service, believes North Korea hasn't finished
because the 40 tanks seen around a launch site weren't enough to
fuel a 65 ton missile, Yonhap news agency reported. 

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said it appeared some
rockets had been assembled, but the North's intentions were
unclear. There were no reports of a launch by Tuesday evening,
and the North is considered unlikely to launch at nighttime. 

Ban agreed in a phone conversation with his Japanese
counterpart, Taro Aso, to cooperate to prevent a North Korean
launch, Japan's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. 

Amid the rising tensions, the United States staged war games
near Guam in the western Pacific with 22,000 troops and three
aircraft carriers. Commanders said the maneuvers were not aimed
at any particular country. 

The test fears have been especially high in Japan, a firm U.S.
ally with no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. The two
countries are at odds over the North's abduction of Japanese
citizens, Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development and wartime
grievances. 

The North's previous test of a long-range missile shocked Japan
and prompted it to accelerate work with Washington on a joint
missile defense system. 

Washington also kept up the pressure on Pyongyang. The U.S.
ambassador to South Korea conveyed the Bush administration's
concerns to former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who
plans to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il next week. 

Meanwhile, the North lashed out at the United States Tuesday for
its missile defense plans, which it said would ``touch off a
space war in the long run,'' the North's Minju Joson newspaper
wrote in a commentary, according to the country's Korean Central
News Agency. 

The U.S. missile defense system is designed to shoot down
long-range ballistic missiles mainly from North Korea but also
potentially from Iran. It has been put in an operational, or
ready-for-firing, status periodically over the past two years,
but the status at any given point is classified secret. 

There are nine missile interceptors in underground silos at Fort
Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.,
linked by communications systems to a network of satellites and
early-warning radars around the globe. The system has been
tested numerous times but has never been used against an enemy
missile. 

--- 

Associated Press reporters Jae-soon Chang and Kwang-tae Kim in
Seoul, South Korea, and Hiroko Tabuchi in Tokyo contributed to
this report. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 RIA Novosti: Putin aide dismisses N.Korean missile reports as "psycho factor"
 
20/ 06/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, June 20 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian presidential aide said
Tuesday the "imminent" launch of a North Korean ballistic
missile was largely a matter of psychology. 

It is widely believed that Pyongyang is stepping up preparations
to fire the Taepodong-2, a two-stage ballistic missile with a
range of up to 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) that could in
theory deliver a warhead to Alaska, USA. 

"Let them launch it first and then we will see whether it will
fly, where it will fly, and whether it can reach its target in
the first place," Igor Shuvalov said. 

Last month, a U.S. space satellite spotted a booster rocket and
several fuel tanks on a launch pad in the east of the communist
country, which has claimed it already has a nuclear capability. 

According to regional media reports, the missile could be fired
at any moment. 

Pyongyang last tested a long-range missile in 1998, when it
fired the Taepodong-1 missile, with a range of 2,000km (1240
miles), over Japan. The missile landed in the Pacific Ocean,
causing a shock in Tokyo. 


© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 17 Comment is free: North Korea tweaks the tiger's tail

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

John Gittings[John Gittings] 

The launch by North Korea of a long-range missile into the 
Pacific ocean would be provocative, but it would not represent a 
serious military provocation to the US. John Gittings

About WebfeedsJune 20, 2006 02:53 PM 

Will it be "provocative", as Condaleeza Rice has warned, if
North Korea test-launches a long-range missile into the Pacific
ocean? Yes, in several disturbing ways though not the one that
she implies. It will provoke more right-wing calls in Tokyo for
Japanese militarisation; it will provoke more anxiety for South
Korea which is caught in the middle of the US-North Korean
confrontation; and it will provoke US neo-cons to lobby even
harder for regime change in Pyongyang 

On all those counts it will be a great pity if the launch does
go ahead: it also represents a huge diversion of economic
resources, which the North Korean people should not have to
afford. And tweaking the tail of the US (Mao Zedong used to call
it "touching the tiger's buttocks") is not a very sensible
policy these days when there is only one imperialist tiger
roaming the jungle. 

But it could hardly be regarded as a serious military
provocation to the US. Let's put the two in the balance: a
failing if not failed state shows a theoretical capability,
perhaps, to reach Alaska on a lucky day. And it could, perhaps,
put a nuclear payload on it, if it really has such a device and
if it is deliverable. 

In the face of overwhelming US nuclear retaliatory (and these
days probably pre-emptive) might, that is simply not a realistic
scenario, nor would it serve the slightest strategic purpose for
Pyongyang. It would be writing a ticket for annihilation. 

And let's put this in the context of the broader dynamic of
US-North Korean relations, which tends to get overlooked: 

(1) At the beginning of June, the US turned down an invitation
issued from North Korea for its chief negotiator Christopher
Hill to visit Pyongyang. (This was a repeat of an invitation
issued last October.) In making the new offer, North Korea said:
"We have already made it clear many times that if the US is not
hostile to us, trust between our country and the US is built and
we no longer feel threatened, there will no longer be a need for
even a single nuclear weapon." And it added that: "We have
already made a strategic decision to abandon our nuclear program
as reflected in the joint statement [of September 2005]." 

Just words? But words are what diplomacy is about: Iran's
President Ahmadinejad is being castigated for saying that he is
NOT willing to "abandon his nuclear program". 

(2) US-North Korean relations appeared to improve in the Clinton
era but have become unstable ever since President Bush's
inauguration. The then secretary of state, Colin Powell,
promised to continue the Madeleine Albright dialogue with
Pyongyang but was quickly disavowed by Bush: who then proceeded
to include North Korea in his axis of evil. US policy eased last
year when Christopher Hill was authorised to negotiate seriously
in the six-party Beijing talks. Yet the agreement at those talks
in September, which looked forward to normalisation of
relations, has been undermined by a fresh neo-con drive, with
renewed US sanctions and the branding of Pyongyang as a
"criminal regime". This, says Pyongyang, is why it refuses to
return to those talks as Washington demands. 

(3) Of course North Korea is a harshly repressive regime,
devious to deal with, and opaque in its policies, but diplomacy
is about getting results. This is the view of the South Korean
government, which now finds itself in the bizarre position of
being lambasted by US conservatives for being too soft on the
north. The South Koreans believe that a catastrophic collapse of
Pyongyang, while it would be applauded in Washington, would
cause chaos across the Korean peninsula. As one Seoul
commentator has put it, South Korea pursues a "changing regime"
policy through dialogue and conciliation but it fears that US
policy is "regime change". 

(4) Let's not forget that the Korean situation is still
unfinished business from the cold war, dating back to the
division of the peninsula by the superpowers, Kim Il Sung's
adventurist attack on the South, a succession of US nuclear
threats against Pyongyang, followed by decades of isolation. It
is a very hard problem to unpick and if it has proved
intractable till now, that's all the more reason to keep calm
and on the negotiating track. 

Further reading: One of the best sources for discussion and
analysis on US-Korean relations is Japan Focus. This weekly
bulletin reproduces articles by scholars and journalists from
Japan and Korea as well as in the west. 

About webfeeds  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 18 IPS-English POLITICS-US: Strategy Paper Reveals Bush Won't
 
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:37:13 -0700

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS MM NA HD IP BW ML NU=20
POLITICS-US: Strategy Paper Reveals Bush Won't Attack Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS) - In every statement on Iran, officials of the G=
eorge W. Bush administration routinely repeat the party line that =94the =
president never takes any option off the table=94.

Despite the constant invocation of a possible military attack on Iran, ho=
wever, a little-noticed section of the administration's official national=
  security strategy indicates that Bush has already decided that he will n=
ot use military force to try to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Instead, the administration has shifted its aim to pressing Iran to make =
internal political changes, based on the dubious theory that it would lea=
d to a change in Iranian nuclear policy. =20

News coverage of the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) issued Mar. 16=
  emphasised its reference to the doctrine of preemption. But a careful re=
ading of the document reveals that its real message -- ignored by the med=
ia -- was that Iran will not alter its nuclear policy until after regime =
change has taken place.

The NSS takes pains to reduce the significance of Iran's obtaining a nucl=
ear capability. =94As important as are these nuclear issues,=94 it says, =
=94the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian reg=
ime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East pea=
ce; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people =
for freedom.=94

Then the NSS states, =94The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ulti=
mately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decisio=
n to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford free=
dom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy.

This carefully worded statement thus explicitly makes regime change -- no=
t stopping Iran's progress toward a nuclear capability -- the goal of U.S=
. policy toward Iran.

National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, speaking at the U.S. Institu=
te of Peace the same day the NSS was released, invoked the document's for=
mulation on Iran policy and suggested that implementation would be guided=
  by whether any particular action would contribute to broader political c=
hanges in Iran.

According to a transcript obtained by IPS, Hadley referred to a =94strate=
gy of trying to keep the international community together and get Iran to=
  change its policy on the nuclear issue, on support for terror and on its=
  treatment of its own people=94. He added that the administration would m=
ake =94tactical decisions in the context of whether it will advance our o=
verall strategy=94.

Hadley suggested that the NSS formulation amounted to a policy of regime =
change. =94In terms of regime change,=94 he said, =94what I have said and=
  what is said in this document is we need regimes to change their policie=
s.=94

The implications of the NSS and Hadley's remarks for the military option =
are clear: if the goal of the policy is to achieve internal political cha=
nge in Iran, which is assumed to lead to a change in nuclear policy, then=
  there is no need for the administration to contemplate an attack on Iran=
. And if a military attack on Iran might impede progress on political cha=
nge, the logic of the formulation is that the military option should be a=
voided.

A report by David Sanger in the New York Times Mar. 19 quoting an adminis=
tration official in an interview a few weeks earlier further underlines t=
he administration's decision against using force to prevent Iran from goi=
ng nuclear.

=94The reality is that most of us think the Iranians are probably going t=
o get a weapon, or the technology to make one, sooner or later,=94 the of=
ficial was quoted as saying. The hope, according to the official, was tha=
t by the time it happened, =94We'll have a different relationship with a =
different Iranian government.=94

The official said the =94optimists=94 hoped to delay the Iran's nuclear c=
apability by =9410 or 20 years=94. That statement clearly inflated the ti=
me administration officials believe it would take Iran to be able to make=
  a nuclear weapon. Intelligence estimates have consistent estimated Iran =
capable of building a bomb within five to 10 years.

But the Bush administration will only be in office for another two and a =
half years, so it knows that Iran will not go nuclear on its watch.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's long and unsuccessful diplomatic ca=
mpaign to get the five powers (Britain, France, Germany, Russians and Chi=
na) to agree on a U.N. Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of t=
he charter would have opened up the theoretical possibility of a Security=
  Council-sanctioned U.S. air attack on Iran, thus serving to make that th=
reat somewhat more credible.

But the administration has done nothing to indicate that it actually plan=
s to use a Security Council resolution as the basis for a preemptive atta=
ck. On Apr. 30, after a meeting of NATO and EU foreign ministers on Iran =
in Sofia, Bulgaria, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said =94nobody=94=
  had =94considered the possibility of a military solution in Iran=94 or o=
f a =94coalition of the willing=94 such as formed to go to war against Ir=
aq, to use military force against Iran.

The only multilateral sanctions against Iran that have been mentioned by =
administration officials thus far involve =94isolating=94 Iran by cutting=
  off diplomatic contacts and trade. But such a diplomatic and economic is=
olation strategy depends entirely on other major powers. The United State=
s can't do anything more to isolate Iran, because it has had no diplomati=
c relations with Tehran for 27 years and has had comprehensive economic s=
anctions against the Islamic Republic since 1995.

Even if all the powers agree, it would take months for such diplomatic an=
d economic sanctions to go into effect and many more to see what differen=
ce they make, if any, on Iran's policy. Meanwhile, however, Iranian scien=
tists will be continuing to master the technology of uranium enrichment.

No one knows when Tehran would be able to claim that it already has the t=
echnological know-how to be a nuclear power, even if it does not go to th=
e stage of weaponisation, but it well may be less than two years from now=
=2E

Despite the evidence of Iranian success in entering the first stage of ur=
anium enrichment in April this year, however, Secretary of State Condolee=
zza Rice has continued to express confidence that the threat of diplomati=
c and economic isolation of Iran from other major powers will be devastat=
ingly effective.=20

Appearing on the Fox News show =94The O'Reilly Factor=94 May 31, for exam=
ple, Rice declared, =94I don't believe that the Iranians can tolerate the=
  level of isolation that they will endure if they don't make the right ch=
oice.=94

Rice's confidence in the isolation strategy makes little sense, except as=
  a cover for the administration's quiet abandonment of the military optio=
n and its real focus on regime change. That objective is also being pursu=
ed through overt funding of Iranian opposition groups (including 75 milli=
on dollars to =94promote democracy=94) as well as covert support for arme=
d resistance elements operating in Iran's border areas.

But the advocates of war against Iran are already up in arms over the adm=
inistration's Iran policy. In the May 8 edition of the neoconservative We=
ekly Standard, William Kristol ridiculed claims apparently made by Rice a=
nd her colleagues privately that they have been merely =94reassuring Euro=
peans so as to keep them on board=94.

=94Much of the U.S. government,=94 Kristol concluded, =94no longer believ=
es in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush doctrine.=94

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
*****
+POLITICS: Bush Iran Strategy Suffers Major Diplomatic Defeat (http://ips=
news.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33571)
+U.S./IRAN: Conditional Offer for Talks Seen as a Gamble (http://ipsnews.=
net/news.asp?idnews=3D33447)
+National Security Strategy document (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.h=
tml)

(END/IPS/NA/MM/HD/IP/NU/BW/ML/GP/KS/06)

=20
=3D 06202125 ORP013
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 Washington Post: Early Warning 

by William M. Arkin - 

washingtonpost.com
 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
 			 
North Korea's Non-Threat
 	 	 
Can North Korea save the day and change the subject for the Bush
administration? 

Amidst an Iraq withdrawal debate and an Iran nuclear crisis, 
amidst a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and a grave threat to 
the Kabul government, amidst growing recognition of al-Qaeda 
gains in Pakistan, The 
We-Still-Can't-Resist-Putting-Any-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction-Sto 
ry -on-the-Front Page Times reported intelligence leaks yesterday 
that North Korea was imminently going to test an intercontinental 
ballistic missile. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labels it "provocative;"
U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton is consulting with the Security
Council on how to respond. 

Much ado about nothing I say.  

North Korea, starved for attention and with its own fish to fry
domestically and in its own region, may or may not be preparing
some rocket for launch, and it may or may not be attempting to
use its missile as a bargaining chip or a PR stunt, and it may
just be attempting to put its own satellite into space.  What
should crystal clear though in a world of risks and balances is
that North Korea's missile, even if it exists, is hardly a
threat to us. 
On Monday, The New York Times reported a leak from an unnamed
U.S. government official that North Korea was preparing a
long-range ballistic missile for launch at an east coast site. 

With the sanctioned leak and the suggestion of military
confrontation, the Bush administration shifted to crisis mode:
President Bush made anxious calls to dozens of foreign leaders. 
Secretary Rice warned that a launch would be a "provocative act"
and a "serious matter" and one that could torpedo international
efforts to control North Korea's nuclear weapons program. 
Missile defense advocates are popping Champagne corks.
 
And it isn't just Washington.  Australia threatened "serious
consequences."  Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned if the
missile body fell on Japan during the test, "it will be regarded
as an attack." 

Lurking behind the story of course is the image of a long-range
North Korean missile capable of hitting Alaska and even Los
Angeles. 

It is a false image, and one that even if true, would be the
least of America's worries. 

North Korea, which can barely feed its own people and is not,
shall we say, known for its technological prowess, may have
succeeded in sinking all of its national treasure into
developing a third rate missile.  But so what? 

North Korea has conducted all of two live long-range missile
tests since 1993.  In August 1998, when North Korea launched its
Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan, the U.S. and other nations
protested and Cold War alarm bells were sounded.  But the
missile ended up being an unsuccessful attempt to indeed place a
North Korean satellite in orbit.  The whole thing was a failure
after the small third stage failed and the satellite, such as it
was, was destroyed.  (This according to a March 2006 report from
the National Air and Space Intelligence Center entitled
Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat obtained by Hans Kristensen
of the Federation of American Scientists.) 

No missiles of this Taepo Dong I class were ever deployed by
North Korea.  Despite Clinton administration Cold War reactions
and an agreed missile testing moratorium, the 1998 test did not
really end up being a signal of anything; in fact, over the
normal course of events, it has taken the North another eight
years to fabricate another Taepo Dong missile body.  And despite
talk of North Korean "threats," it has managed to deploy fewer
than 50 No Dong shorter-range indigenous designs. 

Part of the North Korea nuclear narrative is also that U.S.
intelligence believes North Korea has manufactured enough
nuclear materials for 10 weapons and might even have two already
fabricated.  The suggestion is that a nuclear weapon could be
place on the Taepo Dong 2.  It would indeed be a grave and
provocative act, one that would be technically feasible by, say,
2016 at the earliest.  And that's if we did nothing between now
and then to help North Korea along in changing the situation. 

Ironically the country that is most threatened by North Korea
and has the greatest interest in making progress in negotiations
and diplomacy appears also to be the calmest. 

Rep. Woo Sang-ho, spokesman of the ruling Uri Party, says it
all: "We also shared the notion that the worsening of the
situation will bring benefit to no one.'' 

Seoul began talking to North Korea about the missile launch last
month.  The South Korean officials say it explained to the North
the repercussions of a launch, but it also clearly left the
lines of communication open. 

According to U.S. intelligence, the new Taepo Dong was scheduled
to launch on Sunday but poor weather around the Musudanri test
site in North Hamgyong Province has evidently delayed the test. 
Because the missile is liquid fueled, it normally will have to
be launched within about a 72 hour window.  If not, the highly
hazardous fuel has to be pumped out and the motors cleaned
before a new launch can be attempted.
 
Many in Seoul are dismissing the reports of fueling and the
military dimensions of a launch, stressing that all evidence
appears to point to another attempt to launch a North Korean
satellite.  They point to the above ground obvious preparations
and their own intelligence that indicates no warhead.  What is
more, according to South Korea news media reports, officials of
the National Intelligence Service (NIS) told the National
Assembly Intelligence Committee that North Korea does not even
seem to have completed fueling the object on the launch pad,
contrary to The New York Times and most U.S. reporting. 
	
 		By William M. Arkin |  June 20, 2006; 8:30 AM ET 				 				  |

               © 2006 The Washington Post Company                                                                                                              
*****************************************************************
 20 IRNA: Beckett declines to raise Israel's nuclear weapons with Livni -
     
London, June 20, IRNA

UK-Beckett-Israel nukes 

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett declined to raise any
concern about the Zionist regime's illegal arsenal of nuclear
weapons during her first meeting with her Israeli counterpart,
Tzipi Livni, last week, it has been revealed in parliament.

 "The Foreign Secretary did not discuss the prospects for Israel
signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), or Israel's
possession of nuclear weapons, during her meeting with Israeli
Foreign Minister Livni," Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells
said.

 But in a written parliamentary answer published Tuesday,
Howells insisted that Britain has "on a number of occasions
called on Israel to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon
state and also to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and will
continue to do so."

 Labour MP Paul Flynn asked what matters were raised by Beckett
in her meeting with Livni in Luxembourg on June 12 in respect to
Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and the prospects for
Israel joining the NPT.

 It has been recently revealed from classified documents that
the UK secretly helped the Zionist regime to develop nuclear
weapons in the 1960s by supplying plutonium to Israel.

 Israel's nuclear arsenal came under focus after the British
government was accused of double standards in raising concerns
about Iran's civilian program while adopting a "conspiracy of
silence" in not even acknowledging the Zionist regime's weapons.

 Challenged on the "double standards" of western governments in
March, former foreign secretary Jack Straw suggested that the UK
would deal with Israel's illegal stockpile of weapons.

 Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
in London, Straw also insisted that the UK had urged Israel to
join the NPT and said that his government had also signed a UN
proposal in 1995 calling for the whole of the Middle East to be
nuclear weapons free.

*****************************************************************
 21 American Enterprise: Lessons of the Nuclear Age

[July/August 2006 cover 120]                  
     	
By William Tucker
 					 					 
The North Koreans are likely to launch an intercontinental 
ballistic missile this week that has the range to hit the West 
Coast. This means Kim Jong Il and company now have something to 
do with the dozen-or-so nuclear weapons they have built.

And so, for perhaps the first time since Stalin achieved nuclear 
armaments in 1947, the United States is confronting the ultimate 
weapon in the hands of a psychopath. Will the North Koreans use 
their newfound status to drop a bomb on Seattle or San Francisco? 
I wouldn’t bet against it. They have nothing to lose. Most 
Americans could go their whole lives without giving North Korea a 
second thought, but North Koreans (in their press, at least) are 
obsessed with the United States and imagine themselves in a 
one-on-one battle of Armageddon. 

North Korea wants to take on America for the same reason that
Mark David Chapman decided to kill John Lennon and Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. They were nobodies who wanted to
attack a somebody. Just engaging us hugely inflates their ego.
Will they eventually launch one of their missiles against us? I
wouldn’t bet against it. Both Hinckley and Oswald found their
targets. And of course al-Qaeda accomplished the same thing on
September 11th. 

As we contemplate what to do about this flyspeck attack, it’s
worth pausing a moment to draw a few lessons about the nuclear
age. 

Let’s start with the age-old question of whether we should have
dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are still
people who argue it was all unnecessary and that we should have
detonated the bomb at a remote location or refrained from using
it altogether. The question is interesting is because North
Korea probably wouldn’t even exist if we had completed
construction of the bomb a month sooner. 

In February 1945, we had invaded Iwo Jima, an eight-square-mile
island defended by 21,000 Japanese soldiers. Within 750 miles of
Tokyo, it put us within bombing range for the first time. The
Japanese had vowed to fight to the last man and they did. 18,000
died—along with 6,800 U.S. Marines. Only 200 Japanese soldiers
surrendered.

On April 1, 180,000 soldiers and marines invaded Okinawa, a much
larger and more heavily defended island, backed by the U.S.
Navy. 12,000 Americans died, including 5,000 sailors, the
highest total of any American naval engagement in history.
70,000 Japanese soldiers lost their lives and another 150,000
civilians died, many who killed themselves and their families in
order to avoid capture by the Americans.

Now we faced the task of invading the Japanese mainland, an
island nation of 145,000 square miles defended by 70 million
people, all vowing to fight to the end. 

The German surrender on April 29 left both American and Russian
forces free to move to the Pacific. The Soviets were not even at
war with Japan but President Roosevelt had enlisted Stalin’s
support at Yalta. When Roosevelt died on April 12, President
Harry Truman continued the strategy. Stalin moved troops to the
Manchurian border, where a considerable portion of the Japanese
army was stationed. 

As Truman became aware of the Manhattan Project, however, he
began to hedge the agreement. By July, when the Big Four met at
Potsdam, Stalin was already reneging on agreements to restore
autonomy to Poland and Czechoslovakia and Truman was becoming
wary. When news of the successful test at Los Alamos reached him
in the middle of the conference, Truman changed his approach and
told Stalin he might not be needed. 

The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on
August 6 and 9, each killing between 75,000 and 90,000 people.
The March 9 firebombing of Tokyo had killed 120,000 but because
the raid was conducted with conventional weapons, it had little
impact on the Japanese will to fight. When Truman promised to
wipe every Japanese city off the map, however, the Emperor was
persuaded to surrender. (Actually we had no more bombs left in
our arsenal and it would have taken weeks to build another.)

The Soviet Union entered the war on August 9, the day the second
bomb was dropped. Japan surrendered the next day but Soviet
troops rushed into Manchuria anyway to seize territory. By
August 12 they had reached Seoul and threatened to engulf the
entire peninsula. Given half an hour to draw up an agreement
dividing Korea into occupation zones, General Charles F.
Bonesteel, head of the army’s policy section, picked the 38th
parallel as a dividing line. Four days later, Stalin agreed.
That is how North Korea was born. 

The division soon cost America 54,000 lives during the Korean
War and Stalin’s annexation has long outlived the Soviet Union.
But it could have been worse. Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki we
probably would have lost 500,000 more American lives and ended
up with North and South Japan.

So how did North Korea get the bomb? That’s an interesting story
as well. The science of building nuclear weapons is not all that
difficult but it does pose an engineering challenge. Natural
uranium contains two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. Both are
“radioactive” in that they are slow breaking down, but only
U-235 is “fissile,” meaning it will split in two, releasing an
enormous amount of energy, when it absorbs a neutron. Originally
there were equal amounts of the two isotopes, but over
geological history U-235 has broken down faster so that it now
constitutes only .7 percent of the natural ore. To get to
bomb-grade material, these isotopes must be separated until the
ore is “enriched” to 90 percent U-235.
 
Uranium enrichment is an incredibly laborious process. Because
the isotopes are chemically identical, they must be separated on
the basis of their miniscule difference in weight—three
neutrons. The best method is through centrifuges but it takes a
solid year of twirling the uranium before bomb-grade levels can
be approached. The Iranians may be getting close but there is
reason for skepticism. 

The faster way to build a bomb is through plutonium. When U-238
is exposed to neutrons, some of the atoms will absorb two
neutrons and move two places up the periodic table to become
plutonium-239, which is almost twice as fissionable as U-235.
The Manhattan Project undertook both uranium enrichment and
plutonium production, but plutonium proved much more practical.
All Russian and American bombs were made with it.
 
Nuclear power plants run on fuel rods that are enriched to only
3 percent U-235. After two years of operation, however, about
1-2 percent of the U-238 has been transformed into plutonium.
This plutonium can be extracted to use as a reactor fuel or a
bomb, or it can be left in place. The extreme radioactivity and
the difficulty of performing chemical separation make it highly
unlikely that anyone outside an industrial country could ever
build a bomb from a power plant.

Nonetheless, in 1976, President Jimmy Carter called off the
recycling of fuel rods from nuclear power plants on the grounds
that extracted plutonium might end up in the hands of
terrorists. As a result, spent fuel has piled up at reactors all
over the country while the futile effort to dispose of it at
Yucca Mountain continues. With recycling, 95 percent of the fuel
rod can be reprocessed and the problem of “nuclear waste”
disappears.

Meanwhile, countries around the world have not paid the
slightest attention to our fatuous plan to bury our own
plutonium. They have simply manufactured their own. China built
its own bomb from a homegrown reactor in 1966. India extracted
plutonium from a donated Canadian reactor and exploded a bomb in
1974. Israel built its own bomb in the 1970s and then passed the
technology on to South Africa. Pakistan seems to have picked up
some stray plutonium from Russia and passed it on to several
countries. 

North Korea began a nuclear program in the 1980s with a
Soviet-supplied graphite reactor—the kind the Soviets had at
Chernobyl, designed for extracting plutonium. In 1989 the
Koreans closed down the reactor for 70 days—sufficient time,
American intelligence calculated, to extract 12 kilograms of
plutonium, enough for two bombs. They also started fooling
around with uranium enrichment. With concerns mounting,
President Bill Clinton sent the same Jimmy Carter to North Korea
in 1994 to try to halt the effort. Carter returned with a pledge
from the North Koreans that they would give up building a bomb
in exchange for hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel oil plus
two light-water nuclear reactors. By 2000, however, it was clear
that the North Koreans had continued their experimentation and
in 2005 they announced a nuclear weapon. They are now believed
to have about a dozen.

What are the lessons here? First, it was the height of naivete
to think that by abstaining from plutonium recycling we could
prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons. It’s like
saying that by giving up matches we can persuade Brazilians
against burning their rainforests. Other countries have gone
right ahead developing their own nuclear programs while we are
stuck with trainloads of nuclear “waste.”
 
Second, we’re probably going to have to do something about North
Korea. Ignoring the rogue nation is like ignoring al-Qaeda in
the 1990s. David Frum has suggested a naval blockade. Daniel
Kennelly wants an “amiable divorce” from South Korea to free our
hand. One way or another, no one is going to solve this problem
for us and it makes no sense to wait until the North Koreans
decide to lob a missile onto the Microsoft campus.

Finally, we should take off our blinders and realize we are
living in the nuclear age. There is a widespread public
sentiment to ignore reality and believe the nuclear genie can be
put back in the bottle. Less than a year ago, Discover ran an
article entitled “The End of the Plutonium Age,” which opined
that, with the aging of our own nuclear arsenal, perhaps the era
of nuclear weapons could soon be forgotten.
 
Unfortunately, the North Koreans don’t seem inclined to go
along. They may be insignificant and paranoid, but as Lee Harvey
Oswald, John Hinckley, and Nedjelko Cabrinovic (assassin of the
Archduke Ferdinand) all proved, such insignificant paranoids can
change history.

William Tucker is a weekly columnist for The American Enterprise
Online.
 				 	 				 
				 				 
Posted:  June 20, 2006                                                                                                                                          

©2005 The American Enterprise  |  All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 22 [NukeNet] Thorium Reactors - A New Type of Nuclear Reactor
 
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:38:51 -0700

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Would love to hear the opinions of tech types on this technology.  Molly

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=5763
Thorium Reactors - A New Type of Nuclear Reactor

Itï¿½s nuclear, but not as we know it. No risk of a Chernobyl-style
meltdown, no weapons-grade by-products and a reactor that burns existing
radioactive waste as well as old nuclear weapons.

Cosmos magazine profiles thorium reactors, a radical new type of nuclear
technology that promises to deliver what conventional atomic power never
could. Not only might it provide an answer to Britainï¿½s energy crisis,
it
burns old nuclear waste in the process, which security experts have warned
is vulnerable to a major terrorist attack.

Energy is a hot topic in Great Britain and an innovative, greener and
safer solution is desperately being sought. Cosmos breaks through the
barriers to present a new side of the debate.

ï¿½The world is too complex, the decisions too important and the
implications too far-reaching for us not to listen to the best scientific
advice available. And there is a range of technologies out there ï¿½ like
thorium systems ï¿½ that look really promising, and should be
investigated.
While we still have the time.ï¿½ - Wilson da Silva, Editor, Cosmos

In simply arguing for or against conventional nuclear power, precious time
is being lost. The advantages that new technologies and scientific
research have to offer are too great to overlook (amongst the political
squabbling) if we are to find a solution to the growing global energy
crisis, say the editors in their special 12-page report.

Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that shares many
properties with uranium. It is not active enough to maintain a chain
reaction (which allows electricity generation) but can be induced to this
state with a beam of protons from a particle accelerator. The beauty of
this technology is that if any problems occur a switch can simply flicked,
stopping the proton beam and ceasing the reaction. Meltdown is impossible.

Being a more ï¿½gentleï¿½ material, thorium also leaves less waste than
conventional uranium based reactors whose half-life is tens of thousands
of years. Thorium reactor waste has a half-life of a mere 500 years, much
less dangerous and much much simpler to store. To sweeten things even
further, thorium reactors actually incinerate other nuclear waste, solving
the problem of the growing stocks of current nuclear waste.

Oh yes, it also generates cheap, green electricity.

Posted June 20th, 2006

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries 
ago": Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military
service": Albert Einstein

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have
acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence 
of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible 
for evil to triumph": Haile Selassie

Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA  93451

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: NRC Creates New Office of National Materials Program, Reorganizes Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards

News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-082     June 19, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reorganizing its Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Office of
State and Tribal Programs to create a new Office of National
Materials Program (ONMP) and a new NMSS that will focus on fuel
cycle issues. 

The Office of State and Tribal Programs and the current NMSS
divisions of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, and Waste
Management and Environmental Protection will merge and integrate
their functions to form the new ONMP. 

The new NMSS will retain the divisions of Fuel Cycle Safety and
Safeguards, High-Level Waste and Repository Safety, and the
Spent Fuel Project Office, providing regulatory oversight of the
entire domestic nuclear fuel cycle, from cradle to grave. NMSS
will take the lead for domestic and international safeguards
policy and regulation, including material control and
accountability for fuel cycle facilities, which has recently
been the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Security and
Incident Response. 

The reorganization is scheduled to be effective Oct. 1. 

This reorganization will better position the agency to meet the
challenges facing us in the years ahead, said Executive Director
for Operations Luis Reyes. Creation of the Office of National
Materials Program integrates the NRCs State and Tribal programs
with the technical and regulatory review functions shared by the
NRC and the Agreement States. The new NMSS will focus on the
regulatory challenges of the nations evolving energy and fuel
cycle strategy. 

The NRC currently has agreements with 34 states, under which the
state authorities assume responsibility for licensing and
regulating the industrial, medical and academic uses of
radioactive materials. The Agreement State program has seen
significant growth recently, as Wisconsin and Minnesota became
Agreement States within the last three years, and three other
states now under NRC jurisdiction - Virginia, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania - have declared their intentions to become
Agreement States. 

The growth in the Agreement State program has placed greater
importance on NRCs cooperation with the states, especially in
the important area of enhancing controls over radioactive
materials to protect public health and safety. This trend was an
important factor in the decision to combine NRCs materials
licensing and its coordination with the Agreement States under a
single major program office. 

The new NMSS will tackle several regulatory challenges regarding
the nuclear fuel cycle in coming years. The agency is currently
reviewing two license applications for gas centrifuge uranium
enrichment plants and anticipates receiving an application for
new advanced enrichment technologies. The Department of Energy
continues to prepare a license application for a high-level
waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. In addition, DOEs
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership likely will require NRCs
involvement in recycling spent nuclear fuel into fresh fuel for
commercial reactors. 

Top officials of the new program offices will be named at a
later date.   

Last revised Tuesday, June 20, 2006        
*****************************************************************
 24 TorontoSun.com: Ontario energy plan ripped
 
Tue, June 20 / 06   

editor@tor.sunpub.com
  
Enviro commish furious
 										   																							By ANTONELLA ARTUSO,
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

 The Ontario government is accused of stepping on the
Environmental Bill of Rights in its haste to get on with its
plans for the province's electricity system. 																			

 Independent environmental commissioner Gord Miller issued a
stinging rebuke yesterday, accusing the government of trying to
escape its responsibility for transparency and accountability.
																			

 Environment Minister Laurel Broten passed a regulation last
week that excluded the Integrated Power System Plan from a
provincial environmental assessment. The plan calls for new and
refurbished nuclear power to meet future electricity needs.
																			

 Miller said in a public release that the ministry was obliged
to post that new regulation on the Environmental Registry to
allow public input before it took effect. 																			

 The commissioner says that this is the first such omission in
the 12-year history of the Environmental Bill of Rights.
																		 									
 "In effect, in making these environmental decisions, the
government is escaping its responsibility to be transparent and
accountable under Ontario's two key public-participating
statutes," Miller says. 																			

 NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the Dalton McGuinty government
"has broken that particular law. Not even Mike Harris would have
done something like this." 																			

 Acting premier Leona Dombrowsky said yesterday that the
government takes the environmental commissioner's
recommendations seriously and will look at the issue.
																			

 The Dalton McGuinty government has announced it needs to build
two new reactors at an existing nuclear facility and refurbish
four of the existing units at the Pickering B plant.
																			

 Energy Minister Dwight Duncan is putting pressure on Atomic
Energy of Canada to come up with the best price and technology,
or face losing the job of building Ontario's new reactors to a
European competitor. 																																				
															 								 								 								 								
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved.        
 Proprietor and Publisher - Sun Media (Toronto) Corporation, 333
King St. E., Toronto, ON, M5A 3X5 Test--> 		   	 
*****************************************************************
 25 Fredericksburg.com: Public gains time with reactor plan
 
Free Lance-Star!] 

Tue, Jun. 20, 2006   

Public comment period on state review of North Anna reactor plan
is extended 

By RUSTY DENNEN 

A state agency has extended the time period for the public to
comment on a component of Dominion power's plan for up to two
additional nuclear reactors at North Anna Power Station. 

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is reviewing
whether the plan for Unit 3 is consistent with the state Coastal
Resources Management Program. 

DEQ had planned to end the public comment period on June 16, but
at the request of the Friends of Lake Anna that was pushed back
to Aug. 31. 

Friends President Harry Ruth said in a letter to DEQ and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the public hasn't had ample
time to review documents. 

In addition, the Louisa County-based group asked that a joint
public meeting be held to explain the regulatory agencies'
responsibilities. 

Ruth said his organization had not been added to the NRC contact
list for correspondence, that a hard copy of revisions to
Dominion's application was unavailable locally, and that a
supplemental draft environmental impact statement and safety
report should be released by the NRC prior to any conclusions by
DEQ on coastal zone issues. 

The state is reviewing whether aspects of Dominion power's plan
for more nuclear reactors on Lake Anna will affect coastal-zone
protection laws. 

Though North Anna Power Station in Louisa is far from the coast,
construction at the plant could indirectly affect it. 

Louisa is not part of Virginia's coast zone. But certification
is required because Spotsylvania County, which borders Lake Anna
across from the nuclear plant, is in the zone. 

Virginia regulatory agencies have to sign off on large
construction projects that require state and federal permits. 

If Dominion builds another reactor, it contends that impacts
would be small and would be reduced by state-mandated erosion
and sediment control measures. 

Dominion is one of several utilities across the country testing
a new permitting process with the NRC that could lead to the
construction of the first new commercial reactors in the United
States in more than 30 years. 

The company has applied for an early site permit, which is the
first step. That approval would allow Dominion to resolve
environmental, safety and site issues prior to applying for
permission to actually build and operate one or more new
reactors. 

The plant currently has two reactors in operation. 

The state project documents and Dominion's draft environmental
impact statement can be viewed on DEQ's Web site at:
deq.virginia.gov/eir/federal .html/. 

Comments to the agency can be mailed, e-mailed or faxed and must
include a name, address and telephone number. 

RUSTY DENNEN: + 540/374-5431 + Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com

Date published: 6/20/2006 

Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 
To contact other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. 
Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone for fredericksburg.com: 
540-368-5055 Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. 
of Fredericksburg, Va. 
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings
 
                         FR Doc 06-5545 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 118)] 
[Notices] [Page 35456] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn06-74]                         
 
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Date: Weeks of June 19, 26, July 3, 10, 17, 24, 2006.
 
Place:  Commissioners' Conference room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters to be Considered: Week of June 19, 2006 Friday, June 23, 
2006 9 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. 
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station) Docket No. 50-0219, Legal challenges 
to LBP-06-07 and LBP-06-11 (Tentative).
 
b. Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant, 
license renewal application), Appeal by Petitioners of LBP-06-10 
(ruling on standing, contentions, and other pending matters) 
(Tentative).
 
9:30 Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1). Week of June 
6, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week 
of June 26, 2006.
 
Week of July 3, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 3, 2006.
 
Week of July 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 10, 2006.
 
Week of July 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 17, 2006.
 
Week of July 24, 2006--Tentative Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:30 
a.m. Briefing on Office of International Programs (OIP) Programs, 
Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Karen 
Henderson, 301- 415;-0202). This meeting will be Webcast live at 
the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov. 1:30 p.m Briefing on Equal 
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Programs. (Public Meeting) (Contact: 
Barbara Williams, 301-415-7388). This meeting will be Webcast 
live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov. * * * * * *The 
schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 
415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, 
(301) 415- 1662.
 
* * * * * *The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on 
the Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: June 15, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5545 Filed 6-16-06; 10:34 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 27 RIA Novosti: Putin orders government to launch national technology program 

20/ 06/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, June 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin
said Tuesday he was concerned over Russia's weak role in world
high-tech production, and ordered the government to launch a
program to develop the sector. 

"According to expert estimates, Russia's share of global trade
in high-technology production is between 0.3% and 0.8%, and the
unpleasant fact is that this is 15-20 times lower than, for
example, China's share," Putin told a meeting of Russia's
Security Council. 

"Nevertheless, little is being done to overcome this technology
gap," he said. 

Russia must use its competitive advantages, in particular the
space industry, aviation, energy and communications, the
president told the Security Council. The country must also make
use of its leading science positions in the materials sciences,
physics, nuclear technology, chemistry and metallurgy, he said. 

"Russia is able to concentrate its efforts to solve the most
complex technological problems," Putin said. 

By boosting the development of high-tech spheres, Russia could
"radically and swiftly influence a change in the structure and
the growth rate of the economy," he said. 

The president also said there should be economic incentives for
businesses to promote high technology. The incentives would help
to create the right environment for knowledge and technology to
develop, he said. 

"Currently, the role of Russian businesses in developing the
research and development base is only 6%, whereas in the U.S.,
EU, Japan, and China this figure is close to 60%." 

"It is clear that this potential, which was incidentally
proactively used in the Soviet period, has now been simply
discarded," Putin said. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC: Nuclear power 'stings' taxpayers
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 June 2006
 
[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The Lib Dems have been unveiling a series of policy plans

New nuclear power stations cannot be built without the UK 
taxpayer getting stung, Sir Menzies Campbell has said. 

In a speech on Tuesday, the Lib Dem leader branded nuclear energy 
the "ultimate stealth tax". 

He said cleaning up existing waste already costs every citizen 
£1,500 a year and it was time Britain got serious about energy 
efficiency. 

Tony Blair reignited the nuclear debate last month saying that 
the issue was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". 

Last week Sir Menzies raised the issue during Prime Minister's 
Questions when Mr Blair told him nuclear had to be "at least part 
of the debate". 

But Lib Dem research suggests that the only way a new generation 
of nuclear power stations could be made to work would be via vast 
taxpayer subsidies or a "rigged" market. 

In his speech, Sir Menzies argued an alternative energy strategy 
based on renewables, microgeneration, energy efficiency and clean 
coal technology would be more affordable. 

Market distortion? 

He said: "Every UK citizen is already paying over £1,500 to clean 
up the nuclear waste of the last 50 years - and that bill 
regularly gets revised upwards. 

"If the prime minister gets his way and a new generation of 
nuclear power stations are built, both the taxpayer and consumer 
will get stung again. Nuclear power is the ultimate stealth tax. 

"Evidence from abroad shows nuclear power is not competitive.
Last year the US government was forced to offer nuclear
subsidies of £13.7bn to persuade investors. 

"The new nuclear power plant being built in Finland needed
hidden subsidies through export guarantees from France,
30-year-long contracts and government guarantees over future
decommissioning and waste. 

"The real question for the forthcoming energy review is, where
will Blair hide his nuclear subsidy?" 

Sir Menzies argued that the "low carbon, non nuclear
alternative" was backed by Mr Blair just three years ago. 

"As the prime minister used to say, nuclear power will impose a
tax on the country, costing consumers billions of pounds,
distorting the market and squeezing out competition." 

After his speech, the Lib Dem leader went off to visit a
combined heat and power station and a fuel cell project that
power a leisure centre in Woking, where his party controls the
council. 

'Big problem' 

Nuclear power contributes about 20% of Britain's electricity,
but the existing plants will be decommissioned over the next 15
to 20 years. 

Mr Blair argues that although the government has invested in
renewable energy, the country would face "a very big problem" if
it ruled out new nuclear plants. 

The Conservatives have yet to decide their policy on nuclear
power. 

Although the party has been a traditional supporter of the
industry, shadow trade secretary Alan Duncan has said it no
longer backed public subsidies for it. 

"We, like the government, are not looking at a subsidy regime
for nuclear power," he said earlier this month. 

"[The nuclear industry] must justify their own arguments with
honest economics and a proper regime for their waste." 		 	 		 	
*****************************************************************
 29 IndianExpress.com: N-deal approval unlikely this year

Press Trust Of India
 	
Posted online: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print Email

Washington, June 20:An influential lawmaker has said the US 
Congress is unlikely to give its seal of approval to the Indo-US 
civilian nuclear deal this year. Senator John McCain, considered 
the Republican frontrunner in the presidential elections of 2008, 
said Congress needed to scrutinise the deal more rigorously on 
account of the precedent it would be setting. 

Hopeful India waits another week for N-deal to move to HouseNew 
Delhi to okay UN N-treaty todayPranab hopeful of China support 
BJP worried over Pak move to get China help for nuke 
plantsIndo-US nuclear talks proceed with cautious optimism 

‘‘I am not saying I will oppose it, but I still would like to 
hear more argument in its favour. I understand our unique 
relationship with India. But when you carve out an exemption, 
then of course you run the risk of others wanting the same 
exemption,’’ he told Financial Times. 

Republicans and Democrats alike are keen that India and the IAEA 
come to an accord on the issue of safeguards and the 
non-proliferation community is worried that the deal would allow 
New Delhi to import uranium and free its domestic supply for use 
in a military programme. 

‘‘For what it’s worth, we have received assurances that India 
will not do that, but this is taking a risk,’’ said McCain. ‘‘I 
believe the Senate needs to be briefed and Lugar (Richard Lugar, 
chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) hold hearings and 
we go through the regular process. I have a tendency to support 
it, but we need to be well informed,’’ he added. Asked if the 
prospects for movement on the deal this year are not good, McCain 
said, ‘‘You would have to talk to Lugar, but from what I can tell 
it is unlikely that we would get that resolved this year.’’

editor@expressindia.com 	 

*****************************************************************
 30 Platts: Dutch utility Delat investigates new nuclear build
 
London (Platts)--20Jun2006
 
Dutch utility Delta investigates new nuclear build, according to 
its new Chairman/CEO Peter Boerma, who said a new reactor could 
be operating at Borssele by 2016. 

Delta is half-owner of the 480-MW Borssele PWR, along with 
Essent. 

According to the newspaper PZC, Boerma said Delta is looking for 
partners for a new nuclear plant project, which he estimated 
would cost about 2 billion euros. 

He made the remarks during a ceremony in Goes, near the plant 
site, June 16 at which an agreement was signed by Borssele 
operator EPZ, Delta, Essent, and the Dutch government 
guaranteeing a 60- year lifetime for the reactor, until 2033. 
Boerma's remarks echoed those of his predecessor at Delta, David 
Luteijn, who said earlier this year that nuclear energy and 
renewable energy were both necessary for the Netherlands' energy 
future.

For similar stories, request a free trial to Platts Nucleomics 
Week at
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 31 Independent: N-plants can be built without subsidy, British Energy insists 

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 

Published: 21 June 2006 

British Energy, the country's biggest producer of nuclear power,
indicated yesterday that it would be interested in building and
operating a new generation of nuclear stations provided it had
long-term contracts for their output at guaranteed prices. 

The company, which was saved from bankruptcy only a year ago by
a £5bn government bailout, insisted that new reactors could be
constructed without public subsidies or an obligation on energy
suppliers to buy a set amount of their needs from nuclear
stations. 

But Bill Coley, British Energy's chief executive, said potential
investors would need "price certainty" before they would provide
funding, while the permitting and licensing system for new
nuclear stations would need to be streamlined and speeded up. 

Mr Coley also said that British Energy was looking seriously at
life extensions of up to 10 years for its entire existing fleet
of nuclear stations as a way of avoiding the "energy gap" which
could open up by 2023 when only one nuclear station, Sizewell B,
will otherwise still be operational. 

His comments come less than a month before Tony Blair is due to
pave the way for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the
Government's forthcoming energy review, despite scepticism from
the Conservatives and outright opposition on the part of the
Liberal Democrats. In a speech to the CBI last month, the Prime
Minister said nuclear power was back on the agenda "with a
vengeance". 

British Energy is an obvious contender for building and
operating new nuclear stations because it has existing sites.
The company owns eight nuclear stations and the Eggborough
coal-fired station in Yorkshire. 

Mr Coley estimated that, including decommissioning and spent
fuel costs, new nuclear stations would cost £30 to £35 a
megawatt hour to construct. That compares with British Energy's
operating costs of £22.80 a megawatt hour and a forward price of
nearly £50 a megawatt hour for wholesale electricity. 

He said that electricity from new nuclear plants would need to
be sold into the retail market as opposed to the merchant
market, suggesting that British Energy might seek tie-ups with
big domestic suppliers such as Centrica, npower and Powergen. He
declined to elaborate on how such suppliers could be persuaded
to enter into long-term, fixed-price contracts in the absence of
any nuclear obligation. 

Mr Coley was speaking as British Energy reported a pre-tax
profit of £599m for its first full year since the company
relisted on the stock market following the government-backed
rescue. Operating profits for the 12 months to 31 March were
£635m compared with £69m in the previous 10-month period. 

The Chancellor disclosed in the Budget earlier this year that
the Government intended to sell part of its 65 per cent stake in
British Energy once the energy review is complete. The stake is
currently worth about £7bn - some £2bn more than the nuclear
liabilities the Government agreed to shoulder when it rescued
British Energy. Even a sale of half the Government's interest
would represent one of the biggest secondary offerings ever seen
on the London market. 

British Energy has just secured a 10-year life extension for its
Dungeness B station in Kent until 2018, and will decide in 2008
whether to seek similar extensions for its Hinkley Point B
reactor in Somerset and Hunterston B station in Scotland, both
of which are due to close in 2011. Further into the future,
there is the possibility of extending the lives of Hartlepool
and Heysham 1, which close in 2014, and Heysham 2 and Torness,
which are scheduled to shut in 2023. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 32 TheStar.com: Watchdog blasts nuclear plan
 
Tue. Jun. 20, 2006. | Updated at 09:21 PM 

AMROBERT BEN ZIEQUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

Ontario's decision to exempt new nuclear reactors from the
province's environmental bill of rights is wrongheaded, warns
Environment Commissioner Gord Miller.

Miller also rebuked the government yesterday for reneging on a
commitment to reduce mercury levels in air pollution.

Both transgressions are related to Ontario's energy policy,
unveiled last week.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan announced a 20-year, $46-billion
scheme to build two new reactors and look at retrofitting
existing nuclear plants. But Ontario's pollution-spewing
coal-fired plants are also staying open for now.

That forced Environment Minister Laurel Broten to postpone plans
for Ontario to sign on to a new Canada-wide agreement to reduce
mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010.

"Now it's open-ended. We just can't go on with no pollution
controls," said Miller, the province's independent environmental
watchdog, who also expressed concern that the nuclear proposal
bypasses the environmental bill of rights. That bill requires
ministries to publicize any regulations that could impact the
environment.

"They escaped the process whereby the people of Ontario should
have been able to review and comment on the regulation to exempt
the nuclear plans from an environmental assessment," Miller said.

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 33 ePolitix.com: Nuclear power 'a bad deal for the taxpayer'
 
  [Sir Menzies Campbell]   
    
The government intends to fund a new generation of nuclear power
station through massive hidden subsidies, Sir Menzies Campbell
has said. 

The Liberal Democrats leader made the comments as his party
published a document arguing that nuclear power is unaffordable
and unnecessary. 

The prime minister has repeatedly insisted that nuclear power
must be "part of the debate" about Britain's future energy
supplies. 

But Sir Menzies said: "Taxpayers are already liable to pay up to
Â£90bn to clean up after the existing generation of nuclear
power stations. 

"The taxpayers are picking up the tab because when the last
government privatised British Nuclear Fuels, investors refused
to shoulder the risk. 

"There is no indication that they are any more willing to take
on that risk this time. 

"Nuclear power is not attractive to the private sector without
massive state subsidies, either in the form of grants for
construction, tax breaks, the assumption of environmental risks
or the rigging of the market to guarantee prices in the future. 

"The government has not come clean on who will subsidise nuclear
power. 

"Mark my words: it will be the taxpayers and consumers in the
form of higher energy bills." 

Speaking at a press conference in London, Sir Menzies said the
problems of climate change and security of energy supply would
be better met by investing in energy efficiency,
microgeneration, renewable energy and the use of green taxes
recently put forward by the Lib Dems. 

The report says the US is leading a concerted effort to revive
the nuclear industry because of the Bush administration's
concerns about energy security. 

And Tony Blair was accused of ignoring the problems of nuclear
power in his "urgent chase for a legacy". 

Lib Dem environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "The reality is
before the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island there
was a thriving private market in the US, in particular in people
building nuclear power stations for profit. 

"Since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island not a single nuclear
power station has been built anywhere in the world without
lashings of government subsidy or guarantees. 

"This is a tried and tested and failed technology that has a
long track-record of cost overruns." 

Sir Menzies accused the government of making a 180-degree U-turn
since the 2003 energy review, and said he believed the new
review expected next month would hide the impact and cost of
nuclear power. 

Trade and industry spokesman Edward Davey said the government
may attempt to hide the subsidy through a new proposal for
pricing carbon. 

If nuclear power is deemed carbon-free, then carbon-producing
energy sources like  clean coal technology would have to
subsidise nuclear. 

But he said if the mining and transport of uranium and the
construction and operation of atomic plants were taken into
account some forms of conventional energy source like gas
produced less carbon. 

Sir Menzies: "It comes to this - the nuclear industry wants the
taxpayer to pay for the cost of commission, to be responsible
for all the costs of decommissioning so they can make a profit
in between. 

"That is not a good deal for the taxpayer."     
Published: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:50:23 GMT+01
 Author: Andrew Alexander "The government has not come clean on
who will subsidise nuclear power. Mark my words: it will be the
taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher energy bills" Sir
Menzies Campbell 

©2006 ePolitix.com     
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2; Notice of Consideration of 
 
                         FR Doc E6-9629 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 118)] 
[Notices] [Page 35453-35456] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn06-73]                         
 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-85, issued to Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, for operation of the Limerick Generating Station, 
Unit 2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
 
The proposed one-time amendment would revise Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.1.7 
concerning drywell average air temperature. Specifically,
 
[[Page 35454]] the proposed change would add a footnote to the TS 
limit for drywell average air temperature of 145 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to allow continued operation of LGS, Unit 2, 
with drywell average air temperature no greater than 148 [deg]F 
or the remainder of the current operating cycle (Cycle 9), which 
is currently scheduled to end in March 2007, or until the next 
shutdown of sufficient duration to allow for unit cooler fan 
repairs, whichever comes first.
 
The exigent amendment request is being made because both fans of 
the 2D drywell unit cooler are inoperable and out of service, 
which resulted in an increase in drywell average air temperature 
from approximately 129 [deg]F to approximately 142 [deg]F.
 
Historically, LGS has experienced an increase in the drywell 
average air temperature of 2-4 [deg]F during the summer months 
with normal drywell air cooling system operation. Under the 
current plant condition, this could result in the potential to 
exceed the TS limit of 145 [deg]F. Noticing this license 
amendment request in the Biweekly Federal Register Notice for the 
standard 30-day public comment period would not expire until July 
2006. Therefore, the combination of the increase in the drywell 
average air temperature during the summer months and the standard 
regulatory process for noticing license amendment requests could 
result in an unwarranted plant shutdown.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No. The increase in the allowable drywell 
average air temperature during normal plant operation does not 
make any physical changes to the plant. It only permits the plant 
to operate at a higher drywell average air temperature for a 
limited period of time, and therefore, does not increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. This increase in 
the drywell average air temperature has been evaluated to ensure 
that the change does not adversely affect the ability of the 
primary containment to perform its safety related function during 
accident conditions.
 
The LGS containment design was previously evaluated using an 
initial average air temperature of 150 [deg]F for the design 
basis Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA). The results of this 
evaluation showed that the peak drywell air temperature does not 
exceed the limit of 340 [deg]F post-accident and that the peak 
drywell pressure does not exceed the design limit of 55 psig. In 
addition, the results of this evaluation showed that the peak 
suppression pool temperature does not exceed the suppression pool 
structural design limit of 220 [deg]F, and does not exceed the 
low pressure Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) pump net 
positive suction head (NPSH) limit of 212 [deg]F. The proposed 
change is also bounded by the current small line break analysis.
 
Evaluation of components in the drywell has determined that the 
proposed one-time increase in the drywell average air temperature 
does not adversely affect the capability to perform their safety 
function. For components in the drywell, the qualified life was 
based on operation at a minimum drywell average air temperature 
of 145 [deg]F. An evaluation of the qualified life of components 
in the drywell has been performed and has determined that current 
qualification will not be adversely impacted even if the 
components are exposed to a temperature of 150 [deg]F for the 
remainder of the current operating cycle. The increased average 
air temperature of the drywell atmosphere does not degrade or 
compromise any coolant boundaries nor does it degrade or 
compromise any primary containment boundaries from performing 
their design functions during or following an accident condition. 
This proposed change does not result in or require any systems or 
components to be operated outside of their design limits.
 
This proposed change does not adversely affect mitigating 
systems, structures or components, and does not adversely affect 
the initial conditions of any accidents. Redundancy and diversity 
of mitigating systems are unchanged as a result of this proposed 
change. This proposed change does not affect onsite or offsite 
radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated in 
the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
 
Therefore, this proposed TS change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No. The one-time increase in the drywell 
average air temperature proposed by this TS change does not 
change any SSC [structures, systems, and components of the plant. 
This TS change does not create new operating or failure modes. 
The normal operating drywell average air temperature is 
maintained to prevent the peak temperature/pressure of the 
primary containment from exceeding the design limit, and to 
ensure that SSCs perform their safety functions before, during 
and after accident conditions. A previous evaluation has shown 
that the limits for the drywell and suppression pool design 
temperatures and pressures are not exceeded by the proposed 
change.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No. This proposed change will allow 
the plant to operate at a higher drywell average air temperature 
during normal operation for the remainder of the current 
operating cycle. This higher drywell average air temperature (148 
[deg]F) is still below the initial conditions (150 [deg]F) 
specified in the current short and long-term containment 
analyses. This change does not create additional heat loads or 
change the way any of the equipment is operated. A previous 
evaluation has demonstrated that the drywell and suppression pool 
design pressures and design temperatures and code requirements 
are maintained. Therefore, this one-time change to the TS drywell 
average air temperature limit, to allow the plant to operate no 
greater than 148 [deg]F for no longer than the remainder of the 
current operating cycle, does not have any adverse effect on the 
ability of safety-related SSCs to perform their design functions. 
The SSCs are designed to function following a LOCA where drywell 
temperature can peak at 340 [deg]F. For components in the 
drywell, the qualified life was based on operation at a minimum 
drywell average air temperature of 145 [deg]F. An evaluation of 
the qualified life of components in the drywell has been 
performed and has determined that current qualification will not 
be adversely impacted even if the components are exposed to a 
temperature of 150 [deg]F for the remainder of the current 
operating cycle.
 
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
 
[[Page 35455]] Normally, the Commission will not issue the 
amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. 
However, should circumstances change during the notice period, 
such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission 
may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 
14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. 
The final determination will consider all public and State 
comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it 
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The 
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur 
very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the 
petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration.
 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails 
to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. Brad 
Fewell, Assistant
 
[[Page 35456]] General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 
200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348, attorney for the 
licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 9, 2006, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of 
June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Richard V. Guzman, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-9629 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements: 
 
                         FR Doc E6-9630 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 118)] 
[Notices] [Page 35453] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn06-72]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review, Correction AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Documents containing reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; 
correction.
 
SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal 
Register on June 8, 2006 (71 FR 33320), that announces the recent 
submission of a proposal for the collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This 
action corrects the comment closing date for the information 
collection 10 CFR parts 20 and 32, ``National Source Tracking of 
Sealed Sources'' and NRC Form 748, ``National Source Tracking 
Transaction Report.''
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 33321, first column, second 
paragraph, the date ``August 7, 2006'' should read ``July 10, 
2006.'' Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of June 2006.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, 
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-9630 Filed 6-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 Telegraph: Profits power ahead for nuclear group
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Stephen Seawright (Filed: 20/06/2006)

Nuclear power generator British Energy delivered strong earnings 
on the back of higher electricity prices in the company's first 
full year results after its financial restructuring. 

[British Energy: fall and rise] 
  
Pre-tax profit was £599m for the year to March compared to £60m
for the period from July 2004 to March 2005 when the group
underwent a restructuring. 

British Energy earned £32 per MWh on average compared to £20.4
per MWh the previous year. The company moved from having net
debt of £220m to having net cash of £218m in March. 

Chief executive Bill Coley said: "Largely due to higher realised
prices, the Group has shown significant improvement in
profitability and cash flow." 

British Energy has signed contracts for 73pc of its proposed
output for the current financial year at an average price of £43
per MWh. 

The company underwent a large scale restructuring last year
after being brought to its knees by low electricity prices.
Under the restructuring the Government gained a 65pc stake in
British Energy in return for taking on some of the company's
decommissioning liabilities. 

Seven of British Energy's eight nuclear power plants are
scheduled to close by 2023. The company said it had started
examining whether two of its plants - Hunterston B and Hinkley
Point B - could have their lives extended. Both plants are
scheduled to close in 2011. 

British Energy has already extended the life of Dungeness B
plant in Kent by 10 years to 2018. 

Nuclear generation provides about a fifth of Britain's
electricity and Tony Blair has signalled that he is in favour of
constructing new nuclear plants as the current fleet are
retired. 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 37 The Day: Millstone Permit Process Upheld  

  Judge dismisses group's challenge  

 theday.com
 		 		 	
 Tuesday, Jun 20, 2006        										 										 									
    
  By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\,

E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324   
  
A state judge has dismissed a claim that the Connecticut Siting
Council improperly granted a permit to Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut to build a radioactive waste storage facility at
Millstone Power Station in Waterford.

 Judge George Levine, a New Britain Superior Court judge who
presides over the state's Court of Tax and Administrative
Appeals, ruled Wednesday that Nancy Burton and other state
residents appealing the permit failed to demonstrate that two
members of the Siting Council were biased when approving the
company's application for a permit.

 Levine had already dismissed other claims, including one that
the Siting Council's environmental review was flawed. 

Burton, who is the leader of an anti-nuclear group, the
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, at first brought suit
through her organization, but failed to provide consistent legal
counsel and ended up intervening in the case. 

The plaintiffs had accused members Philip Ashton and Dr. Edward
Wilds, who served on behalf of the state Department of
Environmental Protection, of bias. 

Wilds took a trip paid for by Dominion to its storage facilities
in Pennsylvania before the company applied for its permit.
Ashton did not disclose his previous employment at Northeast
Utilities, the former owner of Millstone.

 Levine found, based on case law, that Burton would have had to
show evidence of actual bias by Ashton and Wilds, not merely the
potential for it. He also found that the Siting Council allows
members like Ashton to serve despite past affiliations with the
utility industry. 

In Wilds' case, a state Ethics Commission approved Dominion's
payment of his expenses for the trip. Wilds testified he was
unaware of the company's storage plans at the time.

 That same Ethics Commission was dissolved in the aftermath of
the Rowland scandals, Burton said. Such a trip would not meet
current ethics standards. 

Burton said Monday she intends to appeal.

 Another party to the case, Geralyn Winslow of Waterford, said
Wilds' trip to Pennsylvania might be legal, but that doesn't
make it right. Winslow does not belong to the coalition.   
    
[TheDay.com]                                                                  
1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, CT  |  Â© 1998-2006 The Day 
Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator] 
*****************************************************************
 38 The Day: Irradiated Milk Claim Disputed  

theday.com
 		 		 	
 Tuesday, Jun 20, 2006        										 										 									
    
  By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\, Millstone\/business 
trends E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324   
  
A nuclear health expert continues to dispute a state report that
concluded elevated levels of radioactive isotopes in samplings
of goat's milk do not come from Millstone Power Station and pose
no health threat.

 Dr. Ernest Sternglass, a professor emeritus of Radiology at the
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and co-founder of
the Radiation and Public Health Project, has written a detailed
rebuttal of the state Department of Environmental Protection's
March review of 30 years of data on the subject for the
anti-nuclear group, the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone.

 The coalition asserted last year that records of goat's milk
testing in Waterford and East Lyme show unhealthy levels of the
radioactive isotope Strontium 90, which in high doses can cause
cancer. Millstone's owners and DEP have tested goats' milk there
four times a year for decades.

 DEP found that elevated levels of a potentially cancer-causing
isotope called Strontium 90 could not have come from Millstone
because Strontium 89, an element known to accompany it, was not
present in the data. The agency attributes higher Strontium 90
levels to fallout associated with past weapons testing and the
Chernobyl disaster. 

One of Sternglass' chief arguments is that the records show
abnormally high levels of gamma rays, beyond federal limits, at
the same time that elevated levels of Strontium 90 are present. 

According to Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, gamma rays are always emitted when
fission occurs, but while some radioactive isotopes emit gamma
rays, Strontium 90 does not. Federal limits for gamma rays vary
depending on which isotope they accompany, she said. 

Sternglass contends that the concurrent presence of excessive
gamma rays with Strontium 90 corroborates his view that
Millstone is the source of Strontium 90. He also argues that
Strontium 89, which has a short half life, would have
disappeared from the atmosphere long before Strontium 90, so its
absence does not necessarily prove it didn't come from Millstone.

 Sternglass released his conclusions to the coalition at a press
conference last week in Hartford, but is currently out of the
country and unavailable for comment.

 Bill Gerrish, the spokesman for the state Department of Public
Health, said his agency recently reviewed DEP's work and
considers it sound. At the request of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, DPH is
now investigating whether the state has the expertise or money
to study radiation and nuclear power emissions questions like
these, or whether to ask the federal government to do it.

 Coalition leader Nancy Burton said Monday she would bring her
concerns to the state legislative committees on the Environment,
Public Health, and Energy &Technology.   
    

1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, CT  |  Â© 1998-2006 The Day 
Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator] 
*****************************************************************
 39 NEWS.com.au: Call for 'safer' nuclear fuel - Energy Crisis - 

By Liz Bennett

 June 20, 2006

[Dr Hashemi-Nezhad / News Ltd] Dr Hashemi-Nezhad ... says thorium 
is a safer option.                               

A LITTLE-known nuclear fuel that is safer and more 
environmentally friendly than uranium could be the solution for 
the future of Australian energy, according to a leading 
scientist. Sydney University nuclear physicist Dr Reza 
Hashemi-Nezhad said Australia was the world's richest source of 
thorium, which had all the benefits of uranium without some of 
its drawbacks. 

"It's not possible to have a Chernobyl type of accident and it's
not possible to produce plutonium in the reactor which is the
main ingredient of the nuclear weapon," he said. 

The comments follow Prime Minister John Howard's establishment
of an inquiry into nuclear power, and a radioactive gas leak at
Australia's only reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. 

[Related story] Survey: Your say on going nuclear
[ width=]  Video: A 'safer' nuclear option 

Dr Hashemi-Nezhad urged green groups to back the development of
thorium-based nuclear plants. They produce waste that has a
500-year radioactive lifespan compared to tens of thousands of
years for uranium by-products. 

Australia's reserves of thoriumare much more abundant than that 
of uranium, offering untapped industrial and export potential and 
a ready energy supply. 

"Australia has a huge amount of thorium," Dr Hashemi-Nezhad
said. "I have calculated that if you use Australia's thorium
resources it will produce energy for 6000 years at the rate of
two billion barrels of oil per day." 

Thorium is not yet being used as an energy source, but a
prototype reactorwill be operational in Europe and the US by
2014. 

He said accelerator driven systems (ADS) powered by thorium
would need to be considered along with any traditional nuclear
option because they incinerate radioactive waste. 

"Using thorium in a reactor not only allows you to produce cheap
energy, green energy, but at the same time gives you an option
to eliminate the stockpile of nuclear waste spread all over the
world," Dr Hashemi-Nezhad said. 

"At the end of this nuclear debate, regardless of whether a
decision is made to go with ADS or uranium reactors, it is not
possible to avoid using thorium because this is the only way to
eliminate the waste that is produced in conventional reactors." 

Dr Hashemi-Nezhad said the green movement "must support this
idea because it solves their concerns and the problems of
humanity for years to come". 

*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: 'Nuclear will cost billions'
 
From Press Association   

[UP] 

Press Association 

Tuesday June 20, 2006 2:08 AM

Nuclear energy is "the ultimate stealth tax", Sir Menzies
Campbell has warned as he renews his battle with the Government
over Britain's future energy sources. 

The Liberal Democrat leader clashed with Tony Blair on the issue
in the Commons last week after the Prime Minister signalled a
new generation of nuclear stations was firmly on the agenda. 

Mr Blair told him nuclear had to be "at least part of the
debate" but Sir Menzies will argue that taxpayers and consumers
will be faced with a bill of tens of billions of pounds. 

His latest attack will be reinforced by new research by the
party showing it could only be made to work using vast taxpayer
subsidies or a rigged market. 

An alternative energy strategy based on renewables,
microgeneration, energy efficiency and clean coal technology
will be more affordable, Sir Menzies will argue. 

Sir Menzies will follow his speech with a visit to a combined
heat and power station and a fuel cell project that power a
leisure centre in Woking, where the party controls the council. 

He will say: "Every UK citizen is already paying over £1,500 to
clean up the nuclear waste of the last 50 years - and that bill
regularly gets revised upwards. 

"If the Prime Minister gets his way and a new generation of
nuclear power stations are built, both the taxpayer and consumer
will get stung again. Nuclear power is the ultimate stealth tax. 

"Evidence from abroad shows nuclear power is not competitive.
Last year the US Government was forced to offer nuclear
subsidies of $13.7 billion to persuade investors. 

"The new nuclear power plant being built in Finland needed
hidden subsidies through export guarantees from France,
30-year-long contracts and government guarantees over future
decommissioning and waste." 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 RIA Novosti: Ex-minister Adamov's defense files case vs. prosecutors, judge
 
20/ 06/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, June 20 (RIA Novosti) - Lawyers acting for a former
Russian nuclear energy minister charged with embezzlement said
Tuesday they had asked for a criminal case to be opened against
two prosecutors and a judge.

 Yevgeny Adamov, 67, has been in custody for almost a year after
being arrested in Switzerland at the request of the United
States and has been in a Russian prison for the past five and a
half months after being extradited to face charges of
embezzlement and abuse of office at the start of the year.

 His defense has consistently argued his innocence and today
lawyer Genri Reznik went a step further saying that investigator
Gennady Kuklo, acting Prosecutor General Yury Biryukov and a
Moscow City Court judge, Nina Sharapova, should be charged with
abuse of office.

 Reznik said Kuklo should be put on trial for allegedly forging
evidence because documents he produced in court May 23 to secure
an extension of Adamov's custody for two months did not
correspond to reality.

 "All of the court's rulings were based on false information,"
Reznik said. "First, the warrant for Adamov's arrest was
obtained because he was not living at his home address, even
though he was known to have been detained in Switzerland on the
request of the United States on May 2." 

The attorney also said that the Prosecutor General's Office had
opened a criminal case against Adamov on May 13 and requested
that he be kept in custody because he might escape when he was
delivered in Russia.

 Reznik said a criminal case had also been filed in a Moscow
district court against a security service officer, Lieutenant
General Anatoly Groshev, on charges of falsifying evidence. The
lawyer said Groshev submitted a document convincing the court
that Adamov might exert pressure on witnesses and influence the
investigation. 

On May 23, the Moscow City Court extended Adamov's custody until
August 8, rejecting defense lawyers' arguments that the charges
should be dropped. 

Prosecutors said the former minister, who served from 1998 to
2001, was a leader of an organized criminal group whose members
were on an international wanted list and that he should be
remanded in custody to prevent him from influencing witnesses. 

The United States accused Adamov of misappropriating $9 million
given to Russia for nuclear safety projects. He would have faced
60 years in prison if convicted in the U.S.
 
© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 42 Platts: US-Russia threat reduction program extended another seven 
years
 
Washington (Platts)--19Jun2006
 
The US-Russia cooperative threat reduction program will be 
extended for seven years under a protocol signed by both nations, 
the White House said June 19.

Established in 1992 and extended in 1999, the program has 
assisted in the deactivation of thousands of Russian missiles and 
warheads and installation of security upgrades at Russian nuclear 
warhead sites. 

CTR programs have also "assisted Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine 
to become free of nuclear weapons and strategic delivery systems, 
and helped many states to prevent the proliferation of sensitive 
materials," the White House said.
 
														Terms & Conditions 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 43 UBC: RosAtom to give 2.5 times more subsidies to solve 
environmental problems caused by Mayak Production Association in 
2006. Daily news çà 20.06.2006. UralBusinessConsulting
 
  [UralBusinessConsulting]     

 Daily news çà 20.06.2006   

The Government of Russian Federation has already taken steps 
targeted at preventing the possible environmental accident at 
Techinskiy tandem reservoir system. This was reported by Russia's 
Security Council after the deputies of Chelyabinsk Region 
Legislative Chambers asked for the state interference into the 
environmental safety problem at Techinskiy tandem reservoir 
system and Mayak Production Association.

As the spokesperson for Chelyabinsk Region Legislative Chambers 
explained to UrBC representative, the deputies decided to appeal 
to the government after the water level in the reservoirs reached 
its upper limits, which increased the risk of radioactive 
nuclides penetrating the River Techa and could lead to a dyke 
breach.

Russia's Security Council also reported that a hydrodynamic model 
of the tandem reservoir system is currently being created in 
order to fix the water level; the working team of engineers is 
also looking for effective ways to purify the water in the end 
reservoir. The top of the dam will soon be properly fortified, 
and people living in the village of Muslyumovo (in the vicinity 
of the reservoirs) will be relocated in the near future.

In 2006, RosAtom expects to give 2.5 times more subsidies to 
solve environmental problems caused by Mayak Production 
Association. In 2007, they will keep allotting federal budget 
money to be spent on building up nuclear, radiation, and 
environmental safety at Mayak as well as other Russian 
enterprises. In addition, these issues will be included in the 
agenda of the Federal Russia's Nuclear and Radiation Safety 
Target Grant in 2008-2015. 

    Phone: + 7 343 2575578
           © Informational-analitical agency
«UralBusinessConsulting», 2000-2006
*****************************************************************
 44 CBS: Heroes Of The Cold War Out In The Cold, Many Workers Who Dealt
With Uranium Are Being Denied Compensation - CBS News

LACKAWANNA, N.Y., June 19, 2006

  Quote
"It's not surprising that more people were said 'no' to than
'yes.' People not exposed to radiation develop these cancers as
well." 

Dr. Lewis Wade
    
(CBS) At age 72, Ed Walker, like most men of his generation, has
never been afraid of hard work. In the 1950s, he and the men of
Bethlehem Steel, in Lackawanna, N.Y., just outside Buffalo,
worked hard. 

"Restaurants were all loaded," he tells CBS News national
correspondent Bryon Pitts. "Weekends after payday, you couldn't
get a seat in any place. It was just a booming town." 

But Bethlehem Steel went belly-up — and soon, old-timers like
Walker would discover a secret: Co-workers were dying from
cancer. 

From 1949 to 1952, Bethlehem Steel had a contract with the
federal government to roll uranium rods for nuclear reactors. It
was the peak of the Cold War. The nation was nervous, and the
military was building an arsenal of atomic bombs. 

The men who worked at the Bethlehem plant in Lackawanna never
knew they were dealing with uranium, Walker says. "They never
had a clue — not for 50 years." 

Uranium is radioactive material, but Walker says the people at
the plant wore neither radiation detectors nor protective suits.
When asked what was protecting them from the radioactivity, he
replies, "Nothing. Nothing at all." 

In 2000, Congress passed legislation allowing workers who
developed cancer from exposure to radioactive material at
Bethlehem Steel and 323 other plants around the country to
receive up to $150,000 in compensation — if they qualified. But
Walker and others have learned just how big that if could be:
Walker was diagnosed with bladder cancer six years ago; he's
been denied three times. 

"Ludicrous. Ludicrous," Walker says of the denials. 

The qualification process is complicated, to say the least. The
Labor Department uses a computer model that determines a
worker's radiation exposure 50 years ago. If there's more than a
50 percent chance that a worker's cancer was caused by their
exposure, he's compensated. If it's less than 50 percent:
nothing. 

"They took everything; cleaned me right out — took (my)
appendix, gall bladder, hung the bag on me. And yet they say I
am only 10 percent. Come on," says Russell Earley, who worked at
Bethlehem Steel for 43 years and has been rejected three times. 

So far, the Labor Department has received 21,000 claims and paid
out nearly half a billion dollars to workers and their families.
But 72% of the applications have been denied. 

"I can appreciate that angst," says Dr. Lewis Wade, one of the
government's leading scientists. "But again, it's not surprising
that more people were said 'no' to than 'yes.' People not
exposed to radiation develop these cancers as well." 

That's no consolation to Walker. Though he agrees that Bethlehem
Steel was good to Lackawanna for a very long time, he notes that
"you can't tell that to a widow who lost her husband." 

Called "Heroes of the Cold War," these Americans just feel left
out in the cold. 

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 Platts: NRC might issue exemption in July, allowing OPPD to load casks
 
Washington (Platts)--19Jun2006
 
NRC notified the Omaha Public Power District last week that it 
might issue an exemption to the utility on July 21, allowing OPPD 
to begin loading some Fort Calhoun spent fuel into storage casks 
before a refueling and refurbishment outage at the plant slated 
to start in September. 

NRC said the schedule "is very aggressive and reflects the 
high-priority" the agency is placing on the request OPPD filed 
June 9. The schedule allows for a request for additional 
information, or RAI, June 27 with OPPD's response due to the 
agency July 3. The utility had asked for approval by July 7, 
allowing it to begin loading spent fuel into four Transnuclear 
Inc.

Nuhoms-32PT storage systems. The parties are scheduled to meet 
June 23 to discuss the status of the request and any issues 
needing to be resolved. 

OPPD needs the exemption from spent fuel storage regulations 
because it cannot comply with three technical specification 
requirements in the Nuhoms certificate of compliance (COC). The 
problematic tech specs relate to transfer cask surface dose rate 
limits and vacuum drying time for a loaded canister.

OPPD is using its 75-ton crane to load the system, which has a 
100-ton transfer cask. TN removed 25 tons of shielding from the 
transfer cask following an analysis under 10 CFR Part 72.48, a 
regulation that allows minor design changes without NRC review 
and approval so long as the changes meet specific criteria. 

In addition to seeking an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 
Part 72 that require users to comply with the terms of the COC, 
OPPD is seeking an exemption from two provisions of Part 72.48: 
72.48(c)(1)(B), which requires changes be limited to those that 
do not alter the terms, conditions, or specifications of the COC; 
and 72.48(c)(2)(viii), one of the eight criteria, prohibiting any 
departure from the method of analysis approved in the COC.

After a public meeting and several phone calls with NRC, OPPD 
officials determined an exemption was needed from Part 72.48 
after the utility accepted NRC's position that the modified 
transfer cask uses supplemental shielding that alters the thermal 
model used in the COC. 

An NRC official said last week the agency has granted exemptions 
from provisions of 72.48 involving licensees not having enough 
time to implement the requirements, but could not identify past 
examples of NRC granting exemptions from any of the eight 
criteria. Industry sources, noting the agency has raised barriers 
to Part 72.48 in the past, suggested there was no guarantee NRC 
would approve such an exemption. 

In this exemption request, one source said, OPPD "wants to make a 
change they can't make [under Part 72.48] without NRC approval, 
but they are asking for NRC approval to implement the change 
through an exemption." 

A June 7 letter to OPPD from Jack Strosnider, director of NRC's 
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), 
illustrated the high level of agency attention OPPD's plans have 
garnered. He said NRC understands "the important role that this 
cask loading campaign plays in completing your upcoming outage," 
reiterating the "importance of NRC's exemption review process 
elements," which normally take "several months" to process. 

He added that while NRC "intends to give high priority to this 
review, a high-quality submittal is essential for the NRC to 
complete its technical review of the proposed exemption." 

The letter summarized several interactions between NRC staff, 
OPPD, and TN leading up to submittal of the request. If approved, 
Stronsnider noted, the exemption would be limited to four casks 
filled with fuel whose residual power ranges from 10 to 12 
kilowatts. The current COC is designed for 24-KW fuel. 

A May 26 e-mail from NRC project manager Joe Sebrosky to Fort 
Calhoun nuclear licensing supervisor Tom Matthews provides 
preliminary shielding comments on the draft exemption request. 
That e-mail indicates NRC is concerned that, even though Fort 
Calhoun plans to perform all operations using the bare OS197L 
transfer cask, potential malfunctions have not yet been 
addressed. Officials also raised dose rate concerns during a May 
24 meeting on a draft version of the exemption (Inside NRC, 30 
May, 9). In a teleconference May 25, NRC staff told TN and OPPD 
that the cask vendor's supplemental calculations, which were 
intended to address NRC's contention that the thermal methodology 
differs from the COC for the transfer cask when it is inside 
temporary shielding on a transfer trailer, did not put the issue 
to rest, according to NRC's summary of the call. 

TN maintained at the public meeting that the calculations 
supported its original Part 72.48 analysis. NRC offered OPPD two 
options for resolving the issue: continuing to work through the 
inspection process to reach consensus, or amending the draft 
exemption request to include a request for a change in the method 
of evaluation. 

"The exemption could include simplified calculations to resolve 
the issue," NRC said in the summary. 

The following day, OPPD notified NRC it would pursue the second 
option. 

In a subsequent teleconference May 30, Fort Calhoun officials 
described their intended approach to modeling heat in the 
transfer cask, which is inside the transport trailer supplemental 
shielding. The utility said the thermal calculation would use a 
heat load of 18.4 KW, compared to the 24-KW design basis, 
according to a summary of the call. Though calculations were not 
complete at the time, the utility and TN indicated the fuel 
cladding surface temperature ranged as high as 700 degrees 
Fahrenheit. 

"The staff noted that this was near the 752 degrees F limit 
provided" in interim staff guidance, the summary said. 

"The staff cautioned Fort Calhoun to consider simplifying options 
in their exemption request that would overwhelm the uncertainty 
in the thermal calculations that Fort Calhoun intended to provide 
as part of its exemption request." 

The summary on June 6 teleconference indicates TN stood by its 
original 72.48 analysis. The summary does not indicate whether 
NRC agrees with TN, but staff said during the public meeting that 
an inspection might be scheduled to follow up on any lingering 
staff concerns. Concerns about the 72.48 analysis, which TN 
conducted and Fort Calhoun is adopting, include what NRC contends 
is a change to the thermal method of analysis and a change to how 
some shielding calculations are evaluated. 

While the shielding calculation issue has been resolved, NRC 
staff last week could not address what steps the agency plans to 
take to address TN's position on the thermal analysis, indicating 
no final decisions have yet been made.

For similar news, take a trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://nucweek.platts.com.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 46 reviewjournal.com: 19 vehicles removed from Yucca fleet
 
Jun. 20, 2006

Audit found 20 percent of inventory underused    

WASHINGTON -- Officials at Yucca Mountain took 19 federal 
vehicles out of its fleet after auditors determined that 20 
percent of the project's inventory was underused, according to an 
inspection report. 

The Energy Department is wasting as much as $9.1 million annually 
by holding onto cars, trucks, minibuses and work vans that are 
considered underused based on their mileage or hours they are on 
the road, according to an audit published in May by the 
department's inspector general. 

Auditors examined 75 vehicles used by the Yucca Mountain Project
in 2004, and questioned the use of 15 of them. 

At the Nevada Test Site, auditors reviewed 191 vehicles in 2004,
and found 20 percent of them also to be underused. Test site
officials disagreed with the audit. 

The Energy Department requires its laboratories and project
sites to monitor vehicle use and reassign or dispose of those
that are underused, or to justify keeping them around. They are
used for jobs at the sites or to transport employees to and from
their work areas. 

Auditors concluded the underutilization rate departmentwide was
about 28 percent. 

Yucca Mountain managers accepted the findings and reduced their
fleet by 19 sedans and four-wheel drive trucks, spokesman Allen
Benson said. They were either sold or transferred to other
government agencies, he said. 

Benson said Yucca Mountain officials are not allowed to take
vehicles home or use them for nonwork errands. Many are for
offroad use. 

"If you have a government car you have it for official use
only," he said. 

Authorities at the test site disagreed with the audit in part
because its data was two years old, spokesman Darwin Morgan
said. 

The test site is unique among Department of Energy reservations
because of its vast sprawl and remoteness 65 miles from Las
Vegas, he said. 

Most of the test site employees travel there by bus. Once
onsite, they must travel widely, Morgan said. The test site
maintains a fleet of 1,044 vehicles, a mix of trucks, SUVs,
vans, sedans, and special purpose vehicles, he said. 

"The manager overseeing the program constantly keeps an eye on
the fleet," he said. "The less money you spend with vehicles,
(more can go) to other areas." 

The test site performs its own reviews, Morgan said. 

An internal study in the first three months of 2006 determined 5
percent of test site vehicles were underused. As a result, site
contractor Bechtel Nevada was instructed to reduce that to less
than 1 percent by June, he said. Another review will be
performed at the end of June. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 47 Tallahassee Democrat: Yucca holds a key to clean energy

www.tallahassee.com - Tallahassee, FL.
 
 By Gregory R. Choppin MY VIEW 

Nuclear power is back in the spotlight.

 A few weeks ago, Great Britain became the latest country to set 
the stage for a new generation of nuclear power plants. In a 
speech, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the continued use of 
nuclear power as part of a much-needed change in energy policy.

Construction of new nuclear plants is under way in a number of
countries, including Japan, China, India, Korea and Finland.
Canada and France, among others, plan to build or refurbish
nuclear plants within the next five years. 

And several European counties - including Germany, Sweden, Spain
and Switzerland - are re-evaluating plans to phase out nuclear
power.

 In the United States, there are many signs of renewed interest
in nuclear power. Three-quarters of the 103 nuclear power plants
in the U.S. have obtained 20-year license extensions or plan to
do so. There are initial plans, by several consortia of
utilities and individual companies, to build between 15 and 20
new nuclear plants. Florida utilities are showing great interest
in increasing nuclear-power capacity. Some local communities are
competing with each other, offering companies incentives to site
the plants in their areas.

 Much of the reason for this nuclear renaissance is that, unlike
coal, oil and natural gas, nuclear power does not emit any
global-warming gases. However, nuclear is not the only clean
energy source that can help us reduce our impact on the world's
environment. Renewable sources - solar, wind, biomass and
geothermal, along with improvements in energy efficiency - are
also extremely important. And their contribution is steadily
growing. They are not yet capable of providing the large amounts
of economic power around the clock, which we get from nuclear
energy. But their roles are expanding, and they are important in
Florida and nationally.

 Both nuclear power and renewable energy sources have been
promoted in federal energy policies, through a series of
economic incentives to energy producers, because of their
critical importance to the environment. Unfortunately, Congress
has been reluctant to take one of the steps necessary to assure
a growing contribution of nuclear power - the licensing and
construction of the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada.
Used nuclear fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear
power plants, but these plants cannot be permanent repositories.

 Congress must act to move the repository forward. Yucca has not
received adequate funding, even though more than enough money is
being collected from electric power users by the government
specifically for that purpose. Congress should correct that, and
correct a few technicalities - such as an artificial limit on
the amount of used fuel that the repository can hold - to allow
Yucca to become a reality.

 We can't afford to gamble with something as important as
electricity reliability and environmental quality. Now is the
time to move ahead with nuclear power, if we are to have clean
and affordable energy in the years ahead. Our energy security -
and that of the world - depends on it. 

Gregory R. Choppin is the R.O. Lawton distinguished professor of
chemistry at Florida State University. Contact him at
choppin@chem.fsu.edu. 

Originally published June 20, 2006 Print this article     Email

Gregory R. Choppin 


 Copyright ©2006 Tallahassee Democrat.
*****************************************************************
 48 SNP: SNP Warns Against Scotland Becoming Nuclear Dump  

Scottish National Party 

SNP.org

 westminster Tony Blair's fixation with nuclear power over all
other new energy sources threatens to make Scotland a nuclear
dump according to SNP MP Angus Robertson who will be speaking in
a debate on nuclear dumping tonight (Monday). 

Commenting Mr Robertson said: 

"Tony Blair has pre-empted his own energy review by opting for
nuclear power ahead of other options. This seriously threatens
Scotland's image as the vast majority of proposed nuclear dumps
have been pinpointed in Scotland. 

"Of the 33 identified sites considered as high level waste dump
sites in the UK 22 are in Scotland. It is obvious that Scotland
is highly placed as a nuclear dump for Tony Blair's obsession
with nuclear power. 

"Scotland doesn't want or need new nuclear power stations and
certainly doesn't want to become the dumping ground for
Britain's nuclear waste. We have the opportunity instead to
become Europe's renewable power house and government policy
should be focused 100% on maximising our clean, green energy
potential. 

"Not only does Scotland face that threat but we have already
seen in the Commons the emerging Tory-Labour alliance on this
issue as they try to downplay its significance. 

"However at the very least they admitted this would be a
responsibility for the Scottish Executive. 

"That alone shows why it is important that Alex Salmond is
elected as First Minister next year to avert this putative
Tory-Labour alliance turning Scotland into a nuclear dump." 

ENDS 

Note - According to Greenpeace, there are 33 sites which have
previously been considered as high level waste dump sites in the
UK. 22 of them are located in Scotland. 

Proposed High Level Waste Sites 


  Country     Number of sites     %   
  Scotland      22     66.7%   
  England      10     30.3%   
  Wales     1     3%   
  UK      33     100%  


  Scottish Sites     Westminster Constituency   
  Altnabreac     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  Ben Armine area     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  Corrour     Ross, Skye & Lochaber   
  Deeside     West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine   
  Glen Etive     Ross, Skye & Lochaber   
  Bennachie     Gordon   
  Isle of Rum     Ross, Skye & Lochaber   
  Jura     Argyll & Bute   
  Loch Laxford to Enard bay     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter
Ross   
  Mullwharchar Hill     Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock   
  North Harris     Na-h-Eileanan an lar   
  Pabbay     Na-h-Eileanan an lar   
  Peterhead     Banff & Buchan   
  River Strathy     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  Rogart     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  St Kilda     Na-h-Eileanan an lar   
  Scarp     Na-h-Eileanan an lar   
  Scourie     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  Shin Forest     Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross   
  South Rona Island     Ross, Skye & Lochaber   
  South West Lewis     Na-h-Eileanan an lar   
  Taransay     Na-h-Eileanan an lar  

 Created by bob bob 
Contributors : Mary 

--> Published 19/06/2006 06:00 PM     [ title=] More News 
                                

  ©Copyright 2006 Scottish National Party. All Rights Reserved.
 Promoted by Peter Murrell on behalf of the Scottish National
Party, both at 107 McDonald Road, Edinburgh EH7 4NW. [*]       |
*****************************************************************
 49 TimesUnion.com: Agency forecasts cleanup stoppage 

Corps of Engineers moves to allay concerns about removal of soil
from National Lead site 	 	 	   	 	 	
 	      	 	 	
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST, Staff writer                       

First published: Tuesday,               June 20, 2006                                   
	 	 	 	 	 	 	
COLONIE -- Federal money for removing tons of radioactive dirt 
from the site of a defunct Central Avenue munitions plant could 
be exhausted by December, after which work there will halt 
temporarily, officials said Monday.

Nevertheless, the Army Corps of Engineers vowed to finish the job 
at the former National Lead plant, even if it cannot say when.

The project's manager briefed state and town officials Monday on 
a new plan to do as much work as possible in the coming months 
before the site is effectively shut down until more money is 
available.

Crews already have stopped shipping soil off the site on rail
cars, and are preparing it for long-term storage on a cement pad.

Meanwhile, town officials and activists sought assurances that
the storage will not be permanent and will be done safely.

"We're trying to make the best out of a bad situation," James
Moore, the Corps of Engineers project manager, said. He was
referring to the discovery this spring of tons more radioactive
soil than were thought to be on the 11.2-acre site, just west of
the Albany city line.

"We don't have very many options, to be honest," he said, adding
that the revised plan would not threaten public health or change
the scope of the project, just the timeline.

For years, National Lead, or NL Industries, used radioactive
metals to produce depleted uranium weapons and other military
technologies.

Much progress has been made. The NL buildings are long gone, and
only 3 acres of the main site remain to be cleaned. But crews
have unearthed contamination in spots eight times deeper than
they thought they would find it, adding millions to the
project's cost -- mostly in fees to ship the radioactive dirt by
rail for disposal in Idaho.

The federal government already has spent about $172 million on
the site since the Department of Energy bought it in 1984.

Altogether, crews have found between 33 and 40 percent more
contamination than expected, partly because they found polluted
soil beneath old buildings not on any maps, Moore said.

If there is as much left as Moore and his experts now think --
about 10,000 cubic yards -- shipping and disposal alone could
cost more than $8 million, pushing the total remaining cost to
clean the main parcel and a smaller adjoining one to about $15
million.

But because the project was expected to be done by September,
the end of the federal fiscal year, the Corps of Engineers had
not planned on giving the project anywhere near that much next
year.

The result is a funding shortfall that has the Corps of
Engineers readying a plan to excavate as much soil as it can,
then store it on the cement pad. If there is enough money left,
crews will also excavate the smaller neighboring parcel, owned
by CSX Transportation, and store the soil on a second temporary
pad.

Residents resisted a similar years ago, and Town Board member
Kevin Bronner repeated Monday the town's insistence that the
site not become a permanent storage facility for radioactive
dirt.

Moore assured Bronner that wouldn't happen but said he could not
say how long it might take for the Colonie project to get more
funding.

The National Lead cleanup is just one of many in the federal 
FUSRAP -- or Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program that 
was established to clean land polluted in America's early nuclear 
research.

Congress funds the program each year in a lump sum and Corps of 
Engineers officials determine how much funding each project 
should get.

Tom Ellis, an Albany resident active in issues involving the NL 
cleanup, expressed concerns at Monday's meeting about 
contaminated dust blowing off the site into surrounding 
neighborhoods, which were decontaminated years ago.

Some residents have blamed the NL plant for cancers and other 
sicknesses.

Moore told Ellis the soil kept on-site would be securely capped, 
the perimeter fences maintained and the air leaving the site 
monitored for contamination -- as is the case now.

"We're always going to maintain a presence on the site," even if 
crews are not working there daily, he said.

Moore met Monday morning with officials from the state Department 
of Environmental Conservation to start to work out how the Corps 
of Engineers will conduct the monitoring.

Bronner further questioned why the Corps of Engineers planned to 
wait until fall, possibly October, to hold a public information 
meeting about the latest developments, by which point most of the 
remaining money would be spent and the public's input would 
likely be too late to affect the outcome.

Moore said the Corps of Engineers wanted to establish the details 
of the plan, such as the monitoring regime, before going to the 
public.

"This is an evolving situation," he said. "It's just going to 
take us longer than we originally planned."

Jordan Carleo-Evangelist can be reached at 454-5445 or by e-mail 
at jcarleo-evangelist@ timesunion.com.



  All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital
Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

 --> CONTACT US | HOW TO ADVERTISE | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS | FULL

  All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital
Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

*****************************************************************
 50 New on Tri-Valley CAREs' website June 19, 2006
 
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:38:49 -0700

<x-flowed>
Greetings. Please find the following new items on Tri-Valley CAREs' web
site at www.trivalleycares.org --

1.      Read Tri-Valley CAREs' comment on the Department of Energy's draft
Request for Proposals to manage the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Just click into the "technical letters and comments" section on the left
hand side of our website.

2.      Get all the latest on the recent hearing before the 9th Circuit
Court in the lawsuit brought by Tri-Valley CAREs and Nuclear Watch New
Mexico. We seek to compel a detailed environmental review and public
hearings before Livermore Lab can operate an advanced biowarfare agent
research facility mixing bugs and bombs at the nuclear weapons lab. Read
our June press release and then click into "TVC in the news" section to
find some of the news stories.

3.      Check out our calendar section and find out about an important
workshop to be held in Livermore on July 19. The event is titled "Radiation
and Health" and will feature guest speakers and researchers from Clark
University and the Community-Based Hazard Management Program. For topic
details and short biographies, just click into the calendar section at the
left-hand side of the website, read the workshop description and open the
flier linked there.

4.      Read Tri-Valley CAREs' comment on the remedies being considered for
the Superfund cleanup at Livermore Lab's site 300 high explosives testing
range. You will find our comment in the "technical letters and comment"
section of the web site.

5.      Click into our "alerts" section and find ways you can effectively
help stop nuclear weapons and pollution. We have newly posted letters you
can download, sign and send to save the environment. We have petitions you
can download to stop the Dept. of Energy from doubling the plutonium at
Livermore. And, more.

6.      Check out the "newsletters" section and find our June 2006
Citizen's Watch freshly posted there. Read "print bites" about funding for
the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the Divine Strake
protest (and the postponement of the test) -- and so much more!

I hope you enjoy our website and all of the information you will find
there. As always, comments welcome.

Peace,
Marylia


Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 51 AP Wire: Top nuke official hopes MOX program at SRS will make strides soon

06/20/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

AIKEN, S.C. - The head of the federal nuclear weapons program
hopes a plan to convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for
commercial reactors will make significant strides this fall. 

Ambassador Linton Brooks, the top administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, said the U.S. is committed to
the mixed-oxide fuel program also known as MOX, the Aiken
Standard reported Tuesday. 

"The U.S. program is ready and we need to get along with the
job," Brooks said. 

Construction of a mixed-oxide plant at the Savannah River Site
near Aiken has been held up because of complications that have
delayed construction of a Russian facility. Those issues have
apparently been solved in a recent agreement. 

Groundbreaking ceremonies on the facility were held last fall.
About 73 acres has been cleared at the site and 80 percent has
been excavated to make way for construction, Brooks said. In
addition, 85 percent of the facility's design work is complete. 

"We need to move forward because the United States has a
commitment," Brooks said. "The United States lives up to its
commitments." 

Six years ago, the United States and Russia each agreed to
dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium by
converting it to fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors.
North Carolina-based Duke Power wants to use the fuel in four of
its reactors. 

South Carolina agreed in 2002 to accept the weapons-grade
plutonium at SRS if the U.S. Energy Department built a facility
to convert the plutonium into fuel. At the same time, the U.S.
agreed to help fund the construction of a similar MOX plant in
Russia, meant to operate on a parallel track with the SRS plant. 

Brooks also told members of the Citizens for Nuclear Technology
Awareness that he hopes uncertain funding issues will be worked
out by both chambers in Congress. 

"I am confident that we will see the necessary funds so
construction is not interrupted," Brooks said. 

Earlier this month, U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., called for an
investigation of the future of the MOX programs. 

TheState.com 
*****************************************************************
 52 Las Vegas SUN: Mixed signals received on Test Site blast 

 Photo: Backhoe 

Today: June 20, 2006 at 2:23:29 PDT 

DOE says it plans to go ahead with Divine Strake

 By Launce Rake <lrake@lasvegassun.com> and Lisa Mascaro 
Las Vegas Sun

Despite claims to the contrary, the planned detonation of 700
tons of chemical explosives at the Nevada Test Site is not quite
dead. 

In a U.S. District Court hearing conducted by telephone last
week, government officials said they had no immediate plans to
move forward with the fuel oil-ammonium nitrate explosion, and
agreed to a stipulation that the earliest the test could go
forward would be September. Designed to simulate an atomic-sized
blast on underground structures, the explosion was originally
scheduled for June 2 but has been postponed because of the court
challenge. 

Kevin Rohrer, an Energy Department spokesman working in Las
Vegas, said Monday that his agency continues to work on the
project: "We have not scrubbed it, canceled it, or whatever. We
are still moving forward pending the outcome of the litigation." 

In Washington, however, congressional members got conflicting
information about the blast, leaving them with little insight
into the Defense Department's intentions or schedule. 

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she had been told as recently
as Monday that the Defense Department had indefinitely postponed
the blast, only to learn later in the day that Energy Department
officials in Nevada were laying the groundwork for the
explosion. 

"They're double-talking. If it's postponed indefinitely, then
why are they going forward with it, doing all this planning?"
asked her spokesman, David Cherry. "Until such time that she is
satisfied that the test can be done safely, she will not sign
off on it. She is opposed." 

A spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he
believes the test will go off in the fall. 

Reid has supported the test as a way to develop conventional
weaponry that could be strong enough to knock out underground
targets, but he has reserved the option to reconsider if the
blast is shown to have ties to nuclear weaponry or if the
testing is harmful to residents. 

At the heart of the current legal challenge is a question about
the blast's potential to pick up and transport particles out of
the test area. Critics fear those particles might include
radioactive material from the years of above and below-ground
nuclear testing at the site. 

The Energy Department, in an environmental assessment prepared
earlier this year and a follow-up notice in May, said there
would be "no significant impact" from the test, but withdrew
those findings this month "to re-evaluate the existing data,
analyses and conclusions." 

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection must grant a
permit for the test blast, dubbed "Divine Strake," to proceed. 

Rohrer said the federal government has an obligation under
federal law to obtain the state permit before it can proceed:
"We have firm requirements under the Clean Air Act. We have been
working vigorously with the state." 

The Energy Department, which manages the Test Site, is working
on the environmental documentation, while the test itself would
be conducted by the Defense Department. 

Attorney Robert Hager, who on behalf of the Winnemucca Indian
Colony and other residents near the Test Site has been pressing
for stricter oversight of the government's plans, said he
worries that the government will continue to move forward with
"junk science" and without adequate environmental review. 

"I am more concerned today than I was when they pulled the plug
on this two weeks ago," he said after last week's court ruling.
"This is good news for the downwinders - they know they won't be
breathing radioactive dust at least until September." 

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Defense Department
agency conducting the test, has agreed to public meetings on the
issue once the lawsuit is resolved. A Senate staffer said those
meetings could come later this summer. 

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said it remains unclear whether the test
can be conducted safely. The Defense Department "has assured me
that the test will not go forward until we have the
environmental data I've requested in hand, we've had time to
analyze it, and the public has been fully informed," Hatch said
in a statement. 

Republican Rep. Jon Porter, who along with Republican Rep. Jim
Gibbons supports the project as part of continued weapons
testing, said he trusts the state to determine whether the blast
is safe for Nevadans. 

Funding for the project expires at the end of September 2007. 

Critics, among them arms-control advocates, have charged that
the blast is a step toward a new, nuclear "bunker busting"
weapon. Defense Department officials say the test could help
them develop either a conventional or nuclear weapon. 

Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, said in a
report last month that countries should not pursue low-yield
nuclear weapons for fear of creating a new arms race. 

"Of particular concern would be the adoption of doctrines and
weapon systems that blur the distinction between nuclear and
conventional weapons, or lower the nuclear threshold. Such
modifications could over time have a domino effect and give rise
to a renewed demand to resume nuclear testing," according the
report issued by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, of
which Blix is chairman. 

"We're going to be asking our (elected officials) to demand a
full-blown environmental impact statement," said Peggy Maze
Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a Nevada-based
group opposed to the planned test. "We want more people and more
science." Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at
lrake@lasvegassun.com. Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202)
662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 53 Tri-City Herald: Group says DOE should consider restarting FFTF 

Published Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The Department of Energy should take a close look at whether
it's technically possible to restart Hanford's Fast Flux Test
Facility to play a research role in expanding nuclear energy
worldwide, a past president of the American Nuclear Society said
Monday. 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a program announced by
President Bush earlier this year, calls for developing reactors
to burn plutonium from spent fuel to prevent its use in weapons.
The concept envisions nuclear power playing a key role in the
world's energy future and seeks to address concerns about how to
deal with spent nuclear fuel and the plutonium it contains. 

Developing that process will require a test reactor with
capabilities similar to those of FFTF, Alan Waltar told the
Herald editorial board. Waltar is a past president of the
American Nuclear Society and the former head of the nuclear
engineering department at Texas A University. 

Sodium was drained from FFTF's cooling system after Democrat and
Republican administrations determined that the nation had no
financially viable use for the reactor. 

Supporters of saving the reactor repeatedly said as they worked
to preserve it that draining the sodium, which involved drilling
a hole in the cooling system to retrieve the last of the sodium,
was the death knell for the reactor. 

But whether it could be restarted cannot be known without a
technical study, Waltar said. 

When the sodium used to cool the reactor was drained, he said
the system was backfilled with high purity argon gas, which
should preserve the cooling system pipes. 

A 3/4-inch hole was drilled in the core support basket, an
unpressurized area, rather than in the core itself. That might
mean the hole could be safely plugged and any metal shavings
from the drill removed from the coolant through the reactor's
sodium filtering system, he said. 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership aims to dramatically
increase the amount of nuclear power produced worldwide by 2050
and reduce the risk of nuclear byproducts that could be used by
unstable regimes or terrorists to make weapons. 

FFTF is the only U.S. reactor that could be used as an advanced
burner test reactor, Waltar said. Although some are available
internationally, most are problematic, he said. For instance, a
French reactor is expected to be shut down within a few years. 

If the United States builds a new test reactor for the program,
various estimates have put the cost at $2 billion to $5 billion. 

FFTF could be put back into operation for considerably less,
Gerald Woodcock, of the Eastern Washington Section of the
American Nuclear Society, told the editorial board. In addition,
supporters of restarting the reactor said the program would need
something similar to the nearby Fuels and Materials Examination
Facility, which has had little use other than for training and
storage. 

"We have unique existing facilities," said William Stokes,
president of Columbia Basin Consulting Group. Stokes was part of
a group that earlier submitted an unsolicited proposal to
restart FFTF, but DOE rejected it. 

In addition to cost savings of using FFTF as the program's test
reactor, it could be operating two years sooner than a new
reactor, Waltar said. 

The largest impediment to restart could be political, he said. 

Past efforts to restart the reactor for the production of
medical isotopes and other uses, including powering space
missions, were opposed by Hanford activist groups and gained
little support in Washington, D.C. 

But this attempt could be different, said Benton County
Commissioner Claude Oliver. DOE needs a sodium-cooled fast
reactor now; previously, supporters of FFTF were trying to
convince DOE it was needed, he said. 

With Neva Corkrum, chairwoman of the Franklin County Commission,
he's sending a letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire asking for her
support. The letter asks the governor to offer Washington as one
of several sites to be considered for the program. 

The letter also is signed by Kennewick Mayor Jim Beaver; West
Richland Councilman Ken Dobbin; Richland City Councilman Bob
Thompson; Dave Molnaa, president of the Hanford Atomic Metal
Trades Council; and representatives of nine organized labor
unions. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 54 WATE: K-29 demolition going as planned in Oak Ridge

June 19, 2006 

OAK RIDGE (AP) -- Department of Energy officials say the
demolition of the Cold War-era K-29 building in Oak Ridge is
ahead of schedule. 

The building is part of an entire site called K-25, consisting
of several buildings that enriched uranium for use in atomic
weapons and nuclear power plants. 

The site is being turned into an industrial park. 

The scheduled completion date for the entire project has been
pushed back nearly a year to the summer of 2009 and is expected
to cost $2 billion. 

The two-story K-29 building with a length equal to
six-and-a-half football fields will be the first of the major
processing buildings to be torn down at Oak Ridge. 

The contractors' project manager David Crossley said the
superstructure should be demolished at the end of July. 

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
  
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and WATE. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 KnoxNews: DOE postpones pension change plan

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

June 20, 2006

OAK RIDGE — The U.S. Department of Energy has postponed its 
controversial plan to change pension benefits among its 
contractors, including those in Oak Ridge. 

U.S. Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., 
announced today that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman had delayed 
the plan for a year to conduct additional evaluations and get 
more input on pension benefits and the costs to the federal 
government. 

The change in pension benefits, which were scheduled to go into 
effect for new hires next spring, could affect thousands of East 
Tennesseans. DOE intends to convert the existing defined-benefits 
pension plans into a defined contribution system, which would 
feature a 401(k)-type fund for retirement benefits. 

DOE had already scheduled a public meeting Thursday to discuss
the changes with Oak Ridge workers and retirees. 

Walter Perry, a federal spokesman in Oak Ridge, said DOE intends
to go ahead with the Thursday meeting as scheduled for 5:30-7
p.m. at Pellissippi State Technical Community College. "The
meeting is on, and if there is any change we will let people
know," Perry said. 

In a statement, Domenici said, "I’m pleased that Secretary
Bodman has taken a step back and decided to suspend its new
pension and benefits policy for a year. While I share the
secretary’s concern with the rising costs of benefits in
relation to the DOE budget, I believe this delay is prudent in
order to come up with the best policy given long-term cost
constraints." 

The Atomic Trades and Labor Council, which represents hourly
workers at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, opposes the proposed changes and had
planned to start a letter-writing campaign to get Tennessee’s
elected officials to block the DOE effort. 

Kenny Cook, president of the ATLC, said today he was pleased DOE
had postponed the change and hoped that the postponement would
become permanent. 

Current employees would be grandfathered under the existing
plan, as would retirees, with the new system set to get into
effect in the spring of 2007, but the proposal still generated
uncertainties and considerable opposition. 

The Coalition of Retired Oak Ridge Employees expressed strong
reservations about the DOE plan, saying it appeared the
government was going to make it difficult to get adjustments for
inflation in the future. 

David Reichle, president of CORRE, said he was glad Bodman and
DOE are stepping back to reconsider the pension changes and
perhaps listen to the concerns of those affected. However,
Reichle said there are still concerns that DOE may use the delay
as an excuse not give retired workers a pension benefits
increase. 

"I hope they won’t use this as another reason to do nothing," he
said. 

In a letter to Domenici, Bodman said he had directed DOE
personnel to consult with "stakeholders," including Congress,
over the next year to get more input on the pension issue. 

"As I have discussed with you, DOE has seen escalating and
volatile growth in costs for reimbursement of contractor
employees’ defined benefit pension and other post-retirement
benefits. It is estimated that in (fiscal year) 2006, these
costs will be $784 million, an increase of nearly 200 percent
since FY 2000." 

Bodman said DOE’s "unfunded liability" in 2005 was $11.6
billion, an increase of 63 percent since 2000. 

DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said DOE’s reimbursement to
contractors is expected to grow dramatically in years to come.
"The department must work to meet its obligations and carry out
its mission while at the same time being a good steward of
taxpayer dollars," she 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> 
    
*****************************************************************