*****************************************************************
07/07/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.160
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Negotiator Urges Halt to Pressure
2 IRNA: IAEA chief: Peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue will ben
3 IRNA: Larijani : We are serious about negotiations with EU 
4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA denies allegations over Iran 
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA calls for peaceful solutions 
6 AFP: Bush chides US partners on Iran 
7 AFP: Iran rejects West's timetable for nuclear talks
8 AFP: US says Iran delay could lead to UN Security Council action -
9 AFP: Iran to host Iraq security conference 
10 IRNA: Iran's Larijani starts talks with Spanish PM on N-case
11 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: Washington's refusal to talk may
12 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Pushes for Sanctions on N. Korea
13 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Wants Clear Lines Set for N. Korea
14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's Next Moves Pondered
15 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Rejects Military Talks With North
16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea forfeits aid after missile launches
17 AFP: US, Japan raise stakes with UN North Korea vote
18 AFP: China, Russia slow North Korea sanctions drive 
19 AFP: US envoy in China to lobby over NKorea 
20 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Expresses Frustration With Diplomacy
21 US: DenverPost.com: Greenspan raises red flag on energy
22 [NYTr] West should also disarm, UN nuclear chief says
23 Guardian Unlimited: Defence minister backs nuclear arms
24 ENS: Putin Pledges to Raise NGO Nuclear, Climate Concerns at G8 Summ
25 RIA Novosti: Russia to reform strategic nuclear triad by 2016 - top 
26 BBC: UK needs no nuclear arms - Healey
27 Pakistan News: Parliamentary Committees briefed on nuclear issue
28 Mos News: Russia Has “No Other Partner But U.S.” in Global Security,
29 Scotsman.com: No military reason for UK's atomic weapons, says Heale
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
30 The Hindu: Centre accepts site for nuclear power plant in Haryana 
31 US: Platts: We Energies exploring options for Point Beach
32 Platts: The CEA signs new four-year goals contract with French gover
33 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Bids sought for nuclear Point Beach pow
34 US: NRC: Quality Assurance request changes
35 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 
36 US: NRC: Request for Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
37 US: wisbusiness: Stuart: Wants WIEG to `Reestablish Relationships'
38 US: Blog: Petition Congress to Conduct Oversight of the U.S. Office 
39 IRNA: Peaceful use of N-energy, right of all states: envoy 
40 Scotsman.com: No fast track for nuclear power plants in Scotland
41 US: WQAD: Valve fails, causes nuclear reactor to shut down for 49 ho
42 icWales: N-plant may be necessary, and it may be fast-tracked
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
43 Times of India: N-deal: Safeguards talks next week- 
44 US: Ithaca Journal: It is time to rethink our global nuclear safegua
45 US: Arms Control Association: Reviving Disarmament: An Interview Wit
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
46 AU ABC: Tollner wants debate on nuclear waste storage
47 BBC: Anger over nuclear flask
48 The Herald: Call to replace Dounreay jobs as site faces closure   
49 Platts: EU members should publicize action on nuclear waste - Lords
50 US: Huffington Post: Nuclear Waste: "Not in My Backyard!" Then Whose
51 AU ABC: Tollner wants debate on nuclear waste storage. 
52 US: GovExec.com: Contractor's rise shows blurred government, industr
53 UPI: Australia bans foreign nuclear waste
54 Times and star: BNG leaks case sentence delayed
55 Pahrump Valley Times: Senate panel cuts Yucca funding for 2007 
56 Las Vegas SUN: Geologist: Yucca Mountain assessment lacks geological
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
57 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Site-Wide Environmental 
58 DOE: DOE Publishes Roadmap for Developing Cleaner Fuels
59 DOE: Secretary Bodman Opens New Science and Technology Facility 
60 Platts: Russia to use G8 to display global energy role: DOE official
61 Inside Bay Area: Lab's drug testing scrutinized
62 Newsday.com: Contractor sues BNL for $50M - 
63 Las Vegas SUN: Funding could restart idled pulsed energy
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Negotiator Urges Halt to Pressure
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 8:01 PM
 	
AP Photo PW817 
By MAR ROMAN Associated Press Writer 

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Friday
that the West's pressure for a quick response to its offer of
incentives for Tehran to halt its nuclear program is not
helpful, but insisted the standoff can be resolved through
dialogue. 

``We do not need them to give us a deadline for answering. That
pressure creates an atmosphere of lack of confidence and doubt
among the two sides,'' Ali Larijani told a news conference in
Madrid after meeting with senior Spanish officials. 

``The Iranian nuclear issue is not so complicated that it cannot
be solved through dialogue,'' Larijani said. 

``This proposal has many doubts,'' he said. ``Through dialogue
we have to resolve the doubts.'' 

He said Iran is optimistic about prospects for resolving the
standoff but would not say when it might respond to the package
of incentives. 

Tehran has asserted repeatedly that its nuclear program is
peaceful and aimed at generating power. But the U.S. and the
European Union fear it is a cover for the development of nuclear
weapons. 

Europe could enhance Iranian confidence in the nuclear talks by
ending restrictions on exports of some industrial equipment to
Iran, Larijani said. ``There are many areas in which confidence
can be created,'' he said. 

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief,
traveled to Tehran last month with the offer of incentives if
Iran agrees to halt its uranium enrichment program and return to
negotiations. 

On Thursday, Larijani met with Solana in Brussels, Belgium, and
said his country remains serious about continuing negotiations. 

Those talks were ``constructive and fruitful,'' the Iranian
official said Friday. 

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and
Germany drafted the offer, which includes sharing civilian
nuclear expertise and technology. The six nations have pushed
for a response from Iran, but have yet to receive one. 

Solana and Larijani are to meet again Tuesday in Brussels. 
Western diplomats have threatened to restart efforts to punish
Iran through possible U.N. sanctions unless Tehran stops
enrichment and agrees to talks. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: IAEA chief: Peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue will benefit all - 

, July 6, IRNA
-- 

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Ankara on Thursday
afternoon, said that a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue
will benefit all parties. 


He made the remark at the end of his meeting with Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan while speaking to reporters. 

The IAEA chief said that he agrees with Turkey's prime minister
that the issue should be solved through peaceful ways. 

"Solving the issue politically will be to the interest of all
parties, given that in this case Iran will enjoy its right to
access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and a regional
crisis will be prevented," he added. 

In response to a question about the project on Turkey's nuclear
power plant and the uranium enrichment issue in this country,
ElBaradei said that such activities should be conducted under
the supervision of the agency. 

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is also scheduled to
confer with ElBaradei after his return from Washington on
Friday. 

On arrival at Ankara airport, the agency chief had told the
media that he will confer with Turkish officials on Iran's
nuclear issue and Turkey's nuclear power plant project. 

He appreciated Turkey's efforts towards solving Iran's nuclear
issue politically. 

Turkey seeks to establish a nuclear power plant in the Black Sea
coastal city of Sinop to the north of the country. 

2326/2322/1414 

*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Larijani : We are serious about negotiations with EU 

Brussels, July 7, IRNA

EU-Solana-Larijani 

Javier Solana, European Union High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy, was meeting the Secretary General
of the Iranian National Security Council, Ali Larijani, over
dinner in Brussels Thursday night. 

In brief statements before the meeting Solana said, "We are
going to have a meeting today. We are going to continue on
Tuesday." Solana said he is looking forward to that talks which
will be beneficial for the EU, Iran and many countries and the
world. 

"We are going to get to work. We are not going to talk much,"
added Solana. 

On his part, Larijani, speaking in Persian, thanked Solana "for
inviting us tonight for dinner." 
"We are supposed to meet next Tuesday to continue our talks
regarding the nuclear program." 
"We are serious about the negotiations and we are going to start
our talks next Tuesday." 
"Today as a respect for Solana I accepted to be here for dinner
and to have some talks," said Larijani. 

Larijani will leave for Spain after the meeting with Solana. 

*****************************************************************
 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA denies allegations over Iran 

  2006/07/06   

IAEA Chief Mohamed Elbaradei spurned down suppositions that "Iran 
has a secret part of the nuclear programme". 

"I have no such information " he said on Thursday in an interview 
with Turk Television. 

"Nobody has offered it to us. But if we are given such 
information, we shall study it." 

But I repeat: We have no evidence that Iran has any secret 
programme. 

FK   

  
  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir


*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA calls for peaceful solutions 

  2006/07/07   
  
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
Mohamed Elbaradei, who arrived in Ankara on Thursday afternoon, 
said that a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue will 
benefit all parties. 

He made the remark at the end of his meeting with Turkish Prime 
Minister while speaking to reporters. 

Elbaradei said that he agrees with Turkey's Prime Minister that 
the issue should be solved through peaceful ways. 

"Solving the issue politically will be to the interest of all 
parties, given that in this case Iran will enjoy its right to 
access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and a regional crisis 
will be prevented," he added. 

FK   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir

*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: Bush chides US partners on Iran 

 Fri Jul 7, 2:38 PM ET 
		 	 
CHICAGO (AFP) - US President George W. Bush " /> said that he was 
trying to get some US partners in diplomacy towards Iran " /> and 
North Korea " /> to see past their "economic interests" and take 
a harder line. 

He did not name names, but he had been asked about opposition 
from Russia and China to imposing sanctions on Iran, which faces 
a US-backed deadline next week for accepting a proposal on its 
nuclear programs.
 
"Some nations are more comfortable with sanctions than other
nations. And part of the issue we face in some of these
countries is that they've got economic interests," Bush said at
a press conference here.
 
"And part of our objective is to make sure that national
security interests, security-of-the-world interests, trump
economic interests. And sometimes that takes a while to get
people focused in the right direction," he said.
 
"The first step of a diplomatic solution is for there to be a
common goal agreed upon by those of us participating in the
process," said the US president. "I'm realistic about how things
move in the world."
 
"It takes a while for a problem to fester and grow, and then it
takes a while to solve them diplomatically," he said. "That's
just the nature of diplomacy. I wish we could solve them
overnight, but I'm a realistic person."
 
Bush said he expected both Iran and North Korea to be hot topics
at the July 15-17 Group of Eight summit of major industrialized
democracies plus Russia in Saint Petersburg.
 
"The G-8 will be an opportunity for those of us involved with
this issue to make it clear to the Iranians that we're firm in
our resolve for them not to have a nuclear weapon," said the US
president.
 
"I talked to (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin about North
Korea; I also talked to him about Iran. I believe he understands
the dangers of the Iranians having a nuclear weapon," said Bush.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran rejects West's timetable for nuclear talks

 Fri Jul 7, 4:03 PM ET 
		 	 
MADRID (AFP) - Iran " /> Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali 
Larijani, again resisted pressure from the West for a swift 
response to its offers of economic incentives in return for the 
suspension of Tehran's uranium enrichment program. 

"The timetable drawn up by other people has no influence on what
we do," he told a news conference in Madrid.
 
Larijani said Tehran had been working seriously on the offer
made on June 6 by six western powers, France, Britain, Germany,
the United States, Russia and China, but "needed to devote
sufficient time (to it)".
 
"We view this proposition in a positive light but there are
doubts about it which we have to clarify through dialogue," he
said.
 
"I see no reason to be pessimistic," he continued, adding, "we
do not need to be given a time limit to respond ... that does
not make sense."
 
"If negotiation is to take place it needs to be in the language
of negotiation," he stated in response to questions about
western pressure on Iran to respond quickly.
 
Iran is facing mounting international pressure to show ahead of
the Group of Eight (G8) summit on July 15-17 that it is ready to
accept the offer from the six powers.
 
On Thursday the European Union
" /> European Union, Russia and the United Nations
" /> United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, all reiterated
appeals for Tehran to respond soon, and the United States again
brandished the threat of UN Security Council sanctions.
 
On Friday Larijani held discussions in Madrid with Spanish Prime
Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Foreign Minister
Miguel Angel Moratinos. The latter stressed that Spain supported
the international offer and hoped Iran would "respond promptly"
to the proposal, which Madrid supported, according to the
foreign ministry.
 
But Iran, which rejects Western suspicions that it is trying to
covertly build an atomic bomb behind the screen of a civilian
nuclear energy program, is refusing categorically to suspend its
uranium enrichment activities.
 
On Thursday a senior Iranian official in Brussels made it clear
that no response could be expected next week, when
representatives from Iran and the six powers sponsoring the
proposal are due to hold talks in Paris.
 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will give
its formal response to the offer in August.
 
At the same time, the Islamic republic has insisted it is
serious about defusing the nuclear standoff.
 
Larijani is on a whirlwind tour of European capitals for talks
on the issue in the run-up to the Paris talks next Tuesday.
 
On Thursday evening he met the European Union's foreign policy
coordinator, Javier Solana, in Brussels. The EU described the
encounter as a "good start" and Larijani said it had been
"fruitful and constructive".
 
On Monday Larijani will hold talks in Rome with Italian Foreign
Minister Massimo D'Alema, whose country has maintained a
cautious attitude during the standoff.
 
Two weeks ago D'Alema said after meeting his Iranian counterpart
that Tehran did not seem to be on the verge of acquiring nuclear
weapons.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: US says Iran delay could lead to UN Security Council action -
     
 Thu Jul 6, 4:46 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US State Department said that Iran " /> 
faced UN Security Council action if it failed to join 
international negotiations over its nuclear program. 

"There's the positive pathway. There's a negative pathway (that) 
leads to further isolation," said US State Department spokesman 
Sean McCormack even as Iran said it had no plans to respond in 
ongoing talks in Brussels to an international offer to curb its 
atomic plans.
 
McCormack said world powers had put together "a good,
comprehensive" proposal to Iran that affirmed its right to
develop nuclear energy and supported its building of light-water
reactors.
 
Iran in return would suspend all uranium enrichment-related
activity that it now views as its sovereign right but which
Washington fears is a cover for an illicit nuclear weapons
program.
 
Washington has been trying to pressure Iran to respond to the
offer before the Group of Eight summit of industrialized nations
meets for a July 15 in Saint Petersburg but some Iranian
officials said no reply could be expected next week either.
 
"There's agreement among all the ministers about where this
heads if the Iranians don't meet the conditions, and that is
down the pathway of the Security Council," McCormack said.
 
Russia and China have both opposed Security Council sanctions
against Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin
" /> reiterated Moscow's position on Thursday.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: Iran to host Iraq security conference 

 Fri Jul 7, 2:35 PM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran " /> Iranwill this weekend host a regional 
conference on security in Iraq " /> Iraq, with the Islamic 
republic likely to use the event to again call for a withdrawal 
of foreign troops from its neighbor. 

The meeting will gather officials from Iraq and its neighbors -- 
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria " /> Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey 
-- plus Egypt, the Arab League and the Organization of the 
Islamic Conference (OIC).
 
"The cooperation of these countries on Iraq and security issues
will be on the agenda," Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said in June when announcing plans for Saturday and
Sunday's event.
 
"A clear message will be sent from this meeting, in that these
countries support the implementation of security in Iraq."
 
Iranian media said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has
arrived in Tehran for the meeting, and officials said President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would also give a speech at the opening
session.
 
The last such session took place in April 2005 in Istanbul with
little noticeable effect, and a previous meeting in Tehran in
November 2004 also failed to yield concrete results.
 
Majority Shiite Iran has seen a reversal of its relations with
Baghdad since the US invasion, enjoying close links with a
government dominated by Shiite and Kurdish figures who in the
past had sought refuge in Iran.
 
But the two sides, as well as Iraq's neighbours as a whole,
remain at odds over the source of the violence.
 
Iraqi Shiite leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of
parliament's largest bloc and leader of the Supreme Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), has been urging Iran to
go into direct security talks with the United States.
 
"It is to the benefit of the Iraqi people that Iran and the
United States talk about Iraq because the US is present in the
region," he said in Tehran last month.
 
"At first they were supposed to talk, which did not happen due
to certain issues. We hope Iran and the United States have a
dialogue both about Iraq and the nuclear issue," he added.
 
But Iran has ruled out such talks, with the country's supreme
leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeating to Hakim his view that
US and other foreign troops should leave Iraq.
 
"Iraq's current security problems will only be resolved if the
occupiers leave and the security issues are handed over to the
Iraqi people and government," Khamenei said.
 
Iran -- along with Syria -- has also been repeatedly accused of
supporting insurgents.
 
At the last meeting in Tehran, the Iraqi delegation complained
of lax border controls. Iran responded by demanding tougher
action against the People's Mujahedeen, a banned armed
opposition group based in Iraq.
 
Last month the top US commander in Iraq, General George Casey,
said Iran was a major force behind unrest in Iraq, adding that
Tehran trains and arms violent Shiite groups and uses
"surrogates" to carry out terrorist strikes.
 
"Since January, we have seen an upsurge in their support,
particularly to the Shiite extremist groups ... It's decidedly
unhelpful," he said.
 
"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in
Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people." 
Iran has consistently rejected the allegations, and the
conference is a public way of highlighting its stated position
that it wants the violence to end. 

"Iran rejects comments made by some US officials regarding
involvement in Iraq, since these allegations are in line with
the US officials' efforts to cover up their weaknesses and to
justify their defeats in Iraq," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid
Reza Asefi said. 

"Contrary to the United States, Iran wants to have a united,
strong and integrated Iraq as its neighbour, which would be
helpful in consolidating security and stability in the region."

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Iran's Larijani starts talks with Spanish PM on N-case

Madrid, July 7, IRNA

Spain-Iran-Nuclear 

Visiting Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)
Ali Larijani launched talks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose
Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on Iran's nuclear case. 

The meeting, also attended by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel
Angel Moratinos, is the first working plan of Iran's top
negotiator in his Spain visit after he held a short and informal
meeting over dinner with Javier Solana, the European Union
foreign policy chief in Brussels Thursday night. 

Solana and Larijani had a tete-a-tete dinner meeting to talk
about Iran's nuclear program. 

In his meeting with Solana, Larijani stressed that Iran is
serious in continuation of talks on its nuclear program and
would follow up the case during an official meeting with Solana,
to be held on Tuesday. 

The SNSC Secretary arrived in Madrid, capital city of Spain, at
the head of a delegation early Friday on a day-long visit. 

Spain has always stressed on Iran's right for access to peaceful
nuclear energy, saying the international community should reach
an agreement with Tehran through fair negotiations. 

Larijani is scheduled to hold a separate meeting with Spanish
foreign minister and attend a press conference later Friday. 

*****************************************************************
 11 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: Washington's refusal to talk may
 
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:41:47 -0700


<x-flowed>
NORTH KOREA: Washington's refusal to talk may trigger escalation, says UAE 
paper

Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)

ABU DHABI, July 7 (WAM) - By refusing to engage North Korea on one-on-one
talks, U.S. President George Bush is unwittingly triggering an escalation
of the half-a-century-old confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea,
according to a United Arab Emirates (UAE) daily.

"The dispute will get worse because the U.S. would soon find itself
isolated among its allies as each of them has differing interests on North
Korea's future," wrote the Sharjah-based 'The Gulf Today'.

    In its editorial comment today, the paper recalled that the Bush
administration officials issued dire warnings against the launches before
North Korea's defying action. And after the launch, the U.S. got a reason
to downplay it.

    The paper noted that the long-range Taepodong-2 fired by North Korea
didn't stay up very long and tumbled into the sea. The U.S. also stresses
that Pyongyang has not yet developed the technology to fit a nuclear
warhead.

    "But the fact is that North Korea has the technical know-how to rectify
whatever shortcomings it faces now," said the paper.

    It further added that through these launches, what Pyongyang has
intended to achieve is a diplomatic victory by forcing the U.S. to agree
to conduct direct negotiations with it on its nuclear and missile
programmes.

    "In spite of such clear indications of Pyongyang's intent, President
Bush has decided not to talk directly to North Korea. Instead he wants
sanctions to be imposed. This is surprising because it is the failure of
sanctions that led to the standoff in the six-party negotiations to solve
the dispute," the paper said.

    It concluded by saying: "Sooner or later the U.S. will have to confront
another hard truth: Pyongyang may not have the strength to fight them, but
it possesses enough nuclear fuel that it can sell in the lucrative market
where there is no dearth for takers. And those who want to buy it may not
be U.S. friends." (WAM)
                     (WAM)

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Pushes for Sanctions on N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 11:31 PM
 	
AP Photo XUN307 
By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Over Chinese and Russian objections, Japan
introduced a draft Security Council resolution Friday that would
impose sanctions on North Korea for its series of rocket
test-launches and also order a halt to its development of
ballistic missiles. 

Backed by the United States, Britain and France, the resolution
condemns the series of missile launches that the North conducted
Wednesday after both its enemies and allies around the world
warned it not to. 

By putting forth the resolution, Japan risked a showdown with
China and Russia, which have said they oppose sanctions or even
passing a legally binding resolution on the issue. They want a
more mild council statement that would chastize the North for
the launches, and go no further. 

``If this resolution is put to a vote, definitely there will be
no unity in the Security Council,'' China's U.N. Ambassador Wang
Guangya said. He refused to say, however, if China would use its
veto to sink the resolution or abstain. 

Japan's Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said he wanted a vote on the
draft Saturday if possible, yet he and other diplomats said
negotiations continued on the resolution. 

That raised the possibility that the decision to introduce the
resolution was, in part, a negotiating tactic meant to win
concessions from China and Russia. 

Diplomats and U.S. officials also left the door open for more
talks. One senior U.S. official said it was unlikely that the
draft would be voted on over the weekend, because diplomats want
to give China, the North's main ally, time to talk to Pyongyang. 

Chinese officials said a delegation would go to Pyongyang early
next week to discuss the issue. 

``There is a hint that states want to see what the Chinese can
do,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity
because the strategy had not been made public. 

North Korea set off an international furor Wednesday when it
tested seven missiles, all of which landed in the Sea of Japan
without causing any damage. The blasts apparently included a
long-range Taepodong-2 - potentially capable of hitting the
western United States. It broke up less than a minute after
takeoff. 

The draft introduced Friday was tougher than previous versions. 
It would bar nations from procuring missiles or missile related
``items, materials goods and technology'' from North Korea, or
transferring financial resources connected to the North's
program. The North would also be barred from acquiring items
that could be used to build missiles. 

China and Russia fear that Security Council sanctions risk
isolating North Korea further and spoiling any chance of
resuming six-party talks on its nuclear program. Pyongyang has
said sanctions from the Security Council would be tantamount to
a declaration of war. 

They could veto or abstain on the resolution. But even
abstentions from the two nations risks weakening the message to
North Korea, which leaders from around the world, including
President Bush, don't want to do. 

``What matters most of all is for Kim Jong Il to see the world
speak with one voice,'' Bush said at a news conference in
Chicago, referring to the North Korean leader. ``That's the
purpose, really.'' 

One possible compromise would be for Japan to strip out the
sanctions from the resolution, as long as the draft retains a
condemnation and the order for the North to stop developing and
testing ballistic missiles. It would also still be written under
Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which means it could be enforced
militarily. 

The draft followed a flurry of meetings among diplomats in New
York. Japanese officials back home have also met with their
counterparts from several nations to raise support for the
draft. 

Oshima said Japan was not willing to give up on Chapter 7 or the
sanctions. 

``It contains all elements that we believe are necessary at this
point that a firm resolution of the council should contain,''
Oshima said. ``We hope that it will be adopted when it is put to
a vote with the broad unanimity of the council.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Washington, Terence Hunt
in Chicago, Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations and Chisaki
Watanabe in Tokyo contributed to this story. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Wants Clear Lines Set for N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 7:16 PM
 	
AP Photo ILMG101 
By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer 

CHICAGO (AP) - President Bush said Friday he wants to rally
world support in confronting North Korea over its missile tests
to send an unmistakable message to the leader of the communist
regime. 

``It's your choice, Kim Jong Il. You've got the choice to
make,'' Bush said. 

In a rare out-of-town news conference, Bush also vowed to keep
hunting for terror leader Osama bin Laden, a search that has
been fruitless in the nearly five years since the Sept. 11
attacks. 

``No ands, ifs or buts, my judgment is it's a matter of time -
unless we stop looking, and we're not going to stop looking as
long as I'm president,'' Bush said. 

Bush sought to explain why he was committed to seeking U.N.
Security Council support on dealing with North Korea, whereas he
launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 after failing to obtain
the council's support. 

``All diplomatic options were exhausted as far as I was
concerned'' in confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Bush
said. 

At the same time, Bush conceded that awaiting U.N. consensus,
both on dealing with North Korea and Iran, was adding to delay. 
``You know, the problem with diplomacy: It takes a while to get
something done. If you're acting alone, you can move quickly,''
Bush said.

He said he wanted to make clear to the North Korean leader
``with more than one voice'' that the world condemned the test
firing this week of seven missiles, including a long-range
missile that failed. 

Bush said the United States had ``a reasonable chance'' of
shooting down the long-range missile, if it had not failed. 
But he also said, ``Our anti-ballistic systems are modest, they
are new.'' 

The United States has a rudimentary missile defense program in
which interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California -
linked to a network of satellites, radar, computers and command
centers - are designed to strike and destroy incoming ballistic
missiles. 

The Pentagon says the system is capable of defending against a
limited number of missiles in an emergency - such as a North
Korean attack. More than $100 billion has been spent on the
program since 1983. 

In a rare news conference away from the White House, Bush
departed from usual practice and fielded questions from both the
national media and the local press corps. In a setting that
underscored the White House desire to pose the president outside
Washington, the president addressed reporters in the rotunda of
Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry before a large
photograph of the city's downtown skyline. 

Bush gave a rambling 15 minute opening statement in which he
talked about Chicago's vibrant economy, the war on terrorism and
the war in Iraq. 

Bush is spending more nights out on the road this summer as part
of a public-relations effort aimed at boosting his low standing
in polls and GOP chances in this fall's midterm elections. The
idea is to place Bush in more freewheeling settings where aides
believe he comes across best and give him more prolonged
exposure before local media that sometimes pay more attention to
his domestic agenda. 

Throughout his presidency, Bush has been known for extensive
travels that most often feature quick fly-in, drive-by stops.
But in recent months that has begun to change with more
overnight trips. 

``It might do me some good,'' he said. 

In defending his decision to seek U.N. support on North Korea,
Bush said that the leader of the reclusive communist regime in
Pyongyang had ``defied China and Japan and South Korea and
Russia and the United States.'' 

``All of us said, `Don't fire that rocket.' He not only fired
one, he fired seven. Now that he made that defiance, it's best
for all of us to go to the U.N. Security Council and say, loud
and clear, `Here's some red lines.' And that's what we're in the
process of doing,'' Bush said. 

He said he still hopes to resume stalled six-nation talk's
designed to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and once again
ruled out direct talks between just the U.S. and North Korea. 

``My judgment is you can't be successful if the United States is
sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out of
options very quickly if that's the case,'' he said. ``In order
to be successful diplomatically it's best to have other partners
at the table'' 

Turning to efforts to restrict Iran's nuclear program, Bush
noted that some nations had economic interests in Iran that
colored the deliberations. 

``Part of our objective is to make sure national security
interests trump economic interests,'' he said. 

A local reporter asked the president what he thought of some
Republican candidates keeping their distance this election year
because of his low poll numbers. The reporter cited a comment
from an aide to Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy
Baar Topinka, who reportedly had said Bush would be welcome only
in the middle of the night. 

``It didn't work,'' Bush laughed, noting he was going straight
from the news conference to a lunchtime fundraiser for Topinka,
the state's treasurer who is running to unseat Democratic Gov.
Rod Blagojevich. 

The event drew about 500 people and added a hefty $1.2 million
to Topinka's campaign account. ``I was invited, I gladly came
and I think we're going to have a pretty successful fundraiser
for her,'' Bush said. 

Outside the old-style elegance of the Drake Hotel ballroom where
the wealthy GOP donors gathered, several dozen protesters
carried sometimes vicious anti-Bush and anti-war messages, with
signs urging the president's impeachment and displaying crude
obscenities. A couple of the demonstrators burned American
flags, setting one alight and then piling at least two more onto
the blaze. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's Next Moves Pondered
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 12:31 PM
 	
AP Photo GFX356 
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea has a few more cards to
play if it wants to turn up the tension generated by a series of
missile tests. It could fire more missiles, threaten to stage a
nuclear test, stage troop exercises near the border with South
Korea or send up fighter jets in an attempt to harass U.S. spy
planes. 

For now, though, the North Koreans might be inclined to assess
the political fallout from their missile launches, as the
diplomatic debate picks up at the United Nations and across
Northeast Asia. Their chief goal is direct talks on security
guarantees and economic aid with their No. 1 enemy, the United
States. 

``Now, the ball is in the U.S. court,'' said Baek Seung-joo, an
analyst at the state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in
South Korea. 

But Washington appears unwilling to reward North Korea's
pressure tactic by agreeing to talks, a sign that the standoff
will persist. Delays could favor North Korea, which is believed
to be making nuclear bombs that could boost its political
leverage in the long run, and doesn't need to worry about a
leadership change because a dictator is in charge. 

North Korea may be trying to startle Washington into granting
concessions, but the missile tests follow a pattern of military
maneuvers and posturing in North Korean diplomacy that dates
back 50 years. For dictator Kim Jong Il, the ultimate goal is
regime survival, rather than an act of war that would trigger
overwhelming U.S. retaliation. 

With that historical perspective in mind, North Korea's missile
barrage on Wednesday appears to have been a calculated stunt
that was months in the making, a negotiating ploy designed to
nudge the international community so far, but not too far. 

North Korea has plenty of experience in crossing so-called ``red
lines'' laid down by the rest of the world, calibrating its
provocations to avoid a heavy backlash. In early 2003, it
reactivated nuclear facilities that were frozen in a 1994 deal
with Washington, expelled U.N. inspectors and announced its
withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Intentional or not, the timing of the nuclear crisis arguably
favored the North Koreans because their main foe, the United
States, was preoccupied in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Today, the international community has a new distraction in

Iran, which is suspected of pursuing its own nuclear weapons
program and is considering a package of incentives to halt
uranium enrichment. 

Pyongyang's missile tests Wednesday recalled its reputed taste
for warmongering, but a government statement after the launches
was notable for its bland language and step-by-step
justification of its actions. 

North Korea ``is not a signatory to the Missile Technology
Control Regime and, therefore, is not bound to any commitment
under it,'' an unidentified Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a
statement. He said the North's moratorium on long-range missile
tests had been valid only as long as the U.S. and North Korea
were in negotiations. 

The statement was devoid of the insults and fiery rhetoric that
often characterize North Korean comments about the United States
and Japan, suggesting Pyongyang wanted to portray itself as the
level-headed player in the dispute. 

Now that North Korea is in the spotlight, it might refrain from
attention-grabbing stunts pending the outcome of talks in
foreign capitals and at the United Nations. The United States
and Japan are supporting a draft U.N. Security Council
resolution that would sanction North Korea for its missile
tests, but China and Russia are resisting such punitive action. 

Chief U.S. nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill traveled to
Northeast Asia, and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
plans to visit South Korea later in the month. China's head
nuclear negotiator, Wu Dawei, said he would go to North Korea
soon to urge a return to stalled six-party talks on its nuclear
program. 
If North Korea emerges relatively unscathed from the debate but

without diplomatic gains, though, it could be emboldened to push
further with another provocation. 

The tactic of negotiating against a backdrop of conflict dates
to the 1950-53 Korean War, when armistice talks dragged on for
more than two years over issues such as prisoner exchanges and a
demarcation line, as men continued to fight and die. 

North Korea's modern maneuvers contain one simple message for
Washington about direct talks, said Kim Keun-shik, a foreign
policy expert in South Korea. 

According to Kim, the missile message was: ``We won't take any
other path. It's up to you.'' 
--- 

Christopher Torchia was chief of bureau in Seoul for The
Associated Press from 1999-2004. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Rejects Military Talks With North
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 7:46 PM
 	
AP Photo XAHN103 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea said Friday it would
withhold food and fertilizer shipments to impoverished North
Korea until the missile crisis is resolved, even as it pledged
to hold high-level talks with the communist regime next week. 
Meanwhile, a top U.S. envoy agreed with China to coordinate
strategy on the North. 

It remained unclear whether North Korea was planning to fire
more missiles. South Korean officials said another long-range
missile may be at a launch site, but the latest intelligence
showed no signs the reclusive regime was getting ready for more
tests. 

Pyongyang triggered an international furor Wednesday when it
test-fired seven missiles that plunged into the Sea of Japan
without causing damage or injury. 

Japan and the United States have led an effort for the U.N. to
impose sanctions, but China and Russia have called for softer
measures. On Friday, Japan circulated a draft resolution that
would order countries to ``take those steps necessary'' to keep
the North from acquiring items that could be used for its
missile program. Diplomats said it could be put to a vote
Saturday. 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, dispatched
to the region in the wake of the missile barrage, met with
Chinese officials and won agreement to work together to restore
regional calm. Hill said the Chinese, the North's top allies,
were plainly displeased by the missile tests. 

``They were very clear in their views of the North Korean
missile launches, very clear that they have no interest in
seeing this happen and do not regard this in any way
positively,'' Hill said before leaving Beijing for South Korea.
He was also expected to visit Japan. 

South Korea, which has worked for warmer ties with Pyongyang
since a 2000 North-South summit, attempted to take a middle
path, withholding aid shipments and rejecting a Northern request
for military talks, but also announcing it would hold
Cabinet-level meetings with the North next week. 

Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said Seoul would hold off on
plans to send 500,000 tons of rice and 100,000 tons of
fertilizer to North Korea. 

``This will continue until there is an exit out of the missile
problem,'' Lee's spokesman, Yang Chang-seok, quoted him as
saying, without explaining what would constitute an exit. 

The North had requested 450,000 tons of fertilizer this year, of
which the South has already shipped 350,000 tons. Pyongyang,
which is largely dependent on handouts of food and other
supplies to maintain its poverty-stricken population, has also
asked for 500,000 tons of rice. 

South Korea also turned down a North Korean proposal to hold
military talks this week, saying the time was not right. But
Cabinet-level talks originally scheduled to start next Tuesday
in the southern city of Busan were to go ahead, officials said. 

``The government judged that it's necessary to continue with
dialogue efforts to resolve the current situation over the
North's missile launch,'' said Lee Kwan-se, a Unification
Ministry official. 

Uncertainty surrounded North Korea's next step. South Korea's
defense agency said an additional long-range Taepodong-2 missile
could be at the North's launch site, but that a further test was
not imminent. 

The North, however, said it had the right to test missiles. 

South Korea's Yonhap news agency on Friday quoted Choe Myong
Nam, councilor at the North's U.N. mission in Geneva, as saying
the launches were successful and could be continued, echoing an
earlier statement by North Korea's Foreign Ministry. 

``It's an unfair logic to say that somebody can do something and
others cannot. The same logic applies to nuclear possession,''
Choe said. The missile launches are ``not intended to strike
anyone and it's the North position that missile launches could
be continued,'' he said. 

South Korea ordered two South Korean airlines to avoid a flight
route near the path of the missiles fired this week. The Civil
Aviation Safety Authority told the two airlines, Asiana Airlines
and Korean Air, not to use a flight route over the sea between
the Korean peninsula and Japan starting Friday until Tuesday. 

The United States kept up its diplomatic drive to forge a common
strategy among the main players in the region. On Thursday, the
United States said the world must speak with one voice in
pressing North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and return
to multinational talks. 

Much of the focus is on China, which provides oil and other
economic assistance to North Korea and is seen as a critical
player in diplomacy with Pyongyang. The U.S. has urged Beijing
to exert leverage on North Korea, though so far Chinese efforts
have been largely limited to diplomatic appeals. 

China, North Korea's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with the Stalinist state,
showed little interest in sanctions, saying diplomacy remains
the only way to resolve the dispute. 
--- 

Associated Press writers Audra Ang in Beijing and Kwang-tae Kim
and Jae-soon Chang in Seoul contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea forfeits aid after missile launches
 
Staff and agencies

Friday July 7, 2006 Guardian Unlimited               

A North Korean display of missiles during a parade in Pyongyang.
Photograph: Getty
   
 South Korean ministers today announced they were halting food
aid to North Korea and the Japanese government threatened
"severe measures" following the communist regime's missile tests
earlier this week.

Shoichi Nakagawa, Japan's minister of agriculture, forestry and
fisheries, also suggested the Pyongyang government should repay
rice aid worth 7bn yen (£33m) provided in 1995 as a 30-year
loan. 

"I feel sorry for the people who are starving but we have
absolutely no plans to provide food aid to North Korea," he
said. "We should also take measures as severe as possible on
[North Korean] imports and exports to step up the pressure." 
			 		 			 			Article continues
The South Korean government announced it would delay
shipments of food and fertiliser to its northern neighbour until
the missile crisis is resolved. 

The country would "hold off" on plans to send 100,000 tons of
fertiliser to North Korea, the Unification Ministry quoted the
minister Lee Jong-seok as saying. 

"In addition, we will hold off on providing 500,000 tons of
rice. This will continue until there is a way out of the missile
problem," he added.

North Korea test fired seven missiles on Wednesday, alarming the
international community. 

The country has requested 450,000 tons of fertiliser this year,
of which South Korea has already shipped 350,000 tons. Pyongyang
has also asked for 500,000 tons of rice.

In Beijing, Chinese officials told US representatives they
opposed the missile launches and both countries agreed to
collaborate in diffusing the regional tension. 

The US assistant secretary of state, Christopher Hill, said
China's senior foreign affairs officials told him Beijing had
contacted Pyongyang after the tests. 

"They were very clear in their views of the North Korean missile
launches, very clear that they have no interest in seeing this
happen and do not regard this as in any way positive," Mr Hill
said before leaving Beijing for South Korea. 

Mr Hill said China and the US had agreed to work together to
curb further North Korean provocations and persuade Pyongyang to
return to regional negotiations over its nuclear activity.

China, which is North Korea's staunchest ally and a source of
oil and other economic assistance, is seen as having a crucial
role in persuading Pyongyang to halt its missile tests and
resume stalled talks concerning its nuclear weapons programmes. 

The North Korean regime, meanwhile, has maintained a war of
words with its neighbours. It hit out at Japan's refusal to
allow a North Korean ferry to enter its ports and criticised the
imposition of a number of other measures that stopped short of
full-scale economic sanctions. 

Song Il-ho, the North Korean envoy in charge of talks to restore
diplomatic relations with Japan, called the measures
"outrageous" and said his country would retaliate unless they
were lifted. 

"Japan is translating its criticism against us into action," Mr
Song told a group of Japanese reporters. "This may force us to
take stronger physical actions." 

Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, described Mr Song's
comments as "extremely regrettable".

"North Korea needs to understand that, unless these problems are
solved, it will not be able to resolve the economic, food and
energy problems it currently faces," Mr Abe said.

Separately, the South Korean defence minister, Yoon Kwang-ung,
said his country was developing cruise missile technology. Mr
Yoon did not elaborate on the reasons for the activity but it
comes amid a general strengthening of the country's missile
capabilities.

"We are making efforts in the research and development of a
cruise missile," he said. 

According to a South Korea-US missile guideline signed in 2001,
South Korea can only develop missiles with a range of up to 200
miles and a maximum payload of 500kg. Cruise missiles, however,
are not subject to the range restriction.

Seoul has tested cruise missiles about a dozen times in the past
three years, a military official said. 

The seven North Korean missiles fired on Wednesday apparently
fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan. 

US officials said the one long-range weapon - a Taepodong-2
missile believed capable of reaching American soil - failed
shortly after takeoff. 

Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: US, Japan raise stakes with UN North Korea vote

 by Gerard Aziakou Fri Jul 7, 7:01 PM ET 
		 	 
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States and Japan challenged 
reluctant China and Russia to back sanctions against North Korea 
" /> North Korea, calling for a UN Security Council vote on the 
Stalinist state's missile tests. 

Japanese ambassador Kenzo Oshima presented a binding draft
resolution to the council, hours after Pyongyang warned any
imposition of sanctions would be regarded as "an act of war."
 
"We hope that it will be adopted when it is put to a vote with
the broad unanimity of the council," Oshima said.
 
Veto-wielding China and Russia oppose the text, however, and
would prefer a milder, non-binding statement condemning
Wednesday's volley of tests, but stripped of punitive measures.
 
The push for a vote appeared to be a bid to dare China, which
supplies impoverished North Korea with energy and economic aid,
and which has been put in a difficult position by the crisis, to
veto the measure.
 
"If this resolution is put to vote, there will no unity in the
Security Council," said Chinese envoy Wang Guangya. Asked
whether he might use China's right of veto, Wang replied: "all
possibilities are open."
 
Beijing could also abstain, which would allow the resolution to
stand but deprive it of much of its impact.
 
Western diplomats however played down the possibility of a
Chinese veto. Asked whether he expected such a move, French
ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said: "I hope not."
 
Amid a flurry of diplomacy at the UN and in Asia over the
missile tests, the timing of a vote was expected to be announced
on Monday, a Western diplomat said.
 
Despite clear discord among key powers, President George W. Bush
" /> President George W. Bushsaid the world must unite to rebuke
the reclusive Stalinist state's leader.
 
"What matters most of all is for Kim Jong-Il to see the world
speak with one voice," Bush said during a press conference in
Chicago.
 
"It's best for all of us to go to the UN Security Council and
say loud and clear 'here's some red lines,' and that's what
we're in the process of doing."
 
But the US president noticeably did not make a public push for
sanctions against Pyongyang, as the haggling went on at the UN.
 
US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said sentiment in the
Security Council was "overwhelmingly" in favor of the
resolution. The full 15-member council was due to debate the
resolution later Friday, following a morning meeting of the
permanent five members.
 
The draft, also co-sponsored by Britain, was an amended version
of a document circulated by Japan, condemning Wednesday's tests
of seven North Korean missiles, including a new long-range
Taepodong-2 which could theoretically reach US soil.
 
Two hours of talks at the UN on Friday failed to produce a
consensus, and Japan and China's representatives admitted the
impasse.
 
Chinese envoy Wang Guangya said there was a need for a
"unanimous, firm response," adding: "We feel the best way to
achieve that is through a PRST (non-binding presidential
statement)."
 
But Japan's Oshima said: "China has one position, and we respect
that." 

"Unfortunately, I don't think there is any closing of the gap,"
he added. 

The draft calls on member states to "prevent missiles and
missile-related items, materials, goods, technology being
transferred, including through intermediaries, to end users in
or supplying DPRK's missile and weapons of mass destruction
programs." 

The document also urges member states to stop procurement of
missile-related goods and technology from North Korea and to
block financial transfers to suppliers to Pyongyang's missile or
weapons programs. 

North Korea was instructed in the document to immediately stop
developing, deploying and testing ballistic missiles and urged
to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program. 

North Korea itself was warned any adoption of sanctions could
deepen the crisis. 

Han Song-Ryol, the North's deputy ambassador to the United 
Nations " /> United Nations, told South Korea " /> South Korea's 
Yonhap news agency sanctions would be an "act of war." 

He said North Korea was ready to return to six-way talks if the
United States lifts sanctions on a bank in Macau accused of
money laundering and counterfeiting on behalf of Pyongyang. 

Earlier, Bush again rejected another of Pyongyang's demands --
direct talks with Washington on the nuclear crisis which erupted
in 2002, when the Stalinist state revealed a program to enrich
uranium which infringed a 1994 anti-nuclear deal. 

"My concern about handling this issue bilaterally is that you
run out of options very quickly," he said, adding that he would
not get "caught in the trap." 

Diplomatic efforts went on around the clock. Senior US envoy
Christopher Hill said as he arrived in South Korea after
visiting China that it was time to end "business as usual" with
North Korea. 

Hill earlier met Chinese vice foreign minister Wu Dawei and
Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing in Beijing but could not get an
agreement on sanctions against Pyongyang. 

South Korea, meanwhile, ratcheted up the pressure by saying it
would indefinitely put off crucial food aid to impoverished
North Korea in response to the tests. 

But Seoul said it would stand by its policy of engaging its
neighbour and press ahead with ministerial talks with the North
July 11-14 in the southern port of Busan. 

South Korea's Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-Ung warned Pyongyang
had a second long-range Taepodong-2 missile to test but there
were no signs that a launch was imminent.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: China, Russia slow North Korea sanctions drive 

 by Gerard Aziakou Fri Jul 7, 12:54 AM ET 
		 	 
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China and Russia dug in their heels over 
imposing UN sanctions on North Korea " /> North Koreaover its 
missile tests, as President George W. Bush " /> President George 
W. Bushappealed to fellow leaders for united action. 

The United States and Japan led efforts to condemn and punish
Pyongyang in the UN Security Council -- hours after unrepentent
North Korea vowed to fire off more tests, despite global outrage
over Wednesday's seven launches.
 
Experts from the 15-member Security Council met for two hours,
but could not break a deadlock over a Japanese draft resolution
promising financial sanctions against North Korea.
 
Veto-wielding China and Russia, seen as two of the few sources
of influence over the reclusive state, remained set on a
resolution rebuking North Korea, but stripped of punitive
measures, diplomats said.
 
"Our position remains unchanged," Chinese UN delegate Li Junhua
told AFP after the two-hour meeting. "We need some flexible
signals from our Japanese colleagues."
 
US ambassador John Bolton insisted that the council would
eventually pass a binding resolution condemning the missile
launches.
 
"The support remains really overwhelming to make a very strong
statement of condemnation of the North Korean missile launches
and to take strong effective measures in response," Bolton said.
 
The North earlier warned specifically against action by the
Security Council.
 
"If sanctions are imposed, all-out countermeasures will be
taken," North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations
" /> United Nations, Han Song-Ryol, said in an interview with
Japan's Tokyo Broadcasting System.
 
The text would urge UN member states to prevent the transfer of
financial resources, items, goods and technology that could
contribute to Pyongyang's missile program and other weapons of
mass destruction programs.
 
Bush meanwhile pursued personal telephone diplomacy, calling 
Russian President Vladimir Putin " /> Vladimir Putinand China's 
President Hu Jintao " /> Hu Jintao, following calls to South 
Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun " /> Roh Moo-Hyunand Japanese Prime 
Minister Junichiro Koizumi late Wednesday.
 
He said he was "pleased" with the response to his telephone
calls, despite the apparent deadlock at the UN.
 
"The best way to solve the problem diplomatically is for all of
us to be working in concert and to send one message," Bush said.
 
"And that is -- to (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il -- ... 'we
expect you to adhere to international norms, and we expect you
to keep your word.'"
 
The White House admitted, however, there was as yet no joint
position on how to respond to the seven missile tests, including
a launching of the Taepodong-2 rocket which could theoretically
hit US soil.
 
Bush cautioned that there would not be immediate results from
his intervention or the intense UN haggling.
 
"Diplomacy takes a while ...these problems won't be solved
overnight."
 
Bush's spokesman Tony Snow, also warned against expecting a
"snap resolution" saying diplomacy was not like a TV sitcom,
guaranteeing a "neat, happy" ending within 30 minutes. He
acknowledged differences remained between top powers. 

"There are going to be a whole series of conversations. When
that is all put together, and when there's a unified front, then
you're going to hear from them, but right now it's
inappropriate." 

Hu told Bush that China -- the North's neighbor and main ally --
was "seriously concerned" about the situation but favored "calm
and restraint," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a
statement. 

"China was committed to maintaining peace and stability in the
Korean Peninsula and was opposed to any actions that might
intensify the situation," Hu told Bush, a day before senior US
envoy Christopher Hill was due in Beijing. 

Putin, who also spoke to Bush said Russia was "worried about the
situation, and said during an Internet question-and-answer
session broadcast on Russian television that "an atmosphere
needs to be created for reaching a compromise." 

Snow said that the issue of sanctions on North Korea was not
addressed in either conversation. 

North Korea's foreign ministry, earlier said Pyongyang "will go
on with missile-launch exercises as part of its efforts to
bolster deterrent for self-defence in the future." 

The isolated state, which last year declared it had nuclear
weapons, warned it "will have no option but to take stronger
physical actions of other forms, should any other country dare
take issue with the exercises and put pressure upon it." 

It said it had security concerns in light of Bush's 2002
grouping of North Korea with Iraq
" /> Iraqand Iran
" /> Iranas an "axis of evil". Saddam Hussein
" /> Saddam Hussein's Iraq was invaded a year later. 

In Washington, senior State Department official Nicholas Burns
warned on CBS television that the United States would not
"overreact ... to these wild statements out of Pyongyang and
North Korea." 

Burns also stepped up pressure on China: "they've got a lot of
influence ... so we're hoping that the Chinese will choose to
use that influence." 

South Korean intelligence officials were quoted saying that the
North was likely to carry out a second Taepodong-2 test after
fixing technical problems that doomed the first one to crash
into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: US envoy in China to lobby over NKorea 

 by Karl Malakunas Fri Jul 7, 7:54 AM ET 
		 	 
BEIJING (AFP) - The United States has stepped up its pressure on 
China to take stronger action over the North Korean missile 
crisis with the chief US envoy on the issue holding a day of 
talks in Beijing. 

Christopher Hill, the chief US negotiator for the six-nation 
talks on North Korea " /> 's nuclear program, landed in the 
morning on the first leg of a hectic Asian tour that will also 
take him to Seoul and Tokyo.
 
Hill went straight into a meeting with China's chief negotiatior
on the six-party negotiations, vice foreign minister Wu Dawei,
then held talks with Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing.
 
Hill told reporters as he prepared to leave for Seoul that he
had discussed with the Chinese officials how both nations could
best react to North Korea's test-firing of seven missiles on
Wednesday in the the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 
He said both sides agreed that the stalled six-nation talks on
North Korea's nuclear program should resume, but there was no
agreement on the contentious issue of sanctions.
 
"We did have some discussion on the best way to put pressure on.
Discussions... on sanctions were touched upon," he said, but
spoke only of a common position on the six-nation talks.
 
China and Russia have expressed deep concern over the launch of
the missiles but have resisted moves by the United States, Japan
and Britain to punish Pyongyang through the United Nations
" /> with tough measures such as sanctions.
 
Japan has drafted a UN Security Council measure that would aim
to prevent the transfer of financial resources, goods and
technology that could contribute to Pyongyang's missile program
and weapons of mass destruction programs.
 
Diplomats have said the draft, co-sponsored by the United States
and Britain, enjoys broad support among the council's 15 members.
 
However, Russia and China, two of the five veto-wielding
permanent members of the council, oppose a reference to punitive
measures and to Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which could
open the way to sanctions or even military action.
 
"Our position remains unchanged," Chinese UN delegate Li Junhua
told AFP after Thursday's council meeting in New York.
 
He repeated Russia and China's position that the council adopt a
weaker, non-binding statement without any threat of sanctions.
 
China has inisisted that the best way to resolve the crisis is
through diplomatic channels, particularly the six-party talks
that began in August 2003 in an effort to rein in North Korea's
nuclear program.
 
China is the host of the talks, which involve the two Koreas,
Japan, the United States and Russia, but they have been stalled
since November last year over Pyongyang's objections to US
financial sanctions against it.
 
"I made it very clear to the Chinese that we are prepared to
attend the (six-nation) meetings," Hill told reporters at
Beijing airport.
 
"We are all speaking with one voice (on the need for the
six-party talks to continue)."
 
But Hill had said before arriving in Beijing that he expected
China, the North's closest ally and a crucial donor of food,
energy and other aid to the impoverished state, to do much more
to wield its influence with Pyongyang.
 
"We need China to be very, very firm with their neighbors and
frankly with their long-term allies the North Koreans, on what
is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior,"
Hill said. 

US President George W. Bush " /> spoke by phone with his Chinese 
counterpart, Hu Jintao " /> , on Thursday night, about the 
missile crisis. 

Hu repeated to Bush China's call for restraint from all sides,
no sanctions and a resumption of the six-party talks. 

Hill also met with the chief of the Japanese delegation to the
six-party talks, Kenichiro Sasae, in Beijing on Friday. Hill
said the talks were only brief as he would be holding a more
in-depth meeting with him in Tokyo. 

Sasae also met with Wu, his counterpart in the six-party talks. 
Wu will travel to Pyongyang on Monday as part of a delegation to
attend celebrations for the 45th anniversary of a friendship
treaty between North Korea and China.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Expresses Frustration With Diplomacy
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 8:46 PM
 	
AP Photo ILMG101 
By TERENCE HUNT AP White House Correspondent 

CHICAGO (AP) - President Bush expressed frustration Friday with
the slow pace of diplomacy in dealing with North Korea and Iran
and prodded world leaders to send an unmistakable message
condemning Pyongyang's long-range missile test. 

He said the U.S. would have had ``a reasonable chance'' of
shooting down the missile if it had been necessary, though
America's missile-defense system is still in the testing phase
and its capabilities are modest. More than $100 billion has been
spent on the system since 1983. 

On the terror war, the president said at a rare out-of-town news
conference that the United States has not relaxed its nearly
five-year search for Osama bin Laden and he vowed the terrorist
leader would be found: ``Absolutely. No ands, ifs or buts. 

``And, my judgment, it's a matter of time, unless we stop
looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the
president,'' Bush said. 

The president's overnight stop in Chicago - including dinner
with Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley and breakfast with locals
at a popular restaurant - was part of a strategy to boost Bush's
sagging popularity by putting him on the road more often this
summer in friendly settings. 

Daley joined Bush at Friday's news conference, where the
president called him a ``great mayor'' and said he was proud to
call him a friend. 

There was a heavy dose of political fundraising on the trip,
too, as Bush helped raise $1.2 million for Judy Baar Topinka,
the Republican state treasurer who is trying to unseat
Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. 

Outside the Drake Hotel where the fundraiser was held, several
dozen protesters carried sometimes vicious anti-Bush and
anti-war messages. A couple of the demonstrators burned American
flags. 

At his news conference, Bush called the Iraq war ``a noble and
just cause'' and said the United States would not leave before
winning. 

``We will lose if we leave too early,'' the president said.

``The stakes of success are vital.'' He repeated his oft-stated
position that it will be up to military commanders to say when
it is appropriate to withdraw U.S. troops. 

Bush came here as the United Nations struggled over how to deal
with North Korea, which defied world appeals and test-fired a
long-range missile that fell into the sea 42 seconds after
launch this week. China and Russia have balked at a proposed
Japanese resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea. 

``What matters most of all is for Kim Jong Il to see the world
speak with one voice,'' Bush said. ``That's the purpose,
really.'' 

In months of negotiations, Beijing and Moscow also have had
reservations about penalizing Iran for its refusal to suspend
uranium enrichment. 

``You're watching the diplomacy work not only in North Korea but
in Iran,'' the president said. 

``And it's, kind of - you know, it's kind of painful in a way
for some to watch, because it takes a while to get people on the
same page,'' Bush said. ``Not everybody thinks the exact same
way we think. Different words mean different things to different
people. And the diplomatic processes can be slow and
cumbersome.'' 

Asked if he felt a sense of urgency in dealing with North Korea
and Iran, Bush said, ``I'm realistic about how things move in
the world.'' He said he wanted diplomatic rather than military
solutions. 

Bush said Kim Jong Il, in ordering the missile tests, had defied
China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States - the
five countries that have been negotiating unsuccessfully with
North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. 

``All of us said, `Don't fire that rocket.' He not only fired
one, he fired seven. Now that he made that defiance, it's best
for all of us to go to the U.N. Security Council and say, loud
and clear, `Here's some red lines.' And that's what we're in the
process of doing,'' Bush said. 

He ruled out direct talks between just the U.S. and North Korea
and said he hoped the six-party talks would resume. 

``My judgment is you can't be successful if the United States is
sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out of
options very quickly if that's the case,'' he said. ``In order
to be successful diplomatically it's best to have other partners
at the table'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 DenverPost.com: Greenspan raises red flag on energy

  Article Launched: 07/07/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT  

The former Fed chief, speaking at the Aspen Institute, warns of 
the economic consequences from unfriendly nations and terrorists.

  By David Frey Special to The Denver Post  

Alan Greenspan's speech at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Thursday 
came a day after oil prices hit a record high, above $75 a 
barrel. He called for a variety of solutions, from hybrid cars to 
nuclear power, to reduce reliance on foreign oil. (Aspen Daily 
News / Zach Ornitz)       
    
Aspen - Amid soaring fuel costs and diminishing world oil
supplies, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned
Thursday that the nation needs to develop alternative energy
sources or risk dire economic consequences. 

Greenspan called for a mixture of solutions, from plug-in hybrid
cars to ethanol to nuclear power, to diminish the country's
reliance on foreign oil. 

"If the world oil industry were to get into very serious
difficulty, its impact on the world economic system would be
very difficult to absorb," said Greenspan, addressing a crowd at
the Aspen Institute's Aspen Ideas Festival. 

The annual festival draws luminaries to the Aspen campus of the
Washington-based think tank, headed by Walter Isaacson, former
chief executive of CNN. 

Greenspan's comments came a day after oil prices reached a
record high, pushing above $75 a barrel on the New York
Mercantile Exchange. 

His comments largely echoed testimony he made to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee a month ago in his first Capitol
Hill appearance since stepping down after nearly 19 years as Fed
chief. 

In that speech, he warned that the nation's reliance on foreign
oil could have damaging economic consequences because of U.S.
reliance on unfriendly nations and vulnerability to terrorists. 

Greenspan underscored those fears Thursday, warning that many
oil-rich countries seem too preoccupied with their oil profits
to worry about the impact of surging prices or diminishing
supplies. 

But high prices have helped reduce demand for crude oil, which
Greenspan characterized as a positive. 

Worse than the price at the gas pump is the price the country has 
paid in its foreign policy to protect oil reserves, said 
Greenspan, adding that he supported the Iraq war because of the 
role it played in preventing Saddam Hussein from controlling a 
key oil shipping route. 

Greenspan also sounded alarms about dwindling natural-gas
supplies and the dangers posed by global warming. 

He called for a range of solutions, including developing
hybrid-fuel cars with rechargeable plug-in batteries and
developing crops of switchgrass as a rich source of ethanol, a
solution President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union
address. 

Greenspan said the nation may also need to develop more nuclear
facilities and import more natural gas. 

Pacing like a college professor as he spoke to hundreds gathered
under the Benedict Music Tent, and introduced by his wife, NBC
journalist Andrea Mitchell, Greenspan struck chords long shared
by conservationists wary of depleting world oil reserves. 

But some feared his reliance on market solutions wouldn't
address the problems quickly enough. 

"Frankly, I was disappointed," said Randy Udall, director of the 
Aspen-based Community Office on Resource Efficiency, which 
focuses on renewable energy issues. "I would never say this about 
him in the economic arena, but I think in the energy arena he is 
Pollyanna-ish and clueless."   
            
 All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 22 [NYTr] West should also disarm, UN nuclear chief says
 
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:38:29 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

EU Observer - Jul 7, 2006
http://euobserver.com/9/22042/?rk=1

West should also disarm, UN nuclear chief says

By Helena Spongenberg

Turkey can help bring about a result on the Iranian nuclear enrichment
issue by mediating between Tehran and the international community, the
head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El-Baradei
said, adding that the west would be more successful if it also lay down
its nuclear weapons.

"You have close historical relations with the Middle East and Iran, and
you also have close relations with the west and the USA. You are a NATO
member. You can understand the position of these countries and have an
important role in bringing them to the negotiation table," stressed Mr
El-Baradei in an interview on Turkish TV on Thursday (6 July).

"We should also discuss the international community's concerns over
terrorism and human rights with Iran. If we can do this in an early
stage and if Turkey can help the parties get closer to a compromise,
this will be in the best interests of not only Turkey but also the
entire world," he suggested, according to TurkishPress.com.

Mr El-Baradei also noted that he is still optimistic that the issue can
be solved. "A lasting and final solution can be found through
diplomacy," he said, adding that a solution to the controversy could
contribute to settling the issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon
and Palestine.

The US, Russia, France, China and Britain should diminish their nuclear
arsenals if they really want to be successful in their efforts however,
Mr El-Baradei said, stressing that these countries should ban production
of materials used in nuclear weapon production and refrain from
underlining the strategic role of nuclear weapons.

An informal meeting between Iran and the EU
At the same time in Brussels, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani
and EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana met for dinner to discuss the
planned talks on an international proposal for Iran, aimed at persuading
Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program, which the west fear could
give them nuclear weapons.

"We are going to continue on Tuesday, and I'm looking forward to getting
this process going, [which] we think is going to be beneficial for both
sides, for the European Union and many countries of the world and for
Iran," Mr Solana told press ahead of the meeting.

"We are serious about continuing negotiations. And we are going to start
next Tuesday our talks," Dr Larijani said.

Dr Larijani arrived last night in Madrid where he will meet with Spanish
prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero today (7 July) to talk further about
the situation.

The proposal
Mr Solana met Dr Larijani in the Iranian capital in June, submitting an
international compromise package designed to get Iran to stop enriching
uranium over weapons fears. 

The proposal was put together by the five permanent UN security council
members - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - plus Germany.

It offers Iran direct talks with the US for the first time since 1979
and new reactor technology in return for a suspension of all enrichment
activities that could support a weapons programme.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said Iran needed to give "a
substantive response" to the offer before leaders of the eight leading
industrialised nations - the G8 - meet in St Petersburg on 15 July.

Sanction threats are hovering in the air, but some western diplomats say
options are limited if Iran fails to comply because Tehran's role as the
world's fourth largest oil exporter means any sanctions could badly
backfire.

On Thursday, Russian president Vladimir Putin said it was too early to
talk about sanctions against Tehran. 

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: Defence minister backs nuclear arms
 
Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor

Saturday July 8, 2006 The Guardian             

The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday strongly hinted he
would join other senior ministers in supporting the retention of
a British independent nuclear deterrent. He highlighted "the
terrifying prospect" of a state with nuclear weapons linking up
with a terrorist group.

He promised an open debate but said: "There has been significant 
leakage from the North Koreans' nuclear development. We will need 
to look into what we know about non-state actors such as al-Qaida 
who are playing a significant and dangerous role in the future of 
our security." 

He said the government would publish a white paper this
year setting out its views on the deterrent, but would not rule
in or out whether MPs would vote on the final decision. He
suggested that one possibility was to extend the life of the
existing system.

His comments came as a former Labour defence secretary, Denis
Healey, said there was no military justification for keeping
Britain's nuclear deterrent. Lord Healey, who played a key role
in maintaining the Polaris nuclear weapons systems in the 1960s,
said the only reason for maintaining the deterrent was
"political", to bolster Britain's influence abroad.

"Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign
policy than they were in the days of the cold war. I don't think
we need nuclear weapons any longer," he told BBC News 24's
Straight Talk. "I think the military case now for nuclear
weapons has gone."

In answer to a parliamentary question yesterday Mr Browne made
clear that MPs would only be consulted on the future of
Britain's nuclear deterrent after ministers had come to a
decision. A decision would be taken before the end of the year.

However, he refused to disclose how much had been spent
developing new arming and firing systems for the Trident nuclear
warhead, on grounds of national security.

Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem spokesman who raised the question, said
Mr Browne's answers "make a mockery of the prime minister's
promise to hold the 'fullest possible parliamentary debate' on
Trident".

He added: "Refusal to comment on warhead design work at
Aldermaston appears to be further evidence of an intention to
suppress debate."
 
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 ENS: Putin Pledges to Raise NGO Nuclear, Climate Concerns at G8 Summit
     
Environment News Service (ENS)
 
 MOSCOW, Russia, July 7, 2006 (ENS) - A ban on further
development of nuclear power, and strict controls on greenhouse
gas emissions linked to global warming were among the
recommendations of some of the world's largest nongovernmental
organizations in advance of the Group of Eight summit, which
Russia will host July 15 to 17 in St. Petersburg. Russian
President Vladimir Putin met with the NGOs and promised to bring
their resolutions up for discussion at the G8 Summit. 

The leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union,
will be joining President Putin for Russia's debut G8 summit. 

More than 100 nongovernmental organizations from around the
world, some representing hundreds of other groups, held a two
day forum in Moscow Monday and Tuesday by means of a process
called the Civil Eight 2006 that is new this year to the G8
cycle of meetings. 

The initiators of the Civil G8 2006 project were over 40 Russian
nongovernmental organizations, and NGO communities from every
continent were involved in its work. 

[hall] Civil G8 delegates at the front table during the Moscow
meeting July 3-4, 2006. (Photo courtesy Civil G8) Over 500
people, representing rights and advocacy organizations and civil
society, including the International Socio-ecological Union, the
United Nations, the Ford Foundation, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Amnesty
International, Climate Action Network, Charities Aid Foundation,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund,
the International Council of Women and many others, participated
in the NGO forum. 

Global energy security, prevention of global pandemics, efforts
to curb HIV/AIDS, human rights, African trade and development,
education, and intellectual property took center stage at the
meeting. 

The Civil G8 statement on global energy security began with the
declaration that human combustion of fossil fuels is directly
responsible for global warming and all its environmental
consequences. 

"Non-controlled growth of production, transportation and burning
of fossil fuels has negative, oppressive impact to the
environment, and results in negative anthropogenic climate
change, growth of the related negative phenomena – hurricanes,
droughts, floods, avalanching, ablation of permafrost, etc., and
thereby raises danger to stability of the global economics, life
and health of humans," according to the statement. 

[delegates] Delegates from every continent spoke their minds at
the Civil G8 forum. (Photo courtesy Civil G8) The forum
emphasized that nuclear power, while it does not emit the
greenhouse gases, is not a climate change solution they can
support. "In spite of different points of view, worded by
participants of the round table," the Civil G8 said, "most of
them consider that nuclear energy is not a stable way of the
energy development, and insist on abandoning of nuclear energy
use." 

The forum expressed concern about radiation hazards, and
possible releases of radiation during the transport, storage and
processing of nuclear waste, and reactor dismantling. 

They also fear the "possible interrelation of nuclear energy and
distribution of nuclear weapons" especially in Third World
countries. They recommend banning all trans-border transport of
nuclear wastes, including spent nuclear fuels. 

Meeting with the NGO forum participants July 4, Russian
President Vladimir Putin was confronted with a group holding a
banner reading, "No to nuclear power! No to nuclear power!” 

Putin tolerated the demonstration, saying, "Let the people do
their thing. We won't get in their way. They came here to make
themselves heard, and we must give them that opportunity." 

"I should also say immediately, and honestly, that some of your
recommendations, and the documents that I have been able to
review, will cause disputes within the G8. Of course," Putin
said. "I am not sure that a hundred percent of everyone here
would agree, say, that it is necessary to halt development of
atomic energy, but I see that your documents do contain such a
recommendation." 

[Putin] Russian President Vladimir Putin meets informally with
NGO leaders before attending the Civil G8 Forum. (Photo courtesy
the Russian Presidential Press and Information Office) "It seems
to me," said Putin, "that first we need to develop an
alternative for the world, we need first to propose solutions,
and then will be the time to cease development of atomic energy.
Although it is certainly true that not everyone shares this
opinion." 

The Civil G8 say in their statement that there is a "crying need
to change the prevailing energy paradigm, transfer to stable
energy development in order to ensure global energy safety on
the basis of energy saving and efficient use of new and
renewable sources of fuel and power." 

They would like to see power generation by biomass, coal
gasification, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal power plants,
dam-free hydroelectric power stations, and hydrogen energy. 

Evgeny Shvarts, who chairs the Biodiversity Conservation Center
of the Socio-Ecological Union, told the Civil G8 forum, "Energy
security must necessarily include climate security. Based on
this principle, we believe that the G8 countries must take the
necessary measures to keep growth in average global temperature
to a maximum of two degrees in comparison to pre-industrial
levels." 

"To do so, by 2050 we will need to cut greenhouse gas emissions
by 50 percent in comparison with 1990 levels. And we absolutely
believe that the G8 must accelerate implementation of the action
plan approved at Gleneagles in order to ensure heightened energy
efficiency, rapid development of renewable energy, and lowering
of greenhouse gas emissions." 

Putin responded, "Energy security must include environmental
security, there are no disputes of problems in this regard." 

[Shvarts] Evgeny Shvarts chairs the Biodiversity Conservation
Center of the Socio-Ecological Union, Russia. (Photo courtesy
Ethical Corporation) Shvarts expressed the belief of forum
participants that "in the year of the 20th anniversary of the
Chernobyl disaster we have an obligation to demand that other G8
countries wind up their programs for construction of new active
nuclear units, as atomic energy represents a non-sustainable
path for development of energy." 

Putin said that the G8 leaders have agreed to discuss nuclear
energy at the Summit. 

"The subject under discussion in Saint Petersburg in relation to
atomic energy will not be development of atomic energy
worldwide, but rather issues of ensuring the security of atomic
energy," said Putin. 

Because the Civil G8 forum recommends an end to nuclear power
development, Putin said he would bring it up in St. Petersburg.

"But I should tell you now," he said at the forum, "several of
my colleagues have even been reluctant to discuss this topic on
principle. Not because they are against security in nuclear
energy, but owing to the rather harsh positions of
non-governmental organizations in their countries with regard to
this issue, they have not wanted even to touch on this matter.
But I believe that this is wrong." 

"While in France today 80 percent of generated electric power
comes from nuclear energy, security of nuclear energy affects us
all, even those countries that do not intend to develop nuclear
energy - like Germany, which has adopted a resolution not to
build any new nuclear plants," Putin said. "But security is
something that affects everyone. 

"We know this better than anyone else following the Chernobyl
tragedy," he said. "Therefore, in the end everyone agreed that
we should discuss problems of atomic energy security in Saint
Petersburg." 

The Civil G8 forum proposes the creation of a global monitoring
system covering nuclear power plants, transportation and
production of hydrocarbons, and space based equipment in order
to prevent damage to the environment. 

They recommend that an international system of mandatory
insurance for environmental risks be developed and submitted to
the United Nations for discussion by 2010. 

They envision an insurance system that would provide financial
compensation for damage to the health of the population as a
result of "production, transportation and processing of
hydrocarbon and nuclear materials, burial and processing of the
wastes." 

Putin promised that their recommendations would be considered by
the G8 leaders. "Where in previous years these meetings with the
leaders of nongovernmental organizations were limited in terms
of participation," he said, "today, as you see, we have invited
you for discussion as part of a far wider representative forum." 

"I want to assure you that everything that you expound will, in
essence, reach the G8 countries' heads, and that not only will
we study them attentively, but we will also analyze them most
critically, and will take them into account in making ultimate
decisions," Putin pledged.   

  
Questions or Comments: 
news@ens-news.com

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 25 RIA Novosti: Russia to reform strategic nuclear triad by 2016 - top general
 
07/ 07/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, July 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's armed forces will be
completely equipped with new strategic nuclear weapons systems
by 2016, Chief of the General Staff Yury Baluyevsky said Friday.

 "We cannot have the strategic nuclear contingent by 2016 that
we have today," Baluyevsky said at a meeting of the lower house
of the Russian parliament, the State Duma. 

As of January 2006, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces deployed
512 land-based missile systems of four different types equipped
with intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry 1,808
warheads. The country also deploys various outdated sea- and
air-based nuclear missile systems.

 But according to a new doctrine for the development of the
armed forces, by 2016 Russia will completely modernize the naval
component of the nuclear triad by deploying new Bulava ballistic
missiles on Project 955 Borey-class nuclear-powered submarines
and equipping land-based strategic missile units with silo-based
and mobile Topol-M (SS-27) ballistic missiles.

 President Vladimir Putin said in his state of the nation
address on May 10 that Russia would commission two new strategic
nuclear submarines in 2006.

 "Russia has not built such submarines since 1990," Putin said.
"They will be armed with Bulava nuclear missiles, which together
with Topol-Ms will form the base for the strategic defense
forces."

 Russia currently has five missile regiments equipped with
silo-based Topol-M missiles, and the first regiment equipped
with mobile Topol-M systems will be put on combat duty in 2006.

 Russia is also planning to modernize the air component of the
nuclear triad by modernizing its fleet of strategic bombers.

 Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on July 5 that Russia's Air
Force had commissioned a modernized Tu-160 Blackjack strategic
bomber and could receive a new Tu-160 bomber by the end of the
year.

 He said the modernized bomber showed Russia's increased defense
capabilities and the new weaponry and avionics installed on the
aircraft allowed the country to look to the future with
confidence and in security.

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 26 BBC: UK needs no nuclear arms - Healey
 
Last Updated: Friday, 7 July 2006
 
[Trident nuclear submarine]                             

Mr Blair has announced the timetable for deciding on Trident                                                                 

Britain does not need nuclear weapons any longer, former
Defence Secretary Denis Healey has said. 

Lord Healey, who played a key role in maintaining Polaris in the
1960s, said the only case for nuclear weapons now was political,
not military. 

"Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign
policy than they were in the days of the Cold War," he told BBC
News 24. 

A decision on renewing Trident nuclear weapons will be made
later this year. 

Cold War over 

Tony Blair says he favours replacing or renewing Trident and
Gordon Brown has also signalled he wants to do the same. 
Lord Healey supports Mr Brown's hopes of becoming prime minister
but believes he is wrong on Trident. 

"I don't think we need nuclear weapons any longer," he told
Straight Talk with Andrew Neil. 
                        
[Denis Healey]                                  

Lord Healey says Tony Blair should have stepped down much earlier                                                           
                                 
Nuclear weapons were infinitely less important in our foreign
policy than they were in the days of the Cold War, he said. 
Lord Healey was asked if he thought Britain should stop being a
nuclear power in the 21st Century. 

He replied: "I think the only case is really a political one. I
think the military case now for nuclear weapons has gone. 

"But there is a case for having them partly because we can have
a little more influence than we otherwise would have in
Washington, and partly to not leave France as the only European
country with nuclear weapons." 

He said he was not in a rush to get rid of Britain's nuclear
weapons "but I wouldn't spend a lot of money on Trident and
there are plenty of other ways of delivering nuclear weapons". 

Brown and Blair 

Lord Healey also said Mr Blair should have stepped down "much
earlier". 

"Harold [Wilson] had the sense to go when, you know, he knew he
was getting past it, and Tony hasn't had that sense, which is a
great shame," he said. 

The former chancellor said Mr Brown would probably spend more
money on social issues than Mr Blair if he went into No 10. 
"I think he'll give a much more coherent feel to the country
about what the Labour Party is for," he said. 

"He will concentrate on issues which are central I think to
Labour thinking and, as a personality, I think people will find
him very impressive." 

+ BBC Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is broadcast at 0430 BST,
1030, 1530 and 2130 on Saturday and 0130, 1430 and 2130 on
Sunday. 
*****************************************************************
 27 Pakistan News: Parliamentary Committees briefed on nuclear issue

PakTribune.Com
 
Jumaada al-sani 11, 1427 Hijri July 08, 2006	 
        
ISLAMABAD: Members of Government and Opposition Friday expressed
complete satisfaction over the steps taken for the development,
security of nuclear program and nuclear assets thus directing
the government to continue its nuclear program. 

This was decided in a parliamentary committee briefing held at
the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), Joint Staff Headquarters. 
Members of Parliament belonging to the National Assembly
Defence, Foreign affairs, Defence Production Committees, as well
as Senate Committees on Defence and Foreign Affairs was also
present in the detailed briefing that lasted for more than three
hours. 

Lt General Khalid Kidwai, Director General, SPD provided a
comprehensive briefing on Pakistan’s strategic assets and their
safety and security. 

The briefing provided an in-depth perspective on the Command,
Control and Communication System that has been functioning under
the SPD. 

The briefing also focused on Pakistan’s acquisition of a minimum
deterrent capability that is today a major factor for promoting
national security and preserving peace and stability in the
region. 

Lt General Khalid Kidwai, Director General, SPD welcomed the
participation of Members of Parliament at this presentation and
stressed that Pakistan’s strategic assets will be preserved and
protected through a process that is transparent, and it was
imperative that the elected representatives of the people of
Pakistan be taken into confidence on such sensitive issues
pertaining to Pakistan’s national’s security. 

After the formal meeting, Chairman of Senate Standing Committee
on Defence and Defence Production Nisar Memon while talking to
Online said that briefing was quite fruitful that lasted for
three and a half hours. 

He said that a question hour session was also held. 

He said that details of the budget that was spent on the
development on Defence and Nuclear Program was provided to them
in the briefing. 

He said that a comprehensive discussion was done on all the
issues including Nuclear Agreement between India and USA in
depth. 

Nisar Memon said that members are proud of its country’s nuclear
assets underlining that Pakistan’s nuclear program is in safe
hands and is progressing well. 

He said that in the interactive session which lasted for nearly
three hours, Members of Parliament discussed different
dimensions of Pakistan’s security with reference to the nuclear
program. 

They expressed their warm appreciation and thanks to the SPD for
organising this highly informative security. 

He further said that Dr Qadeer’s issue was also discussed and
the way to control and safeguard the nuclear assets of Pakistan. 

The briefing was attended by Ch. Shujaat Hussain Chairman
National Assembly on Defence, Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed,
Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Rao
Sikandar Iqbal, Minister for Defence, Senator Nisar A Memon,
Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence
Production, Fiza Junejo Chairman NA Standing Committee on
Defence Production, Hamid Nasir Chattha, Chairman Kashmir
Committee Mushtaq Victor, Minister of State for Minorities,
Khusro Bakhytar, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Aitzaz
Ahsan, MNA, Maulana Muhammad Khan Shirani, MNA, Senator Maulana
Samiul Haq and about 50 senator and MNAs belonging to various
political parties. 

End.
  
Pakistan News Service © PakTribune.com Pvt Ltd 2003-2004   
*****************************************************************
 28 Mos News: Russia Has “No Other Partner But U.S.” in Global Security,
Disarmament — Putin - 

- MOSNEWS.COM
 
Vladimir Putin and George Bush / Image by MosNews       
 	
Created: 07.07.2006 09:28 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:04 MSK
 	
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday Russia has “no
other partner but the United States” on the issues of global
security and disarmament, Xinhua news agency reports. 

“We attach great significance to the development of relations
with the United States. It is one of our main partners in the
world,” Putin said during an interactive webcast from the
Kremlin. 

“I have already repeated many times before that on some
questions we have no other partner but the United States. These
are maintaining global security and matters concerning
disarmament, ” he stressed. 

Since Russia and the United States possess the largest arsenals
of strategic offensive weapons, they bear special responsibility
for global security, Putin said. 

“One of the present-day global challenges is the threat of
nuclear proliferation, and in this sense the United States is
our most important partner, Putin said. 

Russia has sought to start negotiations with the United States
on a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (
START), which expires in 2009. 

U.S. President George W. Bush is scheduled to meet Putin for
talks on the eve of the summit of the Group of Eight industrial
powers in St. Petersburg next week. Top Kremlin aide Sergei
Prikhodko has said Putin will ”definitely“ raise the START issue
during his talks with Bush. 

”I don’t think our role is to stand in opposition to the United
States as during Soviet times. No one will ever make us slide
back toward this position,“ Putin said. 

Russia will work for a multi-polar world, a future architecture
of international relations that takes into account the interests
of the overwhelming majority of participants, he said. 

During his two-hour live Internet session, Putin answered over
40 questions, some picked by himself. Internet users the world
over sent in more than 162,000 questions for his second Internet
appearance since becoming president.
 	 	 	 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 29 Scotsman.com: No military reason for UK's atomic weapons, says Healey

Last updated: 07-Jul-06 00:14 BST
 
GAVIN CORDON 

THE former Labour defence secretary Denis Healey said yesterday
there was no military justification for keeping Britain's
nuclear deterrent. 

Lord Healey, who held the post in the 1960s at the height of the
Cold War, said the only reason for maintaining the deterrent was
"political", to bolster Britain's influence abroad. 

"Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign
policy than they were in the days of the Cold War. I don't think
we need nuclear weapons any longer," he told BBC News 24's
Straight Talk. 

"I think the only case is really a political one. I think the
military case now for nuclear weapons has gone. 

"But there is a case for having them, partly because we can have
a little more influence than we otherwise would have in
Washington, and partly to not leave France as the only European
country with nuclear weapons." 

His intervention came after Gordon Brown, the Chancellor,
signalled his support for replacing the UK's ageing Trident
nuclear submarine deterrent. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has
promised a decision before the end of the year. 

Lord Healey said if the government did go ahead with a
replacement for Trident, it need not be as elaborate as the
current system. "I wouldn't spend a lot of money on Trident, and
there are plenty of other ways of delivering nuclear weapons,"
he said.
 
*****************************************************************
 30 The Hindu: Centre accepts site for nuclear power plant in Haryana 

Saturday, July 8, 2006 : 0300 Hrs

New Delhi, July 8 (PTI): The Centre has accepted the site
identified by the Haryana Government for setting up a nuclear
power plant, a top State Government official said yesterday. 

"The Government of India has informed us that Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Ltd has accepted the location at Kumharia
village in Fatehabad district," Haryana's Principal Secretary
(Power) R N Parasher said at a PHDCCI interaction. 

However, the Union Government has given no indication about when
the project would be started, he said. 

"They have said Haryana will get a nuclear plant in future," he
said, adding that the State Government would be pushing for
including Haryana in the Centre's priority list. 

Parasher said as the state did not have other fuel sources such
as coal, gas or even wind, a nuclear power plant would help tide
over the shortage. 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had earlier approved in principle
Haryana's demand for setting up a nuclear power project. 

He said the State Government is also augmenting generating
capacity by about 4,000 MW in the next four years, besides
upgrading transmission and distribution networks. 

During the 11th plan, the state government has chalked out a
total capital outlay of Rs 16,000 crore on the power sector, he
said, adding that the 600 MW Yamunanagar plant and a 1,000 MW
Hisar plant would be commissioned by 2009. 

The state government had earlier signed MoUs with various
companies to set up gas-based projects with a total capacity of
4,500 MW, he said, adding the plants are yet to take off due to
paucity of gas. 

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 31 Platts: We Energies exploring options for Point Beach
 
Washington (Platts)--6Jul2006
 
We Energies has taken a step toward selling Point Beach or hiring 
an operator to replace Nuclear Management Co. Concentric Energy 
Advisors, a consulting firm that has handled several nuclear 
sales, issued a June 30 letter, on behalf of We Energies, 
requesting expressions of interest in one or both of the two 
options. 

The letter was publicly released this week. In the case of a 
sale, the letter said, the new owner would be expected to 
conclude a power purchase agreement of at least 15 years with We 
Energies. 

For the second option, the letter said, We Energies would expect 
the operating agreement to contain "fixed fees and specified 
incentives." 

According to the letter's timetable, bids will be due in late 
November. We Energies "will evaluate bids received in connection 
with this auction in comparison to continued NMC operation and We 
Energies operation," the letter said. Each of the two PWRs at the 
Wisconsin plant is rated at 530 megawatts.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies] 
      
*****************************************************************
 32 Platts: The CEA signs new four-year goals contract with French government
 
London (Platts)--7Jul2006
 
The CEA signed a new four-year goals contract with the French 
government July 5. The contract provides for Eur 3.8 billion 
(US$4.8 billion) in government subsidies for the research and 
development agency's civilian programs from 2006 through 2009. 

The Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique's civilian budget for that 
period totals a little over Eur 7 billion. Among the goals set by 
the CEA and accepted by the three ministries to which it reports 
for civilian programs -- the ministries responsible for economy, 
industry and research -- is that of developing simultaneously two 
types of fast neutron reactors. 

The contract calls on the CEA to propose an "improved" 
sodium-cooled fast reactor design and to develop "the innovative 
elements" of a gas-cooled fast reactor "featuring fuel 
recycling." 

It also is to support industry in designing and developing a 
very-high-temperature reactor aimed at producing hydrogen from 
water or biomass. 

The CEA is to provide the government in 2009 with the elements 
needed for decisions on what kind of experimental reactor to 
build and whether to aim for recycling of minor actinides or only 
of uranium and plutonium in fast reactors, according to the 
document. For more news, request a free trial to Platts 
Nucleonics Week at
 

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies] 
*****************************************************************
 33 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Bids sought for nuclear Point Beach power plant
 
Posted July 7, 2006

The Associated Press 

MILWAUKEE — A consulting firm hired by We Energies has sent
letters to owners and operators of nuclear plants in an effort
to determine whether they were interested in buying the Point
Beach nuclear power plant or operating it on behalf of the
Milwaukee-based utility. 

The letter was sent June 30 by Concentric Energy Advisors of
Marlborough, Mass., which worked with Alliant Energy Corp. of
Madison in the sale of its controlling stake in an Iowa nuclear
plant and is managing the auction of a Michigan reactor by CMS
Energy Corp. 

We Energies announced in February that it would consider this
year whether to keep or sell Point Beach, which is in Two
Creeks. 

The plant is now managed by Nuclear Management Co., of Hudson,
which was founded more than five years ago to run six nuclear
plants across the Upper Midwest, including both Kewaunee and
Point Beach in Wisconsin. 

But Dominion Resources Inc. completed purchase of the Kewaunee
plant from Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay and
Alliant Energy of Madison last year. 

We Energies spokesman Barry McNulty said the company's
executives are evaluating four options. They include selling the
plant, hiring another company to run it, running it the way it
is today by Nuclear Management or taking back day-to-day
operations from Nuclear Management. 

Unlike several other nuclear plants which have been sold in
recent years, Point Beach already has won approval from federal
nuclear regulators to operate for 20 more years after the
licenses for its two reactors expire in 2010 and 2013. 

  Contact us at 920-435-4411.        greenbaypressgazette.com is
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: Quality Assurance request changes

                        FR Doc E6-10622 

[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)] 
[Notices] [Page 38672-38673] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07jy06-111]                         
 
50-455; 50- 461; 50-10, 50-237, and 50-249; 50-373 and 50-374; 
50-352 and 50-353; 50-219; 50-171, 50-277, and 50-278; 50-254 and 
50-265; 50-289; and 50- 295 and 50-304]

 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Amergen Energy Company, LLC; 
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Lasalle County Station, Units 1 and 
2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 
Units 1, 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 
2; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; and Zion Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Exemption 1. Background Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC, and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the 
licensees) are the holders of the Facility Operating License 
(FOL) Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 for the Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 
1 and 2 (Braidwood), which consists of two pressurized-water 
reactors (PWRs) located in Will County, Illinois; NPF-37 and 
NPF-66 for the Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Byron), which 
consists of two PWRs located in Ogle County, Illinois; NPF-62 for 
the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (Clinton), which consists of a 
boiling-water reactor (BWR) located in DeWitt County, Illinois; 
DPR-2, DPR-19, and DPR-25 for the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 1, 2, and 3 (Dresden), which consists of three BWRs located 
in Grundy County, Illinois; NPF-11 and NPF-18 for the LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LaSalle), which consists of two 
BWRs located in LaSalle County, Illinois; NPF-39 and NPF-85 for 
the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Limerick), which 
consists of two BWRs located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; 
DPR-16 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster 
Creek), which consists of a BWR located in Ocean County, New 
Jersey; DPR-12, DPR-44, and DPR- 56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic 
Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Peach Bottom), which consists 
of three BWRs located in York and Lancaster Counties, 
Pennsylvania; DPR-29 and DPR-30 for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2 (Quad Cities), which consists of two BWRs 
located in Rock Island County, Illinois; DPR-50 for the Three 
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (Three
 
[[Page 38673]] Mile Island), which consists of a PWR located in 
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; and DPR-39 and DPR-48 for the Zion 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Zion), which consists of 
two PWRs located in Lake County, Illinois. The licenses provide, 
among other things, that the facilities are subject to all the 
rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
 
2. Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR), Section 50.54(a)(3), requires that changes to the quality 
assurance program description that do not reduce commitments must 
be submitted to the NRC in accordance with the reporting 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e). The regulation at 10 CFR 
50.71(e)(4) requires that revisions to the final safety analysis 
report (FSAR) be submitted annually or six months after a 
refueling outage, provided the interval between updates does not 
exceed 24 months. As an alternative, the licensees propose that 
changes to the quality assurance program that do not reduce 
commitments be submitted on a 24-month calendar schedule, not to 
exceed 24 months from the previous submittal. The exemption would 
apply to each of the licensees' plants identified above.
 
3. Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon 
application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, 
grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) 
the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue 
risk to public health and safety, and are consistent with the 
common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances 
are present. Special circumstances are present whenever, 
according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``Application of the 
regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the 
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the 
purpose of the rule''. Operational quality assurance programs are 
generally described in Chapter 17.2 of a licensee's Updated 
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) or, alternately, in a topical 
report incorporated into the USAR by reference. The licensees' 
quality assurance program, described in the Quality Assurance 
Topical Report (QATR), is common to the 21 units requesting the 
exemption.
 
Compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) would require these changes to 
be submitted annually or after a refueling outage for each of the 
licensees' units.
 
The licensees stated that the proposed exemption is strictly 
administrative and does not reduce commitments or effectiveness 
of the quality assurance program as described in the QATR, and 
does not adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or 
procedures. The exemption will not alter the manner in which 
changes to the common QATR are evaluated in order to ensure that 
there is no reduction in commitment. Changes to the common QATR 
will be reviewed through the existing applicable administrative 
and programmatic control processes to ensure that QATR changes 
are properly evaluated and implemented. The methods and 
procedures used to evaluate changes to the common QATR are not 
changed or modified.
 
The underlying purpose of the rule is to ensure that periodic 
submittals required under 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) would allow the NRC 
staff to provide regulatory oversight of changes to the 
licensees' quality assurance program, and to ensure that the 
changes are consistent with the regulations.
 
The exemption requested by the licensees only extends the 
reporting period, and does not exceed the time period between 
successive updates established by 10 CFR 50.71(e). Reporting of 
routine and administrative changes to the quality assurance 
program that do not reduce commitments for each of the licensees' 
units over a 2-year period is not consistent with the underlying 
purpose of the rule, nor is it necessary to achieve the purpose 
of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, pursuant to 
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present.
 
The NRC staff examined the licensees' rationale that supports the 
exemption request and concluded that the alternative reporting 
cycle of 24 months for submitting QATR changes specified under 10 
CFR 50.54(a)(3) provides adequate control and is consistent with 
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3). Based on the 
foregoing, the NRC staff concludes that the changes specified in 
10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) are administrative and routine in nature. 
Also, the NRC staff concludes that the requested exemption would 
not result in any significant reduction in the effectiveness of 
the quality assurance program implemented by the licensees.
 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption 
would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
 
4. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12, the exemption is authorized by 
law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and 
safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. 
Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the 
Commission hereby grants the licensees an exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) for Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, 
Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Quad 
Cities, Three Mile Island, and Zion stations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the 
granting of this exemption will have no significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment (71 FR 29359).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10622 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
 
                        FR Doc E6-10623 
[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)] 
[Notices] [Page 38673-38675] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07jy06-112]                         
 
2; Exemption 1.0 Background The Exelon Generation Company, LLC 
(Exelon, licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License 
Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 which authorize operation of the Byron 
Station Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.
 
The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is 
subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in 
effect.
 
The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors located 
in Ogle County, Illinois.
 
2.0 Request/Action Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,'' 
Exelon has requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.44, 
``Combustible gas control system for nuclear power reactors''; 10 
CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling 
systems [ECCS] for light-water nuclear power reactors'';
 
[[Page 38674]] and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, ``ECCS 
Evaluation Models.'' The regulation at 10 CFR 50.44 specifies 
requirements for the control of hydrogen gas generated after a 
postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) for reactors fueled 
with zirconium cladding. Section 50.46 contains acceptance 
criteria for ECCS for reactors fueled with zircaloy or ZIRLOTM 
cladding. Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 requires that the 
Baker-Just equation be used to predict the rates of energy 
release, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the 
metal- water reaction.
 
The exemption request relates solely to the specific types of 
cladding material specified in these regulations. As written, the 
regulations presume the use of zircaloy or ZIRLOTM fuel rod 
cladding. Thus, an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, is needed 
to irradiate lead test assemblies (LTAs) comprised of the AXIOMTM 
developmental clad alloys at Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. 
3.0 Discussion 3.1 Material Design 3.1.1 Fuel Material Design In 
order to meet future demands of the nuclear industry, 
Westinghouse is evaluating the in-reactor performance of several 
developmental alloys. The licensee states that the material 
properties and mechanical performance of the advanced cladding 
alloys are expected to be similar to Zircaloy-4 and ZIRLOTM, and 
that any difference in phase transition temperatures and 
mechanical strength will be considered in the LTA fuel rod design 
evaluation.
 
Further, preliminary autoclave testing indicates that the 
advanced alloys exhibit acceptable corrosion resistance. This is 
consistent with the NRC staff's expectation that unirradiated 
properties of any advanced cladding alloy will be accounted for 
in the LTA fuel rod design evaluation.
 
The licensee's September 23, 2005, letter stated: The current 
licensed fuel performance code predictions for the developmental 
cladding will be compared to post-irradiation examination data at 
Byron Station. If significantly adverse observations are found 
relative to predictions, the adverse rod(s) will either be 
removed and the fuel assembly will be reconstituted with suitable 
replacement rods, or the entire fuel assembly will be removed 
from the following fuel cycle(s) until deviations are understood 
and addressed.
 
Where appropriate, concurrent data obtained from other LTA 
programs for the same developmental claddings will be factored 
into the assessment of the LTAs at Byron Station. Specifically, 
before the assemblies are reinserted, all available information 
will be reviewed to ensure existing design assumptions remain 
valid.
 
Based upon the limited number of advanced alloy fuel rods placed 
in non-limiting core locations, specifically accounting for 
significant deviations in unirradiated material and mechanical 
properties, and an LTA post-irradiation examination program aimed 
at qualifying model predictions and understanding deviations, the 
NRC staff finds the LTA mechanical design acceptable for Byron 
Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2. 3.1.2 Core Physics and Non-LOCA 
Analysis The exemption request relates solely to the specific 
types of cladding material specified in the regulations. No new 
or altered design limits for purposes of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
A, General Design Criterion 10, ``Reactor design,'' need to be 
applied or are required for this program.
 
The standard reload methodologies will be applied to the advanced 
cladding alloys. Nuclear design evaluations will assure that LTAs 
will be placed in non-limiting core locations. As such, 
additional thermal margin to design limits will be maintained 
between LTA fuel rods and the hot rod evaluated in safety 
analyses. Thermal-hydraulic and non- LOCA evaluations will 
confirm that the LTAs are bounded by the current analysis of 
record.
 
Based upon testing to date it is not anticipated that any of the 
advanced cladding fuel rods would fail during normal operation. 
However, if any failures occurred, their effects would be well 
within technical specification limits for doses and, in all 
cases, core coolable geometry would be maintained. The NRC staff 
agrees that the placement of a limited number of advanced alloy 
fuel rods in non- limiting locations would not challenge reported 
dose consequences nor core coolability.
 
Based upon the limited number of advanced alloy fuel rods placed 
in non-limiting core locations, the use of approved models and 
methods, and expected material performance, the NRC staff finds 
that the irradiation of up to four LTAs at the Byron Station will 
not result in unsafe operation nor violation of specified 
acceptable fuel design limits. Furthermore, in the event of a 
design-basis accident, these LTAs will not promote consequences 
beyond those currently analyzed.
 
3.2 Regulatory Evaluation Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 
Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon 
its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 
CFR Part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will 
not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are 
consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when 
special circumstances are present.
 
3.2.1 10 CFR 50.44 The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44 is to 
assure that means are provided for the control of hydrogen gas 
that may be generated following a LOCA. The licensee has provided 
a means for controlling hydrogen gas and has previously 
considered the potential for hydrogen gas generation stemming 
from a metal-water reaction. Based upon the material composition 
of these alloys, which is similar to other licensed zirconium 
alloys, the high temperature metal-water reaction rates are 
expected to be similar. Due to the limited number and anticipated 
performance of the advanced cladding fuel rods, the previous 
calculations of hydrogen production resulting from a metal- water 
reaction will not be significantly changed. As such, the 
limitations of 10 CFR 50.44 related to cladding material is not 
necessary for the licensee to achieve the underlying purpose of 
the rule in these circumstances.
 
3.2.2 10 CFR 50.46 The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to 
establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance in response to 
LOCAs. Due to the limited number of advanced alloy fuel rods, any 
change in the post-LOCA ductility characteristics of the advanced 
alloy fuel rods (relative to the 2200 [deg]F peak cladding 
temperature and 17 percent effective cladding reacted) would not 
challenge core coolable geometry. Westinghouse performs 
cycle-specific reload evaluations to assure that 10 CFR 50.46 
acceptance criteria are satisfied and will include the LTAs in 
such analyses. Thus, the limitations of 10 CFR 50.46 related to 
cladding material are not necessary for the licensee to achieve 
the underlying purpose of the rule in these circumstances.
 
3.2.3 10 CFR 50, Appendix K Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10 
CFR part 50 states that the rates of energy, hydrogen 
concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water 
reaction shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Since 
the Baker-Just equation presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, 
strict application of the rule would not permit use of the 
equation for the advanced cladding
 
[[Page 38675]] alloys for determining acceptable fuel 
performance. Based upon the material composition of these alloys, 
which is similar to other licensed zirconium alloys, the high 
temperature metal-water reaction rates are expected to be 
similar. Because of the limited number of AXIOMTM clad fuel rods 
and the similarity in material composition to other advanced 
cladding fuel rods, the NRC staff concludes that the application 
of the Baker-Just equation in these conditions is acceptable. 
Thus, application of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K, Paragraph I.A.5 
is not necessary for the licensee to achieve the underlying 
purpose of the rule in these circumstances.
 
3.2.4 Special Circumstances In summary, the NRC staff reviewed 
the licensee's request of proposed exemption to allow up to four 
LTAs containing fuel rods with AXIOMTM cladding. Based on the NRC 
staff's evaluation, as set forth above, the NRC staff considers 
that granting the proposed exemption will not defeat the 
underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46, 10 CFR 50.44, or Appendix K 
to 10 CFR Part 50. Accordingly, special circumstances, are 
present pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). 3.2.5 Other Standards 
in 10 CFR 50.12 The NRC staff examined the rest of the licensee's 
rationale to support the exemption request, and concluded that 
the use of AXIOMTM would satisfy 10 CFR 50.12(a) as follows: (1) 
The requested exemption is authorized by law: No law precludes 
the activities covered by this exemption request. The Commission, 
based on technical reasons set forth in rulemaking records, 
specified the specific cladding materials identified in 10 CFR 
50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K. Cladding 
materials are not specified by statute.
 
(2) The requested exemption does not present an undue risk to the 
public health and safety as stated in the licensee's exemption 
request: The LTA safety evaluation will ensure that the 
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, 10 CFR 50.44, and 10 CFR 50 
Appendix K are met following insertion of the assemblies 
containing AXIOMTM material. Fuel assemblies using AXIOMTM 
cladding will be evaluated using NRC-approved analytical methods 
and will address the changes in the cladding material properties. 
The safety analysis for Byron Station Units 1 and 2 is supported 
by the applicable Technical Specifications.
 
The Byron Station Units 1 and 2 reload cores containing AXIOMTM 
cladding will continue to be operated in accordance with the 
operating limits specified in the Technical Specifications. LTAs 
using AXIOMTM cladding will be placed in non-limiting core 
locations. Therefore, this exemption will not pose an undue risk 
to public health and safety.
 
The NRC staff has evaluated these considerations as set forth in 
Section 3.1 of this exemption. For the reasons set forth in that 
section, the NRC staff concludes that AXIOMTM may be used as a 
cladding material for no more than four LTAs to be placed in non- 
limiting core locations during Byron's next refueling outage, and 
that an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 
50.46, and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K does not pose an undue risk 
to the public health and safety.
 
(3) The requested exemption will not endanger the common defense 
and security: The common defense and security are not affected 
and, therefore, not endangered by this exemption.
 
4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, 
will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, 
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, 
special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission 
hereby grants Exelon an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, for Byron 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 
Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption 
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment (71 FR 32144).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10623 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: Request for Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Low 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10624 
[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)] 
[Notices] [Page 38675-38676] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07jy06-113]                         
 
Level Radioactive Waste Program AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. ACTION: Request for comments on the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's low level radioactive waste program.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
conducting a strategic assessment of its low level radioactive 
waste (LLW) regulatory program. The objective of this assessment 
is to identify and prioritize activities that the staff can 
undertake to ensure a stable, reliable and adaptable regulatory 
framework for effective LLW management, while also considering 
future needs and changes that may occur in the nation's 
commercial LLW management system.
 
 
DATES: The public comment period begins with publication of this 
notice and continues for 30 days. Written comments should be 
submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 
Comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to 
ensure consideration. Comments received or postmarked after that 
date will be considered to the extent practical.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to 
submit comments to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Mail 
Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail at 
NRCREP@nrc.gov or by fax to (301) 415-5397, Attention: Ryan 
Whited.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Whited, Chief, Low 
Level Waste Section, Environmental and Performance Assessment 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. 
Telephone: (301) 415-7257; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: 
arw2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The NRC last initiated a 
strategic assessment of its LLW regulatory program in August 
1995. As part of that effort, in September 1996, the NRC staff 
released an ``Issues Paper'' that identified several options the 
agency could pursue regarding the overall scope and magnitude of 
its LLW regulatory program. [The Issues Paper is available in the 
NRC's Agencywide Document Management System (ADAMS) under 
accession number ML061700297]. In response to that issues paper, 
and after taking into consideration public comments as well as 
the fact that the new disposal facilities that had been 
anticipated following the 1985 amendment of the Low-Level 
Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPAA) were not
 
[[Page 38676]] forthcoming, the Commission decided to simply 
``maintain'' the agency's LLW program at its then-current level. 
Due to a number of developments in the national system for LLW 
disposal as well as changes in the regulatory environment over 
the past 10 years, the NRC's LLW program now faces new 
challenges, influences and issues. Among these is the fact that 
several governmental and national technical organizations, as 
well as major stakeholder and industry groups, states and 
Congress, have raised questions or expressed opinions regarding 
the current status of regulation and disposal of radioactive 
waste in the U.S. Though many of these groups want action to be 
taken on issues of concern to them, they do not necessarily hold 
the same views regarding what actions are needed or what issues 
require the most attention. Meanwhile, a number of new technical 
issues, involving security matters as well as protection of 
public health and the environment, have emerged.
 
As a result, the NRC staff is conducting a new strategic 
assessment of the agency's LLW regulatory program. The objective 
of this assessment is to identify and prioritize activities that 
the staff can undertake to ensure a stable, reliable and 
adaptable regulatory framework for effective LLW management, 
while also considering future needs and changes that may occur in 
the nation's commercial LLW management system. As part of this 
assessment, the NRC staff is soliciting public comment on what 
changes, if any, should be made to the current LLW program 
regulatory framework as well as specific actions that the staff 
might undertake to facilitate such changes. The staff is 
requesting that persons consider and address the following nine 
questions as they develop and provide their remarks: Regarding 
the Current LLW Disposal Regulatory System 1. What are your key 
safety and cost drivers and/or concerns relative to LLW disposal? 
2. What vulnerabilities or impediments, if any, are there in the 
current regulatory approach toward LLW disposal in the U.S., in 
terms of their effects on: a. Regulatory system reliability, 
predictability, and adaptability; b. Regulatory burden (including 
cost); and c. Safety, security, and protection of the 
environment? Potential Alternative Futures 3. Assuming the 
existing legislative and regulatory framework remains unchanged, 
what would you expect the future to look like with regard to the 
types and volumes of LLW streams and the availability of disposal 
options for Class A, B, C, and greater-than-class-C (GTCC) LLW 
five years from now? Twenty years from now? What would more 
optimistic and pessimistic disposal scenarios look like compared 
to your ``expected future''? 4. How might potential future 
disposal scenarios affect LLW storage and disposal in the U.S., 
in terms of: a. Regulatory system reliability, predictability, 
and adaptability; b. Regulatory burden (including cost); and c. 
Safety, security and protection of the environment? Can the 
Future Be Altered? 5. What actions could be taken by NRC and 
other federal and state authorities, as well as by private 
industry and national scientific and technical organizations, to 
optimize management of LLW and improve the future outlook? Which 
of the following investments are most likely to yield benefits: 
a. Changes in regulations; b. Changes in regulatory guidance; c. 
Changes in industry practices; d. Other (name). 6. Are there 
actions (regulatory and/or industry initiated) that can/should be 
taken in regard to specific issues such as: a. Storage, disposal, 
tracking and security of GTCC waste (particularly sealed 
sources); b. Availability and cost of disposal of Class B and C 
LLW; c. Disposal options for depleted uranium; d. Extended 
storage of LLW; e. Disposal options for low-activity waste 
(LAW)/very low level waste (VLLW); f. On-site disposal of LLW; g. 
Other (name). 7. What unintended consequences might result from 
the postulated changes identified in response to questions 5 and 
6? Interagency Communication and Cooperation 8. Based on your 
observations of what works well and not-so-well, domestically 
and/or internationally, with regard to the management of 
radioactive and/or hazardous waste, what actions can the NRC and 
other Federal regulatory agencies take to improve their 
communication with affected and interested stakeholders? 9. What 
specific actions can NRC take to improve coordination with other 
Federal agencies so as to obtain a more consistent treatment of 
radioactive wastes that possess similar or equivalent levels of 
biological hazard? On May 23 and 24, 2006, the NRC's Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) sponsored a public fact-finding 
meeting with industry representatives and stakeholders at NRC 
headquarters in Rockville, MD, to: (a) Provide input to the ACNW 
regarding areas where NRC's regulations for near-surface disposal 
of LLW in 10 CFR Part 61 might be more risk-informed; and (b) 
provide information for NRC staff to consider in its strategic 
assessment of the LLW regulatory program. The transcript of the 
ACNW meeting is publicly available on the NRC's public Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/tr2006/. 
The NRC staff intends to utilize the information gathered from 
the ACNW meeting as well as this solicitation to develop a 
strategic assessment of the NRC's regulatory program for 
low-level radioactive waste.
 
II. Further Information If you do not have access to ADAMS or if 
there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated 
at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Scott Flanders, Deputy Director, Environmental and Performance 
Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and 
Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 
Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10624 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 37 wisbusiness: Stuart: Wants WIEG to `Reestablish Relationships'

 7/7/2006 


By Brian E. Clark
WisBusiness.com 

In the mid-1990s, a light bulb flashed inside Todd Stuart's
brain as he traveled around the state visiting manufacturers
with then-Lt. Gov. Scott McCallum.

It was an appropriate metaphor for someone who could be
accurately described as an energy policy wonk. When McCallum
became governor, Stuart served as his energy and economic
development adviser. 

In May, Stuart became executive director of the Wisconsin
Industrial Energy Group (WIEG). He replaced the outspoken Nino
Amato, who was ousted by the WIEG board.

"I figured out about a decade ago that economic growth and
energy supplies and costs are intimately linked," said Stuart,
who served as chief of staff for Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay,
for the past three years. 

Stuart worked closely with Cowles, chairman of the state Senate
energy, utilities and information technology committee, to push
energy legislation through the Legislature, including the new
renewable power and energy efficiency law.

WisBusiness Editor Brian Clark recently spoke with Stuart, a
boyish-looking, 33-year-old former Marine.

Brian Clark: When did you start your new job? 

Todd Stuart: May 8 was my first official date. 

Clark: What did you do on Cowles' staff that dealt with energy? 

Stuart: I was the committee clerk for the Energy and Utilities
Committee in the state Senate and then before that worked on
energy in Gov. McCallum's office. 

For good or for ill, I've had my fingerprints on almost every
piece of energy legislation out there for the past five or six
years. I've been around the utilities, WIEG and the interest
groups since 1999-2000. 

Clark: What have you done that you consider significant from
that time? 

Stuart: There were two really big highlights over the past few
years. One was Act 89, a regulatory streamlining initiative that
took place in 2003. I would say it simplified for siting power
lines and power plants without harming the environment.

The biggest one, though, is Act 141 - the Renewable Energy and
Efficiency Act. Cowles and Rep. Phil Montgomery, chairman of the
Assembly Energy and Utilities Committee and Gov. Jim Doyle all
worked to make it happen.

Clark: What are the key parts of Act 141? 

Stuart: It's a 55-page bill with four major provisions. One
expands the amount of renewable energy utilities must have in
their portfolios, such as wind, solar and biomass. I think
biomass has a lot of potential for the future. So does wind,
which is cost-competitive now. That section got the most
headlines because it is the sexiest. 

But what I care the most about is the public benefits reform.
That is the state's conservation and efficiency programs, and
the reform makes sure that money never again can be used to
balance the state's budget. It also has greater energy savings
and is now more cost-effective, too. The program was very good;
we just made it better. 

The third part upgrades building codes, and the fourth part
gives regulatory certainty. Utilities now know that if they
spend X amount on conservation and if they do X amount of
renewable energy in their portfolios, they can get tradeoffs at
the Public Service Commission and can go forward with a power
plant. This is what is called the energy priorities statute. All
these things kind of came together. There was compromise, but it
worked out in the end. It looked impossible this time a year
ago, but all parties worked hard on it. 

Clark: Are you a Wisconsin native? 

Stuart: Yes. I've been in and around Madison about 20 years and
I now live in Fitchburg. I spent my childhood in Fort Atkinson,
where my grandmother pretty much raised me. 

Clark: How did you get interested in energy? 

Stuart: It started in the mid-90s. I began as a policy assistant
to then- Lt. Gov. McCallum, and we traveled around the state to
visit just about every widget maker. We toured hundreds of
manufacturing plants and businesses. 

At the same time, utilities were becoming a lot more politically
active nationally with deregulation. There were also blackouts
then. The debate was always about needing more reliability and
power plants and is deregulation the way to go. 

I was also very interested in economic development issues and
was hearing the discussions and in some cases being part of
them. 

At some point, the proverbial light bulb clicked on in my brain
and I realized that energy policy and economic development go
hand-in-hand. The economy tracks energy policy. When I figured
that out, all of the sudden I began to notice where the power
plants were. 

I started work on my MBA about that time, too, on top of 60-hour
weeks here in the lieutenant governor's and then governor's
office. My job for McCallum was to advise him on energy
infrastructure and development issues. I got to work with a lot
of big companies, while at the same time I was learning about
accounting and finance. It all came together. 

Clark: What prompted you to jump to this post? 

Stuart: I'd say this is pretty much my dream job, though I
didn't know if it would become available. I guess I always
thought that I might work at the Public Service Commission (PSC)
or for a utility some day. 

With my passion for energy and economic development issues,
though, this was the perfect fit. When it opened six-plus months
ago when they let go former director Nino Amato, I went for it.
I also had a fairly good feel for their board because I'd been
brought in a few times to talk to them about legislation.

Clark: What will be the major issues you'll be working on? 

Stuart: I'm still relatively new on the job, but I want to make
sure this organization is the premier and most credible voice
for ratepayers in the state. I want to reestablish relationships
with the PSC and the governor's office and the utilities, too. 

This organization needs a leader that can work with the
utilities so that we can talk about issues up front before they
become a huge, nasty blowup. I'd much rather quietly get things
done, or at least get them on the table and talk about them
instead of having a public fight. I'd like to have quarterly
meetings with utility executives to discuss issues of concern.
And to see where we have common ground. We are their largest
customers, so there is something of a symbiotic relationship.
We'll see. I hope they'll want to help us out. 

Clark: Though you say want to have a good relationship with the
utilities, you likely will end up on the opposite sides of
issues, too, right? 

Stuart: Yes, of course. That's fine, and everyone knows that.

I have a lot of contradictions in my personality, as we all do.
On one hand, I'm pretty go-along and get-along and pretty calm.
But I was in the Marines for six years and no one has ever
accused me of being a "panty waist." 

Again, I think we have things in common. But where we diverge,
I'll be firm and upfront on that, too. The goal of the
organization is to become a lot more effective at the PSC, with
the Legislature and with the governor. 

Clark: Your predecessor was known for being pretty outspoken. Do
you think that cost WIEG some of its effectiveness? 

Stuart: To some extent, yes. But I'm not going to say anything
ill about Nino. There is nothing to gain from that. 

Clark: What do you think about utility executives' compensation
here in Wisconsin? Gale Klappa, the CEO at WE Energy, got nearly
$3 million in pay and bonuses last year. 

Stuart: No comment. 

Clark: Natural gases were awfully volatile last winter. Is there
anything that can be done to keep those prices down? 

Stuart: They are controlled by federal policy, and natural gas
prices are deregulated at the well head. That has probably
served our country fairly well over the past 30 years. There is
not much we can do about that at the state level, though we can
nibble at the edges a bit. 

There have been talks at the PSC over fuel rules. Painting with
a broad brush, utilities want more of a pass-through to
customers when prices go up. Right now, they must increase a
certain percentage or bandwidth before they can be raised. My
members don't want the rules changed because if there is too
much of a pass-through, there is little incentive for the
utilities to watch their purchasing. We want to encourage them
to watch their costs. We'll see what happens. 

Clark: What is your sense of how the Wisconsin economy is doing? 

Stuart: I think it's OK but not going great guns, especially on
the manufacturing side. I'm getting to know that better as I
talk to WIEG's members. Paper-making has had a tough go of it
and we are the best state in the nation for that. Margins are
tight and there have been job losses. 

Clark: How many members does WIEG have? 

Stuart: About 35 companies that employ more than 60,000 people.
In the past, companies didn't want to advertise that they were
members for proprietary and other reasons. I'd like to change
that and be more up front about our membership, like Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce is. I think our list is pretty
impressive. We have members like Stora Enso and Georgia Pacific,
Patrick Cudahy and GM - some of the biggest companies in the
state.

Clark: Would you like to expand the organization? 

Stuart: Yes, that's one of my top priorities. I'd like to have a
broader cross section of members and have the dues spread out
more. We could also make a stronger case before the PSC if we
represented all the foundries in the state instead of just three
of them. I'd like to get every energy- intensive company on
board. If you have a member in every Senate district, people
will sit up and take notice. 

Clark: Has the number of members gone down in recent years? 

Stuart: It was as high as 40, and it has fluctuated with the
economy. Memberships in trade organizations are one of the first
things to go when times get tight. 

Clark: Are there any other groups that are like yours? 

Stuart: I'd say Customers First is somewhat like ours. They have
a broad umbrella of members. They have co-ops and municipal
utilities, some businesses, labor and environmental groups. And
CUB (Citizens Utility Board) is a consumer and homeowners group.
So it's different than ours. There is WMC, but we are probably
most like the Paper Council, which represents paper makers. A
lot of our members belong to the paper council. But we have
different issues.

Clark:Will WIEG continue to work closely with CUB? 

Stuart: We'll work with them on a case-by-case basis on areas of
common interest, probably at the PSC. But I'm leaning toward
partnering with the paper council a lot because of our similar
interests. And with WMC. 

Clark: Are you satisfied with how the Midwest Independent System
Operator system is working?

Stuart: That's one of the things we are looking at. It's
supposed to be like the interstate highway system for energy.
But the problem is that while it gives access to power we didn't
have before, it is very expensive and we're not getting a lot of
benefit from it now. The question is will we gain from it in the
long-term. My group may advocate pulling out of MISO at some
point. It has had huge ramp-up costs, and it is very confusing
and complex. If someone tells you he understands it, he's
probably lying. 

Clark: Does your group support more transmission lines in the
state?

Stuart: In general, yes. But we don't want them gold-plated. We
need to be able to import energy to guarantee our companies
power. So generally, it's a pretty good investment. Consumers
should benefit. Still, we don't want to see over-engineering.
Wisconsin has one of the weakest transmission systems around. It
is weak, congested, aging and needs to be upgraded. We have
concerns about the American Transmission Co.'s costs and
accounting, but we don't dispute the need. 

Clark: A number of new power plants are being built in the
state. Are you pleased with that?

Stuart: It's a step in the right direction. But we are concerned
with the costs. Wisconsin Public Service is building Weston 4
and doing it by traditional rate making, which means a
15-percent rate increase for some of our members. That's a huge
hit, and recently they said maybe they can spread that out a bit.

We Energies will probably be in good shape through the end of
the decade infrastructure-wise. But that said, they have an
aging workforce and power plants. There will probably be another
round of building in the next decade. There is no free lunch,
someone is going to pay for it. We'll be keeping an eye on that.
And we'd like to have options on how to pay for it. 

Clark: Does your group have a position on coal gasification,
which is generally considered a cleaner, more environmentally
friendly way to produce energy from coal? 

Stuart: Rate payer-wise, it's a bit of a risk. It's more
expensive because it is like building two power plants. You have
to pay a premium for it. But is it the way of the future,
especially if there is a carbon tax some day. The federal
government is investing a lot in R. And the Chinese are said to
be making great strides. They need to build something like one
giant power plant per week to keep up with their needs. For now,
my members would be very cautious because of the costs. 

Clark: What does WIEG think of more nuclear plants for Wisconsin?

Stuart: I personally think we'd want it on the table as an
option. But it won't be a top priority. Wisconsin law right now
is a hindrance to building nuclear. It says you can't build
nuclear unless there is a federal depository for waste. But
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is nowhere close. What plants do now is
store it on site. 

Clark: Do you think the PSC has enough staff? 

Stuart: Nope. They are at one of the lowest staffing levels
since the early 1980s. I think the world of the PSC and its
staff, but with all the rate and rule cases coming up and the
new construction, they need more people. They will be very busy.
I think the utilities would support more staff because it would
mean they would be permitted faster and better. I would love to
help them add staff back. I believe they are down about a third.

Clark; Is the current rate system fair to industrial customers?

Stuart: The commission is studying that now, but the dirty
little secret out there is that large industrial customers are
subsidizing other rate classes. That's a political dilemma,
because in an age or rising prices, no one wants to have the
shaft shifted to them. And what is more popular than having big
business pay more of the load? We face an uphill battle, but I
think the facts are on our side. Truth be told, some members of
my organization are probably subsidizing other members.

Clark: Any other issues you'll be working on? 

Stuart: Well, we're interested in having rates that would
encourage economic development like some other states have. But
there is a statute that limits special contracts that benefit
one class of user over another. But we might be looking at
revising that law. There is an argument that this could save
jobs or promote growth. It might not be politically popular to
shift the burden, but some of these communities wouldn't be
there if it weren't for our member companies. The question is,
how do you do this so you don't harm other customers. 

We'll also be watching how the rule-making is done for the
renewable energy bill. I'll be in pretty good shape to help with
that because I probably know it better than anyone else. There
are some errors that need to be corrected with it in the
Legislature, too. 

And we're also concerned about clean air and mercury standards.
We don't want the state to go very far beyond the federal rules
because that could turn Wisconsin into an economic island and
have a huge impact on utilities and big business. I think we'll
be partnering with utilities and big business on that issue. I'm
pretty sure we'll all be on the same page. I'd argue state law
says we shouldn't go beyond federal standards, but the devil is
in the details.
   
*****************************************************************
 38 Blog: Petition Congress to Conduct Oversight of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
 	
petition Congress to conduct oversight of U.S. Office of Special
Counsel compliance with law and Congressional intent in
protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices
(PPP's), particularly whistleblower reprisal
 	 			 				 					 						 							 						
July 07, 2006
 		 		 							
OSC fails to make required "termination statement"
 			 			 				 					
By the 1994 amendments (P.L. 103-424)to the Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1989, when OSC terminates a PPP investigation,
it is required to include a â€œtermination statementâ€ in its
investigation termination notice as described in the
â€œamendmentâ€ section of 5 USC 1214, that allows the employee
to talk to an appropriate OSC official about its investigation,
its findings, and how the law was applied by OSC.
 
The "termination statement" is:
 
Section 12(b) of Pub. L. 103-424 provided that:  "The Special
Counsel shall include in any letter terminating an investigation
under section 1214(a)(2)of title 5, United States Code, the name
and telephone number of an employee of the Special Counsel who
is available to respond to reasonable questions from the person
regarding the investigation or review conducted by the Special
Counsel, the relevant facts ascertained by the Special Counsel,
and the law applicable to the person's allegations." 

OSC recently admitted in Federal Court that it has failed to
include this "termination statement" in the PPP investigation
termination letters it has sent (approximately 18,000) since the
law  came into force in late 1994.
 				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in OSC non-compliant with law| Permalink

Evidence of OSC's not making a single 1214(e) report since 1989.
 			 			 				 					
By the law at 5 USC 1219(a)(3),OSC must make a public record of
every 1214(e) report it makes, together with the agency response.
 
OSC regulations about access to its public records are located
at 5 CFR 1820.1.   
 
The &quot;lists of matters&quot; referenced in 5 USC 1219for FY 
1989 through FY 2003 were obtained from OSC in April 2004.  Not a 
single 1214(e) report is listed.  A visit to OSC HQ in March 2005 
verified that no 1214(e)reports were made from the end of FY 2003 
(September 30, 2003) to March 2005. 
				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in OSC non-compliant with law| Permalink
 		 	 						 		 		 							
OSC's non-compliance with its statutory obligations to protect
federal employees in its own words
 			 			 				 					
OSC's essential statutory obligations to protect federal
employee who file prohibited personnel practice complaints with
it are detailed at 5 USC 1214and include: 

1) investigating the PPP complaint to extent necessary to
determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP
occurred (5 USC 1214(a)(1)(A)),

2) making such a determination (1214(b)(2)(A)),and 

3) if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every
instance, to the involved agency.   
 
The law allows OSC two methods of making its required report -
either directly to the head of the involved agency, in which
case the agency head must certify a response addressing what the
agency will do to correct the PPP and by when (see 5 USC
1214(e))- or, in the alternative, or if dissatisfied with the
initial agency response, to both the Merit System Protection
Board (MSPB) and the agency, as part of establishing
jurisdiction for seeking corrective action on behalf of the
affected employee, if the agency does not promptly correct the
PPP (see 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(B)).   
 
However (and contrary to OSC's recent filing with a Federal
Court, see pages 2 and 3), statements in OSC's 1996 Annual
Report to Congress(similar statements appear in other OSC annual
reports to Congress) indicate that OSC practice is: 1) to never
file a 1214(e)report of a positive PPP determination, because
OSC (with no basis in law) contends 1214(e)does not apply to
violations within OSC's enforcement authority (i.e. PPP's), and
2) to only file a 1214(b)(2)(B)report when efforts to informally
settle the complaint with the agency fail.  In an earlier filing
in the case, OSC's position was consistent with those in the
1996 Annual report (see pages 14 and 15).  

By OSC's current position to the Federal Court, it has made a
formal report, per 1214(b)(2)(B),for each and every posite PPP
determination it has made since 1989, thereby fulfilling the
1214(e)reporting requirement.   The problem with OSC's position
is that the law makes its reporting its positive PPP
determinations per 1214(b)(2)(B)clearly discretionary, a result
of OSC's complete discretion as a prosecutor that the PPP is one
"which requires corrective action."   The reason OSC is now
taking this extreme position and not responding to FOIA requests
that it provide copies of its 1214(b)(2)(B)reports for past few
years is because there is no legal basis for its previous
position that, somehow, 1214(e)did not apply to violations of
law within its enforcement authority.
 
Because OSC is not responding to FOIA requests for these
reports, they have been made of MSPB, which has a track record
of being promptly responsive to FOIA requests, even though,
believe or not, OSC is responsible to enforce every agency's
compliance with FOIA requests!
 				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in OSC non-compliant with law| Permalink
| Comments (0)                                                                                                  | TrackBack (0)                                                 
 		 	 						 		 		 							
OSC says "trust us" to make the statutory required PPP
determination
 			 			 				 					
OSC's essential statutory obligations to federal employees who
seek its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP's) 
are detailed at 5 USC 1214. (Note:  By law, OSC is to "act in
the interest of those who seek its protection.") include: 

1) investigating their PPP complaint to extent necessary to
determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP
occurred (5 USC 1214(a)(1)(A)),

2) making such a determination (1214(b)(2)(A)), and 

3) if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every
instance, to the involved agency.   
 
4) Informing the complaintant of its PPP determination, positive
or negative, in its pre-determination notice
(1214(a)(1)(D))and/or PPP investigation termination letter
(1214(a)(2)(A)).

OSC thinks differently.  It thinks the complaintant should
"trust it" that 1) it made the statutory required determination,
by the statutory required evidentiary standard, and 2) reported
it to the agency if positive.  This is indicated in an OSC court
filing in federal court (see pages 4-7).

Additionally, OSC claims its actions are beyond judicial review,
that a Federal Court has to &quot;trust it&quot; too, while,
according to the current Special Counsel, it
&quot;heroically&quot; protects those &quot;lamplighters&quot;
who &quot;shine the light on truth.&quot;

Finally, OSC says "trust us" to Congress also.  Its annual
reports to Congressdo not contain the required information about
its positive PPP deteriminations and associated reports to
agencies.

July 07, 2006 in OSC non-compliant with law| Permalink
| Comments (0)                                                                                                  | TrackBack (0)                                                 
 		 	 						 		 		 							
Questions and Answers about OSC's compliance with law 
			 			 				 					
July 1, 2006

Open Letter to Past or Present Federal Employees Who Have Sought
the Protection of the US Office of Special Counsel (OSC)From
Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP's), particularly
Whistleblower Reprisal, Since 1989.

We (others like you) need your help in obtaining justice from
the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and we may be able to help
you obtain it also.

We believe OSC is a systemic, years-long, lawbreaking failure in
protecting federal employees from PPP's.  This, its primary
function, stated at 5 USC 1212(a)(1), has received little, if
any, Congressional oversight since 1989, when it was created as
an independent agency by the federal Whistleblower Protection
Act.

We think OSC's lawbreaking, indirectly at least, contributed to
9/11, the failure of the levees in New Orleans, the loss of
Columbia Space Shuttle, and many other, less well-known, federal
agency mishaps impacting public health and safety or national
security.  If OSC's lawbreaking continues, uncorrected, we fear
it may indirectly contribute to a nuclear 9/11 in an American
city in the next decade.

1)   What are OSC's statutory obligations to the federal
employees who seek its protection? 

OSC's obligations to concerned federal employees are mentioned
at 5 USC 1201 AppendixA and detailed in 5 USC 1214.  OSC was
created for the primary purpose of protecting federal employees
from PPP's and, by law, is to act in the interest of those who
seek its protection.  Its essential statutory obligations to
these concerned employees include: 

1) investigating the PPP complaint to extent necessary to
determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP
occurred (5 USC 1214(a)(1)),

2) making such a determination (1214(b)(2)(A)),and
 
3) if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every
instance, to the involved agency.   
 
The law allows OSC two methods of making its required report -
either directly to the head of the involved agency, in which
case the agency head must certify a response addressing what the
agency will do to correct the PPP and by when (see 5 USC
1214(e)) - or, in the alternative, or if dissatisfied with the
initial agency response, to both the Merit System Protection
Board (MSPB) and the agency, as part of establishing
jurisdiction for seeking corrective action on behalf of the
affected employee, if the agency does not promptly correct the
PPP (see 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(B)).   

Additionally, when OSC terminates a PPP investigation, it is
required to include a ?termination statement? in its
investigation termination notice as described in the ?amendment?
section of 5 USC 1214, that allows the employee to talk to an
appropriate OSC official about its investigation, its findings,
and how the law was applied by OSC.

2) How does OSC fail to comply with these obligations?

It's impossible to ascertain the extent of OSC's lawbreaking
without court-ordered discovery or Congressional oversight, but
the following has been admitted by OSC or can be verified by the
public record:   1) it has not included the required
"termination statement" in its approximately 18,000 PPP
investigation termination letters since 1994, 2) it has not
issued a single 1214(e) report since 1989, not for approximately
25,000 PPP investigations, 3) its PPP pre-determination notices
and termination letters do not state that OSC either made the
statutory required determination, by the statutory established
standard or evidence, or what it was.  Instead, OSC informs such
employees that "there is insufficient evidence" for it to take
further action on their behalf.

We estimate that OSC made positive PPP determinations in several
thousand of its 25,000 PPP investigation since 1989, but has
only formally reported them, per 1214(b)(2)(B),in several
hundred cases.  We think OSC wants a 95%+ chance of winning a
conviction at MSPB before it will make formally make a positive
PPP determination.   We think OSC, contrary to its statutory
obligations, only reports its positive PPP determinations in the
few instances (perhaps 10%) when it decides to prosecute them. 
We think OSC has unlawfully suppressed about 90% of its positive
PPP determinations - several thousand - since 1989, causing
immense harm to the affected employees, their agencies, and the
health, safety, and security of the American public.

3)   Why is it vital that OSC formally report every positive PPP
determination it makes? 

OSC?s reporting of its positive PPP determinations is essential
to the heads of agencies complying with their positive
obligation to prevent PPP's in their agencies (5 USC 2302(c)),as
well as for agencies to make accurate reports to Congress, per
the No FEAR Act (5 USC 2301, amendment section, section 203.

OSC's 1989 Annual Report to Congress, its first as an
independent agency after the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act,
stressed the shared responsibilities of different people and
offices in the three branches of government to protect the merit
principles of the federal civil service.

4)  What do we hope you will do?

Contact us if you are interested in either or both the
following:  

A) petitioning Congress to conduct the necessary oversight of
OSC's compliance with law and its record in protecting federal
employees from PPP's, so that Congress can assure federal
employees that if they risk their jobs and careers by
responsibly voicing concerns to protect public health, safety,
and national security, that OSC will comply with its statutory
duty to protect them.   Congress has the power to make OSC
report every instance in which it made a positive PPP
determination internally, but did not formally report it, since
1989.

B) Investigating if there is a reasonable basis to bring a
class-action suit against OSC, by some or all of the 25,000
federal employees who trusted OSC to comply with its statutory
duties to protect them from PPP's since 1989 and whose trust was
misplaced.

5)  Anything else?

Yes, please circulate this open letter to others who might be
interested.

6)  How can I contact you?
 
osc@tds.net
				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in OSC non-compliant with law| Permalink
| Comments (0)                                                                                                  | TrackBack (0)                                                 
 		 	 						 		 		 							
Groups/People petitioning Congress to conduct oversight of OSC
 			 			 				 					
1.   Veteran's Administration Whistleblowers, July 3, 2006
 				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in petition Congress| Permalink                                                                   |
Comments (0)				 				 			
 		 	 						 		 		 							
Petitioning Congress to perform oversight of OSC
 			 			 				 					
Here are some names, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers,
websites, and email addresses together with a suggested letter
to request Congressional oversight of the OSC's compliance with
law and record in protecting federal employees from PPP's.
 
U.S. SENATE
  
Senator Susan Collins, Chair,
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-4751; fax 224-9603

Senator Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2627; fax 202-228-4469
 
Senator George Voinovich, Chair
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
442 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Daniel Akaka, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
442 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
 
Key Committee Staffers for Oversight of OSC:
Republican - Tara Baird   <tara_baird@hsgac.senate.gov>
Democratic - Jennifer Tyree    <jennifer_tyree@hsgac.senate.gov>
 
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Congressman Tom Davis, Chair
House Government Reform Committee
2157 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
(202) 225-5074; Fax: (202) 225-3974 

Congressman Henry Waxman, Ranking Member
House Government Reform Committee
Minority Office
B350A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051

Congressman Jon Porter, Chair
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
Phone: 202.225.5147 Fax: 202.225.2373 

Congressman Danny Davis, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
(202) 225-5051
 
Key House Committee Staff Members for oversight of OSC
Republican - Patrick Jennings   
<patrick.jennings@mail.house.gov>
Democratic - Mark Stephenson    <mark.stephenson@mail.house.gov>
 
Date:

Subject: Request for Congressional Oversight of U.S. Office of 
Special Counsel's (OSC) Compliance with Law in Protecting Federal 
Employees from Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP's), 
Particularly Whistleblower Reprisal

Dear Senator or Congressman,

From working with many skilled and dedicated federal civil
service employees for many years on difficult issues including
the environment and public health and safety, we realize the
vital importance that the merit principles of the federal civil
service be protected, particularly the prohibition on
whistleblower reprisal.

As you know, the recent Supreme Court decision in Garcetti, et
al v. Ceballos, denied first amendment protection to a
government whistleblower. We all know that concerned federal
employees can face difficult decisions. At a minimum, these
employees should know - and we want to be able to assure them -
that Congress has done and is doing the oversight necessary to
verify the US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is complying with
its statutory duties to protect them from prohibited personnel
practices (PPP's). 

We understand that OSC has jurisdiction over almost all civilian
federal employees, except those in FBI and intelligence
agencies. We understand OSC receives almost 2000 PPP complaints
annually and conducted about 25,000 PPP investigation since
being created as an independent agency by the Federal
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-12).  Congress
recognized the vital importance of OSCâ€™s responsibilities in
protecting federal employees from PPPâ€™s by inserting the
related statutory language in the law - 5 USC 1201 Appendix A.  

We understand OSC's statutory obligations to these concerned
employees include: 1) investigating the PPP complaint to extent
necessary to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe a PPP occurred, 2) making such a determination, and, 3)
if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every
instance, to the involved agency. We understand the law allows
OSC two methods of making its required report - either directly
to the head of the involved agency, in which case the agency
head must certify a response addressing what the agency will do
to correct the PPP and by when (see 5 USC 1214(e)) - or, in the
alternative, or if dissatisfied with the initial agency
response, to both the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) and
the agency, as part of establishing jurisdiction for seeking
corrective action on behalf of the affected employee, if the
agency does not promptly correct the PPP (see 5 USC
1214(b)(2)(B)).   Additionally, when OSC terminates a PPP
investigation, it is required to include a â€œtermination
statementâ€ in its investigation termination notice as
described in the â€œamendmentâ€ section of 5 USC 1214, that
allows the employee to talk to an appropriate OSC official about
its investigation, its findings, and how the law was applied by
OSC.

We understand that the recent OSC Annual Reports to Congress do
not indicate how many times OSC had made or reported positive
PPP determinations.  Additionally, we understand that OSC is
required to maintain a public record of every positive PPP
determination reported to the involved agency head, together
with the agency head-certified response (see 5 USC 1219(a)(3)).
We understand, based on a recent review of documents in OSC's
public reading room, that it has not made a single such report
since being created in 1989, not in approximately 25,000 PPP
investigations.  We also understand OSC recently admitted, in a
court proceeding, that it has failed to include the required
â€œtermination statementsâ€ in approximately 18,000 PPP
investigation termination letters since 1994.

This raises troubling questions about OSC's compliance with its
statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP's. There
should be no doubt, given current events and threats, about
OSC's scrupulous compliance with its statutory obligations to
protect federal employees from PPP's, and Congress' commitment
to ensuring it. Unfortunately, it now seems there is reasonable
ground for such doubt.  OSC scrupulous compliance with its
statutory obligations to protect federal employees from PPPâ€™s,
especially its reporting all its positive PPP determinations is
essential to the heads of agencies complying with their positive
obligation to prevent PPPâ€™s in their agencies (5 USC 2302(c))
as well as for agencies to make accurate reports to Congress,
per the No FEAR Act (5 USC 2301, amendment section, section
203(a)). 

Therefore, we respectfully request that you promptly take the
necessary action to dispel the doubt or correct the situation.
Our Country's protection depends, in part, on the willingness of
concerned federal employees to responsibly act on their
concerns. These employees need to be protected, as the law
requires, by OSC. Everyone now needs to know, based on
Congressional oversight, this is happening. 

Respectfully,


Name of individual or group
 				 				 				 				 			 			
July 07, 2006 in petition Congress| Permalink                                                                   |
Comments (0)				 									| TrackBack (0)				 			
 		 	 						 		 		 							
Introduction - If you only have 5 minutes
 			 			 				 					
This blog exists for two reasons:  

1) inform its readers why Congress needs to conduct oversight of
the Office of Special Counsel (OSC's) compliance with the law
and Congressional intent in protecting federal employees from
prohibited personnel practices (PPP's), particularly
whistleblower reprisal, and 

2) encourage and equip them to exercise their right and
responsibility as citizens by petitioning Congress to do so.  

The other posts and links provide extensive information about
OSC's non-compliance with its statutory obligations, its
results, and most sobering implications.
 
But if you only have five minutes, are not interested in
becoming more expert in federal civil law and regulation, but
agree that members of Congress should be able to assure federal
employees and the public they serve, based on results of
Congressional oversight, that OSC is complying with the law and
Congressional intent in protecting federal employees from PPP's,
then here is what to do:
 
Copy the text below, go to the  "write your Congressman&quot;
website  and paste it into an email to your Congressional
Representative.

I understand the U.S. Office of Special Counsel was created as
an independent agency by the Whistleblower Protection Act of
1989 with the primary purpose of protecting federal employees
who uphold the merit principles of the federal civil service,
including responsibly "blowing whistles" to protect public
health, safety, and national security, from prohibited personnel
practices (PPP's), particularly whistleblower reprisal.   

Congress should be able to assure both federal employees and the
public they serve, based on results of Congressional oversight,
that OSC is complying with the law and Congressional intent in
protecting federal employees from PPP's.  Please either assure
me this is the current situation or inform me of your plans for
Congressional oversight of OSC's performance in protecting
federal employees.  

July 07, 2006 in overview| Permalink                                                                    | Comments
(0)				 									| TrackBack (0)				 			
 		 	 						 					 					 						 							 	
Petitions for Congressional Oversight of OSC
 	 		 							
  + Veteran's Administration Whistleblowers
 							
Recent Posts
 		 			 									
  + OSC fails to make required "termination statement" 									
  + Evidence of OSC's not making a single 1214(e) report since
1989. 									
  + OSC's non-compliance with its statutory obligations to
protect federal employees in its own words 									
  + OSC says "trust us" to make the statutory required PPP
determination 									
  + Questions and Answers about OSC's compliance with law 
									
  + Groups/People petitioning Congress to conduct oversight of
OSC 									
  + Petitioning Congress to perform oversight of OSC 									
  + Introduction - If you only have 5 minutes 				 			 		 	 	
blogroll
 	 		 							
  + Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
blog 							
  + Carson v. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 							
  + Blog us A.W.L. 							
  + The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog 							
  + Gover-up 							
  + Congressman Ed Markey 			 		 	 	
websites
 	 		 							
  + Whistleblowers - USA 							
  + National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) 							
  + Carson v. Department of Energy (DOE) 							
  + Support Teresa Chambers 							
  + OSC's issues since 2004, compiled by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 							
  + Jesselyn Radack's CRADL Home Page 							
  + Integrity International (II) 							
  + THOMAS (Library of Congress) 							
  + The American Whistleblowers' League (AWL) 							
  + National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) 							
  + Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
							
  + The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) 							
  + GAP - Government Accountability Project 			 		 	 	
OSC Annual Reports to Congress
 	 		 							
  + Critique of OSC's Annual Reports to Congress 							
related documents
 	 		 							
  + 5 USC 2302 - personnel actions, prohibited prohibited
personnel practices, agency heads responsibilities to prevent
PPP's. 							
  + 5 USC 2301 - the No FEAR Act requirements are in the
amendment section at end 							
  + 5 U.S.C. 1212 - duties and powers of OSC 							
  + 5 U.S.C. 1219 - law regarding OSC public records 							
  + 5 U.S.C. 1218 - law for OSC annual reports to Congress
							
  + Excerpt of OSC 1989 Annual Report to Congress, its first as
an independent agency 							
  + 5 CFR 1820.1 - access to OSC public documents 							
  + 5 USC 1214 which details OSC's obligations to protect
federal employees from PPP's. See the amendment section at end
for the "terminaition statement" 							
  + 5 U.S.C. 1201 - OSC's purpose and priorities are detailed in
its amendment section at end 							
  + Special Counsel Bloch lauding OSC's "heroic" protection of
"lamplighters shining light of truth" 							
  + OSC claims of judicial immunity 							
  + excerpts of 1996 OSC annual report to Congress 							
  + "list of matters" per 5 USC 1219, FY 1989 to 2003 			 		 	 	
		Add me to your TypePad People list 	 	 		Subscribe to this
blog's feed 	 	 		Powered by TypePad	 						 					 				 			 			
		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 39 IRNA: Peaceful use of N-energy, right of all states: envoy 

Kuala Lumpur, July 7, IRNA

Iran-Indonesia-Nuclear 

Iran's Ambassador to Indonesia Behrouz Kamalvandi said in
Jakarta on Friday that peaceful use of nuclear energy is a right
of all countries. 

Kamalvandi made the remark in a meeting with Indonesia's Speaker
of Regional People's Representative Council Karta Sasmita while
pointing to Iran's nuclear case and a package of incentives
offered by the world six powers (Group 5+1) to Tehran. 

"Tehran is ready to resume talks (with Europe) with no
preconditions. Continuation of enrichment is a national
determination of Iranians," he said. 

The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, on June
6, visited Iran to hand over a package of incentives approved by
the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Russia,
China, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany
(Group 5+1) to convince it to suspend its uranium enrichment
activities and resume talks to settle the dispute over its
nuclear program. 

The Iranian envoy praised support of the Indonesian government
for Iran's nuclear case, saying, "Use of nuclear technology is
not only an inalienable right of Iran but a right of all
countries." He invited Indonesia's parliaments to actively
attend the 7th international meeting of parliaments of Asian
states, slated to be held in Tehran. 

Pointing to an upcoming visit by the Iranian Majlis Speaker
Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel to Indonesia, Kamalvandi said an Iranian
delegation of the two countries' parliamentary friendship group
would also pay a visit to Jakarta in the future. 

He expressed Iran's readiness to provide Indonesia with a
50-million-dollar loan within frameworks of prefabricated houses
for quake-stricken parts of the Yogyakarta City. 

He said Indonesia intends to put the issue of access of
developing states to peaceful nuclear energy on agenda of the
7th international meeting of Asian states' parliaments. 


*****************************************************************
 40 Scotsman.com: No fast track for nuclear power plants in Scotland

"The Scotsman" />Fri 7 Jul 2006     

HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR 

SCOTLAND'S chances of becoming the home for new nuclear power
stations receded yesterday when it emerged that the planning
process would be streamlined to fast-track the development of
new stations - but only in England. 

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said he
wanted to reform the English planning process to give the
government the power to overrule councils, if necessary, and
drive ahead with new nuclear power stations. 

A spokesman for Jack McConnell, the First Minister, stressed
that this would not happen in Scotland and that there would be a
full public consultation before the planning process even got
started, if any applications were made to build new nuclear
stations in Scotland. 

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has signalled his support for
new nuclear stations to prevent the UK becoming too dependent on
imported gas and coal. 

But Mr McConnell has been reluctant to follow the same path,
principally because the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish
Executive are totally opposed to the prospect of any new nuclear
stations in Scotland. 

The First Minister has tried to establish a compromise,
officially keeping "options open" for new nuclear plants but
trying to push both renewables and the existing stations as far
as possible in the hope that new nuclear stations will not be
needed. 

Sources close to the First Minister have said Mr McConnell does
not actually expect any companies to apply to build new nuclear
stations in Scotland because it would not be economic for them
to do so. 

This general scepticism about a new generation of nuclear
stations was amplified by the Executive's flat rejection of Mr
Darling's defiant pro-nuclear statement yesterday. 

With the results of the government's energy review just a week
away, Mr Darling said that he wanted to "make it easier for
people to replace power plants that are going out of commission
and to meet our energy needs". 

He added: "We need to streamline the planning laws for big
infrastructure projects. We need to move to the stage, where,
basically, the government needs to publish a statement of need." 

Too many big power projects, wind farms and transmission lines
had become bogged down in long inquiries or blocked, he said. 

A White Paper would consult on making it impossible for councils
to reject power plants on the grounds that they were not needed. 

A spokesman for the First Minister made it clear that, although
the planning system in Scotland was being reformed, it was not
being changed to help the nuclear industry. 

He said that ministers would launch a public consultation on any
applications to build new nuclear stations in Scotland, before
the planning process even got started. 

This will have the effect of delaying the decision-making
process and putting an extra barrier in the way of new nuclear
stations. 

The spokesman added: "There would need to be a proper process to
justify any decision that ministers made and that would take
account of the public's views."
 
Related topic
 
  + Nuclear energy
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1343 
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=989202006
 
Last updated: 07-Jul-06 01:59 BST
 
2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 41 WQAD: Valve fails, causes nuclear reactor to shut down for 49 hours

 - July 6, 2005
   
MORRIS, Ill. A nuclear reactor at Exelon's Dresden Generating
Station was placed back in service today -- more than two days
after a valve on a line that carries steam from the reactor to a
turbine failed and closed.

A spokesman for the station says that the reactor automatically
shut down when the valve inadvertently closed. He says there
were no injuries and there was no release of any radioactive
steam.

The cause of the valve failure remains under investigation.
The spokesman says that during the 49 hours and 20 minutes the
reactor was not operating, the other at the Exelon site near
Morris reactor remained in service.
                                                        

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed. 			 		
 
All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and WQAD.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 icWales: N-plant may be necessary, and it may be fast-tracked
         
Jul 7 2006
  
Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail    

ANTI-NUCLEAR Welsh Secretary Peter Hain admitted yesterday a new
nuclear power station could have to be built in Wales to avoid
California-style blackouts.

Mr Hain has been the strongest opponent of nuclear power in the
Cabinet and denied he had changed his view - but said a new
reactor at Wylfa on Anglesey could get public backing if it was
vital to safeguard energy supplies.

The Cabinet met yesterday to discuss the Government's Energy
Review, due to be published on Tuesday and widely expected to
recommend a string of new nuclear power stations.

The Neath MP hit out at the "Nimby disease" which he said was
holding back wind and wave power projects, and called for a more
grown-up debate on the issue.

Mr Hain said, "If in order to keep the lights on and keep
security of supply across the United Kingdom that you have to
build nuclear power stations, a limited number of nuclear power
stations, then that case has got to be faced up to honestly and
openly.

"But I believe that cases even then will only win public support
in Wales if there is a massive extra commitment to renewable
energy, which I have made clear within Government that's what I
favour."

A new reactor at Wylfa has the support of Anglesey council and
local manufacturers, although many Welsh MPs and the Assembly
Government are against the idea.

The Western Mail understands that the Energy Review will contain
a reference to the Severn Barrage project, an ambitious
eco-energy idea that has the backing of Mr Hain and First
Minister Rhodri Morgan. The review is also expected to rule out
a public subsidy for the nuclear industry.

Mr Hain said Nimbyism had become a "disease which is rife across
Wales". "Everybody says they want clean green energy until its
anywhere near them," he said.

"People have got to make their minds up. Do they want Wales to
be a centre for renewable energy excellence with clean green
energy and perhaps new nuclear build at Wylfa, or don't they?"

He denied he was performing a policy U-turn on nuclear.

"We have got to see energy policy which gives a massive boost to
renewable energy and then if there's a need for new nuclear
build simply to keep the light on and to keep industry running
and life ticking over, then I think the public will accept new
nuclear build. But [they] would not accept it if the policy was
to go gung-ho for new nuclear on its own."

It was also reported yesterday that local councils may be forced
to accept the building of new atomic power stations.

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said he wanted to
"make it easier for people to replace power plants that are
going out of commission and to meet our energy needs". He said
he backed the publishing of "a statement of need" that would
highlight projects of national importance early.

"We need to streamline the planning laws for big infrastructure 
projects ... we need to move to the stage, where, basically, the 
Government needs to publish a statement of need," he said.

Too many big power projects, wind farms and transmission lines 
had become bogged down in long inquiries or blocked, he said.

Bitter clash between Hain and Llwyd continues

A public parliamentary spat has flared again between Welsh 
Secretary Peter Hain and Plaid Cymru's leader at Westminster 
Elfyn Llwyd.

The row goes back more than two months to when Mr Llwyd accused 
Mr Hain in the Commons of offering a peerage to the late Peter 
Law.

Mr Law left Labour and won the Blaenau Gwent seat in the 2005 
elections - a seat that stayed in Independent hands in last 
week's by-election.

Mr Hain strongly denied the allegation, and feels Mr Llwyd should 
apologise.

On Wednesday the Plaid MP tried to ask a question on post office 
closures in the Commons, only for Mr Hain to reply that, "I do 
not think anyone takes the Honourable Gentleman seriously 
anymore."

Mr Llwyd said, "If Mr Hain continues to ignore questions from 
Members of Parliament it will raise serious questions about his 
fitness for the office of Secretary of State for Wales.

"His curt answer is not so much a slap in my face but, far more 
importantly, it is a slap in the face of the Welsh people."

Mr Hain said, "He knows what he has to do, he has to start 
behaving like an honourable member."

Copyright and Trade Mark Notice                                                         
*****************************************************************
 43 Times of India: N-deal: Safeguards talks next week- 

[ Friday, July 07, 2006 11:20:36 amPTI ]

NEW DELHI: India and the IAEA will hold negotiations on Saturday
on the proposed Safeguards Agreement which is required to be put
in place to allow international community to resume nuclear
trade with New Delhi. 

The Indian side will include officials from the Ministry of
External Affairs (MEA) and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). 

Under the Indo-US civil nuclear deal signed in March during the
visit of President George W Bush here, New Delhi and the IAEA
have to work out an 'India-specific Safeguards Agreement' for
supervision of civilian nuclear facilities of this country. 

In the civil nuclear agreement, India has identified 14 of its
22 atomic reactors as civilian which will be covered under the
IAEA safeguards agreement. 

India is expected to seek an early conclusion of the agreement
with IAEA in view of the US Congress' desire to see progress on
it before the American Parliament approves change of law to
allow nuclear trade with New Delhi. 

International Committees of both US House of Representatives and
Senate recently approved two bills providing for change of law
that will end India's nuclear apartheid.---------------       
    
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
 44 Ithaca Journal: It is time to rethink our global nuclear safeguards

www.theithacajournal.com - Ithaca, NY

 Mohamed ElBaradei / Commentary
 

In regard to nuclear proliferation and arms control, the
fundamental problem is clear: Either we begin finding creative,
outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear
safeguards regime will become obsolete.

For this reason, I have been calling for new approaches in a
number of areas. First, a recommitment to disarmament  a move
away from national security strategies that rely on nuclear
weapons, which serve as a constant stimulus for other nations to
acquire them. Second, tightened controls on the
proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. By
bringing multinational control to any operation that enriches
uranium or separates plutonium, we can lower the risk of these
materials being diverted to weapons. A parallel step would be to
create a mechanism to ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel
to bona fide users, including a fuel bank under control of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.

The third area has been more problematic: how to deal creatively
with the three countries that remain outside the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty: Pakistan and India, both holders of
nuclear arsenals, and Israel, which maintains an official policy
of ambiguity but is believed to be nuclear-weapons-capable.

However fervently we might wish it, none of these three is
likely to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons
option outside of a global or regional arms control framework.
Our traditional strategy  of treating such states as outsiders
 is no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few
countries into the fold. 

Which brings us to a current controversy  the recent agreement
between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
regarding the exchange of nuclear technology between the United
States and India.

Some insist that the deal will primarily enable India to divert
more uranium to produce more weapons  that it rewards India for
having developed nuclear weapons and legitimizes its status as a
nuclear weapons state. By contrast, some in India argue that it
will bring the downfall of India's nuclear weapons program,
because of new restrictions on moving equipment and expertise
between civilian and military facilities.

Clearly, this is a complex issue on which intelligent people can
disagree. Ultimately, perhaps, it comes down to a balance of
judgment. But to this array of opinions, I would offer the
following:

First, under the NPT, there is no such thing as a legitimate
or illegitimate nuclear weapons state. The fact that five
states are recognized in the treaty as holders of nuclear
weapons was regarded as a matter of transition; the treaty does
not in any sense confer permanent status on those states as
weapons holders. Moreover, the U.S.-India deal is neutral on
this point  it does not add to or detract from India's nuclear
weapons program, nor does it confer any status, legal or
otherwise, on India as a possessor of nuclear weapons. India has
never joined the NPT; it has therefore not violated any legal
commitment, and it has never encouraged nuclear weapons
proliferation. Also, it is important to consider the
implications of denying this exchange of peaceful nuclear
technology. As a country with one-sixth of the world's
population, India has an enormous appetite for energy  and the
fastest-growing civilian nuclear energy program in the world.

With this anticipated growth, it is important that India have
access to the safest and most advanced technology.

India clearly enjoys close cooperation with the United States
and many other countries in a number of areas of technology and
security. It is treated as a valued partner, a trusted
contributor to international peace and security. It is difficult
to understand the logic that would continue to carve out civil
nuclear energy as the single area for noncooperation.

Under the agreement, India commits to following the guidelines
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization of states that
regulates access to nuclear material and technology. India would
bring its civilian nuclear facilities under international
safeguards. India has voiced its support for the conclusion of a
Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The strong support of both
India and the United States  as well as all other nuclear
weapons states  is sorely needed to make this treaty a reality.

The U.S.-India agreement is a creative break with the past that,
handled properly, will be a first step forward for both India
and the international community. India will get safe and modern
technology to help lift more than 500 million people from
poverty, and it will be part of the international effort to
combat nuclear terrorism and rid our world of nuclear weapons.

As we face the future, other strategies must be found to enlist
Pakistan and Israel as partners in nuclear arms control and
nonproliferation. Whatever form those solutions take, they will
need to address not only nuclear weapons but also the much
broader range of security concerns facing each country. No one
ever said controlling nuclear weapons was going to be easy. It
will take courage and tenacity in large doses, a great deal more
outside-of-the-box thinking, and a sense of realism. And it will
be worth the effort.
 
Mohamed ElBaradei is director general of the International
Atomic Energy Agency. He and the agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace
Prize. His column was distributed by the Washington Post-L.A.
Times News Service.
 

Originally published July 7, 2006

 Copyright ©2006 The Ithaca Journal.
*****************************************************************
 45 Arms Control Association: Reviving Disarmament: An Interview With Hans Blix

Arms Control Today
 
Wade Boese, Paul Kerr, and Daryl G. Kimball

  + The WMD Commission at a Glance 
Hans Blix for the last two years has served as chairman of the
WMD Commission, an independent international body launched by
the Swedish government to explore ways to reduce threats posed
by biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Blix, who was
formerly head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) in Iraq, shared the commissions findings and
recommendations during a June 6 interview with Arms Control
Today. 

ACT: In its report, the WMD Commission provided 60
recommendations for reducing biological, chemical, and nuclear
weapons. If world leaders were to take one message or theme away
from the study, what would it be?
 
Blix: The revival of disarmament. We are in a situation where
there is a stagnation of multilateral, global efforts. Its worse
than that. Theres also the incipient beginning of arms races. In
space theres one. On new types of nuclear weapons, theres a
second one. On missiles, [theres] certainly a third one. All
these need to be addressed. There is some activity on the
bilateral and regional [fronts], but you need global
cooperation. Cooperative disarmament would be another term that
we would use.
 
ACT: Many of the recommendations appear aimed at the countries
that already have nuclear weapons, rather than measures to
prevent new countries from getting these weapons. How would you
explain to an American, British, or French citizen that their
countries weapons are a problem just like North Koreas or
potentially Irans? 

Blix: Actually, the report addresses both. In the chapter on
nuclear weapons, we begin with proliferation because thats the
most acute. I dont think we are by any means neglecting or
putting proliferation in a second category. Theyre on an equal
basis. We address the two cases we think are absolutely acute
for nonproliferation, namely Iran and North Korea. On the more
general front, we address the problem of hair-trigger alerts, of
launch on warning, on the need for reduction of strategic
weapons between the United States and Russia, and on the need to
withdraw [U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear] weapons from the
European front back to U.S. territory and into central storage
in Russia. We also point to the obligation that we see certainly
for the nuclear-weapon states under the NPT [nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty] to undertake nuclear disarmament, which
many non-nuclear-weapon states feel that [the nuclear-weapon
states] have walked away from. We point to the difficulty of
persuading and espousing nonproliferation by other states so
long as the nuclear-weapon states are themselves not taking that
obligation seriously. 

ACT: But how do you persuade citizens in the United States,
France, and the United Kingdom that their weapons are a concern
to the developing world and other countries that dont have these
weapons? How do you make them realize that this is a problem? 

Blix: We are saying that all nuclear weapons are dangerous in
whosever hands. We also say that, yes, some [regimes] can be
more ruthless and reckless than others. Regimes can change. But
[all nuclear weapons] are dangerous. There are none that are in
secure hands. We have hair-trigger alert, there can be
misunderstandings, and there can be regime change.
 
ACT: As you know, the commissions report is being released when
much of the international community is concerned about Irans
nuclear program. What would Iran need to do to prove to you that
its nuclear program is not intended to produce weapons? 

Blix: This is my view: I think it would be very difficult for
Iran under current circumstances, even for a long period of
time, to prove that they have no intentions [to pursue nuclear
weapons]. How do you prove that you have no intentions? I dont
think any amount of IAEA inspection will tell the world, Ah,
theres nothing, so they can go ahead with enrichment. As in the
case of Iraq, we saw that the Iraqis tried to assert [that they
did not have weapons of mass destruction] and we said, Well,
theres things unaccounted for. We cant exclude it. So, that will
be hard. 

Im somewhat critical about the tendency in many places to talk
about the Iranian nuclear weapons program as if it were proven.
Dont we have sufficient experience in the Iraq affair to be a
little cautious about that? But I dont at all exclude it. Iran
is much further ahead in its nuclear program than Iraq was. They
have infrastructure, they have people, they have money, et
cetera. Iraq was a scrapheap in 2003. Nevertheless, some of the
circumstantial evidence [in Iran] is perhaps more suggestive.
You talk about the many years in which they breached their
obligations on the safeguards agreement. Well, that could be
because they had an intention to go for nuclear weapons, but it
could also be because they were worried about
counterproliferation, that they would reveal where sites were
and they could be subject to sabotage. I dont interpret, but Im
saying dont jump to conclusions. In fact, when we put someone
before a court, we like to have evidence before we give them a
severe sentence. Shall we be more easygoing when it comes to
sentencing states to bombardment or war? A little caution in
this respect is desirable. 

Now, on the Iranian side, I think its a weak argument when they
say they need to have self-reliance, they have the right and
must use that right. No, you can have rights without making use
of them. Theres also no economic interest in it for them. They
have two nuclear power plants.[1] My country, Sweden, has 10,
and we are importing uranium. The [Iranian nuclear]
establishment will work on a 40-megawatt heavy-water
reactorthats an excellent plutonium producer. Now, that may
suggest there is an intention behind it, but there are other
countries in the world that have heavy-water reactors, so it is
not conclusive. Yet, the commission comes to the conclusion that
it would be desirable that Iran suspend or renounce enrichment
for a prolonged period of time because [enrichment] will
increase tension. We come to that conclusion, and then we
suggest that if you want to take a country away from its
potential interest in nuclear weapons, you have to look at its
incentives [to acquire nuclear weapons]. We think that security
is one of them, as in the case of North Korea. Security has been
missing from the packages that have been put on the table [to
Iran] so far. 

We have put forward another suggestion that we havent seen
elsewhere, which was inspired by the Korean case. We suggest
that you might have a region that renounces or suspends the use
of enrichment or reprocessing. In the Korean case, it is
established in the 1992 declaration.[2] In the Middle East case,
what we are suggesting is, as a confidence-building measure,
Iran and other countries in the Middle East renounce this. That
would mean, in the case of Israel, that it would do away with or
renounce reprocessing. It doesnt affect their weapons
programthat would not be at all plausiblebut you could imagine
having commitments from all the countries, including Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, et cetera, to not go for any enrichment or
reprocessing.
 
ACT: Given what we know about the current proposals from the
EU-3, the United States, and other countries about how to
resolve the situation, do you think that that proposal and
approach are sufficient? It does not contain that recommendation
that you just mentioned. What should be done to make it more
effective? 

Blix: I doubt it is sufficient. I think that, on the question of
assurance of supply, there are relatively good answers. The
Russian proposal is a relatively good one, although the Iranians
might say, Look what happened to the Ukraine. Can we trust this
thing?[3] But there could be assurances from others as well, not
only from Russia but from China as well. I think the latest
proposal about the offer of light-water reactors is good because
it demonstrates that these states are not saying no to Iran
going into the nuclear age. But the way in which the offer has
been made, namely to say that hey, we are taking a huge step
forward. We are offering to sit down with you about your
suspending or renouncing enrichment, but before we sit down you
better suspend enrichmentthey are making a condition for
discussion the outcome they seek from the negotiation. The
Iranians did suspend under [Iranian President Mohammad] Khatami
for a period of negotiations, and thereafter they expected a
good bid, and what they got was something they did not consider
a good bid, and therefore they resumed [enrichment]. They say
were back to square one, and thats where they remain. 

There is a great deal of prestige, frankly, on both sides. If
Iran were today to suspend and say, Fine, we will sit down and
talk, that would be taken as an accomplishment on the side of
the Europeans. Any step back into enrichment, they would say was
another act of defiance, that [ Iran was] breaching something
they saw as a commitment. We, the commissioners, [would like to
see Iran] decide to suspend enrichment. The ways of getting
there one can address in different ways. 

ACT: Going to the other side of the globe for a moment, North
Korea. Between December 2002 and January 2003, North Korea
ejected IAEA inspectors and announced its withdrawal from the
NPT. Although the matter has been referred to the UN Security
Council, North Korea has suffered no Security Council penalties
for its action. Does this case undermine the legitimacy of the
NPT as well as the international communitys ability to deal with
arms control noncompliance? 

Blix: I think the United States would probably be among the
states that first affirmed the right of withdrawal in accordance
with [treaty] clauses. It did so with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty.[4] There are specific [withdrawal] clauses in other
treaties. Of course, withdrawal from the NPT by
non-nuclear-weapon states is a worrisome thing. It may be a
sign. We recommend that the Security Council automatically
grapple with any such case. Whether the council wished to take
an action immediately or common resolution or whatever, this, I
think, one has to leave up to them. They must be seized with the
issue, but what they do will depend upon political circumstances.
 
ACT: Are there any potential legal consequences on ruling on
such a matter? I dont think the Security Council has said one
way or the other on whether North Korea is officially part to
the treaty or not. 

Blix: No, I think it is very hard to know how they view that,
whether it was legally done or not, but that may land us in
legal niceties. The substance of the matter after all is that [
North Korea] claims it has nuclear weapons. I think, and I think
the commission also feels, that the negotiation about North
Korea is going in a fairly good direction. Whether it is
successful is another matter. In particular, I think the latest
things we have read about [that are welcome are] the U.S.
suggestion that there could be some kind of assurance against
aggression and there could be also diplomatic relations with the
United States and Japan and the public discussion about the
possibility of a peace treaty. All of these things are geared to
assure North Korea that they will not be subject to a military
attack, any regime change efforts, and intervention to that
effect. Since the commission takes the view that security
concerns are basic, this is what one can do. The opposite, of
course, is waving the stick all the time, that if you dont
behave, we will attack you, or if you dont behave, we will try
to instigate a regime change as they did in Iran in 1953 when
[Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed] Mossadegh, an elected leader,
was thrown out with the help of the CIA.
 
ACT: On security issues, Iran hasnt publicly suggested that it
wants security assurances from the United States, so how do we
know that that will lead it to engage in negotiations? 

Blix: As far as I know, there were plans among the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany to have a separate committee
dealing with security issues, and it never met. It may well be
that the Iranians may not want to ask for such things that might
be seen as a sign of weakness. But the issue of security has
surfaced. I would hazard [a guess] that there is an interest,
especially if you have 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq and
American bases in Afghanistan and an increased number in the
north. I think its a relevant issue.
 
ACT: In the commissions report, there are two issues that were
singled out as being of the highest importance for renewing
momentum on nonproliferation and disarmament: bringing the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force and negotiating
a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT). On the first, can there
be progress on a CTBT as long as Washington doesnt ratify? For
instance, why cant China go ahead and ratify it? 

Blix: There can be some progress. There is a special ambassador
who is touring the world to try to persuade various states, like
Indonesia and Colombia, that have not ratified it. There are
some cases where I think it would happen. I would be pleasantly
surprised if the Chinese went ahead and ratified it before
Washington. We think that no other act in the global system
would inject more renewed optimism than the CTBT entering into
force. We think if the United States does it, then were pretty
sure that the Chinese would. If the Chinese would, the Indians
would; if the Indians did, the Pakistanis would. It would be a
good domino effect. Whereas, if the treaty continues in limbo as
it does, there are risks. Fortunately, the [testing] moratorium
is still holding. If the United States were to test, Im pretty
sure that others would test again, and we would go into a new
arms race. The motivation, justification, or the rationale for
the treaty remains what they were, namely, that it will impede
qualitative developmentnot altogether, because the United States
and others can do quite a lot by computers. It would also
strengthen nonproliferation, making it more difficult for states
at the lower level to do so. But the signal would be tremendous. 

The other one you mention, the FMCT, is already on the table.
The United States has advanced a proposal in Geneva.[5] I think
thats welcome. The commissions position is that we should have
no confusion about [starting negotiations on an FMCT] without
any preconditions, whether relating to verification or
[existing] stocks. However, the commission takes clearly the
view that such a treaty is verifiable, which is in contrast to
what the U.S. administration has been saying. The reason why we
say so is that we have two non-nuclear-weapon states that have
their enrichment and reprocessing plants already verified:
Brazil and Japan.[6] You have three nuclear-weapon states with
verification: the United Kingdom and France have EURATOM
[European Atomic Energy Community] verification,[7] and China
has a plant which was supplied by Russia under the condition of
IAEA verification. 

So if it is the contention of those who say that we should not
have verification because its unverifiable, do they consider
that what we have now is meaningless? I dont think so. I think
it is verifiable. I think the contrary views have a certain
disdain vis-à-vis international verification, which is not
justified. The United States referred in Geneva to national
verification, national means of verification. Can anyone after
the Iraq affair say that national verification is so superior to
international verification? My view is that both are needed. The
international groups can go in on the ground, and nations can go
in and listen to our cell phones and many other things. The
governments are the recipients of the reports from both, and
they eventually decide. Its not the IAEA that eventually judges
and decides. I agree with the [Bush] administration on that. 

ACT: Why do you think there is disdain toward international
verification? 

Blix: Thats hard to say. Clearly, it is true that, in the 1980s
when I was the head of the IAEA, we failed to see what was going
on in Iraq. It was due to an inspection system that was
formulated in the 1970s when inspection was directed at
countries like Germany and Sweden, democratic states that were
fairly open. On-site inspections [in the 1980s] were something
new, and they were not used to it. We have come a long way since
then. In 1991, when we discovered what happened in Iraq, I went
to the [IAEA Board of Governors] and said that we need access to
more sites, more access to information, and we need access to
the Security Council. Then, a number of years went by, and we
had the [Model] Additional Protocol [8] adopted eventually in
1997, the last year I was director-general. It is now ratified
by many [states] but not yet [ratified] by Iran. So, the world
learned something. The commission endorses that all
non-nuclear-weapon states should accept the Additional Protocol.
The negative attitude you refer tothis is my personal
impressionthere is something doctrinaire about it. There is
also, of course, a somewhat doctrinaire, skeptical attitude
vis-à-vis international organizations. I think it enters into
that more general, philosophical attitude toward global
instruments and institutions. 

ACT: Negotiations on an FMCT have been stalled, in part, because
of the inability of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to agree
on a work program.[9] Given that the commission attached so much
importance to concluding an FMCT, would you support the U.S.
position that the CD should focus exclusively on an FMCT? 

Blix: No. I think that there are a number of other items that
are valid for discussion. One of our other proposals is that the
CD should be allowed to adopt its work program by [two-thirds]
majority. The General Assembly of the [United Nations] can put
any item on its agenda with a simple majority. We are simply
saying that the consensus thats required in the CD is a relic
from the Cold War. It should be possible for the world community
to use its chief negotiating organ to take up items for
discussion with a qualified majority. I think that would be a
difficult thing to get adopted. Were not saying how we should go
about it, but we are venturing that it would be a reasonable
arrangement. 

ACT: Because the commission put so much stock in concluding an
FMCT and the importance of bringing the CTBT into force, should
India be required to cease fissile material production for
weapons and at least sign the CTBT before being allowed to
participate in increased civil nuclear trade with the world, as
proposed by the United States? 

Blix: We discuss the case of the proposed India agreement
between the United States and India. We say in a rather short
form that it has many aspects, including energy. We arent going
into that, but that is an important part of it. I myself would
attach a lot of importance to enabling countries with huge
populations to reduce or restrain the pressure on the use of oil
and gas. However, we also recognize that proliferation concerns
have been raised, and we do take the view that the NPT does not
per se prohibit nuclear cooperation between the nuclear-weapon
states and nonparties to the NPT. What the treaty says is that
[nuclear-weapon] states should facilitate cooperation with
states that adhere to the treaty. However, such cooperation must
not conflict with the duty of states-parties to the NPT to work
for nonproliferation. The objections raised that India might
import uranium under this agreement and thereby enable itself to
use more of its own uranium for enrichment for weapons purposes,
these are valid concerns. There are two things that could be
done in order to allay such concerns, and one would be a
verified FMCT and the other would be the CTBT. It would seem to
me that the United States is handicapped in its wishes so long
as it does not itself accept the verified FMCT and the CTBT. I
think it is an additional illustration of the desirability that
the United States move [forward] with both the verified FMCT and
the CTBT. The CTBT is already verified. There is nothing that is
better verified in this world.
 
ACT: Given that the CTBT and FMCT appear a ways off, though,
because of the U.S. position, should India unilaterally halt
fissile material production for weapons? 

Blix: I dont think anything is a given, the U.S. or Israeli
stance, et cetera. No, its open for negotiations. If they see a
great advantage, if they feel that they must have an FMCT with
India, if Congress will demand it, well then, [the Bush
administration] may reconsider. The [U.S. decision not to ratify
the] test ban is also not written in stone. There are some in
the administration against it, but that is something the United
States can still do. At one stage, most of the military and
others were in favor of it, but then it fell by the wayside for
a while. 

ACT: The commission did not call for India and Pakistan and
Israel to join the NPT. Why not? 

Blix: If there was any chance of getting them to join the NPT as
non-nuclear-weapon states as South Africa did, fine. But we have
deemed it futile to have a direct recommendation that they
should do so. 

ACT: While it might appear futile, as you know, the five
nuclear-weapon states through the NPT are committed to disarm,
while India, Israel, and Pakistan are not. How do you remedy
that? 

Blix: We are taking a stand on that. We are saying that we think
that all states with nuclear weapons have a duty to participate
and to walk away from nuclear weapons. We are saying that those
who have the most, Russia and the United States, should take the
lead. France and the United Kingdom will have to consider how
they continue. The United Kingdom faces a decision very
soon.[10] We are not letting anyone off the hook. We see
[disarmament] as an obligation of all to do so. 

ACT: The commission recommends phasing out all production of
highly enriched uranium, regardless of whether it is for
weapons, but it does not take a similarly strict position on
plutonium and reprocessing. Why not? 

Blix: Thats right. For highly enriched uranium, there is already
rather limited use. In the United States, it is being used as
fuel for submarines. The French do not; they use low-enriched
uranium for submarines. There may be some research reactors that
still have it, but by and large I think there is at least a
growing consensus on this issue that highly enriched uranium is
something that you can phase out, although not overnight. When
it comes to plutonium, we discuss it at length. We are aware of
the production of [mixed-oxide] fuel and reprocessing in the
United Kingdom, France, Russia, et cetera. Its not really the
economic proposition that it once was meant to be because
uranium prices have been kept low. However, we do have some
breeder reactors, and there will be more of those. They run on
plutonium. I dont think our view was that it was desirable that
they should be considering when to phase them out. When you see
the latest U.S. proposal, the [Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP)],[11] well, I think that is based upon the same
consideration, mainly, breeder reactors will be needed in the
future because of the energy situation. The GNEP talks about a
new type of reactor which would work on enriched uranium and
plutonium and neptunium, and it would not be possible to use
this material for a weapons purpose. One uses the energy
contents of the uranium, something like 80 times more if you
have reprocessing. In a world where the energy problem is a big
one, its a significant factor. So, thats the background why we
are more cautious and less far-reaching, less categorical on
plutonium. 

ACT: As you know, there are treaties outlawing biological and
chemical weapons and severely limiting the possession of nuclear
weapons with the long-term goal of their complete elimination.
Why shouldnt a similar ban be pursued on ballistic missiles? 

Blix: The world is in a very difficult situation when it comes
to ballistic missiles. There have been, as we note, two working
parties in the UN which examine the issue at length. They said
it was very dangerous but could not come to any agreement on
what to do about it. We have no formula that is particularly
good either. I discussed it at length but without much success.
What we say on the missile shield is that before any country
establishes a missile shield, they should first examine whether
they can remove the threat that moves them toward a missile
shield. If they cant do that, then at least they should work
toward confidence-building measures to reduce the tension that
will arise. We havent found a path. No one else has, and thats
regrettable because it is a very dangerous area. 

ACT: The report puts a lot of emphasis on resolving weapons
dangers though cooperative, rule-based approaches and is quite
critical of the Bush administrations general approach to dealing
with weapons of mass destruction threats. Are you concerned that
the commissions report might be dismissed by some as just
another swipe in the perceived bout between Hans Blix and the
Bush administration?
 
Blix: I think there is an effort by the commission to be
evenhanded. We are discussing the [Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI)], both pros and cons.[12] The PSI was a U.S.
initiative, and the commission takes the view that the control
and enforcement of export restrictions is a good one. It also
points to the concerns about the laws of the sea being
respected. We also raise the question, How often has [PSI] been
useful? We have heard about cases, but they are not
substantiated.[13] It would be interesting to know just how
useful [it has been]. We, the commission, think that the closer
cooperation between intelligence is a useful feature of it. This
is a U.S. initiative in which we see some advantage but at the
same time also warning that [its success] should not be
exaggerated. 

Security Council Resolution 1540 is another initiative the
commission looks favorably upon and sees as something
institutionally and constitutionally rather new.[14] The
Security Council has the power and the duty to determine whether
a situation constitutes a threat to international peace and
security under Article 39, so theyre the judge. It has also
executive power in Articles 41 and 42 in the designing of
sanctions by obligatory members. Now, it has added in
[Resolution] 1540 a legislative power in telling member states
that they must, under Chapter VII, enact the following type of
legislation. How effective will that be? Well, thats another
matter. 

What the commission says on counterproliferation is that here
has been an emphasis on military force and not on cooperative
security. We are of the view that the vast majority of countries
in the world rejected the justification given for the use of
force in the case of Iraq. Today, we are faced with a similar
thing. We can see vividly in the world that no one is accepting
the thought of using military force against Iran. Maybe many
will accept economic pressures but not military force. The
United States is saying itself that it is not on the agenda or
the plan, but that is not exactly the same thing as rejecting
it. 

ACT: With respect to how countries move forward on the agenda
that the WMD Commission has laid out, one of the recommendations
is that there should be a summit at the United Nations to move
forward on this. But in light of the failures at the NPT review
conference in 2005 and the UN Millennium +5 Summit in September,
how could such a summit break the deadlock? How do we move ahead?
 
Blix: We think that there should be thorough preparations. Those
would certainly take a couple of years. We are not alone in
making these recommendations. We think that governments around
the world, [nongovernmental organizations], and think tanks need
to study the situation. We feel a little like [UN
Secretary-General] Kofi Annan, that the world is sort of
sleepwalking into new arms races, as he said in Tokyo recently.
After the end of the Cold War, when people felt that the risk of
mutual obliteration was gone, it was as if we feel asleep. Our
daily dose of anguish was turned to other sources like global
warming, which are good reasons, but nevertheless, arms control
and disarmament fell a bit by the wayside. We think that is
wrong. 

I understand some of the U.S. skepticism against global
conventions in the failure of the NPT to stop Iraq and North
Korea. At the same time, it seems to me that the Iraq war has
demonstrated the difficulties of achieving arms control by
counterproliferation and military force. No one can contend that
the Iraq war was successful. Now, were discussing the case of
Iran, and its taken for granted as in the case of Iraq that,
yes, [prohibited weapons programs] are there. The evidence
doesnt have to be examined any further, and they are talking
loudly in many quarters about the use of armed force. Clearly,
when you listen to the European leaders, they will not endorse
the use of armed force. There is plenty of time. 

We are saying in the final chapter about the Security Council
that the council should make use of its power to adopt binding
decisions designed under Article 39, but it should be its power
acting in accordance with the UN Charter. Chapter VII speaks
about situations where the council has determined that it is a
threat to international peace and security, and Chapter VI,
which no one talks about, is about situations which, if they
continue, may come to constitute threats to international peace
and security. I think it would be useful for the council to
focus upon where they are. Ive said that the framers of the
charter were not pacifists, but they were also not
trigger-happy. 

ACT: Thank you.
 
Click here for a complete transcript of the interview.
  
The WMD Commission at a Glance 

History: The Swedish government established the independent WMD
Commission in 2003. It focused on reducing and eliminating WMD
arsenals, halting the spread of such weapons, and preventing
their terrorist use. Its purpose was to identify practical
measures to achieve results in these areas, while stimulating
debate and educating the public. 

Members: Hans Blix served as chairman of the commission. The
other commissioners were Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia), Alexei
G. Arbatov (Russia), Marcos de Azambuja (Brazil), Alyson Bailes
(United Kingdom), Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka), Gareth Evans
(Australia), Patricia Lewis (Ireland), Masashi Nishihara
(Japan), William Perry (United States), Vasantha Raghavan
(India), Cheikh Sylla (Senegal), Prince El Hassan bin Talal
(Jordan), and Zhenqiang Pan (China). Henrik Salander served as
the commissions secretary-general and was assisted by a
secretariat of four. 

Key Recommendations: The commissions 60 recommendations are
wide-ranging but united by a common theme: that eliminating
weapons of mass destruction is the most reliable way to prevent
their use. Many of the recommendations, for example, on
strengthening treaty regimes and improving compliance and
verification, are also offered elsewhere. Yet, the WMD
Commission also proposes: 

 Outlawing nuclear weapons. All states possessing nuclear
weapons, including those outside the nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT), should commence planning for security without such
weapons. The goal should be to outlaw nuclear weapons, not
simply to manage them. Such weapons are dangerous in anybodys
hands. 

 Rolling back deployments of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons
should not be deployed on foreign soil, nor should they be
deployed in triads of ground-based missiles, submarine missiles,
and bombers. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons should be withdrawn to
central storage. 

 Repairing institutional deficits. Parties to the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and Biological Weapons Convention should
establish secretariats to address administrative issues. The UN
Security Council needs a special unit that can perform
monitoring and inspection roles upon the request of the council
or the secretary-general. 

 A WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Incremental progress in
freeing the region of all weapons of mass destruction, along
with facilities to produce weapons-usable nuclear material, is
needed as part of the peace process, not its aftermath. 

 Security in the Korean peninsula. North and South Korea should
formalize their 1992 joint declaration to exclude both nuclear
weapons and sensitive fuel-cycle facilities from the Korean
peninsula. Outside powers should offer nuclear fuel guarantees
and security assurances to North Korea. 

 Security in South Asia. India and Pakistan should halt the
production of fissile material for weapons, pending agreement on
a global ban. They should both join the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, along with all other states that remain nonparties,
especially the United States. 

 Missiles and space. No state should deploy a missile defense
without first attempting to negotiate the removal of missile
threats. All states should renounce the deployment of space
weapons. 

World summit. The UN General Assembly should convene a world
summit devoted specifically to the challenges of WMD
disarmament, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism.
 
ENDNOTES
 
1. Iran currently has no operating nuclear power plants. Russia
is constructing a nuclear power reactor near the Iranian city of
Bushehr. Iran plans to construct another reactor on the same
site.
 
2. The 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula forbids North Korea and South Korea from
possessing uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation
facilities.
 
3. Russia briefly cut off natural gas shipments to Ukraine
during this past January. Russia has proposed giving Iran
part-ownership of a gas centrifuge plant located in Russia. 

4. The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty on June 13, 2002. 

5. Wade Boese, U.S. Unveils Draft Fissile Material Treaty, Arms
Control Today, June 2006, pp. 38-39.
 
6. Brazil has a uranium-enrichment facility at its Resende
nuclear facility. Japan has a planned plutonium reprocessing
facility in Rokkasho-mura. See David Fite and Sharon Squassoni,
Brazil as Litmus Test: Resende and Restrictions on Uranium
Enrichment, Arms Control Today, October 2005, pp. 13-19;
Shinichi Ogawa and Michael Schiffer, Japan&rsquo;s Plutonium
Reprocessing Dilemma, Arms Control Today, October 2005, pp.
20-24.
 
7. France and the United Kingdom both have IAEA safeguards
agreements and additional protocols with both EURATOM and the
IAEA. Established in 1958, EURATOM is a multilateral
organization that manages and promotes European nuclear
industries.
 
8. An additional protocol is a voluntary agreement that
countries can conclude with the IAEA to give the agency greater
inspection and oversight authority to verify that civilian
nuclear technologies are not misused to build bombs.
 
9. Many of the 65 members of the CD favor holding negotiations
or at least talks on nuclear disarmament, the prevention of an
arms race in outer space, and negative security assurances. The
United States has opposed a work program that includes these
items. 

10. See Rebecca Johnson, End of a Nuclear Weapons Era: Can
Britain Make History? Arms Control Today, April 2006, pp. 6-12. 

11. Wade Boese, Bush Promotes New Nuclear Plan, Arms Control
Today, March 2006, pp. 36-37. 

12. President George W. Bush announced May 31, 2003, that the
United States would lead a new effort, the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict shipments of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) and related goods to terrorists and
countries of proliferation concern. Although the use of
interdictions to thwart the WMD trade is not new, the PSI seeks
to use multilateral cooperation to strengthen such efforts.
There are approximately 70 countries reportedly supporting the
initiative, including the core group of Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.
 
13. Wade Boese, Key U.S. Interdiction Initiative Claim
Misrepresented, Arms Control Today, July/August 2005, pp. 26-27. 

14. The Security Council approved Resolution 1540 in April 2004.
It requires governments to adopt laws and measures to prevent
nonstate actors from acquiring unconventional weapons. On April
27, 2006, the Security Council extended the committee monitoring
the resolutions implementation for two additional years, through
April 2008. See Wade Boese, UN Extends Committee on Terrorists
and Arms, Arms Control Today, June 2006, pp. 39-40. 

The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based 
organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider 
joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages 
reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor.
 
© 1997-2006 Arms Control Association, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW, Suite 620 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: 
(202) 463-8273
*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: Tollner wants debate on nuclear waste storage

ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story
 
 Friday, 7 July 2006. 10:07 (AEDT)Friday, 7 July 2006. 09:07

 The Northern Territory Member for Solomon says he would like to
see a discussion on allowing Australia to store overseas nuclear
waste, despite the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have
ruled out the idea. 

Prime Minister John Howard says taking nuclear waste from
overseas is not in the Government's plans.
 
Coalition backbencher Dave Tollner says Mr Howard is limiting
the nuclear debate.
 
"I'm a bit disappointed that the Prime Minister is now trying to
limit the discussion, but it would be a major step for Australia
to take on the world's nuclear waste," he said.
 
Mr Tollner says the nuclear inquiry should include what
ultimately happens to the world's waste and Australia's part in
storing it.
 
"My view is that we should have the discussion, and we should
have a pretty thorough investigation into what happens with the
world's nuclear waste," he said.
 
"I think that's only fair as global citizens and as a country
that exports 40 per cent of the world's uranium."
 

The Federal Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, says the
Prime Minister can not be trusted on assurances that taking
nuclear waste from overseas is not in the Government's plans.
 
Mr Snowdon says taking overseas waste is on the Government's
hidden agenda.
 
"We know we can't trust the Prime Minister, I'm sure he'd be
encouraging Tollner to go out there and make these statements
knowing that regardless of what any inquiry says he's got the
potential to another 180-degree turn and say at some point down
the line that we should take in high-level nuclear waste from
other countries," he said.
 
*****************************************************************
 47 BBC: Anger over nuclear flask
 
Last Updated: Friday, 7 July 2006
 
[Devonport Dockyard]                            

Spent fuel rods from nuclear subs are removed at the dockyard                                                                

A Devon dockyard said it has changed its procedures
after it emerged a flask carrying radioactive fuel was not
transported correctly. 

A valve plate on the flask was fixed the wrong way round as it
was moved from HMS Talent, a nuclear submarine at Devonport
Dockyard, in April 2005. 

The fault was reported to the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate. 
It concluded that no radioactivity had been released and that
the safety risk was "minor". 

But DML, which manages the dockyard, has been criticised for the
mistake. 

'Very serious' 

Spent fuel rods from the reactors which power the Royal Navy's
nuclear submarine fleet are removed at Devonport Dockyard. 
They are then transported by rail the 400 miles to the
Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria. 

Independent nuclear expert John Large said the April incident
was "a very serious potential event". 

"Since these flasks travel through cities, high density and high
populations you could affect quite a considerable number of
members of the public," he said. 

Nathan Argent from Greenpeace called for an end to nuclear waste
being transported in this way. 

'Unacceptable practice' 

"The fact the public are being put at risk in this manner is
totally outrageous," he said. 

"Greenpeace believes this is an unnecessary, irresponsible and
unacceptable practice and should be stopped in its tracks
today." 

In a statement on Friday, DML said a range of measures were
immediately put in place as a result of a comprehensive
investigation into the incident. 

It said: "DML regards safety in all aspects of its operations as
being of paramount importance. "This is reflected in the highly
detailed reports and remedial actions that resulted from these
incidents." 		 	 		 	 	 

*****************************************************************
 48 The Herald: Call to replace Dounreay jobs as site faces closure   

Web Issue 2566     July 07 2006      

  DAVID ROSS, Highland Correspondent     July 07 2006   
    
  The government was yesterday urged to ensure that Dounreay
does not leave a legacy of unemployment and depopulation.

 The £2.9bn decommissioning programme at the nuclear plant
supports 2500 jobs. The number of jobs is to fall sharply as the
programme continues.

 A draft strategy document on alternative jobs in Caithness and
north Sutherland said yesterday: "The impact of such a reduction
without replacement economic activity would devastate the
employment landscape of the area and could result in a
population reduction."

 The document, produced by a working group involving public
agencies and community and business leaders, has been issued for
consultation.

 Estimates indicate that within 10 years, total employment
associated with the site will have fallen by around 25%. In 20
years, the figure is expected to be about two-thirds, and in 30,
there will only be a handful of jobs, the paper says.

 It adds: "The decision by government to site the experimental
reactor at Dounreay fundamentally altered the socio-economic
future of the north. There is therefore a socio-economic legacy
for which central government is responsible."

 The UK government has the ability and an obligation to use
public sector/civil service employment to overcome the problem,
the paper claims. This would encourage private sector
administration jobs of a similar nature to come to the area, it
argues.

 John Thurso, the LibDem MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
Ross, said: "We are incredibly fortunate in that we have a
decade in which to devise and implement solutions to the problem
of Caithness after Dounreay. But we must start now."
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 49 Platts: EU members should publicize action on nuclear waste - Lords
 
London (Platts)--6Jul2006
 
EU member states should be required to set out what action they 
will take on radioactive waste and publicize the results, the 
UK's House of Lords EU Committee said Thursday in a report. 

     The report, "Managing Nuclear Safety and Waste: the role of 
the EU," looked at proposed EU legislation to harmonize the 
management of nuclear safety and waste across the EU. 

     In addition to the call for EU member states to publicize 
their plans for waste, the committee concluded that national 
safety standards "operate satisfactorily within the framework of 
the UN?s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Convention on 
Nuclear Safety." and suggested that when member states have been 
shown to have broken the convention "information on remedial 
actions and their verification is made publicly available." 

     The report particularly focuses on the involvement of the 
public. "It is difficult to justify the use of nuclear power in 
the EU without allaying the public's anxieties about the ultimate 
fate and potential hazards from radioactive waste," the report 
said. 

     The committee said that EU member states had been "failing 
to educate their citizens about the use of nuclear power." It 
added that the EU should take a lead role in "educating citizens 
about issues relating to nuclear power, how the safety of nuclear 
installations is maintained, and of the action taken and options 
available to Member States to manage the radioactive waste 
produced." 

     The chairman of the inquiry, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, 
said: "If there is to be a policy of continuing or expanding 
nuclear use for future generations it must be allied to a 
determination by the EU to inform the public better about how 
high level radioactive waste can be safely managed in the 
long-term." 

     The Lords would not support EU legislation requiring member 
states to set timetables to dispose of radioactive waste, the 
report said. But they "do see a role for the EU to set a long 
term nuclear energy strategy," it adds. 

     Renton welcomed the interim report from the UK's Committee 
on Radioactive Waste Management. He added: "It will be essential 
for the Government to build upon CoRWM's final recommendations as 
a matter of urgency, and to ensure public views feed into the 
policy decision taken." For more news, request a free trial to 
Platts Power in Europe at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ or subscribe 
now at 
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=2_31&amp;p 
roducts_id=55 http://powerineurope.platts.com
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies] 
*****************************************************************
 50 Huffington Post: Nuclear Waste: "Not in My Backyard!" Then Whose? | 

The Blog 

Raymond J. Learsy: 

July 7, 2006           

READ MORE: Arctic Wildlife Refuge, Global Warming                                                                                                                         

The enveloping miasma of climate change and its risk to us and 
future generations calls for dynamic action to forestall and 
hopefully prevent the disasters ahead.
 
It calls for a clear understanding that this is not a local,
regional, national, continental, nor even hemispheric issue, but
one that is fully global in its reach, its origins, and its
ultimate impact. It will affect each and every one of us in some
important way. And because of its universality, we cannot
conquer the problem alone, though we can accomplish much through
deed and example. Clearly, though, its global dimension demands
a global response -- and the time for meaningful cooperation on
a world scale is slipping away.
 
In my opinion -- and some will disagree -- the most effective
and quickest way to reduce fossil fuel emissions, other than
massively curtailing consumption, is to embrace the enormous
potential of nuclear power. The question before us then is how
to expedite the construction of nuclear facilities and get them
up and running in the shortest time possible. Certainly, one of
the major constraints is the storage and disposal of nuclear
waste. This is not the only concern delaying nuclear power-plant
construction, but it, more than any other, seems to be the
elephant in the room that is holding back the broad and
expeditious application of nuclear energy.
 
Concurrent to nuclear waste storage sites, we also need to
develop advanced recycling technologies that do not produce
separated plutonium. This would significantly diminish nuclear
proliferation concerns, while recycling used fuel would
dramatically reduce the amount of waste requiring permanent
disposal.
 
Understandably, the cry of "not in my backyard" -- even when the
backyard is thousands of miles away at Nevada's Yucca Mountain
-- has been raised to a deafening level, drowning out reasoned
arguments. And this scenario is being replicated in virtually
every corner of the world where nuclear power is being
contemplated or expanded.
 
Yet France, where nearly 80 percent of that nation's electricity
is generated by nuclear power (vs. about 20 percent in this
country, where the newest nuclear facility dates to the 1970s),
finds no such objections. One has to wonder why the French, not
otherwise celebrated for their quiet acquiescence, accede to a
set of conditions that, on their face, would have American
communities up in arms.
 
The answer is not clear because, in large measure, the entire
issue is shielded by a decree of "national security," which is
meant to block debate. You see, France sends thousands of tons
of nuclear waste to Russia each year. And though we know some
details of the arrangement, much is still kept from public view.
And that's a pity. France's arrangement just might provide the
kernel of a solution to the global problem of nuclear waste. If
the Franco-Russian program could be applied globally, it could
offer a solution that transcends borders, is effective,
environmentally rational, and secure.
 
There are vast reaches of the world where nuclear waste disposal
would have a truly minimal social impact and present the least
possible environmental concern. Siberia, the Australian outback,
and the Gobi Desert, the Canadian Shield among others, come to
mind. Stretches of land that could provide an urgently needed
"backyard" to allow the world to get on with the pressing need
to expand the use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy.
 
The International Atomic Energy Agency, working under the
auspices of the United Nations, already oversees the inspection
and monitoring of nuclear power and fissionable materials around
the world. The IAEA has, in its way, become the world watchdog
on nuclear matters. Could the agency not also take on the
oversight of international nuclear waste sites that would be
accessible to all the world's nuclear power plants? The IAEA or
some similar agency could be given full control over both
storage and security at the sites. Admittedly, working out the
details of agency oversight of nuclear waste depots would take
some doing, but given the importance of the issue, it need's be
done.
 
Such a program could be very profitable for any country agreeing
to undertake nuclear waste storage. The Russian government, for
example, recently passed a law to allow additional storage of
nuclear waste on Russian soil. The Ministry of Atomic Energy, or
Minatom, claims that 10,000 to 20,000 tons of high-level nuclear
waste could be imported over the next decade for storage and
reprocessing, and it expects to earn $20 billion from the
waste-storage business. Russia is considering two separate
sites, Chelyabinsk-65 (for reprocessing) and the Novaya Zemlya
archipelago in the Northern Arkhangelsk region (dust off your
atlas).
 
Australia, with some 30 percent of the world's uranium reserves,
is currently meeting 20 percent of the world's need. With
nuclear expansion in China and India, this off-take will grow
considerably in the years ahead. Business proposals aimed at
Australia, which has ideal geological conditions for waste
storage, are proliferating. The Australian government is not
unaware of these overtures, which promise to be highly
profitable.
 
Now for a suggestion closer to home -- and forgive me if I duck
the slings and arrows that will be coming my way. Rather than
drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with the wide and
intrusive footprint ANWR oil development would entail, what if
we set aside a very significantly smaller landmass as our own
Novaya Zemlya archipelago to serve as a national depot for
nuclear waste? We could then get on with building nuclear energy
plants here at home and start taking a big bite out of our
fossil fuel emissions. The caribou and polar bears would still
have ample room to roam and happily carry on. And do not forget,
they, too, have a vested interest in stopping and hopefully
reversing global warming!

Comments                : 

All the protests in the 70's against nuclear power has helped
to create our current oil addiction. 

I hope those responsible (I bet a bunch of you old farts who now
hate Bush were there) should stand up and admit they were wrong.
 
If the French can do it, the US should be the leader, with the
best technology and the safeset record.	
                By: BigSm3llie1 on July 07, 2006 at 02:02pm             
Flag: [abusive]	 	

        Don't duck, listen. You are only slightly right about one
thing - we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Although I'm
glad that you are "trying," you need to take a more global view,
and I don't mean a ludicrous suggestion of offloading our
incredibly toxic, unstable nuclear waste to these poor
third-world countries we're already destroying with our economic
policies. 

That you would even consider anyplace "ideal geological
conditions" for radioactive waste shows just how little you know
about nature and the planet. Just because something apppears to
be a desert with a lot of rock doesn't mean that it doesn't have
an incredibly vibrant and fragile ecosystem that is just as
important to this planet as the oceans, and more important than,
say, your house. You can't seriously be acting like the
arguments against dumping deadly, non-biodegradable corrosive
waste are that caribou won't have "ample room to roam???" Are
you insane? That reasoning would justify a nuclear holocaust!
Never mind the fallout, there's plenty of room now.
 
No, you need to get over your short-term, ahem "vision," and
highly destructive obsession with the glories of the twin
reactors and start stumping for SUSTAINABLE, CLEAN ENERGY and
CONSERVATION in personal choices as well as urban planning and
industrial/real estate development regulation. If we can put a
Rover on Mars, we can sort out the "energy crisis." It's a
matter of priorities - and won't happen as long as entrenched
Big Energy sets our policies with their in-house advocate DICK
cheney and the masses remain bloated and lazy. Please stop
promoting the permanent, irreversible destruction of our planet.	
 		By: sheila on July 07, 2006 at 02:16pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	So the solution is to create a different form of waste
product, one that will remain deadly for the next 20,000 years
or more? Something we can saddle future generations with
managing for us? Why doesn't this sound like a really inviting
alternative?	
 		By: dshaw256 on July 07, 2006 at 02:21pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	The artic wildlife refuge is a lousy place to store nuclear
waste - its huge, with no security and no monitoring.
 
You want to store this stuff in the exact opposite sort of place
- small and with good security and excellent monitoring.
 
I figure the best place to put it isn't in Yucca. Its in
distributed enclaves across the nation.
 
Pick the gated communities of the energy barons, the CEOs, and
the think-tank leadership. Knock down one little mansion in the
center. Store it there.
 
The security will be tighter than the government can afford. And
no where will you find better monitoring. The elite and their
servants will employ all manner of monitoring systems to ensure
their own health and safety.
 
Problem solved.	
 		By: HowardRoarke on July 07, 2006 at 02:31pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	Here is a few places that might do some good if the nuke waste
leaked, a ranch in Crawford Texas that's all hat and no cattle,
both houses of congress and the White house, and where space is
abundant the headlands of Rush Limbaugh's ass.	
 		By: Steven on July 07, 2006 at 02:51pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	Mr. Learsy,
 
You have ducked this question before, so I'm not sure you will
address it this time. But I will try anyway.
 
Q: How much fossil fuel does it take to make a single nuclear
reactor? While you put emphasis on the objections to radioactive
wastes (a perfectly reasonable objection that will not be solve
by armchair solutions), the more subtle and essentially damning
issue is that nuclear reactors aren't built by using the power
from existing nuclear reactors. If you would do your homework
you would find that it takes an exhorbitant amount of
high-potential energy to extract, process and deliver the raw
materials, and then an even greater amount of energy to
manufacture the components and do the final assembly. The key
question then is (especially given the uncertainties surrounding
the disposal of waste) is this effort worth it on net? Please
investigate this issue before you jump to conclusions about how
good nuclear power is for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
 
You say: "In my opinion -- and some will disagree -- the most
effective and quickest way to reduce fossil fuel emissions,
**other than massively curtailing consumption**, is to embrace
the enormous potential of nuclear power."
 
Why "other than"? Indeed, curtailing consumption may be the only
solution in the short-run. It addresses both the global warming
and the oil peaking problems (or if you prefer the oil security
problem). This nation, and the rest of the world, including the
developing countries, are going to curtail their consumption one
way or the other in the coming decades. It is inevitable. What I
find ludicrous is that bickering over issues like nuclear vs.
clean alternative energy is wasting time. If we don't decide
which luxuries we CHOOSE to give up, nature will soon decide
that we give up far more than we will like. 

Stop fretting over the politics and neoclassical economics of
oil/gas/coal and nuclear. Ideological and poorly understood
principles will not help us solve this fundamental problem. The
laws of thermodynamics and energy systems thinking will. But
only if we get going on it now.
 
PS That some nuclear power plant development might be a good
idea is not in question. We should explore the possibilities.
But we cannot believe that this is the central cure to the
energy/GW problems. We should keep our options open by
investigating new technologies in nuclear generation (just as we
should continue to investigate all forms of energy production)
and hold out hope that a breakthrough in production and/or waste
disposal will be found. But wholesale committment to nuclear
would be a gigantic mistake.	
 		By: veracitatus on July 07, 2006 at 03:13pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	-- what if we set aside a very significantly smaller landmass
as our own Novaya Zemlya archipelago to serve as a national
depot for nuclear waste? --
 
no problem, tell us where you live and we'll bury it nextdoor
... 

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and
masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn	
 		By: Nano on July 07, 2006 at 03:14pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	There is no need for nuclear. Period. Wind can supply all the
electricity we will ever need, without pollution. At the end of
a wind farm's life, you simply dismantle the wind towers, break
up the concrete foundations and cover it up with soil. The area
will basically be returned to the way it was.
 All these fools who support nuclear energy should be forced to
store the waste in their own back yards.
 Some types of nuclear waste remain deadly for over 200,000
years. How in the world is any society supposed to protect that
waste for such a period of time?	
 		By: AmericanSon on July 07, 2006 at 03:16pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	One constraint on siting is the "Law of the Sea" treaty which
forbids placing waste in the ocean, in particular trenches at
subduction zones. Designs exist for "projectiles" which would
bury themselves 20m into the muck of a trench 6-7 miles down.
I'm sure bunker-buster research has developed better designs
than those I've seen. Stuff going into a subduction zone won't
make it back to near-surface crust for 10+ million years, ample
time to decay. And even before the slow subduction moves the
stuff under a continental plate it would be a lot harder to
retrieve than to drop. But all this is banned by a fifty year
old treaty.	
 		By: jfb22 on July 07, 2006 at 03:18pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	I agree with you, Mr. Learsy, about the need for nuclear
energy. It's clean, relatively inexpensive, and efficent. I do
worry about the prospect of storing nuclear waste, but I feel
technology can provide an answer for this by, as you said,
developing a way to recycle these by-products.
 
This would not only lessen the danger they pose, it might
actually increase the production output, which might in turn
reduce the number of nuclear plants required to meet our energy
needs. 

We must proceed with caution. Still, proceed we should. However,
I am not a big fan of the idea of private industry running these
plants, I think they should be either controlled directly by the
Department of Energy, or very heavily regulated by that
department.
 
Of course, I would also like to see the US develop the neutron
bomb as a gradual replacement for the hydrogen version, but
that's a somewhat different issue, I guess.	
 		By: Enyalios on July 07, 2006 at 03:28pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	How do we get the nuclear waste to the dumpsites?
 
We put it on trains.
 
What happens when a radioactive waste train derails?
 
If Mr. Learsy has his way, I guess we'll find out.
 
Futhermore, people protested against nuclear power not only
because of the waste but because of the potential disaster of a
China Syndrome, such as what nearly occurred at Three Mile
Island and did occur at Chernobyl.
 
A couple of questions then:
 
Can nuclear power companies be adequately regulated? Republicans
have been rabidly anti-regulatory, and they have shown
themselves to be energy sector whores. Can we really trust them
with policing nuclear power?
 
Can we trust that the new influx of reactors will be adequately
protected? If current reports are true, we can't protect the
ones we have now. What happens when a plane does a nose dive
into one of them? Or someone fires a shoulder-launched rocket? 

If a disaster does occur, can we really trust FEMA or Homeland
Security to act quickly and effectively?
 
Maybe, instead of going nuclear, we should start by reducing
demand for oil. Maybe we should nationalize big oil so we can
stop fighting their wars and use those resources to develop fuel
efficient technologies. Maybe the government will stop holding
up efforts to develop alternative power sources (such as the
Defense Department blocking the construction of windmills).
Maybe they'll restore funding for solar cells, funding that was
slashed to near-death levels when Reagan/Bush made their
faustian agreement with the Saudis in 1985.	
 		By: fallingtree on July 07, 2006 at 03:34pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	[sigh] MOONBAT ALERT!!
 
Jim Lovelock is an absolute GOD to the environmental/anti-GW
bloc...he created the Gaia Hypothesis &is cited by Al Gore for
lotsa stuff in his movie.
 
He too is urging the immediate/massive transition to nuclear
power plants.
 
When you refine uranium into usable fissile stuff, you still
have a massive 'net gain' in how much power you get out vs. how
much you put in.
 
MASSIVE!!! 

Wind &solar are fine for rural areas farms, etc. (though,
apparantly, NOT properties off the Nantucket shoreline that are
populated by Kennedys). But they can never provide the kind of
RELIABLE &STEADY output needed for industry (factories) and
urban areas. 

Not to mention that with wind power, you're trapped in Moonbat
Limbo, as MILLIONS (BILLIONS?) of birds would be killed with
widespread installation of avian Cuisinarts, aka, windmills.
 
"Lower CO2 Emissions" vs. "WIPE OUT ENTIRE SPECIES OF BIRDS" I
can hear moonbat heads exploding as I type this.
 
I think we need to move toward this, but it ain't gonna
(SHOULDN'T) happen overnight. New, SAFE reactor technology is
available (pebble bed), but it must be tested...with moonbat
opposition combining w/prudent science, we're talking decades.	
 		By: deandome on July 07, 2006 at 04:00pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	How about we just shoot the nuclear waste into space? How
about a one-way ticket into the nearest active nuclear
incinerator -- the sun?
 
Too expensive you say?
 
Has anyone compared the cost of a space-shot to the costs of no
nuclear power and the costs of wars-for-oil? To the costs of
fights to pursue earthly burial spots?
 
Yucca Mountain is designed to hold approx 77,000 tons, at a cost
of approx $60 Billion.
 ...
 
Say the launch cost gets down to $1k per pound. (The current
goal for cost-to-ORBIT only. Escape velocity would be more.
Close enough for this exercise.) 

Shooting the same 77,000 TONS into teh sun would imply...
roughly $150 billion.
 
Given how loose these numbers are, suffice it to say, at
2.5-fold they're in the same order-of-magnitude (10-fold)
ballpark.
 
Food for thought.	
 		By: ReasonIsMyReligion on July 07, 2006 at 04:06pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	I agree with you Mr. Learsy...
 And, let's bury the stuff out in the middle of nowhere - like
Yucca Mountain. Who ever goes there? You could stomp around in
the Nevada desert for hundreds of years and never run across
this area.
 Honestly, highly radioactive material is nothing new to the
planet Earth. 
Done corectly, I believe we could effectively manage and recycle
spent fuel rods, reducing much of the waste and find new
technologies to eventually deactivate/recycle/reclaim the rest.
Maybe we just need to put our collective minds to it. 
And, if we put the effort into it, we could come up with more
efficent nuclear power plants that need far less fuel. Nuc.
energy has been largely ignored in the US and no real advances
have been made since the 70's. 
Let's approach it with 21st century ideas and technology and see
what happens.
 Nuclear power is clean and limitless; we shouldn't just give up
on it. Let's face it; it's the only real, large-scale energy
technology out there that can help turn the tide of climate
change in a short time frame.	
 		By: Mikey2 on July 07, 2006 at 04:11pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	 A desert today could be tomorrow's residential area - las
vegas, U.A.E. The problem with the world today stems from the
older generation - extremely self-centred. A trait Mr Learsy has
just displayed.	
 		By: shawshank on July 07, 2006 at 05:14pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	It isn't all just about fossil fuels or the price of oil. The
existing nuclear power plants in the US are nearing the end of
their design life. Someday soon one of these old plants is going
to have a really serious accident. Then we will have to face the
music: shut down 20% of our generating capacity or replace it
with something new.
 
A 21st century design for a new generation nuclear power plant
will probably be the best choice in terms of expediency and
cost.	
 		By: Paul on July 07, 2006 at 05:51pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	Conservation is the best policy. Solar, wind and other non
carbon based energy sources are the best choices. Now for door
number three.
 
No one will make light of the potential for a nuclear disaster.
No matter what the odds, its a crap shoot. Global warming is a
sure thing, its happening and the end results could be
catastrophic. Any right wing, head in the sand, business as
usual, do nothing is wrong on this subject. Therefore, if
nuclear has only a slight chance for disaster and global warming
is a sure bet for disaster, then a, then a, nuclear is safer in
the long run. 

There were some valid reasons why nuclear got a bad rap. Mostly
due to industry's business as usual approach to nuclear power.
This isn't just another power plant, it's NUCLEAR for God's
sake! The same cost cutting, shoddy techniques used in
conventional construction projects were used in nuclear
projects. Much of the work had to be redone and cost overruns
were common. Political games were played and in the end, the
industry received a well deserved black eye. They did such a bad
job that the costs of litigation prohibited any further
development. The surprising bottom line now is that coal fired
plants put out more radioactive materials than nuclear plants
(little known fact). 

No one wants a nuke near them. Industry has a bad track record
for building nuclear plants. However, they have been operated
safely with a great deal of regulation. France produces 80% of
its electricity with nuclear power. Its nuclear power is State
owned (socialism - oogy boogy woogy). So why doesn't our
Government go out to a remote location like say Area 51 and
build five hundred nuclear power plants and convert its existing
stockpile of fissionable material to productive uses. They've
been operating nuclear power plants aboard ships and submarines
for years. They already regulate them. The nuclear storage
facility is in Yucca Mountain Nevada. It would be a better
investment than the War in Iraq. They could sell the electricity
to pay off the National Debt. And we could all sit in our
comfortable houses on our fat butts while watching hours of
mindless television, just like we're doing now and not worry
about killing off the polar bears	
 		By: olephart on July 07, 2006 at 07:07pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	The nuke industry has spent $160 million on PR to change the
prevailing anti-nuke sentiment, without addressing the concerns.
 
The same people that have fought any limits to CO2 are the same
people now pushing this dirty and dangerous alternative, which
would allow them to continue to monopolize energy and gouge
consumers... even after our taxes subsidize billions to build
the death machines.	
 		By: altohone on July 07, 2006 at 07:19pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	I say we dump it all in Marin County !	
 		By: kj on July 07, 2006 at 07:22pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	1. We should use waste-eating reactors like the Canadian
CANDU/ACR design, which use neutrons more efficiently and are
thus able to use waste that is no longer reactive enough to work
in an American plant. There are things that can be done with
fission products (split atoms--the real nuclear waste), too;
airplane wings are deiced with strontium-90 sealed sources and
most others can be used in batteries. It is possible to either
prolong or eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain, but more
importantly, to use fuel more efficiently.
 
2. France does not send nuclear waste to Russia. Depleted
uranium from reprocessing and enrichment is sent to Russia to be
combined with plutonium from Russian nuclear weapons and
returned to France. Greenpeace et al have described these as
"waste shipments" because a reactor can't get energy directly
out of the depleted uranium, regardless of the fact that it's
perfectly good fuel.	
 		By: niof on July 07, 2006 at 07:40pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	Indeed whose?
 Our Australian Prime Minister has been secretly negotiating
with your American President - about sending U.S. nuclear wastes
to us. We don't want to be bought with money for your nuclear
wastes. We don't want this dangerous industry. We want to keep
our beautuful, priceless environment.	
 		By: Christina on July 07, 2006 at 08:15pm		
Flag: [abusive]	 	
 	NUKE SHILLS
 
There is no such thing as "safe" or "clean" nuclear energy. It's
a complete oxymoron. Anyone that's studied the issue at any
depth understands the delusional or sellout pro-nuke corner
shills for the usual blood money suspects.
 
Even residual leakage out of Nuke facilities is cumulative and
unacceptable at the eco-environmental level. It's also
unsustainable.
 
Think again...	
 		By: Hal on July 08, 2006 at 12:14am		
Flag: [abusive]	 	

 Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC  
*****************************************************************
 51 AU ABC: Tollner wants debate on nuclear waste storage. 

07/07/2006. ABC News Online
 	
The Northern Territory Member for Solomon says he would like to
see a discussion on allowing Australia to store overseas nuclear
waste, despite the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have
ruled out the idea. 

Prime Minister John Howard says taking nuclear waste from
overseas is not in the Government's plans.

 Coalition backbencher Dave Tollner says Mr Howard is limiting
the nuclear debate.

 "I'm a bit disappointed that the Prime Minister is now trying
to limit the discussion, but it would be a major step for
Australia to take on the world's nuclear waste," he said.

 Mr Tollner says the nuclear inquiry should include what
ultimately happens to the world's waste and Australia's part in
storing it.

 "My view is that we should have the discussion, and we should
have a pretty thorough investigation into what happens with the
world's nuclear waste," he said.

 "I think that's only fair as global citizens and as a country
that exports 40 per cent of the world's uranium."
Trust

 The Federal Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, says the
Prime Minister can not be trusted on assurances that taking
nuclear waste from overseas is not in the Government's plans.

 Mr Snowdon says taking overseas waste is on the Government's
hidden agenda.

 "We know we can't trust the Prime Minister, I'm sure he'd be
encouraging Tollner to go out there and make these statements
knowing that regardless of what any inquiry says he's got the
potential to another 180-degree turn and say at some point down
the line that we should take in high-level nuclear waste from
other countries," he said.
 
*****************************************************************
 52 GovExec.com: Contractor's rise shows blurred government, industry lines

July 7, 2006 

By Shane Harris, National Journal
 		 
What do designing computers for spies, disposing of nuclear 
waste, running a TV news channel, monitoring employees who 
download porn from the Internet, psychic experiments, and helping 
run the government of Iraq have in common? They're all jobs that 
the Science Applications International Corp. has done for the 
U.S. government. 

SAIC may be one of the biggest companies most people never heard
of. Its executives shy away from media attention. A notable
exception, which also proved the point, was when a spokesman
told the publication Business 2.0, "We are a stealth company."
SAIC's silence has a lot to do with its secrecy-loving clients,
which include the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the
Pentagon. 

The San Diego-based firm does some work for commercial clients
and for state and local governments, but almost 90 percent of
SAIC's revenue comes from contracts with Uncle Sam; last year
those contracts, according to company records, numbered 10,000
and paid out more than $6 billion. Almost half of SAIC's
estimated 43,000 employees have security clearances, and about a
third work in Washington-area offices. The company is,
effectively, an extension of the government workforce. 

SAIC has ranked among the top 10 government contractors, based
on revenue, for the past five years and has reportedly posted
continuous profits in its nearly 40-year history. Much of that
success is owed to the sweet spot that SAIC has found among
military and intelligence agencies. 
The company's single biggest customer is the NSA, which paid
SAIC more than $1 billion to build a computerized information
system to analyze and store the torrent of phone calls, e-mails,
and other electronic data the agency collects every day. The
outgoing second-in-command at NSA is a former SAIC executive,
and the company is so stocked with ex-employees of the agency
that insiders call it "NSA West." 

But the NSA, which is at the center of a national debate over
domestic eavesdropping, is just one SAIC customer, and building
computers is but one task that SAIC has taken on over the years.
Indeed, if you were to ask five people who work with the
company, "What is SAIC, and what does it do?" you'd probably get
five different answers. 

One day it's designing databases, the next it's working to
dispose of hazardous nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain or hiring
Iraqi exiles to set up ministries in a new government. If you
were to ask an SAIC executive what the company does, he might
respond, "What would you like us to do?" (SAIC officials
declined to be interviewed for this story.) 

It seems that SAIC is everywhere, all the time. Its ubiquity "is
a joke" among government contractors, said one former federal
official now in private industry. "They're going to go anywhere
and do anything that will get them a new market. It doesn't
matter what the job is." 

So how did SAIC get so big? You might say it was an accident. 
Kentucky Fried Consulting
 
SAIC was born in 1969, when Robert Beyster, a former research
scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, set up shop with a
few colleagues in a small office in La Jolla, Calif. Beyster had
worked for another California defense contractor, General
Atomics, for 12 years before launching his own firm with the
goal of winning research contracts. 

The first two he got were for Los Alamos and Brookhaven national
laboratories. For most of SAIC's existence, the company earned
accolades by "applying science," as the name attests, to the
government's most challenging technological and engineering
problems. 

Beyster stayed at the helm until his retirement in 2004, and his
entrepreneurial spirit remains, said former employees and
historians who have studied the company. "They're into so many
areas because the initial [business] model was, nothing was
ruled out," said David Kay, a former vice president, who worked
at SAIC from 1993 until 2002. "We used to joke that it really
was Kentucky Fried Chicken consulting." 

In the spirit of Harlan Sanders, a 40-year-old gas station owner
who started selling fried chicken to motorists and spawned a
multibillion-dollar global enterprise, Beyster encouraged any
employee with an idea that could make money to give it a shot.

"The decentralized entrepreneurial idea was that if you had an
idea, you could become a vice president," said Kay, who left
SAIC to head the Iraq Survey Group, which searched for weapons
of mass destruction after the U.S. invasion. 

That doesn't mean that SAIC's methods were erratic. "If you look
at the legacy, it has a scientific bent. Very advanced kind of
academic thinking; very practical application of that advanced
thinking," said Ray Bjorklund, the senior vice president of
FedSources, a research firm in McLean, Va. "But they really
weren't built to do solutions or major implementations,"
designing the hardware and software for large systems and
offering experts to run them. SAIC's traditional niche was where
it began: research. 

But in the mid-1990s, the company's focus changed. Government
departments and agencies began looking for "body shops," Kay
said, companies that provide them with personnel to augment
their own workforce, usually because the government is
shorthanded or lacks the skills for a particular job. 
In the late 1990s, SAIC acquired other firms that opened the
door to the "professional services" market, an ambiguous label
that usually implies that a company is offering to run the
physical product it sells. SAIC began eyeing big contracts with
the potential for enormous revenue. "As long as you could make
money ... no one said, 'No, you can't do it,' " Kay said. 

As the company's revenues grew, so did its employee roster. SAIC
is wholly owned by its employees, who trade shares of company
stock internally. Ownership has proved to be a powerful
incentive to stay with the firm. Last year, SAIC announced an
initial public stock offering, which executives hoped would
total $1.7 billion. That's only $100 million less than Google's
IPO two years ago. 

Perhaps knowing that SAIC could make them very rich, scores of
former high-ranking government officials have landed there after
retiring from public service. Many, but not all, hail from the
intelligence agencies. The former chief information officer for
the Social Security Administration, a former deputy
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a
former Defense official in charge of health affairs brought
their Rolodexes to SAIC, which does business with all of those
agencies. 

The number and complexity of tasks for which the government uses
contractors has increased in recent years, said Robert Kipps,
the managing director of the aerospace, defense, and government
group at Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, an international
investment bank that represents SAIC. Former government
officials can lead companies toward business with their old
employers. 

Working for an intelligence agency, in particular, requires an
intimate understanding of the work that agency does. "The best
place to get that is having been in those shoes before," Kipps
said. And once a contractor gets a foothold inside an agency,
it's hard for a competitor to kick that contractor out. 

Perhaps that expertise is what led SAIC to its biggest customer
of all, the one that may also be its biggest liability. 
Getting Big
 
In 1997, William Black, a decorated NSA manager who spent almost
40 years at the agency, retired and became a vice president at
SAIC. According to Black's official NSA biography, his expertise
lay in "building new organizations and creating new ways of
doing business." 

In the late 1990s, that's just what SAIC was hoping to do. The
company hired Black "for the sole purpose of soliciting NSA
business," said Matthew Aid, an intelligence historian who is
writing a three-volume history of the agency. 

In March 1999, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden became the NSA's
director. Almost immediately, talk began circulating publicly
about a massive contract to outsource the agency's data centers,
personal computers, telecommunications, and other administrative
systems under a program known as "Groundbreaker." SAIC didn't
plan to compete for a lead spot in the contract but indicated
that it would pursue subcontracting opportunities. 

The company would not stay in supporting roles for long,
however. Amid the first hints of Groundbreaker, the NSA began
another program, called "Trailblazer," to manage its enormous
daily catch of intelligence. In 2000, Hayden called Black back
to the agency to be his second-in-command. 

Two years later SAIC won the Trailblazer contract; Black was in
charge of managing the program. "SAIC had made its living acting
as a subcontractor on a lot of NSA contracts," Aid said. "Then,
under Bill Black, they got promoted to the big leagues." 

Work for the federal government has been largely responsible for
SAIC's growth, eclipsing the company's private sector contracts.
From 1998 to 2002, the company won several lucrative contracts,
including a $1.2 billion deal to manage computer systems for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and others potentially
worth billions to provide a huge array of professional services
to different agencies. 

SAIC's revenues also moved up. According to information that
SAIC provided to the government and that was compiled by
Government Executive magazine, in fiscal 2000, the company took
in $2.5 billion in federal work. By fiscal 2002, revenue was up
to $3.5 billion, and it jumped almost 35 percent to $4.7 billion
the following year. 

Those figures only include contracts for which SAIC was the
lead, and it omits work for intelligence agencies, so the actual
increase is larger. Today, total government revenues exceed $6
billion. 

Just as SAIC grew by winning larger contracts, it also expanded
by buying other companies, particularly small firms with
expertise in specific areas. "All were fairly well run," Aid
said. But SAIC "went out in great haste, and with minimal due
diligence, and bought a whole bunch of companies in wide
business areas.... There was no sense how they were all going to
fit together." 

SAIC started "buying for the sake of buying," Aid said. "They
took a page from the impatient corporate raiders of the 1980s:
Why actually spend time building something when you can buy it?" 

To some extent, the strategy was driven by necessity.

Particularly in the intelligence field, SAIC needed a supply of 
employees with clearances to access classified information, 
sometimes even targeted to specific programs. In the intelligence 
business, "you're either in or you're out," Kipps said, and often 
the ticket in is a security clearance. "You will never get in 
without buying" companies that have cleared employees, he said. 
That's what SAIC did, and it quickly rose to the top of the 
ranks. 

The former government official who became a contractor said that
SAIC's strategy has been to ensconce itself in as many areas as
possible without becoming too rooted in any one of them. "They
want to touch a piece of everything, yet never be the masters of
all of it," he said. 

The approach stems from those early, entrepreneurial days, when
Beyster encouraged employees to try anything that might work,
without centrally controlling the business and forcing people to
focus. "That has provided breadth at the expense of depth," the
former official said. 

For big projects like the NSA's Trailblazer, a company needs to 
have depth of experience in managing many different pieces of 
business and integrating them into a whole. If that was something 
SAIC truly lacked, it would show. 

In Too Deep
 
Trailblazer was an abysmal failure. After more than $1.2 billion
in development costs, the agency and SAIC have practically
nothing to show for their efforts and have effectively abandoned
years of work. The effort "has resulted in little more than
detailed schematic drawings filling almost an entire wall,"
according to The Baltimore Sun, which published an exhaustive
account of the Trailblazer fiasco, and SAIC's role in it, in
January. 

Ultimately, the entrepreneurial idea shop appears to have gotten
in over its head. SAIC "did not provide enough people with the
technical or management skills to produce such a sophisticated
system" and "did not say no when the NSA made unrealistic
demands," The Sun reported, citing numerous intelligence and
industry officials. 

Trailblazer was not SAIC's only setback. It tried in vain to
build an electronic case-management system, known as the
"Virtual Case File," for the FBI. After what observers and
participants described as frequent management failures and a
lack of organization -- at the bureau and at the company -- the
program was scrapped last year. The FBI had spent more than $100
million. 

SAIC was also tapped in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, to set
up a U.S.-friendly television network in Baghdad, which
officials hoped to use for messages and stories about
reconstruction. SAIC was supposed to train local journalists and
set up a newspaper, but the work fell apart amid criticism that
the company was producing an amateurish product that did little
to get word of U.S. efforts to the Iraqi public. 

The Pentagon replaced SAIC in January 2004 with another
contractor. "They were clueless as to how to run a media
network," Kay said. "It was horribly directed. It shouldn't have
been done." 

All large companies eventually hit obstacles, some of which are
more spectacular than others. But when contractors fail, it's
usually not because of a lack of experience in a given area.
SAIC's case is troubling, observers say, because it arguably
shouldn't have gotten some jobs in the first place. 

When agencies decide to award contracts, "one of the things they
look for is core competency," Aid said. "This company doesn't
have it, because there is no core." SAIC's business model "is a
model of models," the former government official said. "They are
different things depending on the customer." 

In that sense, SAIC is a prime example of the blurring lines
between government, which traditionally has run itself, and
private industry, which is taking over some of government's
tasks. 

Looking at the increasing privatization of once-core national
security and intelligence functions, Aid asks, "Is the United
States government capable of running these operations anymore?"
Often, the answer is no. Dependence on contractors has never
been higher or more evident. Outside firms build critical
computer systems; private-sector employees work alongside
government intelligence analysts; outside companies have even
provided interrogators to work with U.S. soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan. 

"I think the process has crept up on us, and it's not ever been
announced or specifically authorized," said Rep. David Price,
D-N.C. "I question it." 

Price has authored legislation requiring the director of
national intelligence to submit a report to the congressional
Intelligence committees detailing how contracts are regulated.
The report, not all of which would be public, would include the
minimum standards for hiring and training contractors, and the
procedures for preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. 

And for contracts worth more than $1 million, individual
agencies would have to disclose the number of people they hired
for a particular project, as well as a description of how those
employees were trained and the work they do. The DNI would also
have to recommend ways to improve hiring and training of
government employees. 

"One has to ask about ... the extent to which the legitimate
organs of government, over which we exercise funding control and
oversight, are really in charge," Price said. "The contractors
in some areas may have become the tail that wags the dog."
Price's proposal is included in the pending 2007 Intelligence
Authorization Act. 

SAIC may also face oversight of a different kind should it
decide to go public. Wall Street analysts could judge the
company harshly if it botches more high-profile contracts, even
though the vast majority of SAIC's work presumably goes
smoothly. 

"If SAIC stumbles, which could happen again, then the market
sentiment may just drag down the valuation of their stock," said
Bjorklund, the research firm executive. 

In the meantime, SAIC has set its sights even higher. Its chief
executive, Kenneth Dahlberg, has said he wants revenues to hit
$12 billion by 2008. It's a lofty goal, but if SAIC attains it,
talk of contract failures, inexperience, and government
oversight will fade into the background. Ultimately, one measure
stands above the rest, the former government official said. "You
can't argue with revenue." 

©2006 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 UPI: Australia bans foreign nuclear waste
     
  United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

7/7/2006 6:44:00 PM -0400                                                                                                               Newstrack:
 		 		 			
CANBERRA, Australia, July 7 (UPI) -- A government taskforce
investigating nuclear energy is being criticized after Prime
Minister John Howard rejected Australia receiving foreign
nuclear waste. 

Two days after the taskforce issued a statement asserting that
among topics it would investigate included handling foreign
nuclear waste Howard said Australia would not take accept
foreign nuclear debris. 

The Age reported on July 7 that last month Howard defended
importing spent nuclear fuel from countries that buy Australian
uranium following a visit to Washington, where he was reportedly
briefed about a U.S. plan for Australia to export enriched
uranium and store foreign nuclear waste. 

Howard told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, "I am not
going to have this country used as some kind of repository for
other people's nuclear problems ... waste problems." 

Opposition Deputy Leader Jenny Macklin criticized Howard,
saying, "We can see quite clearly today (the inquiry) is not
independent, it's going to be doing whatever John Howard tells
them." 

Parliamentary questions were also asked about a visit earlier
this week by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane to a Scottish
nuclear power plant after the British media reported that the
facility was among several ageing nuclear reactors whose cores
had cracks in their graphite bricks.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
 		 				 	 	 	 		advertisement
*****************************************************************
 54 Times and star: BNG leaks case sentence delayed
	 		
Published on 07/07/2006

SELLAFIELD operators British Nuclear Group will not be at Crown 
Court today to be sentenced for the radioactive leak which closed 
the Thorp plant.
 
Last month the company admitted three charges, brought by the 
Health and Safety Executive, after the leak was discovered last 
April after going undetected for nine months.
 
BNG was supposed to be sentenced at Carlisle Crown Court today 
but the case was adjourned due to a change in the court schedule.
 
A BNG spokeswoman said the company had not requested an 
adjournment and it would probably be â€œwell into Augustâ€ 
before a new date for the case was set.
 
The firm faces an unlimited fine in the crown court after 
Whitehaven magistrates, who heard the original case, decided 
their sentencing powers were not sufficient. They could only fine 
BNG up to Â£15,000.
 
There is no upper limit on what the company can be fined in the 
crown court.
 
Thorp, Sellafieldâ€™s Â£1.8billion flagship reprocessing plant, 
is still closed after the leak of 83,000 litres of highly 
radioactive liquor from a fractured pipe within the feed 
clarification cell at Thorp.
 
Although the leak posed no risk to health and safety or to the 
environment, it is estimated to have cost the group Â£50,000.
 
*****************************************************************
 55 Pahrump Valley Times: Senate panel cuts Yucca funding for 2007 

July 5, 2006

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON - A key Senate committee on June 29 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 DOE to limit spending
on a planned waste canister-handling complex at the Yucca site,
and on transportation activities. DOE also was advised 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, coupled with delays in the program, "have forced
the committee to reconsider the project's budget needs."

 The bill also 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 leading repository opponent, wrote portions of the
legislation that was approved by the panel Thursday and sent on
to the full Senate.

 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, a
significant change in nuclear waste policy. 

It also fully funds at $250 million the Bush administration's
2007 request for a nuclear waste reprocessing initiative called
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

 Taken together, the waste components of the bill "acknowledge
that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump is failing, and
that we must look at other solutions," Reid said. 

The Energy Department had no comment Thursday on the Yucca
Mountain provisions, a spokesman said.

 DOE officials last October initiated 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 so-called TAD canisters could simplify operations at
Yucca, they said, most of the waste handling instead 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 DOE faces hurdles
in making the canisters available in time for licensing and use
by utilities.

 Board members also questioned how the specially designed
containers would get to Yucca Mountain if DOE meets delays in
building a railroad line to the site.

 They also said DOE was unable to provide enough details at a
May 9 presentation about 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 bill also 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, according to Reid's office.

 The House passed a corresponding bill in May that contains full
funding for Yucca Mountain, cuts GNEP spending to $120 million
and takes another approach to interim waste storage.

 The two bills will be reconciled later this year. Because they
contain controversial provisions, they may be among the final
pieces of business for Congress, possibly in a post-election
lame duck session, congressional officials and lobbyists said.

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 56 Las Vegas SUN: Geologist: Yucca Mountain assessment lacks geological input 

Today: July 07, 2006 at 16:6:15 PDT 

By SANDRA CHEREB ASSOCIATED PRESS 

RENO, Nev. (AP) - A geologist who spent a decade researching,
compiling and editing a book of scientific analyses of the Yucca
Mountain project said the Department of Energy's assessment
lacks sufficient geological input and is fraught with
uncertainty. 

"Yucca Mountain is a complex site geologically," Allison
Macfarlane told the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects at a
meeting here Friday. 

"This is a very uncertain endeavor, and we shouldn't be rushing
into it." 

Macfarlane and Rodney Ewing, a professor at the University of
Michigan, co-edited the book, "Uncertainty Underground; Yucca
Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste." 

"It really is all based on geology," Macfarlane said. "It was
surprising and alarming to us that there wasn't more geologic
input. It's really important, it's essential, that enough people
in the policy arena grasp these issues to make decisions." 

Some of the 23 scientific papers in the anthology focus on
regional climate change over a period longer than recorded human
history and raise questions about whether water seeping through
the site will, over tens of thousands of years, dissolve
canisters encasing spent nuclear reactor fuel and leach
radioactivity into groundwater. 

Others focus on whether computerized DOE performance models are
accurate and adequate, and whether the site could resume
volcanic activity. 

"The scientific community will review the book. We will not
review the book," said Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy
Department and the Yucca Mountain project in Las Vegas. 

"There's a lot of good work in that book," Benson said. "But we
have spent several billion dollars and more than 20 years of
intensive scientific research, which resulted in ... Congress
designating Yucca Mountain for development as the repository." 

He said the DOE intends to demonstrate in its license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "that we can
protect the public health and safety." 

"It's not a question of taking our word for it," he added. 

Macfarlane, 42, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
researcher, said she's not opposed to geologic repositories to
dispose of spent nuclear fuel piling up at reactors and
government facilities in 39 states. 

"But it's not clear Yucca Mountain is the right location," she
said, "especially when you extend it out 1 million years. You
have to be willing to live with a lot of uncertainty." 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revamped its radiation
safety standard to cover 1 million years after a federal court
in Washington, D.C., rejected an earlier 10,000-year standard. 
Besides concerns over earthquakes and groundwater water levels
and movement, Macfarlane said the DOE's assessment doesn't take
into account global warming. 

The DOE, she said, looked at the last 400,000 years to predict
future climate changes. 

"But what they didn't do is include the potential effect of
climate change by accumulation of greenhouse gases, especially
carbon dioxide, over the next couple hundred of years." 

Macfarlane said current carbon dioxide levels in the Yucca
Mountain region are around 380 parts per million. Preindustrial
levels were in the 200s. 

By 2100, she predicted, "we could easily see numbers in the
1,000s," something that hasn't occurred in 50 million years. 
"And that is highly alarming," Macfarlane said, adding that that
long ago, "we were a lot wetter and a lot hotter everywhere." 

--- 
Associated Press writer Ken Ritter in Las Vegas also contributed
to this report. 
-- 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Site-Wide Environmental 
 
                         FR Doc 06-6055 
[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)] 
[Notices] [Page 38638-38640] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07jy06-66]                         
 
Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
 
 
[[Page 38639]] ACTION: Notice of availability and public 
hearings.
 
SUMMARY: NNSA announces the availability of the Draft Site-wide 
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (LANL Draft 
SWEIS) (DOE/ EIS-0380), and the dates and locations for the 
public hearings to receive comments on the Draft LANL SWEIS. The 
Draft LANL SWEIS was prepared in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
Implementing Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the DOE 
NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). The Draft LANL 
SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated 
with continuing ongoing Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 
operations and foreseeable new and modified operations and 
facilities. The Draft LANL SWEIS analyzes the No Action 
Alternative and two action alternatives: a Reduced Operations 
Alternative and an Expanded Operations Alternative. The No Action 
Alternative would continue currently assigned operations at LANL 
in support of DOE and NNSA missions. The Reduced Operation 
Alternative also includes most operations discussed under the No 
Action Alternative with reductions to certain LANL activities 
below the No Action Alternative level. The Expanded Operations 
Alternative includes operations discussed under the No Action 
Alternative plus new and expanded levels of operations in support 
of reasonably foreseeable future mission requirements.
 
 
DATES: The NNSA invites members of Congress, American Indian 
Tribal Governments, state and local governments, other Federal 
agencies, and the general public to provide comments on the Draft 
LANL SWEIS.
 
The comment period extends from the publication of this Notice of 
Availability through September 5, 2006. Written comments must be 
received or postmarked by September 5, 2006. Comments postmarked 
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable. The 
NNSA will consider the comments in the preparation of the Final 
LANL SWEIS. Public hearings to present information and receive 
comments on the Draft LANL SWEIS will be held at three locations. 
This information will also be published in local New Mexico 
newspapers in advance of the hearings. Any necessary changes will 
be announced in the local media and on the web site noted in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice. Oral and written comments will 
be accepted at the public hearings.
 
The locations, dates, and times for these public hearings are as 
follows: Tuesday, August 8, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., 
Fuller Lodge, Pajarito Room, 2132 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, NM.
 
Wednesday, August 9, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., Northern 
New Mexico Community College, Eagle Memorial Sportsplex, 921 
Paseo de Onate, Espa ola, NM.
 
Thursday, August 10, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., Santa Fe 
Community College, Main Building, Jemez Rooms, 6401 Richards 
Avenue, Santa Fe, NM.
 
The following Web site may be accessed for additional 
information: http://www.doeal.gov/laso/nepa/sweis.htm. For 
information or to record comments call 1-877-491-4957
 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft LANL SWEIS are available for 
review at: The Los Alamos Outreach Center, 1619 Central Avenue, 
Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544; the Office of the Northern New 
Mexico Citizens Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, 
Santa Fe, New Mexico; and the Zimmerman Library, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131. The Draft SWEIS will 
also be available on the Department of Energy Los Alamos Site 
Office's LASO NEPA website at: 
http://www.doeal.gov/laso/nepa/sweis.htm. Additionally, a copy of 
the Draft LANL SWEIS or its Summary may be obtained upon request 
by writing to: U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 
Security Administration, Los Alamos Site Office, Attn: Ms. 
Elizabeth Withers, Office of Environmental Stewardship, 528 35th 
Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544; or by facsimile ((505) 
667-5948); or by e-mail at:

 
LANL_SWEIS@doeal.gov. Specific information regarding the public 
hearings can also be obtained by the means described above. 
Comments concerning the Draft LANL SWEIS can be submitted to the 
NNSA Los Alamos Site Office by the means described above or by 
leaving a message on the LASO EIS Hotline at (toll free) 
1-877-491-4957. The Hotline will have instructions on how to 
record comments. Please mark all envelopes, faxes and e-mail: 
``Draft LANL SWEIS Comments''.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on NNSA 
NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Alice Williams, NA-56, NEPA 
Compliance Officer for Defense Programs, U.S. Department of 
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or telephone 
202-586-6847, or Ms.
 
Elizabeth Withers, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Los Alamos Site Office, 528 35th Street, Los Alamos, New 
Mexico, 87004, or telephone 505-845-4984. For general information 
about the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose and need for 
continued operation of LANL is to provide support for DOE and 
NNSA core missions as directed by Congress and the President. 
NNSA's need to continue operating LANL is focused on their 
obligation to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons 
stockpile. LANL is also needed to support other Federal agencies, 
including the Department of Homeland Security. The Draft LANL 
SWEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of operations at LANL.
 
LANL is located in north-central New Mexico and covers an area of 
about 40 square miles (104 square kilometers). LANL was 
established in 1943 as ``Project Y'' of the Manhattan Project 
with a single-focused national defense mission--to build the 
world's first nuclear weapon. After World War II ended, Project Y 
was designated a permanent research and development laboratory 
and its mission support work was expended from defense and 
related research and development to incorporate a wide variety of 
new work assignments in support of other Federal Government and 
civilian programs. LANL is now a multi-disciplinary, multipurpose 
institution engaged in theoretical and experimental research and 
development.
 
DOE issued a Final SWEIS and Record of Decision in 1999 for the 
continued operation of LANL. DOE regulations implementing NEPA 
require the evaluation of site-wide NEPA analyses every five 
years to determine their continued applicability; such a 
five-year evaluation was initiated for the 1999 SWEIS in 2004, 
and NNSA subsequently made a determination to prepare a new SWEIS 
for LANL operations.
 
Decisions regarding LANL operations that will be based upon 
impact information contained within this SWEIS will replace 
previous decisions announced through the 1999 ROD for LANL 
operations.
 
The alternatives evaluated in the Draft LANL SWEIS represent a 
range of operational levels ranging from the
 
[[Page 38640]] minimal reasonable activity levels (Reduced 
Operations Alternative), to the highest reasonable activity 
levels that could be supported by current facilities, plus the 
potential expansion and construction of new facilities for 
existing capabilities and for specifically identified future 
actions (Expanded Operations Alternative). The No Action 
Alternative would continue current mission support work at LANL 
and includes approved interim actions and facility construction, 
expansions or modifications, and decontamination and 
decommissioning for which NEPA impact analysis has already been 
completed. All alternatives assume LANL will continue to operate 
as a NNSA national security laboratory for the foreseeable 
future.
 
Following the end of the public comment period described above, 
the NNSA will consider and respond to the comments received, and 
issue the Final LANL SWEIS. The NNSA will consider the 
environmental impact analysis presented in the Final LANL SWEIS, 
along with other information, in determining the Record of 
Decision for the continued operation of LANL.
 
Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of May 2006.
 
Thomas P. D'Agostino, Acting Administrator, National Nuclear 
Security Administration.
 
[FR Doc. 06-6055 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 DOE: DOE Publishes Roadmap for Developing Cleaner Fuels

  July 7, 2006
 
Research Aimed at Making Cellulosic Ethanol a Practical
Alternative to Gasoline 

WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
released an ambitious new research agenda for the development of
cellulosic ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.  The 200-page
scientific roadmap cites recent advances in biotechnology that
have made cost-effective production of ethanol from cellulose,
or inedible plant fiber, an attainable goal.  The report
outlines a detailed research plan for developing new
technologies to transform cellulosic ethanola renewable,
cleaner-burning, and carbon-neutral alternative to gasolineinto
an economically viable transportation fuel. 

Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to be a major source for
transportation fuel for Americas energy future, Under
Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach said. Low production
cost and high efficiency require transformational changes in
processing cellulose to ethanol. DOEs Genomics: GTL program is
poised to help do just that. 

The roadmap responds directly to the goal recently announced by
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman of displacing 30 percent of
2004 transportation fuel consumption with biofuels by 2030. This
goal was set in response to the President's Advanced Energy
Initiative. 

The roadmap identifies the research required for overcoming
challenges to the large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol
to help meet this goal, including maximizing biomass feedstock
productivity, developing better processes by which to break down
cellulosic materials into sugars, and optimizing the
fermentation process to convert sugars to ethanol.  Cellulosic
ethanol is derived from the fibrous, woody and generally
inedible portions of plant matter (biomass).
 
The focus of the research plan is to use advances in
biotechnology -- first developed in the Human Genome Project and
continued in the Genomics: GTL program in the Departments
Office of Science -- to jump-start a new fuel industry whose
products can be transported, stored and distributed with only
modest modifications to the existing infrastructure and can fuel
many of todays vehicles.   

The new roadmap was developed during a December 2005 workshop
hosted jointly by the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research in the Office of Science and the Office of the Biomass
Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
 The success of the plan relies heavily on the continuation of
the partnership between the two offices established at that
workshop.
 
Biofuels represent a tremendous opportunity to move our nation
toward a reduced dependence on imported oil, DOE Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander
Karsner said.  We fully intend to use all of our resources and
talent to support the Presidents goal of breaking our addiction
to oil, while also enhancing our energy security.
 
The report, Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic
Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda, and a fact sheet on the
report may be viewed at .
 
For more information about the Genomics: GTL program in the
Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the Office of
Science, see http://www.doegenomestolife.org/.   For more
information on the Office of the Biomass Program in the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, see .  

Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: Secretary Bodman Opens New Science and Technology Facility 
at NREL & Touts 121,000 Jobs Created Nationwide in June
 
  July 7, 2006
 
Secretary Bodman Opens New Science and Technology Facility at
NREL & Touts 121,000 Jobs Created Nationwide in June 
GOLDEN, CO  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W.
Bodman today cut the ribbon to officially open the DOE National
Renewable Energy Laboratorys (NREL) Science & Technology
Facility (S&TF), in Golden, Colorado.  This 71,000-squarefoot,
$22.6-million, state-of-the-art facility is designed to help
accelerate the development and commercialization of promising
new energy technologies, particularly in solar and hydrogen and
building-related energy technologies.  

NREL is a world leader in developing important energy resources
that will help power our nations growing economy for
generations to come, Secretary Bodman said.  This new Science
and Technology Facility will enable government and industry to
work side by side to accelerate the scientific discovery and
marketability of new, clean and renewable energy sources that
will help strengthen our nations energy security. 

Secretary Bodman was joined by DOE Under Secretary David K.
Garman to tout the 121,000 jobs created nationwide in June, and
to tour the new facility.  The advanced research that will be
conducted at S&FT will directly contribute to achieving the
goals outlined in President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative
(AEI), which provides a 22-percent increase in clean energy
research at DOE and seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign
energy sources by changing the way we power our cars, homes and
businesses.
 
The S&TF will play an important role in achieving the goals of
the Solar America Initiative (SAI), an integral part of the
Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative.  The SAI aims to bring
down the cost of solar energy systems to make them competitive
with conventional electricity sources in the U.S. by 2015,
leading to substantial increase in domestic-installed solar
electricity generating capacity.  

A major component of the facility is the 11,500-sq-ft Process
Development and Integration Laboratory, which will allow NREL
researchers, working in coordination with industry, to develop
new manufacturing processes.  This will allow industry
representatives and researchers to work side-by-side to reduce
the time it takes to move new technologies from the laboratory
bench to commercial manufacturing.  Specifically, researchers
will be able to address complex manufacturing issues for the
next generation of renewable energy technologies in electricity
from solar cells, hydrogen fuel cells and distributed energy.
 
Ground was broken for the S&TF in July 2004, and construction,
headed by M.A. Mortenson Company, began in February 2005.  The
S&TF features space for 75 full time researchers.
 
Secretary Bodmans also highlighted DOEs recently announced
$170-million, three-year, solicitation  (FY 07-09) for
cost-shared, public-private partnerships to advance solar energy
technology.  The solicitation will focus on building
partnerships for development, testing, demonstration,
validation, and deployment of new photovoltaic (PV) components,
systems and manufacturing equipment.  PV materials are
semiconductors that convert sunlight directly into electricity. 
DOE is requesting proposals from industry-led teams, which may
include one or more companies, universities, national
laboratories, and/or non-governmental organizations.  Because
DOE is requiring that the industry-led teams match their awards
dollar for dollar, a total investment of $340 million will be
realized when the private cost share is included.
 
Secretary Bodman also discussed the overall health of the U.S.
economy, underscored by employment figures released today.  In
addition to touting the 121,000 jobs created nationwide last
month, the Secretary discussed the positive impacts research and
development can have on strengthening Americas energy and
economic security.  The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, the
lowest than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. 
The economy has created about 1.85 million jobs over the past 12
months, and more than 5.4 million since August 2003.  These
figures indicate that the American economy is strong by almost
any measure.  

NREL is the nations primary laboratory for renewable energy and
energy efficiency R&D.  Established in 1974, NREL began
operating in 1977 as the Solar Energy Research Institute.  It
was designated a national laboratory of DOE in September 1991
and its name changed to NREL.
 
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 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 60 Platts: Russia to use G8 to display global energy role: DOE official
 
Washington (Platts)--6Jul2006
 
Russia wants to turn the upcoming G8 summit into a display of its 
status as a key global energy player, while the US will press for 
free markets, Karen Harbert, assistant secretary for policy and 
international affairs at the US Department of Energy, said 
Thursday.

     She added trade would be among the top US priorities at the 
July 15-17 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Harbert, who spoke 
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, listed 
securing critical energy infrastructure, energy markets, and 
hydrocarbon alternative energy sources as among the energy issues 
that will be discussed at the summit. 

     Nuclear power will be discussed, she said, noting the US has 
a long history of cooperation with Russia on nuclear 
nonproliferation issues. Russian plans for a nuclear waste 
repository and DOE's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
program also will be discussed, she said.

                     ---Elaine Hiruo, elaine_hiruo@platts.com

     For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics 
Week at http://nucweek.platts.com or subscribe now at 
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&amp; 
products_id=67

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies] 
*****************************************************************
 61 Inside Bay Area: Lab's drug testing scrutinized

Article Last Updated: 07/07/2006 09:56:58 AM PDT  

Audit reveals reliability standards not met at Livermore nuclear
facility

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  

  Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory fell short of
the rigorous drug and alcohol checks demanded of employees in
the most sensitive jobs, investigators said Thursday. 

Until recently, two-thirds of drug and alcohol tests on workers
who handle explosives, weapons-grade plutonium, firearms for
security and other sensitive tasks were performed within a month
of the anniversary of the employees' last test, rather than
randomly as federal rules require, according to the Office of
Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Energy. 

The lab also does not test for common hallucinogens and
prescription narcotics, and supervisors have not asked workers
called in unexpectedly whether they had used drugs or alcohol
within the previous four hours, auditors for the inspector
general reported Thursday. 

The report did not list any incidents or wrongdoing associated
with drug or alcohol use but rather focused on loose application
of the Energy Department's "Human Reliability Program," a set of
requirements for testing and scrutiny of employees in sensitive, 
national-security jobs. 

Livermore Lab officials said they have tightened the program.
Workers called in unexpectedly now are asked about recent drug
or alcohol use, and a computer program is being used to set
random dates for drug and alcohol testing. 

The lab does not test for drugs other than cocaine, heroin and
other typical recreational drugs, but Energy Department
regulations do not require that. 

ployees to be tested for other drugs. 

"We periodically identify people in work who are overly tired or
unfit for duty," said Rex Beach, Livermore deputy associate
director for environment, safety and health. "But we've never
seen an incident here where that's not been caught and has
resulted in an accident or compromise of security."   
                  
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  

*****************************************************************
 62 Newsday.com: Contractor sues BNL for $50M - 

BY ERIK GERMAN Newsday Staff Writer
 	 	
July 7, 2006

The Montana company that Brookhaven National Laboratory 
contracted with to clean up radioactive soil last year has sued 
the lab's operators for $50 million in federal court, saying the 
lab lied about the size of the job and failed to pay enough for 
the work.
 
The suit, filed June 23 by Envirocon Inc. in U.S. District Court
in Central Islip, said BNL "intended to deceive the Contractor"
about the amount of low-level radioactive soil that needed to be
removed from a former hazardous waste management facility at the
lab.
 
Envirocon agreed on a price of $3.86 million to move 9,777 cubic 
yards of soil but ended up hauling 16,359 cubic yards - almost 
doubling the number of rail cars needed to transport the dirt and 
adding six months to a project expected to take 101 days, the 
suit says.
 
According to the suit, BNL compelled Envirocon to complete the
additional work with unkept promises of payment and by
"threatening to 'call the bond,'" - informing the third party
insuring the project that Envirocon had failed to uphold its
contract. Such a move would make it impossible to get work in
the future, said Keith Bonner, Envirocon's Washington,
D.C.-based attorney.
 
"They were holding it over our heads, no question," Bonner said.
 
Attorneys for the laboratory acknowledged that Envirocon did
more work than was laid out in the original contract, but said
BNL updated the contractor throughout the project about
additions to the job.
 
"We provided them all the information regarding the scope of the
project," said laboratory counsel Michael McCann. "The contract
was modified at least four times and added additional scope."
 
McCann declined to comment on other details alleged in
Envirocon's complaint except to say that $50 million was an
unrealistic amount to demand.
 
"Obviously we don't think they're going to get anywhere near
that, even if they're successful in their suit," he said. 	 

*****************************************************************
 63 Las Vegas SUN: Funding could restart idled pulsed energy
generator in Nevada 

Today: July 07, 2006 at 10:26:7 PDT 

By STEVE TETREAULT and KEITH ROGERS ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A 650-ton high-energy generator used in weapons
research would begin humming again at the Nevada Test Site under
a bill recently approved by a Senate panel. 

Lawmakers allocated $14.5 million in a 2007 Energy Department
spending bill to resume operating the idled Atlas pulsed power
machine, which cost the government more than $20 million to
relocate to the test site from the Los Alamos, N.M., national
laboratory. 

At a ceremony at the test site two years ago, the
80-foot-diameter machine was touted as one of the most advanced
of its type in the world and an important physics tool to help
weapons scientists understand how plutonium and other components
of nuclear bombs fare as they age in the stockpile. 

The experiments that were conducted used non-nuclear materials
such as aluminum to simulate what happens to bomb materials when
they are crushed by a powerful magnetic field. 

The machine also has applications for research by university
scientists into fusion, the process of using magnetic fields to
confine the energy released from the joining or fusing of atoms. 
The funding would reverse an Energy Department shutdown if
Congress finalizes the amount later this year, said a
spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. 

Reid does not believe it makes sense to have spent $20 million
to move the Atlas machinery to Nevada and then shut it down,
spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. 

"Sen. Reid thinks it is a very valuable program," Stein said. "A
lot of scientists for UNLV and UNR are pleased with it." 

The 2007 Atlas funding was part of a $30 billion spending bill
for the Energy Department and a handful of smaller agencies
passed June 29 by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Final
action on the bill is expected later this year. 

The Energy Department recently put the Atlas facility in "warm
standby," keeping it maintained in operating condition but not
available for use, said Kevin Rohrer, a test site spokesman. 

The less than two dozen technicians, diagnostics personnel,
support personnel and program managers associated with the Atlas
program were reassigned at the test site, Rohrer said. 

The Atlas machine works as a giant power amplifier, creating
huge currents that produce intense magnetic fields. 

Experiments conducted with the generator yield data that help
measure the performance of nuclear weapons in the U.S.
stockpile. 

The government in 1992 stopped testing the weapons through
underground explosions and has since relied on a science-based
stewardship program to check the safety and reliability of the
stockpile. 

National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks
explained the decision to mothball Atlas when he visited NNSA's
Nevada Site Office on March 21. 

"That's a decision that we made because we believe that it is
more important to fund other activities that gain us data,"
Brooks said, referring to the Joint Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research gun and another experiment facility
targeted for assembly at the test site, about 65 miles northwest
of Las Vegas. 

JASPER is a two-stage gas gun that hurls high-velocity
projectiles at metal targets containing radioactive materials.
The collision creates conditions that simulate a nuclear
detonation. 

Rohrer said the JASPER gun is popular among scientists because
it uses actual nuclear materials in its experiments. 

He said JASPER has been involved in more than 50 projects over
two years, while Atlas has been used for only 10 experiments
since it was relocated to Nevada. 

In the Atlas machine's debut at the test site in July 2005,
scientists said they generated a current roughly equal to four
times all the electrical power on earth. The pulse that lasted a
few millionths of a second crushed a cylinder the size of a tuna
can. 

During his March visit to Nevada, Brooks said he felt sorry that
Atlas was relocated. 

"I wish I was smart enough to know this was coming before we
spent the time and energy to move it," he said. "But we made
that decision five years ago." 

Brooks acknowledged that the National Nuclear Security
Administration, a semiautonomous agency in the Energy
Department, spent "an awful lot of money" on the move. 

"We don't spend infinite money, and we have an obligation to
stay within some reasonable planning basis," he said. "We just
concluded that the data from Atlas, it's not that it's not
useful, but that it wasn't as important as the data we'd get
from other sources." 

Brooks defended the decision, saying it was a matter of making
choices in the process of running a big government program. 
"There are a very large number of things that you could do ...
and you don't have enough money to do all those things, so you
have to decide which have the most benefit for the country,"
Brooks said. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************