*****************************************************************
06/30/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.155
*****************************************************************
   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 IRNA: Larijani rejects any deadline for responding P5+1 offer
2 IRNA: G8 FMs urge Iran to respond to nuclear plan `in nearest future
3 IRNA: Iraqi oil minister calls for expansion of cooperation with Ira
4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI to answer new proposals in Aug. 
5 St. Petersburg Times: G8 Nations Give Iran Wednesday Ultimatum      
6 AFP: US presses Iran for response on nuclear offer 
7 AFP: Iran will not talk with US on nuclear dispute - cleric - 
8 US: Guardian Unlimited: India Nukes Deal Expected to Pass Congress
9 Korea Herald: Missile test may bring end to nuke talks - Hill   
10 AFP: Bush, Koizumi take hardline stance on North Korea at final summ
11 US: Guardian Unlimited: White House Ponders NG Nuclear Warheads
12 US: Guardian Unlimited: White House Notifies Congress of Arms Deal
13 HindustanTimes.com: Nuclear deal: Bill's smooth passage virtually as
14 Independent: US nuclear deterrent was used to defend Hong Kong 
15 AFP: US hints of changes to India nuclear deal measure 
16 AFP: Second US congressional panel backs US-India nuclear deal -
17 Guardian Unlimited: Hain expresses nuclear doubt
18 Guardian Unlimited: Trident subs could be scaled back
19 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Test-Fires Ballistic Missile
20 FT.com: MPs' challenge on nuclear deterrent
21 Daily Yomiuri: Bilateral alliance will only get stronger 
22 UPI: U.K. 'planned for nuclear strike on China'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
23 US: NRC: Grant Larkin Named Senior Resident Inspector at Waterford 3
24 BBC: Hain sceptical on nuclear power
25 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet July 1
26 US: APP.COM: NRC represents nuclear industry | 
27 People's Daily: Hongyan River nuclear power project initiated
28 US: Hudson Valley News: House committee okays strengthened Coast Gua
29 US: Hudson Valley News: Engel calls for no-fly zone over Indian Poin
30 Comment is free: Blair's nuclear error
31 US: St. Petersburg Times: Nuclear power no bogeyman
32 US: NRC: RC Appoints E. Roy Hawkens Chief Adminstrative Judge
33 US: Public Citizen: Senate Appropriations Bill Funds Dangerous and C
34 US: NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Pow
35 US: NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Pl
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
36 The Australian: Howard snubs Gorbachev summit 
37 US: UPI: Congress approves Coast Guard funding
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
38 US: NRC: NRC Issues a White Finding to Exelon for the Handling of Un
39 US: NRC: NRC Finds Inadequate Valve Analysis Prior to Power Uprate t
40 US: SF Chronicle: Remembering the Marshall Islands
41 US: NRC: NRC Extends Public Comment Period on Basis for Establishing
42 US: Reid: REIDâ€™S EFFORTS MOVE NTS WORKERS CLOSER TO COMPENSATION
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
43 US: [BATN] Unions oppose 1-man freight train crew plan using PTS
44 Las Vegas SUN: Senate committee cuts spending on Nevada nuclear wast
45 US: AP Wire: AmerenUE reports radioactive particles along pipeline
46 US: Deseret News: Panel OKs bill to bar funds for nuclear waste stor
47 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Senate panel cuts requested fundi
48 RGJ.com: Reid slashes Yucca Mountain funding
49 THE PEACOCK REPORT (TPR): DoE Turns to Industry Contractors For
50 Pahrump Valley Times: Hollis says county must help make Yucca work 
51 US: Bradford Publishing: DOE to remove 42 buildings at West Valley s
52 US: Hampton Union Local News: New storage for nuke waste
53 US: UCS: Senate Errs by Supporting Bush Administration's Dirty,
54 US: Pahrump Valley Times: DOE chief leery of temp storage plan 
55 US: NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of N wa
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
57 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
59 DOE: Industry Participation Sought for Design of Next Generation Nuc
60 DOE: Statement of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman on the Senate 
61 SF New Mexican: LANL program gets help from Senate committee  
62 Hanford News: Hanford tour seats fill in record time
63 Hanford News: Search for Hanford Reach project director begins soon
64 Tri-City Herald: Hanford budget one step closer 
65 SF Chron: BERKELEY / Bevatron's future being debated / Some want to 
66 UPI: Berkeley wants to save Cold War monument
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: Larijani rejects any deadline for responding P5+1 offer

, June 29, IRNA

-- 
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on Thursday dismissed
any deadline set for Iran to respond to European package of
incentives, saying such a subject is a mere propaganda and
unreal.


 "We have trodden a long path; in the past too, we had told the
negotiating parties that they will gain nothing if they show
tough approaches," said Larijani when asked by the press on the
fate of negotiations with Europe on Iran's peaceful nuclear
program.

 Defending Iran's right for peaceful use of nuclear activities,
Larijani welcomed diplomacy and a negotiated solution to the
case.

 "Our nation is for its rights; but defying the issue, they (the
Europeans) sent our case to the UN Security Council, which was
not a good job. They have however recently turned to solving the
problem through negotiations, which is something right and we
welcome it." He hoped Iran and Europe will succeed to solve the
nuclear case through diplomacy.

 "If they are sincere and proceed in the talks rightly, we hope
the negotiations would bear good results," he added.

 Elsewhere in the interview, Larijani said he will meet the
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Spain next
week.

 "In the next two weeks there will be talks with Mr Solana on
our nuclear case; additionally, I will visit Spain next week, on
the sidelines of which I will meet with Mr Solana," said
Larijani.

 1420/1420
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: G8 FMs urge Iran to respond to nuclear plan `in nearest future'

Moscow, June 29, IRNA

Iran-Russia-G8 

Foreign ministers of the Group of Eight countries issued a
statement here Thursday, calling on Iran to respond "in the
nearest future" to an international proposal on its nuclear
program, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.


 Speaking to reporters, Lavrov said the foreign ministers of the
Group of Eight countries decided to evaluate Iran's peaceful
nuclear activities by mid July (two weeks later).

 Foreign ministers from Russia, US, Canada, Japan, Italy,
Britain, France and Germany along with Austrian foreign minister
as EU representative attended the Thursday's meeting.

 1430/1420


*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Iraqi oil minister calls for expansion of cooperation with Iran

Baghdad, June 29, IRNA

Iran-Iraq-Cooperation 

Iran's Ambassador to Baghdad Hassan Kazemi Qomi conferred here
Thursday with Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahrestani on issues
of mutual interest.


 At the meeting, the Iraqi minister called for expansion of
mutual cooperation in the oil sector.

 Referring to political, cultural and economic commonalties
between the two countries, the minister voiced the willingness
of Iraqi government for expansion of all-out ties with the
Islamic Republic of Iran.

 He underlined that the two sides' cooperation could be extended
to various issues such as controlling the territorial waters to
prevent smuggling of fuels and oil derivatives. He called for
formation of a joint technical committee to control the
territorial waters.

 "There exists ample untapped grounds for expansion of mutual
cooperation such as purchase of oil tankers from Iran as well as
existing joint oil wells which should be exploited by both
countries," he pointed out.

 The Iraqi oil minister invited all Iranian experts at the
private sectors to take the opportunity to invest in the
country's oil industry.

 The Iranian ambassador, for his part, highlighted significance
of the two sides' regional and international cooperation and
voiced the readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran to
implement all the agreements, signed between the two countries
for cooperation in the oil sector, and to contribute to
implementation of the venture projects.

 Welcoming the proposal offered by Iraqi minister for
exploitation of joint oil wells, he said the issue would help
restore security in the region.

 In conclusion, the Iranian ambassador, underlining Iran's full
determination to prevent fuel smuggling via its borders,
extended an invitation to Iraqi oil minister to pay an official
visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was welcomed by the
Iraqi minister.

 1430/1420

*****************************************************************
 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI to answer new proposals in Aug. 

  2006/06/30   
  
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in New York Thursday
that Iran will table its response to the P5+1 proposals in
August.

 "The response will not be sooner than August; I said Iran will
offer its response in August but did not referred to the date,"
said Mottaki in a press conference after attending a UN
Conference on the Illicit Small Arms Trade.

 Mottaki said, "It is necessary to say that response to the
package in August would be possible if questions and ambiguities
are cleared."

 Iran's top diplomat said specialized committees are now busing
studying different sections of the proposals and once the
investigation come to results, Tehran will give necessary
response.

 He said there are some questions and ambiguities concerning
details of the package, which Tehran hopes would be addressed in
dialogues.

 "Tehran welcomes any dialogue which would address the questions
and ambiguities."

 The minister then referred to the meeting of Iran's chief
nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and the EU Foreign Policy Chief
Javier Solana, saying it would possibly take place in the first
half of July.

 He hoped that Solana would in the talks address some of the
questions and ambiguities regarding the package.

 Mottaki pointed to Iran's positive cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a period of 36
years and said it all indicates Tehran has been sticking to its
commitments.

 "After more than 2,100-man/day inspections, a document in more
than 1,000 pages on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities was sent
to the IAEA, indicating not a single case of diversion," said
Mottaki.

 He said Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear energy per NPT.
"Preventing countries' access to uranium enrichment runs against
NPT; Confidence-building is a two-way road; We have taken steps
towards confidence-building and now its the turn of the other
party to take necessary steps."

 He went on to say that efforts should be made to further
strengthen NPT, rather than depriving countries from their right
to enrichment and access to the peaceful technology.

 Iran has been acting transparently with regards to nuclear
technology, feeling committed to have continued cooperation with
IAEA and act within the NPT framework, he added.

 Mottaki said Iran will not accept any duty beyond NPT.
"Suspension of enrichment is a request running against the NPT
spirit," he announced.

KH   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: <font color="#ff0000" face>Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir</font> 
*****************************************************************
 5 St. Petersburg Times: G8 Nations Give Iran Wednesday Ultimatum                        

Issue #1182(48), Friday, June 30, 2006 			   			   				 				
					 					 					 					--> 					 					
MOSCOW — 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 Wednesday 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.

The clerical regime has sent conflicting signals so far about
whether it will accept the package of economic ...		   		  
     					
  © Copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993 - 2005   				

*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US presses Iran for response on nuclear offer 

 Fri Jun 30, 12:16 PM ET 		 	 

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The United States "expects" Iran" /> Iranto 
respond next week to an international offer to defuse the nuclear 
standoff between Tehran and the West, the number three in the US 
State Department said. 

 US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said he 
hopes for the response at a meeting between European Union" /> 
European Unionforeign policy Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear 
negotiator Ali Larijani in Brussels next Wednesday. 

"We expect and hope Larijani will give us the answer to the
offer we made," the US official told a small group of reporters
in the Belgian capital. "We fully expect Mr. Larijani to come up
with a response." 

"We've seen lots of political statements from lots of political
figures. We are waiting for the authoritative channel which is
the Larijani channel to Solana," he added. 

Solana on June 6 handed Iran the 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. 

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. 

The US official noted that the international community is
"unified" around the offer to Tehran. "We all believe that
negotiations make sense and that Iran should accept the offer,"
he said. 

"It's now up to Iran to decide. It's high time frankly that we
had a response from the Iranian government." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran will not talk with US on nuclear dispute - cleric - 

 Fri Jun 30, 7:51 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - A top Iranian cleric has reiterated that the 
Islamic republic will not hold negotiations with arch-foe the 
United States on its controversial nuclear programme. 

 "Who is America to snoop on our nuclear issue?" Hojatoleslam
Ahmad Khatami asked in his Friday sermon at the main weekly
Muslim prayers in Tehran, broadcast live on state radio. 

"In the nuclear issue, we have nothing to do with America and
our officials will certainly not negotiate with them." 

On Tuesday, Iran" /> Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei rejected any possibility that Tehran and Washington
would enter into talks about the country's sensitive atomic
programme. 

"Negotiations with the United States are of no use for us. We
have no need for such negotiations," Khamenei said. 

World powers on Thursday 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. 

But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran
would not respond before late August. 

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 its nuclear programme is for generating electricity
and that uranium enrichment is needed to provide the fuel. The
European Union" /> European Unionand the United States suspect
Iran of hiding a military project. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: India Nukes Deal Expected to Pass Congress
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 7:31 PM

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's nuclear accord with
India seems on track to easy passage in Congress, as the White
House also proceeds with plans to equip Pakistan with F-16
fighter jets. 

Nevertheless, the State Department on Friday noted that the
India legislation still must be approved by the Senate and House
after being passed by key committees. And spokesman Adam Ereli
said ``We will continue to work with Congress... to address
remaining issues in the legislation.'' 

He declined to identify them, but one is believed to involve
negotations between India and the International Atomic Energy
Agency on nuclear safeguards that Congres would have to
consider. 

The Bush administration denied Thursday that the aircraft sale
to Pakistan was designed to help balance the nuclear deal with
its neighbor and longtime enemy, India. 

``We believe in treating each country individually,'' State
Department spokeswoman Julie Reside said. ``Each faces defense
issues different from the other.'' 

The agreement with India was approved 16-2 on Thursday by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, two days after the House
International Relations Committee gave its assent to a similar
measure. 

The House and Senate still have to act on the unprecedented
accord with India, which provides for delivery of U.S. nuclear
technology and fuel for projects that New Delhi designates as
civilian. 

While India would permit international inspection and safeguards
at 14 nuclear reactors, its eight military facilities would
remain off-limits to inspectors. 

Critics say India, already nuclear-armed, would be able to boost
its arsenal. Supporters say India is a trusted ally and handles
its nuclear technology in a responsible way. 

Pakistan, meanwhile, would be permitted to purchase 18 new jet
fighters, order up to an additional 18 of the planes, and get 26
used jets in its arsenal refurbished. 

In Pakistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said
approval of the jet sale was long expected. 

``We wanted to buy a higher number of F-16 aircraft, but we
reduced the number following the last year's (Oct. 8)
earthquake,'' Aslam told The Associated Press. 

Congress was notified officially, but quietly, of the aircraft
deal on Wednesday. Within 30 days Congress can try to stop it,
but the odds are long against blocking the sale. 

Stopping it would require passage of a resolution in both the
House and Senate. Even that could be vetoed by President Bush
and the sale cleared unless at least two-thirds of the members
of both chambers vote to override the veto. 

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and have fought
three wars over the future of the Kashmir territory. Decades of
rivalry between them have tested several U.S. administrations. 

As India and Pakistan competed for U.S. favor, they sometimes
found administrations tipping in one direction or the other. 

Pakistan has strained for years to purchase new U.S. F-16 jets.
Its support for the United States in countering terrorism
apparently bolstered its case. 

``The sale is part of an effort to broaden our strategic
partnership with Pakistan and advance our national security and
foreign policy interests in South Asia,'' Reside said.
``Pakistan is a long-term partner and major non-NATO ally.'' 

Reside said a dialogue between the two countries had helped
reduce tensions and provided greater stability in the area. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea Herald: Missile test may bring end to nuke talks - Hill   
        
A long-range missile test by North Korea would call into
question commitments by the U.S. and other countries to give
security guarantees and aid in return for North Korea ending its
nuclear program, a U.S. government official said.

 Christopher Hill, an assistant secretary of state and the top
U.S. negotiator in six-nation nuclear talks with North Korea,
called on the country to return to the discussions and said
preparations for a launch are damaging prospects for an
agreement.

 "While a launch would raise questions about the future of the
six-party talks, I want to also be very clear that we are
prepared to - we continue to be prepared to return to those
talks without preconditions," Hill said Thursday in testimony at
the House of Representatives, according to a transcript.

 He also said visiting North Korea while the communist state
appears ready to test-fire a long-range missile would be
"problematic." 

"It is a little problematic to be invited to Pyongyang at a time
when they are aiming a missile," Hill told lawmakers who had
urged him to take up an invitation to visit North Korea in order
to restart stalled nuclear talks.

 "Fundamentally, the question I have is 'are they serious about
getting this done,'" Hill told the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific of the House of Representatives International Relations
Committee 

2006.07.01
 
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Bush, Koizumi take hardline stance on North Korea at final summit - 

 by Hiroshi Hiyama and Olivier Knox Fri Jun 30, 5:25 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President 
George W. Bushand Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi have 
warned North Korea" /> North Koreaover 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 
Thursday. 

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" /> Iranand Iraq" /> 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" /> United Nationscould 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" />
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. 

During an official toast at a gala dinner later at the White
House, Koizumi summed up Japan's policy toward the United States
by citing the lyrics of an Elvis tune he said was the first
English song he had memorized as a youth. 

"I would like to propose a toast to the further enhancement of
Japan-US relations," the prime minister said lifting his glass.
"In the words of Elvis, 'I want you, I need you, I love you.'" 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: White House Ponders NG Nuclear Warheads
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 9:31 PM

AP Photo FX103 

By SCOTT LINDLAW 

Associated Press Writer 

LIVERMORE, Calif. (AP) - The scientists who crack open the
nation's nuclear weapons for a living are never quite sure what
they will find inside. 

Many of the warheads were designed and built 40 years ago, and
their plutonium and other components are slowly breaking down in
ways that researchers do not fully understand. With no new bombs
in production, the government spends billions of dollars each
year tending to its aging stockpile. 

The Bush administration wants to revamp the entire arsenal with
a weapon now on the drawing board named the Reliable Replacement
Warhead. 

The redesigned weapon is needed to ensure ``a safe, secure,
reliable and effective nuclear deterrent for the indefinite
future,'' said Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear
Security Administration. 

The administration ordered up a competition between Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco and Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico. The two laboratories
submitted their proposals for the weapon in March. The White
House plans to pick a winner by November. 

As envisioned, the next-generation nuclear weapon would have the
same destructive power as existing ones, but be durable enough
to last for decades. 

The next bomb is also meant to be so secure that it has jokingly
been dubbed the ``nuclear doorstop'' - useless for any other
purpose, should it fall into the wrong hands. 

The government and the labs refuse to discuss details of the two
designs, citing national security. But they describe both
proposals as ``conservative'' blueprints meant to assure
reliability without violating a moratorium on full-scale nuclear
testing in place since 1992. 

``We're not going to come up with anything cutting-edge and
stick it in the stockpile without testing,'' said David
Schwoegler, spokesman for Lawrence Livermore's nuclear weapons
program. 

The United States has not built a nuclear warhead since 1991.
The government spends about $5 billion a year maintaining the
weapons, and engineers have patched problems by opening up
warheads that were never meant to be opened. The accumulation of
tiny engineering changes meant the bombs moved incrementally
away from their original designs, with unknown effects. 

The White House believes designing a replacement warhead is
vital to preserving the nation's nuclear edge, particularly amid
looming questions about North Korea, which reportedly possesses
several nuclear weapons, and Iran, which the administration
fears wants them. 

The redesign project ``means making sure that aging phenomena
don't cause us any questions about nuclear reliability,'' Brooks
said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ``It
means making sure that we incorporate safety and security and
use-control in a way we didn't know how to do when we designed
the stockpile.'' 

Critics, including some former nuclear weapons scientists,
question the need to resume nuclear weapons production, at a
cost of billions of dollars, when they believe the current
stockpile is safe and reliable and can remain so for years. 

They also question whether a next-generation bomb can improve
reliability and safety if it cannot be tested. Congress has
financed the research on the condition that the redesigned
weapon reduce the need for testing. 

Opponents fear the project could send the wrong signal to the
world at a time when the United States and its allies are trying
to curb the spread of nuclear technology. 

Brooks said North Korea and Iran play into the project only
``indirectly,'' explaining that the administration would press
for the program anyway. ``We didn't sit down and say, 'Look,
there's problems in Iran. Let's go and invent a new design,'''
he said. 

The project also aims to improve safeguards against accidental
detonation or use of the weapons by terrorists, Brooks said. It
marks the first time that an American nuclear bomb has been
designed with those goals as the top priority. 

Proponents say a revamped weapon could help the United States to
reduce the number of warheads held in reserve in case other
weapons are found to be faulty. 

A new weapons production line would be needed to produce the
bomb. For instance, the Rocky Flats, Colo., plant that once made
plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads was shuttered in 1989.
Los Alamos can only build a handful per year; the administration
is aiming for 10 next year. 

The Livermore and Los Alamos labs set aside bomb-designing more
than a decade ago in favor of maintaining the current stockpile. 

Each year, the nation's nuclear arsenal loses about a half-dozen
bombs from its reserve of several thousand as the Livermore and
Los Alamos teams rip them apart in what is called ``destructive
analysis.'' Others are painstakingly dismantled and refurbished
with new parts. 

On Thursday, engineers gathered at a high-security plant near
Amarillo, Texas, to toast a milestone: the first rebuild of a
B-61 nuclear bomb. It's the oldest warhead in the arsenal,
having been designed in the early 1960s and built into the
1970s. 

The government is spending $470 million over nine years to
refurbish the B-61s. That's money the Bush administration would
rather channel into an overhaul of the entire arsenal and the
mostly dormant nuclear-weapons complex. 

Brooks sees the bomb-redesign project as making that complex
more adaptable. 

``Any weapon we have will sooner or later go through some type
of modernization or have (some) problem to repair, and right now
that takes a very long time,'' he said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: White House Notifies Congress of Arms Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 9:01 AM

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's nuclear accord with
India seems on track to easy passage in Congress, as the White
House also proceeds with plans to equip Pakistan with F-16
fighter jets. 

The Bush administration denied Thursday that the aircraft sale
to Pakistan was designed to help balance the nuclear deal with
its neighbor and longtime enemy, India. 

``We believe in treating each country individually,'' State
Department spokeswoman Julie Reside said. ``Each faces defense
issues different from the other.'' 

The agreement with India was approved 16-2 on Thursday by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, two days after the House
International Relations Committee gave its assent to a similar
measure. 

The House and Senate still have to act on the unprecedented
accord with India, which provides for delivery of U.S. nuclear
technology and fuel for projects that New Delhi designates as
civilian. 

While India would permit international inspection and safeguards
at 14 nuclear reactors, its eight military facilities would
remain off-limits to inspectors. 

Critics say India, already nuclear-armed, would be able to boost
its arsenal. Supporters say India is a trusted ally and handles
its nuclear technology in a responsible way. 

Pakistan, meanwhile, would be permitted to purchase 18 new jet
fighters, order up to an additional 18 of the planes, and get 26
used jets in its arsenal refurbished. 

In Pakistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said
approval of the jet sale was long expected. 

``We wanted to buy a higher number of F-16 aircraft, but we
reduced the number following the last year's (Oct. 8)
earthquake,'' Aslam told The Associated Press. 

Congress was notified officially, but quietly, of the aircraft
deal on Wednesday. Within 30 days Congress can try to stop it,
but the odds are long against blocking the sale. 

Stopping it would require passage of a resolution in both the
House and Senate. Even that could be vetoed by President Bush
and the sale cleared unless at least two-thirds of the members
of both chambers vote to override the veto. 

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and have fought
three wars over the future of the Kashmir territory. Decades of
rivalry between them have tested several U.S. administrations. 

As India and Pakistan competed for U.S. favor, they sometimes
found administrations tipping in one direction or the other. 

Pakistan has strained for years to purchase new U.S. F-16 jets.
Its support for the United States in countering terrorism
apparently bolstered its case. 

``The sale is part of an effort to broaden our strategic
partnership with Pakistan and advance our national security and
foreign policy interests in South Asia,'' Reside said.
``Pakistan is a long-term partner and major non-NATO ally.'' 

Reside said a dialogue between the two countries had helped
reduce tensions and provided greater stability in the area. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 HindustanTimes.com: Nuclear deal: Bill's smooth passage virtually assured

  Friday, June 30, 2006|10:51 IST   

Indo-Asian News Service

Washington, June 30, 2006
   
The Indo-US nuclear deal was on Thursday assured a virtually
smooth passage in the US Congress with a ringing endorsement
from a key panel of the Senate.

A 16-2 vote in the 18-member Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
just two days after the 37-5 majority in the House panel,
reflected the success of efforts made by President Bush's people
in building a bipartisan consensus for the "historic"
legislation that the White House had declared its top priority.

To that end, like their counterparts in the International
Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, the Senate
panel's Republican Chairman Richard Lugar and leading Democrat
Joseph Biden chose to bring forward an altogether new bill
instead of the one they had introduced in March at Bush
administration's bidding.

Approval of the enabling legislation by the Senate panel made up
of ten Republicans and eight Democrats paves the way for its
introduction before the two houses of US Congress some time in
mid-July, when the Congress reconvenes after a ten-day recess.

However, before that the two panels would have to work out a
common language, as the two drafts, though reflecting a common
intent, differ in their approaches to a legislation which
according to both would become a cornerstone for Indo-US
relations.   
    
*****************************************************************
 14 Independent: US nuclear deterrent was used to defend Hong Kong 

By Cahal Milmo 

Published: 30 June 2006 

Britain sought guarantees from the United States during the Cold
War that it would launch nuclear strikes on China if the
Communist country attempted an invasion of Hong Kong. 

Papers distributed to the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in
1961 - and released by the national archives this week - show
that military chiefs were concerned they could not hold the
British colony by means of conventional warfare if China decided
to take the enclave by force. 

British officials decided to seek clandestine assurances from
the Americans that their plans for the outbreak of war between
the West and the Communist bloc would involve a nuclear strike
to protect Hong Kong. 

In February 1961, the Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home
said in a letter to Macmillan: "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 talks
with the Americans that we need so much as an informal exchange
of views involving a discussion of the use of nuclear strikes." 

It was pointed out by military planners that Hong Kong was
particularly vulnerable, not least because its water and food
supplies, from the mainland, could be cut off at any time. 

Another memo to Macmillan said: "Hong Kong is no longer of vital
strategic interest to us. But it has symbolic and political
importance and is our only direct frontier with the Communist
world." 

Sir Alec continued: "We should encourage the Chinese to believe
an attack on Hong Kong would involve nuclear retaliation." 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: US hints of changes to India nuclear deal measure 

 Fri Jun 30, 3:47 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US State Department said it was pleased 
with two congressional committees' quick approval of a 
controversial nuclear deal with India, but hinted changes in the 
law may be made before it takes effect. 

 A deal giving India help to develop civilian nuclear facilities
was easily approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee"
/> Senate Foreign Relations Committeeon Thursday, two days after
sailing through the House of Representatives' International
Relations Committee. 

The package must still be approved by the full House and Senate,
with the State Department saying Friday it would work closely
with both chambers to make sure the landmark legislation takes
effect. 

"We will continue to work with Congress as we have in the past
to address remaining issues in the legislation in the bill,"
said State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. 

But Ereli said: "Obviously, it has to go through some more
work." 

Ereli refused to specify what types of changes the bill could go
through, with opponents to the law arguing it did not include
enough safeguards to prevent India from applying the nuclear
technology and material to military use. 

"The way I'd put it is there are a few remaining issues to be
worked out," Ereli said, stressing the changes were unlikely to
be significant enough for them to have to go back for committee
votes. 

"We think that we'll be able to do that without reopening the
whole process or changing the path that has been outlined so
far," Ereli said. 

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 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. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Second US congressional panel backs US-India nuclear deal -
     
Friday June 30, 02:57 PM 

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 approved 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 inspections. 

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. 

"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, 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 and North Korea but also set a
dangerous precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions. 

"We intend to make the case that the purported benefits of this
deal are an illusion, and the risks to the international nuclear
nonproliferation regime are quite real," said Democratic
Representative Ed Markey, one of the chief opponents. 

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 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Hain expresses nuclear doubt
 
From Press Association   

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 8:28 PM

A cabinet minister has expressed doubt about the need for new
nuclear power stations - and warned the public would not accept
a "gung-ho" approach. 

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain declared he was sceptical
of the nuclear case and demanded a "massive ramping up" of
renewable energy. 

Tony Blair said earlier this week said he would take "a lot of
convincing" that Britain could supply its energy requirements
without nuclear power. 

It was his strongest hint yet that next month's Government
energy review will give the green light to a new generation of
nuclear plants. 

But just weeks before the review is published, Mr Hain told the
BBC: "The case for nuclear has still to be proven and we'll see
what the energy review produces. 

"I am very clear that the lights have to be kept on, in 10, 15,
20 years time when this problem of supply really seriously hits
us ... and if nuclear is the only way to fill it, well I'll
reluctantly have to accept that. 

"But if we get to that point without a massive ramping up of
renewable energy then I don't think the public will support it." 

He added: "There will only be public support for new nuclear
build if we have shown by this new policy that we are putting
absolutely everything into clean green renewable energy. 

"If we do all that and we still can't fill the gap in terms of
energy supply and security and then the case for nuclear comes
in then I think the public will accept that. 

"But if we don't do any of that and we just push ahead gung-ho
on nuclear I think the public will say no, that's not
acceptable." 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: Trident subs could be scaled back
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Friday June 30, 2006 6:53 AM

Britain could consider scaling back its strategic nuclear
deterrent in the light of the reduced threat of a nuclear
attack, MPs said. 

The Commons Defence Committee said that in the post-Cold War
era, it may no longer be necessary always to maintain a Trident
nuclear submarine at sea. 

Such a move would mark a major shift in the posture of the
nuclear submarine force which has formed the basis of Britain's
strategic deterrent for almost 40 years. 

The committee's report comes as the Government is considering
whether to acquire a replacement for the ageing Trident force,
with a decision due later this year. 

Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is expected to succeed Tony Blair
as Prime Minister, has already signalled his personal support
for maintaining Britain as a nuclear power, to the anger of many
on the Labour left. 

Downing Street has promised a White Paper on the issue but
refused to commit to holding a Commons vote. 

In its report, the committee called for a "genuine and
meaningful" public debate. It said the Ministry of Defence
needed to spell out the rationale for retaining a nuclear
deterrent in the current strategic environment. 

The existing deterrent 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. 

The MoD has always argued that the "continuous-at-sea deterrent
cycle" (CASD) is necessary to avoid a potentially catastrophic
misunderstanding if a Trident submarine was to set sail during a
time of heightened international tensions. 

The fear has been that a potential enemy could misread such a
move as a deliberate escalation by the UK. However the committee
argued that such precautions may no longer be necessary. "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 report said. 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Test-Fires Ballistic Missile
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 11:01 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia test-fired a ballistic missile Friday from
a submarine in the Barents Sea to the Kamchatka peninsula in the
country's far east, defense officials said. 

The missile landed on the Kura test range some 3,000 miles away. 

``The successful firing confirmed the high readiness of the Navy
Strategic Nuclear Forces and the effectiveness of the military
command system,'' Navy spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a
statement. 

Last week, Russia summoned North Korea's ambassador to express
alarm that Pyongyang was apparently planning to launch a
long-range missile, warning him of Moscow's opposition to any
steps that would destabilize the region. 

According to intelligence reports, the missile, a Taepodong-2,
was being fueled at a launch pad on North Korea's northeastern
coast. A U.S. government estimate puts the range of the
Taepodong-2 missile at between 5,000 and 7,500 miles, making it
capable of reaching the United States. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 FT.com: MPs' challenge on nuclear deterrent

Financial Times FT.com
 
By Stephen Fidler 

Published: June 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 30 2006 03:00

MPs have urged the government to make clear how dependent
Britain's nuclear deterrent is on the US. A report today from
the Commons defence committee is the first shot across the bows
of Tony Blair in an effort by MPs to ensure there is a debate
about the replacement of nuclear weapons.

The government has promised a public debate, but statements from
Mr Blair, Gordon Brown, the chancellor, and other senior
government members, all backing the replacement of the Trident
system, have encouraged fears that the debate will be
foreclosed.[Advertisement] 

The report makes clear that it is the ageing of four Vanguard
submarines - rather than of the missiles or the warheads they
carry - that will dictate the timetable for a decision on
replacement of the nuclear weapons systems.

The submarines were commissioned between 1994 and 2001. With a
limited refit, their lives could be extended to the mid-2020s,
which the report says means a decision on their replacement
could be left to as late as 2014.

The report criticised the Ministry of Defence's attitude to the
MPs' inquiry, saying they were "surprised and disappointed" the
ministry refused to participate. It called on the government to
respond to critical questions, including how independent the
deterrent was from the US.

The nuclear warheads are based on the US W76 design, while the
Trident missiles were designed and made in the US and held in a
communal pool with US weapons. This raised questions about
whether the deterrent was operationally independent from the US,
said the committee.Stephen Fidler

 The Financial Times Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 Daily Yomiuri: Bilateral alliance will only get stronger 

Editorial : 

The Yomiuri Shimbun 

Japan and the United States need to strengthen and expand their
alliance to a global scale based on "universal values and common
interests." 

At their summit meeting in Washington on Thursday, Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi and U.S. President George W. Bush
described the Japan-U.S. relationship as "one of the most
accomplished bilateral relationships in history." Afterward they
issued a joint statement titled "The Japan-U.S. Alliance of the
New Century," which aims to deepen their cooperation on a global
scale. 

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States, the Koizumi administration dispatched Maritime
Self-Defense Force vessels to the Indian Ocean in accordance
with the Antiterrorism Law. 

When the Iraq war started, Tokyo swiftly made clear its support
for the United States and later dispatched Ground Self-Defense
Force troops to Samawah, southern Iraq, in line with special
legislation governing Japan's aid for the reconstruction of
postwar Iraq. 

The range of activities of the Self-Defense Forces has expanded
on an unprecedented scale while Koizumi has been in office. The
realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, as was agreed on by Tokyo
and Washington, will reinforce cooperation between the SDF and
U.S. forces and transform the quality and parity of the
alliance. 

The phrase regarding the "complete and prompt implementation of
agreements" contained in the joint statement might also be a
reference by the two countries to confirm the qualitative
change. 

=== 

Rethink collective self-defense 

To galvanize the alliance further, the government must change
its constitutional interpretation concerning the right of
collective self-defense from its current position that "Japan
possesses the right, but cannot exercise it," to one that states
"Japan can exercise this right." 

The current interpretation not only fails to match the common
view of the international community, but might become an
obstacle to Japan-U.S. cooperation. 

For the government, reviewing its interpretation of the right to
collective self-defense has become all the more important. 

During the summit talks, Bush questioned Koizumi regarding
Japan's relations with China. Koizumi replied that he could not
understand why China refused to hold summit talks due to its
displeasure with his visits to Yasukuni Shrine. The United
States also should be keeping a watchful eye on the strained
relations between Japan and China. 

In the joint statement, Koizumi and Bush affirmed that "robust
Japan-U.S. cooperation will embrace China's dynamism and
contribute to maintaining peace and tranquility in Northeast
Asia." 

China's influence in the region can help to keep a leash on
North Korea, which has the potential to cause instability in the
region with its nuclear arms development, its preparations for
launching a Taepodong-2 missile and the abduction issue. 

It is important that Japan and the United States carry out
strategic diplomacy based on their alliance so China can assume
its role as a "responsible stakeholder" in the region. 

=== 

Even friends disagree 

However, Tokyo does not blindly follow Washington on every
issue. It is only natural for the government to speak its mind
when it disagrees with Washington, such as on Iran's nuclear
development and the U.S.-India nuclear power accord. The
exchange of candid opinions will reinforce the relationship. 

Koizumi repeatedly emphasized that no bilateral relationship in
the world is as important as that between Japan and the United
States. 

No matter who succeeds Koizumi as prime minister later this
year, Japan's diplomatic policy, which revolves around the
alliance with the United States, will remain unchanged. This
could be considered the most important message expressed in the
latest summit talks. 


(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 1, 2006) (Jul. 1, 2006) 

 © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   
*****************************************************************
 22 UPI: U.K. 'planned for nuclear strike on China'
     
 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

6/30/2006 8:05:00 AM -0400                              
							
LONDON, June 30 (UPI) -- Britain planned for a nuclear
retaliation should China invade its then-colony of Hong Kong,
confidential papers released Friday reveal. 

In 1961, London felt the only alternative to abandoning the
colony entirely would be nuclear strikes against the Chinese
aggressor by the United States, documents published by the
National Archives indicate. 

The idea is discussed in a series of letters between 1957 and
1961, when the government was becoming increasingly anxious
about Beijing's intentions towards the British outpost. 

Then Defense Minister Harold Watkinson wrote to the foreign
secretary and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, saying: "Our
object is to encourage the Chinese to believe than an attack on
Hong Kong would involve U.S. nuclear retaliation." 

Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Hume wrote to Watkinson and
Macmillan in February 1961: "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." 

He called for an "informal exchange of views" with U.S.
officials over the possibility of nuclear strikes. 

The idea was discussed by British and U.S. officials during
secret meetings in Hawaii, but was apparently shelved after
Admiral Harry Felt, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at the
time, expressed concerns. 

No other response from the United States -- then the only
country capable of using nuclear weapons -- was included in the
National Archives file. 

Britain returned Hong Kong to China in 1997, having held it
since 1842.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
		 									advertisement
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: Grant Larkin Named Senior Resident Inspector at Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-105           June 
30, 2006 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: 
opa4@nrc.gov  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Arlington, Texas,
have selected Grant Larkin as the new Senior Resident Inspector
at the Waterford 3 nuclear plant. 

Entergy Nuclear operates the plant near New Orleans, La. The NRC
has two inspectors assigned to the plant. He replaces Michael
Hay, who has transferred to the NRCs Region IV office in
Arlington, Texas, as a Senior Project Engineer. 

Grant Larkins experience and commitment to safety will help the
NRC ensure that Waterford 3 conducts operations with the highest
safety standards to protect the public health and safety, said
NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. 

Following U.S. Army service in Germany as a
translator/interpreter, Mr. Larkin graduated from the University
of Minnesota with bachelor's degrees in political science and
geology in 1982. While working for the Department of the Navy,
he completed a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in
1986 and continued his civilian career as a nuclear engineer at
naval facilities in California, New York and Washington state. 

From 1983 to 2000, Mr. Larkin refueled naval reactor plants and
worked with mechanical and fluid system engineering groups
engaged in repair work. In February 2000, Mr. Larkin joined the
NRC as a reactor engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects at
the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. In 2001, he was named
Resident Inspector at Waterford 3. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC
resident inspectors. They serve as the agencys eyes and ears at
the facility, conducting regular inspections and monitoring
significant work projects. 

Mr. Larkin, his wife, Jenni, and three children live in
Destrehan, Louisiana. 

The Waterford 3 resident inspectors can be reached at:
985-783-6253.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 24 BBC: Hain sceptical on nuclear power
 
Last Updated: Friday, 30 June 2006
 
[Sizewell B nuclear power station]                              

Mr Blair has raised the prospect of new nuclear power stations                                                               

Peter Hain has broken rank with the Cabinet to express doubts 
about building new nuclear power stations. 

Tony Blair is thought to favour nuclear after he said the issue 
was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". 

Mr Blair was accused of pre-empting the government's own energy 
review - a charge he denied. 

Mr Hain said if there had to be nuclear power it must work 
without huge public subsidy, which should be spent on renewable 
energy instead. 

The Northern Ireland secretary's remarks to Newsnight will be 
seen as an attempt to curry favour with the Labour's left - 
angered by Mr Blair's apparent enthusiasm for nuclear power. 

They also are thought likely to trigger speculation about his 
ambitions to be Labour's next deputy leader. 

'Nimbyism' 

Mr Hain said: "If there has to be nuclear to keep the lights on, 
if there has to be, and this is a question the energy review will 
decide, it can only stand on its own two feet it can't have any 
special support or any special privileges or subsidies. 

"And there's been massive subsidy, around £70bn pounds worth of 
liabilities from the old nuclear power programme we can never go 
down that road again because otherwise that would crowd out 
renewable energy and the future forms of energy that could come 
on stream in decades to come. 

"So if there has to be a new nuclear power station or three or 
four or whatever it might be that is up to private developers. 

"They have to finance it, they have to sort out the 
decommissioning costs they have to deal with the waste disposal 
costs and make sure it's safe and then if in order to keeps the 
lights on people decide there has to be nuclear, I'm sceptical 
about it. 

"But if there has to be, it can only and must only be in a way 
that doesn't crowd out any renewable development." 

Not good enough? 

Mr Hain, who is also Welsh secretary, went on to warn there was 
"too much nimbyism" about renewable energy adding that he was an 
enthusiast for wind power. 

"Not on every Welsh mountaintop, of course not, not off every 
beach in Wales or Northern Ireland of course not. But there's a 
massive inbuilt prejudice against anything in your own back 
yard," he said. 

"The other side of this coin is that those who want clean green 
energy as I do and are sceptical about nuclear as I am if they 
really want to go for it they've got to be much more supportive 
about wind farm developments about tidal and offshore 
developments including marine current and including wave power. 

"At the moment everybody says they're opposed to nuclear, 
everybody says they want clean energy but when it comes to a 
project near them they say 'no', and that's not good enough." 
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet July 12-14 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-087     June 29, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting July 12-14 in
Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the final review
of the license renewal application for the Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, near Oswego, N.Y. The committee
will also be briefed on study results related to establishing
limits for phosphate ion concentration in groundwater at plants
seeking license renewal, and on a proposed framework for
integrating risk and safety margins. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at
8:30 a.m. each day and end at 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 p.m. on
Thursday and 12:30 p.m. on Friday. A portion of Thursday
mornings meeting will be closed for a discussion on safeguards
and security matters. A complete agenda will be available on the
NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2006. 

Anyone with questions or those wishing to make public statements
during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364. To pursue videoconferencing services, contact
Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. 

The ACRS advises the Commission on licensing and operation of
nuclear power plants and related safety issues.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 26 APP.COM: NRC represents nuclear industry | 

Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
:Friday, June 30, 2006

NRC represents nuclear industry Posted

by the Asbury Park Presson 06/30/06

A legal precedent was recently set when residents living within 
50 miles of a California nuclear power plant, fearing a potential 
attack, instituted legal action against additional storage of 
waste on site. Three judges of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals 
unanimously disagreed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
finding that "an attack was remote and speculative and therefore 
unnecessary to consider."

Again and again, we see the NRC representing the nuclear
industry rather than protecting the public. The NRC's primary
focus is to allow the plants to continue operating, with scarce
thought to potential problems such as terrorism, aging equipment
failure and environmental degradation.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration and Congress are promoting
the construction of a new round of nuclear plants and, in order
to expedite them, claim that the industry is overregulated.

Perhaps it is time to get rid of this Congress, forge a sane
energy bill not written by the boiler industry, and replace the
NRC with a consortium from the National Academy of Scientists.

If you agree, check out your congressman's voting record on this
matter, then in November vote accordingly. We are the people who
put them there. They need to know we can get rid of them.

Thomas J. Cervasio

CHAIRMAN
ENVIROWATCH
BERKELEY

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 27 People's Daily: Hongyan River nuclear power project initiated
 
     UPDATED: 14:57, June 30, 2006   

According to China GuangdongNuclear Power Holding Co. LTD,
Hongyan River Nuclear Power Station project in LiaoningProvince,
the first approved nuclear power project to be constructed
during the 11th Five-year Period, has started its phase I at
3:38 yesterday afternoon. This symbolized the Phase I project of
Hongyan River Nuclear Power Station formally entering the
principal preparatory stage.

The Phase I project is the first nuclear power program in
northeast China. The project is designed to have 6 electrical
units of millions of kilowatt. The No.1 major power unit is
scheduled to begin on September 15, 2007, and estimated to be
completed and in use by 2012. When the project is completed, the
station will yield electricity of nearly 30 billion
kilowatt-hours.

By People's Daily Online


  Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 28 Hudson Valley News: House committee okays strengthened Coast Guard patrol at Indian
Point   

Friday, June 29, 2006 

The House Transportation Committee has passed legislation 
sponsored by Congresswoman Sue Kelly that would help strengthen 
the Coast Guard presence along the Hudson River in the vicinity 
of Indian Point. 

Kelly introduced her legislation in the House of Representatives
on June 14 after questioning Coast Guard officials about
security patrols at Indian Point during a Congressional hearing
in May. The Coast Guard officials agreed with Kelly's assessment
that an enhanced patrol boat is necessary to fully protect the
plants from any potential security breach along the Hudson
River. 

Kelly has since been working with the Coast Guard and House
Transportation Committee leaders to secure the legislative
solution and increased resources necessary to procure a faster
Coast Guard vessel to protect Indian Point. The Coast Guard
currently patrols Indian Point with a 65-foot tug boat that
lacks the speed or weaponry to fully protect the plants from a
terrorist threat. 

During a House Transportation Committee hearing Thursday,
Kelly's legislation was approved as part of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act that passed the committee and must next be
approved by the full House. 

U.S. Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) joined Kelly in pushing for her
legislation to be included in the larger bill. "Congresswoman
Kelly and I both share the distinction of representing nuclear
facilities located on navigable waters. I have the Vogtle
Nuclear facility in Waynesboro, Georgia, on the Savannah River
and she has the Indian Point facility on the Hudson River,"
Barrow said at the hearing. 

Kelly's provision would make the Coast Guard the primary federal
agency for the maritime safety of U.S. nuclear power facilities
like Indian Point that are located on navigable waterways. The
legislation enables the Coast Guard to exchange information,
equipment, manpower, and other support with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to fulfill its mission to protect nuclear
facilities and determine the best vessels for protecting nuclear
power plants.   
  
 HEAR today's news on , the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio
                          news report. 
*****************************************************************
 29 Hudson Valley News: Engel calls for no-fly zone over Indian Point   

Friday, June 29, 2006 

Congressman Engel has contacted FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
to voice his opposition to allowing commercial planes to fly
over Indian Point. We know that one of the planes on September
11th flew right over Indian Point. I have repeatedly called for
Indian Point to close, but if we refuse to close it, we must
double our precautions, said Engel, whose district includes
portions of Westchester and Rockland counties. 

In his letter, Congressman Engel was joined by Congresswoman
Nita Lowey and Congressman Maurice Hinchey in saying, We urge
you to reject this plan and designate the airspace within 10
miles of Indian Point as a no-fly-zone. The Indian Point nuclear
power facility is in a growing and heavily populated area
situated very close to New York City.  Scheduling regular
commercial flights over Indian Point would be irresponsible.  We
feel strongly that this proposal plays into the hands of
terrorists who continue to seek ways to harm our nation.  It is
imperative to keep Indian Point clear of air traffic by
designating the airspace around this potential target as a
no-fly-zone. 

Letting planes fly over Indian Point poses a grave risk and can
have disastrous consequences should anything go wrong, the
lawmakers wrote.   
  
  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
                only Internet radio news report. 
*****************************************************************
 30 Comment is free: Blair's nuclear error

> [Jonathan Porritt] 
 
The government's energy review is underpinned by shortsighted and 
paternalistic policymaking. 

June 30, 2006 02:58 PM | 

Much of today's debate about nuclear power in the UK is driven
by a disconcerting superficiality. Even if one can escape the
wretched "nuclear vs renewables" cul-de-sac, the conventional
"for and against" arguments tend to leave protagonists marooned
in a debate about technologies rather than about political
mindsets or longer-term visions of a sustainable energy future. 

Based on its overall conclusion that the UK just doesn't need a
replacement nuclear power programme to meet the government's
twin objectives of dealing with climate change and energy
security, the Sustainable Development Commission has tried to
open up a number of these deeper issues in its to ministers
earlier in the year - along the lines of "what would an official
green light for nuclear tell us about this government?" 

The first thing it would tell us is that the government is
unpersuaded by its own rhetoric about the importance of climate
change. Dealing with climate change is an immediate challenge -
not a "long term problem", as the prime minister keeps telling
us - requiring a broad spectrum revolution in producing,
distributing and using energy across the whole of society. 

Nuclear power contributes just 8% of our total energy
requirements at the moment, and has absolutely no contribution
to make to sorting out either emissions from transport or to
heating our houses and buildings. Nuclear reactors are the
epitome of a centralised, inherently inefficient distribution
system, generating reasonably reliable base-load electricity
from a small number of huge power stations. By their very scale,
any new generation of reactors will compel dependence on that
distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time
when we should be banking heavily on decentralised energy
systems, maximising synergy between renewables, microgeneration,
combined heat and power, local area networks and so on. 

The second thing it would tell us, paradoxically, is that we
have a very conservative small government, deeply fearful of
that kind of energy revolution, captured by dominant business
and engineering orthodoxies as to the future of energy and the
electricity supply Industry in particular. The prime minister
has prefigured any pro-nuclear announcement, however unpopular,
as the kind of tough, bold decision that prime ministers
sometimes have to make in the interests of their nations. In
fact, the UK to a replacement nuclear programme represents the
easy option, entailing a certain amount of brutish - this is the
way it's going to be, "so get used to it" political leadership,
rather than the much more subtle business of changing the system
from the bottom up. 

Which connects to the third telling insight: a pro-nuclear
government is one that is mistrustful of its own citizens,
opting in a classically paternalistic way for the biggest of all
top-down techno-fixes rather than working with individuals and
communities to engineer a more participative, genuinely
sustainable energy future. 

This is bizarre: all the research shows that there is no
long-term solution to our energy challenge that fails to put
citizen awareness and citizen action at its very heart. If
electricity remains the stuff that just comes out of that socket
in the wall, whilst the mysteries behind central heating or air
conditioning remain forever obscured by alienating
technicalities, then we're stuffed. "Energy literacy" is a
precondition of any transition to a more sustainable way of life
- and nuclear power, in all its macho, disempowering glory, adds
nothing to that educational challenge. 

To which pro-nuclear enthusiasts will inevitably respond that
there is no reason why we shouldn't have both: a replacement
nuclear power programme (generating up to 30% of our
electricity, if our chief scientific adviser, David King, were
to have his way), as well as a decentralised, community-led
hyper-efficient and increasingly renewable energy mix. 

If the last nine years are anything to go by (and, more
particularly, the three years since the publication of the
energy white paper in 2003, which promised much but has since
delivered very little), that is self-deception at its very
worst. This is a government that has found it easy to set
ambitious targets, but very hard to think through the mechanics
of making it happen - as demonstrated by the fact that emissions
of CO2 have actually risen every year for the last three years. 

For these reasons it's not so much what the energy review will
say about nuclear power that really matters as what it says
about everything else. And here, we can still be hopeful:
knowing that every Â£1 invested in energy efficiency produces
seven times as much CO2 abated as the same Â£1 invested in
nuclear energy, the government may well give nuclear power a
theoretical "green light" but simultaneously decline to provide
any public subsidy - freeing up the political space to do
everything on CHP, renewables and energy efficiency that it
should have been doing for the last three years. 


June 30, 2006 03:21 PM Rochdale/gbr 

Jonathon, you don't answer the charge that we couldn't have
nuclear and renewables. 

Saying that we haven't achieved much on the renewables front
over the last few years therefore we can't have nuclear doesn't
exactly follow to my eye. 

Why can't the energy review just put in motion policy decisions
that will result in an energy market that is framed to deliver
low-carbon lecky? i.e. planning reforms, renewables tick,
nuclear tick, and carbon pricing, renewables tick, nuclear tick. 

Looks like we could have them both to me! 

But then again I don't have a nice office and 40 defra civil
servants to pander to my ego so I might not have understood the
problem as well as you... [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] DiogenesAX
 
June 30, 2006 03:24 PM Amersham/gbr 

  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 31 St. Petersburg Times: Nuclear power no bogeyman

 By DR. A. KEITH FURR

 Published June 30, 2006
 
Re: Second nuclear plant won't come without risks, June 23
column by Greg Hamilton column:

Mr. Hamilton has a long, undistinguished record as an opponent
of nuclear power. As usual, he provides a mass of misinformation
designed to frighten the reader, rather than inform them. I
would like to point out specifics.

First, let us discuss spent fuel. The fuel is not really spent.
It is simply not usable in its current state due to the
accumulation of fission fragments from the uranium that has
undergone fission. The vast majority of the uranium is still
usable if the fission fragments were removed.

France, where more than 80 percent of their electrical energy
comes from nuclear power, has been safely reprocessing fuel for
itself and others for many years. We could do the same if it
were not for the misguided decision of former President Jimmy
Carter to ban reprocessing. It is a national problem because of
individuals such as Mr. Hamilton who have played, all too
successfully, on the fears of the public. Even if one treats the
fuel as waste, which it certainly is not, there are several ways
to store it safely.

The next paragraph claims that there is a great pile of spent
fuel pellets stored in a deep pool on the Crystal River site.
This, if nothing else, shows the ignorance of Mr. Hamilton. The
spent fuel rods, which contain the pellets, are in fact stored
in a pool of water designed to prevent the rods from melting.
The elements are carefully spaced so that localized heat
generated by the decaying fission fragments would not permit the
elements to melt, nor undergo further chain reactions. No one
would be so foolish as to pile the pellets up!

There is a glimmer of truth in the next paragraph. The radiation
diminishes fairly rapidly over time. The rate at which it decays
is governed by a formula that soon simplifies to a reciprocal of
the time raised to the 1.2 power (1/t1.2) with the time being
expressed in days from the time the element was in the reactor.

In a year, the heat being generated is greatly less and so is
the radiation from the element. It would still be substantial,
but engineering permits the elements to be transported for
reprocessing or stored safely for long periods of time. If an
individual were exposed to a bare element shortly after removal,
yes the individual could die quickly. But you would have to be
very close.

In general, persons exposed to an amount of radiation at a level
of 450 rem would have a 50/50 chance of survival with no
treatment, and with treatment this survival level could be
increased substantially. However, above a thousand rems,
draconian measures would be needed; even above 10,000 rems death
would not be instantaneous but over a finite time.

Radiation is NOT of itself lethal at all levels. If so, we would
all be dead from the potassium and carbon-14 in our bodies, and
cosmic rays. At the boundary of a nuclear plant in the U.S., the
level is not permitted to exceed 0.005 rem.

There are only a few fission fragments that would still be
around for a million years, and the risk from them is minimal
after a fraction of that time. If reprocessing were allowed and
chemical separation were done, the storage problem of these
long-lived elements would be easily handled.

The next paragraph says this is nasty stuff. Yes, it will be
stored at the plant site, but it need not be if the alarmists
would permit it to be taken to a safe storage facility. What
does Mr. Hamilton think France, Great Britain and Japan are
doing with the fuel being reprocessed?

Fuel can be shipped safely in casks carried by trucks. These
casts can withstand horrendous accidents such as being slammed
into solid concrete barriers at high speeds, then falling off
high bridges onto shaped spikes, then being immersed in flaming
petroleum for an extended period and finally immersed in cold
water while still hot.

If engineers can do that, and the concrete reactor shell can
withstand the impact of a 747 without being breached, then I am
confident huge concrete casks also can be built that would
withstand hurricane force winds or even the kind of explosives
available to even the most determined terrorists. It wasn't the
impact that caused the World Trade Center to collapse, it was
the heat of the burning jet fuel, which caused the internal
support columns to soften and give way. The analogy is forced
and entirely inappropriate.

If a second plant were built at Crystal River, it is very
unlikely it would cause the dramatic increase in area that his
discussion envisions, nor should it affect the Suncoast Parkway
in any significant way.

What's with this huge transmission lines problem? We already
have transmission lines. The lines from the new plant need be no
larger nor intrusive than the ones already in place.

He talks about the cost, but fails to mention the cost if we do
not build it. I have done a great deal of research involving
pollutants from traditional power plants, and I can assure you
there are far more dangers from these than the problems from any
nuclear plant built to the standards we require in this country.

Please, Mr. Hamilton, stop trying to frighten everyone with your
ranting. You are too uninformed to do so realistically.

Normally I do not do this but just a few words about my
credentials. I have a doctorate in nuclear physics from Duke
University, and was a full professor at Virginia Tech, where for
15 years I ran the reactor. I was on the Radiation Safety
Committee for 35 years and chaired it for more than 20.

I have published more than 60 papers in physics and the role of
pollutants in the environment. I was director of the
university's department of environmental health and safety,
which I created at the request of the university.

Keith Furr lives in Spring Hill. Guest columnists write their
own views on subjects they choose, which do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of this newspaper. [Last modified June 30,
2006, 07:14:55]

© 2006  All Rights Reserved  St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 •
727-893-8111
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: RC Appoints E. Roy Hawkens Chief Adminstrative Judge
 
News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-089     June 30, 2006   
  

Judge E. Roy Hawkens for the position of Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP),
effective July 1, 2006. Judge Hawkens, who has been a full-time
Administrative Judge on the ASLBP since September 2004, will
replace Chief Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk III, who has
resigned from that position effective June 30, 2006. 

Chief Judge Bollwerk has agreed to continue as an Administrative
Judge on the Panel, and the Commission has approved his
reassignment to the position of Administrative Judge. A
full-time legal member of the Panel since 1991, Judge Bollwerk
has served as Chief Administrative Judge since January 1999. 

Judge Hawkens received a Bachelor of Science degree from the
United States Naval Academy in 1975. After completing Naval
Nuclear Power School, Judge Hawkens served as a nuclear
engineering officer aboard a fleet ballistic nuclear submarine
and as a radiological controls officer aboard a submarine
tender. After leaving active duty Naval service, he earned a law
degree from the College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe
School of Law in 1983, where he was Order of the Coif and
managing editor of the William & Mary Law Review. Thereafter,
Judge Hawkens clerked for Judge Edward A. Tamm of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In
1984, Judge Hawkens joined the United States Department of
Justice, where, as a member of the Appellate Staff of the Civil
Division, he represented the federal government in a wide range
of cases until he joined the ASLBP in 2004.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 33 Public Citizen: Senate Appropriations Bill Funds Dangerous and Costly Nuclear Programs
 
June 29, 2006 

Statement of Michele Boyd, Legislative Director of Public
Citizens Energy Program 

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill passed by
the Senate appropriations committee today would squander $780
million on ill-conceived and expensive nuclear programs that
would worsen the nations nuclear waste problem. 

The bill provides $286 million for developing technologies
to reprocess nuclear waste, a key component of President Bushs
proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Reprocessing would
cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and increase
the risk that plutonium waste could be stolen and used in
nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Reprocessing is the dirtiest
part of the fuel cycle  the radioactive material from our last
experience with reprocessing continues to threaten our
environment and will require tens of billions of dollars over
several decades to clean up. 

The appropriations bill also wastes $494 million on the
proposed, permanent nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada, a site that is unsafe for nuclear storage, is mired in
allegations of scientific fraud and may never be completed. It
also includes $10 million for a plan that would allow the
Secretary of Energy to designate locations to build interim
waste dumps in states with nuclear reactors, even over the
objection of local and state authorities. While it leaves open
the option for the use of existing reactor sites, it would also
allow the waste to be needlessly transported to new sites,
creating a public health and safety risk. Centralized interim
storage is merely an illusion of a waste solution. It would not
meaningfully reduce the number of sites with radioactive
material because all nuclear waste must be stored at each
reactor site for at least five years to cool before it can be
moved. 

The bill also codifies the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions
waste confidence rule, which asserts the governments
confidence that there will be safe disposal of nuclear waste.
While this could enable the licensing of new reactors despite
public concerns about additional waste, it does not change the
reality that we do not have a viable, permanent solution for
nuclear waste. 

Instead of wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a
dangerous reprocessing scheme, the flawed repository at Yucca
Mountain and centralized storage sites, Congress should focus on
improving the safety and security of waste storage at existing
reactor sites and support development of safe, secure and
environmentally friendly sources of energy. 
### 
 
Citizen does not accept funds from corporations,
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
 
                         FR Doc 06-5897 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37614-37621] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-108]                         
 
Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To 
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as 
part of its evaluation of a request by R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC) for a license amendment to increase the 
maximum steady state power level at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
Plant (Ginna) from 1520 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1775 MWt. This 
represents a power increase of approximately 16.8 percent, which 
is considered an extended power uprate (EPU). As stated in the 
NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the 
Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate Program, the NRC 
staff will prepare an environmental impact statement if it 
believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the 
human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant 
impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU 
application for Ginna Station or the NRC staff's independent 
review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental 
review in an environmental assessment. Also, in accordance with 
the position paper, the final Environmental Assessment and 
finding of no significant impact is being published in the 
Federal Register.
 
The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of 
no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment 
in the Federal Register on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18779). One set 
of comments was received on the draft Environmental Assessment 
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
(NYSDEC) by letter dated May 12, 2006 (Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061370627). 
The comments are discussed in the paragraphs below.
 
Some of the comments provided by the NYSDEC were clarifications 
and corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment (see 
comment a, b, c, d, and e in the NYSDEC letter). Based on these 
comments, the NRC revised the appropriate sections of the final 
Environmental Assessment. In comment ``f,'' NYSDEC indicated 
``based on review of historical data, staff would not 
characterize impingement and entrainment rates as `minimal,' but 
would describe them as `lower than most similar sized electrical 
generating facilities in New York State.' '' The NRC only 
evaluates environmental impacts at the site and surrounding area 
that could be affected by the proposed EPU at the facility. 
Rather than comparing the impacts with other perhaps similar 
facilities, the NRC staff looks at the overall impact of the 
affected resource, i.e., aquatic species in Lake Ontario. Our 
conclusion of ``minimal'' should be interpreted as not having a 
noticeable impact on the long-term sustainment of aquatic species 
in Lake Ontario due to entrainment and impingement. This action 
may have no impact to aquatic species in other parts of New York 
State; therefore, our analysis does not make such comparison. The 
comment is noted, but no changes were made to the Environmental 
Assessment based on this comment.
 
The NYSDEC comments ``g and h'' raised concerns regarding 
possible unknown synergistic effects of physical and thermal 
stresses to the cold water species alewife and three-spine 
stickleback impinged in the Ginna fish return system under the 
proposed EPU conditions. In addition, NYSDEC recommended the 
discussion on the fish return system include references to the 
316(b) Phase II rule developed by the Environment Protection 
Agency (EPA). This regulation established Federal requirements 
applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of 
cooling-water intake structures at existing facilities that 
exceed a threshold value for water withdrawals. The draft 
Environmental Assessment did include a discussion on how the new 
performance standards are designed to significantly reduce 
impingement and entrainment losses resulting from plant 
operation, and any site- specific mitigation would result in less 
impact due to continued plant operation. Currently, the Ginna 
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit 
modification application is under technical review by NYSDEC. The 
SPDES permit modification application incorporated the 
requirements listed in Subpart J of the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. 
Also, Ginna LLC has begun some studies required for compliance 
with the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. The NRC staff agrees that 
implementation of technologies and/or operational procedures 
required by the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule, with authority 
delegated
 
[[Page 37615]] to NYSDEC, would further minimize impingement and 
entrainment losses of all aquatic species (including alewife and 
three-spine stickleback) at Ginna, under proposed EPU conditions. 
The comment did not provide any new information; therefore, no 
changes were made to the Environmental Assessment.
 
NYSDEC comment ``I'' stated that the draft Environmental 
Assessment did not address ``potential impacts to early life 
stages of fish entrained into the discharge plume.'' Entrainment 
applies specifically to aquatic organisms (i.e. early life stage 
fish and shellfish) that are small enough to pass through a 
plant's intake debris screens, travel through the cooling system, 
and be exposed to heat, mechanical and pressure stresses, and 
possibly biocidal chemicals before being discharged back to the 
body of water. Early life stage fish (eggs and larvae) not 
entrained by the plant, but in the nearby water column of Lake 
Ontario within or near the discharge plume under the proposed 
conditions, would not be significantly impacted. Ginna is not 
adjacent to or near habitat features or spawning/nursery areas 
preferred by or important to local fish. As indicated by NYSDEC, 
the temperatures injurious to alewife eggs are limited to a small 
area of the thermal plume (at the mouth of the discharge canal).
 
Comment ``j'' states NYSDEC has received reports of bald eagle 
sightings in the Wayne County area over the past 3 to 4 years.
 
The reports include observations of first-year immature birds, 
which indicate bald eagle nesting sites could be closer to the 
Ginna site than originally analyzed. In addition, NYSDEC states 
the closest verified nest is located in the Northern Montezuma 
Wildlife Management Area, approximately 30 miles away from the 
Ginna site. The NRC staff spoke with the staff of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge office, 
who verified there are nesting sites in the southern area of the 
refuge and possibly in the northern area. Based on this new 
information, the NRC staff believes bald eagle nesting sites are 
closer (30 miles) to the Ginna site than originally analyzed (55 
miles). However, the staff believes the conclusion that the bald 
eagle will not likely be impacted by the proposed EPU, is still 
valid, and no changes to the Environmental Assessment are 
warranted.
 
NYSDEC also expressed concerns on possible radiological impacts 
to threatened and endangered species due to the proposed EPU. EPA 
standards (40 CFR Part 190, 40 FR 23420) concluded that 
environmental radiation standards developed by the nuclear power 
industry are adequate to protect the overall ecosystem. At this 
time, there is no evidence that there is any biological species 
sensitive enough to warrant a greater level of protection than 
that which is determined to be adequate for man. As a result of 
the proposed EPU, the radiation levels in many plant areas are 
expected to increase up to approximately 17%. The radiological 
impacts section of the Environmental Assessment provides a 
detailed analysis of potential impacts related to radiation. The 
NRC staff concluded all radiological doses were below regulatory 
limits and found no significant impact due to the proposed EPU.
 
Environmental Assessment Plant Site and Environs Ginna is located 
6 km (4 mi) north of Ontario, New York, in the northwest corner 
of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake Ontario. The 
immediate area around Ginna is rural, with the city of Rochester 
approximately 32 km (20 mi) to the west and Oswego, New York, 64 
km (40 mi) to the east-northeast. The plant consists of one unit 
equipped with a nuclear steam supply system supplied by 
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which uses a pressurized-water 
reactor (PWR) and a once-through cooling system for turbine 
exhaust condensor cooling and as the ultimate heat sink.
 
Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated July 7, 
2005 (ADAMS Accession No.
 
ML051950123), Ginna LLC proposed an amendment to the operating 
license for Ginna to increase the maximum steady state power 
level by approximately 16.8 percent, from 1520 MWt to 1775 MWt. 
The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the 
reactor core power level by more than 7 percent above the 
currently licensed maximum power level. This proposed action 
would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase, which 
would increase the flow of steam to the main turbine-generator.
 
This would result in the increase in production of electricity 
and the amount of waste heat delivered to the condenser, 
resulting in an increase in the temperature of the water being 
discharged into Lake Ontario.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action Ginna LLC estimates the proposed 
action would result in approximately 85 additional 
megawatts-electric (MWe) being generated. This additional 
electricity generation could power approximately 95,000 homes and 
would contribute to meeting the goals and recommendations of the 
New York State Energy Plan. The EPU could be implemented for 
approximately one-fifth of the cost to construct two small 
(50-MWe) natural gas combustion turbine units, as recommended by 
the New York State Energy Planning Board, and would not cause the 
environmental impacts that would occur from construction of new 
power generation facilities to meet the region's electricity 
needs.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action At the time of 
issuance of the operating license for Ginna, the NRC staff noted 
that any activity authorized by the license would be encompassed 
by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental 
Statement (FES) for the operation of Ginna, which was issued 
March 1973. In addition, in February 2004, the NRC published its 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), NUREG-1437 
Supplement 14, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 14, Regarding R.E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant--Final Report,'' which evaluated the 
environmental impacts of operating Ginna for an additional 20 
years. In the SEIS, the NRC determined that the adverse 
environmental impacts of license renewal would not be so great 
that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning 
decision makers would be unreasonable. This Environmental 
Assessment summarizes the radiological and non-radiological 
impacts in the environment that may result from the EPU.
 
Non-Radiological Impacts Land Use Impacts The potential impacts 
associated with land use for the proposed action include impacts 
from construction and plant modifications. The impacts from 
construction due to the proposed EPU are minimal.
 
No expansion of roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or 
transmission facilities and no new building construction is 
anticipated to support the proposed EPU. Volumes of industrial 
chemicals, fuels, or lubricants are not expected to increase 
substantially, and would not require additional onsite storage 
space.
 
Some plant modifications would be required to implement the 
proposed action. The modifications are listed in Table 4-1 of 
Ginna EPU, Supplemental Environmental Report (ER), submitted by 
Ginna LLC on July 7, 2005. The most significant modification to 
be conducted
 
[[Page 37616]] would be replacement of the high-pressure turbine 
rotor. Major modifications completed in the last 10 years that 
contribute to the increased power opportunities at Ginna are the 
re-tubing of the main condenser (1995), the replacement of the 
steam generators with an increased size design (1996), and 
replacement of the reactor vessel head (2003). None of the plant 
modifications listed above or in Table 4-1 of the ER will result 
in any changes in land use.
 
Historic and archeological resources should not be affected by 
the proposed EPU, because there are no modifications to land use.
 
The proposed EPU would not modify land use at the site 
significantly over that described in the FES and NUREG-1437 
Supplement 14.
 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the land use impacts of 
the proposed EPU are bounded by the impacts previously evaluated 
in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.
 
Transmission Facility Impacts The potential impacts associated 
with transmission facilities for the proposed action include 
changes in transmission line corridor right-of-way maintenance 
and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed 
EPU would not require any physical modifications or changes in 
the maintenance and operation of existing transmission lines, 
switchyards, or substations. Ginna LLC's transmission lines 
right-of-way vegetation management would not change. There would 
be no change in voltage, but there would be an increase in the 
current flowing through the transmission facilities.
 
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria 
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits 
the short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamperes. 
The increase in current passing through the transmission lines is 
directly associated with the increased power level of the 
proposed EPU.
 
In addition, the increased electrical current passing through the 
transmission lines would cause an increase in the electromagnetic 
field strength.
 
Based on information provided in the ER, the transmission lines 
at Ginna would continue to meet the applicable NESC 
recommendations for electric-field induced shock under the 
proposed EPU. Therefore, the risk of shock from the offsite 
transmission lines would not be expected to increase 
significantly over the current impact.
 
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the 
proposed action would not change significantly over the impacts 
associated with current plant operations. There would be no 
changes to current transmission line right-of-way operation and 
maintenance practices; no physical modifications to the 
transmission lines, switchyards, or substations; and electric 
current passing through the transmission lines would increase 
slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be 
no significant impacts associated with transmission facilities 
for the proposed action.
 
Water Use Impacts Potential water use impacts from implementation 
of the proposed action would include hydrological alterations to 
Lake Ontario.
 
Ginna uses a once-through condenser cooling system drawing water 
from Lake Ontario through a submerged offshore intake. Water used 
to cool the turbine condenser is discharged into the discharge 
canal. The heated water enters Lake Ontario at the shoreline. 
Total nominal flow of water for turbine condenser cooling and 
most secondary systems (i.e. service water and fire protection) 
is approximately 354,600 gallons per minute (gpm).
 
Lake Ontario serves as a principal water source for several local 
water supply systems in New York State's Monroe and Wayne 
Counties. All water required for plant operation, except potable 
water, is withdrawn from Lake Ontario. The rate of withdrawal 
would not increase as a result of the EPU. Therefore, operation 
of Ginna would not affect the availability of surface water. 
Groundwater is not used in plant operations; therefore, there are 
no impacts from onsite groundwater use. The NRC staff concludes 
that the proposed EPU would not have a significant impact on 
water use.
 
Discharge Impacts Surface water and wastewater discharges to Lake 
Ontario from the plant are regulated by the State of New York via 
a SPDES Permit (Number NY-0000493), effective February 1, 
2003--February 1, 2008. This permit is reviewed and renewed by 
the NYSDEC. It is expected that the EPU would increase the 
temperature of the water discharged to Lake Ontario as well as 
the thermal discharge plume, which would require modifications to 
the current SPDES permit.
 
The current SPDES permit allows a 28 ``F rise in temperature of 
the discharge water over the ambient temperature of the lake 
water, and a maximum 320-acre mixing zone. The current permit 
also limits the discharge temperature to 102 [deg]F. During 
current operating conditions, the difference between plant 
discharge temperature and ambient lake temperature is 
approximately 20 [deg]F in the summer months, and 28 [deg]F 
during the winter months. The larger temperature difference, 
which occurs in the winter months, is due to recirculation of 
heated water from the discharge canal to the screenhouse inlet 
forebay to assist in maintaining inlet water temperature and 
eliminating ice that may form in the inlet forebay. Under 
proposed EPU operating conditions, the difference in temperature 
would be approximately 25 [deg]F and 35 [deg]F in summer (i.e., 
intake temp > 45 [deg]F) and winter (i.e., intake temp 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5897 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
 
                         FR Doc 06-5900 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37613-37614] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-107]                         
 
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for an Additional 20-Year Period 
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-71, and DPR-62 to Carolina Power & 
Light Company (the licensee), the operator of the Brunswick Steam 
Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2. Renewed Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-71 authorizes operation of BSEP, Unit 1, by the 
licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 2923 
megawatts thermal, in accordance with the provisions of the BSEP 
renewed license and its Technical Specifications. Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 authorizes operation of 
BSEP, Unit 2, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in 
excess of 2923 megawatts thermal, in accordance with the 
provisions of the BSEP renewed license and its Technical 
Specifications.
 
BSEP, Units 1 and 2, are located south of Wilmington, NC, at the 
mouth of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County, NC, and 2 miles 
north of Southport, NC. The licensee's application for the 
renewed licenses complies with the standards and requirements of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 
Commission's regulations.
 
As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 
Chapter I, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which 
are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action 
involving the proposed issuance of the renewed licenses and of an 
opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of the 
renewed licenses was published in the Federal
 
[[Page 37614]] Register on December 6, 2004 (69 FR 70471).
 
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the 
Carolina Power & Light Company's license renewal application for 
BSEP, Units 1 and 2, dated October 18, 2004, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 24, March 14, March 17, March 31, April 8, 
April 21, May 4, May 11, May 16, June 1, June 14, July 18, August 
11, September 29, November 22, and December 6, 2005; (2) the 
Commission's safety evaluation report (NUREG-1856), dated March 
2006; and (3) the Commission's final environmental impact 
statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 25), published in April 2006. 
These documents are available at the NRC Public Document Room, 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 
and on the NRC public Web site in the Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of Renewed 
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 may be obtained 
by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of License Renewal. 
Copies of the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, safety evaluation report 
(NUREG-1856) and the final environmental impact statement 
(NUREG-1437, Supplement 25) may be purchased from the National 
Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Springfield, VA 22161-0002, http://www.ntis.gov, 703-605-6000, or 
Attention: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov), 202-512-1800. All orders should 
clearly identify the NRC publication number and the requester's 
Government Printing Office deposit account number or a VISA or 
MasterCard number and expiration date.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5900 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 The Australian: Howard snubs Gorbachev summit 

This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP 

Howard snubs Gorbachev summit

 By Steve Connolly June 30, 2006 

PRIME Minister John Howard has snubbed an international security
and energy summit headed by former Soviet president Mikhail
Gorbachev.

 Mr Gorbachev will co-chair the Earth Dialogues conference in
Brisbane from July 22-24. 

In his first visit to Australia since 1999, when he met Mr
Howard in Canberra, Mr Gorbachev will headline a line-up of
speakers which includes four Nobel Laureates. 

World experts in energy, security, climate change, water
resource management and sustainable development will attend the
conference, which is part of this year's Brisbane Festival. 

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie will co-chair the summit with
Mr Gorbachev while federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is also
expected to attend. 

But invitations to Mr Howard and other senior federal government
figures have been declined. 

Mr Beattie said it was "disappointing" that the Commonwealth
would be under-represented. 

"We'll be discussing sustainable management, natural resources
and world peace," he said. 

"Am I disappointed the Commonwealth seems under-represented? Yes
of course I am. Governments at all levels have a role to play." 

Mr Howard has twice knocked back requests to be a keynote
speaker, the most recent invitation on June 8 after he announced
the setting up of a uranium mining processing and nuclear energy
review task force. 

"The Prime Minister has other things organised in his diary for
those days," a spokeswoman for Mr Howard said. 

The parliamentary secretary to the PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has
also declined personal overtures from Earth Dialogues
organisers. 

Other knockbacks have come from Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer, Trade Minister Mark Vaile, Education Minister Julie
Bishop and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. 

Ziggy Switkowski, the chairman of the nuclear energy review task
force, also declined and told organisers he was not taking any
speaking engagements on the issue until September. 

Mr Gorbachev, 75, Soviet president from 1985-91, is renowned for
his contribution to the demise of communism in the USSR through
his reforms glasnost (openness) and perestroika (economic
restructuring). 

His role in ending the Cold War resulted in him being awarded
the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Other Nobel laureates coming to Brisbane include Irish peace
activist Betty Williams, Iranian human rights activist Shirin
Ebadi and Argentinian activist Aldolfo Perez Esquivel. 

© The Australian 
*****************************************************************
 37 UPI: Congress approves Coast Guard funding
     
   United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

6/30/2006 4:47:00 PM -0400                              

WASHINGTON, June 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. House of Representatives
approved nearly $10 billion funding for the Coast Guard this
week. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday
approved a $9.6 billion fiscal 2007 authorization bill for the
Coast Guard that includes a goal to speed the modernizing of the
service's ships and planes. The bill was dispatched by voice
vote to the House for action, CongressDaily reported. 

The measure included an amendment by Transportation and
Infrastructure Coast Guard Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo,
R-N.J., also approved separately by a voice vote, which
increased the cost of the original $8.4 billion bill by another
$1.2 billion, the report said. 

With LoBiondo's amendment, the total amount included for the
integrated Deepwater System, the Coast Guard's acquisition plan
to modernize its fleet, would be $1.7 billion, according to
committee aides. 

LoBiondo said the Deepwater authorization, if Congress goes
along with appropriations to match the authorization, would
enable the Coast Guard to be on a path to modernization in 15
years, instead of a previously estimated 25 years. 

The bill, with the extra funds added by LoBiondo, would boost
the measure by about $1.6 billion over the amount requested by
President George W. Bush for fiscal 2007. It would authorize
45,500 active duty personnel for fiscal 2007 -- the same as this
year, CongressDaily said. 

The LoBiondo amendment also asked the Coast Guard to enter into
an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to improve
security in waters located near nuclear power plants. 

An amendment by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., to end a special
operating exemption for an oil rig service company in the Gulf
of Mexico was approved by voice vote, the report said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: NRC Issues a White Finding to Exelon for the Handling of Unplanned Tritium Releases
at Braidwood

News Release - Region III - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-026           
June 30, 2006 CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria 
Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a final white
finding to Exelon for multiple failures to properly evaluate the
radiological impacts of unplanned releases from a pipe which
goes from the Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant to the Kankakee
River. The plant is operated by Exelon Generation Co. 

On November 30, 2005, Braidwood staff informed the NRC that
elevated levels of tritium were found on plant property. The
discovery was made as additional monitoring wells were installed
by Braidwood staff. 

All radioactive discharges into the circulating water blowdown
line, which takes non-radioactive water from the cooling lake to
the river, were stopped when the contamination was discovered. 

Subsequently, Braidwood expanded its sampling beyond the plant
boundary, including residential wells. Outside of the plant,
tritium was found in one residential drinking water well. The
tritium levels there were significantly less than the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standard of
20,000 picocuries per liter. The remaining residential well
samples had no tritium above normal background levels. The plant
staff found that the area of contaminated groundwater extended
2000 to 2500 feet north of the plant boundary. 

The NRC conducted inspections to characterize and evaluate the
tritium contamination on plant property and in the public
domain. The inspectors collected independent and confirmatory
samples for independent analysis, reviewed plant procedures and
records, and observed activities related to the contamination. 

The NRC confirmed that unplanned releases from the pipe, which
is about 5 miles long and has 11 vacuum breaker valves, occurred
between 1996 and 2005. The releases were due to leakage from the
vacuum breakers. The inspectors concluded that the largest leaks
occurred in 1996 (about 250,000 gallons of water); 1998 and 2000
(about 3,000,000 gallons of water) during the radioactive
releases through the pipe and led to the tritium contamination
onsite and offsite. 

The NRCs findings are not based on the radiological impact of
the unplanned releases on public health. The NRC estimated the
doses from the contamination to be a small fraction of the NRCs
limit for doses to members of the public. 

The NRC staff identified three violations of NRC regulations
related to significant deficiencies in Braidwoods environmental
control programs: failure to perform necessary radiological
surveys; failure to adequately implement a program to assess the
cumulative dose of the releases; and failure to conduct an
adequate monitoring program to provide data on measurable levels
of radiation and radioactivity in the environment resulting from
the releases. 

We recognize that the radiological impact of these releases on
public health is not a concern here, said James Caldwell, NRC
Regional Administrator. However making sure that nuclear
material doesnt end up where its not supposed to be is
important. It is also important to analyze the situation and to
mitigate it quickly and efficiently when an unplanned release
occurs. 

Exelon has performed extensive monitoring since the discovery of
the contamination and has taken steps to mitigate the impact of
the unplanned releases. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start
with green and then increase to white, yellow or red,
commensurate with the safety significance of the issues
involved. 

White findings normally result in additional NRC inspections and
meetings with the utility. Based on the white finding, the NRC
issued a Notice of Violation to Exelon Generation Co. for its
failures to perform surveys following the historical leaks, to
assess the environmental impacts, and to account for potential
impact on the public, and to control licensed material. The
company is required to respond to the Notice of Violation within
30 days, describing its corrective actions and steps it is
taking to prevent a recurrence of the violation. 

The letter notifying Exelon of the white finding will be
available from the NRCs Region III Office of Public Affairs or
in the NRCs online document library at:
http://www.nrc.gov.reading-rm/admas/web-based.html.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 39 NRC: NRC Finds Inadequate Valve Analysis Prior to Power Uprate to be of Low to Moderate
Safety Significance

News Release - Region III - 2006-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-027           
June 30, 2006 CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria 
Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final
determination that the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station failed
to ensure that Unit 1 electromatic relief valves function
properly when exposed to the increased vibrations. Increased
vibrations occurred following Quad Cities implementing a 2002
extended power uprate of both reactor units. The NRC determined
the failure to ensure the electromatic relief valves function
properly to be of low to moderate safety significance. The plant
is operated by Exelon Generation Co. 

Electromatic relief valves perform safety-significant functions
of protecting the reactor vessel from overpressure and of
depressurizing the reactor quickly in certain conditions. 

Quad Cities staff identified the degradation of electromatic
relief valve actuators in December 2005 and January 2006. 

In January 2006, the NRC conducted a special inspection to
understand the reasons for the degradation, review the
historical usage and maintenance of the valves, evaluate the
plants response to previously identified indications associated
with suspect valve operability, and assess the Quad Cities
staffs efforts to determine the extent of the problem. 

A follow-up inspection, conducted in May 2006, focused on
reviewing the plants understanding of the root cause for the
electromatic relief valve actuator degradation. 

The NRC found that Quad Cities failed to establish design
controls to ensure that the electromatic relief valve actuators
would function properly when exposed to increased vibrations of
the main steam line that occurs as a result of an extended
reactor power uprate. Even though this finding did not present
an immediate safety concern because the reactor was shut down
when the issue was identified, the NRC determined that Quad
Cities had likely operated for a period of time with multiple
electromatic relief valves being inoperable. 

The NRCs finding shows how important it is to thoroughly review
the design of safety-significant equipment that could be
vulnerable to increased main steam line vibrations before
implementing an extended power uprate, said James Caldwell, NRC
Regional Administrator. It is also important for plant staff to
pay attention to early indicators of a problem and to address
them in a timely and efficient manner. 

The companys corrective actions included replacing the Unit
1electromatic relief valve actuators, installing new
electromatic relief valve actuators designed to withstand the
increased vibrations, and installing an additional modification
to reduce the overall main steam line vibration levels. 

White findings normally result in additional NRC inspections and
meetings with the utility. Based on the white finding, the NRC
issued a Notice of Violation to Exelon Generation Co. for its
failure to ensure that the application of the electromatic
relief valve actuators, which perform important safety-related
functions, remained suitable for operation prior to implementing
an extended power uprate. The company is required to respond to
the Notice of Violation within 30 days, describing its
corrective actions and steps it is taking to prevent a
recurrence of the violation. 

The letter notifying Exelon of the white finding will be
available from the NRCs Region III Office of Public Affairs or
in the NRCs online document library at:
http://www.nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 40 SF Chronicle: Remembering the Marshall Islands
 
Remembering the Marshall Islands
 
Jane Goodall, Rick Asselta
 
Friday, June 30, 2006
 				
As a result of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands 60 years
ago, many of the Marshallese Islanders still suffer today. Yet,
few Americans know about this shameful chapter of history.

Today, June 30, which marks a painful anniversary for many in
the South Pacific, is just another day for those unaware of the
atrocities that took place there. This year, I hope the
anniversary might open the eyes of people in America and around
the world: We must acknowledge the damage done in the past and
rise up out of our apathy to ensure such horrors are not
perpetrated again. 

I became aware of the nuclear testing program initiated after
World War II from a friend who witnessed the aftermath of the
devastation first hand. Rick Asselta was sent to the Marshall
Islands as a Peace Corps volunteer to help comfort islanders
whose homes and lives were destroyed by the testing. Between
1946 and 1958, the American military tested 67 nuclear weapons
at Bikini and Enewetak. Prior to the first of these tests, the
islanders were evacuated to other atolls, more than 100 miles
away, and, as a precaution, the inhabitants of three other
atolls were moved temporarily. 

In 1952, the first hydrogen bomb was tested -- at 10.4 megatons,
it was some 750 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb. In 1954,
an even larger hydrogen bomb was detonated. On the eve of this
test, code-named Bravo, weather reports indicated that
atmospheric conditions were deteriorating, and on the morning of
the test, the winds were blowing strongly toward a number of
U.S. ships as well as several inhabited islands, including
Rongelap and Utrik. Nevertheless, despite the clear danger to
the people on these islands, the bomb, 1,000 times the strength
of the Hiroshima bomb, was detonated. Great clouds of gritty,
white ash rained down on several atolls, affecting many people,
including some American weathermen. 

It would be two days before people were moved from Rongelap, the
worst affected island, and another day passed before Utrik was
evacuated. The islanders suffered skin burns, and their hair
fell out. Yet, in a statement to the press, the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission stated that some Americans and Marshallese
were "unexpectedly exposed to some radioactivity. There were no
burns. All were reported well." Subsequently, the commission
drafted a report, not publicly released, in which it concluded
that the Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18
atolls and islands. Some years after that, an additional survey
by the U.S. Department of Energy revealed that yet other atolls
and islands had been affected by one or more of the tests,
including five that were inhabited. 

Three years after Bravo, in 1955, the inhabitants of Utrik were
allowed to return because their island "was only slightly
contaminated and considered safe." Two years later, Rongelap was
declared safe "in spite of slight lingering radiation" and the
people returned. A chilling report was issued at this time by
Brookhaven National Laboratory scientists, who stated that
although the contamination was considered perfectly safe "the
levels of activity are higher than those found in other
inhabited locations in the world. The habitation of these people
on the island will afford most valuable ecological radiation
data on human beings" (my italics). 

In 1963, nine years after their exposure to Bravo, the first
thyroid tumors began appearing among the people of Rongelap.
Thirteen years later, 20 of the 29 Rongelap children who were
under 10 years old at the time of Bravo had developed these
tumors. At the same time, it became clear that people exposed to
lower levels of radiation were still at risk -- there was simply
a longer latency period before health problems appeared. 

Eleven years after the last nuclear tests, in 1969, the
commission announced that Bikini was safe for rehabilitation.

However, the Bikini council was not satisfied by this assurance
and only a few families returned to their homes. How fortunate
-- six years later, a U.S. Department of the Interior official
reported "higher levels of radioactivity than originally
thought" -- some ground wells were too radioactive for safe use,
and several types of staple foods had to be prohibited. Six
years after returning home, the few families who had returned to
Bikini were moved yet again when additional testing showed that
they had sustained an "incredible" 75 percent increase in
radioactive cesium. 

Before staging this ghastly series of tests in the Marshall
Islands, home of a gentle people with an ancient culture, the
United States, in its role as administrator of the area,
undertook to "protect the inhabitants against the loss of their
lands and resources". Unfortunately, this promise was hardly
fulfilled. 

Eventually, in 1977, Congress approved a nuclear cleanup of
Enewetak Atoll. Of course, compensation in dollar amounts has
been negotiated for the abused and exploited islanders, though
not nearly enough. 

Nor was nuclear testing the only horrifying test program
inflicted on the Marshall Islands. Project Shipboard Hazards and
Defense was part of a United States chemical and biological
warfare test program that was conducted during the 1960s.

Project SHAD was designed to test the vulnerability of U.S.
warships to attacks by biological and chemical agents and to
develop procedures to respond to such attacks. In 1968,
biological agents, live staphylococcal enterotoxin type B,
Bacillus globigii and uranine dye, were sprayed in aerosolized
form, not only over six military ships, but also over part of
the Enewetak Atoll. Those tests were linked to a sudden
nationwide outbreak of a very severe flu-like disease in the
Marshall Islands, which caused some deaths. 

Subsequently, many U.S. servicemen complained of health problems
they believed had resulted from their involvement in SHAD. It
was the complaints of these veterans that eventually led to the
above disclosures by the U.S. Department of Defense, through the
Freedom of Information Act. 

How many other people, in how many other countries have
suffered, I wonder, during the testing of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons? That governments are still developing and
testing nuclear bombs -- along with chemical and biological
weapons -- is a crime against humanity that surely can never be
justified or forgiven. On June 30, I hope you will pause and
reflect on the events which happened more than half a century
ago, the long-lasting effects of which continue to afflict many
people of the Marshall Islands today. 

I have a small wooden carving made by an old man who, despite
the risk of radiation, returned to his island. It was his home,
he said, where he had known a carefree childhood until foreign
nations determined to use it to test their devil's weapons. He
gave it to Rick, who has given it to me. I carry it with me as a
symbol of the indomitable human spirit, and also as a reminder
of the atrocities that were perpetrated that we must, somehow,
prevent from ever happening again. 

Jane Goodall is a U.N. Messenger of Peace and a recipient of the
Gandhi-King Peace Award for Nonviolence. To learn more about the
Jane Goodall Institute, go to www.janegoodall.org. 				

Page B - 11
 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 41 NRC: NRC Extends Public Comment Period on Basis for Establishing a National Source Tracking System for
Certain Sealed Sources

News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-088     June 30, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended the public
comment period on the change in the basis for the proposed rule
implementing a National Source Tracking System (NSTS), which
would enhance controls for certain sealed radioactive materials
used in industry, academia and medicine. The change in basis is
from the NRCs authority to promote the common defense and
security to the NRCs authority to protect public health and
safety. Comments will be accepted until July 28, 2006. 

Interested parties may submit comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be
e-mailed to: SECY@nrc.gov, or sent through the NRC's rulemaking
Web page at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Comments may also be hand
delivered to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., 20852,
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on federal workdays. Faxed comments
made be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
at (301) 415-1101. Please include the number RIN 3150-AH48 in
the subject line of all comments. 

Comments on rulemakings are made available to the public in
their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal
information will not be removed. 

The Federal Register notices and other documents related to this
rulemaking can be seen at:
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/library?source=*&amp;library=tr
acking_lib&amp;file=*&amp;st=prule.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, June 30, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 42 Reid: REIDâ€™S EFFORTS MOVE NTS WORKERS CLOSER TO COMPENSATION

06/29/2006
 				 				 
Harry Reidâ€™s efforts to ensure compensation for Nevada Test
Site employees who contracted cancer from their work moved
closer to completion this week upon receipt of a letter from the
Health and Human Services Department (HHS). 

On Monday, June 26th, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
transmitted to Congress his recommendation that a Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC) be established for NTS workers employed at
least 250 days from 1951 â€“ 1962, the years of the above ground
nuclear tests. This moves NTS workers closer to SEC status
which, once granted, will result in an expedited compensation
process for NTS workers. Senator Reid initiated the process in
November 2005 when he asked the Bush Administration to initiate
an SEC for Nevada Test Site workers. 

â€œThe Secretary of Health and Human Services action is a giant
step toward ensuring compensation for the Nevada Test Siteâ€™s
atomic energy veteranâ€™s. I am pleased to announce that nearly
one-third of NTS claimants would be compensated under this
Cohort,â€ said Reid. â€œThe contribution of the State of Nevada
to the security of the United States throughout the Cold War and
since is unparalleled. The United States conducted 100
aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test
Site from 1951 â€“ 1992. That is 88 percent of the nuclear tests
conducted in the United States. It is time we compensate these
Cold War heroes for the illnesses they have suffered.â€ 

According to HHS, approximately 400 of NTS claimants will be
compensated under this SEC. 

Once the letters are transmitted to Congress, Congress has 30
days to act. If Congress does nothing to block it, the SEC is
granted. 

In addition, Senator Reid continues to push for passage of his
legislation, the Nevada Test Site Veteranâ€™s Compensation Act,
which would grant SEC status for a greater number of Test Site
Workers. 


### 

Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757                         
[ /]                          Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 
Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030                         [ 
/]                          Carson City 600 East William St, #302 
Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 
775-883-1980                         [ /]                          
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) [ /]            [ /]            [ /]            
*****************************************************************
 43 [BATN] Unions oppose 1-man freight train crew plan using PTS
 
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:13:20 -0000

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Published Thursday, June 29, 2006, by McClatchy Newspapers

One-man train crew plan raises security fears

By Judy L. Thomas
McClatchy Newspapers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Freight trains hauling thousands of tons of 
toxic materials -- including chlorine, ammonia and radioactive 
waste -- are crisscrossing the United States every day, rolling
past homes, schools and densely populated areas.

But now, railroad companies want to reduce the size of the crews 
that control those trains from two or three people to as few as
one person.

Critics who point to the deadly bombings of passenger trains in 
London and Madrid, Spain, call the lone crewman proposal "a 
prescription for disaster," arguing that not enough has been done 
since Sept. 11, 2001, to safeguard the nation's rail system from 
terrorist attacks.

"Even one tank car of chlorine, if it derails and opens, has the 
potential of killing hundreds of people through a deadly cloud," 
said Frank Wilner, a spokesman for the United Transportation Union, 
which represents conductors who probably would lose their jobs.

Rail officials, however, counter that the sophisticated satellite 
technology behind their proposal -- called Positive Train Control
-- would actually improve rail safety, as well as increase 
profitability in their booming $42-billion-a-year industry.

"One person with the technology is safer than two people without the 
technology," said Peggy Wilhide, a spokeswoman for the Association 
of American Railroads.

Wilhide said that railroads want the flexibility to decide how many 
people are in the locomotive depending on the route, the length of 
the trip and what they are hauling. "So it isn't automatically one 
person in every cab," she said.

But engineers and conductors argue that one person is not enough if 
the train encounters mechanical problems and the lone crewmember 
must check them out, leaving the engine idling and the controls 
unattended.

The debate hits close to home because Kansas City is the second-
largest rail hub in the country, with more than 300 trains coming 
and going daily -- many of them carrying deadly chemicals.

More than 64 percent of the chemicals that are toxic when inhaled 
are currently transported by rail, Kip Hawley, assistant secretary 
of the Homeland Security Department, told a congressional committee 
in October. Each tank car carries an average of 90 tons of chlorine 
or 30,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia.

The big fear is that terrorists could take over a train and turn 
those tankers into weapons of mass destruction. A terrorist attack 
on just one chlorine car passing through Washington, D.C., could 
kill 100,000 in just 20 minutes, a scientist for the Naval Research 
Laboratory told officials in 2004.

Such concerns aren't unfounded. Between 1998 and 2003, trains, 
depots, ticket stations and rail bridges were the targets of about 
180 terrorist attacks worldwide, according to the Rand Corp., a 
consulting firm that advises U.S. government agencies. Those
attacks resulted in more than 400 deaths and thousands of injuries.

Indeed, terrorists may focus even more attention on rail targets. A 
new book excerpted last week in Time magazine describes an alleged 
plot by al-Qaida terrorists in 2003 to kill thousands of commuters 
by releasing cyanide gas in New York subways.

Last July, a series of suicide bombings on three commuter trains
and a bus in London killed 56 people and injured 700. Bombings on 
the rail system in Madrid killed 192 and injured more than 2,000
in March 2004.

But it's not just terrorists who are a concern to critics of the 
single-person crew proposal. Derailments and train wrecks can 
release toxic chemicals, as well.

Last year in the United States, 36 accidents forced the evacuations 
of 7,636 people, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. 
Chlorine gas released in a derailment in Graniteville, S.C., killed 
nine people, injured hundreds and forced thousands to evacuate.

"It's scary," said Eric Bunch, a Kansas City-area train 
engineer. "Everybody's concerned about safety, especially with the 
terrorism issue. ... With only one person on the train, it would 
make it that much easier for someone to overtake the engine. It 
would be the same as if they took away the co-pilot and you just
had one guy flying the plane."

Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety 
Board, said Positive Train Control systems could have prevented some 
of the fatal accidents that the board investigated during his tenure.

"So I think that it's a road that certainly both union and 
management ought to explore," Hall said.

But because trains are potential targets of terrorists, he added, 
when it comes to single-person crews, "You may want to have a 
different set of rules for trains that carry hazardous materials."

The Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the 
Homeland Security Department, said the agency has no position on
one-person crews or Positive Train Control.

"However, if the rail industry chooses to implement it, we don't 
consider Positive Train Control a security risk," said spokeswoman 
Carrie Harmon.

The controversy over single-person crews surfaced in November 2004 
in contract negotiations.

Rail company officials will not comment on the dispute. They refer 
questions to the Association of American Railroads, which represents 
North America's major freight lines.

But railway officials are publicly touting their Positive Train 
Control technology under which a single-person crew would operate
a train. Positive Train Control allows the train to run without a 
conductor.

Using the Global Positioning System-based technology, if a train is 
going too fast or is exceeding its approved area of travel and the 
engineer fails to respond to warnings, the system can automatically 
slow or stop the train. Railway officials contend that this would 
cut down on human error -- the most common cause of train accidents
-- and reduce collisions and derailments.

They also say the new system could prevent someone from hijacking a 
train.

"With this system, if somebody were to get on, they wouldn't be
able to move the train," said Patrick Hiatte, a spokesman for BNSF 
Railway, formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. "If that train 
didn't have authority, it wouldn't move."

Railroads are testing the system. Since October 2004, BNSF has 
operated a pilot program involving 50 trains traveling 135 miles 
between Beardstown and Centralia in Illinois.

"We have run more than 1,700 trips," Hiatte said. "So far, it has 
stopped every train that it was supposed to stop, and it has not 
stopped any train that it should not have stopped."

Hiatte said BNSF already has asked the Federal Railroad 
Administration for permission to test its Electronic Train 
Management System on runs between Fort Worth, Texas, and Arkansas 
City in south central Kansas. The company also has requested federal 
approval to use the technology throughout its network.

But union leaders argue that it is unknown whether the Positive 
Train Control system would improve rail safety or security, because 
it is still experimental.

"The technology that they're proposing is not proven yet," said John 
Bentley, a spokesman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 
Trainmen. "It's so new that it's not universal. Different railroads 
are trying out different systems, and those systems don't 
communicate with each other."

Earlier this year, union leaders said the railroad industry's 
attempts to reduce crew size would jeopardize public safety.

"Trains operating through populated areas and carrying deadly hazmat 
(hazardous materials) and considered a target of terrorists should 
not be permitted to operate with only a single person aboard. 
Railroads transport deadly hazmat on tracks that are within blocks 
of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Train tracks are located in the 
heart of major population centers ..." union officials said.

They also pointed out that a single-person crew would be dangerous 
if:

A train broke down and blocked a crossing. One person could not 
quickly disconnect the train to unblock a crossing if an emergency 
vehicle needed to pass through.

An air hose broke in the back of the train. One person would not be 
able to get to it quickly.

A train is involved in a grade-crossing crash. One person would not 
be enough to handle such emergencies.

"Things go on in the operation of a railroad that aren't even being 
considered," said Rick Inclima, director of education and safety for 
a division of the Teamsters Rail Conference.

Inclima said that, for example, a crewmember is required to walk the 
length of the train to check a problem. "If there's only one person 
on the train, are you going to leave the running locomotive 
unattended while the one guy goes out and walks a train that might 
be a mile long?" he asked.

But the crew-reduction proposal is just the latest in a series of 
rail cutbacks in recent decades. Until the late 1970s, train crews 
regularly consisted of five people -- an engineer, a conductor, a 
fireman and two brakemen. By the early 1980s, even cabooses started 
disappearing.

"So now we're kind of at the next juncture," said rail industry 
spokeswoman Wilhide. "And at this juncture, we're looking at having 
more flexibility on our crew size -- and in some instances, where it 
makes sense, to have one person in the locomotive."

Wilhide insisted that the railroads would not take that next step 
until they were certain the technology was in place. She added, 
however, that "the technology could be ready to go very soon."

Surprisingly, when it comes to the size of train crews, there are
no federal regulations.

"Train-crew size is done through negotiated contracts," said Steven 
Kulm, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration.

But Kulm said that all the major railroads are working on Positive 
Train Control technology and that a decision by his agency on BNSF's 
request to operate it systemwide may come later this summer. Both 
the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Transportation 
Safety Board support development of the technology.

Even without the new technology, industry officials insist the 
railways are secure. A recent Association of American Railroads 
document revealed that after Sept. 11, 2001, the industry worked 
with a team of former U.S. military and government experts to 
develop a comprehensive railroad security plan.

That plan established four alert levels and described actions 
designed to thwart terrorist threats to railroad personnel and 
facilities. It also increased employee training to ensure that 
railroad workers became "the eyes and ears of the railroad 
industry's security."

However, recent incidents suggest that it is not always that 
difficult to commandeer or derail a train:

In October, a man used a makeshift bow and arrow to take over a 
freight train in Montclair, Calif. The would-be train robber boarded 
the Union Pacific train while it was stopped for a signal on its way 
from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles, then threatened the engineer and 
conductor.

In March 2005, a train hauling chemicals derailed in Santa Fe 
Springs, Calif. Police arrested and later charged a 14-year-old boy 
in connection with causing the derailment.

Perhaps more disturbing was an FBI warning issued in 2002, which 
said the bureau had received information that terrorists might be 
planning attacks on U.S. railroads. Bureau officials said they had 
recovered al-Qaida photographs that showed railroad engines, cars 
and crossings.

A recent survey of thousands of railroad employees also found what 
unions called "a disturbing lack of security" in rail yards and 
along the nation's 167,000 miles of track.

The survey, conducted in 2004 and 2005 by the Teamsters Rail 
Conference, found that freight trains carrying hazardous chemicals 
routinely sat unmanned. Trespassers often roam freely through rail 
yards and along the rights of way, and railroad police rarely are 
visible.

Moreover, the survey found, engineers often have no backup in an 
emergency and -- other than a radio -- there are no distress codes 
or signals to contact authorities in a crisis.

"In short, workers say, America's rail lines appear one step shy of 
disaster," the survey's executive summary concluded.

Railroad workers maintain that warnings of potential attacks largely 
have been ignored. Eighty-four percent said they had not received 
any additional training on terrorism prevention and response in the 
past year. And 99 percent said they hadn't received training on the 
monitoring of nuclear waste shipments.

"It's not the rosy picture that the railroad industry portrays," 
Bentley said. "A lot of our members have been given a brochure or
a DVD to watch at home, but that's not really intense training to 
prevent a terrorist from taking over your train."

Industry officials dismissed the union's survey, saying it lacked 
credibility. They predicted that it is just a matter of time before 
the single-person crew issue is resolved.

"If we're going to have a 21st-century railroad, designed to handle 
the dramatic increase in freight that we're going to have, we need 
new technology," Wilhide said.

---

DANGERS ON THE RAILS

* In 2005 alone, there were 3,152 train accidents and 2,256 
derailments.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration

* In 2001, more than 83 million tons of hazardous materials were 
shipped by rail in the U.S.

Source: General Accounting Office

* Over the last three years, train collisions have increased from 
192 to 261. Employee fatalities are up 25 percent.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/kgOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Email article texts/URLs for posting to <BATN@yahoogroups.com>.

Manage your subscription by sending a blank email message to:
BATN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to subscribe,
BATN-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to unsubscribe,
BATN-digest@yahoogroups.com to switch email to digest mode,
BATN-normal@yahoogroups.com to switch email to normal mode,
BATN-nomail@yahoogroups.com to switch email delivery off.
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN for web access & archives. 
*****************************************************************
 44 Las Vegas SUN: Senate committee cuts spending on Nevada nuclear waste dump 

Today: June 30, 2006 at 12:51:32 PDT 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A U.S. Senate committee voted to cut spending
for a national nuclear waste repository in Nevada and raised
questions about how the Yucca Mountain project was being
redesigned. 

The Appropriations Committee on Thursday allocated $494.5
million for the project in an Energy Department spending bill
for 2007, $50 million less than the Bush administration
requested. 

Committee members said they wanted more information from the
Energy Department about how used nuclear fuel would be packaged
at reactors and managed at the repository, 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a senior
Appropriations Committee member and a Yucca Mountain repository
opponent, wrote parts of the legislation - including a call for
a Government Accountability Office audit of the project's
budget. 

In a budget report, senators told the Energy Department to limit
spending on repository transportation activities and a planned
waste canister handling complex at the Yucca site, and to hold
spending below this year's levels on other redesign components. 

"The committee is concerned that the department is redesigning
the repository with significant changes," the committee said,
adding that the changes and delays in the program, "have forced
the committee to reconsider the project's budget needs." 

The GAO audit request grew out of a Clark County study earlier
this year that suggested the Energy Department might be
budgeting for engineering tasks that are "premature" considering
the site has not been licensed, a Reid aide said. 

The Yucca Mountain "go-slow" directive is in a bill that
authorizes Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to designate sites for
temporary spent fuel storage in states that have nuclear power
plants. 

The bill approved the $250 million the Bush administration
requested for 2007 for a nuclear waste reprocessing initiative
called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

The parts of the bill dealing with waste "acknowledge that the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump is failing and that we must
look at other solutions," Reid said. 

DOE officials in October started redesigning its plans for
handling radioactive spent fuel at reactor sites and at the
proposed Yucca facility. 

Congress in 2002 approved the Energy Department plan to entomb
77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive waste at the Yucca
site. 

The department wanted to open the dump in 2010, but allegations
that government scientists skirted quality control requirements
and a federal court's invalidation of the government's proposed
radiation safety standards have pushed back the opening date. 

The department now says it hopes to open the repository by 2020,
but won't give an exact date. 

Officials say they plan to apply for a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission license in the 2008 fiscal year - a decade after the
federal government was contractually obligated to begin
accepting spent fuel from nuclear utilities. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 
 
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 45 AP Wire: AmerenUE reports radioactive particles along pipeline

06/30/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

FULTON, Mo. - AmerenUE said Friday that small amounts of
radioactive materials had been detected along a pipeline that
discharges water from its Callaway County nuclear power plant. 

The state Department of Natural Resources said it was monitoring
the situation and agreed with the St. Louis-based utility that
the particles did not appear to pose a public health threat. 

AmerenUE said radioactive tritium and other radionuclides were
found in the soil at seven manholes along its 5-mile pipe that
carries water to the Missouri River. 

Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen
that is found in trace amounts of groundwater. It also is a
byproduct of electricity production at nuclear power plants. 

The radioactive particles were discovered as part of a new
sampling program begun in June after the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission directed all nuclear plants to search for possible
tritium contamination following a leak at an Illinois plant, the
Department of Natural Resources said. 

The department said the tritium levels found by AmerenUE are
below those that would have required notice to the NRC prior to
the new guidelines. 

AmerenUE said it tested all known water wells near the nuclear
plant as well as the drinking water plant in the nearby town of
Portland and found no contamination. 

The department said it will work with AmerenUE to collect
additional soil and groundwater samples at various locations
near the contaminated sites and will work with the state
Department of Health and Senior Services to conduct an
independent analysis. 

AmerenUE said the radionuclides that it discharges must fall
within federal limits as the water leaves its plant and
generally becomes further diluted by the millions of gallons of
water in the Missouri River. The department said that AmerenUE
officials believe that water dripping from air relief valves
over the years resulted in the buildup of soil contamination
found within the manholes. 

*****************************************************************
 46 Deseret News: Panel OKs bill to bar funds for nuclear waste storage
in Tooele 

[deseretnews.com] 

Friday, June 30, 2006 

By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a plan 
Thursday that would bar the federal government from paying for a 
temporary nuclear-waste storage site in Utah. 

The bill does not outright cancel the Private Fuel 
Storage project planned for the Goshute Indian Reservation in 
Tooele County, but it creates federal competition that could 
lead to a more attractive alternative than the PFS site for 
nuclear utilities struggling to handle their nuclear waste. 

"I'm extremely pleased that we've found a solution that 
will ultimately eliminate the need to send nuclear waste to 
Skull Valley," said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, who sits on the 
Appropriations Committee. "Utahns have sufficient reasons to 
celebrate today's Senate actions." 

The government would use money out of the Nuclear Waste 
Fund to pay for federal interim-storage sites, while utilities 
that opted to move waste to PFS would have to pay for it 
themselves. 

The $30.7 billion energy and water spending bill contains 
$10 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a "Consolidation and 
Preparation" program, known as CAP, for nuclear waste. 

Nuclear power users have put $28 billion into the Nuclear 
Waste Fund since 1983. Federal law currently stipulates the fund 
can only be used to finance the government's planned geological 
repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas. 

If the plan approved by the Senate committee is made law, 
it could allow $10 million from the fund to go toward the 
interim storage sites. About $18 billion remains in the fund. 

The energy secretary also would appoint a consolidation 
and preparation director who would recommend places in states 
with nuclear-power plants to temporarily store nuclear waste 
until the federal storage site planned for Nevada's Yucca 
Mountain would open. 

But according to the bill, "any state in which a 
commercial, away-from-reactor, dry-cask storage facility is 
authorized" is "ineligible" for a one of these new sites. 
Because Private Fuel Storage meets those criteria, Utah would be 
ineligible for such a site. PFS received its license from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year. 

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin took issue with the term 
"state" because the proposed PFS site would be on Goshute land, 
which is sovereign from state control. But she added that she 
had not seen the exact proposal yet Thursday and could not 
comment further on how it would affect PFS. 

Michele Boyd, a legislative representative for Public 
Citizen, said such a "huge policy change" is "inappropriate to 
do in an appropriations bill." 

She said the plan was crafted behind closed doors, was 
made public just this week and was voted on with no hearing, 
debate or public involvement. The bill's wording, which excludes 
Utah, "shows that no state is going to be excited about having 
(nuclear waste) in their state." 

Boyd has no problems with Nuclear Waste Fund money going 
to secure waste on-site at nuclear-power plants — which would 
keep it out of Yucca and avoid transportation risk. But she said 
this new plan offers no long-term solution. 

The licenses for the federal interim-storage sites would 
only last 25 years and could not be renewed, according to the 
bill. 

The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, a group of nuclear 
utilities and public officials that supports the Yucca Mountain 
project, would rather see Congress work on legislation that 
changes other aspects of the Yucca project. 

"We should be talking about reforming the fees paid into 
the Nuclear Waste Fund as offsetting collections to protect 
future funding of the permanent repository," said LeRoy 
Koppendrayer, chairman of the Minnesota Public Utilities 
Commission, who heads the coalition. "Instead, we are now 
talking about stranding waste indefinitely throughout the 
nation." 

The full Senate still needs to pass the bill, which may 
not come until the fall. The bill would have to be reconciled 
with the House energy-spending bill before becoming law. The 
House bill contains $30 million for interim storage of waste but 
encourages the government to look at federal, military or 
private sites as places to store the waste until Yucca opens. 

The Senate bill also contains $82.8 million for other 
Utah projects, including $40 million for the Central Utah 
Project. 

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 47 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Senate panel cuts requested funding
 
  Jun. 30, 2006

Legislation questions redesign of repository     

By STEVE TETREAULT <br/>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee Thursday cut next year's 
spending for Yucca Mountain as it raised questions about how the 
proposed nuclear waste repository is being redesigned. 

The Appropriations Committee said it was withholding support for 
the redesign until the Department of Energy provides a clear 
picture of how used nuclear fuel would be packaged at reactors 
and then managed at the repository site, 100 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas. 

The panel approved $494.5 million for Yucca Mountain in a DOE 
spending bill for 2007, $50 million less than the Bush 
administration requested. 

In a report with the bill, senators told the department to limit 
spending on a planned waste canister handling complex at the 
Yucca site and on transportation activities. The agency was told 
not to increase spending beyond this year's levels on other 
components of the redesign. 

"The committee is concerned that the department is redesigning 
the repository with significant changes," the committee said. The 
changes, with delays in the program, "have forced the committee 
to reconsider the project's budget needs." 

The bill calls for an audit by the Government Accountability
Office of the Energy Department's budget for Yucca Mountain. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., an Appropriations Committee senior
member and a repository opponent, wrote parts of the legislation
that was approved by the panel Thursday and sent on to the full
Senate. 

The GAO audit request grew from a Clark County study earlier
this year that suggested DOE might be budgeting for engineering
tasks that are "premature" considering the site has not been
licensed, a Reid aide said. 

The Yucca Mountain go-slow directive is in the same bill that
authorizes the energy secretary to designate sites for temporary
spent fuel storage in states that have nuclear power plants. 

The bill approved the $250 million the Bush administration
requested for 2007 for a nuclear waste reprocessing initiative
called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

The parts of the bill dealing with waste "acknowledge that the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump is failing and that we must
look at other solutions," Reid said. 

DOE officials in October started a redesign for handling
radioactive spent fuel at reactor sites and at the proposed
Yucca facility. 

The department wants to develop multipurpose "transportation,
aging and disposal" canisters that would enable the material to
be packaged, shipped and placed within the mountain. 

While the canisters could simplify operations at Yucca, they
said, most of the waste handling would take place at reactors
where the material would be inserted into the containers. 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent science
panel, said in a June 14 letter that the department faces
hurdles to make the canisters available in time for licensing
and use by utilities. 

Board members questioned how the containers would get to Yucca
Mountain if the agency is delayed in building a railroad line to
the site. 

They said the department was unable to provide enough details at
a May 9 presentation of how the waste would be handled once it
arrived at the Nevada site. 

The spending bill that advanced Thursday contained other Nevada
funding. 

It granted $2 million to the state for Yucca Mountain oversight,
while nine Nevada counties and Inyo County in California would
split $7.5 million. Nye County would be given an additional
$500,000 as the repository host county. 

The Senate bill restores $22.5 million for geothermal
development in Nevada and the West that had been omitted by the
Bush administration. 

The bill contains more than $350 million in earmarks for Nevada
energy and water projects, spending at the Nevada Test Site,
restoration at Walker Lake and Lake Tahoe, and research grants
to universities, Reid's office said. 

The House passed a corresponding bill in May that contains full
funding for Yucca Mountain, cuts Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership spending to $120 million and takes another approach
to interim waste storage. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 48 RGJ.com: Reid slashes Yucca Mountain funding

Posted: 6/30/2006 

EVAN VUCCI/AP
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. 

Washington, D.C. "" U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has once
again sliced the budget for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste dump to a level far below what proponents had hoped for.

Reid is the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, which today approved a bill that
would provide $494 million for the Yucca Mountain project in
fiscal year 2007 "" slightly less than this year's $500 million
budget.

Reid, Nevada's leading opponent of Yucca Mountain, has kept the
project's budget at the same level for three years now, without
even increases to offset inflation. President Bush had asked for
$50 million more for Yucca than the amount in the Senate bill,
and the Department of Energy estimates it would need twice as
much to keep the project on schedule.

"The Yucca Mountain nuke dump has been riddled with scientific,
health, and safety problems from the beginning," said Reid. "I
don't believe the dump will ever open. I think anything spent on
Yucca is a waste of money, so I'm pleased we were able to keep
the funding levels low, although it's a shame we're throwing any
good taxpayer money after bad."

In addition, the $494 million budget for next year includes $10
million that would actually be used for a different project "" a
plan to create interim storage sites outside of Nevada.

The measure contains language instructing the Department of
Energy to work with states that have nuclear reactors to
identify the need for, and location of, interim storage sites
within those states or regions. Nuclear waste could be stored at
those sites for 25 years. The bill upholds the conditions of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which specifies that no interim
storage can be placed in Nevada.

"My goal is on-site, dry cask storage of nuclear waste. While
this bill does not fully accomplish that personal goal of mine,
it is a significant step in the right direction," said Reid.
"This measure will give us time to study the problem of nuclear
waste and work towards a solution that is safe and viable. It's
a good bipartisan compromise."

The FY '07 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill also requires a
General Accounting Office audit of the Yucca Mountain budget
money.

The audit would ensure that all appropriated money is spent in
accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

The full Committee was expected to approve the Senate bill
Thursday. 


© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 49 THE PEACOCK REPORT (TPR): DoE Turns to Industry Contractors For
 'Independent' Audits of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Project

THE PEACOCK REPORT (TPR)
 		
DIG. DISCOVER. DISCLOSE. Investigative reporting and occasional
satire by writer Steve Peacock 
	 			 				 					 						 							 
 DoE Researches Multi-Ton Nuclear Waste Transfer Systems
for Yucca Mountain Project &raquo;						 	

June 30, 2006
 			
[Yucca_mountain_johnny_1] Several "independent" assessments of
plans to build a nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada are being pursued by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DoE),
which requires Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval
prior to constructing the centralized waste site. According to
new planning documents that TPR has obtained, DoE is seeking
private-sector help on multiple fronts in a decades-old attempt
by the department to develop and then open an underground
storage facility for nationwide shipments of nuclear waste. DoE
in recent days posted "pre-solicitation notices" to an
accessible government-contracting database, alerting so-called
independent auditors to a soon-to-be-announced formal request
for bids; however, a closer look at the documents reveal DoEâ€™s
explicit need to bring aboard "people with commercial nuclear
power senior management experience" to serve on the audit teams,
thereby raising questions about the level of independence that
these assessments will provide. 

One of the upcoming audits will review the technical plans of
Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC (<span style="font-size:
1.2em;">BSC</span>), a corporate entity that contracting giants
<span style="font-size: 1.2em;">Bechtel </span>and <span
style="font-size: 1.2em;">Science Applications International
Corp</span>. jointly formed in order to manage the Yucca
Mountain Repository. This auditing action will assess "the
adequacy and efficiency of the engineering processes and
procedures" used by BSC as well as by DoEâ€™s Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management (<span style="font-size:
1.2em;">OCRWM</span>), according to the June 28 document. 

A separate audit will attempt to "determine the adequacy" of
quality assurance programs, or QAPs, "in their design and
implementation" by Bechtel SAIC as well as OCRWM. This auditing
team will determine whether the QAPs meets the requirements of
10CFR50, Appendix B (Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants). 

A third audit focuses on DoEâ€™s draft radioactive
waste-disposal license application, a version of which the
department eventually will file with NRC. This particular
contract action seeks to assemble a team of experts capable of
reviewing "the entire license application and repository design"
and subsequently providing DoE with a report that recommends
"solutions to problems or inadequacies found during the
assessment." The review team must ensure that the draft
application and repository design satisfy applicable NRC
regulations, specifically <em>Disposal of High-Level Radioactive
Wastes In a Geologic Repository At Yucca Mountain,
Nevada</em>(10 CFR 63), and The Yucca Mountain Review Plan(NUREG
1804). 

[Bushyucca] The Bush Administration has touted the future
development of the Yucca Mountain site as an effective means of
safeguarding the nationâ€™s nuclear waste in a single location,
rather than through many sites across the country, as is
currently the case. This approach will lessen the possibility
that the dangerous material could end up in the hands of thieves
or terrorists, <span style="font-size: 1.2em;">the
Administration argues</span>. Critics of the plan, such as <span
style="font-size: 1.2em;">Public Citizen</span>, claim that
"transportation routes to Yucca Mountain, by rail, road and
barge, would pass through as many as 44 states and the District
of Columbia, putting the dangerous waste within half a mile of
50 million people." The group also points out that the spent
fuel must temporarily remain on-site at reactors where it is
produced, because the material is so highly radioactive that it
cannot be moved for five years. Consequently, there never can be
just one national storage site as the Administration claims, it
says. 		 		 		 		 	 	
 		June 30, 2006 | Permalink 	 						 					 					 						 							
*****************************************************************
 50 Pahrump Valley Times: Hollis says county must help make Yucca work 

June 30, 2006

COMMISSION CHAIRMAN WANTS DUAL-USE RAILROAD LINE FOR NUCLEAR 
WASTE, COMMERCE 

By MARK WAITE PVT 

Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis gave a pro-Yucca
Mountain speech at a nuclear waste conference in Washington D.C.
June 22, telling delegates that county officials will try to be
part of the process of developing the repository.

 Hollis said his remarks were his alone.

 But he added, "It is our goal as local government most affected
by the repository to do everything in our power to make it work,
and anything less than that would be a failure of our duties and
our responsibilities to the citizens that we represent."

 "We will do our best to be part of the path forward for the
repository program and a part of the solution for new
generations of nuclear power plants that will eventually serve
as the nation's energy security," he said.

 Transportation of nuclear waste, the effort to examine some
type of recycling of nuclear waste, and mid-term storage of
nuclear waste while the repository is being built, will be three
key issues, Hollis said.

 But he said, "Whether we ever do full recycling or not, Yucca
Mountain is necessary.

 "We want the people who work in Yucca Mountain to live in our
county and we want the business and industry associated with
development and operation of the repository to be located in Nye
County to the best extent that it makes best business sense. We
want to know you and we want you to know us."

 The U.S. Department of Energy had debated building a rail line
to ship the waste from existing rail lines in Caliente in
eastern Nevada to Yucca Mountain, traveling around Nellis Air
Force Test and Training Range.

 Recently there has been talk about building a shorter rail line
from Hawthorne down western Nevada to Yucca Mountain.

 Hollis discounted opposition by Nye County residents to the
shipments of the high level nuclear waste.

 Instead, he urged officials to consider dual use of the rail
line for commerce as well as nuclear waste, with a Yucca
Mountain rail line that would hook up with existing railheads on
the other end.

 "Transportation is not an issue that most Nye citizens worry
about. We are especially interested in the potential economic
development a rail line might bring to our communities," Hollis
said.

 "The railroad investment could easily be expanded to benefit
north-south commerce in the western United States. Spent nuclear
fuel and high-level nuclear waste has safely been transported
for years. The private sector has clearly demonstrated its
capabilities in transportation."

 Hollis said considering all the things a county commissioner
has to deal with every day, he'd rank nuclear waste No. 10.

 "Dogs and cats and animal control come way before nuclear
waste," Hollis said to laughter. "I get zero calls on Yucca
Mountain but when it comes to dogs and cats I get it every
single day."

 Hollis said in the face of the misfortunes the Yucca Mountain
program faces and the uncertainty that exists, it should be
viewed as an opportunity for everyone assembled in the room.

 "I look forward to your companies setting up shop in Nye
County, sooner rather than later," Hollis said.

Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 51 Bradford Publishing: DOE to remove 42 buildings at West Valley site
 		 			 	 	 
Saturday, Jul. 01, 2006           

By RICK MILLER, The Times Herald06/30/2006

WEST VALLEY — The U.S. Department of Energy Thursday released a 
draft environmental assessment of its decontamination and 
demolition plans at the West Valley Demonstration Project.

The plans call for the decommissioning, demolition and removal of 
42 buildings at the site in the town of Ashford where a nuclear 
fuel reprocessing plant operated from 1966 to 1972.

The draft assessment makes no mention of the 600,000-gallon steel 
underground tanks that once held highly radioactive liquid waste. 
The Department of Energy (DOE) has previously said it plans to 
leave the tanks in the ground and fill them with cement.

To request a copy of the environmental assessment or to comment
at a July 12 public hearing at the Ashford Office Complex, call
the West Valley Demonstration Project communications office at
942-2152, or e-mail sonja.allen@wvnsco.com. The DOE
environmental assessment is available online at the DOE’s West
Valley Web site www.wv.doe.gov.
 
The public comment period ends July 13. 

Ashford Supervisor William King, a member of the West Valley
Citizens Task Force, said, “The phase they (DOE) are in is to
make it look like they’ve cleaned the place up, which is a bunch
of crap.”
 

Mr. King said he was heartened by recent comments from the
regional director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
calling for the removal of the underground tanks. “He
recommended the tanks be taken out of the ground,” Mr. King said.
 

Alan Steinberg, director of EPA’s Region 2, said earlier this
month said the DOE shouldn’t leave high-level waste on
non-federal lands. He has directed his staff to propose a joint
pilot demonstration project for the safe removal of the four
underground tanks at West Valley within 10 years. 

The Ashford Town Board has joined the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), West Valley
Coalition on Nuclear Wastes and the Citizen’s Task Force in
calling for the removal of the tanks.
 
Local groups also are calling for the DOE to extend the comment
period. 

In a June 22 letter to the EPA, NYSERDA West Valley Director
Paul Piciulo called for removing the four tanks, the process
building, the source of the North Plateau groundwater plume and
all contaminants in excess of guidelines for unrestricted
release.

The Ashford Town Board called for a new demonstration project to
succeed the one begun in 1980 to solidify the liquid radioactive
waste. Mr. King said West Valley is the logical place to do a
demonstration project on removing radioactive underground tanks. 

Local groups also have expressed concerns over the underground
migration of radioactive and other contaminants toward
Cattaraugus Creek, which empties into Lake Erie. 

©Bradford Publishing 2006                                       

  Copyright © 1995 - 2006 All Rights Reserved.  
*****************************************************************
 52 Hampton Union Local News: New storage for nuke waste
 
June 30, 2006

By Susan Morse smorse@seacoastonline.com 

SEABROOK -- FPL Energy Seabrook Station is expected to begin
building dry storage for its nuclear waste next year. 

Dry on-site storage has been planned for some time, said
spokesman Al Griffith, not only in Seabrook, but at other power
plants owned by what Griffith called the FPL nuclear fleet. The
fleet includes plants in Florida at St. Lucie and Turkey Point
under the control of Florida Power & Light. 

As lawsuits have delayed the federal government's planned
central depository for spent fuel assemblies at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada, nuclear power plants have planned for dry storage
on-site. 

Spent fuel rod assemblies containing the uranium "pellets" are
initially placed in wet storage for cooling for a planned period
of five years. Because of the delay in the federal government
opening Yucca Mountain, spent fuel pools are filling to
capacity. Yucca, even when it does eventually open, won't be
ready to receive fuel until at least 2015. 

"About half of U.S. nuclear power plants use dry storage,"
Griffith said. 

"The issue with spent fuel, the pools were never designed to
hold used fuel forever." 

Seabrook's will be full by 2009, Griffith said. 

Seabrook Station is still early in the process of building dry
storage, he said, because the local nuclear power plant is one
the country's newest and its pool not yet full. Construction is
expected to begin next year and the dry storage operational by
2008. 

Dry storage will be a prefabricated concrete unit on a concrete
pad. When the fuel assemblies are ready for dry storage, the
transfer will be done underwater, into steel reinforced
canisters. The canisters will be lifted out, dried, filled with
the inert gas helium and placed on a transport vehicle and taken
to dry storage. 

The technology is tried and proven, Griffith said. 

Dry storage is not a new technology, according to Dr. Alireza
Haghighat, professor and chairman of Nuclear and Radiological
Engineering department of the University of Florida. 

"This is common practice right now," he said. "All the reactors
are applying to do that (dry storage,) so it's nothing special." 

Haghighat said dry storage is a safe form of containment,
especially for security. 

"This is a huge structure," he said. "If somebody wants to get
to it or try to move it, it's not easy. It takes a long time, a
lot of major equipment to do that." 

Haghighat said the dry storage process, which is designed to
withstand natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes, has
no impact on the environment or people. 

-- Information from Scripps Howard was used in this story. 

  Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
 53 UCS: Senate Errs by Supporting Bush Administration's Dirty,
Dangerous, and Expensive Nuclear Reprocessing Plan

[Union of Concerned Scientists]       

June 29, 2006
 
 Statement by Edwin Lyman, Senior Scientist, Global Security 
Program 

"Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee increased funding
for the DOE's dangerous, dirty, and expensive spent fuel
reprocessing program. By providing the full $250 million the
Bush administration requested for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), the senators completely rejected the
thoughtful recommendations of their House colleagues. The
Appropriations Committee also added $36 million more for related
projects. The important fact is that this is a program that will
make it easier for terrorists to obtain the material needed to
make a nuclear weapon. 

"The proposal for 'temporary' interim storage sites is equally
unsupportable. It potentially could lead to the construction of
dozens of new nuclear waste storage dumps all across the
country, a bizarre and totally unmanageable plan which will do
nothing but cause unnecessary and risky transportation of
nuclear waste and heighten public anxiety. The sensible plan is
to store nuclear waste in hardened dry casks at the reactor
sites where it is generated until a permanent, scientifically
sound geological repository can be located and developed."   

  Contact 

  Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news
from UCS.
 
For general media inquiries, please call our press office at
202-331-5420.
 
Press Contacts:
 
ERIC YOUNG Press Secretary 202-331-5439
 
EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427

RICH HAYES Media Director 202-331-5437
 
 Â© Union of Concerned Scientists 
*****************************************************************
 54 Pahrump Valley Times: DOE chief leery of temp storage plan 

June 30, 2006

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - 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
DOE did not have the authority to relocate used fuel now kept at
reactors into centralized storage while work continues at the
delayed Yucca site.

 Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., advanced a bill Tuesday giving DOE
authority to establish nuclear waste "consolidation" facilities
in states that host nuclear reactors and their radioactive waste.

 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 Nevada
Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, was expected to take another step
forward Thursday when the Senate Appropriations Committee takes
up a fiscal 2007 spending bill for the Energy Department and
several smaller agencies.

 Speaking with reporters on 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. "We are trying to understand the
details of what has been proposed and how it matches up with
what we needed."

 A DOE bill sent to Congress in April calls for a number of
changes in Yucca Mountain law, some of them controversial.

 It seeks authority to claim water for the site over the
objections of Nevada and asserts powers on nuclear waste
shipping that have been opposed by a number of states.

 It also would formally transfer 147,000 acres of public land
surrounding Yucca Mountain into DOE control, and it seeks
changes in project funding so larger sums can be drawn from a
special construction account. 

Congress has held no hearings or taken action on the DOE bill,
except for a regulatory "waste confidence" provision that
Domenici included in his plan. 

In his remarks Bodman declined to confirm the department has set
a new 2018 target date for nuclear waste to be accepted at Yucca
Mountain, as Domenici had claimed earlier this week.

 Bodman said DOE will announce new timetables for the delayed
program later this summer.

 Meanwhile, the Domenici interim storage bill has provoked a
rare split among Nevada members of Congress on a nuclear waste
matter.

 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 believe 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 outside 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 it does nothing to foreclose Nevada as
the ultimate destination for nuclear waste. Porter called it
"irresponsible."

 "At the end of the day, this plan still calls for nuclear waste
to be dumped 90 miles from 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 © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 55 NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of N waste
 
                         FR Doc 06-5898 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37621-37624] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-109]                         
 
Transportation of Nuclear Waste On January 6, 1982 (47 FR 596 and 
47 FR 600), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
published in the Federal Register final amendments to 10 CFR 
parts 71 and 73 (effective July 6, 1982), that require advance 
notification to Governors or their designees by NRC licensees 
prior to transportation of certain shipments of nuclear waste and 
spent fuel. The advance notification covered in part 73 is for 
spent nuclear reactor fuel shipments and the notification for 
part 71 is for large quantity shipments of radioactive waste (and 
of spent nuclear reactor fuel not covered under the final 
amendment to 10 CFR part 73).
 
The following list updates the names, addresses, and telephone 
numbers of those individuals in each State who are responsible 
for receiving information on nuclear waste shipments. The list 
will be published annually in the Federal Register on or about 
June 30, to reflect any changes in information. Current State 
contact information can also be accessed throughout the year at 
http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/special/designee.pdf .
 
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Rosetta O. 
Virgilio, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, by e-mail at 
rov@nrc.gov or by telephone at 301-415-2367.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of June 2006.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dennis K. Rathbun, 
Deputy Director, Office of State and Tribal Programs.
 
Individuals Receiving Advance Notification of Nuclear Waste 
Shipments 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------------- State Part 71                                                  
Part 73 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------------- ALABAMA...............................  
Colonel W. M. Coppage, Director, Alabama            SAME.
 
Department of Public Safety, 500 Dexter Avenue, P.O. Box 1511, 
Montgomery, AL 36102-1511. (334) 242-4394, 24 hours: (334) 
242-4128.
 
ALASKA................................  Kim Stricklan, P.E., 
Alaska Department of           SAME.
 
Environmental Conservation, Solid Waste Program Manager, 555 
Cordova Street, Anchorage, AK 99501.
 
(907) 269-1099, 24 hours: (907) 457-1421.
 
ARIZONA...............................  Aubrey V. Godwin, 
Director, Arizona Radiation       SAME.
 
Regulatory Agency, 4814 South 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040.
 
(602) 255-4845, ext. 222, 24 hours: (602) 223-2212.
 
ARKANSAS..............................  Bernard Bevill, Division 
of Radiation Control and   SAME.
 
Emergency Management, Arkansas Department of Health, 4815 West 
Markham Street, Mail Slot 30, Little Rock, AR 72205-3867. (501) 
661-2301, 24 hours: (501) 661-2136.
 
CALIFORNIA............................  Captain R. Patrick, 
California Highway Patrol,      SAME.
 
Enforcement Services Division, 444 North 3rd St., Suite 310, P.O. 
Box 942898, Sacramento, CA 94298- 0001. (916) 445-1865, 24 hours: 
1-(916) 845-8931.
 
COLORADO..............................  Captain Allen Turner, 
Hazardous Materials Section,  SAME.
 
Colorado State Patrol, 700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 
80215-5865. (303) 239-4546, 24 hours: (303) 239-4501.
 
CONNECTICUT...........................  Edward L. Wilds, Jr., 
PhD., Director, Division of   SAME. Radiation, Department of 
Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106- 
5127. (860) 424-3029, 24 hours: (860) 424-3333.
 
DELAWARE..............................  David B. Mitchell, J.D., 
Secretary, Department of   SAME.
 
Safety & Homeland Security, P.O. Box 818, Dover, DE 19903. (302) 
744-2665, 24 hours: Cell (302) 222-6590.
 
FLORIDA...............................  John Williamson, 
Environmental Administrator,       SAME.
 
Bureau of Radiation Control, Environmental Radiation Program, 
Department of Health, P.O. Box 680069, Orlando, FL 32868-0069. 
(407) 297-2095, 24 hours: (407) 297-2095.
 
GEORGIA...............................  Captain Bruce Bugg, 
Special Projects Coordinator,   SAME.
 
Georgia Department of Public Safety & Motor Carrier, P.O. Box 
1456, 2206 East View Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30371-1456.
 
(404) 624-7211, 24 hours: (404) 635-7200.
 
 
[[Page 37622]] HAWAII................................  Laurence 
K. Lau, Deputy Director for Environmental  SAME.
 
Health, Hawaii State Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, 1250 
Punchbowl Street, Suite 325, Honolulu, HI 96813.
 
(808) 586-4424, 24 hours: (808) 368-6004.
 
IDAHO.................................  Lieutenant William L. 
Reese, Deputy Commander,      SAME.
 
Commercial Vehicle Safety, Idaho State Police, P.O. Box 700, 
Meridian, ID 83680-0700. (208) 884- 7222, 24 hours: (208) 
846-7500.
 
ILLINOIS..............................  Gary N. Wright, Assistant 
Director, Illinois        SAME.
 
Emergency Management Agency, Division of Nuclear Safety 1035 
Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor, Springfield, IL 62704.
 
(217) 785-9868, 24 hours: (217) 782-7860.
 
INDIANA...............................  Superintendent Paul 
Whitesell, PhD., Indiana State  SAME. Police, Field Enforcement 
Division, IGCN 100 N Senate Avenue, 3rd Floor, Indianapolis, IN 
46204.
 
(317) 232-8248, Fax: 317-232-0652.
 
IOWA..................................  David Miller, 
Administrator, Iowa Homeland          SAME.
 
Security and Emergency Management Division, 7105 Northwest 70th 
Avenue, Camp Dodge, Building W-4, Johnston, IA 50131. 24 hours: 
(515) 281-3231, Fax: 515-725-3260.
 
KANSAS................................  Frank H. Moussa, M.S.A., 
Technological Hazards      SAME.
 
Administrator, Department of the Adjutant General, Division of 
Emergency Management, 2800 SW Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS 
66611-1287. (785) 274-1409, 24 hours: (785) 296-8013.
 
KENTUCKY..............................  Dewey Crawford, Manager, 
Radiation Health and       SAME.
 
Toxic Agents Branch, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 275 
East Main Street, Mail Stop HS-1C-A, Frankfort, KY 40621-0001. 
(502) 564- 3700, ext. 3695, 24 hours: (502) 667-1637.
 
LOUISIANA.............................  Captain Robert Pinero, 
Louisiana State Police,      SAME.
 
7919 Independence Boulevard, P.O. Box 66614 (A2621), Baton Rouge, 
LA 70896-6614.
 
(225) 925-6113, ext.
 
241, 24 hours: (877) 925- 6595.
 
MAINE.................................  Colonel Craig Poulin, 
Chief of the State Police,    SAME.
 
Maine Department of Public Safety, 42 State House Station, 
Augusta, ME 04333-0042. (207) 624-7000. 
MARYLAND..............................  Michael Bennett, Director 
Electronic Systems        SAME.
 
Division, Maryland State Police, 1201 Reisterstown Road, 
Pikesville, MD 21208. (410) 653-4229, 24 hours: (410) 653-4200.
 
MASSACHUSETTS.........................  Robert J. Walker, 
Director, Radiation Control       SAME.
 
Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Shraffts 
Building, Mezzanine Level, 529 Main Street, Charlestown, MA 
02129. (617) 242- 3035 ext. 2001, 24 hours: (617) 427-2913.
 
MICHIGAN..............................  Captain Dan Atkinson, 
Commander, Field Operations   SAME.
 
Division, Michigan State Police, 714 South Harrison Road, East 
Lansing, MI 48823. (517) 336- 6136, 24 hours: (517) 336-6100.
 
MINNESOTA.............................  Kevin C. Leuer, Director, 
Preparedness Branch,      SAME.
 
Minnesota Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St. Paul, MN 55101-6223. (651) 
201-7406, Fax: (651) 296-0459, 24 hours: (651) 649-5451 or 
1-800-422-0798.
 
MISSISSIPPI...........................  Harrell B. Neal, Program 
Manager, Mississippi       SAME.
 
Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Box 4501,1410 Riverside Drive 
(Zip 39202), Fondren Station, Jackson, MS 39296-4501.
 
(601) 366-6957, 24 hours: (601) 352-9100.
 
MISSOURI..............................  Ronald Reynolds, 
Director, Emergency Management     SAME.
 
Agency, P.O. Box 116, 2302 Militia Drive, Jefferson City, MO 
65102. (573) 526-9101, 24 hours: (573) 751-2748.
 
MONTANA...............................  Dan McGowan, 
Administrator, Montana Disaster &      SAME.
 
Emergency Services Division, P.O. Box 4789, Fort Harrison, MT 
59636-4789. 24 hours: (406) 841-3911. 
NEBRASKA..............................  Colonel Bryan J. Tuma, 
Nebraska State Patrol, P.O.  SAME. Box 94907, Lincoln, NE 
68509-4907. (402) 479- 4931, 24 hours: (402) 471-4545.
 
NEVADA................................  Karen Beckley, 
Supervisor, Radiological Health      SAME.
 
Section, Bureau of Health Protection Services,Nevada State Health 
Division, 1179 Fairview Drive, Suite 102, Carson City, NV 89701- 
5405. (775) 687-5751, ext. 250, 24 hours: (775) 688-2830.
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE.........................  Lieutenant Nathan 
Boothby, Bureau Commander,        SAME.
 
Highway Patrol and Enforcement Bureau, New Hampshire Department 
of Safety, James H. Hayes Building, 23 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 
03305.
 
(603) 271-2091, 24 hours: (603) 271-3636.
 
NEW JERSEY............................  Kent Tosch, Chief, Bureau 
of Nuclear Engineering,   SAME.
 
Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 415, Trenton, NJ 
08625-0415. (609) 984-7700, 24 hours: (609) 658-3072.
 
NEW MEXICO............................  Don Shainin, Hazards 
Materials Coordinator, New     SAME.
 
Mexico Department of Public Safety, Office of Emergency 
Management, P.O. Box 1628, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628. (505) 
476-9681, 24 hours: (505) 476- 9635.
 
 
[[Page 37623]] NEW YORK..............................  John R. 
Gibb, Director, New York State Emergency    SAME.
 
Management Office, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22--Suite 
101, Albany, NY 12226-2251.
 
(518) 292-2300, 24 hours: (518) 292-2200.
 
NORTH CAROLINA........................  Lieutenant Mark Dalton, 
Hazardous Materials         SAME.
 
Coordinator, North Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters North, 
1142 SE Maynard Road, Cary, NC 27699-4702. (919) 319-1523, 24 
hours: (919) 733-3861.
 
NORTH DAKOTA..........................  Terry L. O'Clair, 
Director, Division of Air         SAME.
 
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health, 918 East Divide 
Avenue--2nd Floor, Bismarck, ND 58501- 1947. (701) 328-5188, 24 
hours: (701) 328-9921.
 
OHIO..................................  Carol A. O'Claire, Chief, 
Radiological Branch,      SAME.
 
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, 2855 West Dublin Granville 
Road, Columbus, OH 43235-2206.
 
(614) 799-3915, 24 hours: (614) 889-7150.
 
OKLAHOMA..............................  Commissioner Kevin L. 
Ward, Oklahoma Department of  SAME.
 
Public Safety, P.O. Box 11415, Oklahoma City, OK 73136-0145. 
(405) 425-2001, 24 hours: (405) 425- 2323.
 
OREGON................................  Ken Niles, Assistant 
Director, Nuclear Safety &     SAME.
 
Energy Siting Division, Oregon Department of Energy, 625 Marion 
Street, NE, Salem, OR 97301- 3737. (503) 378-4906, 24 hours: 
(503) 378-6377.
 
PENNSYLVANIA..........................  John Bahnweg, Director of 
Operations and Training,  SAME.
 
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, 2605 Interstate Drive, 
Harrisburg, PA 17110-3321.
 
(717) 651-2120, 24 hours: (717) 651-2001.
 
RHODE ISLAND..........................  Terrence Mercer, 
Associate Administrator, Motor     SAME.
 
Carriers Section, Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, 89 
Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick, RI 02888. (401) 941-4500, ext. 150, 
24 hours: (401) 444-1183.
 
SOUTH CAROLINA........................  Henry J. Porter, 
Assistant Director, Division of    SAME.
 
Waste Management, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department 
of Health & Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 
29201.
 
(803) 896-4245, 24 hours: (803) 253-6488.
 
SOUTH DAKOTA..........................  Kristi Turman, Director 
of Operations, Emergency    SAME.
 
Management Agency, 118 W. Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-5070. 
(605) 773-3231.
 
TENNESSEE.............................  Elgan Usrey, Manager, 
Preparedness and Mitigation   SAME.
 
Division, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, 3041 Sidco 
Drive, Nashville, TN 37204-1502. (615) 741-2879. After hours: 
(Inside TN) 1-800-262- 3400, (Outside TN) 1-800-258-3300.
 
TEXAS.................................  Richard A. Ratliff, 
Chief, Texas Department of      Colonel Thomas A. Davis, 
Director, Texas Department of State Health Services, 1100 West 
49th Street,       Public Safety, Attn: EMS Preparedness Section, 
P.O. Box Austin, TX 78756-3189.
 
(512) 834-6679, 24 hours:    4087, Austin, TX 78773-0223. (512) 
424-7771, 24 hours: (512) 458-7460.. (512) 424-2208.
 
UTAH..................................  Dane Finerfrock, 
Director, Division of Radiation    SAME.
 
Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 
West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850. (801) 
536-4257 After hours: (801) 536-4123.
 
VERMONT...............................  Kerry L. Sleeper, 
Commissioner, Department of       SAME.
 
Public Safety, Division of State Police, 103 South Main Street, 
Waterbury, VT 05671-2101.
 
(802) 244-8718, 24 hours: (802) 244-8727.
 
VIRGINIA..............................  Brett A. Burdick, 
Director, Technological Hazards   SAME.
 
Division, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, 10501 
Trade Court, Richmond, VA 23236. (804) 897-6500, ext. 6569, 24 
hours: (804) 674-2400.
 
WASHINGTON............................  Daniel Eikum, Assistant 
State Fire Marshal,         SAME.
 
Washington State Patrol Fire Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 42600, 
Olympia, WA 98504-2600. (360) 570- 3119, 24 hours: 
1-800-409-4755.
 
WEST VIRGINIA.........................  Colonel D. L. Lemmon, 
Superintendent, West          SAME.
 
Virginia State Police, 725 Jefferson Road, South Charleston, WV 
25309.
 
(304) 746-2111.
 
WISCONSIN.............................  Johnnie L. Smith, 
Administrator, Wisconsin          SAME.
 
Emergency Management, P.O. Box 7865, Madison, WI 53707-7865.
 
608-242-3210, 24 hour: (608) 242-3232.
 
WYOMING...............................  Captain Vernon Poage, 
Support Services Officer,     SAME.
 
Commercial Carriers, Wyoming Highway Patrol, 5300 Bishop 
Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340. (307) 777-4317, 24 hours: 
(307) 777-4321.
 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA..................  Gregory B. Talley, 
Program Manager, Radiation       SAME.
 
Protection Division, Bureau of Food, Drug & Radiation Protection, 
Department of Health, 51 N Street, NE., Room 6005, Washington, DC 
20002.
 
(202) 535-2320, 24 hours: (202) 727-1000.
 
PUERTO RICO...........................  Dr. Rosa Perez-Perdomo, 
Secretary of Health, P.O.   SAME. Box 70184, San Juan, PR 
00936-8184. (787) 274- 7629.
 
GUAM..................................  Randel L. Sablan, Acting 
Administrator, Guam        SAME.
 
Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 22439-- Guam Main 
Facility, Barrigada, Guam 96921. (671) 457-1620, Fax: (671) 
457-9402, 24 hours: (671) 635-9500.
 
VIRGIN ISLANDS........................  Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., 
Commissioner, Department    SAME.
 
of Planning and Natural Resources, Cyril E. King Airport, 
Terminal Building--Second Floor, St.
 
Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802. (340) 774-3320, 24 hours: (340) 
774-5138.
 
 
[[Page 37624]] AMERICAN SAMOA........................  Pati 
Faiai, Government Ecologist, American Samoa    SAME.
 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Governor, Pago 
Pago, American Samoa 96799. (684) 633-2304, 24 hours: (684) 
622-7106.
 
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA    Thomas B. Pangelinan, 
Secretary, Department of      SAME.
 
ISLANDS.                                Lands & Natural 
Resources, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Government, 
P.O. Box 501304, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 322-9830.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------------------- [FR Doc. 06-5898 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
 
                         FR Doc 06-5908 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37552-37553] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-46]                         
 
National Laboratory AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National 
Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.; Wednesday, July 19, 
2006, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. Opportunities for public participation will 
be held Tuesday, July 18, from 1 to 1:15 p.m. and 4 to 4:15 p.m.; 
and Wednesday, July 19, from 11:45 to 12 p.m. Additional time may 
be made available for public comment during the presentations.
 
These times are subject to change as the meeting progresses, 
depending on the extent of comment offered.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Ameritel Inn, 645 Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, ID 
83402.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon A. Brennan, Federal 
Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 
Fremont Avenue, MS-1216, Idaho Falls, ID 83415. Phone (208) 
526-3993; Fax (208) 526-1926 or e-mail: 
Shannon.Brennan@nuclear.energy.gov or visit the Board's Internet 
home page at: http://www.inelemcab.org.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the 
meeting; please contact Shannon A. Brennan for the most current 
agenda): Test Area North (TAN)-607A Engineering Evaluation/Cost 
Analysis.
 
Operable Unit 3-14 Tank Farm Soils Cleanup Alternatives.
 
Mid-Year Environmental Management Lifecycle Baseline Review.
 
Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) Remedial 
Investigation Baseline Risk Assessment.
 
Calcine Overview.
 
Overview of Environmental Regulations and Permitting.
 
Sodium-Bearing Waste Determination Update.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements
 
[[Page 37553]] may be filed with the Board either before or after 
the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Shannon A. Brennan at 
the address or telephone number listed above. The request must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes 
will also be available by writing to Shannon A. Brennan, Federal 
Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on June 26, 2006.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5908 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 
 
                         FR Doc 06-5909 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37553] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-47]                         
 
River Site AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River 
Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Monday, July 24, 2006, 1 p.m.-6:30 p.m.; Tuesday, July 25, 
2006, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: North Augusta Community Center, 101 Brookside Avenue, 
North Augusta, SC 29841.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project 
Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, 
P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda Monday, July 24, 2006 1 p.m.--Combined Committee 
Session. 5:15 p.m.--Adjourn. 5:30 p.m.--Executive Committee 
Meeting. 6:30 p.m.--Adjourn. Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:30 
a.m.--Approval of Minutes, Agency Updates. 9:15 a.m.--Public 
Comment Session. 9:30 a.m.--Chair and Facilitator Update. 10 
a.m.--Nuclear Materials Committee Report--Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board.
 
11:15 a.m.--Waste Management Committee Report. 11:45 a.m.--Public 
Comment Session. 12 p.m.--Lunch Break. 1 p.m.--Strategic and 
Legacy Management Committee Report--Savannah River Ecology 
Laboratory.
 
2:30 p.m.--Public Comment Session. 2:45 p.m.--Administrative 
Committee Report--Bylaws Amendment Proposal.
 
3:15 p.m.--Facility Disposition and Site Remediation Committee 
Report.
 
4 p.m.--Adjourn. If needed, time will be allotted after public 
comments for items added to the agenda and administrative 
details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, 
July 24, 2006.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office 
at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585 between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, 
Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box 
A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2006.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5909 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 
 
                         FR Doc 06-5910 
[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)] 
[Notices] [Page 37553-37554] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn06-48]                         
 
New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New 
Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 2 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Jemez Complex, Santa Fe Community College, 6401 
Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New 
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or 
E-mail: msantistevan@doeal.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda 2 p.m. Call to Order by Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer (DDFO), Christina Houston Establishment of a 
Quorum Welcome and Introductions by Chair, J. D. Campbell 
Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes of May 20, 2006 Board 
Meeting 2:15 p.m. Board Business / Reports A. Old Business, 
Chair, J. D. Campbell B. Report from Chair, J. D. Campbell C. 
Report from Department of Energy (DOE), Christina Houston
 
[[Page 37554]] D. Report from Executive Director, Menice 
Santistevan E. Other Issues, Board Members New Business 2:45 p.m. 
Committee Business / Reports A. Environmental Monitoring, 
Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Chris Timm B. Waste 
Management Committee, Donald Jordan C. Ad Hoc Committee on Bylaws 
and Administrative Procedures, Donald Jordan D. Reports from 
Liaison Members U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--Rich 
Mayer DOE--Gene Rodriguez University of California/Los Alamos 
National Laboratory (UC/LANL)-- Andy Phelps New Mexico 
Environment Department (NMED)--James Bearzi 3:45 p.m. Break 4 
p.m. DOE Los Alamos Site Office (DOE/LASO) and UC/LANL Business, 
Ed Wilmot 5 p.m. Dinner Break 6 p.m. Public Comment 6:15 p.m. 
Consideration and Action on Recommendations 6:30 p.m. DOE/LASO 
and UC/LANL Presentation 7:30 p.m. Comments from Liaison 
Members--DOE/LASO, LANL, EPA, NMED 8 p.m. Comments from Board 
Members 8:15 p.m. Recap of Meeting: Issuance of Press Releases, 
Editorials, etc., J. D. Campbell 8:30 p.m. Adjourn, Christina 
Houston This agenda is subject to change at least one day in 
advance of the meeting.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at 
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also 
be available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's 
office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of 
operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday 
through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or 
calling Menice Santistevan at the Board's office address or 
telephone number listed above.
 
Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: 
http://www.nnmcab.org .
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2006.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5910 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: Industry Participation Sought for Design of Next Generation Nuclear Plant
 
  June 29, 2006
 
Gen IV Reactor Capable of Producing Electricity and/or Hydrogen 

WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking
expressions of interest from prospective industry teams
interested in participating in the development and conceptual
design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a very high
temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor prototype with the
capability to produce process heat, electricity and/or hydrogen.
 The very high temperature reactor is based on research and
development activities supported by DOEs Generation IV nuclear
energy systems initiative.  

Proceeding with a request for expressions of interest is an
important first step in bringing industry into the development
of the NGNP, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis
Spurgeon said.  My objective would be to establish a
public-private partnership to complete the development of the
technology and to do so early, allowing the technology to be
available for commercial scale deployment on a timeframe
consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Expressions of interest are due to the Idaho National Laboratory
by July 14, 2006, and will be used to identify potential
candidates to receive formal Requests for Proposal later this
year for the projects pre-conceptual design work.  The
pre-conceptual design of NGNP, which is consistent with the
Phase I activities under EPACT 2005, would be directed at
focusing the technical scope and priorities of research and
development activities for the NGNP and on providing the basis
for subsequent development of technical and functional
specifications for the prototype plant.  Consistent with EPACT,
the Department would complete the design and construction of a
prototype plant at DOEs Idaho National Laboratory, the
Departments lead laboratory for development of the NGNP, by
2021.  

The request for expressions of interest and information
concerning how to respond may be found at
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOE/ posted under the heading, Idaho
National Laboratory.  This request is not a formal solicitation
requesting proposals and does not represent a commitment by the
Idaho National Laboratory to award a contract.  Additional
information concerning DOEs nuclear energy programs may be
found on www.nuclear.gov. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
*****************************************************************
 60 DOE: Statement of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman on the Senate 
Appropriations Committees Passage of the FY 2007 Energy and 
Water Appropriations Bill

  June 29, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  The following is a statement from Secretary of
Energy Samuel W. Bodman on the Senate Appropriations Committees
passage of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill: 

I commend the work of the Senate Appropriations Committee in
supporting many of the Presidents priorities in the Department
of Energys budget. 

We are encouraged by the committees commitment to the
expansion of nuclear energy in this country  especially GNEP.  

The bill passed also contains a number of provisions concerning
the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, and addresses the
issue of "waste confidence" in the licensing of nuclear power
reactors.  We very much appreciate Chairman Domenici and Senator
Reid engaging constructively to address these important issues.  

In addition, we also appreciate the Committee's support of the
Presidents Advanced Energy and American Competitiveness
Initiatives.  

The Advanced Energy Initiative will support a significant
increase in clean-energy research to accelerate breakthroughs in
how we power our homes, businesses, and automobiles.  

The American Competitiveness Initiative will boost our basic
science research funding. It will help support and grow the
world-class scientific discovery occurring at our national
laboratories.  It will also help train a new generation of
researchers and scientists that will ensure that America will
lead the world in opportunity and innovation for generations to
come.  

As we continue through the appropriations process, we look
forward to working with Members of both Houses to provide
information on other important funding priorities of the
Department. 

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 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 61 SF New Mexican: LANL program gets help from Senate committee  

 Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:30 pm   							 						

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican             

A new chemistry building and environmental cleanup programs at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory got big boosts Thursday from the 
Senate Appropriations Committee.

 U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., included in a bill $112.4
million for the lab's new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Facility, "a state-of-the-art nuclear laboratory" that Domenici
has called the largest building project ever undertaken by the
Department of Energy.

 He also boosted environmental-cleanup programs at Los Alamos
for $141 million, a $50 million increase over President Bush's
budget request.

 The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for the
2007 fiscal year must be approved by the full Senate before
moving to the House of Representatives, which has been more
conservative on lab funding in recent years. It passed the
Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

 The $30.7 billion measure would fund the Department of Energy,
the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

Domenici said the new building "will play an important role for 
the complex today, as well as the complex of the future."

 Domenici broke ground on the project in January.

 "Without what goes on in this building, the existing
(nuclear-weapons) stockpile cannot be certified, and the state
of the stockpile cannot be verified," Domenici said then.

 However, a House subcommittee has criticized planning around
the project as "irrational."

 That's because the department has proposed building a so-called
Consolidated Plutonium Production Center, at a yet undetermined
location, by 2022, according to language from the House version
of the energy and water-projects bill.

 The total cost of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Facility is estimated at nearly $1 billion, the House Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee reported.

 The new building at Los Alamos, which would store special
nuclear material, according to the bill, will have its "primary
production support function" made obsolete by the planned
Consolidated Plutonium Production Center.

 "The committee finds this type of planning by the (National
Nuclear Security Administration) irrational," the House bill
reads.

 Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, a citizen watchdog
group, is opposed to the new building.

 "In our view, having that facility built ... makes it much more
likely that Los Alamos will end up being the country's permanent
site for expanded plutonium pit production," Coghlan said.

 A pit is a trigger for a nuclear weapon.

 The NNSA has proposed to increase annual pit production at Los
Alamos from 20 per year to up to 50 certified pits per year,
according to a draft environmental-impact statement released by
the agency.

 Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, which opposes nuclear
weapons, said the new building at Los Alamos is "a new pit
factory for the United States aimed at jump-starting
nuclear-weapons production."

 However, Mello and Domenici appear to have found some common
ground on the extra money for environmental cleanup.

 Domenici said the department proposed a deep cut in cleanup
funding, which he restored.

 "I believe this scenario had the potential to backfire on DOE
and increase costs by extending the cost of cleanup and fines,"
Domenici said.

 The department is committed to cleanup at Los Alamos through a
mutual consent order with the state of New Mexico.

 Domenici also said his bill specifies the department must pay
any fines if it fails to follow the consent order. The state
could charge between $8 million and $35 million in penalties,
according to language from Domenici's bill.

 "There are many worse places in the DOE where you could spend
that 

$50 million," Mello said. "It's a good thing, given the context."

 The lab recently reported there are a total of 2,129
contaminated sites there. Of those, 1,365 have been cleaned up
and 764 remain, according to the lab. The cost to complete the
cleanup is estimated to be more than $1 billion.

 Examples of contaminated sites include dumps, landfills, firing
sites and container-storage areas.

 The secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department has
urged Domenici and U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to stop the
cuts in cleanup funding proposed by the department.

 "This cleanup is crucial to protect the health and environment
of New Mexicans for generations to come," Secretary Ron Curry
wrote to Domenici and Bingaman earlier this year. " ... I urge
you to do what you can to secure the necessary funding to avoid
needless penalties and protect our citizenry."		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
Comments                                 
      
  By Chris Mechels (Submitted: 06/30/2006 10:34 am) ( Report
this comment )   
  The title of this piece seems inappropriate.   It should read
"LANL pork gets help from Domenici".    Pete continues to use
his position to advance the interests of LANL over those of the
nation.   As the "pork master" of the Corp of Engineers funds,
he is position to get what he wants from the Senate; but the
price is that generous "pork" projects get funded all over the
country.   The very essence of corruption.

As issue of course is whether the Executive Branch, in this case
the DOE, is allowed to manage the nuclear weapons complex, or
the Congress.   Pete's answer seems to be that the Congress will
run the complex, but the DOE will then be blamed for all
problems.   The new CMR is far too typical.   As the House
Committee found continuing with this huge expense without some
agreement on the location of future activities, is "irrational".
 But then, when has the LANL funding ever been "rational"?  
Their program, called "nukes forever", works directly against
the interests of our nation.   Can't get much more irrational
than that.

The solution to this insanity must begin with the removal of
Senator Domenici, whose irrational behavior lies at the root of
the problem.   With him we will continue to get completely
corrupt LANL management; where Pete and LANL set the budget and
DOE gets the blame.    As Pete seems intent to hold onto power,
and his pork keeps him in his seat, only changing the Senate to
Democratic control will unseat him.   Our senior Senator has
come to exemplify the problems with our government.      	

©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 62 Hanford News: Hanford tour seats fill in record time
 
This story was published Thursday, June 29th, 2006 

By the Herald staff 

All 375 seats on next month's Hanford tours filled in record
time when Internet registration opened at noon Wednesday. 

The seats were gone within 12 minutes, said Geoff Tyree,
spokesman for Fluor Hanford. The site is normally closed to the
public. 

However, if the Department of Energy receives cancellations,
registration will reopen periodically at unannounced times.
Those who still want seats on the tour are encouraged to check
at www5.hanford.gov/publictours until the morning of July 24. 

The four-hour bus tours are planned for July 25, 26 and 27. They
include a drive through the 586-square-mile nuclear reservation
that highlights the current massive cleanup effort and the
site's historical role. 

The highlight for many participants is a walking tour inside B
Reactor, which made the plutonium for the first nuclear
explosion during World War II and plutonium for the bomb dropped
on Nagasaki, Japan. 

For more information, go to
www.hanford.gov/information/sitetours. 

A third round of 2006 tours is planned in October, but the dates
have not been set.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 63 Hanford News: Search for Hanford Reach project director begins soon
 
This story was published Thursday, June 29th, 2006 

By Elena Olmstead, Herald staff writer 

A search will soon begin for an executive director to oversee
the $49 million Hanford Reach interpretive center project
planned for Richland's Columbia Point. 

The Hanford Reach board and the Richland Public Facilities
District decided Monday to begin searching for an executive
director for the new Hanford Reach National Monument Heritage
and Visitor Center. 

Jim Watts, chairman of the Reach Board, said it makes sense to
have an executive director hired before public fundraising
begins. 

"People want to know who's in charge before they open their
wallets," he said. 

The interpretive center is a 61,000-square-foot museum and
visitor center on 50 acres at Columbia Point. The project is to
be done in three phases, with the first two phases expected to
cost $37 million. 

An executive director would be responsible for overseeing
fundraising and, once the center is done, acting as the museum's
CEO. 

Watts estimates it could take up to six months to find and hire
an executive director. The process will include hiring a
consultant to help find potential candidates and help screen
them. 

Burt Vaughan, chairman of the Richland PFD board, said serving
as the executive director for a project like the interpretive
center takes someone able to bring together diverse groups and
interact well with the community. 

"We're looking for someone for a really unique purpose," he
said. 

Once a pool of candidates is found, Vaughan said a community
committee will be created to determine who will be hired. He
said the committee will include officers from the Reach and
Richland PFD boards, as well as members of the public. 

For 1 1D2 years, Ron Hicks with Riverside Consulting has been
serving as the project manager for the Reach interpretive center
and the interim executive director. 

Vaughan said Hicks will likely be among the candidates
considered for the permanent position. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 64 Tri-City Herald: Hanford budget one step closer 

Published Friday, June 30th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved Hanford's
fiscal year 2007 budget Thursday with no changes from the
version passed Tuesday by a subcommittee. 

It includes full funding of $690 million for Hanford's
vitrification plant, but a report accompanying legislation
called for changes in how the project is managed. 

The House wants Department of Energy oversight on the project to
be shifted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

But the Senate called for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board to continue its congressionally mandated oversight.
Changes need to be made, however, the report said. 

DOE apparently has been slow to act on issues raised by the
defense board, according to the report. The board raised issues
about earthquake safety at the plant that led to a new study and
an increase in the design standard for key parts of the plant. 

The Senate wants DOE to send a quarterly report to the
Appropriations Committee describing all interactions between DOE
and the defense board. 

The report should include information on issues that have been
resolved, corrective actions taken and problems that need to be
addressed. 

The Senate wants no money spent on the High Level Waste Facility
or the Pretreatment Facility, which have new earthquake design
standards, until a final seismic design standard is certified. 

But it was still willing to spend significant amounts of money
on those buildings in fiscal year 2007. 

Of the $690 million for the plant, the Senate version of the
budget allocated $191 million for the High Level Waste Facility
and $280 million for the Pretreatment Facility. 

The plant is being built to turn some of the worst radioactive
waste at Hanford into a sturdy glass form for disposal. The
waste is left from the past production of plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program. 

The full Senate still must ap-prove the $690 million budget for
the vitrification plant. The House set the budget at $600
million, and a conference committee will have to reconcile those
amounts to determine the final budget. 

Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said they will
be pushing to keep the full $690 million allocation in the face
of a tough budget year nationally. 

The Senate also addressed DOE's contract with Bechtel National
to build and test the plant, which is not expected to begin
operating until 2019. 

An independent expert review of the project recommended that
contingency costs be increased to match the unexpected spending
on other large, complex plants that were the first of their
kind. The plant being built at Hanford is both much larger and
also will treat different types and less homogenous waste than
other vitrification plants. 

But the Senate said $2 billion in contingency costs on the
project, which would bring the cost to an estimated $11.55
billion, is an indication that the contractor lacks confidence
in its cost estimates. 

"If the department expects the committee to support future
appropriations for this project, it must be more demanding and
drive down costs and contingencies," the report said. 

Because the project's requirements have changed, DOE must
renegotiate its contract with Bechtel National. The Senate is
calling for "an incentive-based contract that will encourage the
contractor to reduce costs." 

The current contract awards fees based on incentives for
completing parts of the project and meeting budgets. 

However, the project has gone so far over budget that DOE has
notified Bechtel that it will not be eligible for any of the
potential $200 million it could have earned under the current
contract for completing the project at a cost of $5 billion. 

The committee is "troubled by the fact the department has not
yet developed a contracting strategy to reward cost saving and
shrewd project oversight," the report said. 

In the current budget year, the vitrification plant received
just $526 million. But because of studies and other costs, just
$490 million is available for engineering and construction work.
Slow downs and the reduced budget led to layoffs for about 1,700
workers. 

Elsewhere at Hanford, the Senate approved the budget recommended
by the Bush administration for most projects. 

That includes a reduction of about $52 million from the current
budget for work in Hanford's tank farms, which hold 53 million
gallons of radioactive waste in underground tanks. 

Work to empty the oldest tanks of radioactive sludge and salts
would continue at a reduced pace. No money is included for
construction of Hanford's bulk vitrification plant. 

The House budget added $20 million to the administrative request
to test bulk vitrification to treat some of the least
radioactive of the tank waste, but the Senate did not approve
that additional money. 

Cleanup of land along the Columbia River being done by
Washington Closure Hanford would receive an increase in spending
from $177 million this year to $221 million in fiscal year 2007.
The work includes digging up old waste burial sites, tearing
down buildings and putting reactor cores into storage while
their radiation dissipates. 

The administration's budget proposal, which the Senate largely
followed with a few additions, was for $1.88 billion for cleanup
and security at Hanford in fiscal year 2007. That's more than
the $1.75 billion in the current budget, but down from the $2.09
billion spent in fiscal year 2005. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 65 SF Chron: BERKELEY / Bevatron's future being debated / Some want to make
former particle accelerator a landmark

Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer
 
Thursday, June 29, 2006

Until it was shut down in 1993, a 10,000-ton magnetic doughnut
known as the Bevatron smashed atoms under tight security for 39
years in the Berkeley hills. 

It was one of the giant machines that America built for
physicists to continue their atomic research after the bomb
ended World War II. Because it was off limits to the public for
most of its history, few people know much about what happened
inside the Bevatron, housed inside a 180-foot-wide domed
building. 

Now, the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory wants to demolish what's left at the site to make
room for unspecified future projects, but some locals are
pushing to save the facility as a historic landmark. 

City officials and some residents want the national lab to fully
document the historic value of a site that contributed to four
Nobel Prize-winning research projects and sustained Berkeley's
status as a center of physics research during most of the Cold
War against the Soviet Union. 

Among those pushing for the information is Lesley Emmington, a
member of the Berkeley landmarks commission, which will hold a
hearing July 6 to decide whether to give local landmark status
to the site. 

"It's been interesting to learn about the significance of the
Bevatron," Emmington said. "We've been presented with
interesting material for a place no one in town has seen." 

About 50 Berkeley residents have signed a petition calling for
local landmark status. Such a designation wouldn't be binding on
the national lab, but proponents hope it would lead lab
officials to consider preservation as an alternative to
demolition. 

"It was the very first nuclear lab established in the country,"
said Pamela Sihvola, one of the residents behind the petition.

"It played a significant role in the development of nuclear
weapons. The Bevatron was one of the first buildings that really
symbolized the Cold War science era." 

Sihvola believes the lab eventually will become part of the UC
campus and accessible to the public. She said Lawrence Berkeley
officials should plan ahead and consider preserving the Bevatron
as a science museum. 

"You don't understand the history of the area without having
that building there," she said. "A plaque doesn't give future
generations a real sense of how this huge Cold War science
operated." 

Mark McDonald, a member of Berkeley's Peace and Justice
Commission, thinks the Bevatron could be a resource for
high-school science classes. "What a killer day trip," he said. 

The device got its name from its ability to accelerate protons
to an energy of 6 billion electron volts, abbreviated as BeV,
hence Bevatron. The Bevatron is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and is amply documented in a
Historic American Engineering Record -- a scholarly narrative in
words and pictures available online at the Library of Congress. 

The narrative describes the Bevatron as the world's most
powerful accelerator when it opened in 1954. It was designed to
whip protons around a circular track at near-light speed. The
resulting collisions revealed new particles never before seen,
notably the anti-proton, a fleeting subnuclear particle. Its
discovery in 1955 helped establish the reality of anti-matter. 

The Bevatron was one of many machines built to continue the
government's partnership with physicists after World War II. The
arms race with the Soviet Union was on and there was popular
support for bigger and better machines for physicists to use. 
Berkeley did well in the competition with other research sites,
led by physicist Ernest Lawrence, who won the Nobel Prize in
physics in 1939 for his invention of the cyclotron. His work
also contributed to the Manhattan Project's success in isolating
uranium to fuel the first A-bomb. 

According to the narrative, the government, for its part, was
happy to support the experienced Berkeley scientists after the
war so they could be mobilized in a future national emergency. 
Lawrence Berkeley officials disagree that it makes sense to
preserve the building for historic purposes. They say the public
is best served with the antiquated structure removed and the
site swept of such toxic materials as asbestos and concrete
insulating blocks contaminated with low levels of radiation.

They feel most people in Berkeley agree it's time to clean up a
vacant industrial site and move on to something new. 
"The best monument in my opinion as a scientist would be to
build a new facility that would allow groundbreaking new
science," said Benedict Feinberg, a senior staff physicist at
the lab. 

"With respect to whatever new facility goes in here," he said,
"the first thing you do on a tour is give homage to the history
of the site. You talk about the Nobel Prizes, the discovery of
the anti-proton, and so on, that happened on this site. I think
that's a much more fitting monument than an old, decaying,
hazardous structure." 

Lab officials say that even if the building were preserved, the
public would be at risk from exposure to hazardous materials.

What's more, the lab has been buttoned down for security reasons
since the Sept. 11 attacks, and all visitors have to be
authorized. 

"The only thing significant about putting it here is this is the
site of the original facility," said Joseph Harkins, the lab's
manager for the Bevatron demolition project. "A monument for
learning purposes would be better put in a location that we're
sure is accessible to the public." 

The Bevatron's accelerator and control room were dismantled
after the installation was closed. What remains of the interior
are the magnets that circulated the particles and rings of
concrete blocks that shielded scientists from radiation. The
building itself, an example of a utilitarian industrial
structure designed solely to accommodate machines, is now a
roost for birds. 

The most evocative scenes of the Bevatron today may be in the
form of historic photos from the '50s and early '60s, when the
Bevatron was the biggest machine of its kind. One image from
1954 shows an operator in the Bevatron's control room, dwarfed
by banks of knobs, dials and oscilloscopes. 

The lab's plans call for the Bevatron's removal to begin in
2008. The job would take four to seven years and as many as
4,700 one-way truck trips on city streets. 

Nabil al-Hadithy, the City of Berkeley's hazardous materials
manager, said vehicle emissions and dust from the hauling pose a
serious health risk for the elderly, very young children and
people with weak hearts. He has proposed that the lab use
low-sulfur fuels or alternative fuels to lessen the impact on
vulnerable people living on truck routes. 

E-mail Rick DelVecchio at rdelvecchio@sfchronicle.com.                          
Page B - 1
 			
San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 66 UPI: Berkeley wants to save Cold War monument
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

6/30/2006 12:25:00 AM -0400                             

BERKELEY, Calif., June 29 (UPI) -- Some residents of Berkeley,
Calif., a community famous for peace marches, want a Cold War
nuclear research landmark preserved as a historic site. 

The Bevatron -- a 10,000-ton atom smasher in the hills above the
University of California campus -- was closed down in 1993. The
Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory wants to build on the
site. 

The Berkeley landmarks commission has scheduled a hearing July 6
on the site's future, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. It's
a place that few have seen. 

"It's been interesting to learn about the significance of the
Bevatron," said Lesley Emmington, a member of the commission.
"We've been presented with interesting material for a place no
one in town has seen." 

The Bevatron was an enormous magnetic doughnut housed in a
geodesic dome. It was the first nuclear facility built to fight
the Cold War. 

Mark McDonald, a member of Berkeley's Peace and Justice
Commission, wants it preserved for the benefit of children at
local schools. 

"What a killer day trip," he said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. 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> 
    
*****************************************************************