***************************************************************** 06/27/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.152 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Annan Confers With Iranian Foreign Minister On Nuclear, Regional Iss 2 [NYTr] Iran to Respond to UN/EU Nuke Proposals in August 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader: Talks With U.S. Not Needed 4 Guardian Unlimited: US underestimates Ahmadinejad at its peril 5 BBC: Talks with US 'of no use to Iran' 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EP stresses Iran's right to N-energy 7 AFP: Iran urges Russia to complete power station, wants two more - 8 IRNA: Larijani: Iran believes in win-win game on nuclear issue 9 IRNA: EP underlines Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy 10 North Korea: Nuclear number nine? 11 Missile Mania: US and Japan Threaten North Korea 12 AFP: US warns North Korea against talks 'bluff' 13 US: Soup Cans To Stop Nukes and more– FCNL 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.-India Nuclear Plan Moves Ahead 15 BBC: US panel backs India nuclear deal 16 AFP: US Congress committee backs nuclear deal with India 17 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress 18 The Hindu: Putin calls for boosting nuclear energy ties with India 19 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Praises Pakistani Leader Musharraf 20 Times of India: Nuke bill expected to be India-specific 21 RIA Novosti: Putin reaches out to China, India 22 RIA Novosti: Putin proposes new talks with U.S. on START treaty 23 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM: Europe's proposal one step ahead 24 AFP: Russia will not join ultimatums over nuclear issue - Putin - 25 IRNA: German FM urges India, Pakistan and Israel to join NPT 26 AFP: US cannot accept Israeli nuclear weapons - Arab League chief - NUCLEAR REACTORS 27 Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant, China, India, Others I 28 US: NRC: New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned to Beaver Valley Nuclea 29 US: TMCnet.com: A Nuclear Power Plant May Be Next for New Mexico 30 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear chief calls for $1.5bln a year in inno 31 RIA Novosti: Russian civilian nuclear safety to get massive funding 32 RIA Novosti: Russia-Ukraine-Moldova energy triangle 33 US: APP.COM: Nuclear plant tax squeaks through Assembly | 34 US: Rutland Herald: State officials eye new renewable energy project 35 Belfast Telegraph: Nuclear power to be Labour contest issue 36 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Notice 37 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Few attend VY uprate hearing 38 US: NRC: In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC.; Verm 39 US: NRC: In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. Vermo 40 US: NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie 41 US: NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie 42 Scoop: Public shut out of Australia's nuclear review 43 US: WTVM: Judge reduces water flow in Alabama Power case 44 US: Vermont Guardian: Vermont braces for major welfare changes NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 US: NRC: Attachment 1); EA-06-137] Nuclear security NUCLEAR SAFETY 46 US: Rocky Mountain News: Nuke workers' fund gets critical look 47 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Let's not overlook nuke waste issue 49 US: Guardian Unlimited: Domenici Offers Nuclear Waste Place for Now 50 Las Vegas SUN: What will be Yucca's need? 51 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Quit stalling on developing nuclear-waste 52 US: DenverPost.com: Radioactive leak at Fed Center 53 US: NorthernStar Online: Nuclear waste not worth it PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 Rocky Mountain News: Nuclear storage tank has leak 55 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab might increase triggers for bombs 56 DOE: U.S. and South Korea Sign Agreement on FutureGen Project 57 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL wants to beef up stock of nuke triggers 58 Tri-City Herald: Workers hunt for Hanford mercury 59 Tri-City Herald: Nuclear incinerator torn down at Plutonium Finishin 60 DenverPost.com: Flats grand jury not free of muzzle 61 TimesUnion.com: Town calls for atomic site cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Annan Confers With Iranian Foreign Minister On Nuclear, Regional Issues Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:00:48 -0400 New York, Jun 27 2006 8:00PM Meeting at United Nations Headquarters with Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Motaki, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today reiterated his suggestion that the country speed up its response to recent international proposals on ending the impasse over its nuclear development programmes, while also discussing issues of regional importance. The Secretary-General “expects that ongoing technical negotiations will continue among the parties,” according to a read-out of the meeting provided by Mr. Annan’s spokesman. Earlier this month, in Geneva, Mr. Annan had also urged an early answer to the offer of incentives by the five Permanent Security Council Members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US) and Germany in return for Iran’s abandoning its uranium enrichment programme. Speaking to reporters before today’s meeting, Annan recalled those contacts with Mr. Motaki in Geneva. “I indicated after my discussions with the Foreign Minister that I was under the impression I did not think they will give their answer before the G8 summit. I didn’t go as far as to say mid-August, and I hope it is still possible for them to give an answer before mid-August, but I will pursue that with the Minister,” he said. Iran says its activities are aimed at the production of energy but the United States and other countries insist it is clandestinely seeking to produce nuclear weapons. Last August, Iran rescinded its voluntary suspension of nuclear fuel conversion, which can produce the enriched uranium necessary either for nuclear power generation or for nuclear weapons. Mr. Annan and Mr. Motaki also exchanged views on Iraq in the context of the meeting of regional partners that Iran is expected to convene in its capital Teheran early this month. Among other regional matters, they discussed Afghanistan, including collaboration between that country and Iran on border security and combating drug trafficking. 2006-06-27 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran to Respond to UN/EU Nuke Proposals in August Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:59:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran to Respond to UN/EU's Nuke Proposals in August Teheran, Jun 26 (Prensa Latina) Iran is evaluating the incentives proposed by the UN Security Council plus Germany on the nuclear issue and will make a statement before August 22, it was revealed Monday. When meeting with Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gol, President Mahmud Ahmadineya ratified his country has always supported unconditioned, fair negotiations, and thanked Ankara for defending the Iranian people4s right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful use, according to IRNA News Agency. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanyani, current government consultant, told Gol, also foreign minister, an understanding on the atomic dispute is attainable. Negotiation is the only way to obtain results. Provocations and threats only inflame contradictions and differences in the region and the world, he noted. sus/dig/jcd/mf * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader: Talks With U.S. Not Needed From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday June 27, 2006 6:16 PM AP Photo VAH111 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran does ``not need'' talks with the United States over its nuclear program because nothing would be gained, state television reported Tuesday. Khamenei, who has the final word on all state matters, did not give his position on a package of incentives offered by the West to persuade Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on the enrichment of uranium. But he took a tough line on the final goal of the package: resuming negotiations that the United States hopes will persuade Iran to completely give up enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear generators or the material for nuclear warheads. ``Negotiations with the United States would have no benefit for us, and we do not need them,'' state television quoted Khamenei as telling Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade. He said Iran was willing to hold talks on its own terms, warning that the West can misuse the negotiating process to bar Tehran from what it considers its right to pursue enrichment. ``We do not negotiate with anybody on achieving and exploiting nuclear technology,'' Khamenei said. ``But if they recognize our nuclear rights, we are ready to negotiate about controls, supervisions and international guarantees.'' White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration has heard varying responses from different quarters in Iran. He said Khamenei's remarks were ``ambiguous,'' and the administration expects a formal response from Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. ``We're waiting for a consistent, official response,'' Snow said. Khamenei's comments could be interpreted as an attempt to ease pressure from Iran's hard-liners, who have demanded the government reject the incentives package and who consider talks with the United States to be a surrender. Earlier this year, Khamenei supported negotiations with Washington over stabilizing neighboring Iraq. In doing so, he overruled hard-liners' opposition, though the prospects of U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq have fallen apart since then. Iran has yet to reply to the incentives package presented June 6. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week the government would respond in mid-August, a timeline that President Bush disapproves of. If Iran accepts, the United States has offered to join European nations in multilateral talks with Tehran over a framework that will guarantee its nuclear program cannot produce weapons. The package also offers the lifting of some U.S. sanctions and other economic incentives, as well as a promise of American and European nuclear technology for Iran. Washington's offer to join talks was seen as a major concession since the United States lists Iran as a sponsor of international terrorism and there have been no diplomatic relations between the two countries since 1979, when militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took Americans hostage for 444 days. Bush has warned Iran that it faces U.N. Security Council action unless it accepts the incentives. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned Iran on Saturday that it faces isolation if it rejects the package. The United States and its allies suspect that Iran's nuclear enrichment activities are a cover for a weapons program. Iran insists its nuclear program is limited to peaceful energy uses. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: US underestimates Ahmadinejad at its peril Comment is free | Simon Tisdall Tuesday June 27, 2006 The Guardian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of bogeymen in the United States: Libya's Colonel Gadafy, Panama's Manuel Noriega, Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden, to name a few. But by casting Iran's president in the role of maverick evildoer, the Bush administration ignores the complex forces that brought him to power last year and his previously unsuspected political skills, both supporters and critics say. As domestic opponents have already discovered, underestimating Mr Ahmadinejad is tempting - and foolish. The president's rising popularity owes as much to his common touch as US enmity. Many ordinary Iranians, while complaining about wages, inflation and restricted personal freedoms, approve of the Blair-like "national conversation" that Mr Ahmadinejad launched through fortnightly provincial tours and rallies. "He is a good man. He tries to do his best," said Saeideh, a student in Shiraz. "My family supported [Mohammad] Khatami [the former reformist president]. But it is good the way Ahmadinejad stands up to the Americans." Mohammad Atrianfar, founder of the main opposition newspaper, Shargh, admitted that Mr Ahmadinejad had succeeded in cultivating a popular image, but questioned his authority. "My impression is that he is just a mouthpiece, an amplifier for various interests elsewhere," he said. Anti-government intellectuals and secularists also attribute Mr Ahmadinejad's ascendancy to the backing of clerical hardliners, as well as the Revolutionary Guards and basij militia. They said he owed his job to the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was primarily concerned with establishing Iran's leadership in the Muslim world over the rival claims of Arab states such as Egypt. Mr Khamenei is said to be gratified by Mr Ahmadinejad's hero status in the Arab world as a scourge of the Bush administration and champion of Palestinian rights. At the same time, western diplomats said there was evidence the president was "learning on the job". He had toned down his rhetoric and qualified last autumn's inflammatory remarks on the Holocaust and Israel, they said. He now says Iran simply wants justice (a key theme) for Palestinians and does not see why Muslims should pay for past European persecution of Jews. Yet Mr Ahmadinejad is far from being a puppet of Iran's mullahs or clerics. A strong current of anti-clericalism permeates Iran 27 years after the revolution, largely the product of perceived corruption and abuse of power. His advancement came in part because, ironically, he was able to assume Mr Khatami's mantle as the "anti-status quo candidate", a source said. He had distanced himself from the Islamic establishment and the discredited, mostly middle-class reformers of the Khatami era, building a third constituency among the working classes, younger voters and the less well-off. Siamak Namazi, an independent Tehran political analyst, said: "Ahmadinejad represents the second generation of revolutionaries, the foot soldiers of 1979. They are the ones who fought the war against Iraq, they are the ones who suffered when Saddam used chemical weapons (whose components were supplied by the west). They are the ones who now get lectured by the west about WMD. They feel very suspicious about the west. They also feel the older generation sold them out." Mr Ahmadinejad was "politically right but economically ultra-left", he added. Some see Mr Ahmadinejad as a product of the pre-revolutionary period in which Marxist ideas mingled with Sufi mysticism and Islamic spiritual values. His support for a centrally directed economy, continued state subsidies and more equal rights for women can thus be reconciled with his opposition to reform of Iran's inherently conservative, Islamic-based power structure. All the same, economic mismanagement and inefficiency may yet be his undoing. "This is a sick economy dependent on the price of oil," said Vahid Karimi of the Institute for Political and International Studies. Structural weaknesses including lack of investment and a tiny private sector were not being addressed, a report by 50 economists concluded. A growing population was demanding more than the government was delivering, a western diplomat said. "They are squandering the oil windfall." Mr Ahmadinejad's fall, if and when it comes, is unlikely to be the result of political insurrection, outside intervention, or his demonisation as America's new bogeyman. Its likely cause will be more mundane. In Iran, as elsewhere, it's the economy, stupid. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR ***************************************************************** 5 BBC: Talks with US 'of no use to Iran' Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 June 2006 [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (file picture)] Ayatollah Khamenei restated Iran's right to nuclear technology Iran's supreme leader has said talking to the US about his country's nuclear activities would hold no benefits, according to Iranian state television. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran was ready to ease concerns over its uranium enrichment but would not suspend it. "Negotiations with the United States are of no use for us. We have no use for such negotiations." he said. Washington has said it will join EU states in talks with Iran if Tehran agrees to halt uranium enrichment. "We will not negotiate with anyone over the undeniable right of nuclear technology and using it," said Ayatollah Khamenei. "If they recognise this right, we are ready to negotiate over supervision controls," he added. Waiting for response The suspension of uranium enrichment is the key demand in a proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear row, backed by six world powers. The UN has offered Iran a package of incentives, but Iran has so far not responded. Last week Iran's president said a reply would come on 22 August. The US believes Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, but Tehran says it is enriching uranium for energy purposes, as it is entitled to under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory. ***************************************************************** 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EP stresses Iran's right to N-energy 2006/06/27 01:39:49 È.Ù "We do not deny that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy, that is beyond doubt," said Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. Speaking at an event in the EP in Brussels Monday evening on the topic "Iran and the EU - a new dialogue," Brok said, "We do need positive dialogue in Iran and are ready to support that and it will increase cooperation with the European Union," said Brok . The public hearing was initiated by German MEP Michael Gahler, coordinator for Iran for the group of European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the European Parliament. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Iran urges Russia to complete power station, wants two more - Tuesday June 27, 10:22 AM [Vladimir Putin] MOSCOW (AFP) - A senior Iranian official has voiced frustration at delays in construction of the Bushehr nuclear power station by Russia and said Iran hoped to order another two nuclear power stations from Moscow, in an interview published. Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari said on Tuesday, Russia had yet to deliver nuclear fuel for the plant in southwest Iran, that equipment had not been delivered and that work had also been slowed by personnel changes on the Russian side. "All this creates certain difficulties in keeping to the delivery timetable. We hope for the rapid solution of these problems and plan to order two more atomic power stations from Russia," each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts, Safari told the Russian daily Gazeta. "The joint work has dragged out, but I am confident that construction will be finished at the end of 2006," Safari was quoted as saying. The United States has urged Russia to halt work at Bushehr, suspecting that Iran's nuclear energy programme is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Tehran has repeatedly complained of delays by its ally Moscow in completing work on Iran's first nuclear power station. Work on building a nuclear facility at Bushehr was first begun by German contractors in the 1970s but was halted by the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. Safari reiterated Iran's insistence on having a peaceful nuclear energy programme. "The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is our legal right and Iranian politicians insist on it. For this reason we will fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said. "America presents our work in a distorted form. We are open to negotiations. It is the West that closes them off unilaterally," he said. Russia has supported Western calls for Iran to halt nuclear enrichment and has proposed setting up a joint venture to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian territory. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. - - AFP ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Larijani: Iran believes in win-win game on nuclear issue Tehran, June 26, IRNA Iran-Larijani-Nuclear Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani said here Monday that concerning the nuclear issue, Iran believes in the win-win game and that attempts are made to this end. Speaking to reporters after meeting the former Greek prime minister and Head of International Socialist Organization, Georgios Papandreou, he said that it is actually possible to come up with a reasonable and fair solution that will make both sides feel that they are winners. In response to a question about the approach of the Foreign Relations Strategic Policy Council -- established recently on the decree of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei -- to SNSC, he said, "Such research centers which can help the trend of strategic affairs have always been interesting to us. "To use the capacity of the newly-established council, talks have been held between the two organs to draw up strategic plans." Larijani said that the International Socialist Organization has a decisive role in solving significant regional issues, in particular the ongoing rows and promotion of international peace through constructive dialogues and establishment of justice. Turning to his effective talks with the head of organization, he said that its role can be very effective in settling the problems. The SNSC secretary hoped that Papandreou's visit to Iran will contribute to solving of the current problems and that its effects will also be evidenced at the regional and international levels. ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: EP underlines Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy Brussels, June 27, IRNA EP-Iran-EPP We do not deny that Iran has a peaceful right to nuclear energy, that is beyond doubt," said Elmar Brok, chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. Speaking at an event in the EP in Brussels Monday evening on the topic "Iran and the EU - A new dialogue," Brok said, however, that there are certain conditions that Iran has not fulfilled which have led to doubts on Iran's nuclear program. "Iran has now time to gain that confidence back," he noted. We do need positive dialogue in Iran and are ready to support that and it will increase cooperation with the European Union," said Brok. The public hearing was initiated by German MEP Michael Gahler, coordinator for Iran for the Group of European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the European Parliament. For his part, a German analyst, Dr Johannes Reissner, said that that Europe was now awaiting a response from Iran on the package to resolve the nuclear issue. Analyzing the political situation in Iran, Reissner said even the opposition in Iran has now accepted that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the legitimate president who was elected in democratic elections. One journalist asked the panel why no speaker from the Iranian parliament or the Iranian government was invited to speak at the event. He got no response. One participant noted that the event was "not a dialogue but a monologue" as all speakers were from the European side. The event was open to the media and public but for security reasons there was no photo and film opportunities. ***************************************************************** 10 North Korea: Nuclear number nine? Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:19:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive Bulletin of Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm North Korea: Nuclear number nine? North Korea claims to have manufactured its own nuclear weapons, which intelligence officials have long suspected. If true, the feat would make Pyongyang the ninth nuclear power. To best understand how the North's announcement will affect efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, take a look at these recent Bulletin reports on U.S.-North Korean relations and North Korean nuclear capabilities: 1. North Korean nuclear program, 2005 By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen May/June 2005 pp. 64-67 (vol. 61, no. 03) ) 2005 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj05norris 2. North Korea: No bygones at Yongbyon By Robert Alvarez July/August 2003 pp. 38-45 (vol. 59, no. 04) ) 2003 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03alvarez 3. North Korea: Less than meets the eye By Staff March/April 2003 pp. 38-39 (vol. 59, no. 02) ) 2003 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma03staff 4. Letter from Pyongyang By Anonymous July/August 2002 pp. 50-54, 70 (vol. 58, no. 04) ) 2002 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja02anonymous 5. How much plutonium does North Korea have? By David Albright September/October 1994 pp. 46-53 (vol. 50, no. 05) ) 1994 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so94albright ***************************************************************** 11 Missile Mania: US and Japan Threaten North Korea Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:31:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ELI20060627&articleId=2706 Centre for Research on Globalization June 27, 2006 MISSILE MANIA: US AND JAPAN THREATEN NORTH KOREA by Gregory Elich The hysteria surrounding the potential launch of a North Korean missile has generated an artificial crisis. For all the ballyhoo of a threat, there is in fact no danger other than that of U.S. reaction. It is claimed that North Koreas Taepodong-2 missile has a range that would allow it to strike Alaska and possibly the U.S. west coast. The Federation of American Scientists, however, estimates its range as far less. (1) Little concrete information is known about the as yet untested Taepodong-2 missile, and its range is a matter of conjecture. For that matter, U.S. officials have admitted that they cannot be certain that the missile in question is a Taepodong-2. (2) And some reports have indicated that the missile is estimated at just over 30 meters in length, whereas the Taepodong-2 is thought to be 35 meters long. Mention of a Taepodong-2 missile is based on supposition, not evidence. U.S. and Japanese officials have threatened to impose additional sanctions on North Korea if it goes ahead with a missile launch. There has even been talk of a naval blockade, an act of war under international law. The Bush Administration has not spelled out its precise intent, but Peter Rodman, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, warns, We would seek to impose some cost on North Korea. (3) Meanwhile, there are those who advocate military measures. The U.S. has activated its anti-missile defense system, and there is talk of using the North Korean missile as target practice. (4) The only concern expressed over such a provocative action is that the U.S. might suffer embarrassment should it fail to intercept the missile. Worse yet, prominent Democrats have sought through reckless posturing to pressure the Bush Administration from the right. William Perry, former defense secretary in the Clinton Administration, and his assistant, Ashton B. Carter, wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post, advocating a cruise missile strike on the North Korean missile as it sits on the launching pad. Former Vice President Walter Mondale quickly followed by urging the Bush Administration to tell North Korea to dismantle the missile or we are going to take it out. Mondale regards North Korea as so dangerous because of its paranoid leader. One wonders just who it is that is being paranoid here. (5) The impression given by U.S. officials and the news media is that there is something uniquely sinister and threatening in a missile launch. South Korean officials point out that the open manner in which North Korea has prepared the launch indicates that the intent is to put a satellite in orbit, a routine enough activity for a number of nations. (6) North Koreas previous launch of a satellite, atop a Taepodong-1 in 1998, ended in failure. What is overlooked is that North Korea has the right under international law to launch a satellite or even to test a missile. That this should be so openly disregarded in such an emotional manner is indicative of the low state of political discourse in the U.S. today. North Korean Deputy UN Ambassador Han Song-Ryol offered to calm the situation through dialogue. The United States says it is concerned about our missile test launch. Our position is, Okay then, lets talk about it. (7) Predictably, his suggestion was quickly rebuffed by the Bush Administration, which remains opposed to one-on-one contact with North Korea. U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton blustered, You dont normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, and its not a way to produce a conversation because if you acquiesce in aberrant behavior you simply encourage the repetition of it. (8) Neither Bolton nor anyone else commented on the U.S. own aberrant behavior when it test fired a Minuteman III ICBM on June 14. The missile flew 4,800 miles, before its three warheads struck the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Marshall Islands. (9) For U.S. officials and media to condemn North Korea for preparing a launch even while the U.S. was conducting its own test was merely one more stunning example of hypocrisy. The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that for North Korea to launch a missile would violate its moratorium on medium and long range missile testing. That commitment, however, was unilateral. North Koreas moratorium was implemented in 1999 after the U.S. agreed to lift some economic sanctions, a promise that failed to materialize. The agreement on general principles reached at the six party talks on nuclear disarmament in September of last year obligated the U.S. to begin normalizing relations with North Korea. Instead, it chose to impose additional economic sanctions, ostensibly because of counterfeiting. First the Bush Administration pressured a Macao bank to close North Korean accounts, despite protestations by the bank that its financial dealings with North Korea were legitimate and commercial. Then it followed by imposing sanctions against eight North Korean import and export firms. Seeing the result of actions taken against the bank in Macao, other banks dealing with North Korea severed relations after receiving warnings from the U.S. Treasury Department. The impact is severe, observed Nigel Cowie, general manager of the Daedong Credit Bank. I cant speak for what everybody was doing, but I can say that in our case, a lot of legitimate business has been hurt. The sanctions, said U.S. Treasury Department Under Secretary Stuart Levy, placed heavy pressure on North Korea, and had a snowballingavalanche effect. (10) Under the circumstances, North Koreas continued adherence to a moratorium on missile testing was beginning to appear decidedly one-sided. Vice President Dick Cheney has rejected calls for a cruise missile attack on the North Korean missile, responding, Obviously, if youre going to launch strikes at another nation, youd better be prepared to not just fire one shot. (11) It is recognized that the North Korean military would be a tough opponent, and any attack is likely to trigger a responding strike at a U.S. military target. Events could rapidly escalate into military conflict, which the U.S. could ill afford at a time when the Iraqi resistance is tying up so many troops. Yet the situation remains precarious. Other mooted actions, such as shooting down the missile after launch or imposing a naval blockade, are acts of war and as such, risk inviting war. In the days to come, the Bush Administration may find pressure from the media and Democrats for military action impossible to resist. Cooler heads are needed, but those are in short supply among a political leadership accustomed to saber rattling. Gregory Elich is author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit. http://www.llumina.com/store/strangeliberators.htm ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US warns North Korea against talks 'bluff' Tue Jun 27, 4:23 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States warned North Korea" /> North Koreaagainst thinking it could use worries over a possible long-range missile to force the United States into direct talks. "If it's a bluff for direct negotiations, it's not an advisable way to do it," White House spokesman Tony Snow told a press briefing. Reports that North Korea is about to fire a missile from a sight on the remote northeast coast of the reclusive Stalinist state have caused international concern. President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushon Monday urged the North Korean government to disclose its plans. "The North Koreans should notify the world of their intentions, what they have on top of that vehicle and, you know, what are their intentions," said Bush. "We have not heard from the North Koreans, so I can't tell you what their intentions are," he told reporters. "That's part of the problem." US and Asian officials have said North Korea has prepared a Taepodong-2 missile for launch, amid a parallel standoff over the communist state's nuclear program. North Korea has boycotted talks since November with five other nations, including the United States, over its nuclear weapons programme. It has regularly demanded direct talks with the United States. The two sides have never formally ended hostilities since the 1950-53 Korean War, which has bedevilled relations ever since. A prominent lawmaker in Bush's Republican party meanwhile said the White House had ruled out a preemptive strike to knock out North Korea's Taepodong missiles. "I think that the administration has pretty well put (that) to rest, and I concur with the administration," Senator John Warner said after a closed-door briefing with top Pentagon" /> Pentagonofficials. "A preemptive strike at this point in time would not be a wise course of action," he said. Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee" /> Senate Armed Services Committee, nevertheless said "prudent steps are being taken by our government to protect us in the ... probably remote possibility that this is a hostile launch." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 Soup Cans To Stop Nukes and more– FCNL Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:41:37 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive 06.27.2006 www.fcnl.org Were trying out a new format for our email newsletter. Let us know what you think! (Reply to kathyguthrie at kathyguthrie@fcnl.org) *From the Hill: Soup Cans To Stop Nukes *Report Back: Voting Rights Act Stalls *Lobby Strategy: Focus Gets Results on Iraq *Grassroots Tip: Do Email Messages to Congress Work? *From the Quakers Colonel: Amnesty in Iraq? *FCNL in the News: Everyone should lobby Congress on Indian health (Indian Country Today, May 26) *Quote of the week: Scott Stedjan on the NRA and the UN *War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week FROM THE HILL: Soup Cans To Stop Nukes Can the U.S. India Nuclear Deal (if label is not readable) As part of a national lobbying campaign to block this deal, FCNL has delivered tin cans with labels that read CAN the Presidents U.S. - India Nuclear Deal to key members of the House and Senate. Read more at http://www.fcnl.org/press/releases/india_nuclear0606.htm REPORT BACK: Voting Right Act Stalls Last week, a small but influential group of representatives blocked renewal of the Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9), the landmark civil rights legislation that protects the fundamental right to vote. FCNL works with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the group that is leading efforts to renew this landmark legislation. Read more at http://renewthevra.civilrights.org/ LOBBY STRATEGY: Focus Gets Results on Iraq Press reports last week focused on the defeat of two measures in the Senate that would have encouraged or required the U.S. to begin pulling troops out of Iraq this year. But these lopsided votes obscure other changes taking place in the Senate and in the House. Read a memo from Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell, FCNLs Senior Fellows for Iraq Policy, describing the strategy FCNL is using to persuade Congress to ban permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq at http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1937&issue_id=35 GRASSROOT TIP: Do Email Messages to Congress Work? The answer from a recent study by the Congressional Management Foundation is yes, emails are an effective way to communicate with your members of Congress. The most effective communications, whether sent by email or postal mail, are personalized messages that include information such as who you are; where you live; what organizations such as churches, meetings, and other groups you belong to; or personal stories about why the issue you are writing about is important to you . Congressional staff believe email has increased public understanding of what happens in Washington, made members of Congress more responsive to their constituents, and influences the decisions of members of Congress. Read more in FCNLs Washington Newsletter. http://www.fcnl.org/now/now_item.php?item_id=409&issue_id=53 (Free registration required) You can read the CMF study at http://www.cmfweb.org/cwcreport1.asp FROM THE QUAKERS' COLONEL: Amnesty in Iraq? The government of Iraq is discussing a plan to jump-start the process of forgetting and reconciling that will be an integral part of any plan to end the carnage that for the past 39 months has been a daily fact of life for Iraqis. Read what FCNLs Senior Fellow, Col. Dan Smith (USA Ret.), has to say about the first outlines of that plan. http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/2006/06/amnesty-in-iraq.html IN THE NEWS: Everyone should lobby Congress on Indian health (Indian Country Today, May 26, 2006) QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "We cannot let the NRA continue to deceive the American public by spouting conspiracy theories about the UN banning guns. This UN conference is about stopping the flow of weapons into the ilicit markets where guns are diverted to arm human rights offenders and violent insurgents. Legislative Associate Scott Stedjan describing the National Rifle Associations efforts to undermine United Nations Conference on Stopping Illegal Weapons Trade. Read more Global nuclear powers The agreement reverses US policy, which has restricted nuclear co-operation since India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. "This is a historic hearing," said Democrat representative Tom Lantos, a sponsor of the proposed legislation. He said the importance of the bill could not be overstated and the deal signalled a "sweeping strategic re-alignment" of India's global policies. 'Knifed' But critics of the deal say it could boost India's nuclear arsenal and sends the wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington opposes. "The NPT has been knifed by an executive action," said Republican representative Jim Leach. "Anyone who wants to present this as a happy day is making a very serious mistake." [Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (left) and President Bush] Both governments see the deal as crucial If the proposed deal is passed by the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee later this week, it will then be voted on by the full House and Senate. The BBC's Shahzeb Jillani in Washington says opinion is divided in Washington on whether the Bush administration has the bipartisan support it claims it has on the deal. Last week, US Vice President Dick Cheney said he hoped Congress would move quickly to enact the legislation. He said the deal was "one of the most important strategic foreign policy initiatives of President Bush's second term". Critics believe that at a time when the stand-off with North Korea and Iran is deepening, a civilian co-operation deal with a country which has not signed the NPT severely undermines the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: US Congress committee backs nuclear deal with India Tue Jun 27, 4:55 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - A controversial civilian nuclear energy deal between India and the United States cleared its first major hurdle, easily winning approval by a US Congress committee. The House of Representatives International Relations Committee voted 37-5 in favor of the agreement. "This is a defining moment in our relationship with the great nation of India," said Representative Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), the panel's top Democrat and a primary sponsor of the bill. "After decades of disengagement punctuated with hostility, we now have the opportunity to achieve what will be a historic geostrategic realignment of the worlds largest democracy, India, with the worlds oldest democracy, the United States," Lantos told lawmakers in arguing for the legislation. Democratic and Republican leaders in both Houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the bill, which is due for a vote in the full House next month. "In terms of the impact of this legislation on the new geostrategic alignment between India and the United States for the balance of the 21st century, the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated," Lantos said of the deal forged last year between US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushand Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee" /> Senate Foreign Relations Committeeis expected to take up the legislation next week. Despite the easy approval, the bill has not been without controversy. Some lawmakers have expressed doubts about extending civil nuclear technology to India, which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Republican representative Jim Leach (news, bio, voting record), lamented what he said was "a sad day in the world of arms control and the rule of law." "Anyone who wants to present this as a happy day is making a serious mistake," he said, adding that officially sanctioning India's nuclear program "is a foolish direction to go in." Under the deal, the United States will aid the development of civil nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyinspections. The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 currently prevents the United States from trading nuclear technology with nations that have not signed up to the NPT. It has to be amended for the deal to be effective. India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and is currently banned by the United States and other major powers from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related equipment as a result. Still, some legislators opposed to the deal say it would not only make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran" /> Iranand North Korea" /> North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions. "We intend to make the case that the purported benefits of this deal are an illusion, and the risks to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime are quite real," said Democratic Representative Ed Markey, one of the chief opponents to the agreement. Last week, a group of nonproliferation experts from across the political spectrum wrote to Congress arguing that the nuclear deal would put the United States in violation of the NPT by assisting a non-nuclear weapon state in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But Vice President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheneylast week warned that Congress would risk squandering a critical opportunity if it held up approval of the landmark civilian nuclear deal with India. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 Las Vegas SUN: Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress Today: June 27, 2006 at 10:16:15 PDT By LAURIE KELLMAN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation's security. "There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions." Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passsed by Congress - including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act. "There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview," Specter, R-Pa., said. "It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," he added. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick." A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements. "Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events," said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. "The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11." "Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute." Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power - from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions. But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge. "There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is." But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house. "The president is not required to (veto)," Boardman said. "Of course he's not if he signs the bill," Specter snapped back. Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act. "It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?" Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record. Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists. Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances. Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 The Hindu: Putin calls for boosting nuclear energy ties with India Tuesday, June 27, 2006 : 1825 Hrs Moscow, June. 27 (PTI): Russian President Vladimir Putin today said that cooperation with India should be "significantly" boosted in all spheres, including in the field of nuclear energy. Addressing a conference of Russia's ambassadors in foreign countries, Putin urged for repositioning Russia as a major global policy player and called for increased cooperation with both India and China. Noting India was a long-time importer of Russian and Soviet arms - Putin called for "cooperation to increase significantly in many spheres, including nuclear energy." On China, Putin said Russia should build relations with its energy-hungry Far East neighbour - the world's second largest oil consumer - with account for both countries' rapid development. "It is fundamentally important that our bilateral partnership...takes into account the dynamic development of both Russia and China itself, and accordingly changes for our countries both in terms of the region and the world in general," Putin was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti. Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Praises Pakistani Leader Musharraf From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday June 27, 2006 9:01 AM By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer PRESTWICK, Scotland (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Pakistan's military leader has pledged to hold democratic elections next year, and she expects him to fulfill the promise. ``There has to be, the world expects there to be, democratic, free and fair elections in Pakistan in 2007,'' Rice said en route to a meeting Tuesday with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Speaking with reporters, Rice offered an unstinting endorsement of Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1999 and has refused to give up his Army uniform. Rice also planned to meet with counterparts from the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Moscow on Thursday, where the topic was expected to be Iran's disputed nuclear program. Musharraf became an unlikely ally of the Bush administration following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when he pledged cooperation against terrorists who passed easily between Pakistan and the lawless Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan. ``Pakistan has come an enormously long way in a period of four years,'' Rice said during a news conference aboard her plane. ``We are fortunate there too that you have a leadership that is committed to putting Pakistan on a course toward moderation rather than a course toward extremism.'' Rice had even stronger praise for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to go after terrorists along the mountainous border between the two nations. A clearly frustrated Karzai last week also criticized the U.S.-assisted coalition anti-terror campaign in his chaotic country, deploring the deaths of hundreds of Afghans and appealing for more help for his government. The coalition has killed hundreds, mostly Taliban militants, since May. ``This is an extraordinary leader and we're going to back him and back him fully,'' Rice said. ``When he has problems we're going to sit with him and we're going to find ways to resolve those problems. But any implication that anybody thinks that he is somehow not up to the job or not living up to his responsibilities is simply false.'' The Bush administration considers Karzai and Musharraf, along with the influential and relatively moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, as the ``indispensable men'' of post-Sept. 11 foreign policy for their ability to hold Islamic extremism at bay. Musharraf faces little political opposition within Pakistan, but lives under constant threat of assassination. Karzai is increasingly embattled, hard pressed to extend his political control into many regions of Afghanistan and facing a resurgence of the radical Taliban movement toppled by U.S.-led forces four years ago. Taliban forces have been blamed for a surge of violence in recent months, adopting methods commonly used by militants in Iraq: suicide bombings, ambushes and beheadings. In an effort to curb the bloodletting, some 10,000 troops from the U.S.-led coalition have been deployed in a major offensive across the Afghanistan's south. The spasm of violent attacks and intense fighting has left more than 600 people, mostly militants, dead since May. NATO is increasing its force in Afghanistan from 9,700 to 16,000, with an expansion into the south due to be completed by late July. The alliance hopes to take on eastern Afghanistan by November, completing its expansion across the country and increasing its total numbers to 21,000. Rice acknowledged the military challenge but cast the Taliban as politically passe. ``When you talk about the resurgence of the Taliban, has there been more activity, military activity? Certainly. Are we talking about the resurgence of the Taliban as a political movement? I think not.'' Rice's visit to Islamabad comes amid complaints that the United States is showing favoritism to Pakistan's arch rival, India. Pakistan has complained unsuccessfully that it should receive the same civilian nuclear help the United States intends to give India. Under the deal with India, considered a major U.S. policy shift, the United States would ship nuclear technology and fuel. In return, India would allow international inspections and safeguards at nuclear reactors it has designated as civilian. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Times of India: Nuke bill expected to be India-specific [ Tuesday, June 27, 2006 04:36:06 pmPTI ] WASHINGTON: The House International Committee on Tuesday is fine-tuning the Civilian Nuclear Energy legislation amidst optimism that there will be no dilution in the bill which is expected to strengthen India's point of view in the landmark Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. Officials feel that non-operative references in the legislation will only go to strengthen India's point of view and perceptions as the bill will be India-specific and the legislation is in the national security interests of America. The 'mark up' legislation, aimed at exempting US exports of nuclear material, equipment and technology to India from certain requirements of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, will be taken up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. The House Committee will have as its base the bipartisan Hyde-Lantos Bill which is said to incorporate the original administration version along with inputs of Ranking Member Tom Lantos and Howard Berman Bill which was introduced separately. Officials say there will be a 'lot of language' on issues such as centrality of non-proliferation regimes and how the non-proliferation treaty is the "fulcrum" of the regimes. At the same time, there will also be specific references to criteria automatically ruling out the legislation being extended to countries such as Pakistan, they said. The statement of policy in the bill will be "virtually consistent" with the July 18, 2005 statement, said a senior source. Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 RIA Novosti: Putin reaches out to China, India 27/ 06/ 2006 MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin called Tuesday for increased cooperation with both India and China. Putin said Russia should build relations with its energy-hungry Far East neighbor - the world's second largest oil consumer - with account for both countries' rapid development. "It is fundamentally important that our bilateral partnership...takes into account the dynamic development of both Russia and China itself, and accordingly changes for our countries both in terms of the region and the world in general," he said. Speaking of India - a long-time importer of Russia and Soviet arms - Putin called for cooperation to increase significantly in many spheres, including nuclear energy. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 22 RIA Novosti: Putin proposes new talks with U.S. on START treaty 27/ 06/ 2006 MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - President Vladimir Putin proposed Tuesday to start talks with the United States on replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that expires in 2009. "We call for a new dialogue on the most urgent disarmament issues, and first of all propose to our American colleagues to start talks on replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in 2009," Putin said at a meeting in the Foreign Ministry. The START I treaty was signed on July 31, 1991, five months before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It remains in force, as a treaty between the U.S. and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since totally disarmed their strategic arms capabilities, and the U.S. and Russia reduced the number of delivery vehicles to 1,600 units with no more than 6,000 warheads. The treaty was followed by START II, which banned the use of multiple re-entry vehicles (MIRV) but never entered into force and was later bypassed by the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), signed on May 24, 2002 by Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush in Moscow. SORT, which expires on December 31, 2012, limited both countries' nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 warheads each. The treaty has been largely criticized for the lack of verification provisions and the possibility of re-deploying stored warheads. Russia's nuclear arsenal totaled 1,136 delivery vehicles and 5,518 warheads in December 2001. President Putin expressed concern Tuesday about "the current standstill in arms reductions." He urged the U.S. and other nuclear powers to renew the negotiation process in this sphere. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 23 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM: Europe's proposal one step ahead 2006/06/27 Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Monday in a meeting with the former Greek prime minister and Head of International Socialist Organization, Georgios Papandreou, said that given Iran's will to act without any preconditions within the framework of reason, Europe's proposal is one step ahead. Mottaki said that what is important for Iran is to come up with a fair formula in which Iran's commitments and rights are equally considered. "Iran has suffered great losses in various fields such as its nuclear relations with the West and America over its program for peaceful purposes, cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog for the sake of transparency, confidence-building and numerous inspections, the initiative to make the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, among others." "All these show Iran's goals, intentions and transparent strategies to materialize its inalienable natural right to access modern technologies," added Mottaki. For his part, Papandreou referred to Iran's constructive stance and role in regional developments and said that its important role and stance has always been quite important to Greece. Turning to his country's respect for Iran's right to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the former Greek prime minister said, "We believe that the current problems can be solved through diplomatic means." Concerning unilateral policies in the Middle East, he said that unilateralism will get nowhere in the region, adding that the outcome of democratic election in Palestine should be respected. KH Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: Russia will not join ultimatums over nuclear issue - Putin - Tuesday June 27, 11:18 AM [Vladimir Putin] MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia will not join any ultimatums over the problem of nuclear proliferation, President Vladimir Putin has said in a thinly veiled reference to US-led pressure on Iran. "We do not intend to join any sort of ultimatum, which only pushes the situation into a dead end, striking a blow against the authority of the UN Security Council," Putin told Russian diplomats in Moscow in the presence of journalists Tuesday. "I am convinced that dialogue and not isolation of one or another state is what leads to resolution of crises," Putin said. "In the sphere of non-proliferation we consider it effective to work on the political-diplomatic level and to search for compromises on the basis of international law," Putin said. Russia, a key economic ally of Iran, has consistently resisted Western pressure in the current international impasse over US and European claims that Tehran is using a Russia-backed civilian nuclear programme to mask a secret bomb-making project. Russia along with the other four permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany are waiting for an Iranian response to offer of talks on trade and other benefits in return for guarantees Iran will not develop atomic weapons. The United States has not ruled out seeking UN sanctions or even military action should Iran refuse the talks, which come with the precondition that it must first suspend uranium enrichment. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 IRNA: German FM urges India, Pakistan and Israel to join NPT , Jun 26, IRNA -- German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Monday called on new nuclear powers like India, Pakistan and Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), DPA reported. Addressing a Social Democratic Party conference on peace and disarmament in Berlin, Steinmeier stressed this was the only was way to achieve the universal claim of such a treaty. The German official admitted that in the short-term it was impossible to convince Israel, Pakistan and India to join NPT. However Steinmeier added it would be a "good signal" if a country like India joins the nuclear test-stop treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel have repeatedly refused to sign NPT aimed at limiting the global spread of nuclear weapons. ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: US cannot accept Israeli nuclear weapons - Arab League chief - by Mira Oberman Tue Jun 27, 12:19 PM ET HOUSTON, United States (AFP) - The United States cannot denounce Iran" /> 's nuclear program while accepting Israel" /> 's possession of nuclear bombs, the head of the Arab League has said. "This will ultimately bring the Middle East to further instability and there will be an inevitable arms race," Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa told the US Arab Economic Forum in Houston, Texas. The United States is locked in a standoff with Iran over its uranium enrichment program. Washington and its allies suspect the program masks a nuclear bomb-making effort. The US administration turns a diplomatic blind eye to widely held suspicions -- including by the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> -- that Israel already has a nuclear weapon. "We do not believe there is a good and bad nuclear program," said Moussa. "There is no moral and legal ground to distinguish them. Both are bad and all military nuclear programs or programs of weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed." Moussa reiterated Iran's right to operate peaceful nuclear programs under the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and said the Arab-Israeli conflict is the greatest threat to instability in the Middle East. "This conflict is the one that will make or break stability in the region," he said. "There is no doubt that this conflict cannot be resolved without the active involvement of the United States as an honest broker." Moussa said the United States needed to acknowledge that the conflict was not a result of "terrorists" but of a military occupation by Israel. The policy of aiming for "security now and peace later" will not work, he said. "Only the role of honest broker played by the US will save the situation, will clear and change the reputation of US policy and lessen to a large extent the frustration." The Arab League chief said the conflict in Iraq" /> was also a source of instability that could only be resolved through a reconciliation program to unite the varying factions. "Iraq should not be the theatre for settling accounts. Reconciliaition is necessary for rebuilding the new Iraq." Moussa also hailed recent progress in events in Somalia and Sudan and hoped that a recent peace agreement would bring peace to Darfur. He characterized the current global political situation as a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the west. "The clash is being fed and abetted by extremists on both sides," he said in his speech. ***************************************************************** 27 Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant, China, India, Others Intersted, Too Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:40:32 -0400 X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127 X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive >That type of uranium is weapons-grade and could be used to construct dozens of nuclear warheads. >Soldiers would be needed to protect the ship from terrorists. >The Severodvinsk nuclear ship is expected to go online in 2010, but that could be just the beginning. >Countries including China, India, Indonesia and states in the Persian Gulf have apparently already >expressed interest. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,423168,00.html June 23, 2006 Print | Send this article | Feedback DANGER AT SEA Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant By Ulrich Jaeger Russia is constructing a floating nuclear power plant for remote regions that could provide energy for coastal cities. Environmentalists warn of a catastrophe at sea. And nuclear proliferation experts point out that the ship would use weapons-grade uranium to generate electricity. A computer model of the world's first floating nuclear power station in Severodvinsk. The concept is amazing. The new ship could be anchored along any coastline where there is no threat of a tsunami or hurricane. All local engineers have to do is attach a few cables and then the magic arrives: "the reactors are activated -- and there is light." Voilá, the world's mobile, boat-based nuclear reactor for the production of civilian power. That, at least, is how an enthusiastic Evgeny Kuzin, who works for the Russian utility company Malaya Energetika, pitches the ambitious project. Last week the Russian nuclear energy company Rosenergoatom and the Sevmach military shipyard in Severodvinsk on the Arctic Sea signed a contract to build the world's first floating nuclear power plant. At a cost of €270 million, a 140 meter long by 30 meter wide ship will be fitted with two reactors on its keel. Combined they will produce 70 megawatts of electricity, almost a twentieth of that produced by land-based plants. The Severodvinsk nuclear ship is expected to go online in 2010, but that could be just the beginning. Countries including China, India, Indonesia and states in the Persian Gulf have apparently already expressed interest. The Russians' plans promise a flexible solution to energy problems: The ship provides space for 55 crew members, a reactor control center and storage for nuclear fuel rods. However, tugboats will be required to bring the floating power plant to its site, as the 20,000 ton boat doesn't have its own engine. Russian experts claim that the ship could supply the energy needs for coastal cities with up to 200,000 residents. But what may sound like a groundbreaking project triggers nightmares for international nuclear experts. The Norwegian environmental organization Bellona has described the project as an "absolutely sick idea." The Norwegians are backed by the environmental group Green Cross Russia. The organization's spokesman, Vladimir Kuznetsov, former head of the Russian nuclear regulatory agency, believes the floating plants are "a threat to the world's oceans and to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Weapons-grade uranium NEWSLETTER Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In-Box everyday. The problem is the fact that reactors of the KLT-40C variety are to be used on the ship. Plants of this type are also used to power Russia's nuclear-powered icebreakers. Sure the reactors would be modified for their use as energy suppliers, but that doesn't change their delicate, accident-prone design. The reactors are run using fuel rods, 40 percent of which consist of the easily fissionable Uranium 235. That type of uranium is weapons-grade and could be used to construct dozens of nuclear warheads. Soldiers would be needed to protect the ship from terrorists. The operational safety is also far from certain. Although reactor accidents on board Russian ships are kept secret, information about several serious incidents on board nuclear-powered icebreakers have reached the West. On at least two occasions, nuclear meltdowns almost occurred on ships after there reactor cooling systems failed. Because the plant will be cooled using sea water, a reactor incident could lead to the contamination of entire maritime regions. According to the Swedish nuclear expert Oddbjörn Sandervag, the effects of a normal tanker accident would be negligible in contrast. The concept remains unconvincing economically, too. The price per kilowatt hour would be six cents, according to the project leader. Gas power plants produce energy for 2 cents. And that doesn't take into account the costs for insurance, security or the disposal of the nuclear ship after its estimated 40 years lifespan. Of course, cynics could easily point out that Moscow has a pretty effective system for getting rid of its rotting nuclear fleets: The disposal of the Russian nuclear submarines on the Artic Sea was paid for by neighbor Norway and the United States. : Blogs discussing this story ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned to Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant News Release - Region I - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-039 June 27, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected David Werkheiser as the new resident inspector at the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pa. He joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Paul Cataldo at the two unit site. Werkheiser first joined the NRC in April 2003 as a reactor inspector in the Region I Division of Reactor Safety in King of Prussia, Pa. Dave Werkheiser has the experience and commitment to safety that will help the NRC ensure that Beaver Valley conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health and safety," said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins. Prior to joining the NRC, Werkheiser was an NRC-licensed senior reactor operator at Penn States Breazeale Nuclear Reactor. He also served in the United States Navy for nearly nine years, including an assignment as a nuclear-qualified engineering supervisor aboard the USS Hawkbill at Pearl Harbor, Hi. Werkheiser earned bachelors and masters degrees in nuclear engineering from Pennsylvania State University. He also completed a U.S. Department of Energy Graduate Fellowship. Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. The Beaver Valley resident inspectors can be reached at 724/643-2000. Last revised Tuesday, June 27, 2006 ***************************************************************** 29 TMCnet.com: A Nuclear Power Plant May Be Next for New Mexico Technology Marketing Corporation [June 27, 2006] By James Finch Federal lawmakers patted themselves on the back, last Friday, in a joint bi-partisan news release issued by three New Mexico politicians: U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, and U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce. Their celebratory remarks were meant to remind voters why the politicians were in Washington to bring their state new jobs for at least some of New Mexicos voters. While the chorus of praise revolved around creating new jobs and bringing millions of dollars into the states economy, is there more behind this story, which has not yet been told? For Senator Domenici, this was another major victory as the longest serving U.S. Senator in New Mexicos history. The Republican Senator heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici made his views on nuclear energy quite clear in his book A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). He began pursuing Louisiana Energy Services to move to New Mexico in February 2003, after it became apparent Hartsville, Tennessee didnt want uranium being enriched in their backyard. And again, it was Domenici, whose last minute negotiations with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, led to the adoption of the Part 810 Waiver. The waiver allowed Louisiana Energy Services (LES) to contact foreign-owned Urenco Ltd about transferring high technology data (the gas centrifuge technology) to LES so the uranium enrichment technology could be utilized at the new facility. U.S. laws ordinarily prohibit such nuclear technology transfers, but Domenicis intervention brought the project to the NRC approval stage. LES had been on the drawing boards since 1989, having derived its name from the state of Louisiana. The LES partnership was initially formed with the intent of building its centrifuge enrichment plant in Homer, Louisiana. Senator Domenicis impact upon the nuclear resurgence in the United States is evident to the entire industry and most politicians. He announced last year, In 1997, I predicted the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. For the last eight years, I have worked to help make that renaissance a reality. Is there, perhaps, one more achievement Senator Domenici would like to add on behalf of the nuclear industry, before giving up his Senate seat? In his book, A Brighter Tomorrow, Domenici bemoans and condemns nuclear fuel reprocessing. With the advent of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Domenici may bring a nuclear power plant to New Mexico before he retires. Domenicis Democratic counterpart, Senator Jeff Bingaman, is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. We suspect Bingaman may play an integral role in helping Senator Domenici fulfill that dream. Ironically, Senator Bingaman, who last November was invited to a Santa Fe anti-nuclear environmentalist fundraiser, and which highlighted television mogul Ted Turner, was effusive in saying about the LES enrichment facility, This will be one of the largest construction projects our state has ever seen. And the economic impact in southeastern New Mexico will be tremendous. Does Bingaman appear to be playing both sides of the nuclear chessboard? No, the former attorney, who reportedly once provided legal advice to uranium mining powerhouse, Kerr McGee, is deftly maneuvering between being a good Democrat and providing what he may honestly believe is best for his state. While Bingaman has curried favor among the environmentalists, in May of this year, he accepted, along with Domenici and others, the William S. Lee Award for Leadership at the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI) annual conference, saying, I share a belief that nuclear power can make a meaningful contribution to controlling the growth of greenhouse gases, while still allowing our economy to expand. It was his subsequent remark directed at the NEI, which leads us to believe he may be among the first to support additional nuclear growth in New Mexico. He told the NEI, I am hoping that you will do your part to use those tools that Congress has put in place to ensure that nuclear power achieves its potential as part of our future energy mix. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership In March 2006, Senator Domenici pledged his support to President Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), With GNEP, we begin to close the cycle on nuclear waste in ways that prevent proliferation and reduce both the volume and toxicity of waste. By recycling spent nuclear fuel, we can reuse the uranium, which is 96 percent of spent fuel, and separate the most toxic radioactive material to be burned in an advanced burner reactor. By reusing uranium fuel and burning the transuranic material in a new generation of modern reactors, we can reduce the amount of waste placed in Yucca Mountain by a factor of 100. One of the key technologies in the GNEP program in is the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR). Deriving its technology from fast reactors, which were used to make nuclear weapons, the concept of the ABR is to minimize the amount of nuclear waste, produced by the nuclear industrys power plants, to a tiny fraction of content. The concept behind the ABR is to burn the transuranic elements, such as plutonium and other long-living radioactive material. In this case, burning the radioactive waste is translated as: destroying the transuranics, by converting them into shorter-lived isotopes. When the transuranic elements are consumed by the ABR, a large amount of energy is released and then converted into electricity. Instead of burying several football fields of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain (or elsewhere) for one million years, the toxic waste would be recycled as energy to be immediately used to power homes and industry. Part of the GNEP plan is to combine the current, or advanced, light water reactors with the ABR. As the light water nuclear reactors produce transuranics, the ABRs consume those highly radioactive elements. This leaves less nuclear waste for future disposal, and immediately provides energy. The major issue in the western United States, about nuclear waste, is please dont put it in our backyard. Several western states have been approached, and even the Carlsbad area was once discussed. Through the ABR technology, it may be possible to minimize the amount of this waste to make it a less undesirable disposal problem. A look at local New Mexico politics may provide an insight as to where the two U.S. senators may be heading with regards to a nuclear power plant for New Mexico. New Mexicos Enrichment Facility: Prelude to a Nuclear Power Plant? If Federal lawmakers are happy about the proposed uranium enrichment facility, some of New Mexicos state politicians were still floating on clouds when we talked to them yesterday. New Mexico legislator John A. Heaton, the Democratic representative serving Carlsbad, waxed enthusiastic about the enrichment facility, Its the first step in converting this country to nuclear energy. Mainly the four state senators and representatives, whom we interviewed, echoed each others praise about Urencos proposed enrichment facility. I could not be more pleased, Senator Carroll H. Leavell told us. It will have a major, very positive impact on the economy. At the peak of construction, as many as 1200 workers may be employed. Later, when the facility is operational, about 300 workers will remain. All four were pleasantly surprised that town hall hearings for the proposed facility were overwhelmingly positive, and the local citizens would be delighted to have this facility in built in southeastern New Mexico. Senator Leavell said with disgust, Most of the (anti-nuclear) protests have come from outside our area, places like San Francisco, DC and Santa Fe. Senators Leavell and Gay G. Kernan, the state senator from Hobbs, were invited by Urenco Ltd. to tour an enrichment technology plant in Almelo, Netherlands and left impressed with the company, its honesty and especially the managements attitude of looking at both sides of the issues. Both state senators also observed the surrounding community failed to be negatively impacted by the enrichment facility. Looking for deeper insights into what the future might hold, we asked all four about the possibility of a nuclear power plant in New Mexico. All four agreed it would be desirable. Additional comments by the four state politicians led us to believe there might be a second step, following Heatons remark about the enrichment facility being the first step. Donald L. Whitaker, the Democratic legislator from Eunice, the closest town to the proposed enrichment facility, told us, I would like to see a nuclear reactor in New Mexico. Whitaker has toured a nuclear facility, and believes one would be great for the states economy. They employ about one thousand and bring high-paying jobs, he said. Representative Whitaker was not the lone voice among his fellow eastern New Mexican legislators. Yes, we want a nuclear reactor in New Mexico, Representative Heaton said. Heaton is the legislatures Vice Chairman of the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials committee and a member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. He discussed the ABR technology and GNEP, explaining how this would solve the waste disposal problem of nuclear reactors and sway public opinion on nuclear energy. Senator Leavell took a more cautious approach, explaining how nuclear reactors need tremendous amounts of water. I dont think New Mexico could have a nuclear reactor, not with the current technology. But, he still agreed it would be a good idea if new technologies were developed, which used less water. Senator Gay Kernan told us, I dont know if I should be talking about this, but we are one of the candidates for the GNEP program. Having heard a rumor that General Atomics may propose building a nuclear power plant in eastern New Mexico, Senator Kernan confirmed such a plant may be on the drawing boards, and telling us West Texas is likely to be developed as an alternative energy corridor. She told us, It would stretch from Carlsbad, New Mexico to the Odessa-Midland, Texas area. Senator Kernan would also like New Mexico to have a nuclear plant, I dont have a problem with that. The third politician, joining Senators Domenici and Bingaman, in praising the NRC approval of a draft license for LES and Urenco Ltd, was U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce. Comments, issued by his press secretary on Friday and praising the LES announcement, may foreshadow New Mexicos next step, Todays announcement marks a major milestone in our efforts to cement our states leadership role in the development of alternative energy. What greater leadership by a state than in introducing the new GNEP ABR technology in New Mexico? After all, the state of New Mexico remains the founding home to nuclear technology, where the worlds first atomic technology was designed at Los Alamos. In a related development, David Watts, President of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, recently met with Congressman Pearce about developing a helium-cooled nuclear reactor facility, which would be built underground in either Lea County, New Mexico or Andrews County, Texas. General Atomics of San Diego has funded the pre-conceptual design, which is underway and scheduled for completion in August. Waste Control Specialists has a low-level radioactive waste storage site in Andrews County. Realistically, a nuclear reactor in New Mexico is not out of the question. The legislators may get what they want. We believe Senator Domenici will ultimately set into motion the plans to bring New Mexico its first nuclear power plant. It would become his crowning achievement in helping the nuclear renaissance blossom in this country and in his state. James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. To read the entire series, entitled, New Mexico Technology Marketing Corporation, One Technology Plaza, Norwalk, CT 06854 USA Ph: 800-243-6002, 203-852-6800; Fx: 203-853-2845 General comments: tmc@tmcnet.com. Comments about this site: webmaster@tmcnet.com. ***************************************************************** 30 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear chief calls for $1.5bln a year in innovation 27/ 06/ 2006 MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear industry needs at least $1.5 billion a year for innovation, the country's top civilian nuclear official said Tuesday. Speaking at an innovation forum in Moscow, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said: "We should annually raise at least 40 billion rubles for the support and development of innovative technologies in Russia's nuclear industry." The current funding amounts to just 8-10 billion rubles ($296-$370mln), he said. Kiriyenko said the current forum showcased the huge innovative potential of the nuclear industry, but at the same time evoked conflicting emotions because many projects failed to reach the commercial stage. He called for infrastructure to be developed to allow innovations to be used in business. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 31 RIA Novosti: Russian civilian nuclear safety to get massive funding boost 27/ 06/ 2006 MOSCOW, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will spend more than 10 times what it does now on civilian nuclear and radiation safety programs in 2007, the top official in the field said Tuesday. "In 2007 we will increase spending on nuclear and radiation safety by 10 times, although this is still very little," Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters. He said spending would reach 3 billion rubles (about $110 million) next year, compared with 200 million rubles (about $7.4 million) this year. Kiriyenko said the agency intended to spend an additional 1.83 billion rubles (about $67.5 million) on nuclear and radiation safety next year. He also said additional funds would go on solving problems at the Zheleznogorsk mining and chemical works in East Siberia's Krasnoyarsk Territory and the Mayak nuclear facility in the Chelyabinsk Region in the southern Urals. Kiriyenko said the agency would draft by fall a program for Russia's nuclear and radiation safety for 15-20 years to deal with problems that have accumulated in the country's nuclear weapons industry. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 32 RIA Novosti: Russia-Ukraine-Moldova energy triangle Opinion & analysis - 27/ 06/ 2006 MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti economic commentator Vasily Zubkov) Energy experts are worried over developments in the Moldova-Ukraine-Russia triangle. Moldova needs electricity, which Russia's RAO UES and Ukraine's Ukrinterenergo are willing to supply. Moldova's electricity requirements are quite modest. It used only about 3.5 billion kWh last year, getting 0.8 billion from Ukraine, about 0.9 billion from Russia (less than 5% of Russia's electricity exports), and about 1 billion from a power plant located in the self-proclaimed Transdnestr republic, which RAO UES has owned since last year (In the past, the power plant supplied half of Moldova's electricity). About a third of the republic's electricity demand is met locally. Ukraine and Russia view Moldova as an electricity-transit route to the Balkans. Acting on the instructions of the Russian prime minister and the decision of the Russian-Moldovan intergovernmental commission, Inter RAO UES has established a new subsidiary, Inter RAO UES Balkans. A short while ago, 13 countries, including solvent but electricity-hungry Italy, Slovenia, Hungary and Austria, signed an agreement forming the Energy Community of South East Europe (ECSEE). The European Union is not happy with energy deliveries from the east, mostly because Russia disregards the EU's demand that it improve safety in its nuclear power industry. Europe also called on Russia to shut down the Chernobyl-type nuclear power plant in Sosnovy Bor outside St. Petersburg. European Commission spokesman Jean-Claude Schwartz has said recently that the commission was not happy with Russian energy imports. He said Russia's share in the EU's electricity supplies was moderate and would hardly grow before 2020. However, the energy strategies of Ukraine and Russia propose an accelerated development of exports to Europe. Russia's Minister of Industry and Energy, Viktor Khristenko, who recently said that the national energy sector should receive $100 billion over the next five years, called for devising ways to encourage electricity exports. Russia and Ukraine, which have similar electricity export strategies for Eastern and Southern Europe, intend to fight for the market to the bitter end. When Inter RAO UES halted electricity deliveries to Moldova in early May because the company's agreement with Ukrinterenergo had expired and new transit prices had not been negotiated, Ukraine rushed to take Russia's place on the Moldovan market. A manager of the Energy Company of Ukraine has said additional electricity deliveries to Moldova were much more profitable than the transit of Russian electricity. Angry over Russia's decision to ban the import of its wines and brandies, Moldova has offered Ukraine a five-year energy agreement. The republic's government also announced in May its intention to speed up the feasibility study for a high-voltage transmission line from Moldova's Beltsy (Belcy) to Novodnestrovsk in Ukraine. It also started talks with Romania on the construction of a similar line from Beltsy to Suceava. Moldova expects the European Commission to finance the construction of the two lines, which could subsequently be used to deliver electricity via Moldova to the Balkans. It is not clear who will provide the electricity, but Moldova hopes the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will be settled by that time and large volumes of electricity will flow across it to the west. In addition, the Moldovan Thermal Power Plant, the region's biggest, is to restart operation after an overhaul soon, and Moldova might have an excess of electricity. Russian officials refuse to comment on the situation, the ongoing talks, or the possibility of returning to Moldova. But unofficial sources say that the parties are looking for a compromise on the issue of electricity exports to Moldova. Although the talks are proceeding in a businesslike atmosphere, they are very complicated, with each side fighting tooth and nail for its demands, the source said. The situation should be clarified by midsummer: either the status quo will be restored, or Russia will leave the Moldovan market for some time. Nobody wants the winter gas conflict between Ukraine and Russia to turn into a summer electricity war. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 33 APP.COM: Nuclear plant tax squeaks through Assembly | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, June 27, 2006 MICHAEL SYMONS GANNETT STATE BUREAU TRENTON — Even a $4.4 million tax on nuclear power plants wasn't passed by the Assembly easily Monday, as lawmakers began nibbling around the edges of Gov. Corzine's budget proposal. After a lengthy debate, the Assembly voted mostly along party lines, 50 to 29, to charge nuclear plants in Lacey and Lower Alloways Creek Township a yearly fee to cover costs for round-the-clock security that began after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Assemblyman Joseph Pennacchio, R-Morris, said surcharges imposed in recent years on phone bills, rental cars and car registrations were all done in the name of homeland security. He said Democrats are using the issue as political cover. "This bill is just another excuse to raise yet another tax. Just another charge to facilities, i.e. the utility companies, that will be passed along to consumers," said Pennacchio. Assemblyman Frederick Scalera, D-Essex, said reductions in federal aid for homeland security make such fees necessary. State Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, agreed that the tax would be a cost that likely will be passed along to consumers. "The ratepayer is going to pay for the protection," Connors said Monday evening from his home. "It should be everyone. Protection against terror is a shared responsibility." Rachelle Benson, spokeswoman for the Oyster Creek plant, said about the proposed tax: "We don't believe it is necessary. We believe we already have a robust strategy and force." Benson said plant officials are developing a private security program with help from the State Police, Office of Homeland Security and the National Guard to complement to what they say is an already extensive plant protection scheme. She said plant officials have spent about $24 million since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on enhancements and upgrades to Oyster Creek's security system, including more training, weapons and barriers. "We say about putting money on the taxpayers for this," Scalera said. "Since Sept. 11th, we have been supplying State Police, the citizens of the state of New Jersey, at our cost, to all of these facilities. . . . It's really relieving the taxpayers of New Jersey and putting the cost where it needs to be." Assemblyman Joseph Malone III, R-Burlington, alluded to how a surcharge on car registrations that kicks in Saturday won't be used for new helicopters and a trooper recruiting class, as had been expected, until the following year's budget. "I just have a queasy feeling in my stomach that once the money gets put into the budget, other purposes will be found to use this money," Malone said. In other action, the Assembly gave final, unanimous approval to put a question to voters this November asking if they want to devote proceeds from 10.5 cents of the gas tax — which is 10.5 cents, currently — to transportation construction projects. The Senate and Assembly also sent bills to Corzine that would: Authorize the state auditor to conduct performance review audits. Provide $113 million for farmland preservation purchases around New Jersey. Raise the debt ceiling for the Environmental Infrastructure Trust, which finances water projects, by $200 million to $2.4 billion. The Senate approved bills, which now only require Assembly approval, that would: Make it a disorderly persons offense to picket or protest within 500 feet of funerals, sparked by protests at soldiers' funerals in other states. Permit county improvement authorities to undertake economic development activities. Eliminate the statute of limitations for prosecuting environmental crimes. The Assembly approved bills now on the Senate floor that would provide $80 million in Green Acres funds for parks, trails and open space and another $6.5 million in farmland preservation funds for grants to nonprofit groups. The Senate passed bills that now head to Assembly committees, where they're unlikely to be considered before the summer recess, that would: Direct pharmacists to fill all prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices, including birth control and "morning-after" pills, regardless of their own moral, philosophical or religious beliefs. Create a commission to study how to attract more boxing, wrestling and ultimate fighting events to New Jersey. And the Assembly passed bills now heading to Senate committees that would: Extend eligibility for the state's World Trade Center Scholarship Program to dependents and spouses of people who died as a result of illness caused by exposure to the attack sites, such as the late New York Police Department Detective James Zadroga of Lacey. Reduce the age at which people become eligible for rental assistance grants to low-income senior citizens from 65 to 62. Increase penalties assessed for illegal operations of commuter vans, which are extensively used by immigrant day laborers, and create a public safety campaign by the Department of Transportation. Require motorists to stop for pedestrians waiting curbside to enter crosswalks. Begin licensing tattoo artists and body piercing artists. Allow municipalities to post signs on properties subject to development applications to inform the public about planning or zoning board action. Press staff writer Joseph Cacchioli contributed to this story. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Rutland Herald: State officials eye new renewable energy projects Rutland Vermont News & Information June 27, 2006 By Louis PorterVermont Press Bureau MONTPELIER — Gov. James Douglas' administration, including the Department of Public Service, is considering a program to encourage renewable energy projects at schools and municipal buildings in the state. The program is in the early stages. But if it is successful, it would provide funding and smooth regulation so that schools and other public buildings could develop solar-, wind- or biomass-powered electricity projects, or embark on efficiency and conservation efforts. "The focus would be on using conservation technologies or renewable-energy generation to reduce the schools' energy consumption and lower property taxes," said Jason Gibbs, an administration spokesman. Two initiatives proposed by lawmakers and signed into law by the governor would be crucial to the program. The first established a Clean Energy Fund with money from Entergy Corp., which owns Vermont Yankee. If the board overseeing how that fund is used agreed with the administration proposal, money from the fund could be used to assist cities and towns in putting together such projects. Although alternative energy projects can save money in the long-run, obtaining capital to construct them can be difficult. The Clean Energy Fund, established as part of the state negotiation with Entergy over the expansion of the nuclear power plant and its use of dry cask storage, now has about $1.3 million. The fund is expected to grow to more than $15 million by 2012, when Yankee's current operating license expires. The other legislative initiative crucial to the proposal sets the stage for an expansion of "net metering." Under net metering, homeowners and others who build small-scale renewable power projects can "sell" excess power to their utility, reducing or eliminating power bills. Lawmakers have asked the Public Service Board to consider how best to implement the expansion of that program. If schools and municipalities can put up such systems alone — or together — and qualify under the new net metering system, any renewable energy projects they built could be used to reduce their energy bills. More research needs to be done on the idea, said Richard Smith, deputy commissioner of public service. But "electric bills for municipalities and schools are a big portion of the bills they have to deal with," he said. That will be especially true in the future, given that power rates may rise from 6 percent to 20 percent in the next few years — an increase many parts of New England already are seeing, Smith said. Rep. Robert Dostis, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said the proposal is the kind of idea the state needs to look at as Vermont's utilities approach the end of the contracts with the suppliers of most their power, Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec. "It is this exact kind of thinking that we need to have happen in Vermont," said Dostis, D-Waterbury. "We have to think about how we can localize more generation, have it be in state, and have it be clean. That is what is going to protect us from the high costs that are just down the road for us." He said he is glad the administration is moving in that direction. "They are realizing we have to do something different and be more aggressive," he said. Dostis, along with Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, is on the board that will choose who decides how the Clean Energy Fund money is spent. The program, which is expected to cost between $1 million and $2 million annually, also could be a good way for schools to add to its curriculum, Gibbs said. "The opportunity that this kind of project would present to our schools to help them teach the science of energy and the importance of conservation to students is tremendous," he said. The program will depend on several decisions being made, including how the fund will be spent, and what form the expansion of net metering will take. In addition the Legislature probably will weigh in on the matter when it reconvenes in January, Gibbs said. "If we can get the support of our various partners we hope to move forward with this proposal as expeditiously as possible," he said. "We have been spoiled," Dostis said. "It's relatively inexpensive … most of us take electricity for granted." "That is going to change, I think. Now, with what is happening in the energy market, with global warming, we are going to have to become much more cognizant." Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 35 Belfast Telegraph: Nuclear power to be Labour contest issue By Colin Brown 27 June 2006 Labour MPs have vowed to make nuclear energy an issue in the forthcoming leadership election after the Cabinet gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. The cabinet committee overseeing the issue approved the inclusion of nuclear power in the energy White Paper to be published this month. The review under Malcolm Wicks, the Energy minister, is also expected to recommend streamlining the planning system to enable the power stations to be built on existing sites more quickly. Nuclear power will be sold by ministers as part of a balanced energy policy which will include greater emphasis on the development of renewable power sources such as wind turbines and wave power, and more energy efficiency. Labour rebels said that they intended to challenge Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, on the issue when he takes over from Tony Blair. © 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Sunshine Act Notice FR Doc 06-5760 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36557-36558] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-69] Dates: Weeks of June 26, July 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of June 26, 2006 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 meeting 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, (ACRS & ">http://www.nrc.gov> (ACRS & . 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, . [[Page 36558]] Week of July 31, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 31, 2006. * * * * * * 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: . Additional Information: The Affirmation of ``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'' which tentatively was scheduled on Friday, June 23, 2006 at 9 a.m. has been postponed and will be rescheduled. * * * * * 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, TTD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at . 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 . Dated: June 22, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-5760 Filed 6-23-06; 12:20 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 37 Brattleboro Reformer: Few attend VY uprate hearing By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Tuesday, June 27 BRATTLEBORO -- A federal panel was in town Monday night to take public testimony on Vermont Yankee's recent power boost, but relatively few came to make themselves heard. About 50 people showed up to speak before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial arm of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ASLB Chairman Alex Karlin explained that even though Vermont Yankee's 20 percent "uprate" has already been completed, the ASLB still has a role to play, and the testimony it gets matters. "If we are convinced that some of the contentions that have been raised are legitimate, then there's something we can do about it," he said. There are two more sessions today at the Latchis Theatre on Main Street, from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1:30 to 4 p.m. The scope of discussion was essentially limited to two contentions about the uprate that are before the board, though the panel allowed speakers to talk about other issues. The nuclear watchdog New England Coalition has taken issue with two aspects of the uprate. One contention holds that Vermont Yankee should conduct tests to make sure it can safely shut down from its new power level. The other questions the integrity of Vermont Yankee's emergency cooling towers, which would provide service water to the plant in case something went wrong with the supply system, connected to the Connecticut River. The coalition holds that the plant has not taken steps to ensure that the tower would be reliable, under uprated conditions, in case of a catastrophic event like an earthquake or a terrorist attack. Some speakers spoke directly to those contentions, others spoke about the uprate process in general. Still others attempted to explain why so few people had shown up. "All sides have admitted that the margins of safety ... are reduced by the extended power uprate," said Scott Ainslie of Brattleboro. He mentioned both contentions, and discussed faults with the engineering review of the emergency cooling tower. Bill Pearson of Brattleboro said more power at Vermont Yankee means more nuclear waste. "Vermont Yankee, like the other 102 working reactors (in the U.S.) produce a variety of waste materials. There is no safe way to dispose of it, and it will probably remain on the banks of the Connecticut River forever," he said. "I haven't said anything about the uprate's benefits, because I couldn't think of any." Sally Shaw discussed a number of safety concerns with Vermont Yankee, including some low-level emergencies that have taken place since Entergy assumed ownership. Shaw, like several other speakers, refered to recent testimony from state nuclear engineer Bill Sherman, which called into question the reliability of the plant's steam dryer post-uprate. Sherman has said that he is not concerned about plant safety, but how dependable the plant's production will be. "I count the costs of a meltdown to be much greater than the cost of replacing power," Shaw said. She also asked the board members to explain how they would take the night's testimony into consideration, since not all of it will necessarily become evidence in the hearing. Board members did not answer questions. Howard Shaffer, a retired nuclear engineer who has consulted with the Brattleboro Selectboard, called on the ASLB to help the public better understand the regulatory process. "It's my contention that the technical issues are just a lever into a political fight," he said. "There is evidence that some people misunderstand how Vermont Yankee works." Ian Bigelow of Brattleboro, explored the reasons for the night's low attendance, and echoed a feeling of frustration with the uprate process. "A lot of people are giving up on thinking that they'll ever change things," he said. "The people who own the plant and (make) the profits don't care about people." The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is also taking written testimony. Karlin said it can be sent by e-mail to ksv@nrc.gov. New England Newspapers, Inc. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC.; Vermont FR Doc E6-10073 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36549-36550] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-64] Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of order for implementation of additional security measures associated with access authorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1179, fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: CMR1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC (or The Commission) is providing notice in the matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information NRC has issued a general license to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. (Entergy), authorizing the operation of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require Entergy to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees that currently store spent fuel or have identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements that emerged from NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1\1\ of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures, and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. To provide assurance that Entergy is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, Entergy's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements [[Page 36550]] identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. Entergy shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in Entergy's security plan. Entergy shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than November 30, 2006, with the exception of the additional security measures B.4, which shall be implemented no later than May 31, 2007. In any event, Entergy shall complete implementation of all additional security measures prior to the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI. B. 1. Entergy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause Entergy to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide Entergy's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. 2. If Entergy considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Entergy must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, Entergy must supplement its response to Condition B.1, of this Order, to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as required under Condition B.1. C. 1. Entergy shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. Entergy shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. All measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Entergy's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled, in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, NMSS, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, on Entergy's demonstration of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Entergy must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an entity other than Entergy requests a hearing, that entity shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which its interest is adversely affected by this Order, and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If Entergy, or an entity, whose interest is adversely affected requests a hearing, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Entergy may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed, or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 15th day of June 2006. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10073 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. Vermont FR Doc E6-10074 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36551-36552] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-65] [[Page 36551]] Yankee Nuclear Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC (or The Commission) is providing notice in the matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information NRC has issued a general license to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. (Entergy), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to Entergy which has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of part 72. The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require Entergy to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on Entergy which has indicated near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at Entergy's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. Entergy's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. Entergy shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in its security plan. Entergy shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before November 30, 2006, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is sooner. B.1. Entergy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from, or variation, of any specific requirement. 2. If Entergy considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, Entergy must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, Entergy must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as required in Condition B.1. C.1. Entergy shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit, to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. Entergy shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full [[Page 36552]] compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. All measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Entergy's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, NMSS may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, on Entergy's demonstration of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Entergy must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to , and also to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail, to . If an entity other than Entergy requests a hearing, that entity shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which its interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If Entergy or another entity whose interest is adversely affected requests a hearing, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Entergy may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 15th day of June 2006. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10074 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie FR Doc E6-10075 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36552-36554] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-66] Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: CMR1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC (or The Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information NRC has issued a general license to Florida Power and Light Company (FP), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to FP, which has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require FP to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives, to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory [[Page 36553]] measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment, in a consistent manner, throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on FP, which has indicated near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at FP's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and to avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. FP's general license, issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210, is modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. FP shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in its security plan. It shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before November 30, 2006, or the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is sooner. B.1. FP shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. 2. If FP considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, it must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, FP must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as required in Condition B.1. C.1. FP shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. FP shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. All measures implemented or actions taken, in response to this Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. FP's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, NMSS may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, on FP demonstration of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, FP must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II, at Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e- mail, to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415- 3725, or by e-mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an entity other than FP requests a hearing, that entity shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which its interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by FP or an entity whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. [[Page 36554]] Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), FP may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 15th day of June 2006. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10075 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie FR Doc E6-10077 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36547-36549] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-63] Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures Associated with Access Authorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail: CMR1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC (or The Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information NRC issued a license to Florida Power and Light Company (FP), authorizing the operation of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require FP to have a safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all licensees that currently store spent fuel or have identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to implement additional security enhancements that emerged from NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence [[Page 36548]] community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, the October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at the licensee's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further, because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain additional security measures and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. To provide assurance that FP is implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, FP's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72, and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. FP shall comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in FP's security plan. FP shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than November 30, 2006, with the exception of the additional security measure B.4, which shall be implemented no later than May 31, 2007. In any event, FP shall complete implementation of all additional security measures prior to the first day that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI. B. 1. FP shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause FP to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide FP's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If FP considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, FP must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, FP must supplement its response to Condition B.1, of this Order, to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition B.1. C. 1. FP shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. FP shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. All measures implemented, or actions taken, in response to this Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. FP's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, NMSS, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, on FP's demonstration of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, FP must, and any other entity adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II, at Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, Suite 23T85, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; and to the licensee, if the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the [[Page 36549]] Office of General Counsel (OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an entity other than FP requests a hearing, that entity shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which its interest is adversely affected by this Order, and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If FP or an entity whose interest is adversely affected requests a hearing, the Commission will issue an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), FP may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 15th day of June 2006. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10077 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 Scoop: Public shut out of Australia's nuclear review Tuesday, 27 June 2006, 8:21 pm Press Release: Australian Green Party Public shut out of PM's nuclear review: Greens Prime Minister John Howard wants to shut out the Australian public from his nuclear review, making a lie of his call for a 'full-blooded debate', Australian Greens energy spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said today. "Reports today that the hand-picked review panel will not hold public hearings and probably won't call for public submissions show just what a sham the process is," Senator Milne said in Alice Springs. "Prime Minister Howard said he wanted a 'full-blooded debate' about whether Australia should go down the nuclear track but he doesn't want to hear what Australians have to say on the matter," Senator Milne said. "Instead, the panel will ask selected individuals to make submissions, and even these may not be released to the public until after the review panel reports to the Prime Minister. "This latest revelation about how the review panel will operate further demonstrates how deeply flawed the review is. Rather than fostering full debate across the community, it is designed to bolster the Prime Minister's plan to develop uranium enrichment and turn Australia into a global nuclear waste dump. "The lack of public consultation is consistent with the federal government's style. While in Alice Springs I visited the Indigenous community near one of three sites short-listed for a national nuclear waste dump, who have not been consulted. "We should be debating Australia's future energy mix in the context of needing to make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, not how to turn Australia into a nuclear nation. "The nuclear option shows the government's lack of vision after a decade in office. A much smarter alternative for Australia is to embrace energy efficiency and renewable energy, developing new industries with the potential to create thousands of jobs and generate export income." ***************************************************************** 43 WTVM: Judge reduces water flow in Alabama Power case BIRMINGHAM, Ala. A federal judge ordered a slight reduction in the water flowing from the Chattahoochee River into Florida in an ongoing tri-state water dispute today. U-S- District Judge Karon Bowdre's order reduces the river's water flow below the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam from 7-thousand cubic feet per second to 6-thousand 750 until further notice. The judge also scheduled a conference call with the parties involved for tomorrow afternoon.The action stems from the judge's order last week, which increased water flow by 60 percent. That order said the extra water was necessary to save certain protected mussel species in the Apalachicola River in Florida that are in danger of extinction. Alabama Power Company asked Bowdre Friday to reduce the water flowing from Georgia into Florida, claiming it could hurt operations of the Farley Nuclear Plant in extreme southeast Alabama. She reduced the flow from 8-thousand cubic square feet to 7-thousand on Friday.Before the order, the Army Corps of Engineers has been releasing 5-thousand cubic feet per second of water from Georgia reservoirs along the Chattahoochee River. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and WTVM, a Raycom Media station. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Vermont Guardian: Vermont braces for major welfare changes By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian Posted June 27, 2006 BRATTLEBORO What if they gave a Vermont Yankee meeting and nobody came? Federal regulators were in town once again to address the nuclear reactors 20 percent power uprate, but unlike dozens of meetings over the past three years, only a handful of activists and one supporter turned out to speak to the normally contentious issue. Of the 14 people who signed up in advance to speak to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board a quasi-judicial arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only 10 turned up at the Latchis Theater Monday night, the first of two days set aside for limited appearance statements before the board. About 20 people eventually trickled into the meeting, which finished up about two hours before its scheduled 10:30 p.m. close for lack of attendance. One participant, who listened but did not speak publicly, was Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, a longtime critic of Entergys 20 percent power uprate, which was approved and implemented starting in March. Darrow was the only elected official in attendance. I wonder if NRCs new game plan is to have so many hearings that people get tired of going to them, he mused. Over the past several years, Entergy has had three separate cases involving Vermont Yankee before state and federal regulators on the power uprate, a 20-year VY license extension, and a proposal to store radioactive waste in dry casks on site. The result has been dozens of lengthy, highly technical meetings and hearings that have usually drawn emotional, and sometimes theatrical, standing-room only crowds. Although NRC staff members approved the uprate and allowed Entergy to implement it, the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro-based nonprofit, has questioned several safety aspects of the power boost. NEC was the first outside party in the country to achieve legal standing before the ASLB on a power uprate. A formal adjudicatory hearing on NECs contentions will be held in Newfane in September. An ASLB notice issued earlier this month said the purpose of Mondays and Tuesdays meetings was to allow members of the public to alert the board and the parties to areas relating to the uprate and the admitted contentions in which evidence may need to be adduced (brought forward), and to assist the board in its consideration of these issues. But Gill, MA resident and NEC part-time staff member Sally Shaw asked the judges how they would consider the residents concerns. If the judges are not allowed to consider anything not presented at evidentiary hearing, Im confused about how you will weight peoples statements and what then is the purpose of the limited oral appearance? If we think the issues are significant we will look into them, ASLB board member Alex Karlin assured her. Shaw subsequently read into the record a litany of recorded problems including breakdowns, fires and equipment failures, at VY over the past four years. The NRC staff decision shall have no effect on the responsibility of this board to rule on the objections; if the board determines the license amendment should not have been granted it may be revoked or conditions applied, Karlin noted. Anti-nuclear activist Gary Sachs was skeptical. Ive seen many boards like you look interested, grab their pens and write stuff down and then in total disregard for what the public states, rule in favor of the industry, he told the panel Since the uprate was approved and implemented, turnout at the NRC events has thinned considerably, even as the federal agency dispatches numerous staff members to each meeting. More than 10 agency staffers attended Mondays session; there were also two officials from the state Department of Public Service and several top Vermont Yankee executives in attendance. There is a lot of apathy, acknowledged Ian Bigelow of Brattleboro. People are afraid to come out and speak their voice because they dont think theyre going to change anything anymore. Other speakers rejected the increased nuclear waste the uprate will produce and the lack of storage options for that waste. Vermont Yankees highly dangerous waste will probably remain here on the banks of the Connecticut River forever, said Brattleboro resident Bill Pearson. The operation of Vermont Yankee therefore condemns generations of Vermonters to the worry, expense and risk of dealing with that waste. Brattleboro resident and NEC board member Scott Ainslie questioned the integrity of the plants steam dryer, the component that removes water droplets from the steam before it enters the turbines. VYs dryer has developed more than 40 hairlines cracks; others like it at sister reactors with uprates have broken so badly that they had to be replaced. All four reactors sharing this flawed steam dryer design with Vermont Yankee have experienced persistent structural failures under uprated power conditions, Ainslie noted. Why should our community be subjected to this sort of experimentation? he asked. The issue of flawed steam dryer design is at the center of a new state complaint before the Public Service Board. State officials, who withdrew separate contentions that had been accepted by the ASLB, have now asked the PSB to open an investigation into whether Vermont ratepayers should be protected if the steam dryer fails and utilities are forced to buy more expensive power on the spot market. In written testimony, William Sherman, a nuclear engineer with the Department of Public Service, fretted that Entergy does not fully understand the uncertainties regarding steam dryer performance at uprate conditions. NEC has repeatedly raised concerns about the steam dryer before various state and federal regulators. Sanford Lewis, an Amherst, MA attorney and author who has worked on the Bhopal disaster in India, said Union Carbide blamed that accident on a disgruntled worker. If systems are pushed beyond their capacity it doesnt much matter whether VY fails because of accident or a malicious act of a terrorism. He urged the board to prevent a Bhopal on the Connective River. And Daniel Sicken, a mechanical engineer and former certified safety inspector for Travelers Insurance, told the board, There are human beings and machines and bearings that go bad that nobody can predict. I saw this happening all the time. I would like you to think about the speed factor and the human factor and what it does. Only one person, former nuclear engineer Howard Shaffer of Enfield, NH, spoke in defense of the uprate, saying opponents were using technical issues as a lever into the political fight over nuclear power. Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/local/062006/VYHearing(ASLB).shtml ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: Attachment 1); EA-06-137] Nuclear security FR Doc E6-10076 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36554-36556] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-67] In the Matter of Operating Power Reactor Licensees Identified In Attachment 1; Order Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately) The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing operation of nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, and eventually Orders to selected licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On February 25, 2002, the Commission issued an Order to all operating power reactor licensees that required certain compensatory measures be implemented (February 25th Order). On December 2, 2005, the Commission issued a Demand for Information (DFI) to the power reactor licensees. The DFI required responses regarding whether certain identified key mitigative strategies, related to Section B.5.b. of the February 25th Order, for loss of large areas of the plant due to large fires or explosions were applicable to their facilities. The DFI also required certain related information, including whether the licensees acknowledged that the identified key strategies were required by Section B.5.b. of the February 25th Order. All licensees responded to the DFI with the required information but all responses stated that the strategies were not required by Section B.5.b. As a result of the Commission's continued assessment of Section B.5.b mitigation strategies for loss of large areas of the plant due to large fires or explosions, the Commission has determined that it is necessary at this time to require implementation of certain key radiological protection mitigation strategies. The key radiological protection mitigation strategies are set forth in Attachment 2 \1\ of this Order. Each licensee must amend its site security plan, safeguards contingency plan, guard training and qualification plan, and emergency plan as appropriate to address the key radiological protection mitigation strategies identified for its facilities. The Commission's assessment of the other mitigating strategies required by Section B.5.b. of the February 25th Order is continuing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 2 contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be publicly disclosed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Any needed changes to the physical security plan, safeguards contingency plan, guard training and qualification plan, and emergency plan required by 10 CFR 50.34(c), 50.34(d), 73.55(b)(4)(ii), and 50.47(b) respectively, shall be completed and implemented within 120 days of the date of this Order. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest and the common defense and security require that this Order be immediately effective. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licenses identified in attachment 1 to this order are modified as follows: A.1. Each licensee shall revise its physical security plan, safeguards contingency plan, guard training and qualification plan, and emergency plan prepared pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34(c), 50.34(d), 73.55(b)(4)(ii), and 50.47(b), as appropriate, to incorporate the key radiological protection mitigation strategies set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, each licensee shall ensure that site procedures, and initial and recurring operations staff training programs, are updated to include the key radiological protection mitigation strategies set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order. 2. Each licensee shall implement any necessary changes to its physical security plan, safeguards contingency plan, guard training and qualification plan, emergency plan, and site procedures and training programs no later than 120 days from the date of this Order. B.1. Each licensee shall, within 35 days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if the licensee is unable to comply with any requirements of this Order, (2) if compliance with any requirement of this Order is unnecessary in the licensee's specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any requirement of this Order would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. 2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements of this Order would adversely impact safe operation of the facility must notify the Commission, within 35 days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives of this Order, or a schedule for modifying the facilities to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to Condition B.1. of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. Each licensee shall report to the Commission, in writing, when it has fully implemented this Order. The notification shall be made no later than 120 days from the date of the Order and include substitute security plan, safeguards contingency plan, guard training and qualification plan, and [[Page 36555]] emergency plan pages that reflect any changes made to implement the Order. D. All measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise, except that the licensee may change its physical security plans, safeguards contingency plans, and guard training and qualification plans if authorized by 10 CFR 50.54(p) and may change its revised emergency preparedness plan if authorized by 10 CFR 50.54(q). Licensee responses to Conditions A.1., B.1., B.2., and C. above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, licensee submittals that contain safeguards information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee of good cause. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 35 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for an extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as appropriate for the specific facility; and the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final 35 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 20th day of June 2006. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 1--List of Licensees (EA-06-137) Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC--N09 Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-354 License No. NPF-57 End of Buttonwood Road Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271 License No. DPR-28 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Timothy J. O'Connor Vice President Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-220 & 50-410 License Nos. DPR-63 & NPF-69 348 Lake Road Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Britt T. McKinney Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer PPL Susquehanna, LLC Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-387 & 50-388 License Nos. NPF-14 & NPF-22 769 Salem Boulevard, NUCSB3 Berwick, PA 18603-0467 Mr. L. M. Stinson Vice President--Nuclear, Hatch Project Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 & 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 & NPF-5 40 Inverness Center Parkway Birmingham, AL 35242 Mr. James Scarola Vice President Carolina Power & Light Company Progress Energy, Inc. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-325 & 50-324 License Nos. DPR-71 & DPR-62 Hwy 87, 2.5 Miles North Southport, NC 28461 Mr. Brian J. O'Grady Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3 Tennessee Valley Authority [[Page 36556]] Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, & 50-296 License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, & DPR-68 10835 Shaw Rd. Athens, AL 35611 Mr. Michael Skaggs Site Vice President Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket No. 50-390 License No. NPF-90 Highway 68 Near Spring City Spring City, TN 37381 Mr. Randy Douet Site Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 2000 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Mr. Mano K. Nazar Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-315 & 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58 & DPR-74 One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Gary Van Middlesworth Vice President Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No. 50-331 License No. DPR-49 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324-9785 Mr. Donald K. Cobb Assistant Vice President--Nuclear Generation Detroit Edison Company Fermi, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Mr. John Conway Site Vice President Nuclear Management Company, LLC Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 2807 West County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362-9637 Mr. Randall K. Edington Vice President--Nuclear and CNO Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-298 License No. DPR-46 1200 Prospect Road Brownville, NE 68321 Mr. J.V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station Docket No. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Snake River Warehouse North Power Plant Loop Richland, WA 99352 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-237 & 50-249 License Nos. DPR-19 &, DPR-25 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-373 & 50-374 License Nos. NPF-11 & NPF-18 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-254 & 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29 & DPR-30 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 & 50-353 License Nos. NPF-39 & NPF-85 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Mr. Christopher M. Crane President and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Generation Company, LLC Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-277 & 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 & DPR-56 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 [FR Doc. E6-10076 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 Rocky Mountain News: Nuke workers' fund gets critical look 'Improper,' GAO says of $26 million spent on contractors By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News June 27, 2006 A federal program to compensate nuclear weapons workers for job-related illness spent $26 million on "improper and questionable payments to contractors," the Government Accountability Office said Monday. That's out of the eventual $92 million the Department of Energy spent on administration of the compensation program, while paying only 31 workers. In late 2004, angry members of Congress yanked the program from Energy and gave it to the Department of Labor. The GAO report said the Energy Department paid bills without noticing it was being charged by contractors for first-class travel, unqualified workers and unneeded furniture and equipment, the audit said. Members of Congress who have championed sick workers were furious at the GAO's findings. "What we see in this report is nothing short of a fleecing of taxpayers' money," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. "It's outrageous to see contractors line their pockets while Cold War veterans get stuck with absolutely nothing," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. In 2000, Congress approved compensation and medical care for thousands of nuclear weapons workers nationwide who were sickened by radiation and toxic chemicals, including many at the now-closed Rocky Flats plant outside Denver. Congress gave half the program to the Department of Energy and half to the Department of Labor, with each in charge of compensating certain illnesses. Contractors were hired to review medical and exposure records to decide whether workers were sufficiently contaminated to cause their illnesses. But thousands of sick workers have been unable to collect. They say once-secret records of toxic exposure are turning out to be missing or wrong. Now, it turns out that some of the people reviewing their applications were unqualified, the audit said. It covered only the former Energy side of the program. The GAO found at least seven analysts who didn't have the required college degree and five years' experience in health, physical sciences or environmental studies. A manager for the contractor, Westwood Group Inc., did not even know they were supposed to have such qualifications under the contract, the GAO said. A medical records technician did not have the required experience, the audit said. "Graphics illustrators," billed to the government at $52 an hour, actually arranged travel. "Systems engineers" had three years or less of general computer work. Three managers were billed at $205 an hour, nearly twice the allowed amount, the GAO said. More than $15 million was billed for workers whose job descriptions didn't even list required experience, so GAO could not tell if they were qualified. About $2 million in subcontracted labor was unsupported by documentation. Two contractors, Westwood and Science & Engineering Associates, marked up their charges by $4 million not allowed under their contracts, according to the audit. The GAO found particular problems in Westwood's billing for physicians who decided whether workers would qualify for aid. "Energy paid contractor charges for per-diem for out-of-town personnel for weeks at a time when time records we reviewed showed they were not working," the report said. Some doctors billed for 19-hour days and 80-hour weeks, and were not questioned. Westwood filed duplicate bills, and charged the government for fringe benefits for people who didn't receive any, the audit said. A manager from Energy told the GAO it did not require supporting documentation from Westwood because it would have been "too voluminous," the report said. The DOE spent more than $700,000 on furniture just as Congress was moving to pull the program from the agency - and $72,000 more to store it after it proved unneeded. All of this comes on top of an inspector general audit last year that uncovered numerous overcharges from Science & Engineering Associates. For example, it billed Energy $72,000 a year for a mail room clerk, that audit found. In its response to the GAO, Energy denied having responsibility for monitoring the contract, saying it had subcontracted the entire program to a computer center run by the Navy in New Orleans. GAO disagreed, and severely criticized both DOE and the Navy agency for failing to check whether the contractors provided the services in their bills. Accounting was so slack that Energy underpaid the Navy agency $1.7 million and neither caught the error, the report said. Meanwhile, the Navy audited work by Science & Engineering Associates on other contracts. The company denied wrongdoing, but settled claims of overbilling with the Justice Department last winter by paying back $9.5 million. Energy officials told the GAO they question whether any of the doubtful payments could be recovered from Science & Engineering Associates because the Justice Department promised in the other case that it had no further claims. Spending questioned $26 million of the funds available to a federal program to compensate nuclear plant workers spent on improper and questionable payments to contractors. $52 an hour billed to government for "graphics illustrators." $15 million billed for workers whose job descriptions didn't list required experience. $2 million in subcontracted labor was unsupported by documentation. imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5438 site ***************************************************************** 47 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice FR Doc E6-10109 [Federal Register: June 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 123)] [Notices] [Page 36556-36557] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jn06-68] In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on July 12-14, 2006, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70638). Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal Application for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Constellation Energy Company, LLC regarding the license renewal application for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and the associated NRC staff's final Safety Evaluation Report. 10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Results of the Study to Determine the Need for Establishing Limits for Phosphate Ion Concentration (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and their contractor regarding the results of the study for use by the staff in deciding on the need for establishing limits for phosphate ion concentration in groundwater at the sites of plants applying for license renewal. 12:45 p.m.-4 p.m.: Integrating Risk and Safety Margins (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding a proposed framework for integrating risk and safety margins. 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Subcommittee Report (Open)--Report by and discussions with the chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal- Hydraulic Phenomena regarding the status of activities associated with the resolution of Generic Safety Issue-191--Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR Sump Performance that were discussed during the June 13-14, 2006 Subcommittee meeting. 4:45 p.m.-6:45 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. In addition, the Committee will discuss a response to the May 2, 2006 letter from the NRC Executive Director for Operations, responding to the March 24, 2006 (Revised April 10, 2006) ACRS [[Page 36557]] report on GSI-191--Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR Sump Performance. Thursday, July 13, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Safeguards and Security Matters (Closed)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff regarding safeguards and security matters. [Note: This session will be closed to protect information classified as National Security information as well as safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (1) and (3)]. 10:45 a.m.-11 a.m.: Subcommittee Report (Open)--The Committee will hear a report by and hold discussions with the cognizant Acting Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems regarding matters discussed during the Subcommittee meeting on June 27, 2006. 11 a.m.-12 Noon: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. 12 Noon-12:15 p.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters. 1:15 P.M.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports. Friday, July 14, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue discussion of proposed ACRS reports. 12 Noon--12:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56936). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. In accordance with Subsection 10(d), Pub. L. 92-463, I have determined that it will be necessary to close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss and protect information classified as National Security information as well as safeguards information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (3). Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., e.t. ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & oc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., e.t., at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: June 22, 2006. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10109 Filed 6-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 Albuquerque Tribune: Let's not overlook nuke waste issue Editorial: June 27, 2006 While some in New Mexico's congressional delegation last week were criticizing the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to restructure its Environmental, Health and Safety Office, delegation members were applauding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC approved a license for a European consortium's proposal to build a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment facility in Eunice - a project that will produce a economic boost for the town and southeastern New Mexico. New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, joined Rep. Steve Pearce, a Hobbs Republican, in hailing the announcement as an economic boon to the state. Domenici called it a "renaissance" for nuclear power. But depending on which side of the nuclear fence you're on, the licensing is either a long-overdue milestone or - like DOE's plans to reorganize and, some say, de-emphasize its environmental office - a regressive, ill-advised step. Depending on how New Mexico, its congressional delegation and the federal government handle the enrichment plant's waste issues, it could be both progressive and regressive. Neither the state, the congressional delegation nor the federal government should allow the enrichment waste issue to fester, as it has for decades for the much larger nuclear power plant industry and its designated, but still deeply challenged, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository at the Nevada Test Site. Not insignificantly, the same day the NRC issued its decision, there were news reports that the fix-Yucca Mountain bill - that's fix it once and for all - was stalled in Congress for this year. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was optimistic about getting the Eunice plant Friday, in spite of being locked out of the NRC decision. He said he expects New Mexico and Louisiana Energy Services, a subsidiary of Urenco (a consortium of joint European corporation and government ownership), will work out an agreement to protect New Mexicans' health and safety and the state's environment. The agreement would require hundreds of millions of dollars be set aside for waste disposal. New Mexicans should not be satisfied with mere assurances, and both state and federal governments should be fully engaged in regulating this plant beyond the NRC's rather timid licensing attitude. The commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board actually ruled last month that uncertainties over waste costs were irrelevant. Americans have been told repeatedly over the last couple of decades that nuclear power can be made safe and cost-effective and that the waste issue could be satisfactorily resolved. New Mexico, its citizens and its environment should not be the latest nuclear waste guinea pigs. Nuclear power appears essential to the growing demand for energy in a world in which coal and fossil fuels might be egregiously heating up the world's climate and have limited future use. Enriched nuclear fuel will be needed to power the reactors that Domenici envisions in a resurrection of nuclear energy. But that rebirth remains in question, when officials take a cavalier attitude toward one of the major issues that continues to give nuclear power a public black eye - satisfactory waste disposal. Nuclear proponents, including cheerleaders in the state's congressional delegation, need to stop dodging that problem and solve it. 2006 © The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement| ***************************************************************** 49 Guardian Unlimited: Domenici Offers Nuclear Waste Place for Now From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday June 27, 2006 7:31 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The government would store nuclear waste for up to 25 years on federal land under a proposal offered Tuesday to deal with growing volumes of used reactor fuel at nuclear power plants. The waste sites could be built to accommodate a region or individual state, said aides to Sen. Pete Domenici as they prepared to put the proposal up for a vote by a Senate subcommittee that he leads. The proposal is aimed at addressing growing concern about the thousands of tons of used reactor fuel accumulating at power plants, waiting to be shipped to an oft-delayed central government repository in Nevada. The proposed Yucca Mountain waste site - which would bury the used fuel deep beneath the Earth - has yet to receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not expected to open - even if a license is approved - before 2018, Energy Department officials have told Domenici's staff. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and staunch supporter of nuclear energy, plans to include the interim storage proposal in a $30.7 billion spending bill for the Energy Department and various water projects. A subcommittee vote on the measure was scheduled for later Tuesday. The bill also would include nearly $500 million for the Yucca Mountain project and $270 million for a first installment on a Bush administration proposal for reprocessing nuclear fuel as part of an international program to boost use of nuclear energy. The House has slashed the reprocessing funds to $120 million, about half of what the administration had sought for the fiscal year beginning in October. Currently there are more than 50,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste in form of spent reactor fuel rods at nuclear power plants in 31 states. The government under contracts is obligated to take the waste off the utilities' hands, but has not done so because it has no place to put it, pending completion of the Yucca facility. Domenici's proposal would give the Energy Department authority to build temporary storage facilities on federal land, or purchase private land for such a facility with a license to keep the waste for up to 25 years. The Energy Department claims that currently it is barred from creating temporary waste storage facilities. Some utilities already have filed lawsuits - and won favorable rulings in the courts - claiming the government owes them millions of dollars for failing to take the waste by a 1998 deadline. Domenici's proposal is likely to be controversial because it would give the Energy Department authority to build a waste facility within a state even if a state or local authorities objected. The department would only have to consult with a state's governor. It would require a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission including compliance with various security, safety and environmental regulations. Under the proposal, any federal land would be eligible except national parks, wilderness areas and wildlife refuges. Or, the government could purchase private land from any willing seller for the facility. A site may not be located in either Nevada, the site of the Yucca project, or Utah, where a private nuclear waste facility is being proposed on the Goshute Indian reservation. Reactor waste now kept at closed power plants could be kept on site, but waste on any operating reactor sites must be moved, under terms of the proposal, after the government takes title. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 50 Las Vegas SUN: What will be Yucca's need? Today: June 27, 2006 at 8:38:8 PDT Senate to study new recycling technology By Launce Rake and Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun The Senate is quietly working on a plan for recycling nuclear waste that would lead to a new generation of nuclear power plants and affect the future of Yucca Mountain. The question of how it would affect Yucca is subject to debate. The Senate plan, expected to be unveiled today, closely follows the nuclear recycling initiative the Bush administration put forth last winter. The objective is to create a new method of reprocessing the waste from nuclear power plants. Advocates of the plan say it would allow waste to be recycled many more times than is the case with existing reprocessing technology. The new method also would accomplish two other feats: + The final waste product would be less toxic than nuclear waste is now. + The new method would produce waste that is harder to convert into plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the leading nuclear energy advocate in Congress, is expected to present the plan today at a Senate appropriations subcommittee meeting. That plan will include federal funding to try to develop the new technology. Backers, including Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, say the program would revitalize the moribund nuclear-power-plant construction industry by removing a major question that has stalled it for decades - how to store nuclear waste that will remain toxic for tens of thousands of years. Nuclear power is especially attractive at a time when scientists believe the Earth is warming because of the burning of fossil fuels, advocates say. But as critics of the reprocessing plans note - and supporters concede - it depends on a pair of technologies - the recycling process and the "fast" nuclear reactors that could burn the new kind of fuel. The recycling process has been tried only in a laboratory setting. Critics charge that both technologies are unproven on a commercial scale. Developing them could cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades. Worse, the critics say, the plan would give a green light to building nuclear reactors with the potentially empty promise that highly toxic nuclear waste will be a thing of the past. Just what this does to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository as the final resting place for nuclear waste is an open question. Advocates of the Bush plan, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, say it will reduce pressure on Yucca. About 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste has already been produced by the nuclear industry, and it is ultimately supposed to be transported to and stored beneath the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But with the new technology, much of that waste would be turned into fuel, and the remaining waste would be decay more quickly, so more waste could be stored in the mountain, Energy Department officials argue. Opponents, however, say they have heard all of this before - and that recycling and reprocessing nuclear waste will lead to even more highly radioactive garbage dumped on Las Vegas' doorstep, potentially without the much-debated safeguards already in place for the proposed repository. Yucca Mountain or another permanent dump site would still be needed, but the volume of nuclear waste would be reduced, advocates say. Another issue is the money involved. Some in Congress see the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership as competing for funds and momentum that could be of use in developing Yucca. Although the House cut the president's $250 million request for GNEP in half, Domenici has vowed to restore the funding on the Senate side. Some Yucca opponents would see that as a short-term victory, calling it a way to put Yucca on the "back burner." House Appropriations Committee members expressed that concern last month when they cut the administration's GNEP request. If GNEP does undercut Yucca funding, "I suppose that's good news for us and Yucca Mountain. Let 'em have it," says Bob Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, which opposes Yucca. But other Yucca opponents see a long-term threat posed by GNEP because it would add to the stream of nuclear waste that ultimately would be deposited at Yucca Mountain. "When you talk about the president's GNEP proposal, all roads lead back to Nevada," says David Cherry, spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "There has never been a discussion about process waste that didn't have waste going to Yucca Mountain." Ivan Oerlich, an analyst with the advocacy group Federation of American Scientists, says the program just isn't needed: There are adequate supplies of uranium to fuel reactors worldwide. Also, producing recycled fuel costs much more than mining new uranium. Finally, Oerlich says, the new process still would produce large amounts of radioactive waste. One of Southern Nevada's most prominent scientists and academics, former UNLV President Donald Baepler, sees much to like in the GNEP plan. Baepler is working to bring a reprocessing test plant to Nye County . Baepler says 98 percent of spent nuclear fuel could still be burned in the fast reactors. Without recycling, the 98 percent that is usable, along with the 2 percent that isn't, would end up in storage, potentially in Yucca Mountain, he says. "It actually is a very practical solution to what you do with all these spent fuel rods," says Baepler. Baepler is working with scientists and nuclear engineers to establish a pilot plant. Their company, the Nevada Environmental Research and Monitoring Institute, is vying for a share of $20 million in federal funds that would be used to do preliminary analysis of four sites around the country. The sites ultimately would form the backbone of the GNEP program. "The big commercial operation to handle the spent fuel rods" would be 20 years down the road, Baepler says. Nevada has many of the things the federal government will be looking for in such a site, Baepler notes. Many of the same factors went into the selection of Yucca Mountain as a dump site: train and highway access, availability of a lot of electric power, a stable geology. "Nothing horribly complex," he says, adding that the plant would pump $1 billion to $2 billion into Southern Nevada. "It's an economic asset, is what it is," Baepler says. 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. ***************************************************************** 51 DesMoinesRegister.com: Quit stalling on developing nuclear-waste repository Opinion By KEN KERNS June 27, 2006 This decade has been the best in history for America's nuclear-power plants — and it may lead to a new wave of nuclear-plant construction that once seemed impossible to imagine. Ten years ago, it was predicted that one-half of the nation's nuclear plants would shut down prematurely because of societal and competitive pressures. Who would think that 10 years later, nuclear-power plants would be extremely reliable and profitable? Nuclear-power plants are currently running at an average 90 percent capacity, and some plants are operating above 97 percent. By contrast, the most efficient coal-fired power plants operate at only 60 percent of capacity, and natural-gas plants at 35 percent. Production costs for nuclear power are now less than for coal and substantially less than for natural gas. Today, electric utilities favor nuclear power, in large part because of the tremendous potential of low-cost nuclear plants using advanced designs. To meet growing demand for electricity at stable prices, utilities are pursuing licenses to build as many as 20 new nuclear plants over the next decade. Companies are identifying potential new nuclear-plant sites in a half-dozen states. To proceed with the construction of new nuclear-power plants, action must be taken to speed construction of Nevada's Yucca Mountain repository for used nuclear fuel. The construction and opening of the repository is years behind schedule due to lack of congressional leadership. Congress will determine the success or failure of the repository project - specifically on the question of budget reform. Congress needs to approve one of the most important spending measures before it: a bill that would ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Nuclear Waste Fund annually (more than $100 million from Iowa alone since 1982) are used for its intended purpose - construction of the repository. The funds are currently being diverted to pay for other federal programs, thus delaying progress in developing the repository. The decision is vital to our ability to expand the use of nuclear power and expand the use of this energy source, which promises to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. At the same time, the government must fulfill its statutory obligation to take title to the more than 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel that's being stored at nuclear-power plants. The spent fuel needs to be moved from the plant sites to ensure that waste issues do not stand in the way of continued operation of the U.S. nuclear-power-plant fleet, the renewal of reactor operating licenses and the construction of a new generation of nuclear-power plants. Well beyond its economic significance, congressional action on nuclear waste will have huge symbolic importance for nuclear power and its role in the world. The technology of nuclear power has proven its value and its importance in helping solve the world's energy and environmental challenges. We can't let it be sidelined by congressional indifference. KEN KERNS of Ames is a health physicist and past president of the North Central Chapter of the Health Physics Society. Copyright © 2006, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 52 DenverPost.com: Radioactive leak at Fed Center Article Launched: 06/27/2006 02:50:00 PM MDT jefferson county Radioactive leak at Fed Center By The Associated Press Entrance to the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, in May 2005. (Post / John Leyba) Lakewood - Up to 575 gallons of water with a "minimal amount of radiation" leaked from a corroded storage tank at a research reactor in this west Denver suburb, the U.S. Geological Survey said today. USGS spokesman Dave Ozman said there was no evidence the leak had contaminated groundwater and that a monitoring well about 250 feet from the tank had not detected any radioactivity. The tank has been patched but continues to leak water at a rate of less than three gallons per day, Ozman said. The agency said it is working on a permanent fix. Ozman said he did not know whether the water that has already leaked had been contained. Ozman said the contamination was well below the threshold for a mandatory report to the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, but the NRC was notified as a precaution. The tank is used to store equipment that was used on the reactor, Ozman said. The water is used as a shield to contain radioactivity from the equipment, he said. The reactor is at the Denver Federal Center, a sprawling complex of federal offices. The reactor is used for geologic and biological research, including tests to identify and analyze contaminants that can affect human and wildlife health, USGS said in a release. It is not used to generate electrical power, Ozman said. All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 53 NorthernStar Online: Nuclear waste not worth it Caleb Medearis Opinion Columnist cmedearis@northernstar.info In America, the search for clean and renewable energy sources has revived support for the once embattled nuclear power industry. As a former resident of a nuclear town, I am alarmed at this turnabout. Despite the decreasing costs of wind, water, and solar technologies, the Bush administration is employing deceptive rhetoric to promote nuclear power. If they succeed, the results could be very dire. According to the Energy Information Administration, Illinois ranks first in nuclear capacity with six operating stations. Although no nuclear reactors have been built in the U.S. since the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant, Exelon Corporation submitted an Early Site Permit in September 2003 to construct a new reactor at the Clinton power station. This is in response to the Bush administration's call for the construction of approximately 1,300-1,900 nuclear power plants over the next twenty years. The fact that this proposal is generating so little public opposition is truly alarming. The once steadfast distrust seems to be crumbling as new energy sources must be found to satiate America's obscene consumption levels. In May, President Bush gave a speech at a Pennsylvania nuclear station where he declared nuclear power an "abundant, affordable, clean, and safe" source of energy. Unfortunately, every one of these professed advantages proves to be a lie. While the element of Uranium is abundant, it is spread throughout the world, thereby maintaining our energy dependence on foreign powers. Most reactors also use Uranium-235, which is less abundant than other isotopes. Nuclear proponents may point to breeder reactors which create more fuel than they use, but the unfortunate by-product of these reactors is radioactive Plutonium. In the 1950s, the nuclear industry slogan was "too cheap to meter". However, a 1999 study released by the National Environmental Trust showed that nuclear power cost more per kilowatt hour than any other energy source except solar photo voltaic. This is despite the fact that the nuclear industry has received nearly two-thirds of federal energy research and development dollars since 1948 and they are continually protected from liability by the controversial Price-Anderson Act. Nuclear power also is claimed to be a clean alternative to fight global warming. However, fossil fuels are used in the mining, milling, and enriching of Uranium as well during the construction of power stations. Furthermore, radiation emitted during normal operation is harmful at any level. And let's not forget those pesky Tritium leaks of which the Chicago Tribune reported there have been at least four in Illinois in the past decade, including in my hometown. Perhaps the most ridiculous claim of all is that nuclear power is safe. Especially when considering the increased probability of nuclear proliferation, the long-term transport and storage problems created by nuclear waste, and the unceasing threat of another accident or a terrorist attack. The truth is the few benefits of nuclear power hardly make up for the major problems associated with its usage. Energy security can only come from energy sources that are truly "abundant, affordable, clean, and safe." © 2006 Northern Star. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Rocky Mountain News: Nuclear storage tank has leak By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News June 27, 2006 The U.S. Geological Survey has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that one of its storage tanks at the Denver Federal Center was leaking gamma radiation. However, USGS officials said they haven’t found evidence of anything more than background radiation counts in any of the groundwater flowing from the site. While it sounds sinister, the leak discovered in the nuclear research reactor storage tank is emitting less radiation than old-fashioned illuminating watch dials, scientists said. "This is a tank used to store equipment . . . not in reactor operations," said Tim Debey, reactor manager. He described the tank as 12 feet deep and 6 feet square, encased in 16 inches of concrete with a stainless steel liner. "As far as we can determine, the leak is in the bottom of the tank and we are working on a plan to stop it," Debey said. "We think we have sealed most of it using an underwater epoxy." Tom Casadevall, central region director, said they are making the find public because they wanted to disclose information to the NRC so there is no misunderstanding about the subject. He said most of the scientific research involving the reactor is in dating geological samples, or identifying the composition of materials. "For instance, we might want to make sure the mud that was churned up after Hurricane Katrina isn’t harmful to humans or wildlife, and the way you do that is find out what they are composed of by analyzing samples through radiation," Casadevall said. USGS has operated the non-power nuclear facility at the Federal Center since 1969. It is one of two dozen nationwide used to conduct research on geologic and biologic samples. © The E.W. Scripps Co. Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 55 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab might increase triggers for bombs By Associated Press June 27, 2006 WASHINGTON - Energy Department officials want to quadruple the number of plutonium pits, or triggers, for nuclear bombs that can be made at Los Alamos National Laboratory. National Nuclear Security Administration officials want to manufacture as many as 80 new triggers a year as part of the plan to build a new plutonium research facility in coming decades. The pit provides the initial spark that detonates a weapon's thermonuclear blast. Thomas D'Agostino, NNSA's deputy administrator for defense programs, said Monday the new pits are needed to refresh the triggers in existing nuclear weapons and to test production technology. The northern New Mexico nuclear weapons lab is authorized to make up to 20 pits a year. But NNSA, a semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department that oversees nuclear weapons research and production, wants the ability to make up to 80 pits because not all the pits the lab would manufacture could be certified for use, D'Agostino said. The lab will likely produce just 30 to 40 a year, he said. Some will replace pits that have been removed from warheads for testing. Others will be used to try new procedures. "We want to test out (the technology) we would use in a real factory," D'Agostino said. "These are very unique processes. You want to test them so then you can feel comfortable going to spend money on equipment and laying out equipment in the right way." The plan is laid out in a draft environmental plan posted on the lab's Web site. The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal. D'Agostino said that ultimately, the NNSA will remove plutonium from Livermore and Los Alamos national labs and focus the labs' work on other research. D'Agostino told a House committee in April that the department wants to create a central plutonium research center as a part of the nuclear weapons complex overhaul. Leaders of the watchdog group Nuclear Watch of New Mexico predicted the plans will result in more nuclear waste and plutonium stored at the lab and elsewhere in New Mexico. Nuclear Watch director Jay Coghlan said the move is a sign that the lab is shifting its emphasis away from research and toward weapons production. "As a result, the lab will inevitably lose its veneer as some kind of scientific ivory tower," Coghlan said in a statement. "Given the end of the Cold War and new national security threats such as energy independence and global climate change, is this really the best Los Alamos can do?" 2006 © The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: U.S. and South Korea Sign Agreement on FutureGen Project June 26, 2006 Korea to Participate in World's First Integrated Carbon Sequestration and Hydrogen Production Research Power Plant WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman and South Korean Minister of Commerce, Industry & Energy, Chung Sye Kyun, today signed an agreement making South Korea the second country, after India, to join the United States in the FutureGen International Partnership. Korea has pledged $10 million to help build and operate the worlds first zero-emissions coal-fired power plant and will sit on a government steering committee to oversee this initiative. Once operational, this plant will remove and sequester carbon dioxide while producing electricity and hydrogen, making it the environmentally cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world. This agreement signifies our collective commitment to global technological leadership on climate change and future energy needs, Secretary Bodman said. This bold and revolutionary initiative known as FutureGen will ensure that clean coal continues to globally supply our energy needs in ways that are environmentally sustainable and responsible. The $1 billion FutureGen initiative is a ten-year effort announced by President Bush in 2003 to integrate advanced coal gasification technology, hydrogen from coal, power generation, and carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage. FutureGen will initiate operations in 2012 and will be the first plant in the world to produce both electricity and commercial-grade hydrogen from coal, simultaneously. Virtually every aspect of the 275 megawatt prototype plant will be based on cutting-edge technology. Twelve sites in seven states have been named as candidates to host the $1 billion FutureGen power plant. The FutureGen Alliance plans to deliver a list of finalist sites to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) this summer following a rigorous evaluation based on criteria developed jointly by the Alliance and DOE. The department will review the candidate sites in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and select a final site in the fall of 2007. The initiative is a response to President Bush's directive to draw upon the best scientific research to address the issue of global climate change and revolutionize the way we power our cars, homes, and businesses as part of the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative. The hydrogen component of the initiative supports the President's call to create a hydrogen economy and fuel pollution-free vehicles; and the use of coal will help ensure America's energy security by developing technologies that utilize a plentiful domestic resource. Secretary Bodman has also invited government members of the international Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) to become active participants in the FutureGen project. The CSLF is a voluntary climate initiative that includes 20 developed and developing nations (including India and Korea) plus the European Commission. CSLF members are engaged in cooperative technology development aimed at enabling the early reduction and steady elimination of the carbon dioxide. The project will be led by an industrial consortium representing the coal and power industries, with the project results being shared among all participants, and industry as a whole. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 57 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL wants to beef up stock of nuke triggers Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:35 pm The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Energy Department officials want to quadruple the number of plutonium pits, or triggers, for nuclear bombs that can be made at Los Alamos National Laboratory. National Nuclear Security Administration officials want to manufacture as many as 80 new triggers a year as part of its plan to build a new plutonium-research facility in coming decades. The pits provide the initial spark that detonates the weapon's thermonuclear blast. Thomas D'Agostino, NNSA's deputy administrator for defense programs, said Monday that the new pits are needed to refresh the triggers in existing nuclear weapons and to test production technology. The Northern New Mexico nuclear-weapons lab currently has the authority to make up to 20 pits a year, a goal it is expected to reach next year. But NNSA, a semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department that oversees nuclear-weapons research and production, wants the ability to make up to 80 pits because not all the pits the lab would manufacture could be certified for use, D'Agostino said. The lab will likely produce just 30-40 a year, he said. Some will replace pits that have been removed from warheads for testing. Others will be used to try out new procedures. "We want to test out (the technology) we would use in a real factory," D'Agostino said. "These are very unique processes. You want to test them so then you can feel comfortable going to spend money on equipment and laying out equipment in the right way." The plan is laid out in a draft environmental plan posted on the lab's Web site. The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal. D'Agostino said ultimately, the NNSA will remove plutonium from Livermore and Los Alamos national labs and focus the labs' work on other research. D'Agostino told a House committee in April that the department wants to create a central plutonium-research center as a part of the nuclear-weapons-complex overhaul. Leaders of the watchdog group Nuclear Watch of New Mexico predicted the plans will result in more nuclear waste and plutonium stored at the lab and elsewhere in New Mexico. Nuclear Watch director Jay Coghlan said the move is a sign the lab is shifting its emphasis away from research, toward weapons production. "As a result, the lab will inevitably lose its veneer as some kind of scientific ivory tower," Coghlan said in a statement. "Given the end of the Cold War and new national-security threats such as energy independence and global-climate change, is this really the best Los Alamos can do?" ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 58 Tri-City Herald: Workers hunt for Hanford mercury Published Tuesday, June 27th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford workers never know what they'll find when they cut open one of the metal tubes dug up from waste sites near the B and C reactors. "We expect mercury, but you never know," said Dean Strom, resident engineer for Washington Closure Hanford. They've found nails, bolts, insulation, glass, wire, oils, possible carbon tetrachloride and mercury inside. "It's a guessing game really," said Rob Voeks, an analytic field sampler for White Shield, a subcontractor on the project. When Hanford workers began digging up areas where waste from the reactors was buried during World War II and the Cold War, they knew from historical records that they could find substantial amounts of mercury. They just didn't know how or in what it was buried. During the Cold War, B Reactor was used for a time to research the production of tritium for use in atomic weapons. Lithium-target fuel was irradiated in the reactor, then taken to a nearby laboratory to recover the tritium. Because tritium was highly mobile, it was captured in glass tubes using a vacuum system and sealed in with mercury. As Hanford workers dug up waste sites, they found about 150 tubes they suspected might contain the discarded mercury. Most are 1-1/2 inches to 4 inches in diameter, although a few were 12 inches in diameter. They've ranged in length from 1 foot to 8 feet. On Monday workers in impermeable chemical suits and supplied air respirators continued work to empty the tubes, starting at 4 a.m. to escape the worst of the heat. They placed one tube at a time on an outdoor saw, then ducked behind a concrete barrier. The saw was operated remotely from a nearby trailer. If the tubes held mercury, the video screen in the trailer showed the glimmer of the liquid metal as it was poured out of the cut tube into a container. In the 97 tubes opened so far, about 1,200 pounds of mercury have been found. After all the mercury is collected, it will be mixed half and half with a commercial product that's mostly zinc to chemically bind up the mercury. It turns the mercury into a moist material with a sandlike consistency. Eight-gallon containers of the amalgamated mercury then will be packed into larger waste containers and grouted in place for disposal at Hanford's Environmental Remediation Disposal Facility. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 59 Tri-City Herald: Nuclear incinerator torn down at Plutonium Finishing Plant (w/video) Published Tuesday, June 27th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The incinerator at Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant has been reduced to a pile of rubble. Workers finished demolition of the building Monday, after spending more than two years cleaning out enough debris and contaminated equipment to allow the building to be torn down safely. "While the incinerator building was small in stature -- measuring approximately 2,100 square feet -- it looms large in the history of this plant that was once a workhorse of the Cold War," said Keith Klein, the Department of Energy manager of Hanford's Richland Operations Office. The Plutonium Finishing Plant operated from 1949 through the Cold War to make plutonium produced in Hanford reactors into metal buttons the size of hockey pucks for shipment to the nation's production plants for nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the nation wanted any gram of plutonium it could get and found an additional source in trash contaminated with plutonium at the nuclear reservation. From 1963 to 1972, the incinerator was used to burn items such as protective clothing, filters, gloves and cartons that had been contaminated. Then plutonium was recovered from the ashes. The flighty ash left it one of the most contaminated buildings at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. The incinerator building was contaminated with about 1,300 grams of plutonium when cleanup began, but workers removed enough debris and equipment to reduce contamination to less than a gram of plutonium before demolition began. A fixative then was applied to the walls. Work began June 11 to tear down the building using a hydraulic shear. Air monitors were used around the perimeter of the demolition site and misters kept any potentially contaminated dust under control. Some of the equipment from the incinerator has enough plutonium contamination that it must be sent to a national repository in New Mexico. But other material will be buried at a landfill for low-level radioactive waste at Hanford. Fluor Hanford must have the building debris removed from the site by September to meet the Department of Energy's legally binding deadline under the Tri-Party Agreement. James Rispoli, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, called the demolition of the incinerator building a significant step in Hanford cleanup. "The safe approach used by the workers to tackle this facility will be a model for tearing down similar buildings remaining," he said in a statement. n Reporter Annette Cary can be reached at 582-1533 or via e-mail at acary@tricityherald.com. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 60 DenverPost.com: Flats grand jury not free of muzzle Article Launched: 06/27/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT Flats grand jury not free of muzzle Despite an appeals ruling in their favor, those wanting to talk about the probe face several legal hurdles. By Alicia Caldwell Denver Post Staff Writer Rocky Flats grand jurors who want to disclose what they say is prosecutorial misconduct in a probe concluded 14 years ago will have an uphill battle, lawyers and professors say. While a federal appeals court ruling earlier this month gives them a glimmer of hope, rules governing grand jury secrecy have few and slim exceptions. Grand jurors, who have spent a decade seeking permission to talk about how prosecutors blocked their efforts to indict officials for environmental crimes, are undeterred. "The public needs to know how their government is taking care of them - what the government came into the room and said," said Wes McKinley, foreman of the grand jury who has since become a state legislator. The unusual case, which began with a high-profile FBI raid of Rocky Flats, a Cold War-era plutonium trigger plant north of Denver, continues to pose unique legal questions. A grand jury met for 2 1/2 years and wanted prosecutors to charge federal and corporate officials with environmental crimes. Instead, prosecutors dismissed the grand jury and a plea agreement was forged with government contractor Rockwell International. The company pleaded guilty to violations of federal environmental laws - five felonies and five misdemeanors - and paid an $18.5 million fine. Jurors were outraged and began their quest to speak out. Susan Brenner, a University of Dayton law professor who is an expert on federal grand juries, said she knows of no other grand jury that has sought or received standing to challenge the secrecy of its own proceedings. "It seems to me that whatever happened in Rocky Flats, something went terribly wrong between that grand jury and the prosecutor," Brenner said. She applauded the persistence of the jurors, saying they're doing what they're supposed to do. But she and others acknowledged that the prohibition of disclosure of "matters occurring before the grand jury" is a broad protection. Prosecutors, grand jurors and others are precluded from discussing witness testimony, documents subpoenaed or anything that reveals the direction of an investigation. Among the reasons grand jury proceedings are secret is to prevent those who could be indicted from escaping, ensure the jury deliberates without outside pressure, encourage witnesses to speak freely and to protect the innocent from revelations they had been investigated. A three-judge panel from the 10th U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver issued an order June 15 sending the grand jurors' request back to the trial court with instructions that the lower court decide whether anything can be released. James Felman, a Tampa, Fla., lawyer who has written about grand jury law, said the Rocky Flats case could raise issues compelling enough to be released. "It strikes me that prosecutorial misconduct is precisely one of those exceptions," Felman said. "I think the only way you'll be able to police misconduct in the grand jury room is to lift the secrecy rule when you see it." Mike Norton, who was the Colorado U.S. attorney during the Rocky Flats investigation, said he said he knows of no misconduct in the case. "We made judgments that we thought were correct at the time and we still think are correct," Norton said. The Colorado U.S. attorney's office continues to fight the disclosure, saying the sanctity of grand jury proceedings is important to protect. Felman said the case has attracted national attention among grand jury scholars because of the unusual nature of the allegations and the stand taken by the grand jury. "It is very unusual that a grand jury isn't the rubber stamp that prosecutors want it to be," he said. Staff writer Alicia Caldwell can be reached at 303-820-1930 or . All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 61 TimesUnion.com: Town calls for atomic site cleanup Niskayuna board passes resolution urging federal Department of Energy to pursue $160M project By ANNE MILLER, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 NISKAYUNA -- Town officials have passed a resolution calling for the U.S. Department of Energy to clean up all traces of radiation in and around contaminated buildings at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. In May, DOE representatives discussed four options for decontaminating two buildings on 5 acres at the KAPL site on the banks of the Mohawk River, an area known as the Separations Process Research Unit, or SPRU. The options range from continued monitoring and maintenance during the next 30 years for $60 million to complete decontamination and removal for $160 million. Two more options bridge the gap and the price tag between the two. The most expensive project would take about seven years, five of that involving on-site construction work. "This Town Board does hereby recommend that the Department of Energy pursue Alternative 4 and dismantle the SPRU buildings and remove all radioactive contaminants from the KAPL site," reads the resolution, which was adopted June 13. The resolution also asks the DOE to adhere to all federal and state regulations regarding moving and disposing of radioactive materials and requests annual updates, no matter which alternative DOE officials choose. "There's still the possibility of natural disaster or a fire or some other type of event that could make the materials in these buildings hazardous to the community," said Town Board member William Chapman. "And the cost, at $60 million just to maintain it for 30 years, just puts off the reckoning day when this has to clean up and it will only get more expensive." Chapman said he did not know where DOE stood in the decision making process. The DOE contact for the project, Anne Wickham, did not return calls. All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************