*****************************************************************
06/29/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.154
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: G-8 Diplomats Discuss Iran, Israeli Crisis
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran on Agenda for Industrial Democracies
3 IRNA: Larijani: European proposals set way for settlement of Iran's 
4 IRNA: Incoming EU Presidency prepared for detailed talks with Iran o
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI-EU meeting date to be set soon 
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani elaborates on Iran's N-case 
7 AFP: Iran tops agenda at G8 ministers' meeting 
8 AFP: Iran-EU officials to meet on nuclear crisis next week 
9 IRNA: India respects Iran nuke programme under IAEA - Parliament
10 AFP: World powers give Iran a week to respond on nuclear offer -
11 AFP: Iran given two weeks to respond to nuclear plan 
12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Brushes Aside Deadline on Response
13 Guardian Unlimited: West Expects Reply From Iran Next Week
14 AFP: Bush, Koizumi take hardline stance on North Korea at final summ
15 Guardian Unlimited: Bush, Koizumi Warn N. Korea Against Test
16 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel to Mull U.S.-India Nuke Plan
17 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel Backs U.S.-India Nuclear Pact
18 AFP: India upbeat after key US Congress panel backs nuclear deal -
19 AFP: Second US congressional panel backs US-India nuclear deal -
20 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senate Committee Cuts State, Aid Requests
21 Guardian Unlimited: Parliament must decide
22 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers have failed to make a case for 
23 BBC: Full nuclear weapons debate urged
24 BBC: UK pondered China nuclear attack
25 Independent: Brown offered compromise over Trident row 
26 globeandmail.com: Turbines are blowin' in the wind; Canada passes me
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
27 US: HPN: Low level of radioactive tritium found in well at Zion plan
28 Rediff: Why our scientists are upset about the n-deal
29 BBC NEWS: Lighting the key to energy saving
30 BBC: Senate panel backs nuclear deal
31 BBC: Ministers warned on nuclear power
32 Platts: OPG asks CNSC next step for Pickering B renewal
33 Platts: UK's NII decides on two-phase approach to new reactor licens
34 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
35 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
36 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
37 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
38 Asia Times: Indonesia tenders first nuclear plant 
39 globeandmail.com: Ontario nuclear reactors earn a B average in repor
40 US: Montgomery Newspapers: Limerick hires nuclear consultant
41 CBC: Pickering nuclear site still not up to snuff, watchdog says
42 Scotsman.com: Jack faces tough job to avoid splits on atomic power
43 US: Austin Chronicle: Will the Nuke Mushroom?
44 AU ABC: WA Upper House rejects nuclear power, uranium mining.
45 US: Business Week: Nuclear Power's Missing Fuel
46 Whitehaven News: Nuclear industry support
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
47 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers warned of terrorism threat from Iran
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
48 US: NRC: Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, Kunia Substation, Kunia
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
49 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast worries about new work
50 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear Gamesmanship 
51 US: Platts: US DOE may work with Congress on interim storage issue -
52 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Waste plan produces skepticism
53 US: Cañon City Daily Record: Cotter’s future remains uncertain
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
54 DOE: Federal Agencies Collaborate to Expedite Construction of Alaska
55 DOE: DOE Issues Request for Proposals Seeking a Contractor to 
56 Platts: US Senate Appropriations approves FY 2007 energy spending bi
57 Hanford News: Senate subcommittee approves full funding for Hanford 
58 Hanford News: British officials plan visit to Hanford
59 SF Chronicle: Weapons labs hit for poor oversight of their explosive
60 Inside Bay Area: Feds: Cold War nuclear warheads scrapped
61 Hawk Eye: Waste shortchanged workers 
62 lamonitor.com: IG faults two labs 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: G-8 Diplomats Discuss Iran, Israeli Crisis
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 5:46 PM

AP Photo MOSB114 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - The United States, Russia and other industrial
democracies said Thursday they expect Iran to reply next week to
an international offer to bargain over Tehran's disputed nuclear
program. 

``We are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian
response to this positive proposal,'' said a statement from
foreign ministers of the Group of Eight industrial nations. ``We
expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to these
proposals'' at a meeting scheduled July 5 between the European
Union's foreign minister and Iran's nuclear negotiator. 

Iran has told the EU it will reply at that session, a U.S.
official said, but it is not clear whether Iran will give a
definitive ``yes'' or ``no.'' Tehran could ask for changes, or
for preliminary talks before any negotiations over the proposal
could begin. 

At the United Nations, Iran's foreign minister said his country
would not respond to the offer by next week and still had
questions about the proposal. His comments continued a pattern
in which Iranian officials have provided differing descriptions
of Tehran's stance on the nuclear dispute. 

``The Islamic Republic of Iran is seriously and carefully
reviewing the proposed package,'' said the minister, Manouchehr
Mottaki. ``I've said that such response will be in August.'' 

The clerical regime has sent conflicting signals so far about
whether it will accept the package of economic incentives and
other rewards in exchange for shelving disputed nuclear
activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb. In a major
policy shift, the Bush administration has offered to join the
talks, which would be the first direct, high-level contact
between the United States and Iran in more than a quarter
century. 

The statement said the international coalition that made the
offer to Iran ``will assess the situation before mid-July.'' The
U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that
refers to a hastily scheduled meeting among Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from Great Britain,
France, Germany, Russia, and China on July 12 in Paris. 

That meeting will immediately precede a separate gathering of
President Bush and other leaders of the Group of Eight
industrial nations on July 15-17 in Russia, where the Iranian
situation is expected to be a major topic. 

The G-8 diplomats also discussed a range of pressing issues.
They condemned the abduction of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza
Strip and asked the Palestinian government to ``take immediate
measures'' to free him. And the group asked Israel ``to exercise
utmost restraint in the current crisis. The detention of elected
members of the Palestinian government and Legislature raises
particular concern.'' 

Israeli troops arrested dozens of ministers and lawmakers from
the Palestinians' elected Hamas leadership Thursday. 

The United States has not issued its own separate response, but
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed on to the joint
statement, which contains coded criticism of Israel. 

At a news conference following lengthy meetings with the
diplomats from Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United
States, Italy, France, Canada and Japan, Rice noted the call for
restraint from Israel. 

``With restraint, perhaps, we can get back to a place where
there are hopes again for a peace process,'' Rice said. 

On Iran, the G-8 diplomats called Tehran's nuclear program ``a
source of international concern,'' and endorsed the offer to
Iran to accept economic incentives in return for swearing off
disputed aspects of the program, which Tehran claims is
peaceful. 

``An agreement of this sort would allow the Iranian people to
enjoy the benefits of modern civil nuclear power and would bring
Iran many other long-term political and economic advantages,''
the G-8 ministers' statement said. 

The ministers also discussed world hotspots including North
Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. And they issued a call
to international donors for new aid. 

On Iraq, they offered support to the new permanent Iraqi
government and commended its new national reconciliation
initiative, which some U.S. politicians have criticized as too
accommodating toward insurgents. 

Russian Prime Minster Sergey Lavrov did not directly respond to
a question about whether United Nations economic sanctions would
follow if Iran fails to reply or rejects the proposed bargain.
Russian and China, permanent veto-holding members of the U.N.
Security Council, have opposed harsh measures for their
commercial partner Tehran in the past, but U.S. diplomats say
those nations are expected to cooperate if the Iran case gets
that far. 

Lavrov said sanctions were not a part of Thursday's talks 

``We did not discuss anything beyond the offer,'' he told
reporters. 

The meeting between the European Union's Javier Solana and
Iran's Ali Larijani on July 5 will be the first since the EU
official presented the incentive package to the Iranian
negotiator in Tehran on June 6. Larijani said then that the
proposals contained ``positive steps'' but talks were needed to
clear up ambiguities. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran on Agenda for Industrial Democracies
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 11:31 AM

AP Photo MOSB118 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - Diplomats from the world's leading democracies
expect an answer next week from Iran on an offer to bargain over
the country's disputed nuclear program. 

The diplomats discussed crises in the Gaza Strip and North Korea
in addition to Iran during morning meetings Thursday, a Western
official said on condition of anonymity because the discussions
were private. 

Over lunch, they reviewed world hotspots including Sudan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, the official said. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from
the other countries are meeting in a run-up to Russia's debut as
host to leaders of the Group of Eight nations next month. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator and the European Union's foreign
policy chief plan to meet on July 5 to discuss a package of
incentives from key global powers to try to persuade Iran to
roll back its uranium enrichment program, a U.N. official said
on condition of anonymity because no official announcement has
been made. 

The diplomats were expected to issue a statement later Thursday
confirming the meeting between the EU's Javier Solana and Iran's
Ali Larijani and their intention that Iran respond by that date. 

The Larijani-Solana meeting would be the first since the EU
official presented the incentive package to the Iranian
negotiator in Tehran on June 6. Larijani said then that the
proposals contained ``positive steps'' but talks were needed to
clear up ambiguities. 

Iran has not replied formally to a U.S. offer for the first
high-level direct talks in more than a quarter of a century. The
talks would be aimed at shuttering disputed nuclear activities
that the West fears could lead to a bomb while rewarding Iran
with economic incentives and help developing civilian nuclear
power. 

The Bush administration had hoped for an answer before
Thursday's meeting, but the diplomats are not expected to issue
any new firm deadline for a reply. 

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday that
Iran does not need negotiations with the United States over its
nuclear program. Khamenei, who has the final word on all state
matters, did not give his position on the proposals presented to
Iran earlier this month. 

Rice said Russia's democratic record and a list of issues in the
Middle East would be on the agenda for Thursday's gathering of
diplomats from Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United
States, Italy, France, Canada and Japan were meeting in the
Russian capital. 

``We should also talk about democracy and the importance of
democratic development, whether it is in Russia itself, where we
hope that Russia would enhance its commitment to democratic
development, but also in places like Belarus and places that
have yet to see a democratic future,'' Rice said Wednesday in an
interview with CNN. 

Washington has been critical of democratic retrenchment in
Russia under President Vladimir Putin and had hoped to use the
spotlight of the summit to keep up pressure for reform. The Bush
administration has called Belarusian President Alexander
Lukashenko ``Europe's last dictator,'' and last week imposed
financial sanctions on him and other officials of the
authoritarian government. 

Despite widespread international criticism, Lukashenko enjoys
Moscow's backing. 

Rice also said the ongoing governing crisis in the Palestinian
territories and democratic advances in Iraq and Afghanistan will
be topics Thursday. 

``We'll talk about how the international community can support
the new Iraqi government, the first democratically elected
government in Iraq that really now has asked the international
community for its support,'' Rice said, adding that she believed
the ministers could make ``a firm statement about that.'' 

--- 

Associated Press Writer Edith Lederer at the United Nations
contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Larijani: European proposals set way for settlement of Iran's case - 

Tehran, June 28, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Larijani
 
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said on Wednesday that 
Europe's proposals set a new way for settlement of Iran's nuclear 
case--that is by holding dialogue rather than issuing threats.

 "We welcome this and are seriously looking into the proposals," 
said Larijani in an interview with reporters after talks with 
Iraq's former prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari on Wednesday.

 Larijani said Iran agrees with the Europeans to remove 
ambiguities through talks.

 "We are also in agreement on the point that ambiguities, 
problems and misunderstandings should be removed through 
negotiations; (we believe that) the rest of the issues too should 
be discussed in the talks," added the Iranian official.

 He said that naturally, there are many ambiguities which should 
be solved through talks.

 "We are in contact and talks with the EU Foreign Policy Chief 
Javier Solana but have not set a specific date for his visit to 
Iran this week," said Larijani.

 He hoped that Solana will visit Iran at the first appropriate 
time and the talks with him would soon start.

 He rejected claims by certain media in connection with Solana's 
visit.

 On Iran's response to European proposals, Larijani said Iran is 
studying the offers.

 "As said earlier, we are working on the proposals and we have 
raised the issue with Solana too; once the committees have 
announced the results of their discussions, we will start 
consultations with them and will speedily follow them." Jaafari 
for his part welcomed Iran-US talks, calling it a 'good gesture'.

 "We have been welcoming it since the beginning; and in our 
opinion, that's a good move, especially if is held in Iraq and 
the Iraqi party is active in that connection." He said the 
Iran-US talks on Iraq can serve as a positive step, helping 
improvement of bilateral ties. "Theoretically, we favor 
improvement of relations among all countries." He said Iraq has 
bilateral ties with all countries and regarding relations between 
Iraq and the US, if Iraq keeps up a role in the Iran-US talks, 
that would benefit the region.

 Asked about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to 
Iraq, he said he had no information about it.

 He welcomed the meeting of foreign ministers of Iraq neighbors 
in Tehran, saying, "That's a good job given the Iraqi 
government's ongoing problems. That's significant especially 
considering the fact that a brotherly country, Iran, will sponsor 
such a conference." He said his current visit to Iran had nothing 
to do with the issue.

 "Such a conference can serve as a channel through which Iraqi 
people's problems can be raised; in case the problems are solved, 
that would be in the interest of all the regional states," he 
added.
                                                                  
: 19:37 Wednesday June 28, 2006                                
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Incoming EU Presidency prepared for detailed talks with Iran on
EU package - 

 June 29, IRNA
-- 

Iran will be a very central issue during Finland's Presidency of
the European Union, Erkki Tuomioja, Finnish Foreign Minister
told a news conference in Brussels Thursday.

 Tuomioja presented the priorities and program of the six-month
Finnish Presidency which takes over from current EU Presidency
Austria on 1 July.

 Replying to IRNA's question, Tuomioja said, "We have been
working very hard on the Iranian dossier. We have given full
support to EU-3 and now members of the Security Council have
presented a package to Iran."

 He said, "We hope that the Iranian answer will be positive and
that we would engage - and I would say that this should happen
within weeks not months in serious - negotiations with them."

 "At the moment, we have, what we believe a positive package and
we have seen indications from Iran that the Iranians are
seriously considering this."

 "Obviously they would want to discuss before any agreements can
be reached and we the EU are prepared to go into more detail in
the negotiations."

 "We have to work on the basis of this initiative and for the
time being there is no need to raise any alternative worse
scenarios," underlined the Finnish foreign minister.

 He stressed that Iran has the right to choose its energy mix
and use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose.

 "We respect the rights of countries to choose their own energy
mix, if they want to include nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes.

 They are free to do so and this also applies to Iran
naturally," he added.

 EU enlargement, energy, European constitution, EU-Russia ties
and the Palestine issue are some of the other priorities of the
six-month Finland's EU Presidency.

 Commenting on membership negotiations with Turkey, he said it
is a "very, very long process" adding that some issues "might
become problematic."

*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI-EU meeting date to be set soon 

  2006/06/29   
  
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Wednesday that 
the exact date and venue of meeting with the EU Foreign Policy 
Chief Javier Solana will be set next week. 

"We are currently in talks on the issue; both we and he are 
scheduled to meet; this will be known next week," added Larijani 
in an interview with reporters after talks with former Iraqi 
prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari. 

SM   



  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail:     
  



*****************************************************************
 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani elaborates on Iran's N-case 

  2006/06/29   
  

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said on Wednesday that 
the Western proposals set a new way for settlement of Iran's 
nuclear case--that is by holding dialogue rather than issuing 
threats. 

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of his meeting with the 
Iraqi former Premier, al-Ja'fari, Larijani further said Iran 
agrees with the Europeans to remove ambiguities through talks. 

Commenting on the Javier Solana's expected visit to Iran, he 
hoped that Solana would visit Iran at the first appropriate time 
and the talks with him would soon start. 

The official referred to Iran's response to the Western proposals 
and said Iran is studying the offers. 

FK   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
  
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran tops agenda at G8 ministers' meeting 

 by Nick Coleman Thu Jun 29, 8:22 AM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - Foreign ministers of the Group of Eight (G8) 
countries have stepped up pressure on Iran" /> over its nuclear 
programme as Moscow seeks to prevent next month's G8 summit 
becoming a magnet for criticism of Russia's democratic 
credentials. 

 The meeting at a mansion in central Moscow was seen as one of 
the last opportunities to iron out differences ahead of the July 
15-17 summit in Saint Petersburg of leaders of the G8, which 
comprises Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia 
and the United States. 

European Union" /> foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he
would meet Iranian officials to discuss proposals by the UN
Security Council members plus Germany aimed at allaying Western
concerns about Tehran's nuclear programme. 

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy confirmed that
Solana would hold the meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator
Ali Larijani next Wednesday. 

"On the basis of the results of this meeting we will see if
there will be a second meeting or not," Douste-Blazy said,
speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the G8 gathering. 

Douste-Blazy said Iran must reply to the international plan
before the July 15-17 G8 summit. 

"It seems clear to me that Iran must say yes. Then there will be
negotiations," Douste-Blazy said. 

"I note with satisfaction the unity of the G8 on the Iranian
issue. The whole world has accepted the idea of the need to be
firm with the Iranians and that Javier Solana should take this
message of the international community" to the Iranians, he
said. 

A Western diplomat said the ministers were also discussing the
escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, as well as
combating terrorism, North Korea" /> , Afghanistan" /> , Sudan
and the Balkans as well as a number of ex-Soviet states,
including Belarus and Georgia. 

Russia has played a significant role in the standoff over Iran's
nuclear programme, being a permanent member of the United
Nations" /> Security Council and a close ally of Tehran, as well
as constructing Iran's first nuclear power station. 

President Vladimir Putin" /> on Tuesday underlined his
differences with the West on the Iran issue however, saying
Russia did not intend "to join any sort of ultimatum, which only
pushes the situation into a dead end". 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced satisfaction that
the ministers at Thursday's meeting had approved the agenda and
documents for next month's summit. 

"The documents on the three priority subjects -- energy
security, infectious diseases and educational development --
have been completely approved," Lavrov said. 

But amid reports that Moscow wants to limit discussion of its
human rights record or commitment to democracy at next month's
summit, a senior Kremlin official defended Russia's role in
ex-communist Europe ahead of Thursday's meeting. 

"Moscow has done much more for democracy in central Europe than
Washington or London," said the deputy head of Putin's office,
Vladislav Surkov, on Wednesday. "It's Moscow which democratised
this immense space." 

Four US lawmakers on Tuesday urged President George W. Bush" />
to rebuke Putin over the "deterioration of democracy" in his
country. 

It was important that the other G8 heads of state "make clear
that Russia's actions are inconsistent with G8 democratic
norms," read a letter signed by Democratic Representative Tom
Lantos (, , ) and Republican David Dreier, together with
senators John McCain, a Republican, and Democrat Joe Lieberman"
/> . 

An analyst close to the Kremlin, the head of the Moscow-based
Institute for Political Research, Sergei Markov, said earlier he
expected Thursday's meeting to be "rather tense". 

"Russia will want to know that nothing unexpected will happen at
the G8 summit," said Markov. "America has been permanently
attacking Russia recently." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran-EU officials to meet on nuclear crisis next week 

 by Farhad Pouladi Thu Jun 29, 8:16 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani will 
meet EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana next week to discuss 
an international plan to resolve the standoff over Iran" /> 
Iran's nuclear program, with the West demanding a response in two 
weeks. 

"In the next two weeks there will be discussions with Mr Solana
about our nuclear case, and next week I will go to Spain and I
will meet with Mr Solana," Larijani was quoted by state news
agency IRNA as saying. 

Solana, meeting with Group of Eight foreign ministers in Moscow
at talks expected to cover the Iran crisis, said the meeting
would probably be Wednesday and would be "in Europe, probably in
Brussels." 

On June 6, Solana handed Iran a proposal from the five permanent
UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia
and the United States -- plus Germany. 

It promises incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to
temporarily halt uranium enrichment, something Tehran has so far
refused to do. 

The enrichment work is at the centre of international concerns
that Iran is using a Russian-backed civilian nuclear power
programme to pursue a secret weapons plan. 

Tehran vehemently denies such allegations, saying it wants
nuclear technology only to generate electricity. 

Diplomats say Iran was asked to reply by June 29, but President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week Tehran would take until
August 22 to answer. 

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in Moscow
Thursday that Iran must reply before the G8 summit, which begins
on July 15. 

"We expect their reply before July 15 ... It seems clear to me
that Iran will say yes. Then there will be negotiations," he
said. 

"If the response is negative between now and July 15, then it is
clear that the international community will be firm and that, in
particular, we will continue what we have begun in the (UN)
Security Council," he added, referring to discussions over
potential measures against Iran. 

"It is necessary to create conditions for a return to
negotiations," he said. 

Larijani reiterated that Iran was not bound by any deadline. 

"There is no deadline, and such talks are media material and are
unrealistic," he said. 

He also repeated Iran's insistence that it has a right to
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. 

"Our nation is insisting on their rights, but they did not
listen to us and referred our case to the ( United Nations" />
United Nations) Security Council for investigation, which was a
bad thing to do," he said. 

In February, the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agencyreported Iran to the Security
Council for hiding sensitive nuclear work and losing the
confidence of the international community by breaking a
suspension of uranium enrichment activities. 

"But recently they want to solve the case through negotiations,
which is the right thing to do and we have welcomed it. If they
are honest in their deeds, we hope to reach good results,"
Larijani added. 

The ministerial meeting in Moscow is seen as one of the last
opportunities to iron out differences ahead of the summit in
Saint Petersburg of leaders of the G8, which comprises Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United
States. 

Russia has played a significant role in the discussions over
Iran's nuclear program, being a permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council and a close ally of Tehran. 

On Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinagain
underlined his differences with the West on the Iran issue,
saying Russia did not intend "to join any sort of ultimatum,
which only pushes the situation into a dead end". 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: India respects Iran nuke programme under IAEA - Parliament

June 29, IRNA

India respects Iran's right to civilian nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes within International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) guidelines, said Indian Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath
Chatterjee.

 "We respect Iran's right for civilian nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes within the guidelines of the IAEA," the
Speaker said at a joint press conference with President of
German Parliament, Bundestag Norbert Lammert in Berlin Thursday,
when asked about India's position on Tehran's nuclear program,
PTI report said here.

 His comments assume significance in view of the US House
International Relations Committee approving a draft bill that
seeks India's full and active participation in the US' efforts
to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain
Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
including a nuclear weapons capability.

 This clause has evoked objections from the Left parties but the
government has allayed fears on this count, pointing out that it
was a non-binding provision entailing no responsibility for New
Delhi.

 During Chatterjee's talks with Lammert, the German side evinced
keen interest in understanding the Indo-US Civil Nuclear deal
besides functioning of Indian democracy, Parliament and use of
electronic voting machines (EVMs).

*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: World powers give Iran a week to respond on nuclear offer -
     
 by Sebastian Smith Thu Jun 29, 2:42 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - World powers gave Iran" /> one more week to 
provide a "clear and substantive response" to an international 
proposal on suspending uranium enrichment, but Tehran immediately 
rejected the deadline. 

Foreign ministers of the G8 group of leading nations said EU 
foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear 
negotiator Ali Larijani will meet next Wednesday to discuss the 
plan 

"We expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to 
these proposals at the planned meeting," the ministers said in a 
statement in Moscow, where they were preparing a July 15-17 
summit in Saint Petersburg. 

An official in the US delegation here said foreign ministers from 
the six countries behind the plan would gather a week later, on 
July 12, to evaluate Iran's response. 

But, speaking at the United Nations" /> in New York, Iranian 
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran would not respond 
before late August. 

Iran's response "will be clear and substantive," he said. "But 
the proposed package contains questions and ambiguities which 
must be cleared." 

He said that although Solana may be able to answer some
questions, "I think the time until August is not a long time for
submitting a response, and that's very natural and normal." 

The plan, drawn up by the five permanent UN Security Council
members plus Germany, offers Iran a package of incentives and
multilateral talks in return for halting uranium enrichment, the
process that makes fuel for reactors but also atom bomb
material. 

Iran insists that its nuclear program is for generating
electricity and that uranium enrichment is needed to provide the
fuel. The European Union" /> and the United States suspect Iran
of hiding a military project. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said here there was unity
among G8 countries -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia and the United States -- on the plan. 

However, there was no talk of what might follow if Iran rejects
the idea. 

"We did not discuss anything beyond the offer which we all made
in good faith. It is a positive offer and we expect a positive
response in good faith," Lavrov said. 

Earlier, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that
Iran could enter negotiations if it first accepted the
international plan. 

"If the response is negative... then it is clear that the
international community will be firm and that, in particular, we
will continue what we have begun in the Security Council," he
added, referring to talks about possible sanctions against Iran. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> earlier this week said that
Moscow did not intend "to join any sort of ultimatum, which only
pushes the situation into a dead end". 

China and Russia, which have close diplomatic and economic ties
with Iran, have generally taken a much softer line than the
Western powers throughout the Iranian nuclear standoff. 

Russia is building Iran's first atomic power station at Bushehr
and has turned down US appeals to stop the contract. 

The two nations only backed the incentives plan after ensuring
there were no specific threats to impose UN sanctions against
Iran if they did not comply with international demands. 

Larijani reiterated Thursday that Iran saw "no deadline," and
restated its insistance on developing nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. 

"Our nation is insisting on their rights, but they did not
listen to us and referred our case to the Security Council for
investigation, which was a bad thing to do," he said. 

In February, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> reported
Iran to the Security Council for hiding sensitive nuclear work
and losing the confidence of the international community by
breaking a suspension of enrichment activities. 

"But recently they want to solve the case through negotiations,
which is the right thing to do and we have welcomed it. If they
are honest in their deeds, we hope to reach good results,"
Larijani added. 

In Washington, visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi said the dispute was a "grave issue" of global concern,
after talks with US President George W. Bush" /> at the White
House. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Iran given two weeks to respond to nuclear plan 

 by Christophe de Roquefeuil Thu Jun 29, 5:17 AM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas two weeks to reply to an 
international plan for resolving the standoff over the country's 
nuclear programme, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy 
has said, as the European Union" /> European Unionconfirmed new 
high level talks with Tehran. 

 Douste-Blazy, in Moscow for meetings with other foreign 
ministers from the Group of Eight (G8), said that Iran must reply 
ahead of the G8 leaders' summit scheduled to take place in Saint 
Petersburg on July 15-17. 

"We expect their reply before July 15," Douste-Blazy said 
Thursday. "It seems clear to me that Iran must say yes. Then 
there will be negotiations." 

"If the response is negative between now and July 15, then it is 
clear that the international community will be firm and that in 
particular we will continue what we have begun in the (UN) 
Security Council," he added, referring to discussions over 
potential measures against Iran. 

The gathering of major powers in Moscow on Thursday coincided 
with the day originally named by Western diplomats as an informal 
deadline for Tehran to reply to the proposals, which require Iran 
to suspend uranium enrichment work. 

The United States and the European Union believe Iran is using a
civilian nuclear programme to hide a secret atomic bomb project. 

Tehran denies the accusation and has rejected time limits for
responding to the proposed resolution to the crisis. 

The international community so far is underlining its
willingness to keep talking. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, also in Moscow to meet
with the G8 ministers, confirmed that he would soon be meeting
high-level Iranian officials, whom he did not identify, probably
next Wednesday. 

"I hope that this meeting will be positive, that there will be
constructive proposals from the Iranian side," Solana said. "We
must listen to our Iranian friends and reflect." 

However, he added that suspending uranium enrichment is "not
negotiable." 

Earlier, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said in
Tehran that he would be meeting Solana in Spain next week. 

The international plan agreed to by the UN Security Council
permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States -- plus Germany promises incentives and
multilateral talks if Iran agrees to a temporary halt of uranium
enrichment. 

Tehran has so far indicated it will not comply, since uranium
enrichment is at the centre of the country's Russian-backed
civilian nuclear power programme. 

Solana said that the door to talks remained open and that he did
not support setting an ultimatum. 

"I hope we will have more frequent meetings and that we will not
need to fix a final date." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Brushes Aside Deadline on Response
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 8:01 PM

AP Photo UNDK104 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran's foreign minister on Thursday
brushed aside demands from the major industrialized nations to
respond by July 5 to an international offer for Tehran to roll
back its uranium enrichment program, saying his nation would
need until August. 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran had questions
about the proposal that will be raised in talks expected early
next month with Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign
policy chief. The questions need to be answered so Tehran can
respond in August, he said. 

``The Islamic Republic of Iran is seriously and carefully
reviewing the proposed package,'' he said. ``Questions and
ambiguities on the Iranian side are pending. Therefore, we
welcome the discussions and negotiations for clarification of
those ambiguities.'' 

Mottaki's remarks contradicted his own statements published
Wednesday in the German weekly magazine Stern, which quoted him
as saying his country may respond before the Group of Eight
summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, which starts July 15. 

Earlier Thursday, foreign ministers of the Group of Eight
meeting in Moscow expressed disappointment at the absence of an
official Iranian response to a package of incentives from key
global powers to try to persuade Iran to roll back its uranium
enrichment program, which can be used to produce nuclear energy
or nuclear weapons. 

The ministers from the United States, Russia, Britain, France,
Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said they expected to hear ``a
clear and substantive Iranian response to these proposals'' at a
meeting on July 5 between Solana and Iran's chief negotiator Ali
Larijani. 

Mottaki, asked about the Group of Eight request for a response
by July 5, noted that when Solana presented the package to the
Iranians in Tehran ``we did not agree on any specific date to
respond.'' 

``The response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the proposed
package ... is clear and will be substantive but ... the
proposed package contains questions and ambiguities which must
be clear,'' he said. 

``Some of these ambiguities may be responded by Mr. Solana,''
Mottaki said, but some questions may need ``a substantive
response'' from the six countries that drafted the incentive
package, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and
Germany. 

The Iranian minister said the government set up committees to
review different aspects of the package because it wanted
careful consideration of all aspects. Presumably, the committees
would also consider any responses from the six nations that
proposed the package. 

Mottaki rejected claims that Iran was playing for time, saying
the proposal took months to prepare. 

Since the issue is important, he said, ``I think the time until
August is not a long time for submitting a response - and that's
very natural and normal.'' 

``I've said that such response will be in August. I didn't say
early August or mid-August,'' he said. 

The package seeks to persuade Tehran to impose a long-term
moratorium on uranium enrichment. In return, it offers
incentives including peaceful Western nuclear technology, the
lifting of some sanctions, trade opportunities, U.S. spare parts
for Iran's aging fleet of jetliners, and U.S. participation in
negotiations with Tehran. 

Mottaki did not give a date for the Larijani-Solana talks but
confirmed that such a meeting would take place. The meeting
would be the first since they met in Tehran on June 6. 

Mottaki's remarks echoed comments made by Larijani, who has said
the proposals contained ``positive steps'' but talks were needed
to clear up ambiguities. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also said the
government will not respond officially until at least
mid-August. Europe has been pressing for a quicker reply and
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had said the United States wanted a
response before Thursday's Group of Eight ministerial meeting in
Moscow. 

Mottaki reiterated that Iran has a right to enrich uranium for
peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and an obligation to allow inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which take place on a
regular basis. He also reiterated that Iran believes in global
disarmament for all weapons of mass destruction. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: West Expects Reply From Iran Next Week
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 11:46 PM

AP Photo MOSB157 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - The United States, Russia and other industrialized
democracies increased pressure on Iran on Thursday to accept an
international offer to end the standoff over Iran's disputed
nuclear program, saying they expect an answer next week. 

It remained unclear, though, whether Iran would provide a
substantive response that quickly to a proposal that the U.S.
and other nations have hoped might resolve their long-running
confrontation with Iran. 

A U.S. official said Iran has told the European Union it will
reply at a July 5 meeting between the EU's foreign minister and
Iran's nuclear negotiator. But it is not certain whether Iran
will give a definitive answer, ask for changes, or seek
preliminary talks before formal negotiations begin. 

At the United Nations, Iran's foreign minister said his country
still had questions about the proposal and would need until
August to respond. The murky responses marked the latest
instance in which Iranian leaders have flashed mixed signals
about negotiations over their nuclear efforts. 

``We are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian
response to this positive proposal,'' said a statement from
foreign ministers of the Group of Eight industrial nations. ``We
expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to these
proposals'' at the July 5 meeting, the statement said. 

The diplomats' statement was short of an ultimatum to Iran, but
it reflects growing international frustration with Tehran's
inconclusive response to a carrot-and-stick package presented
earlier this month. 

``The Islamic Republic of Iran is seriously and carefully
reviewing the proposed package,'' Iran's foreign minister,
Manouchehr Mottaki, said at the United Nations. ``I've said that
such response will be in August.'' 

Other Iranian leaders have also said previously that there would
be no reply until August, which officials from the U.S. and
other countries have dismissed as too slow. 

The deal offers Iran economic incentives and other rewards in
exchange for shelving disputed nuclear activities that the West
fears could lead to construction of a bomb. The Bush
administration has offered to join the talks, which would be the
first direct, high-level contact between the United States and
Iran in more than a quarter century. 

The statement from the industrial nations said the allies who
made the offer to Iran ``will assess the situation before
mid-July.'' The U.S. official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said that refers to a hastily scheduled July 12
meeting in Paris involving Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
and her counterparts from the European Union, Great Britain,
France, Germany, Russia and China. 

That meeting will immediately precede a separate gathering of
President Bush and other leaders of the G-8 nations in Russia,
where the Iranian situation is expected to top the agenda. 

The G-8 diplomats also condemned the abduction of an Israeli
soldier in the Gaza Strip and asked the Palestinian government
to ``take immediate measures'' to free him. The group asked
Israel ``to exercise utmost restraint in the current crisis. The
detention of elected members of the Palestinian government and
Legislature raises particular concern,'' the statement said. 

Israeli troops arrested dozens of ministers and lawmakers from
the Palestinians' elected Hamas leadership Thursday. 

At a news conference following meetings with diplomats from
Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy,
France, Canada and Japan, plus the EU, Rice noted the call for
restraint from Israel. 

``With restraint, perhaps, we can get back to a place where
there are hopes again for a peace process,'' Rice said. 

At one point Thursday, officials inadvertently made it possible
for reporters to hear conversations coming from the diplomats'
closed-door lunch. 

Rice was heard telling Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
that Iraq's security problem extended to the Iraqi population,
coalition forces, civilian contractors and journalists, not just
diplomats. Four kidnapped Russian diplomats in Iraq were killed
this week. 

``And the implication that somehow by declaring that diplomats
need to be protected it will get better, I think it's simply not
right,'' she said. 

At another point, Lavrov responded to Rice by beginning, ``Look,
Condi, Condi, Condi, Condi.'' 

On Iran, the G-8 diplomats called Tehran's nuclear program ``a
source of international concern'' and endorsed the offer to
Iran. 

The offer carries the threat of tough consequences if Iran
refuses to back down, but Thursday's statement makes no mention
of that. 

If Iran rejects the offer, the United States and European
partners say they will revive efforts for U.N. Security Council
punishment. Initial council action that stops short of sanctions
could come later this summer, with sanctions following in the
fall if previous holdouts Russia and China agree. 

Lavrov did not directly respond to a question about whether U.N.
economic sanctions would follow if Iran fails to reply or
rejects the proposed bargain. Russian and China, permanent
veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council, have in the
past opposed harsh measures for their commercial partner Tehran,
but U.S. diplomats say those nations are expected to cooperate
if the Iran case gets that far. 

--- 

AP Writer Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report from the
United Nations. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Bush, Koizumi take hardline stance on North Korea at final summit - 

 by Hiroshi Hiyama and Olivier Knox Thu Jun 29, 6:59 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> and Japanese 
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi warned North Korea" /> over its 
weapons programs as they highlighted their close relationship at 
a White House finale for the Japanese leader. 

 While both eagerly looked forward to a visit to Elvis Presley's 
Graceland mansion on Friday, the two concentrated on 
international problems, particularly North Korea, at their talks. 

Koizumi is on a farewell North American tour before he stands
down in September and both leaders stressed the close
relationship they have built up over the past five years. 

Highlighting that 60 years ago, the United States and Japan were
at war, Bush told a press conference, "today we talked about
North Korea, Iran" /> and Iraq" /> , and trade, and energy
cooperation. 

"It's an amazing fact that we are able to have these
discussions. To me it shows the power of liberty and democracy
to transform enemies to allies." 

Bush said that Washington and Tokyo wanted to send "a clear
message" to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il over the Stalinist
state's nuclear weapons and reported plans to launch a long
range missile. 

"We discussed this issue at length. We both agree that it's
important for us to remain united in sending a clear message to
the North Korean leader that first of all launching the missile
is unacceptable." 

The US president said Kim "has an obligation" to inform other
countries of his plans. 

Bush denounced Pyongyang's kidnapping of Japanese nationals to
train its spies, a issue extremely emotional in Japan. 

Koizumi said different tactics could be used to dissuade North
Korea from launching the missile and that "various pressures"
would be applied if the missile was fired. 

Bush said the United Nations" /> could be one avenue and hinted
that work on missile defenses would also be an "interesting
opportunity". 

"The Japanese people cannot afford to be held hostage to
rockets," the president said in a pointed comment. 

Meanwhile, Koizumi called the Iranian nuclear crisis "a grave
issue," despite Tokyo's traditionally close ties with Tehran. 

The United States has backed a package of incentives crafted
with Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in an effort to
convince Iran to limit its nuclear program. 

Japan has been a major investor in Iran's energy sector, as it
is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil. 

"The Iranian issue remains a grave issue for the entire world
economy. And Japan wishes to cooperate with the United States
and other countries concerned on this matter as well," Koizumi
told the press conference. 

But the two leaders did not discuss possible sanctions that
could be taken against Iran, said a Japanese official who was at
the summit. 

Koizumi also declined to give outright support to a
controversial US deal to help India develop civilian nuclear
facilities, telling Bush that Japan was reviewing the issue,
said the official. 

Bush briefly touched on the need to pressure Myanmar to
democratize itself, with Koizumi agreeing to cooperate with the
United States over the issue, the official said. 

In a symbolic joint statement, the two leaders said the US-Japan
partnership is "one of the most accomplished bilateral
relationships in history." 

The bilateral political, economic and military alliance has
contributed to stability in Asia-Pacific, the statement said. 

Koizumi got a welcome worthy of a state visit as he and Bush
emphasized their close personal ties. 

Hundreds of US military in full dress uniform laid on an
elaborate ceremony in sweltering heat for the prime minister. 

"Americans cherish our friendship with the Japanese people. We
value our alliance with the nation of Japan. And we honor the
leadership of Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi," said the
president. 

"He is a man of vision. He's a man of integrity. And I'm proud
to call him my friend," Bush said. 

"It is no exaggeration to say that over the past five years
there has been no world leader, alongside President Bush" /> ,
among the world leaders with whom I've felt so much
heart-to-heart, felt so deep a friendship and trust," Koizumi
replied through an interpreter. 

Bush joked that the high point of Koizumi's visit would likely
be a visit on Friday to the Memphis mansion of the late Elvis
Presley. 

"Officially, he's here to see the president, but I know the
highlight of his visit will be paying his respects to the King,"
said Bush, who will also go to Memphis in a sign of their
friendship. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Bush, Koizumi Warn N. Korea Against Test
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 10:46 PM

AP Photo WHCD103 

By JENNIFER LOVEN 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Side by side, President Bush and Japanese
Prime Minister Koizumi warned North Korea on Thursday to cancel
any plans to test-fire a long-range missile, with Bush bluntly
calling a launch unacceptable and Koizumi hinting at the
punishment that would result. 

``The leader of North Korea is just going to have to make a
decision,'' Bush said at a joint news conference with Koizumi
that followed two hours of Oval Office discussions. ``Does he
want to be isolated from the world or is he interested in being
an active participant in the nations of the world?'' 

Koizumi said he and Bush discussed what actions would be taken
if Pyongyang followed through on its apparent preparations to
launch a Taepodong-2, which has a range that could reach Alaska
or perhaps the U.S. mainland. 

``We would apply various pressures,'' Koizumi said through a
translator. ``I believe it is best that I do not discuss what
specific pressures we were talking about.'' 

From a South Lawn arrival featuring trumpet fanfare and canon
fire to a gala black-tie dinner of Kobe beef raised in Texas,
Bush and Koizumi celebrated five years of friendship. Koizumi
leaves office in September, depriving Bush of one of his most
ardent defenders on the world stage. 

The prime minister is a huge fan of Elvis Presley, and Bush on
Friday will take Koizumi to Memphis for a private tour of the
late singer's estate, Graceland. 

``Officially he's here to see the president,'' Bush said, ``but
I know the highlight of his visit will be paying his respects to
the king.'' Bush gave Koizumi a juke box loaded with Elvis
songs. 

Koizumi had a line of his own ready: ``Thank you very much,
American people,'' he said at the end of the news conference,
``for 'Love Me Tender.''' 

At an East Room news conference, neither Bush nor Koizumi said
what consequences North Korea might face for a missile test.
Diplomatic condemnation is the most likely first response,
followed by targeted economic sanctions and possibly a United
Nations Security Council resolution. Japan has said it would
consider food sanctions against North Korea, a stance that goes
against U.S. policy. 

Intelligence reports began detecting activity related to a
test-firing about two weeks ago, and it remained unclear how far
along the preparations are. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Thursday that ``there are
a variety of assessments as to whether a launch will occur and,
if so, what type of launch it will be.'' 

Bush demanded that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il let the world
know his plans. ``There have been no briefings as to what's on
top of the missile. He hasn't told anybody where the missile's
going,'' the president said. 

He added: ``Launching the missile is unacceptable.'' 

The words on North Korea were about the only tough talk from
Bush and Koizumi throughout a day of elaborate ceremony that put
their virtually tension-free alliance - and their personal
friendship - front and center. 

Bush effusively applauded decisions under Koizumi's watch to
lift a ban on U.S. beef imports, realign American troops in
Japan and help confront North Korea over its nuclear weapons
programs. 

``You've had a remarkable tenure as the prime minister of your
country,'' Bush said. ``You have led with courage. You have made
hard decisions. You've helped us change our relationship so that
Japan and the United States will be able to work even closer
together in the 21st century.'' 

But it was Koizumi's decision to send Japanese troops to the
U.S.-led coalition in Iraq that got the most attention from
Bush. He was notably candid that the support shaped his positive
view of the leader like nothing else. 

For Koizumi's benefit, Bush reprised several times his take, now
familiar to anyone who hears the president's speeches, on the
transformation in the U.S.-Japanese relationship, from a time
when the American president's father fought the Japanese to 60
years later when Bush and Koizumi collaborate on spreading
democracy. 

``It strikes me as just amazing,'' Bush said. ``A lot of people
take it for granted. I don't. Because 60 years ago, we were at
war.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel to Mull U.S.-India Nuke Plan

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 9:16 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate panel is considering a U.S.-Indian
nuclear cooperation accord, a second major hurdle that must be
cleared for approval of the unprecedented deal. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was to vote Thursday on
whether to exempt India from U.S. laws that restrict nuclear
trade with countries that have not submitted to full nuclear
inspections. India developed its nuclear weapons program outside
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has refused to
sign. 

Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee's Republican chairman, said in
remarks prepared for delivery at the hearing that the accord is
``the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken
by President Bush.'' 

On Tuesday, the House International Relations Committee voted
37-5 in support of the Bush administration initiative. The deal
must be considered by the full House, which supporters say could
happen next month. 

Any version of legislation on the accord coming out of the
Senate would have to be reconciled later with the House bill. 

Critics say the plan could boost India's nuclear arsenal.
Supporters say it would provide much-needed energy to a crucial
ally that has always managed its nuclear technologies
responsibly. 

Under the deal, India would allow international inspections and
safeguards at 14 nuclear reactors it has designated as civilian;
India's eight military facilities would remain off-limits. In
return, the United States would agree to ship nuclear technology
and fuel to India. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel Backs U.S.-India Nuclear Pact
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 7:46 PM

By GEORGE GEDDA 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate panel voted overwhelmingly on
Thursday to support the nuclear cooperation accord between the
United States and India, a major step toward approval of the
unprecedented deal. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote was a victory for
President Bush. It comes two days after the House International
Relations Committee strongly approved a similar measure. 

The votes make it likely that the Republican-run Congress will
approve the agreement. Also enhancing its prospects is support
by committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who called the
accord ``the most important strategic diplomatic initiative
undertaken by President Bush.'' 

Senate committee approval came on a 16-2 vote. The lone negative
votes were cast by Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Barbara
Boxer, D-Calif. 

Under the deal, India would allow international inspections and
safeguards at 14 nuclear reactors it has designated as civilian.
India's eight military facilities would remain off-limits. In
return, the United States would agree to ship nuclear technology
and fuel to India. 

Critics say the plan could boost India's nuclear arsenal.
Supporters say it would provide much-needed energy to a crucial
ally that has always managed its nuclear technologies
responsibly. 

The committee rejected by 13-5 an amendment from Feingold to
require Bush to provide assurances that India would not divert
nuclear fuel to its atomic weapons program. 

On Tuesday, the House committee voted 37-5 for Bush's
initiative. The full House and Senate will have to approve an
identical measure before it can be sent to the president for his
signature. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: India upbeat after key US Congress panel backs nuclear deal -
     
 by Elizabeth Roche Thu Jun 29, 5:43 AM ET 		 	 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Indian officials were upbeat after a 
controversial civilian nuclear energy deal with the United States 
sailed through a Congress committee, but were keeping their 
fingers crossed ahead of an equally crucial vote by another 
panel. 

 A senior Indian official welcomed the 37-5 vote Tuesday by the
Foreign Relations Committee in the House of Representatives in
favor of the agreement that will allow India to acquire civilian
nuclear technology. 

With this vote, "a major hurdle" had been crossed in the
implementation of the deal -- clinched during the visit of US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushto India in
March -- the official told Indian reporters. 

But, he cautioned, "We are not quite there yet" -- referring to
another vote due later Thursday by the US Senate Foreign
Relations committee and to clearance still needed at a later
date by the US Congress and the Senate. 

The margin by which the bill will be approved by the
Congressional and Senate committees will help New Delhi gauge
the kind of support the bill will get in the full Congress and
Senate, another official said. 

The bill seeks to amend sections of the US Atomic Energy Act of
1954 that currently prevents the United States from trading
nuclear technology with nations, such as India, who are not
party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Under the deal first agreed upon by Bush and Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year, the United States
will aid the development of civil nuclear power programs in
India in return for New Delhi placing some of its nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agencysafeguards. 

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and was, as a
result, banned by the US and other mostly industrialized nations
from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related
equipment. 

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. 

They say the deal could free up India's "limited domestic
nuclear fuel making capacity to produce highly enriched uranium
and plutonium for weapons." 

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power reactors
but can also be employed to manufacture the explosive core of
atom bombs. 

Some of the reservations of US lawmakers found their way into
the text of the bill passed by the Congressional committee on
Tuesday but were classed under the "non-binding section" or the
"discretionary section." 

This means New Delhi and Washington would not be bound by these
concerns when finalising their civilian nuclear cooperation,
said analyst Chitrapu Uday Bhaskar. 

"There was no change or dissent on the substantive parts,"
Bhaskar said. 

Clauses in a section of the bill that allows Washington to cut
off nuclear fuel supplies if New Delhi tests a nuclear device
could prove problematic for India, said Bharat Karnad, analyst
with the Centre for Policy Research thinktank. 

"If India tests a weapon, which it will have to if it wants to
keep pace with China, the deal is off," he said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Second US congressional panel backs US-India nuclear deal -
                           
 by Charlotte Raab Thu Jun 29, 3:38 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A controversial deal to help India develop 
civilian nuclear facilities cleared another hurdle in the US 
Congress, boosting its chances of winning full approval in coming 
weeks. 

 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee" /> Senate Foreign
Relations Committeeapproved legislation to enable the accord in
a 16-2 vote, two days after the House of Representatives'
International Relations Committee gave its backing 37-5. 

Under the deal, the United States will aid the development of
civil nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing
some of its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyinspections. 

The full Senate and House of Representatives could now hold
votes on the legislation next month, though no schedule has been
drawn up and the deal still faces opposition. 

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 Non Proliferation Treaty. The law has to be
amended for the India deal to be effective. 

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and, as a result,
is currently banned by the United States and other major powers
from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related
equipment. 

But Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar,
an influential Republican, hailed the measure before the vote
saying it was "the most important strategic diplomatic
initiative undertaken" by President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Bush. 

"By concluding this pact and the far-reaching set of cooperative
agreements that accompany it, the president has embraced a
long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of our
foreign policy in a way that will give us new diplomatic options
and improve global stability," he said. 

Others greeted the deal as a sign of a geopolitical re-alliance
following the Cold War, which had seen India stand close to
Moscow while Washington supported its rival Pakistan. 

"For the US and India today, however, our national interests are
in concert perhaps more so than at any time in the past," said
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden before the vote. 

He said the agreement would allow India to "jump-start its quest
for alternate energy source-wells" as its economy booms. 

Proponents gave equally strong support as the measure -- forged
last year by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh --
passed the House committee on Tuesday. 

"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. 

A senior Indian official in New Delhi welcomed the House panel's
vote, telling reporters a "major hurdle" had been cleared in the
implementation of the deal. 

But he cautioned "we are not quite there yet," referring to the
full vote still needed. 

And some US lawmakers have expressed doubts about extending
civil nuclear technology to India. 

They say the deal would not only make it harder to enforce rules
against nuclear renegades Iran" /> Iranand North Korea" /> North
Koreabut 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. 

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. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Committee Cuts State, Aid Requests
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday June 29, 2006 10:31 PM

AP Photo WHCD118 

By ANDREW TAYLOR 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee on Thursday cut President
Bush's request for the State Department and foreign aid by more
than $2 billion and shifted the money to flood control, sewer
grants, border security and other programs. 

The moves are likely to meet with resistance from the White
House. The administration objects to such shifts and to a $9
billion cut to Bush's Pentagon budget request, with that money
restoring proposed trims in domestic programs. 

Meanwhile, the House passed a bill that supports the president's
plans to explore Mars and increase spending on research and
encouraging science professionals to enter teaching. 

This bill passed after three days of debate that touched on
everything from medical marijuana laws to the Pacific
Northwest's salmon fishery. Along the way, House lawmakers
endorsed the Supreme Court's ruling to permit evidence seized in
violation of long-standing ``knock and announce'' rules and
backed bilingual ballots for people whose native language is not
English. 

The bill covers the annual budgets of the departments of
Commerce, State and Justice, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The measure is the 10th of 11 annual
spending bills to pass the House in a tight budget climate where
lawmakers bemoan cuts across a wide spectrum of programs. This
comes even as GOP core voters worry that Congress plays fast and
loose with taxpayers' money. 

In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee is just starting to
move ahead on its versions of the spending bills. 

The committee on Thursday approved: 

-a $30.7 billion measure that funds the Energy Department and
flood control projects. 

-a $31.5 billion measure covering foreign aid and State
Department programs. 

-a $26.1 billion bill for the Interior Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency. 

-the $32.8 billion budget for the Homeland Security Department. 

All signs point to a lame-duck session after the November
election because Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has
yet to set aside time for the full Senate to consider any
spending bills. 

The Homeland Security Department, on paper, would get a $700
million budget boost above President Bush's budget plan. But the
bill actually translates into a $500 million cut below his
request because lawmakers again rejected $1.2 billion in
revenues from a proposed increase in airline ticket taxes. The
White House wanted to use that money to defray the
Transportation Security Administration's budget. 

The energy and water projects bill includes $380 million to put
in place last year's energy bill, with increases for alternative
technologies such as solar energy, biomass and geothermal. 

The bill would pay for temporary sites to store nuclear waste
for up to 25 years as delays continue at the Yucca Mountain site
in Nevada. 

The Senate's foreign aid bill cuts from $3 billion to $2 billion
Bush's request for a program designed to reward developing
nations for good governance and a commitment to democracy. 

The bill also includes $3.4 billion for programs to battle
HIV/AIDS overseas. 

The Commerce, Justice and State bill passed by a 393-23 vote. It
contains $700 million for Mars exploration, the bulk of which
would go to several unmanned missions. Bush, in January 2004,
pledged that the United States would return humans to the moon
by 2020 and ultimately launch manned flights to Mars and beyond. 

The bill gives Bush the money he wants to do that, but grants to
state and local law enforcement agencies would be cut for the
sixth consecutive year. 

On Wednesday, lawmakers approved $2 million for salmon fishermen
suffering from a curtailed season because the government is
limiting their catch. That was far less than the $81 million
West Coast lawmakers want, but they hope to win more later. 

Lawmakers also voted to continue to allow federal prosecution of
people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes in states with
laws that permit it. 

In addition, despite the opposition of more than two-thirds of
Republicans, the House affirmed the right of voters in areas
with large populations of non-English-speaking people to cast
ballots in their native language. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: Parliament must decide

Comment | 

The Trident replacement is a crucial choice for the nation; we
can't allow it to happen in secret 

	 	 Kate Hudson

Friday June 30, 2006 The Guardian             

Hard on the heels of Gordon Brown's pro-Trident replacement 
statement last week, the prime minister has announced that the 
decision on replacing the weapon will be taken later this year. 
With both absolutely committed to the nuclear option, they 
clearly have every intention of driving the policy through 
without the debate promised by John Reid last September. This 
approach, echoing the behind-closed-doors nature of previous 
decisions, has incensed both politicians and the public.

Today the Commons defence committee weighs in, demanding the 
promised full public and parliamentary debate. The report of its 
first inquiry looking into the strategic context of a possible 
Trident replacement bristles with rage at the government. It 
inveighs against the Ministry of Defence's refusal to give 
evidence. The report lists the occasions when the government 
stated there would be the fullest possible parliamentary debate, 
and when the MoD asserted that ministers "have not yet begun to 
consider the range of options that might be available". The 
latter point was reiterated in parliament only three months ago 
so it is hard to see how ministers have had time to consider all 
the options without any discussion having taken place.

The committee has also indicated that it will be making a series
of inquiries that are certain to be timetabled beyond the end of
this year. Will the government disregard this process? The
government has also talked about publishing a white paper on the
issue. But when will the consultation - and the debate on that
take place, if the decision is to be made by the end of the year?

There is much to be commended in the committee's report. The
abolition of nuclear weapons is put forward as an option for
consideration. It questions the purpose of nuclear weapons in
the context of current security threats, such as terrorism,
against which they are widely regarded as being useless. It
questions the notion that having nuclear weapons enhances
Britain's international status.

It considers the supposed independence of Trident, and states
that public debate over the future of the system should address
"the operational and diplomatic impact of any potential
dependency on the United States of any future UK nuclear
deterrent". This is a matter of great significance given the
long-standing mutual defence agreement between the US and UK,
the world's most comprehensive nuclear sharing agreement, which
is widely believed to underpin Britain's close foreign policy
relationship with the US. This relationship has most recently
taken us into the illegal war on Iraq. On the question of future
threats - used by Reid as a justification for advocating a
replacement - the report calls upon the MoD to "consider
publicly" how threats may evolve in the future and to "say
clearly" whether it believes in nuclear weapons "as an insurance
policy".

Absent from the report is any discussion of the international
treaty context, and Britain's obligations to disarm under the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This, we were assured, is
because the remit of the defence committee is procurement
issues, whereas treaty compliance falls within that of the
foreign affairs committee. So far, my written request to
Margaret Beckett for a meeting to discuss this matter has had no
reply.

It can only be hoped that this report, added to widespread
public and parliamentary pressure, will enable an outbreak of
democracy to take place. In a recent ICM poll commissioned by
CND, 81% said that they thought the decision should be made by
parliament. Only 10% thought it should be made by the prime
minister. On that issue, Tony Blair has refused to be drawn.

· Kate Hudson is chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
cnduk.org

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers have failed to make a case for 
nuclear deterrent, MPs say
 
Richard Norton-Taylor

Friday June 30, 2006

The government must explain the purpose of a British nuclear 
deterrent, something it has failed to do so far, a cross-party 
committee of MPs says in a hard-hitting report on the future of 
the Trident missile system published today.

"The most pressing threat currently facing the UK is that of 
international terrorism," says the Commons defence committee. But 
witnesses to its inquiry - the Ministry of Defence refused to 
give evidence - overwhelmingly argued that "the strategic nuclear 
deterrent could serve no useful or practical purpose in 
countering this kind of threat".

The MPs say they heard no evidence that Britain faced a current 
or impending threat from any established nuclear weapons state, 
and it was not possible to identify future threats with any 
certainty.

The government must also explain, the committee says, whether it
believes possessing nuclear weapons makes any difference to its
international influence. Previous Labour administrations have
thought so, and officials in the Foreign Office and Ministry of
Defence claim it would be difficult for any British government
to contemplate France being Europe's sole nuclear power.
However, Sir Michael Quinlan, a former official at the MoD once
regarded as the high priest of nuclear deterrence, told the
committee that he did not find the "seat at the top table"
argument persuasive.

The committee says: "Before making any decisions on the future
of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the MoD should explain its
understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear
deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident
successor system."

Any decision to keep nuclear weapons, must be made "only after a
full public debate ... It must not be made in secret".

The MPs express their surprise and disappointment at the refusal
of the MoD to give evidence to the inquiry. The MoD told the
committee late last year that "whilst work has started in
government to begin the process of preparing for future
ministerial decisions, this work by officials is still at a very
early stage and no advice has been presented to ministers".

The MPs acknowledge that while future threats are "unknowable",
a world in which nuclear proliferation had "taken hold would
create deep uncertainties in international relations". They add:
"If the MoD believes in the value of a nuclear deterrent as an
insurance policy, rather than in response to any specific
threat, we believe it is important to say clearly that is the
reason for needing the deterrent."

The committee suggests Britain's nuclear posture, already scaled
back after the end of the cold war, could be further reduced.
The existing force is made up of four Vanguard-class
nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of carrying up to 16
Trident II D5 missiles armed with up to 12 nuclear warheads,
with one vessel always at sea. "In the light of the reduced
threat we currently face, an alternative possibility would be to
retain a deterrent, but not continuously at sea," the MPs say.

James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence committee, says in a
statement today: "We need a full discussion of the role and
purpose of the nuclear deterrent and the changing strategic
environment."

Tony Blair, who has made it clear he intends to ensure Britain
retains strategic nuclear weapons, told the Commons on Wednesday
that a decision would be taken this year, but declined to say
whether MPs would be allowed to vote on the issue.

Separately, former chiefs of staff said yesterday that the armed
forces were seriously underfunded. Field Marshal Lord Inge
warned peers about the shortcomings of equipment, highlighting
the "vulnerability of the old Northern Ireland 'snatch' Land
Rovers" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The former chief of the defence
staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, said: "Our armed forces are operating
well above the level expected and resourced for under defence
planning assumptions, and the impact of lack of adequate funding
is hurting."
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC: Full nuclear weapons debate urged
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 29 June 2006
 
[A Trident nuclear missile]

Trident was developed during the final decade of the Cold War

There needs to be a "genuine and meaningful" public
debate on whether the UK should keep its nuclear weapons, the
Commons defence committee has said. 

Its MPs said the arsenal "could serve no useful or practical
purpose" in defeating international terrorism. 

This is "the most pressing threat currently facing the UK", they
said. 

They added the Ministry of Defence must justify the retention of
weapons after hearing no evidence of an impending military
threat from other countries. 

"If the MoD believes in the value of the nuclear deterrent as an
insurance policy, rather than in response to any specific
threat, we believe it is important to say clearly that is the
reason for needing the deterrent," the committee said. 

Unknown threats 

The government should also clarify whether it believed the
nuclear deterrent was important to Britain's "international
influence and status", the committee said. 

"We accept that future threats are unknowable, but, clearly, a
world in which nuclear proliferation had taken hold would create
deep uncertainties in international relations." 

The MPs' call comes as ministers ponder whether and how to
replace the Trident nuclear weapon system. 

Chancellor Gordon Brown has signalled his personal support for
maintaining Britain as a nuclear power, angering some on the
Labour left. 

We are rushing headlong into decision which should be considered 
over a much longer timescale
		
Nick Harvey Liberal Democrats

Downing Street has promised a parliamentary White Paper on the 
issue but has refused to commit to holding a vote in the Commons. 

Julian Lewis, Conservative defence spokesman, criticised the 
MoD's refusal to co-operate with the committee's inquiry, saying: 
"Despite the prime minister's promise of a full and open debate 
on the independent nuclear deterrent, it is clear that the 
opposite is the case." 

He said it was "vital" to have "full parliamentary scrutiny" on 
"a matter of such national importance". 

And Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey backed the 
committee's call for a public debate. 

Decision 'this year' 

He said: "We are rushing headlong into a decision which should be 
considered over a much longer timescale. 

"The public debate must now begin in earnest." 

Britain has four nuclear-powered submarines, each of which can 
carry up to 16 Trident II D5 missiles. 

Every missile can hold 12 nuclear warheads and one of the 
submarines is always at sea at any time. 

The MoD says this is important so that a potential enemy could 
not misinterpret the appearance of a British nuclear vessel as a 
deliberate escalation of force. 

The four Trident missile submarines are expected to end their 
operational life sometime in the mid 2020s. 

And the 48 warheads have a similar operational timeframe. 

A replacement system would need many years of development and 
Tony Blair has said a decision regarding the issue will be taken 
"this year". 

*****************************************************************
 24 BBC: UK pondered China nuclear attack
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 29 June 2006
 
[Hong Kong]                             
Hong Kong was considered vulnerable to a Chinese attack

The UK wanted China to know the nuclear strength of the US could 
be unleashed if the Chinese attacked Hong Kong, previously secret 
papers show. 

In 1961 the UK felt nuclear retaliation was the only alternative 
to abandoning its island colony if China attacked. 

Officials wanted "to encourage" China to believe nuclear action 
against it would follow any hostile action, papers released by 
the National Archive show. 

Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1999, having held it 
since 1842. 

The letters, circulated to prime minister Harold Macmillan, were 
written between 1957 and 1961 when concern was growing about 
China's intentions. 

Hong Kong was thought to be vulnerable, particularly as water and 
food supplies, from the mainland, could be cut off at any time. 

Our object is to encourage t Chinese to believe than an attack on 
Hong Kong would involve US nuclear retaliation Harold Watkinson 
Minister of Defence, 1961

The letters show that British officials were keen for the Chinese 
to be aware of the threat while not giving the impression that 
Hong Kong was an American military outpost. 

The Minister of Defence, Harold Watkinson, wrote to the foreign 
secretary and prime minister, saying: "Our object is to encourage 
the Chinese to believe than an attack on Hong Kong would involve 
US nuclear retaliation." 

Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home wrote a "top secret" 
letter to Mr Watkinson and Mr Macmillan in February 1961. 

Outpost 

He wrote: "It must be fully obvious to the Americans that Hong 
Kong is indefensible by conventional means and that in the event 
of a Chinese attack, nuclear strikes against China would be the 
only alternative to complete abandonment of the colony. 

"In these circumstances it is perhaps not so much formal staff 
talks with the Americans that we need so much as an informal 
exchange of views involving a discussion of the use of nuclear 
strikes. 

"I need hardly say, however, that I agree entirely with your view 
that while we should encourage the Chinese to believe that an 
attack on Hong Kong would involve nuclear retaliation, we must 
avoid anything that would allow the Chinese to claim that the 
Colony is a military outpost of the United States." 

Secret meetings between British and American officials were held 
in Hawaii with the possibility of further meetings on board a US 
naval carrier during its frequent visits to Hong Kong. 

*****************************************************************
 25 Independent: Brown offered compromise over Trident row 

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor 

Published: 30 June 2006 

Britain's nuclear weapon system could be slimmed down to reduce
the £25bn cost of a replacement to Trident and defuse some of
the controversy facing Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. 

Mr Brown's hopes of a smooth handover of power from Mr Blair
were dented last week when Labour leftwingers reacted angrily to
his decision to back a full replacement for the
submarine-launched ballistic missile system. 

The Commons Defence Select Committee is to offer a compromise
today, which could help Mr Brown overcome some of the opposition
from his MPs by suggesting a lower capability of nuclear weapon
to meet the threat of terrorism, rather than that from the
Soviet Union. 

The MPs suggested that instead of using four submarines that are
constantly on patrol with nuclear weapons, Britain could retain
a nuclear system that was not constantly at sea. "In the light
of the reduced threat we currently face, an alternative
possibility would be to retain a deterrent, but not continuously
at sea," said the MPs' report. 

They strongly hinted that the Cabinet could also put off the
hard decisions by following the Americans in extending the life
of the US-designed Trident submarines and updating the Trident
II D-5 long-range ballistic missiles. That would mean a major
refit of the submarines' nuclear reactors, but it could extend
the life of the current system until 2042. 

It could also mean that the Cabinet will reject a cheaper option
of replacing the fleet of four Vanguard class submarines
carrying Trident missiles with aircraft armed with
nuclear-tippedcruise missiles. 

The select committee, chaired by the former Tory minister James
Arbuthnot, condemns the Ministry of Defence for refusing to
co-operate with its inquiry. The MPs angrily point out that John
Reid, then Defence Secretary, promised an open debate but they
say the MoD refused point blank to give evidence about the
update of Trident. 

"We are surprised and disappointed by this refusal," said the
MPs. "A genuine meaningful debate is only possible with the
active participation of the MoD. The public should know what
decisions will be required when they must be taken and
implemented, and what factors are driving consideration of the
issue now." 

The MPs warn that the Cabinet, which has to take a decision in
the current Parliament, will have to confront the difficult
question over whether Britain still needs a nuclear weapon after
the ending of the Cold War. They want the MoD to "explain its
understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear
deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident
successor system". 

The Prime Minister confirmed on Wednesday that a decision on
whether to replace Britain's Trident nuclear programme will be
taken "later this year". 

Challenged by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, Mr Blair
said that an independent nuclear deterrent was an "essential
part" of Britain's defences. He promised to consult fully on the
controversial issue but stopped short of offering a Commons vote
to settle it. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 26 globeandmail.com: Turbines are blowin' in the wind; Canada passes megawatt benchmark
 	
POSTED ON 29/06/06

RICHARD BLACKWELL

The new turbines popping up on the landscape across the country 
in recent months have pushed Canada's capacity to generate 
electricity from wind past the 1,000 megawatt mark. 

That's a benchmark only 12 countries in the world have passed, 
according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which 
represents companies that plan, build and operate wind turbines. 

Still, wind's 1,000 megawatts fulfill only 0.46 per cent of 
Canada's electricity demand, enough to power about 315,000 homes. 
That's a far cry from the roughly 60 per cent of the country's 
power that is generated from hydro, 19 per cent from coal, 15 per 
cent from nuclear, and 5 per cent from gas. 

Among the new wind farms that have come on stream recently: 	 		
			 				 			 		 	 
Erie Shores Wind Farm in Ontario, a 99 MW facility on Lake Erie 
built by Clean Power Income Fund. 

The Fitzpatrick Mountain and Point Tupper projects in Nova 
Scotia, built by Renewable Energy Services Ltd., together 
generating 1.6 MW. 

The first 4 MW of Cape Breton Power Ltd.'s Lingan project in Nova 
Scotia. 

There are now operating wind farms in every province except 
British Columbia. 

If Canada reaches the wind power association's goal of 10,000 MW 
of wind capacity by 2010, that would still represent less than 5 
per cent of the total electrical load. 

Denmark, by contrast, generates almost 20 per cent of its 
electricity from wind. Germany and Spain are the world's biggest 
wind-power generators, with about 18,000 MW and 10,000 MW of 
capacity, respectively, at the end of 2005. 

Most provinces have been very supportive of wind power projects,
and offer a variety of incentives and goals to promote the
technology, said wind energy association president Robert
Hornung. 

However, the federal government's incentive program -- which
pays wind farm operators 1 cent per kilowatt-hour for the first
10 years that their turbines are operating -- is currently in
doubt. 

The new Tory government has frozen the incentive program until
it sets its environmental policy this fall. Mr. Hornung said he
hopes the funding will be restored soon so the industry's
momentum is not lost. He said he believes there is strong
support for wind power in the Tory caucus, but he has no idea
what approach the government will eventually take on the issue.
	 	 						 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	 		 		 		 					 							 		 	 			 	
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell 
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 
2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher                                       
-->                                     -->     
*****************************************************************
 27 HPN: Low level of radioactive tritium found in well at Zion plant -
                  
Highland Park News 

[06-29-06]
 	 	 
BY JOHN ROSZKOWSKI | STAFF WRITER
roszkowski@pioneerlocal.com 

Low levels of radioactive tritium have been found in the 
groundwater at the shuttered Zion Nuclear Plant, but plant 
officials say it poses no threat to public health or safety. 

State Sen. Susan Garrett, D-29th, of Lake Forest, said she was
informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that low levels of
tritium had been found in a test sample taken from one of the
wells. 

Garrett has requested more testing be done of the groundwater
near the plant and in Lake Michigan, and that federal regulatory
officials be present when Exelon Corp., which owns the plant,
conducts the tests. 

"I think it's troubling. I think we need to do more testing in
Lake Michigan to make sure this hasn't affected the (lake)
water," she said. 

Krista Lopykinski, communications manager for Exelon Nuclear,
insists there was no threat from the tritium that was found in
the groundwater. 

"The levels they discovered there at Zion are very, very low,"
she said. "There is absolutely no health or safety hazard." 

At Zion, nine wells were drilled and tested for tritium at two
depths. A level of 600 picocuries per liter was found in one of
the samples, Lopykinski said. She said the U.S. EPA acceptable
level of tritium in drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per
liter. 

Exposure to high levels of tritium can increase cancer risks. 

"We are continuing to perform more tests at the site and Sen.
Garrett has asked to be on site when the tests are done. We are
happy to comply with that request." 

Based on the information we have, we don't believe the tritium
has left the site at all," Lopykinski said. 

The nuclear plant at Zion has been closed since 1998. While the
plant was operating, Lopykinski said it did release very low
levels of tritium into the environment which were closely
monitored and regulated by federal regulatory agencies. She said
they are still trying to determine the source of tritium found
during the well tests. 

Lopykinski said the testing at Zion was conducted as part of a
systemwide inspection by Exelon of all of its nuclear power
plants in the state, after tritium was discovered at the
Braidwood nuclear plant. 

Garrett said she is concerned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
wasn't notified about the testing at Zion before the tests were
conducted. She said she wants to see more oversight on how
nuclear plants in the state are regulated. 

"We need to able to provide more oversight and accountability
that this process is transparent," she said. "The NRC should be
there to oversee this process. I don't think Exelon should be
able to do this in private." 

  Copyright© 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 28 Rediff: Why our scientists are upset about the n-deal

Columnists » Dr A N Prasad
              
Rediff.com

June 29, 2006
 
Dr A N Prasad, a former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre, Mumbai, reveals why the Indian scientific community is
worked up about the India-United States nuclear agreement. 

The bill on the India-United States nuclear deal now with the US
Congress has left no doubt about the US intention to achieve the
twin objective of capping the Indian strategic programme and
gaining near total access to its nuclear establishment through
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards inspections.

The sugar-coated language used in the July 18 India-US Joint
Statement has lifted India to the status of an advanced State to
be treated at par with other advanced States like the US. But
the ground reality is such that the US calls the shots, leaving
India on the defensive in spite of projecting the deal as of
vital interest to the US.

There is certainly lot of apprehension among the Indian
scientific community in general -- apart from top scientists
within India's nuclear establishment who are forced to support
the deal -- as to whether adequate homework has been done in
analysing the pros and cons about how the deal serves India's
long-term interests.

The views of Indian scientists do not seem to have reached
Indian lawmakers and a clear direction is lacking. Political and
scientific interests have to converge for a deal of this nature,
which has long-term national security implications.

This matter is too serious for the government to take a decision
without an in-depth debate, and in a hush-hush manner without
revealing the various conditions involved. What the
knowledgeable public in India is exposed to is bits and pieces
of information -- that too, trickling from the US!

A major weakness faced by India, in the short and perhaps in the
medium term, is the shortage of natural uranium required to push
its nuclear power programme from the present 2 per cent to
something respectable.

India seems to be paying a heavy price for this weakness. Having
developed full technological competence in the entire nuclear
fuel cycle -- in spite of sustained embargoes and restrictions
-- it is not so much the technological know-how that India is
looking forward to from abroad, as many seem to think, but a
rightful place to play a global role in the nuclear field
commercially and technologically.

There is so much that India can offer to the global effort for
peaceful application of nuclear energy but it is a pity it is
being looked upon with suspicion. Conditions of a different kind
are being imposed while grudgingly taking India on as a partner.

Coming back to the bill in the Congress, there are a few clauses
which are detrimental to Indian interests. It calls for India,
Pakistan and China declaring a moratorium on the production of
fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes. If India were
to agree to this it will be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis China in
terms of stockpile and not serve national strategic interests.

Similarly, the bill talks about implementation of a treaty with
the US as a partner banning the production of fissile material
for nuclear weapons. This is a big joke. While the US suffers
from indigestion with excess fissile material, not knowing what
to do with it, it wants India to prematurely shut shop. What a
nice way to cap India's nuclear programme before it has even
properly taken off! There are also some other conditions in the
bill which tend to interfere with our independent national
policy.

Perhaps the sticking point in this nuclear deal is the
safeguards agreement. At present, the International Atomic
Energy Agency has no format or mandate to negotiate an agreement
with India which accommodates the country's strategic nuclear
applications. The formats in force apply broadly to Nuclear
Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States party to the nuclear
Non Proliferation Treaty with some States accepting intrusive
additional protocol.

India, Pakistan and Israel being non-NPT states are following
item specific safeguards. As far as India is concerned, the deal
will totally change this situation as it will be treated as a
non Nuclear Weapon State with additional protocol leading to a
lot of contradictions and difficulties both in the negotiations
and later implementation. 

It is very unlikely that the IAEA will negotiate a new agreement
outside the existing mandate and go to the IAEA board of
governors for approval which is a major task by itself.
Realising this, the US bill has been cleverly worded to the
effect that the American president's determination is required
to the effect that an agreement has been concluded between India
and the IAEA requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in
perpetuity in accordance with IAEA principles, practices and
policies to India's nuclear facilities, materials and programmes.

To make matters worse, India's nuclear programmes are also
sought to be brought under safeguards under the additional
protocol. Where does this lead regarding the India- specific
safeguards which India was elated about? There is no doubt that
safeguards negotiations will be the toughest part of the deal
requiring a high level of skill, foresight and care.

To a large extent, the deal will undermine the pride with which
Indian nuclear scientists of the past and present developed
highly complex nuclear technology under heavy odds. India will
be slowly forced to become dependent on imports with practically
the entire gamut of activities coming under safeguards
inspection with a miniscule of activities left under the
strategic category. 

  © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. |   
*****************************************************************
 29 BBC NEWS: Lighting the key to energy saving
 
 Thursday, 29 June 2006, 11:02 GMT 12:02 UK [

  By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website   

[Nuclear power station at Dungeness, UK.  Image: PA] 
                                
Lighting uses more electricity than is produced by nuclear 
stations                                                                

A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the 
world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth. 

That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy
Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of
lighting uses and costs. 

The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it
concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar
power. 

Better building regulations would boost uptake of efficient
lighting, it says. 

"Lighting is a major source of electricity consumption," said
Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the
report's authors. 

"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting -
that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and
about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the
BBC News website. 

The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this
electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger
vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation,
the IEA says. 

Lounge departure 

Not many inventions last for more than 100 years without major 
modifications. 

The incandescent light bulb, developed a century and a quarter 
ago by luminaries including Sir Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison, is 
one, and still produces almost half of the light used in homes 
around the world. 

Time to ban the bulb?                           

But incandescent bulbs are very inefficient, converting only 
about 5% of the energy they receive into light. 

The biggest consumer is the fluorescent tube. Commercial and 
public sector buildings account for 43% of the electricity used 
for lighting; and here, fluorescents dominate. 

The report notes that the efficiency of tubes can vary widely,
between about 15% and 60%. 

Regulations on their use vary widely too. Health and safety
concerns dictate what light levels should be achieved in various
buildings, but the IEA found the levels prescribed by regulatory
authorities vary by a factor of 20 from one country to another. 

The IEA reserves particular ire for that favourite of the
western middle-class lounge, the halogen uplighter. 

"This... is the least efficient of all commonly used electric
lighting systems," it says. "They add a large amount of heat
into the living space as a by-product... this heat might require
additional air-conditioning energy for its removal." 

It is concerned too that a significant proportion of the world's
population has no access to electric lighting at all. Instead
they rely on burning fuel, which is expensive, inefficient,
produces poor light quality and contributes to respiratory
disease. 

Bright idea 

Energy-efficient lighting can seem such an obviously good idea
that it is hard to comprehend why it is not used everywhere. 

EIGHT FOR THE SCRAPHEAP           

[Compact fluorescent lighting.  Image: BBC]           
Incandescent bulbs Low-efficiency fluorescent tubes High-loss 
"ballasts" for fluorescent tubes Halogen uplighters High-loss 
halogen transformers Mercury discharge lamps (often used in 
street lighting) Low-efficiency vehicle lighting Fuel-based 
lighting in developing countries    

"There is no single panacea," said Dr Waide. "What we suggest is 
setting up a comprehensive set of policies. 

"There is a strong case for introducing lighting measures into
building codes. Currently codes have a lot of energy measures in
them, but with few exceptions there aren't specific provisions
for lighting." 

Such codes could, for example, mandate the use of
highly-efficient fluorescent tubes and ballasts, the devices
which regulate input voltages for the lamps; at worst these can
consume 40% of the energy going into the system. 

China, the IEA reports, has recently developed such codes. If
they are implemented in all new build, this would "...offset the
need for a new Three Gorges Dam project every eight years". 

For the individual, the most obvious switch to make is from
incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent systems (CFLs),
marketed in many countries as "energy-saving bulbs". 

The IEA calculated the total costs to the consumer associated
with buying and then using the two types, and found a
significant difference. 

"The overall cost of 10,000 hours of light provision from
incandescents is 85 euros," said Paul Waide, "but for CFLs it's
25 euros, because they use so much less energy, and because you
might have to buy only one CFL for every 10 incandescents." 

He acknowledged there were concerns about the quality of light
coming from some CFLs, and that some consumers reported lower
lifetimes than manufacturers claimed; the key here, he said, is
better regulation of the product sector by governments. 

"There is also a lot that governments could do to reduce the
price differential between CFLs and incandescents; it's
extremely efficient from a societal perspective." 

The future may see even more efficient systems. LEDs hold out
the most promise; currently four times as efficient as
incandescents, manufacturers are aiming for 80% efficiency by
the end of the decade, which would represent a 16-fold
improvement on the traditional bulb. 

But, the IEA concludes, there is no need to wait for LEDs.
Policy measures and individual action to bring the switch would
slash 38% from the global electricity bill for lighting by 2030. 

*****************************************************************
 30 BBC: Senate panel backs nuclear deal
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 29 June 2006
 
[Kakrapar nuclear power station, Gujarat] 
                                
Energy-hungry India needs nuclear power

A US Senate committee has backed a controversial plan to share 
civilian nuclear technology with India. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee took an hour to endorse 
the legislation by 16-2. It was cleared by a House of 
Representatives panel on Tuesday. 

The deal offers US nuclear technology to India in exchange for 
inspectors' access to Indian civilian reactors. 

The accord has been hailed as historic by some, but critics say 
it will damage non-proliferation efforts. 

The BBC's Shahzeb Jillani in Washington says the bill is on 
target to be ratified by the full House and Senate in July. 

Comfortable majority 

The plans were described by Senator Richard Lugar, the Senate 
committee's Republican chairman, as "the most important strategic 
diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush". 

[President Bush in India]

The deal was signed during President Bush's visit to India

The proposed agreement reverses US policy to restrict nuclear 
co-operation with Delhi because it has not signed the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and has twice tested nuclear 
weapons in 1974 and 1998. 

On Tuesday, the International Relations Committee of the House of 
Representatives voted 37-5 in support of Mr Bush's initiative. 

Mr Bush finalised the agreement during a landmark trip to India 
in March. 

Under the deal, energy-hungry India will get access to US civil 
nuclear technology and fuel, in return for opening its civilian 
nuclear facilities to inspection. 

But its nuclear weapons sites will remain off-limits. 

NUCLEAR POWER IN INDIA

India has 14 reactor in commercial operation and nine under 
construction Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's 
electricity By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of 
the country's electricity India has limited coal and uranium 
reserves Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's 
total - are expected to fuel its nuclear power programme 
long-term Source: Uranium Information Center <b>Global nuclear 
powers</b>

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. 

India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party has termed the 
deal as "unacceptable". 

It said that it would make India "perpetually dependent" on the 
US for all initiatives in the application of nuclear energy. 

Senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi told reporters on Thursday 
that the part of the deal allowing India's nuclear installations 
to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency was 
"very intrusive" and "immensely disruptive". 

India has made clear that the final agreement must not bind it to 
supporting the US's Iran policy and does not prevent it from 
developing its own fissile material.                                                     
*****************************************************************
 31 BBC: Ministers warned on nuclear power
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 29 June 2006
 
[Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk] 

Nuclear power has "diverted" the government, the commission warns                                                           

Nuclear power alone cannot solve the UK's energy inefficiencies, 
the government's environment advisers warn. 

An energy review, due next month, is expected to call for 
additional nuclear power stations to be built as replacements for 
older plants. 

The Sustainable Development Commission said the nuclear option 
"won't get us anywhere near tackling the UK's energy and climate 
change crisis". 

Its chairman called for more efficient homes and less wasted 
power. 

"The government has been so busy trying to make the case for 
nuclear power it risks overlooking the much bigger challenges 
facing the UK today," Jonathan Porritt said. 

"Even if the UK's nuclear capacity is doubled, that would still 
leave 84% of total energy consumption unaccounted for." 

The commission recommended the country's "wasteful electricity 
network" be upgraded, with a greater emphasis on local power 
grids to reduce the proportion of supplies which were lost before 
reaching households. 

[Jonathan Porritt]

Mr Porritt wants a guarantee that taxpayers won't fund nuclear 
power

It also suggested "smart energy meters" and "sensible billing", 
with the intention that less energy was sold in the future. 

It said the annual road tax should be reconsidered to penalise 
transport users with the least environmentally-friendly vehicles, 
and for "radical" building standards so new houses no longer need 
heating by 2010. 

"Even if nuclear gets the 'green light'," Mr Porritt said, "it 
won't get us anywhere near tackling the UK's energy and climate 
change crises, hence the crucial importance of getting it right 
on efficiency, renewables, heat and microgeneration." 

'Generation gap' 

In April, the Commons environmental audit committee said the UK 
could not wait for a new generation of nuclear power stations and 
needed gas-fired stations. 

It warned of a "generation gap" which nuclear power could not 
bridge, because the first nuclear plants would not come online 
until 2017, and it may be 2030 before the proposed network was 
generating at full capacity. 

It said an "extensive" programme of gas-powered stations needed 
to be set up. 

Earlier this month, UK energy company Centrica announced it would 
begin building Britain's first major new power station in almost 
five years. 

It intends to invest £400m to develop the gas-fired facility near 
Plymouth in Devon. 

The decision came at a time of increasing uncertainly over the 
future of Britain's energy supplies. 

Volatile global wholesale energy markets have led to a number of 
power suppliers increasing their household electricity and gas 
bills. 

However, any proposal to increase the number of nuclear power 
stations in the UK is likely to be vehemently opposed by 
environmentalists and people living near the proposed sites.            
	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 32 Platts: OPG asks CNSC next step for Pickering B renewal
 
Washington (Platts)--28Jun2006
 
Ontario Power Generation has asked the Canadian Nuclear Safety 
Commission to outline its environmental review requirements, the 
first step in the refurbishment process for Pickering B?s four 
units. 

A June 28 statement by OPG said the environmental assessment of 
the project is part of the business case for a feasibility study 
of the life extension of the four 23-year-old, 516-MW units. OPG 
asked the CNSC to determine if an environmental assessment is 
required as part of the refurbishment project. 

OPG spokesman John Earl told Platts that an environmental 
assessment could be completed by the end of 2007 and would allow 
the company?s board to decide the following year on whether or 
not to proceed with refurbishment.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 33 Platts: UK's NII decides on two-phase approach to new reactor licensing
 
London (Platts)--29Jun2006
 
UK regulator NII has decided on a two-phase approach to new 
reactor licensing according to a report published June 28 by 
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's umbrella organization, the 
Health and Safety Executive. 

The first phase would concentrate on a generic reactor design 
separate from site and operator considerations. The second phase 
would be development of "a generic site envelope," which would 
reflect conditions found at likely sites for new nuclear 
construction in the UK, said NII Chief Inspector Mike Weightman. 

NII would then expect the vendor or whichever organization or 
consortia interested in constructing a reactor "to provide a case 
that demonstrates the adequacy of safety of that (reactor) design 
against that (site) generic envelope," he said. 

Once a specific site is proposed for that reactor design, then 
NII would need to make sure that site fit within the site generic 
envelope, he said. For more news, request a free trial to Platts 
Nucleonics Week

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10263 
[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 37121] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jn06-80] [[Page 37121]]
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
 
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. 
Type of submission: Revision and extension. 2. The title of the 
information collection: 10 CFR part 110, Export and Import of 
Nuclear Equipment and Material 3. The form number if applicable: 
Not applicable. 4. How often the collection is required: On 
occasion. 5. Who is required or asked to report: Any person in 
the U.S. who wishes to export: (a) Nuclear equipment and material 
subject to the requirements of a specific license, (b) 
radioactive waste subject to the requirements of a specific 
license, and (c) incidental radioactive material that is a 
contaminant of shipments of more than 100 kilograms of non-waste 
material using existing NRC general licenses.
 
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 1298. 7. The 
estimated number of annual respondents: 62. 8. An estimate of the 
total number of hours need annually to complete the requirement 
or request: 857 [478 reporting + 379 recordkeeping (0.66 hours 
per response)]. 9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), 
Public Law 104-13 applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 110 provides application, reporting, 
and recordkeeping requirements for export and imports of nuclear 
material and equipment subject to the requirements of a specific 
license or a general license and exports of incidental 
radioactive material.
 
The information collected and maintained pursuant to 10 CFR part 
110 enables the NRC to authorize only imports and exports which 
are not inimical to U.S. common defense and security and which 
meet applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date.
 
OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(3150- 0036), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC 
Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10263 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10264 
[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 37121-37122] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jn06-81]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 140, 
``Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements.'' 
3. The form number if applicable: N/A. 4. How often the 
collection is required: As necessary in order for NRC to meet its 
responsibilities called for in sections 170 and 193 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act).
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Licensees authorized 
to operate reactor facilities in accordance with 10 CFR part 50 
and licensees authorized to construct and operate a uranium 
enrichment facility in accordance with 10 CFR parts 40 and 70.
 
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 151. 7. The 
estimated number of annual respondents: 91. 8. An estimate of the 
total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement 
or request: 1,307.
 
9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 
applies: N/A.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 140 of the NRC's regulations specifies 
information to be submitted by licensees to enable the NRC to 
assess (a) the financial protection required of licensees and for 
the indemnification and limitation of liability of certain 
licensees and other persons pursuant to section 170 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and (b) the liability insurance 
required of uranium enrichment facility licensees pursuant to 
section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be
 
[[Page 37122]] given to comments received after this date.
 
John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(3150- 0039), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10264 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10266 
[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 37122] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jn06-82]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 150, 
``Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement 
States and in Offshore Waters under Section 274.'' 3. The form 
number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often the collection 
is required: 10 CFR 150.16(b), 150.17(c), and 150.19(c) require 
the submission of reports following specified events, such as the 
theft or unlawful diversion of licensed radioactive material. The 
source material inventory reports required under 10 CFR 150.17(b) 
must be submitted annually by certain licensees.
 
5. Who is required or asked to report: Agreement State licensees 
authorized to possess source or special nuclear material at 
certain types of facilities, or at any one time and location in 
greater than specified amounts. In addition, persons engaging in 
activities in non- Agreement States, in areas of exclusive 
Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States, or in offshore 
waters.
 
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 12. 7. The estimated 
number of annual respondents: 10. 8. The number of hours needed 
annually to complete the requirement or request: 35 hours.
 
9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 150 provides certain exemptions from 
NRC regulations for persons in Agreement States. Part 150 also 
defines activities in Agreement States and in offshore waters 
over which NRC regulatory authority continues, including certain 
information collection requirements. The information is needed to 
permit NRC to make reports to other governments and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with 
international agreements. The information is also used to carry 
out NRC's safeguards and inspection programs.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: .
 
The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 
days after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by July 31, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date.
 
OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(3150- 0032), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10266 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 37 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc E6-10267 
[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 37124-37129] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jn06-84]                         
 
of No Significant Impact Related to Issuance of Amendment No. 52 
to Materials License No. SNM-00033, Westinghouse Electric 
Company, LLC Hematite Former Fuel Fabrication Facility Located in 
Festus, MO, Site (TAC No. L52641) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy M. Snyder, Senior Project 
Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, M.S. T7 E-18, Rockville, MD, 20852-2738. Telephone: 
(301) 415-8580; Fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering amending Nuclear 
Materials License Number SNM-00033 issued to Westinghouse 
Electric Company, LLC (WEC) to authorize the dismantlement and 
demolition of Buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 240, 
245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to building slabs 
and foundations at grade at the WEC Hematite Former Fuel 
Fabrication Facility in Festus, Missouri. This consideration is 
being supported by this Environmental Assessment (EA) and a 
separate Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In a letter dated 
October 5, 2004 (ML042860234), WEC submitted a request to NRC to 
amend Materials License Number SNM-00033 to obtain authorization 
to dismantle and demolish Buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 
235, 240, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to 
building slabs and foundations at grade. In its request, WEC 
noted that it wants the flexibility to not demolish all the non- 
process buildings, if it later decides to keep these buildings 
for reuse. The licensee's October 5, 2004, license amendment 
request (ML051310063) was noticed in the Federal Register on 
November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67187). That Federal Register notice 
also provided an opportunity for a hearing on this licensing 
action, and no hearing requests were submitted. NRC has prepared 
this EA in support of its consideration of the amendment request 
and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. This 
EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of WEC's 
request. Based on this EA, the staff has concluded that a Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Background From the mid 1950s until 
2001, the Hematite site was involved in production and 
manufacturing of nuclear fuel. The majority of the buildings were 
constructed during 1956 through 1974 with final construction in 
1989. There are currently no fuel manufacturing activities at the 
site. Building 101 (Tile Barn) housed the former Emergency 
Operations Center during plant operations and was later used for 
the storage of both clean and contaminated equipment.
 
Building 110 houses the security and some administrative office 
spaces.
 
Building 115 housed the plant diesel emergency generator and fire 
pumps.
 
Building 120 (Wood Barn) was used for storing both clean and 
contaminated equipment. Building 230 was used for the fuel 
assembly operations. The building surfaces have no known levels 
of contamination above the level for unrestricted use. Building 
230 currently houses administrative offices. Building 231 was 
used as a warehouse to store shipping containers. Building 235 
was used as a vault to store depleted, natural, and enriched 
uranium. Building 240 contained a laboratory and maintenance 
area, a recycle recovery area, and a waste incinerator. Past 
operations in this building also included the conversion of high 
enriched uranium using a wet conversion process and recovery. A 
portion of the building was used for recycle and recovery 
operations and high- enriched material operations. Another 
portion of the building was used for the incinerator and housed 
low-enriched powder operations, including ammonium diurinate and 
oxidation/reduction furnaces.
 
Building 245 (Well House) was used for treating
 
[[Page 37125]] potable water by chlorination. Building 252 (South 
Vault) is a reinforced concrete structure with six bays and was 
used for storage of low-enriched uranium. Building 253 contains 
offices, various site utilities, a former uranium storage 
facility, former processing areas and decontamination facilities. 
Contained within Building 253 is Building 250, which was formerly 
a stand-alone structure.
 
Building 250 became room 250-1, and in 1958, rooms 250-2 and 
250-3 were added to Building 250. Building 250 was used for the 
storage of fuel feed stock. Nuclear fuel was manufactured in 
Buildings 254 (Pellet Plant) and 255 (Erbia Plant). Buildings 
256-1 (Pellet Drying) was initially used for a warehouse space 
and later was used for pellet drying. Building 256-2 (Workhouse) 
was used as the main warehouse for shipping pellets and receiving 
supply. Building 260 was used for a conversion process. Building 
261 was used for storage of unused limestone and contained a 
preheat furnace.
 
Since there is known contamination under the process buildings 
and the licensee has not yet characterized the soil under the 
process and non-process buildings, the licensee will not be able 
to release the non-process buildings that it does not demolish 
under this proposed licensing action for unrestricted use. 
Furthermore, building foundation and subsurface soil removal are 
not covered under this proposed licensing action nor the current 
license.
 
In accordance with a previously issued amendment to Materials 
License Number SNM-00033, the licensee has been performing 
limited decommissioning for the purpose of reducing residual 
radioactivity and other industrial contaminants from internal 
building equipment and components for the process buildings. WEC 
completed this work in March 2006. The NRC performed an EA, using 
NUREG-1748 as guidance, to evaluate these limited decommissioning 
activities. The EA and associated SER for limited decommissioning 
of the equipment and materials in the buildings, waste removal, 
and limited site characterization activities form the basis for 
NRC granting license amendment 42 to Materials License Number 
SNM-00033. In addition, WEC has produced an engineering 
evaluation/cost analysis and a work plan to comply with 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) for the building demolition. These documents can be 
found on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Web 
site at . In addition, WEC has made these documents available at 
the Festus, Missouri Public Library.
 
The radioactive contamination at WEC's Hematite, Missouri site 
consists of soils, and building and equipment surfaces 
contaminated with uranium, fission products, and by-product 
material from licensed operations that occurred from the mid 
1950s until 2001. The groundwater is contaminated with uranium, 
technicium, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). At this point 
in time, only the VOCs in the groundwater have migrated offsite. 
Remediation of this groundwater contamination will be the subject 
of a separate NRC action that addresses subsurface remediation.
 
As stated above, WEC submitted a request to NRC in 2004 for 
authorization to dismantle and demolish designated buildings at 
its site. By letters dated June 28, 2005 (ML051720051), December 
23, 2005 (ML053330179), and March 2, 2006 (ML06540109), the NRC 
staff transmitted requests for additional information (RAIs) 
related to the proposed building demolition and dismantlement. In 
letters dated July 22, 2005 (ML052140426), January 31, 2006 
(ML060330438) and March 17, 2006 (ML060800265), WEC responded to 
the RAIs. NRC found these responses to the RAIs acceptable.
 
Site Local and Physical Description The WEC Hematite site is 
located approximately \3/4\ of a mile northeast of the 
unincorporated town of Hematite and approximately 35 miles south 
of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The site is primarily 
surrounded by suburban and residential communities in Jefferson 
County, Missouri. Jefferson County is predominantly rural and 
characterized by rolling hills with many sizeable woodland 
tracts. The land area is classified as 51% forest, 33% 
agricultural, and approximately 16% urban, suburban, commercial, 
and unused or undeveloped. The primary land within a five-mile 
radius of the facility consists of deciduous forest, pasture and 
residential areas. Residential land use is centered in the 
communities of Festus/Crystal City to the northeast, Horine to 
the north, and Hillsboro to the northwest. Other land uses 
include row crop and urban/residential. Land use classifications 
are based on the National Land Cover Dataset. The plant 
facilities are located on a central site tract of approximately 
10 to 20 acres. The entire site is approximately 220 acres. Much 
of the northern portion of the property is wooded. Surface water 
bodies on the site include the East Lake, located on the eastern 
end of the site, the Site Pond, located west of the site 
buildings, Joachim Creek along the southern site boundary, 
Northeast Site Creek and Site Creek. The Hematite facility is 
located on the north, northeast flank of the Precambrian age St. 
Francis Mountains uplift, which created the Ozark Dome. A full 
description of the site and its characteristics is provided in 
the WEC Environmental Report for Building Demolition at the 
Hematite Facility which was submitted in conjunction with the 
license amendment request for dismantlement and demolition of the 
buildings. The nearby community of Hematite has expressed 
interest in future development of the site. However, as of April 
2006, no definite future plans have been developed for the site.
 
Regulatory Requirements 10 CFR part 70, ``Domestic Licensing of 
Special Nuclear Material'' applies to the decommissioning of the 
Hematite Former Fuel Fabrication Facility. Termination of 
licenses and decommissioning are addressed in Sec.  70.38. 
However, this proposed action will not result in license 
termination. It will only address building demolition. Financial 
assurance requirements are found in Sec.  70.25 and 70.38. 
Completeness and accuracy of the radiation safety records and 
information provided to NRC are addressed in Sec.  70.9. Section 
2.1205 discusses the public's opportunities to request hearings 
on licensing actions.
 
10 CFR part 20, subpart E, sets forth radiological criteria for 
license termination in Sec.  20.1402, 20.1403, and 20.1404. The 
requirements for final status surveys are contained in Sec.  
20.1501(a); 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Protection 
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 
Functions,'' and 10 CFR part 71, ``Packaging and Transportation 
of Radioactive Material'' (part 71 requires that licensees or 
applicants who transport licensed material, or who may offer such 
material to a carrier for transportation, must comply with the 
applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation that 
are found in 49 CFR parts 170 through 189).
 
The Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NRC Materials 
License Number SNM- 00033 to allow the dismantlement and 
demolition of the buildings 101, 110, 115, 120, 230, 231, 235, 
240, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, and 261 down to building 
slabs and foundations at grade. No work will be performed on 
sub-grade soil, the building slabs/
 
[[Page 37126]] foundations, or sub-grade structures and systems. 
WEC states in its application that the demolition of concrete 
buildings will be performed as determined by an engineering 
evaluation. WEC plans to perform an engineering evaluation of the 
demolition of the concrete masonry unit (CMU) structures and 
concrete buildings, and use dismantlement and demolition 
techniques, such as cutting and shearing to demolish the 
buildings. Manual jack-hammers, equipment mounted jack-hammers 
(hoe ram), skid-steer loader, or shears will be used to 
remove/dismantle and to size reduce concrete or CMU structures. 
The CMU walls may also be brought down using pushover techniques. 
Steel reinforcement bars will be torch-cut, sheared, or saw-cut 
as required for dismantlement, leveling, or size reduction 
purposes. The only potential waste streams from the facility will 
result from the building dismantlement and demolition process. 
Wastes that are anticipated are: (1) Debris; (2) dust; (3) rubble 
and (4) water. Based on characterization data, WEC proposes to 
segregate and analyze the waste as required by the disposal 
facility site's waste acceptance criteria. WEC proposes that 
debris will be characterized, and will meet free release criteria 
for radiological and hazardous contamination, and will be shipped 
to an approved waste disposal facility for disposal. If the 
debris does not meet free release criteria, then it will be 
packaged accordingly and shipped to an approved waste disposal 
facility for disposal.
 
Need for the Proposed Action The NRC regulations require 
licensees to begin timely decommissioning of their sites, or any 
separate buildings, that contain residual radioactivity, upon 
cessation of licensed operations, in accordance with Sec.  
70.38(d). The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce 
residual radioactivity at WEC's Hematite site.
 
Additionally, although no definite future use plans have been 
developed for the site at this time, due to potential commercial 
value of the site property, the licensee plans to eventually 
return the land to unrestricted use in accordance with Sec.  
20.1402. The proposed licensing action is a step toward this 
goal. If this proposed licensing action is not granted, the 
licensee will not be able to fully address surface and subsurface 
contamination under buildings, which will prolong the overall 
cleanup of the site. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities 
under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the National 
Environmental Policy Act to make a decision on this proposed 
license amendment for building dismantlement and demolition that 
will ensure adequate protection of the public health, safety and 
the environment.
 
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The proposed action is to 
decontaminate the buildings with dismantlement and demolition 
down to building slabs and foundations at grade. There are three 
alternatives to the proposed action of dismantlement and 
demolition of the buildings: (1) To take no further action; (2) 
to decontaminate the buildings without dismantlement and 
demolition; and (3) to decontaminate the buildings with 
dismantlement and demolition to include removal of the slabs and 
foundations. Alternative one, the no-action alternative, is not 
consistent with Sec.  70.38(d), requiring that decommissioning of 
special nuclear material facilities be completed and approved by 
the NRC after licensed activities cease. The no-action 
alternative would keep radioactive material on site without 
disposal. The second alternative would involve maintaining the 
buildings on site due to known and potential subsurface soil 
contamination under the process building. This would provide 
negligible, if any, environmental benefit and would greatly 
reduce options for future unrestricted use of the site. 
Alternative 3 would result in exposing the subsurface 
contamination, that was contained under the buildings, to the 
open environment. Specifically, exposing the subsurface would 
expose workers and visitors to radiological and potential 
non-radiological hazards in the subsurface soil. As discussed 
earlier, the licensee has not yet fully evaluated the subsurface 
contamination under the buildings. Potentially contaminated 
materials could be released into the surrounding environment via 
effluents or airborne particles. Shipping the subsurface 
contaminated material off- site for disposal could also 
potentially expose workers and others to the material before, 
during, and after shipment to a waste disposal facility. The 
environmental impact could potentially put workers and the 
surrounding environment at risk, and therefore, is not an 
environmentally sound option at this time. Therefore, these 
alternatives are not considered to be reasonable and are not 
analyzed further in the EA.
 
The licensee's proposed action is described in detail in the 
proposed building dismantlement and demolition license amendment 
application. This action is preferred over the alternative 
actions because the proposed action has little, if any, impact on 
the environment. Once the buildings are dismantled and demolished 
down to the slabs and foundations at grade, all radiological 
materials will be confined to either the slabs and foundations or 
the subsurface.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff has 
reviewed the license amendment request for the WEC facility in 
Hematite and examined the impacts of this license amendment 
request. Potential impacts include impacts to water resources 
(e.g., water may be used for dust control), impacts to air 
quality from dust emissions, temporary impacts to local traffic 
resulting from transporting the building debris offsite, 
beneficial local economic effects due to the creation of jobs to 
perform dismantlement and demolition, dose impacts, noise impacts 
from equipment operation, scenic quality impacts, and waste 
management impacts. There may be minor impacts to surface water 
resources at the Hematite facility as a result of water runoff 
that could occur during the building dismantlement and demolition 
process. According to the licensee's amendment request, the 
runoff, whether as a result of natural precipitation or from 
water used to control fugitive dust emission, will be managed by 
WEC Hematite erosion and sediment control management plan. Any 
discharge will be in compliance with Material License Number 
SNM-00033 and the WEC Hematite National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued and managed by the State 
of Missouri. There will be no significant surface and no 
subsurface soil disturbances as the buildings will be removed 
down to the grade and concrete slab level. There are no flood 
plains or wetlands present within the central site tract where 
the building demolition will take place. The central site tract 
soil consists primarily of relatively impermeable soil. WEC has 
committed to using best practices to manage all potential impacts 
during building dismantlement and demolition. Overall, it is 
anticipated that there will be no significant impact on surface 
water or groundwater.
 
Additionally, the staff has determined that significant air 
quality, noise, land use, economic and off-site radiation 
exposure impacts are not expected. No significant air quality 
impacts are anticipated because of the contamination controls and 
dust suppression techniques that will be implemented by WEC 
during building dismantlement and demolition. WEC license 
amendment request describes
 
[[Page 37127]] the work to be performed and its strategy for 
controlling radiation diffuse emissions and discharge. WEC has 
committed to have procedures for performing building 
dismantlement and demolition that will include guidance for 
controlling emissions and run-off. The staff determined that no 
significant economic impact will result from the creation of jobs 
to perform dismantlement and demolition because the work should 
take a small amount of time to complete.
 
The staff evaluated the temporary local traffic impacts resulting 
from transporting the building debris and wastes offsite due to 
the licensee's proposed request. WEC ceased fuel production 
operations at the Hematite Facility and has no future plans for 
operating the site as a nuclear fuel processing facility. WEC 
states that clean debris will be containerized, transported, and 
disposed of at a licensed facility. The risk to human health from 
the transportation of all radioactive material in the U.S. was 
evaluated in NUREG-0170, ``Final Environmental Statement on the 
Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes.'' 
The principal radiological environmental impact during normal 
transportation is minimal direct radiation exposure to transport 
workers and nearby persons from radioactive material in the 
package. The average annual individual dose from all radioactive 
material transportation in the U.S. was calculated as 
approximately 0.5 mrem per year, well below the Sec.  20.1301 
limit of 100 mrem per year for a member of the public. WEC 
estimates that 2 to 3 truck loads of demolition waste will leave 
the site per working day compared to an average daily traffic 
flow of approximately 2,570 vehicles per day (2002 data) on State 
Route P. The trucks will then travel on State Route A, a two-lane 
rural/suburban highway which connects to State Route P 
approximately 2 miles east of the site. State Route A enters the 
western edge of Festus, Missouri. Interstate 55, a major north- 
south freeway, is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the 
site and intersects with State Route A in Festus, Missouri. This 
four-lane interstate freeway connects to Interstate Highways 270, 
44, and 70 in the St. Louis, Missouri area, approximately 35 
miles north of the site. The annual average daily traffic count 
for I-55 near Festus was 35,347 vehicles per day (2002 data). 
There are no public transit systems, such as bus or light rail 
available in the immediate vicinity of the site. The trucks, once 
entering the above Interstate Highways, will then travel to their 
intended destinations. Based on the Environmental Report for 
Building Demolition at the Hematite Facility, the licensee states 
that it anticipates that debris from the dismantled buildings 
would likely be transported by truck to the Envirocare Facility 
in Clive, Utah or to the Radiological Assistance, Consulting and 
Engineering (RACE) Facility in Memphis, Tennessee. The proposed 
transportation of waste from the building, dismantlement, and 
demolition is not anticipated to result in significant impacts.
 
Monitoring The license amendment request submitted by WEC 
described the effluent/environmental monitoring that will take 
place during building dismantlement and demolition. This 
description included not only the routine effluent/environmental 
monitoring program that WEC presently has in place, but also that 
additional air monitoring (local demolition project-specific 
perimeter air monitors) shall be performed during the demolition 
activities.
 
Work activities are not anticipated to result in radiation 
exposures to individual members of the public in excess of ten 
percent of the Sec.  20.1301 limits. However, WEC's environmental 
monitoring program must implement the requirements of its 
Radioactive Materials License, Chapter 3, Radiation Protection, 
and Chapter 5, Environmental Protection. WEC has acknowledged 
that building demolition activities will require that building 
stack monitoring be terminated and has committed to shift 
compliance monitoring to air monitoring devices located around 
the site to assure that all pathways for release of radioactive 
material are monitored. WEC has updated its technical basis for 
its Environmental Monitoring Program to address building 
dismantlement and demolition activities. Moreover, WEC has stated 
it will modify and supplement approved environmental monitoring 
plans, policies, and procedures that support the license, before 
and during the proposed work, as necessary, to support building 
dismantlement and demolition.
 
Perimeter monitors to measure air borne radiation levels are to 
be established as close to the demolition activities as possible 
and again at the boundary of the work area. Currently, three 
onsite remote air monitoring samples are collected continuously 
and the results are analyzed weekly. During the demolition 
activities, the licensee has committed to use a minimum of three 
area monitors. The locations for the air samplers will be chosen 
considering meteorological conditions relative to the 
dismantlement and demolition activities to ensure that maximum 
airborne concentrations are collected. The air sampling data will 
be used by WEC to demonstrate that any effluent from the proposed 
building dismantlement and demolition will be in accordance with 
10 CFR part 20 requirements.
 
Additionally, WEC has indicated in its application that it will 
evaluate the existing building characterization data and 
pre-demolition characterization data for each building it plans 
to dismantle and/or demolish prior to building demolition to 
verify the radiological conditions and controls that WEC 
incorporated in implementing building demolition procedures 
remain appropriate.
 
On February 26, 2006, staff asked WEC additional questions 
regarding the radiological status of the buildings with respect 
to Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS). Staff evaluated the data and 
determined that there is no NCS concern for the building 
demolition activities because the total residual mass of UO2 in 
the buildings (i.e., 5 kg UO2) is less than the favorable 
geometry mass limit in the license application (i.e., 16 kg UO2). 
Also, NRC staff determined that the licensee is not required to 
have a criticality accident alarm system for building demolition 
because the conservative estimate of mass of U235 in the 
buildings (i.e., 250 grams U235) is less than the action limit in 
Sec.  70.24 (i.e., 700 grams of U235). Thus, NRC has reasonable 
assurance of NCS during building demolition activities. Work 
activities are not anticipated to result in radiation exposures 
to individual members of the public in excess of ten percent of 
the Sec.  20.1301 limits. In addition, the staff agrees that the 
Environmental Monitoring plan is appropriate for the proposed 
activities and it is not anticipated to result in significant 
impacts to public health, safety, and the environment.
 
Cumulative Impacts The NRC has evaluated whether cumulative 
environmental impacts could result from an incremental impact of 
the proposed action when added to other past, present, or 
reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area. The proposed 
NRC approval of the License Amendment Request, when combined with 
known effects on resource areas at the site, including future 
further site remediation, are not anticipated to result in any 
cumulative impacts at the site.
 
 
[[Page 37128]] Mitigation Measures The license amendment request 
submitted by WEC contains mitigation measures to further ensure 
that the requested licensing action will not have any adverse 
environmental impact. WEC plans to implement procedural controls, 
such as the use of less aggressive dismantlement and demolition 
techniques, including cutting and shearing, to minimize the 
generation of fugitive emissions. Other engineering controls, 
including water sprays, will also be utilized to control fugitive 
emissions and visible dust, if needed. In addition, WEC has 
agreed to perform the mitigative measures that have been proposed 
by the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 
regarding the historical impact of the proposed action. WEC will 
provide erosion and sediment control, as necessary, in accordance 
with best management practices, regulatory guidance, and good 
engineering practices. This will include structural features, 
stabilization, and storm water management.
 
The controls may be temporary or permanent.
 
Agencies and Individuals Consulted The NRC staff prepared a draft 
EA and sent it to the Missouri SHPO, by letter datedNovember 4, 
2004, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), by letter 
dated November 9, 2004. The Missouri SHPO, in its response letter 
dated January 4, 2005, noted that ``In order for the project to 
move forward, it is acceptable to our office that Westinghouse 
and NRC proceed with the project, in accordance with the draft 
MOA (Memorandum of Agreement).'' The FWS, in its response letter 
dated December 10, 2004, indicated that ``our evaluation and 
search of existing information indicates no federally listed, 
proposed, or candidate species or critical habitat occurs on or 
near the project site. This fulfills your consultation 
requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended''.
 
The staff provided a draft of this EA to the MDNR for review. In 
its letter dated April 20, 2005, which commented on draft EA, the 
MDNR responded by stating it agreed with the proposed 
alternative, but made no other comments about the draft EA. 
However, this letter from the MDNR also mentions the MNDR's 
January 2005 letter to WEC. The MDNR's letter to WEC identified 
concerns related to monitoring and mitigation. Staff addressed 
environmental monitoring concerns through the RAI process, noted 
above and found WEC's responses acceptable. The staff then 
developed a Final Draft of this EA and provided it to MDNR for 
its review and comment by letter dated April 28, 2006 
(ML061170223).
 
By letter dated, May 11, 2006, MDNR concurred with the 
conclusions in the Final Draft of this EA (ML061170282).
 
Conclusion NRC has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
license amendment to approve the building demolition and 
dismantlement of site buildings down to building slabs and 
foundations at grade at the Hematite Facility in Festus, MO. On 
the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that the environmental 
impacts from the proposed action are not expected to be 
significant and has determined that preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed for the 
proposed action. Approval of the license amendment will not cause 
significant impacts on the health and safety of the public or on 
the environment due to mitigation measures that WEC is committing 
to use. The NRC staff has concluded that radiological exposures 
to workers will be low and well within the limits specified in 10 
CFR part 20.
 
Dismantlement and demolition of the buildings, as proposed by the 
amendment request, will result in an overall reduction of 
radioactive material at the WEC Hematite which will reduce the 
long term potential for release of radiological contamination to 
the environment. No significant radiologically contaminated 
effluents are expected during building dismantlement and 
demolition. No significant effluent releases of radiological 
material or other releases are expected.
 
List of Preparers This Environmental Assessment was prepared 
entirely by the following NRC staff: Amy Snyder, Senior Project 
Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Decommissioning Issues.
 
Alicia Mullins, Environmental Project Managers, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, NMSS, Environmental 
Issues.
 
Sources Used 1. NRC Materials License No. SNM-00033. 2. WEC's 
October 5, 2004, license amendment request was noticed in the 
Federal Register on November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67187). This Federal 
Register notice also provided an opportunity for a hearing on 
this licensing action (See ADAMS Accession No. ML043000467). 3. 
The application for the license amendment and supporting 
documentation are available for review at the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Public Electronic Reading Room at 
. (See ADAMS Accession No. ML042860234, ML042880279, and 
ML050250347).
 
4. NUREG-0170, 1977. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 
Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
 
5. NUREG-0586, 1988. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
 
6. NUREG-1496, 1977. Generic Environmental Impact Statement in 
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License 
Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC, July.
 
7. NUREG-1748, 2003. Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing 
Actions Associated with NMSS Programs Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC, August.
 
8. REGULATORY GUIDE-1.86, 1974. Termination of Operating Licenses 
for Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC, June.
 
9. NRC letter to Missouri Historic Preservation Office, to 
Allison Dubbert from Amir Kouhestani, dated November 4, 2004 
(ML043070004).
 
10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services letter to Amir Kouhestani, 
dated November 11, 2004 (ML043520384).
 
11. WEC, January 4, 2005. ``Demolition Permit Application for 
Demolition of the Buildings'', Jefferson County Building 
Commission, Hillsboro, Missouri.
 
12. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to 
Amir Kouhestani from Mark A. Miles, dated January 4, 2005 
(ML050130140).
 
13. Asbestos Abatement Registration Form for WEC filed with the 
Missouri Department of Public Health.
 
14. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to 
Amir Kouhestani from Ben L. Moore, dated January 18, 2005, 
(ML050310161).
 
15. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to 
Henry A. Sepp, dated January 18, 2005 (ML050310182). 16. NRC 
Draft EA, letter to Honorable Doyle Childers, dated March 2, 
2005.
 
17. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to 
Daniel Gillen from Doyle Childers, dated April 20, 2005.
 
18. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 
Services, letter to Amir Kouhestani from Charles M. Scott, dated 
December 10, 2004 (ML043520384).
 
19. NRC, RAI letters to WEC, dated June 28, 2005 (ML051720051), 
December 23, 2005 (ML053330179), and March 2, 2006 (ML060540109).
 
20. WEC, Response to RAI letters to NRC, dated July 22, 2005 
(ML052140426), January 31, 2006 [ML060330438], and March 17, 2006 
(ML060800265).
 
21. WEC, Submittal of Technical Report to NRC, DO-05-001, 
Environmental Report for
 
[[Page 37129]] Hematite Site Decommissioning, dated August 31, 
2005 (ML052580255).
 
22. NRC, Final Draft EA letter to State of Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources, to Ben Moore, from Amy M. Snyder, letter dated 
April 28, 2006 (ML061170223).
 
23. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, letter to 
Amy M. Snyder from Ben L. Moore, dated May 11, 2006 
(ML061560372).
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of this EA, 
NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental 
impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the 
preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, it has been determined that a 
FONSI is appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at .
 
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents.
 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents may also be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the 
NRC's PDR, O- 1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrew Persinko, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10267 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 38 Asia Times: Indonesia tenders first nuclear plant 

JAKARTA - The Indonesian government next year will tender the 
country's first nuclear power plant, Energy and Mineral Resources 
Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said. 

The plant, to be built on the foot of Mount Muria in the northern 
part of Central Java, is designed to be operation in 2016. 

If the plant to is to come on stream in 2016, construction has to 
start in 2010, Purnomo said. 

Earlier Research and Technology Minister Kusmayanto Kadiman said 
there are already investors interested in building the project if 
long-term ontract.

The plant to be coordinated by the National Atomic Power Agency 
(Batan) will have the capacity to generate 4,000 megawatts by 
2025.

Analysts said the government is expected to buy power from the 
plant when it is operational as state electricity company PLN 
needs an addition of up to 2,000MW annually in 2016. 

Online Ltd. Head                                                                                                                    
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, 
Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:                                                                                                                
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110                                                                                          
*****************************************************************
 39 globeandmail.com: Ontario nuclear reactors earn a B average in report
 	
POSTED ON 29/06/06 	 		 			

Toronto -- Ontario's nuclear reactors have earned, on average, a 
B grade in a report compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety 
Commission.

The report, to be released today, assigned a C to the Bruce 
Nuclear Generating Station on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, 
north of Kincardine, Ont., citing concerns about the plant's 
quality-management practices. 

It is a fair assessment, considering the station is in the midst 
of a massive restart project, said Bruce Power chief executive 
officer Duncan Hawthorne. 

The report assigned a B to the Darlington generating station 70 
kilometres east of Toronto, but also warned that aging equipment 
is beginning to cause problems.

 © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved. 	 	
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada
M5V 2S9 
Phillip Crawley, Publisher 	 		 	 	 --> 	 	 	 	 	 --> 	 
*****************************************************************
 40 Montgomery Newspapers: Limerick hires nuclear consultant

Friday, June 30       

By: Mischa Aaron Arnosky

06/29/2006

Amidst talks of above-ground, dry-cask storage for spent fuel at 
Exelon's Limerick Generating Station, the Limerick Board of 
Supervisors appointed a nuclear consultant to help analyze the 
situation at its June 27 meeting. 
				 			
The board appointed William Sherbin, a professional mechanical
nuclear consulting engineer with 35 years of mechanical
engineering experience - 26 of those years being spent in the
nuclear power industry. Township Manager Dan Kerr said Sherbin,
who is registered in Pennsylvania and Maryland, has been
involved with aspects of design and inspection for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy.

 Rates for Sherbin have been set at $113 per hour through Oct.
30 and $120 per hour each day following, but it is not certain
who is going to pay.

 LGS Spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said Exelon received the
request to review and evaluate the township's consultant choice
earlier in the day, so it didn't have time to make a decision
regarding payment.

 "We're committed to making sure the board of supervisors and
the public have the best information possible," Rapczynski said. 
As for gaining more information regarding the proposed 2-acre
dry-cask storage facility, Rapczynski said Exelon will be
holding an open house July 11 from 4 to 7 p.m. in the public
hearing room. One resident was not happy about the type of
forum. William Miller said having Exelon representatives put on
displays was tantamount to a "dog and pony show" and would
rather see a genuine public hearing. 

"I feel that we're trailing by allowing [Exelon] to do the type
of program where people will walk around and not be heard and
not have a reply," Miller said. " In this situation we're going
to have people walk around and looking at displays - and it's a
one-on-one. That's a public display, that's a public
presentation, but that's not a public hearing."

 He said the Exelon open house doesn't allow for what he called
a "give and take" and a consensus in community ideas.

 Rapczynski said experts in dry-cask storage as well as dry-cask
storage vendors will be on hand to answer questions.

 "We feel that this is an opportunity for as many folks as
possible to speak on [dry-cask storage]," Rapczynski said. "I
can promise you that if you ask a question and a follow-up is
needed, we will follow up with you. You can come to me
personally for that." 

Exelon took its proposal to store spent fuel above ground in a
shed before the planning commission June 15, where it voted
unanimously against recommending the plan to the board of
supervisors. The board will make a decision at its July 13
meeting, where it will hear public comments at 6 p.m. Board
Chairman David Kane said supervisors will look at the issue
strictly as a land development one.

 "We have jurisdiction over some issues, and not on others,"
Kane said. " I am going to encourage Exelon to provide answers
to all of your questions and to have their staff here [July
13.]" 

Rapczynski said she asked NRC representatives to join be in 
attendance for the July 11 open house, but didn't know if they 
could make it to the July 13 meeting. 

©Montgomery Newspapers 2006                                     

  Copyright © 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved.  
*****************************************************************
 41 CBC: Pickering nuclear site still not up to snuff, watchdog says

CBC.ca 

Last Updated: Thursday, June 29, 2006 | 9:16 AM ET 
                
CBC News                                                                                                                                                                                                 

An OntarioÂ nuclear station has still not implemented one of the
key safety recommendations resulting from the massive blackout
that blanketed much of northeastern North America in 2003,
Canada's nuclear watchdog says. 

When the blackout hit, operators had problems shutting down the
reactors at the Pickering B station because there was no backup
power to operate the cooling system.Â The reactor had to be
cooled by convection â€” letting cool waterÂ dilute the warm
water inside the tubes. 

A report for the Conservative government of Ernie Eves
recommended that large natural gas-fired generators be built
atÂ the station, east of Toronto, to run the cooling system and
ensure the reactor wouldn't overheat if there were another big
blackout. 

But nearly three years after the blackout, the work has yet to
be completed. 

Until the gas-fired generators are constructed, the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission says, the Pickering B site will not
meet its standards. 

A spokesperson for Ontario Power Generation, which owns the
plant, said a temporary generator was installed shortly after
the blackout, but permanent backup power will not be finished
until next year. 

The commission also found some problems at Ontario's Bruce and
Darlington nuclear stations, but said overallÂ Ontario's nuclear
plants operated safely last year.
 
+ June 29, 2006 | 10:15 PM EDT 								more » 							 							
Copyright © CBC 2006

*****************************************************************
 42 Scotsman.com: Jack faces tough job to avoid splits on atomic power
 
"Edinburgh Evening News" />Thu 29 Jun 2006        

IAN SWANSON 

JACK McCONNELL is in a dilemma over nuclear power. The First 
Minister is widely believed to be sceptical about the idea of 
building a new generation of nuclear power stations in Scotland. 
But he has to choose between following his instincts, which would 
risk a confrontation with the Labour Government in Westminster, 
or accepting the pro-nuclear stance likely to be adopted as 
official Scottish Labour policy, which would risk a split with 
his Liberal Democrat coalition partners. 

Up until now the divisions inside the coalition have been
papered over by the agreement that no new nuclear power stations
should be considered until the question of what to do with
nuclear waste has been resolved. 

Of course, it's not clear whether the current Labour-Lib Dem
partnership is likely to be renewed after next year's elections
- and the nuclear issue could help decide that. 

But at his latest presidential-style press conference this week,
Mr McConnell was laying new emphasis on Scotland's potential for
renewable energy. This would be Scotland's "most significant
contribution" to Britain's future energy needs - and Scotland
could even become a world leader in the field. 

He carefully balanced those comments by pointing out nuclear
currently provided a lot of Scotland's power and it could not be
"wished away". People who "oppose nuclear 100 per cent" had to
explain how they would plug the energy gap. 

But the message is being interpreted as a signal he would settle
for extending the life of the existing nuclear power stations in
Scotland and investing heavily in renewables, but ruling out new
nuclear stations. 

Given the economics of energy, which mean it costs more for
Scottish power stations to supply electricity to the rest of the
UK, that could be an acceptable compromise. 

But there will still be a political storm to weather on the
issue. Tony Blair has made clear his backing for nuclear power.
Labour's Scottish conference voted in February to back a new
generation of nuclear power stations and that is likely to be
confirmed as party policy at the next conference in Oban in
November. The issue is also bound to feature in the elections
next May. One political opponent says: "Jack is steering an
extremely cautious line in public and you have to have some
admiration for the fact he is managing to do that, but you
wonder how long it can last. Is it a credible position during an
election to hum and haw on such a major issue?" 

One pro-nuclear Labour insider insists the party will have to
fight next year's Holyrood elections on a pro-nuclear manifesto. 

He says: "Jack is instinctively sceptical about nuclear power,
but you need to distinguish between his instincts and hard
politics. 

"The hard politics is there was overwhelming support for nuclear
power at conference and it is difficult to envisage the party
going into the election against nuclear power. It is just a
question of how pro we are." 

At least some pro-nuclear activists will argue at Oban that the
Scottish party should simply adopt the outcome of the
Government's energy review as its policy rather than trying to
frame a separate Scottish Labour line. 

Others will feel the Scottish party has to construct its own
policy stance to avoid being seen as puppets of the party
leadership in London. 

Labour ministers in the Executive are said to be divided on the
issue, with Andy Kerr and Allan Wilson seen as the most
pro-nuclear and Tom McCabe also supportive, while others,
including Cathy Jamieson, Rhona Brankin and Lewis Macdonald are
said to be sceptical. 

But at the end of the day, the Executive is convinced it will be
able to resist whatever pressure might come from Westminster for
new nuclear developments north of the Border. 

Not only is planning a devolved power, but under the Electricity
Act, Scottish ministers have to give approval for any major
electricity generating station. 

One insider says: "The UK cannot foist new nuclear power
stations on Scotland against the will of Scottish ministers or
parliament." 

And another sums it up more bluntly: "If we don't want nuclear
power stations, we don't have them." 

©2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 43 Austin Chronicle: Will the Nuke Mushroom?
 
 JUNE 30, 2006: NEWS: WILL THE NUKE MUSHROOM?

illustration by Doug Potter
   
Plans to expand the South Texas (Nuclear) Project, located in Bay 
City, were announced last Wednesday, amid a national renewal of 
interest in nuclear power generation, following nearly a quarter 
century of hostility toward it in America. New Jersey-based NRG 
Energy Inc., which last year bought a 44% interest in the STP 
(formerly known as STNP, until the word "nuclear" was dropped 
from the name), made public its nuclear ambitions, along with 
plans to develop more coal energy production and wind projects in 
Texas. Austin Energy owns 16% of the STP but declined to comment 
on whether it would buy into an expansion. 

NRG's statement of intent is a precursor to its actual permit
application, one of at least 25 expected by the end of next
year, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
though none have been filed so far. Critics believe generous
federal incentives offered in the 2005 Energy Policy Act are the
only thing fueling renewed interest in nukes, which they say are
just as unstable financially and environmentally as they ever
were – exacerbating post-9/11 safety concerns and adding to
existing piles of toxic waste, currently held on plant sites,
with no approved disposal destination on the horizon. 

NRG intends to add two new reactors to the STP's existing two,
at a cost of $5.2 billion, according to a statement. The company
estimates work being completed by 2014. "Texas's demand growth
is among the strongest in the nation, and in order to ensure the
reliability of electrical service in the region, new plant
construction is essential," read NRG's press statement. To build
the new reactors, NRG plans to partner with General Electric and
Hitachi, whose Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, NRG says, have
been proven in design and construction and have a track record
of reliable and safe operation in Japan. NRG intends to fund the
project's up-front costs largely through power-purchase
agreements, bilateral contracts, and other deals with both
investor-owned and municipally owned utilities – which,
according to NRG's statement, will support the company's
existing cash flows and what's known as nonrecourse project
financing, or arrangements in which a lender is only entitled to
repayment from a project's profits, not from other assets of the
borrower. It is believed that NRG filed its letter of intent
last week in order to be eligible for tax credits and incentives
associated with the Energy Policy Act. NRG didn't return calls
requesting an interview. 

"If operators had to assume the financial risks for the new 
plants, there's no way they'd be built," said Luke Metzger of 
activist group Environment Texas. A press release jointly issued 
by ET, Public Citizen's Texas State Office, the Sierra Club's 
Lone Star Chapter, and the Sustainable Energy and Economic 
Development Coalition read, "Nuclear power continues to be 
dependent on taxpayer handouts for survival," and "the risks from 
radioactive exposure and accidents are enormous and always have 
been." Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource 
Service, a longtime opponent of new nukes, said the new plans, 
including NRG's, "put the taxpayer out in front to absorb the 
full cost of the project risk," referring to the recently renewed 
Price-Anderson Act of 1957 (which pools money from utilities and 
federal funds as a kind of supplemental insurance policy in the 
event of a major plant accident, and, according to critics, makes 
taxpayers liable), not to mention government-subsidized 
construction risk insurance (indemnifying over-budget and 
past-schedule projects). "If Price-Anderson hadn't been renewed, 
utilities would've been more reluctant to move forward," said 
David McIntyre, an NRC spokesman. The STP's 1981 construction was 
delayed nearly a decade and cost six times more than the 
projected estimates. Gunter says out-of-control budgets and 
schedules aren't out of the ordinary for today's nuke projects. 

Aside from financial risk, unresolved issues of radioactive
waste disposal and site security loom large in the minds of
watchdogs. Metzger noted the almost 10 years of delays at the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and the more
than 54,000 metric tons of discarded irradiated fuel sitting at
plants nationwide. McIntyre said the storage issue is a "matter
of national policy" and that the commission is awaiting an
application from the Department of Energy for Yucca Mountain.
Even if it arrived today, McIntyre said, it would be several
years before Yucca Mountain would start accepting waste –
something it was originally supposed to begin doing by 1998.
Casting doubt on the industry's safety prognosis, a Government
Accountability Office review of existing reactors released last
week found "significant shortcomings" in NRC efforts to "ensure
that issues affecting nuclear plant safety receive the attention
their significance warrants." A 2003 Houston Chronicle visit
found security at the STP to be lax. A security industry expert
who accompanied reporters called it "appalling." And a 2002
internal NRC survey showed that almost half of all employees
thought their careers would suffer if they raised safety
concerns, and nearly one-third of those who had raised safety
concerns felt they had suffered harassment and/or intimidation
as a result. 

The Energy Policy Act contained $13 billion in new subsidies,
tax breaks, and incentives to build new nukes; and from 1947 to
1999, the nuclear industry was given more than $115 billion in
subsidies, 25 times more than subsidies for renewable energy,
according to an April Public Citizen report. Metzger and his
cohorts contend that the need for new power plants can be offset
by developing Texas' vast renewable energy potential and
instituting better efficiency measures in buildings. Whether
renewables will receive a fair portion of government pork ought
to be a question asked of campaigning politicians. With Texas'
population slated to double in the coming years, we will clearly
need more energy. "Do we really want to rely on Homer Simpson
technology in making our choices about energy production?"
Sierra Club's Donna Hoffman asked. 

Copyright © 1995-2006 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 AU ABC: WA Upper House rejects nuclear power, uranium mining.
                   
29/06/2006. ABC News Online

 
The Upper House of the Western Australian Parliament has passed
a motion rejecting nuclear power and uranium mining in the state.

 Labor and the Greens supported the motion, as well as rejecting
a Liberal amendment to have an inquiry into nuclear waste
storage.

 A clause to oppose a nuclear waste dump being developed in WA
was given unanimous support.

 Labor MLC Ken Travers introduced the motion and says it makes
the state's view on the issue clear.

 "I think in Western Australia we need to send a clear message
both internationally and to the Federal Government that we don't
want a nuclear storage facility anywhere in WA," he said. 




*****************************************************************
 45 Business Week: Nuclear Power's Missing Fuel

June 29th 2006

By Adam Aston

Why Wall Street is skeptical of backing a new round of proposed 
nuke plants

Nuclear power is hot. Sixteen utilities have expressed intentions 
to build up to 25 new reactors across the U.S. Just last month, 
NRG Energy (NRG) in Princeton, N.J., unveiled plans to invest 
$5.2 billion in two new reactors at an existing atomic plant near 
Houston. 

It's a nuclear renaissance, right? Not yet. While smart money is 
placing multibillion-dollar bets on ethanol, wind power, and 
solar, it's not throwing buckets of cash at nukes. "The real 
obstacle isn't the Sierra Club but the 28-year-old analysts on 
Wall Street," says Bob Simon, Democratic staff director of the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Regulators could balk if proposed designs don't meet construction 
and safety standards. But memories of the delays, titanic cost 
overruns, and bankruptcies that ended America's love affair with 
nuclear power in the mid-20th century are the most daunting 
obstacle. "Investors remain wary of construction risks," says 
Paul Ho, a director at Credit Suisse First Boston's (CSR) energy 
group.

LONG MEMORIES.  That's why, five or so years from now, when the
first construction and operating licenses are likely to be
granted, only the most creditworthy diversified players, such as
Duke Energy (DUK) and Southern Co., would be likely to dip a toe
in these waters, explains Denise Furey, senior director of
global power with Fitch Ratings. With their scale, such
companies could finance these projects for a decade or so using
some combination of debt and equity. But that's a far cry from a
new nuclear age.

Historically, utilities did an "abysmal" job controlling
building schedules and costs, says David Schlissel, an economist
at Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Mass. Between 1975 and
1989, the average period required to complete a plant soared
from 5 years to 12. The bill for a group of 75 first-generation
plants totaled $224.1 billion (in current dollars), 219% more
than estimated, according to a 1986 Energy Dept. study. In time,
many utilities collapsed under these debts even as customers'
bills soared.

Power companies say they can bring costs down, thanks to new,
standardized plant designs and a streamlined, one-step licensing
process. "People forget that the construction problems happened
30 years ago. There's been great progress since then," says NRG
CEO David Crane. The company plans to use reactors from General
Electric (GE) and Hitachi that have been installed in Japan.
This time around, the industry is aiming to build new plants for
$1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity, compared with a peak,
inflation-adjusted cost of about $4,000 in the 1970s.

ENERGY ACT GOODIES.  Trouble is, the cheapest plants built
recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per
kilowatt. And the advanced designs now on U.S. drawing boards
have never been built here. "A first-of-its-kind facility always
costs more," says John Kennedy, a director at Standard &Poor's.
"Nukes ought to be part of the [energy] mix," says Southern CEO
David Ratcliffe, but nobody wants to be first to build.
"Everyone would actually like to be No. 10," he says.

Last year's Energy Act dangled $13 billion worth of extra treats
before the nuclear industry, according to Public Citizen, a
consumer-interest group. These are focused on the first six
plants and range from some $2 billion set aside to cover
construction overruns due to legal challenges to a production
tax credit worth up to $5.7 billion. Yet all that still may not
"provide a sufficient incentive to pursue new construction,"
says Kennedy.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman offers couched assurances on
nukes. "I'm convinced we'll get the first six reactors, with
construction starting by 2010," he says. "But we don't need six
reactors. We need 16, or 26." Until licenses for those first few
plants are granted a few years from now, financiers and many
utilities may just wait to see how the game changes. "Wall
Street is very shortsighted," Furey says. Or maybe it just can't
forget what it has already seen. 		 		

With John Carey in Washington and Mark Morrison in Austin, Tex.                    
 		 	 	 		 	 	
[McGraw-Hill Cos.]              
Copyright 2000- 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights 
reserved.            
*****************************************************************
 46 Whitehaven News: Nuclear industry support

Published on 29/06/2006

By David Siddall
 
COPELAND MP Jamie Reed and union officials from Sellafield were 
out in Whitehaven on Saturday, gathering support for the nuclear 
industry.
 
Union reps have managed to arrange an appointment with Tony Blair 
on July 12 at Downing Street.
 
They were collecting signatures in Market Place for petitions 
supporting calls for a new generation of nuclear power stations 
under the Governmentâ€™s energy review.
 
Mr Reed said: â€œThe energy review, where the government is 
expected to make an announcement on the future of energy 
production, is due to go before Parliament before it rises for 
the summer.
 
â€œWe wanted to collect these signatures to demonstrate the 
strength of feeling about the nuclear industry here in West 
Cumbria.â€
 
Howard Rooms, from the Nuclear Workersâ€™ Campaign, said:
â€œThere was a good response on the market and we will be out
again on Saturday. 

â€œOur aim is to get as much support as possible for when we go
and speak to Tony Blair on July 12. 

â€œWe understand the energy review is likely to be released
later that month.â€
 
*****************************************************************
 47 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers warned of terrorism threat from Iran
 
Press Association

Thursday June 29, 2006           

The intelligence agencies have warned ministers that Iran could 
launch terrorist attacks against British targets if the row over 
its controversial nuclear programme escalates, it was disclosed 
today.

The parliamentary intelligence and security committee - which 
oversees the work of the agencies - said the possibility of 
Iranian state-sponsored terrorism was now considered one of the 
main threats facing the UK.

"There is increasing international tension over Iran's nuclear 
programme and backing of groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah," the 
committee said in its annual report.

"There is a possibility of an increased threat to UK interests 
from Iranian state-sponsored terrorism should the diplomatic 
situation deteriorate."

Ministers have previously claimed that sophisticated roadside
bombs used in a series of deadly attacks on British troops in
Iraq have been supplied through Iran, although they have not
blamed the regime directly.

The committee - which is made up of senior MPs and peers - took
evidence from the heads of MI6, MI5, GCHQ and the defence
intelligence staff in drawing up its report.

It said that Britain continued to face a "serious and sustained
threat" from international terrorism - most significantly from
al Qaida and associated networks.

Other security threats included the activities of dissident
groups in Northern Ireland - which continued to pose a threat in
the province and on the British mainland - and the international
spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Asked about the perceived threat from Iran, Tony Blair's
official spokesman said: "I don't want to give a piecemeal
response to the ISC report. I think it's better we respond in
terms of the government as a whole." 

He said the cabinet this morning, at its regular weekly meeting,
"reviewed the whole counter-terrorism strategy and approach but,
in terms of the particular aspects of the ISC report, I think
it's better we give our collective response". 

That would probably be in about six months' time, added the
spokesman. 

He went on: "The terrorism threat remains very active and very
real. Our commitment is that, if there is a specific threat the
public need to know about, then we will tell them." 

The report also revealed that MI5, the security service, was
expanding so rapidly in order to meet the threat of terrorism in
the UK that it had outgrown its London headquarters building. 

Thames House at Westminster is expected to have exhausted its
capacity by October. The committee said another building had
been found to provide additional accommodation - but its
identity was censored out on security grounds. 

MI5 staff numbers are now expected to grow by over 50% over the
next three years, with over half its resources now devoted to
counter-terrorism. 

The committee welcomed the expansion but warned that the risks
involved in taking on large numbers of inexperienced staff would
have to be carefully managed. 

"This growth carries a series of risks that the service will
need to manage over the next few years, including the need to
maintain standards in operational capability and service to
customers in spite of the increased proportion of new and
inexperienced staff," it said. 

It said that the expansion had been accompanied by an
acceleration of MI5's regionalisation programme in the wake of
the July 7 bombings, with the opening of a number of regional
stations around the country. 

The committee said that with the overall budget for the
intelligence agencies due to rise to more than £1.5bn, it was
essential to have proper financial controls in place. 

"The significant additional funding made available since 9/11
has generally been accepted as essential for building capacity
across the intelligence community to counter threats from
international terrorism and to provide an enhanced standard of
coverage and assurance," it said. 

"Given that this represents an unprecedented level of new
funding for the agencies, it is important, the committees view,
that mechanisms are in place and functioning to ensure that
money is well spent, appropriately controlled and monitored, and
serves as a driver for increased efficiency." 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 48 NRC: Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, Kunia Substation, Kunia, HI: 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10265 
[Federal Register: June 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 125)] 
[Notices] [Page 37122-37124] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jn06-83]                         
 
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for License Amendment AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., 
Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: 
(817) 860-8100; e-mail: dbs@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an 
amendment to Material License No. 53-00515-01, as requested by 
the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (the Licensee), to 
authorize release of the Kunia Substation at Kunia, Hawaii, for 
unrestricted use. The Licensee is authorized to possess 
radioactive material for conducting tracer studies in plants and 
soils and for laboratory analysis of samples. On December 2, 
2005, the Licensee requested that NRC release the facility for 
unrestricted use.
 
The Licensee conducted radiological surveys of the facility to 
demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria 
specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted 
release.
 
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support 
of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 
51).
 
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the 
proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee 
following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal 
Register.
 
 
[[Page 37123]] II. Environmental Assessment Identification of 
Proposed Action: The proposed action is to remove the Kunia 
Substation from License Condition 10 as a location of use. Once 
the building is removed from the license, the licensee will be 
free to use the building in any manner without NRC restriction.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action: The licensee no longer conducts 
licensed activities in this building and desires to release the 
building for unrestricted use. If the site is properly 
decommissioned, the licensee would then be in compliance with the 
Timeliness Rule requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, ``Expiration and 
Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate 
Buildings or Outdoor Areas.'' Environmental Impacts of the 
Proposed Action: The Kunia Substation is a 4,000 ft\2\ (372 m\2\) 
building that housed a 300 ft\2\ (28 m\2\) radiologically 
restricted area. The licensee used carbon-14, a long- lived low 
energy beta radiation emitter, at this location between 1975- 
1998. The licensee possessed a total of 11.5 millicuries (4.26E+8 
becquerels) of carbon-14 for experiments. At the conclusion of 
these experiments, the contaminated soil and plant material were 
either radiologically sampled and free-released or shipped 
offsite for disposal.
 
By letter dated December 2, 2005, the licensee requested 
amendment of its license to remove Kunia Substation as a location 
of use. Attached to the request was a report of a final status 
survey that was conducted during 2005. The survey included scan 
surveys for fixed/total contamination and swipe sampling for 
removable contamination.
 
The response and operability of the instrumentation used were 
verified using carbon-14 check sources. Scan survey results were 
indistinguishable from background levels. Most swipe sample 
results were below the instrument's minimum detectable activity 
level of 17.3 disintegrations per minute (0.288 becquerels per 
minute) per swipe sample. The highest sample result was 24 
disintegrations per minute per swipe (0.4 becquerels per minute 
per swipe). Regulation 10 CFR 20.1402, Radiological Criteria for 
Unrestricted Use, states in part that a site will be considered 
acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity 
that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a 
total effective dose equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems (0.25 
mSv) per year to an average member of the critical group. The 
NRC's NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance,'' Table B.1 provides screening values 
for building surface contamination that are equivalent to 25 
millirems (0.25 mSv) per year. The NRC-approved screening value 
for carbon-14 is 3.7E+6 disintegrations per minute (6.18E+4 
becquerels)/100 cm\2\. Assuming a loose/removable contamination 
fraction of 10-percent, the removable surface contamination 
screening value is 3.7E+5 disintegrations per minute (6.18E+3 
becquerels)/100 cm\2\. In summary, the licensee's final status 
survey results were well below the NRC-approved screening values.
 
A second method to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 is 
the use of dose modeling. The licensee conducted dose modeling to 
estimate potential doses to members of the public from carbon-14 
radioactivity in soil. The licensee conservatively assumed that 
all 11.5 millicuries (4.26E+8 becquerels) of carbon-14 were 
dispersed into the area soil resulting in a soil activity of 26 
picocuries (57.7 becquerels) per gram. Using Version 6.3 of the 
RESRAD modeling code with all default parameters, including the 
default carbon-14 activity of 100 picocuries (222 becquerels) per 
gram, the model calculated a peak dose of 132 millirems (1.32 
mSv) per year. The peak dose occurs at 4.28 years. The licensee 
discontinued use of carbon-14 at Kunia Substation in 1998. Dose 
modeling further demonstrates that by the seventh year (2005), 
the annual dose drops to below 0.03 millirems (3E=4 mSV) per 
year. Through dose modeling of potential soil contamination, the 
licensee conservatively demonstrated that the annual total 
effective dose equivalent is currently less than the 25-millirem 
(0.25 mSv) regulatory limit. The NRC staff reviewed docket file 
records to identify any radiological or non-radiological hazards 
that may have impacted the environment. Records indicate that two 
plots of land located at the Kunia Substation were previously 
used for land application of radioactive material. In the first 
instance, an activity of approximately 10 millicuries (3.7E+8 
becquerels) of a carbon-14 labeled compound was applied to a 3750 
ft\2\ (348 m\2\) plot during 1984. This plot was decommissioned, 
and the NRC released the property from the license in May 1993. 
In the second instance, on two occasions (1979 and 1982), seeds 
treated with a carbon-14 compound were planted in a 1600 ft\2\ 
(149 m\2\) plot. This plot was also decommissioned, and the NRC 
released the property from the license in April 1996. No 
incidences involving spills or releases of radioactive material 
were documented to have occurred at Kunia Substation.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action: 
The licensee seeks NRC approval of the amendment request. The 
alternatives to the proposed action are: (1) The no-action 
alternative, or (2) to deny the amendment request and require the 
licensee to take some alternate action.
 
1. No-Action Alternative: One alternative available to the NRC is 
to take no action by denying the amendment request. The no-action 
alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with the NRC's 
Timeliness Rule (10 CFR 30.36) which requires licensees to 
decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease.
 
2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2: A second alternative 
is to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release 
criteria as allowed by Sec.  20.1403 (criteria for restricted 
use) or Sec. 20.1404 (alternate release criteria). However, the 
NRC's analysis of the final status survey data confirmed that the 
survey results and dose modeling meet the Sec.  20.1402 
radiological criteria for unrestricted use, which is the 
preferred alternative.
 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the second alternative 
is not reasonable, and this alternative action is eliminated from 
further consideration.
 
Conclusion: Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not 
warrant denial of the license amendment request. The staff finds 
that the proposed action will result in no significant 
environmental impacts. The staff has determined that approval of 
the license amendment is the appropriate alternative for 
selection.
 
Agencies and Persons Contacted: The NRC staff did not consult 
with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Officer or the local 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service because licensed activities being 
considered by this EA occurred only within the confines of the 
Kunia Substation.
 
Other than the two land applications that were previously 
reviewed and released by the NRC, no other use or release of 
radioactive material outside of the building was identified. 
Accordingly, there were no identified impacts to the cultural 
resources, endangered species, or critical habitats. The Hawaii 
Department of Health was consulted about this EA. The State 
informed the NRC by letter dated May 30, 2006, that it had no 
objections to the draft EA or to the use of the EA for NRC 
decisionmaking.
 
 
[[Page 37124]] III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC 
staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed license 
amendment to release Kunia Substation for unrestricted use. On 
the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that no significant 
environmental impacts will result from the proposed action, and 
the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been 
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this notice are: 1. Whalen, Stephanie, Hawaii Agriculture 
Research Center, Response to NRC Information Notice 96-47, 
October 31, 1996 (ML060890606).
 
2. NRC, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, July 1997 
(ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385).
 
3. NRC, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' 
NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML053260027).
 
4. Whalen, Stephanie A., Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, 
License Amendment Request, December 2, 2005 (ML060120252).
 
5. Takata, Russell, S., Response to Request for Comments on Draft 
Environmental Assessment for Decommissioning of Kunia Substation 
at Hawaii Agriculture Research Center, May 30, 2006 
(ML061630274).
 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 16th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, 
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10265 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 49 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast worries about new work

06/29/2006 | 

Leaders ask for environmental data on construction

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer [Andrew Brey, right, a senior
project geologist with Blasland, Bouck &amp; Lee, Inc., and his
assistant Fred Mixon prepare to conduct a specific capacity test
on a groundwater monitoring well, Wednesday afternoon in
Tallevast.] BRIAN BLANCO/The Herald Andrew Brey, right, a senior
project geologist with Blasland, Bouck &Lee, Inc., and his
assistant Fred Mixon prepare to conduct a specific capacity test
on a groundwater monitoring well, Wednesday afternoon in
Tallevast. 

TALLEVAST - As scientists working for Lockheed Martin Corp.
sampled more monitoring wells Wednesday to study the Tallevast
plume, county officials promised to help find answers to several
problems troubling community leaders. 

Frightened by construction surrounding Tallevast, some residents
want to know what environmental assessments have been done on
current development projects that threaten to hem the historic
community into an industrial belt. 

In particular, Laura Ward and Wanda Washington, president and
vice president, respectively, of Family Oriented Community
United Strong, or FOCUS, want to know if the environmental
assessments were done prior to the discovery of the pollution
traced back to the former Loral American Beryllium Co. 

If so, the Tallevast leaders asked, did anyone require
developers to conduct new studies to determine the risk of
digging in contaminated ground? 

Deputy County Administrator David Rothfuss and his assistant,
Dan Schlandt, promised to comb through county records to find an
answer. 

County Administrator Ernie Padgett has been meeting with FOCUS
on the last Wednesday of each month to stay abreast of the
beleaguered community's concerns. Rothfuss attended this month's
meeting because Padgett was out of town. 

Ward and Washington, who serve on the board of FOCUS, are also
concerned about proposed infrastructure improvements that could
increase the risk of exposure to the pollution. 

Residents also fear dusty dirt roads in the community may stir
up contamination. 

Schlandt suggested the use of asphalt millings to create a more
solid road bed. The solution, Schlandt said, would require
removing the top 3 inches of the shell and dirt roadway. 

As with all county projects, the road proposal would be passed
through Florida Department of Environmental Protection to see if
it is appropriate given the level and location of contaminants
in the soil, said Rothfuss, who reaffirmed the county's pledge
to help Tallevast. 

The Tallevast plume, which includes industrial cleaners and
solvents that have been linked to cancer, is now known to cover
more than 200 acres. It was discovered in 2000 when Lockheed
Martin Corp., then owners of the former Loral plant, were
preparing to sell the property. At the time, the toxic waste was
thought to be confined to the plant site and cover less than
five acres. 

Residents learned about the poisons in their backyards when
drilling crews working for Lockheed arrived in the fall of 2003
to sink monitoring wells throughout the neighborhood. In 2004,
Lockheed's tests showed that the contamination had infiltrated
private drinking water wells of some Tallevast households. 

Although the plant is now owned by Wire Pro International Inc.,
a cable manufacturer, Lockheed, as the former owner, has the
responsibility for cleaning the mess up. 

Lockheed has paid to have all Tallevast residents switched to
county water, but the permanent lines have yet to be placed due
to questions about disturbing the contamination. 

Lockheed's latest assessment, filed two months ago with DEP,
claims to have found the extent of the plume. 

DEP officials missed their 60-day deadline Monday to comment on
Lockheed's latest findings. 

That report, said DEP spokeswoman Pamala Vazquez, will probably
be delayed a week or more to make sure staff can thoroughly
assess Lockheed's data. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. 

*****************************************************************
 50 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear Gamesmanship 

 Photo: Nuclear plant 

Today: June 29, 2006 at 7:42:9 PDT 

Nuclear Gamesmanship 

Under a plan backed by U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and Pete Domenici, 
states with nuclear power plants could be responsible for storage 
of their own nuclear waste for 25 years.

 By Lisa Mascaro, Sun Washington Bureauw Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid emerged from a 
hearing room at the Capitol with the quiet satisfaction of a 
chess player who had executed a stunning maneuver. Then his 
speech quickened as he explained to reporters that he had worked 
- secretly for a year, it turns out - with the Senate's leading 
nuclear energy advocate on a new plan to store nuclear waste. 

The toxic material would no longer be stored only at nuclear 
power plants across the nation. Nor would it be coming to Yucca 
Mountain, at least not anytime soon. 

Instead, under a plan that Reid crafted with Sen. Pete Domenici, 
R-N.M., any state with commercial nuclear power plants would be a 
candidate for a nuclear waste storage site somewhere within its 
borders. 

Reid has spent much of his Senate career fighting the proposed 
repository at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste is unsafe to ship, he 
argues, and Yucca would not be a secure, fail-safe location for 
storage. Now he stood under the glaring hallway lights, 
surrounded by reporters, and spoke about the chess game: 

"I'm being parochial about this. I think it's a tremendous step 
in the right direction. There'll be no interim storage in Nevada. 
It will focus attention on why you should just leave it where it 
is." 

To be sure, the Reid-Domenici proposal is meant as a temporary 
step only - a 25-year solution. Domenici advocated the plan as a 
way to satisfy the nuclear industry's long-standing desire to 
move the waste to government-run storage, as Congress promised 20 
years ago. Domenici says the waste would sit in those temporary 
locations until the permanent nuclear dump is ready - if it is 
ever ready - at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

For Domenici, addressing the storage problem clears the way for 
the industry to start building nuclear plants. The last one was 
licensed three decades ago. 

Reid sees the chess board differently. The plan to build a string 
of temporary Yuccas across the country is certain to draw strong 
protests from the states involved, nudging them to agree with him 
that the waste should be kept at the plants. 

"You can have all the requirements you want to move the waste, 
but as we've learned with Yucca Mountain, people aren't simply 
willing to have it moved," Reid said. 

Also, said those who watched Reid in action this week, the 
veteran senator knows that Yucca's future is likely to be 
overshadowed by debate over the temporary sites. 

"No state is going to let this happen," said Bob Loux, executive 
director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state 
agency fighting Yucca Mountain. "If they want to go around and 
spend money and time, more power to them. Attention paid to other 
things and not Yucca Mountain, we think is helpful. Delay is 
helpful." 

Charles Pray, who represents Maine on nuclear issues and heads up 
a nuclear transportation advocacy group's Yucca Mountain task 
force, said he could not think of a single governor who would 
want to house the waste. The Reid-Domenici plan, he said, "is a 
diversionary scheme." 

Reid and Domenici quietly crafted the plan as part of their 
broader energy package for 2007 - two senior senators who have 
spent years talking about nuclear policy from opposite sides of 
the table coming together as the promise of Yucca Mountain 
falters. 

Domenici still argues that Yucca is the long-term solution. But 
he said this week that it could open no sooner than 2018 , years 
behind schedule. Even that, he conceded, "may or may not happen." 

Reid says it will never open. 

Domenici knows that Reid has his own agenda, but sees his 
colleague, whom he calls his closest friend in the Senate, as an 
ideal partner precisely because of the battles the two have had 
over Yucca Mountain. 

"Other senators can and do have their own agendas, and absolutely 
they should," said Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for a Senate 
appropriations subcommittee that Domenici heads. "He's committed 
to building support for this proposal even in unexpected places." 

The Reid-Domenici proposal goes to the Senate Appropriations 
Committee today. It comes as the Bush administration's "fix 
Yucca" bill languishes on Capitol Hill. Now, rather than fixing 
Yucca, Congress is poised to debate temporary sites. 

"This is clearly a case of frustration with Yucca," Loux said. 
"It's clear recognition that Yucca is a certainly failed policy, 
so obviously these folks see the need for interim storage." 

Brilliant move or risky strategy, Reid's move provoked outrage 
from some Yucca opponents. They are angered that Reid would sign 
off on any plan that opens the door to massive ground shipments 
of waste for decades to come, even if the shipments are 
short-haul moves to nearby locations. 

Nuclear energy foes argue that the Reid-Domenici plan would clear 
the way for the nuclear power renaissance the Bush administration 
advocates as a way to address the nation's energy problems. The 
federal government has banned construction of power plants until 
off-site locations are found for storing the waste. 

Environmentalists and Yucca opponents see a massive stream of 
waste from new plants that ultimately would have no place to go 
other than Yucca. 

"It's simply sweeping the waste under the rug and pretending it 
doesn't exist," Michele Boyd of Public Citizen said. 

Edwin Lyman, a physicist and senior scientist at the Union of 
Concerned Scientists, worries that new plants, coupled with 
Domenici's other controversial goal of reprocessing spent nuclear 
fuel, means the waste stream to Yucca would be unstoppable. 

"It's a very dangerous game Reid is playing," he said. "It's 
going to come back and hurt Nevada." 

Even Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a Reid ally, cannot back the 
senator's plan. "Certainly in no way could Congresswoman Berkley 
sign off on any of it," her spokesman said. "The waste should not 
move." 

But Reid is not worried. He knows it will be years before any 
waste would be moved . And during that time, a repository at 
Yucca Mountain will be fought every step of the way. 

"This is a wonderful deal for the people of Nevada," he said. "I 
feel very comfortable with what we're doing." Lisa Mascaro can be 
reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 51 Platts: US DOE may work with Congress on interim storage issue - Bodman
 
Washington (Platts)--28Jun2006
 
Licensing as many as 31 storage facilities for utility spent 
nuclear fuel, as proposed in a Senate appropriations bill, "would 
be a formidable undertaking," Department of Energy Secretary 
Samuel Bodman said Wednesday. 

     Speaking at the Platts Energy Podium, Bodman said that while 
DOE would be interested in working with Congress on the issue of 
interim storage, he continued to believe that the repository 
project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, "is a very important project" 
and that he believes it will be successful. 

     The interim storage provisions were included in a $30.73 
billion energy and water funding bill for fiscal 2007 that a 
Senate Appropriations subcommittee approved Tuesday. 

     Under the bill, away-from-reactor storage facilities could 
be sited in every one of the 31 states with nuclear power plants 
or as regional storage facilities. Under the bill, spent fuel 
would be stored there for up to 25 years before being reprocessed 
and recycled or shipped to Yucca Mountain for disposal. 

     DOE and Bodman see this "as a construction effort to 
increase the expansion of nuclear power in this country," DOE 
spokesman Craig Stevens said.

---Elaine Hiruo, elaine_hiruo@platts.com For more information, 
listen to the 4-part podcast with Secretary Bodman at 

http://www.platts.com/energypodium/podcasts/2006/june/bodman1.mp3
http://www.platts.com/energypodium/podcasts/2006/june/bodman2.mp3
http://www.platts.com/energypodium/podcasts/2006/june/bodman3.mp3
http://www.platts.com/energypodium/podcasts/2006/june/bodman4.mp3
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 52 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Waste plan produces skepticism
 
Jun. 29, 2006

Bill calls for temporary sites   

By STEVE TETREAULT <br/>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Wednesday it 
would be a tall order for the Department of Energy to set up as 
many as 31 temporary nuclear waste sites as proposed in Congress 
this week. 

"I have to tell you as an initial thought the idea of creating 31 
sites and getting them licensed would be a formidable 
undertaking," Bodman said. "We are trying to understand what 
would be required and our ability as a department to undertake 
this." 

The department has focused on establishing a nuclear waste 
repository in Nevada, with Bodman saying on previous occasions 
that the department did not have the authority to relocate used 
fuel kept at reactors into centralized storage while work 
continues at the delayed Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest 
of Las Vegas. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., advanced a bill Tuesday that would 
give the agency authority to establish nuclear waste 
"consolidation" facilities in states that have nuclear reactors. 
Waste is stored at 103 operating reactors in 31 states and at 
eight additional plants that have been closed. 

Nevada would not be considered for temporary storage under the 
bill. 

Domenici's measure, which he formed with support from Sen. Harry 
Reid, D-Nev., is expected to take another step forward today when 
the Senate Appropriations Committee takes up a fiscal 2007 
spending bill for the Energy Department and other agencies. 

Speaking with reporters Wednesday, Bodman said he is open to
interim nuclear waste storage but still wants Congress to pass
legislation that would clear obstacles to DOE's work at Yucca
Mountain. 

"If Congress wishes to discuss with us the questions of interim
storage, which the committee has indicated, we are happy to
engage with them," Bodman said. 

A DOE bill sent to Congress in April calls for several changes
in Yucca Mountain law, some of them controversial. It seeks
authority to claim water for the site and asserts powers on
nuclear waste shipping that have been opposed by several states. 

The bill would transfer 147,000 acres of public land surrounding
Yucca Mountain into DOE control and change how the project is
funded to allow larger sums to be drawn from a special
construction account. 

"All of these things are well known to people in the Senate, to
Senator Domenici and his colleagues, and we continue to feel
strongly this is something that needs to be done," Bodman said. 

Bodman declined to confirm the department has set a new 2018
target date for nuclear waste to be accepted at Yucca Mountain,
as Domenici said earlier this week. 

Bodman said the department will announce new timetables for the
delayed program later this summer. A DOE spokesman said the
project's new director, Ward Sproat, plans to travel to Nevada
within the next several weeks. 

Meanwhile, the Domenici interim storage bill has provoked a
split among Nevada members of Congress. 

Reid and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., support it. Reps. Jon Porter
and Jim Gibbons, both R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.,
oppose it. 

Senate aides said Reid and Ensign think the interim storage plan
is a sign that congressional support for Yucca Mountain is
faltering and is a step toward keeping nuclear waste stored at
reactor sites and out of Nevada. 

Ensign "is on board with it," spokesman Jack Finn said.
"Anything that gets people considering alternatives (to Yucca
Mountain) and talking about storing waste where it is produced
is a positive development." 

The House members said the bill does nothing to prevent Nevada
from becoming the destination for nuclear waste. 

The plan still calls for nuclear waste to be dumped near Las
Vegas, "so nothing has really changed," Berkley said. 

Asked about the split within the group, Berkley said, "there is
no question that Senator Reid's bill is another weapon in
Nevada's fight against Yucca Mountain, but there are provisions
in this legislation that concern me. Moving radioactive waste is
too dangerous, and there is no need when it can be safely stored
on-site for the next century." 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 53 Cañon City Daily Record: Cotter’s future remains uncertain
 
  Publish Date: 6/28/2006 			 

Blakely Thomas-Aguilar The Daily Record                                                                               
Cotter Corp. is at a crossroads

with an uncertain future that lies in the hands of governmental
agencies and corporate negotiators. 

Cotter mill manager John Hamrick said June 1 that five more
employees were served notices of termination as the workforce
reduction continues at the Cañon City mill, which includes
administrative and management personnel. 

The stand down is blamed on many different issues, including the
lack of ore at Cotter’s Western Slope mines. Officials from
Cotter and the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment said the recent onslaught of Notices of Violations
also stems from outdated equipment at the site that would
require immense funds to bring up to date, as well as economic
issues based on current market values. 

The stoppage of uranium milling at the Cañon City-area site
comes as a number of potential revenue-building items sit on
hold at the CDPHE administrative building in Denver, all of
which seem to pivot on the final licensing decision expected in
the next couple of months. 

After years of negotiations, including the licensing hearing in
September and Judge Richard Dana’s recommendations made in
April, Cotter continues its to requests bring outside materials
to the Cañon City mill for both alternative feed and direct
disposal, despite an apparent hesitancy by Colorado officials. 

The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. 11(e)2 materials are the key issue
standing before CDPHE and local community activist group
Concerned Citizens Against Toxic Waste. The requested 11,000
tons of radioactive materials, first introduced in a Materials
Acceptance Report in January, would act as an alternative feed
material for the uranium extraction process. 

The Sequoyah materials would come to Cotter after the materials
were designated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to show the
materials are the result of front-end processing, also known as
low-end radio-active waste. Requests for Information from CDPHE
Radioactive Materials department head Steve Tarlton question the
designation because of the elevated levels of thorium and
fluorine in the materials. 

The Sequoyah site, located in Gore, Okla., operated from
1970-1993 and produced uranium hexafluoride from yellowcake, the
sole product produced by Cotter. For a short period of time, SFC
produced uranium tetrafluoride through a uranium hexafluoride
conversion process. Both Cotter Corp. and SFC are owned by
General Atomics, giving CCAT and other concerned community
members a belief that the impoundment ponds at Cotter would
merely be used by General Atomics to “dump” the wasted raffinate
materials. 

Fremont County resident Dennis Jones in January echoed the
concerns of more than 50 citizens gathered at the first hearing
regarding the proposed acceptance of the SFC materials. 

“Who’s going to be the next to dump their sham processing in
Fremont County? This has got to stop sometime,” Jones said.
“It’s time that the state health department tells them enough is
enough.” 

There is no timetable in place to determine the final decision
by CDPHE to allow or disallow Cotter to accept and process the
materials, Tarlton said, meaning Cotter could be on stand down
for a prolonged period of time. But CCAT representative Bob
Kichline feels it might just be a step in the right direction. 

“Alternative feed is the stuff that poses the danger,” Kichline
said Wednesday. “There’s a little bit of frustration in that we
would like to just get it over with. But hopefully the more they
study it, the more critical they’ll be. The issue isn’t resolved
and it could start up at any time. Somebody has to keep an eye
on them.” 				   

All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 DOE: Federal Agencies Collaborate to Expedite Construction of Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
 
  June 29, 2006
 
Agreement Establishes Framework for Increasing Energy Security 

WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy and 14 other
federal departments and agencies have signed an agreement to
expedite the permitting and construction of the Alaska Natural
Gas Pipeline which, when operational, will substantially
increase domestic natural gas supply and advance the
Administrations energy security policy.  The agreement signals
the U.S. governments commitment to expedite the federal
permitting processes for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and
establishes a project management framework for cooperation among
participating agencies to reduce bureaucratic delays in
construction of the pipeline and delivery of natural gas to
consumers.     

We need to do all we can to increase our domestic supply of
energy  including natural gas  and the Alaska Natural Gas
Pipeline will help us do that, Secretary Bodman said. 
Alaskas North Slope is a valuable natural resource that has
tremendous potential to provide a significant portion of our
nations natural gas needs to help heat homes, and build
industry.  I appreciate the coordinated effort of all of the
federal agencies who are working together to help make the
pipeline a reality. 

The Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for the
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Project was signed by senior
executives from fifteen federal organizations.  It defines
responsibilities related to the approval of the pipeline project
and provides for streamlined regulatory and environmental
processes and reviews/approvals for the giant undertaking. 

The pipeline is expected to supply about 10 percent of future
U.S. natural gas demand. When the Alaska pipeline is fully
operational, it will carry 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas
each day.   Natural gas serves six of every 10 American
households, about 62 million homes, and is used to generate
about 16 percent of the nation's electric power.  Natural gas is
also indispensable as a feedstock for fertilizer and chemical
manufacturers.   In recent years, rising demand and limited
increases in supply have resulted in high natural gas prices
that affected residential and industrial users across the
economy.  

Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski has called a second special
session of the State Legislature to begin on July 12th to
consider and pass a new oil and gas tax structure, amendments to
the Stranded Gas Act, and the gas pipeline contract.  Once the
gas transportation contract and related legislation are passed
by the Alaska State Legislature, the State of Alaska will join
with industry to form a corporate entity that will build the
pipeline. 

The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, enacted on October 13,
2004, established the expedited federal review of a natural gas
transportation project that would carry Alaska natural gas to
the border of Alaska and Canada. In accordance with the Act,
President Bush nominated former Alaska State Senator Drue Pearce
as Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects.  Until her confirmation, the positions temporary
authority is vested with the Secretary of Energy.  

The MOU was signed by the Departments of Energy,  Agriculture, 
Commerce,  Defense,  Homeland Security,  Interior,  Labor, 
State,  Transportation,  Treasury, and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, Council on Environmental Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Inspector for Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Projects, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. 

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 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 55 DOE: DOE Issues Request for Proposals Seeking a Contractor to 
Manage and Operate its Ames Laboratory
 
  June 29, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
issued its Request for Proposals (RFP) for the competitive
selection of a management and operating (M&O) contractor to
operate Ames Laboratory, a DOE Office of Science (SC) research
facility in Ames, Iowa. This competition for a contractor is the
first in the history of the laboratory. Ames is a laboratory
that has been funded at approximately $30 million annually by
the Office of Science, other government agencies, and private
industry. 

"Ames Laboratory provides leadership in basic research across a
broad spectrum of science, with great expertise in biology,
chemistry, physics and related disciplines, which helps the U.S.
maintain our global competitiveness," DOE Under Secretary for
Science Dr. Raymond L. Orbach said. "Through this contracting
process, DOE seeks the best possible management of this
laboratory to sustain our cutting-edge scientific resources." 

Ames was formally established in 1947 by the Atomic Energy
Commission as a result of the Ames Project's successful
development of the most efficient process to produce high-purity
uranium metal in large quantities for atomic energy. Today, Ames
Laboratory serves DOE and supports the Office of Science
Strategic Plan by conducting fundamental research in the
physical, chemical, biological, materials, mathematical and
engineering sciences which underlie energy generating,
conversion, and transmission and storage technologies;
environmental improvement; and other technical areas essential
to DOE and SC missions. Ames has a focus on materials research,
with additional strengths in the areas of chemistry and plant
biology. Ames operates the Materials Preparation Center, which
provides capabilities in preparation, purification, fabrication
and characterization of materials in support of R&D programs at
government, academic and industry laboratories throughout the
world. 

The RFP includes provisions to facilitate competition, encourage
superior science, and achieve excellent management performance.
For example: 
  + The contract includes "award-term" provisions to permit
extension of the contract for incremental periods up to 15 years
beyond the initial five-year term as an incentive for superior
performance. The maximum annual total available fee is $835,000. 
  + The management contract will be performance-based,
reflecting DOEs efforts to enable the contractor to achieve
more highly effective and efficient management of the
Laboratory. 
  + The new contract will include DOEs newly developed
Laboratory Performance Appraisal Process, which is intended to
enhance performance management, bring increased emphasis on
effective operations and improved results at Office of Science
laboratories, and link performance appraisal to the contracts
award-term provisions. 
  + This new appraisal process is expected to bring greater
comparability, consistency, and transparency to performance
reviews, better tailor incentives to motivate contractor
performance, and generate more useful information for DOE
management decisions. 
  + The RFP contains provisions requiring the new contractor to
retain the current workforce with the exception of the specified
top-level positions. 

The RFP describes the criteria DOE will use in selecting a
successful future contractor. Key criteria include the potential
contractors experience and past performance in both science and
business management; key personnel, including the proposed
laboratory director; strategy for fulfilling DOEs mission for
the laboratory; management strategy and approach to achieving
excellence in world-class scientific research and development,
as well as in operations and business management; and the value
added by the contractor. 

The RFP is available on the DOE e-Commerce Web site:
http://e-center.doe.gov/.  In addition, an information library
regarding the solicitation is available on the DOE Office of
Science Web site at http://rfpames.sc.doe.gov/. 

The RFP is being issued in final form, and comments on the RFP,
suggested changes to contract provisions, or other questions may
be submitted to the "Submit Questions" feature on IIPS until
August 19, 2006. Responses to questions, other information about
the RFP, and any possible resulting changes will also be posted
to this site. 

DOE will offer the opportunity of a site tour for prospective
offerors, and plans to conduct a pre-proposal conference and
one-on-one meetings with potential offerors. Specific details
about these meetings will be available on the web site as they
become available. 

Proposals, which are due to DOE on August 29, 2006, will be
reviewed by a Source Evaluation Board of DOE technical and
business experts. 

Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806 Gary Pitchford, 
(630) 252-2013     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 56 Platts: US Senate Appropriations approves FY 2007 energy spending bill
 
Washington (Platts)--29Jun2006
 
The US Senate Appropriations Committee approved an energy 
spending bill that would direct $24.7 billion to the Department 
of Energy, a $658 million boost over President Bush's budget 
request.

     The House passed a bill that approved $24.4 billion for DOE, 
but varies substantially from the Senate bill, establishing what 
could be a difficult negotiation between the two chambers. The 
bill, which totals $30.7 billion, also funds water projects.

     It launches a new approach to handling nuclear waste by 
directing states to work with the federal government to find 
interim or temporary storage sites for nuclear waste, while DOE 
attempts to get the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 
Nevada up and running. The bill also would specify that its 
passage would satisfy concerns over the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's waste confidence determination, which is critical to 
opening and relicensing nuclear plants.

     The provisions of this section, along with the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act provides "sufficient and independent grounds for 
further findings by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel will be 
disposed of safely for purposes of licensing civilian nuclear 
power reactors," the committee report said.

     The bill increases the president's request for energy supply 
programs by $370 million to $2.29 billion to support the 
president's Advance Energy Initiative; increases the 
administration request for science spending by $139 million to 
$4.24 billion and boosts funding for Energy Policy Act 
initiatives by $380 million over the president's request. 

     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Pete Domenici, Republican-New Mexico, said the committee 
would "show Americans what we have done for ethanol, for 
cellulosic, for battery technology ... they were not funded by 
the administration; we went and picked them out."

     Domenici lamented the absence of funding for coal-to-liquids 
technology, but said it would be a top priority in the fiscal 
2008 spending bill. "Especially in the conversion of coal we have 
some enormous projects awaiting resources," Domenici said.

     The committee cut $159 million from the nuclear 
nonproliferation account and $59 million from the National 
Nuclear Security Administration.

                 ---Daniel Whitten, daniel_whitten@platts.com For 
more news, request a free trial to Platts Inside Energy at or 

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 57 Hanford News: Senate subcommittee approves full funding for Hanford plant
construction
 
This story was published Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 

By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer 

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - A fiscal 2007 spending bill that passed a
U.S. Senate subcommittee includes $690 million toward
construction of a waste treatment plant at the highly
contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation. 

The vitrification plant is being built to convert millions of
gallons of radioactive waste to glasslike logs for permanent
disposal underground in a nuclear waste repository. The plant
has long been considered the cornerstone of cleanup at the
Hanford site in south-central Washington, but the project has
been mired in cost overruns and delays. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Energy Department released a new
cost estimate for the project at $11.55 billion, far exceeding
the $4.3 billion estimate when the contract was awarded to
Bechtel National in 2000. 

The new estimate also delays the projected start of operations
to 2019, far beyond the date of 2011 legally required under the
Tri-Party Agreement, a cleanup pact signed by the state, Energy
Department and Environmental Protection Agency. 

The new estimate depends on an annual appropriation of $690
million from Congress for the project, beginning in 2007. 

"Securing this funding for the vitrification plant and ensuring
that it's constructed and operated in a safe, effective, and
efficient manner is critical to Hanford cleanup," U.S. Sen.
Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Tuesday in a statement. 

"I will keep working with my colleagues to make sure this
funding stays in the final bill. The federal government must
keep its moral and legal obligation to clean up the Hanford
site," she said. 

Money for plant construction in fiscal 2007 was approved Tuesday
by a Senate appropriations subcommittee as part of the Energy
and Water budget. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is
expected to take up the budget on Thursday before sending it to
the Senate floor for debate. 

The final bill would still have to be reconciled with the House
bill, which provides $600 million for the vitrification plant. 

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with
cleanup costs expected to total as much as $60 billion. 

Key to the cleanup is the removal of 53 million gallons of
toxic, radioactive waste left from Cold War-era nuclear weapons
production. The waste is stewing in 177 aging underground tanks,
67 of which have leaked more than 1 million gallons of waste
into the ground. 

Some of that waste has reached the groundwater, threatening the
nearby Columbia River and making completion of the plant a
priority. Gov. Chris Gregoire has threatened to sue the federal
government if Congress does not continue to fully fund the
project. 

Once completed, the plant will stand 12 stories tall and be the
size of four football fields. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 Hanford News: British officials plan visit to Hanford
 
This story was published Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 

By the Herald staff 

British officials will arrive at the Hanford nuclear reservation
today to see what they can learn about nuclear cleanup. 

Hanford workers have been cleaning up contamination left from
the past production of plutonium for more than a decade. But the
United Kingdom is in the earlier stages of dismantling and
cleaning up unused or obsolete nuclear facilities, including
power plants that will be replaced with newer plants on the same
sites. 

"There is a lot of pressure to do it quickly," said Dick French,
president of Federal Engineers &Constructors, in Richland, which
is organizing the tour. "The political people are interested in
what the government can do to help it go smoothly." 

The visitors will include Ian Liddell-Grainger, a member of
Parliament, district council officials and education and labor
leaders. 

The group planned to visit the Washington governor's office, the
University of Washington on Tuesday and then spend today through
Friday in the Tri-City Area. 

A tour of Hanford is planned, along with events to help the
delegation learn more about how workers for the site here are
trained. They'll meet with officials from Columbia Basin College
and Washington State University and tour the Volpentest HAMMER
training center.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 SF Chronicle: Weapons labs hit for poor oversight of their explosives 
Materials may be unsafe and at risk of theft, audit says
 
[San Francisco Chronicle] 
				 
Thursday, June 29, 2006

Tons of chemical explosives are improperly monitored at two
nuclear weapons laboratories in New Mexico and, as a result, may
be at risk of theft, according to a federal audit released this
week. 

The explosives may also be unsafe because neither of the labs --
Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories -- routinely checks
their "stability and safety characteristics," the U.S. Energy
Department's inspector general said in the report. 

During a federal inspection, Sandia officials "could not account
for at least 410 items, including detonators, rocket motors,
shaped explosives and bulk explosive powders," the report said.
In addition, that lab's inventory system lacked records for
about 190,000 pounds of explosive propellant used in 39 rocket
motors. 

The report said the labs, ironically, don't have a use for many
of the explosives, yet officials hang on to them "because they
were difficult to obtain," said the report, which was released
Tuesday. 

In that regard, Los Alamos has "accumulated significant amounts
of high explosive materials that were unlikely to be used for
current or future missions." 

For example, the report said, inspectors identified 63
anti-personnel rockets that were acquired by the laboratory in
1986, each of which still contains enough propellant to fly for
several miles. Two decades later, and a decade after their
original experimental roles ended, the lab is hanging on to the
items because they are "almost like gold," the report quotes a
Los Alamos official as saying. 

Until recently, Los Alamos was run by the University of
California under contract to the Energy Department; this year,
the lab was taken over by a consortium dominated by UC and
Bechtel Corp. Sandia is managed by Lockheed Martin under
contract to the Energy Department. 

In his report, Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman noted a
"sharp contrast" with operations at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in Livermore, which has "developed and implemented a
robust program for high explosive inventory control,
accountability, reduction, and for testing the safety and
stability of the explosives." UC runs Livermore lab under an
Energy Department contract that is scheduled to expire in 2007. 

In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman that accompanies
the report, Friedman indirectly scolded Sandia and Los Alamos by
stressing that "the Livermore effort demonstrated that high
explosives can be managed and controlled without adversely
affecting mission performance." 

In statements Wednesday, officials at Los Alamos and Sandia
insisted they are managing the explosives properly and safely.
However, neither lab explicitly repudiated the inspector
general's report. 

In a statement, Sandia spokesperson Michael Padilla said
"Sandia's top priorities are the safety of its employees, the
public, and the protection of the environment and there is no
reason to believe anyone's safety or the environment is at risk. 

"All items mentioned in the ... report have been located and
accounted for." 

At the same time, Padilla added, "Sandia has made many
improvements over the past year in its Explosive Inventory and
Information System and the replacement of the inventory software
with newer, robust, user-friendly software is under way." 

"Sandia will continue to ensure that all non-nuclear high
explosives are kept secure, stable and safe for use," he said. 

In a statement, Los Alamos spokeswoman Kathy DeLucas said the
lab's explosives management program meets standards set by the
Energy Department. "Los Alamos maintains extensive physical
security against theft or diversion of high explosives," she
said. 

Among other things, she said, "high explosives are stored or
used only in locked buildings located within guarded and
patrolled administratively controlled areas." 

Responding to the report's charge that the labs hang onto
explosives they don't need, DeLucas said that some high
explosive materials "are unique and difficult to purchase in a
timely way and at reasonable cost." 

Audit report 

The Energy Department inspector general's report on its audit of 
Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories can be seen at . 

E-mail Keay Davidson at . 				
Page A - 4 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 

*****************************************************************
 60 Inside Bay Area: Feds: Cold War nuclear warheads scrapped

Article Last Updated: 06/29/2006 02:33:56 AM PDT  

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  
    
  Workers have scrapped the last of hundreds of Cold War
thermonuclear warheads fitted on some of the earliest ICBMs. 

Federal officials were expected to announce today that
dismantlement of the last W56 warhead demonstrated "our firm
commitment to reducing the size of the nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile to the lowest levels necessary." 

The W56 warhead packed more than a 

megaton — an explosive power equal to a million tons of TNT — in
a 4-foot can, designed by scientists at Lawrence Livermore
weapons lab and colleagues across the street at
Sandia-California. 

It was a mainstay of the United States' arsenal during some of
the most intense years of the Cold War. 

U.S. military planners targeted more than 100 Minuteman missiles
carrying the warhead on missile defense systems in Moscow and
Leningrad, now known as St. Petersburg, according to defense and
intelligence documents obtained by analysts at Natural Resources
Defense Council. 

The explosive energy directed at those cities' defense systems 
equaled 7,000 Hiroshima bombs. 

The warheads were taken out of service in the early 1990s. It
took four years for the U.S. Department of Energy's Y-12 Complex
in Oak Ridge, Tenn., to prepare for the dismantlement and
another four years to take the bombs apart. 

The Bush administration has come under criticism in Congress for
its slow pace of dismantling retired weapons such as the W56,
which has been out of the arsenal more than a decade. By next
year, federal officials say they will increase the rate of
dismantlement by 50 percent. 

 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers |   
*****************************************************************
 61 Hawk Eye: Waste shortchanged workers 

Thursday, June 29, 2006 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
  
Government audit of Dept. of Energy finds compensation program 
wasted $26 million. 

By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com 

MIDDLETOWN — A government audit shows the Department of Energy
frittered away $26.4 million through improper and questionable
payments to contractors hired to run a compensation program for
nuclear energy workers and their families. 

The Government Accountability Office report released earlier
this week blames weak internal controls in the energy department
for the payments, which sapped nearly 30 percent of the budget
for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program. 

"The bottom line is that sick workers got short–changed and the
taxpayers got gouged," Sen. Charles Grassley, R–Iowa, said in a
press release. 

Congress created the compensation program in 2000 to help
Department of Energy employees and contractors who developed
cancer or other illnesses because of their exposure to radiation
and toxic substances. 

Grassley, along with Sens. Jim Bunning, R–Kentucky, and Jeff
Bingaman, D–New Mexico, requested the GAO study in 2004 after
learning that a contractor hired to process claims had been paid
millions of dollars even though just one worker had received
compensation. 

That same year, Congress shifted oversight of the compensation
effort to the Department of Labor, a decision the GAO report
seems to validate. 

"The Energy Department had virtually no oversight of contractors
assigned to the important program," Grassley said. "It's
outrageous to see contractors line their pockets while Cold War
veterans got stuck with absolutely nothing. It looks like the
ridiculous salaries outlined during the 2004 Energy Committee
hearing were just the tip of the iceberg." 

According to the labor department Web site, 19,546 claimants
nationwide have now received more than more than $1.56 billion
in compensation. 

Former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown
and their survivors account for 841 of those claims and $70
million of that cash. 

The Atomic Energy Commission, followed by the Department of
Energy, built nuclear weapons components at the plant west of
Burlington from the late 1940s to the 1970s. 

Grassley, Bingaman and Bunning pledged to continue bird–dogging
the compensation program. 

They also hope to recover some of the money the energy
department handed over to contractors. 

"It's hard to imagine that this program would be so badly
administered that nearly one–third of all payments it has made
have been improper or questionable," Bingaman said. 



• A copy of the full GAO report on the energy department's
management of the compensation program can be found at
www.thehawkeye.com.   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · Problems? contact the 
webmaster. 
*****************************************************************
 62 lamonitor.com: IG faults two labs 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor

Los Alamos and Sandia National laboratories have accumulated 
large quantities of explosive materials not likely to be needed 
for current or future missions. The two laboratories were 
criticized by the Department of Energy Inspector General Gregory 
H. Friedman for poor accountability and surveillance of a range 
of non-nuclear explosive materials.

One example at LANL: no owner was identified for 288 warheads and 
96 rocket motors, despite site-level requirements. 

The IG said a Los Alamos official acknowledged a problem with
the ownership assignments and that the lab was working on
identifying the responsible owners for all explosive materials.

Kathy DeLucas of the LANL communications office said this
morning that the laboratory is working with the local site
office of the National Nuclear Security Administration to
enhance the high explosive program. 
"We follow the DOE explosive safety manual," she said.
"Individuals who handle and process or test high explosives all
have government clearances and are highly trained to do that."

The report released Wednesday contrasted the two New Mexico
laboratories with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California, where controls and protections were in place. 
"We noted for example, that Livermore had developed and
implemented a robust program for high explosive inventory
control, accountability, reduction and for testing the safety
and stability of the explosives," the report stated.

Sandia Laboratory, the audit found, could not account for at
least 410 items. Among them were "detonators, rocket motors,
shaped explosives and bulk explosive powders that had been
consigned to off-site private sector organizations, including
laboratory subcontractors."

In December 2005, the Associated Press reported a major theft of
high explosive materials occurred at Cherry Engineering, a
private explosive firm located on outside Albuquerque.

Four thieves, who were later apprehended, were charged with
stealing significant amounts of high explosives, sheet
explosives, detonator cord and blasting caps.

Chris Cherry, a Sandia National Laboratory explosives expert,
owned the company. In court records, Kenneth Coffey, an ATF
agent, said Cherry helped the agency disarm the final bomb
mailed by Ted Kaczyinski, the Unibomber, AP reported at the time.

No other connection with Sandia Laboratory was found.

The Inspector General, without going into details, used the
Bernalillo County theft as an example of a storage depot which
was inspected weekly, so that the quantity and type of materials
stolen could be quickly identified, unlike some of the
non-federal offsite storage areas included in the review.

DeLucas said, "Being compared to the Bernalillo County facility
is inappropriate because high explosives are stored only in
locked buildings within guarded and patrolled areas, and even
the keys to those areas are locked up."

Los Alamos has not had a systematic, fence-to-fence review of
its explosive storage program since 1998, although they started
one up last year "concurrent with our program," the IG said.

The IG's report was accepted by NNSA with the added
qualification that the material was not at risk of theft or
diversion.

"Without a means of ensuring positive control and in light of
significant inventory differences and poor record keeping, a
theft or diversion could have occurred and not been detected,"
the IG replied.

Printed 6/29/06   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************