***************************************************************** 07/12/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.164 ***************************************************************** 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 New Statesman: The toxic legacy of a nuclear future 2 The Herald: 12 key steps toward improving Britain’s energy efficienc 3 IRNA: EU, Iran decide to resolve nuclear issue through negotiations 4 Guardian Unlimited: Frustrated World Powers Send Iran to U.N. 5 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Calls Iranian Response Disappointing 6 IRNA: Larijani to talk to the nation on outcome of talks with Solana 7 IRNA: President: Iran will not give up its inalienable nuclear right 8 IRNA: Russia hopes Iran will give positive reply to incentives packa 9 IRNA: Iran calls for step-by-step approach to settle nuclear issue - 10 AFP: World powers to send Iran to Security Council - official - 11 AFP: Iran won't negotiate its nuclear 'rights' - Ahmadinejad - 12 AFP: World powers meet in Paris on Iran standoff - 13 IRNA: Russian FM calls for Iran-5+1 Group talks on nuclear issue 14 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Introduce N. Korea Resolution 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy: North Korea Not Cooperating 16 AFP: Draft UN resolution on North Korea 'unacceptable' - Russia 17 AFP: US backs diplomacy as push to sanction NKorea falters - 18 AFP: China, Russia introduce watered-down NKorea resolution - 19 RIA Novosti: Putin blasts U.S. discrimination against Russian nuclea 20 ITAR-TASS: Russia, US confirm their adherence to plutonium dispositi 21 Guardian Unlimited: G-8 Summit to Focus on Areas for Agreement 22 Guardian Unlimited: MPs could get vote on Trident 23 RIA Novosti: Russia says 137 nuclear submarines scrapped under globa NUCLEAR REACTORS 24 London Times: And, finally, there was heat and light - 25 US: Traverse City Record-Eagle: State eyes buying Big Rock 26 BBC: MPs press over nuclear subsidies 27 The Herald: A nuclear legacy that simply won’t go away 28 The Herald: Is nuclear the answer? 29 The Herald: Welcome for Energy Review which deals with current chall 30 The Herald: Sympathy for nuclear solution 31 The Herald: Nuclear vision: private firms power Blair's UK plan 32 AFP:Britain champions nuclear, renewable energy in major review - 33 US: NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear 34 US: NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear 35 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear 36 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability 37 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Availability of 38 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI, China discuss coop on energy 39 US: Bangor Daily News: Scientist assails N-energy plan - 40 spiked: A self-defeating argument for nuclear power 41 Telegraph: Short cut to boost wind and nuclear power 42 Telegraph: Nuclear at the core of Britain's energy plans 43 LCG Consulting: Planned Restart of Ontario Nuclear Reactors Gains Mo 44 SNP: Salmond Challenges Darling on Subsidy for Nuclear Clean Up Cost 45 icLiverpool: Can we afford not to have nuclear energy? 46 icWales: Britain lays the ground for nuclear future 47 icNorthWales: Inspectors make Wylfa visit to find 'viable site' 48 UPI: Bush refuels German energy debate 49 UPI: U.S., Russia issue third nuke pact report 50 News & Star: Nuclear has to be part of deal 51 News & Star: Nuclear boost for Cumbrian economy NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 52 US: Palladium-Item: Veterans being encouraged to get information boo 53 US: Journal News: Trenton to help parents find answers to thyroid ca NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 54 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Wants to Store Nuclear Waste 55 US: Deseret News: Huntsman bends ears in D.C. 56 Energy Tribune: Yucca Mountain Update 57 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Jeffords wants tighter controls on nuclear 58 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Huntsman presses Utah's case during seventh t 59 Political Resources: Yucca Mountain: The World's Largest Dirty Bomb? 60 US: The Mercury: Public worried over safety of spent fuel rods 61 US: PRI: Oranges, Orange Juice and Enriching Yellowcake: The Nuclear 62 US: Canada Network: Nuclear industry welcomes NDP's change of attitu 63 US: Vermont Guardian: Jeffords wants closer tabs on spent nuclear fu PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 64 KnoxNews: Rules shelter ORNL's work 65 KIFI: Highway to Close Thursday While Tanks Are Moved at INL Site 66 DOE: Joint Report Issued by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and the 67 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dogs staying home 68 Tri-City Herald: Congress was right to take DOE off program 69 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald; 70 Knox News: Munger: Whether tiger teams or not, inspectors at cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 New Statesman: The toxic legacy of a nuclear future Monday 17th July 2006 The DTI has lost its nerve in the face of global geopolitics – energy security has become as critical as climate change The central problem of the Blair government has always been a lack of imagination. This is not the same as a lack of boldness: new Labour has made a point of pushing through unpopular policies, whether with the party (foundation hospitals, tuition fees, trust schools) or the country as a whole (war in Iraq). The trouble is that it has too often mistaken a readiness to grasp the nettle for a genuine vision of Britain's future. Nowhere is this more obvious than in energy policy. We are on the verge of an oil crisis on the scale of the one experienced in 1973-74, as James Buchan points out in our special report (starts page 30), while the greater crisis of global warming threatens to engulf us if we do not act immediately. Unfortunately, the energy review published on 11 July by the Department of Trade and Industry is an exercise in short-sightedness. Downing Street has long favoured replacing our rotting nuclear power stations and now this has been backed by a six-month consultation exercise by the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. While we applaud many of the measures proposed (not least the fivefold increase in wind, solar and tidal power and biofuels), it is hard not to see them as a sop to the environmental lobby, softening the blow of a nuclear renewal programme. It remains a great disappointment that Wicks was not prepared at least to outline an alternative scenario for a nuclear-free future. On the face of it, the government's figures appear terrifying: the closure of existing nuclear and coal-fired power stations will throw us on the mercy of the international gas markets. According to the DTI review, without a nuclear rebuild, we will need more than half our energy requirements to come from gas by 2020 and all but a tiny proportion of this would come from abroad. The review's authors seem to have lost their nerve in the face of international geopolitics - "energy security" seems to have become at least as important as "climate change". As leaders of the G8 nations prepare to meet in St Petersburg, the energy review provides evidence of just how much this government fears the Russian stranglehold on energy. The terrible truth is that as fear of the Russian nuclear threat to Britain has receded into distant memory, the gas threat has grown to replace it. Russia's recent pledge to turn off the gas supply to Ukraine, unless its neighbour accepted an extortionate price hike, sent a chill through European governments. Britain's response has been to run into the arms of the nuclear industry rather than test the genuinely courageous non-nuclear options. The review still leaves too many questions unanswered. A similar exercise in 2003 decided that the economic case for nuclear had not been made. What has really changed since then, except that the nuclear industry's PR machine has got its act together? And why has nuclear power suddenly become cleaner and safer? Doesn't that suggest that it used to be dirtier and more dangerous? It is not quite good enough for the government to argue that nuclear power is, after all, the greenest option. Even the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which supports the burial of existing waste, has said the cost of burial is likely to hit Ł10bn, roughly the same again as the new generation of power stations. The committee has also emphasised that its support for burial of existing waste does not imply support for new power stations. Even without raising the spectre of Chernobyl, the consequences for future generations remain unknown. For example, there is no arguing away the leukaemia clusters around Sellafield. New research published in the British Journal of Cancer has suggested that scientists should look again at the possible effects of nuclear power on public health. A pattern is emerging. There is something repellent about allowing radioactive waste to lie around until future generations invent the technology to deal with it. But, as in the case of those other toxic legacies (from Trident to tuition fees), our children and grandchildren will be the ones to suffer from this government's failure to think big. Disappointed in you, Auntie It is hard to appear dignified defending the indefensible, as the BBC chairman, Michael Grade, demonstrated when he went on the Today programme to explain why the corporation's top managers needed large pay increases, while their 23,000-plus staff required rather smaller ones. Nor was it politic of Grade to defend the salaries of the director general, Mark Thompson (Ł619,000), or his deputy, Mark Byford (Ł456,000), with an appeal for sympathy for self-sacrificing senior execs. "Pretty well everybody in the BBC works for less than they could in the private sector. There is no reason why their loyalty should be punished," he said reproachfully. But Grade has got loyalty all wrong. Loyalty is hanging on in there when someone else would pay more, isn't it? Loyalty would be Jonathan Ross sticking with old Auntie when offered twice the reward elsewhere. If Thompson et al need top-ups and bonuses to persuade them to stay, maybe the chairman has to ask himself just how loyal that top team is. Unsurprisingly, the unions representing BBC staff are sensitive to the flaw in this display of fat-cattery, particularly as they are being asked to accept a further 2,000 job cuts. They are balloting members on industrial action. Cue hurt feelings at the BBC over the staff's display of disloyalty: "We're disappointed," said a BBC statement. We're all disappointed. Can there really be one rule of loyalty for the bosses and quite another for the workers? © New Statesman 1913 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 2 The Herald: 12 key steps toward improving Britain’s energy efficiency Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 July 12 2006 A strong package that will achieve 20% renewable electricity by 2020. Changes to the renewables obligation to give a big boost to offshore wind and emerging technology. Planning reforms and moving towards carbon-neutral housing. Phasing out energy-inefficient goods and appliances including some lightbulbs and fridges. An obligation on energy companies to provide energy-saving measures. A new UK cap and trading scheme to reduce energy inefficiency for 5000 large companies, that complements the EU trading scheme in other sectors. Moving to extend transport biofuel to 10% by 2015 and press EU to include aviation and road transport in EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Making it easier for homeowners to install solar panels and domestic wind turbines. Requiring energy suppliers to buy electricity exported from microgeneration and enabling energy suppliers to fit microgeneration equipment. Favourable treatment for Combined heat and power in second phase of the EU ETS. Providing the basis for market to invest in nuclear power  streamlining the licensing process, clarifying the strategy on decommissioning and waste. Demonstrating carbon-capture and storage plant. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: EU, Iran decide to resolve nuclear issue through negotiations - Brussels, July 11, IRNA EU-Iran-Larijani Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said Tuesday that the EU and Iran have decided to resolve the nuclear issue through negotiations and he urged Europe for more patience. Speaking at a press conference at the residence of the Iranian ambassador in Brussels this afternoon, Larijani stressed that 'right from the beginning we considered it a wrong move to refer the case to the UN Security Council'. "We must devote more time and must be patient. We must build confidence. Negotiations can be a win-win situation," he said. Earlier, Larijani held four hours of talks with EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana on the nuclear case. "In the meeting today we have raised some issues in order to clear the way," he said. "In the days to come we will be in contact with Mr. Solana," he said. ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Frustrated World Powers Send Iran to U.N. From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday July 12, 2006 9:31 PM AP Photo MEU106 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer PARIS (AP) - Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran before the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the Iranians had given no sign they would bargain in earnest over their disputed nuclear program. The move amounted to calling Iran's bluff. Diplomats said recent meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiator have gone nowhere and it was clear Tehran hoped to play for time or exploit potential divisions among the six powers that have offered new talks. The United States and other nations wanted Iran to say by Wednesday whether it would meet terms to begin negotiations on a package of economic and energy incentives in exchange for at least a short-term end to Tehran's program to enrich uranium. The Security Council's permanent members said Iranian leaders had had long enough to respond. ``The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals,'' French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on behalf of the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China, the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany and the European Union. Though Russia and China signed on to Wednesday's statement, the two traditional commercial partners of Iran previously have opposed imposition of the toughest of sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his disappointment with Iran for not responding to the proposals. In a veiled warning that Russia could soften its opposition to sanctions, Lavrov said that if Tehran does not agree to return to negotiations ``the Security Council will consider steps appropriate to the situation,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. If Iran agrees to the group's terms for negotiations, it would mean the first high-level face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran after more than a quarter century of estrangement. The group that met in Paris on Wednesday represents the permanent, veto-holding members of the UN Security Council plus the European participants in previous failed nuclear talks with Iran. Tehran contends its nuclear program is aimed only at producing electricity, but the West fears it is hiding plans to build a bomb. Expressing ``profound disappointment,'' foreign ministers said, ``we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council'' and resume a course of possible punishment or coercion that the powers had set aside in hopes of reaching a deal. The group was pushing for an agreement before world leaders meet this weekend in Russia for the Group of Eight summit of leading industrial democracies. President Bush and other leaders are now expected to issue a strongly worded rebuke to Iran during the G-8 meeting. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on the Iran issue, said the U.S. is pleased by what it called strong action by the Security Council group. ``This is a significant decision that frankly reflects the disappointment and frustration of our countries over the lack of a serious response.'' There was no immediate reaction from Tehran, which has repeatedly said it needs more time to consider proposals presented in early June. Iran had ruled out responding this week to international incentives to suspend disputed portions of its nuclear program. ``The indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete,'' Rice had reporters aboard her flight here. Any real move to punish Iran at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week. If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement give no specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions. The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency has already told Iran it must put uranium enrichment and related disputed activities on hold, and doing so is the condition for opening negotiations on the incentives package presented to Iran last month. Enrichment can produce fuel for a civilian reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The European Union offered Iran a similar package of economic and trade incentives last year, but Iran rejected the proposal and ramped up nuclear activities including uranium enrichment that it had suspended during the European talks. More is on the line now that Iran has moved closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon, and the United States has offered to bargain face-to-face. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Calls Iranian Response Disappointing From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday July 12, 2006 11:31 AM AP Photo DCMC108 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer PARIS (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Iran has given a ``disappointing and incomplete'' response to an international deal to end suspicious nuclear activities and that world powers may have no choice but to haul Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Iran ruled out responding this week to intern program. The United States and other nations wanted an answer by Wednesday on whether Iran would meet terms to begin negotiations on a package of economic and energy incentives for Iran in exchange for at least the short-term end to Tehran's rapidly advancing program to enrich uranium. ``The indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete,'' Rice told reporters aboard her flight from Washington to Paris early Wednesday. ``If that is indeed the case, we've always said we were either on the path to negotiations or we're on the path to the Security Council.'' Foreign ministers from the six countries that made the proposal - the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany - were meeting Wednesday in Paris. The six are pushing for an agreement before world leaders meet this weekend in Russia for the Group of Eight summit of leading industrial democracies. If Iran agrees to the group's terms for negotiations, it would mean the first high-level face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran after more than a quarter century of estrangement. The group's meeting is likely to produce a strongly worded statement that restarts efforts for possible Security Council punishment for Iran if it does not suspend uranium enrichment and agree to talks. Enrichment can produce fuel for a civilian reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran's nuclear program is cover for a weapons program, despite Tehran's repeated denials. Any real punishment or coercion at the Security Council is a long way off, but Western diplomats said they may begin writing a resolution within days if there is no movement toward talks this week. ``If we go to the Security Council we'll take our time in terms of putting together the best response,'' to make sure Iran understands that it cannot continue to pursue enrichment while talks are ongoing, and that it also understands it can still choose to bargain, Rice said. The Security Council would also make clear the consequences of rejecting the deal, Rice said. That would put the United States, European allies and others back where they started last year, when Iran rejected a previous European offer and later resumed a broad program of nuclear research and development it had shuttered during earlier talks. Rice offered to join those talks in May on condition that Iran reimpose a moratorium on uranium enrichment. The U.S. offer was a gambit that the prospect of talks with the largest world power and Iran's principal adversary would persuade Iran that the offer was serious, and a show of faith to European partners who were growing restless with the incremental and inconclusive Iran diplomacy. ``What we have been able to do test whether the Iranians simply wanted a good path of negotiations or whether they are determined to defy the international community,'' Rice said. ``Apparently, and I just want to say apparently, they have decided that they want to move ahead with a program is unacceptable to the international community. That then means we would be on the path of the Security Council.'' The Security Council has already delivered a mild rebuke to Iran. If its permanent, veto-holding members agreed, the council could move on to impose coercive or punitive measures. Those could include economic or political sanctions, financial restrictions, travel restrictions or even an oil embargo. The toughest measures are unlikely to win approval from Russia and China, traditional commercial partners of Iran that hold vetoes. Iran repeatedly has said it will not respond to the offer before August. On Tuesday, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani warned that talks on his country's atomic program will be a ``long process,'' and said ``ambiguities must be removed first in order to have serious talks.'' Larijani spoke after meeting with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. The Iranian negotiator refused to elaborate on the nature of the perceived ambiguities, but he called on the European Union, United States, Russia and others to be patient. Larijani warned the United States and others against sending the matter to the Security Council for possible sanctions, calling it ``the wrong way'' to solve the impasse. ``It is not difficult to disrupt negotiations by making harsh comments,'' Larijani said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Larijani to talk to the nation on outcome of talks with Solana tonight - FM - Tehran, July 12, IRNA Iran-FM-Nuclear issue Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Wednesday that Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani will wrap up his Europe visit and return home Wednesday night and will speak to the nation on the outcome of his talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Mottaki, who attended a Majlis open session, made the remarks while speaking to reporters. "All are expecting the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council to return and hear his report," he said. Asked whether he, as the country's foreign minister, has been informed about the outcome of the talks, he urged reporters to be patient and "wait for Larijani to arrive as he will be the one to inform the nation in this regard." ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: President: Iran will not give up its inalienable nuclear right - Shabestar, East Azarbaijan prov, July 12, IRNA Iran-Ahmadinejad-Nuclear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Wednesday said that Iran is willing to hold talks on its nuclear issue but that it will not give up its inalienable right to access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Speaking at a gathering of people in the provincial town of Shabestar, the chief executive said that Iran neither approves of tyranny nor does it ever tolerate bullying. "This is the logic of monotheists and worshipers of God Almighty, according to which we are bound to defend people's rights. Meanwhile, the Iranian nation will not give up its inalienable right. "We are prepared to talk about the nuclear issue, but will by no means negotiate our inalienable right with any party ," he added. Ahmadinejad said that Iran is ready to negotiate and cooperate with the world community in all fields and underlined that talks should be held in a fair atmosphere. "Today, the nation has been availed with a historical opportunity to construct Iran, which should be used properly to build up a powerful country. "Owing to the vigilance and resistance of the nation, Iran is now one of the countries having access to nuclear cycle and will use it to develop the country," said the president. He said that the Iranian nation is bound to construct a developed and powerful Iran, adding that this will only be materialized under the light of unity, affection, reliance on God Almighty and work. The president condemned the crimes of the Zionist regime in the occupied lands and said that martyrdom of Palestinian women, children and youth by the Zionists has made Hitler look tame. ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Russia hopes Iran will give positive reply to incentives package New York, July 12, IRNA Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin here Tuesday expressed hope Iran would give a positive response to a package of incentives proposed by the world's six powers (Group 5+1). Speaking to reporters, he also expressed hope Iran would give its response to the new offer at the earliest. On June 6, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana traveled to Iran to deliver a package of incentives approved by the UN Security Council's five permanent members -- Russia, China, Britain France and the US -- plus Germany for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and resume talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program. Stressing the importance of using diplomacy to settle the nuclear cases of Iran and North Korea, Churkin said Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which the US invokes to justify possible sanctions on Iran, although "very important and serious" did "not apply to all cases." ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Iran calls for step-by-step approach to settle nuclear issue - Brussels, July 12, IRNA EU-Iran-Larijani Iran Tuesday called for patience and time to address all concerns relative to the nuclear issue and for negotiations to bear fruit. "We must allow more time for negotiations to work," Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani told a press conference in Brussels Tuesday afternoon. "I think all matters must be discussed and all concerns must be addressed and ground must be paved for confidence building. We should be able to go step by step to reach our determined goal," he told reporters at the residence of the Iranian ambassador in Brussels. Earlier Tuesday, Larijani held four hours of talks with EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana on Iran's nuclear case. Senior diplomats from France, Germany, Russia and the UK also attended the meeting held at the EU headquarters. Over lunch Solana and Larijani held a one-to-one meeting. Solana told reporters that they had made a review of events that had taken place since the proposal was first presented about five weeks ago. "Tomorrow I will have a meeting with the ministers of the six countries (in Paris) and I will report to them. We will make an analysis of the situation after this period of time and we will see how to proceed. Dr Larijani and myself will be in contact by phone to see how to proceed," said Solana. The EU foreign policy chief traveled to Tehran on 6 June to present new EU proposals to resolve the nuclear stand-off. Larijani said Iran has formed several committees to study and consider the EU package of incentives seriously. "Whenever the committees announce the results of their work we will certainly communicate the outcome to our friends in Europe." "Of course, we insist that this work be done as soon as possible because reaching an understanding is in the interest of all sides," he said. One EU diplomat described Tuesday's talks as "tough" but "useful." Larijani and Solana held a tete-for-tete dinner meeting in Brussels Thursday last week. Iran's top nuclear negotiator held talks in Spain, Switzerland and Italy with top officials of these countries before returning to Brussels Tuesday. Larijani said the EU and Iran have decided to resolve the nuclear issue through negotiations and urged Europe to have more patience. "We must be patient. We must build confidence. Negotiations can be a win-win situation," he said. "In the meeting today (Tuesday) we have raised some issues in order to clear the way." Replying to a question on suspension of enrichment, he said there were ambiguities in the EU offer which needed to be removed. But he refused to disclose what the ambiguities were, saying the two sides had agreed not to release the text of the EU offer. "Iran has not committed any wrong in its nuclear program. We are a member of the IAEA and have signed the NPT. So we must enjoy certain rights," he said. Larijani said he saw no reason for "being pessimistic." He condemned Western accusations that Iran was building a nuclear bomb as a "big lie." Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defence doctrine, he stressed. Larijani also met Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhfostadt and the head of the Belgian parliament, Hermann de Croo. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: World powers to send Iran to Security Council - official - by Sylvie Lanteaume Wed Jul 12, 6:21 PM ET PARIS (AFP) - World powers meeting in Paris upped the stakes over Iran" /> 's nuclear programme, agreeing to send Tehran back to the UN Security Council and raising the threat of sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. "The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in a statement agreed with his colleagues from the United States, Britain, Germany, Russia and China. "Iran has failed to take the steps needed to allow negotiations to begin.... We express profound disappointment over this situation," he said, according to an official English translation of his remarks. "We have no choice but to return to the United Nations" /> Security Council and take forward the process that was suspended two months ago," he said. "We have agreed to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution, which would make the IAEA-required suspension mandatory. Should Iran refuse to comply then we will work for the adoption of measures under Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the United Nations charter," the statement said. The article in question opens the way for economic and diplomatic sanctions, but not for the use of military force. The agreement appeared to mark an important escalation of the pressure on Iran, because until now Russia and China have refused to countenance sanctions on the grounds that they are counterproductive. The ministers from the Security Council permanent members plus Germany had met to hear a progress report from the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who the day before held talks in Brussels with Tehran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. The six are pushing for a positive Iranian response to a package of economic and political incentives offered on June 6, but EU officials described Tuesday's meeting as "disappointing". Iran insists on the right to continue uranium enrichment, arguing that it is needed for a civilian nuclear energy programme, but the outside powers suspect Tehran is trying to make nuclear weapons and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency" /> has ordered a suspension. In their statement the ministers said that, "Should Iran implement the decisions of the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council, and enter into negotiations, we would be ready to hold back from further action in the UN Security Council." "We urge Iran once again to respond positively to the substantive proposals we made last month." The Paris talks brought together Douste-Blazy, his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice" /> , Britain's Margaret Beckett, Russia's Sergei Lavrov, Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the Chinese deputy foreign minister Zhang Yesui. "We are very pleased by today's strong action," Rice's deputy Nicholas Burns said afterwards. Referring to the six countries at the talks he said: "We are all frustrated, we are deeply disappointed, (the Iranians) are giving us nothing," he said. "We have got to return back to New York, we have got to go to the Security Council. Easy." A senior US official said top foreign ministry officials of the six countries would meet next week to decide how long to give Tehran before resorting to sanctions. It would be "a certain number of days," he said. "China has agreed, Russia has agreed" on the steps to be taken, the official added, but said the specific sanctions had not yet been decided. "We are banking on Iran giving a bit of slack, given the obligatory nature of the suspension of enrichment activities," said Steinmeier after the meeting. "If we do go to the Security Council, we will take our time to work out the best responses ... in order to get the Iranians to reconsider their position," he said. Later on Wednesday the US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said he hoped the Security Council would be able to take action "early next week" on a draft resolution that would make a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment mandatory. Iran's Larijani warned Tuesday of a "long road" ahead, saying the offer of incentives -- which reportedly include aid for a civilian energy programme and an end to some US sanctions -- was "broadly suitable" but that suspending enrichment remained a central problem. In Tehran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated Wednesday that Iran would not negotiate on its "undeniable right" to have a nuclear programme. "We are for negotiations, we are for dialogue. But of course we will not negotiate our undeniable rights with anyone," he told a public rally. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Iran won't negotiate its nuclear 'rights' - Ahmadinejad - Wed Jul 12, 7:59 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned that Iran" /> Iranwill not negotiate on its "undeniable right" to have a nuclear programme, again rejecting international demands that the Islamic republic freeze sensitive atomic work. "We are for negotiations, we are for dialogue. But of course we will not negotiate our undeniable rights with anyone," the president told a rally in the northwestern town of Shabestar. Quoted by state radio, the president said Iran would be ready to "negotiate about the world's problems, and common concerns and ways of disarmament in the world, and the prevention of (peaceful) nuclear technology being diverted." "We are ready to negotiate in a fair atmosphere, but if it becomes unfair, the Iranian people will stand up and will not give up an iota of their rights," he added. Iran insists its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful and considers uranium enrichment work to be an "undeniable right" under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But enrichment to make reactor fuel can be extended to make weapons, resulting in demands the country suspend the process and show greater cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. World powers are seeking a rapid response from Iran to a package of economic and political incentives -- presented to Iran on June 6 -- designed to persuade it to freeze uranium enrichment. A meeting on the issue in Brussels Tuesday between Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana ended with the Islamic republic still declining to give a clear reply. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: World powers meet in Paris on Iran standoff - by Sylvie Lanteaume Wed Jul 12, 8:10 AM ET PARIS (AFP) - The UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany were meeting in Paris to try to forge a united front in the international standoff over Iran" /> 's nuclear programme. The talks -- involving foreign ministers of the six world powers -- come a day after a meeting between EU foreign policy envoy Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, described as "unsatisfactory" by EU officials. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> , who flew into the French capital early Wednesday, warned that Iran's response to a Western offer aimed at resolving the crisis so far appeared "disappointing and incomplete". "I want to wait, to hear from Javier Solana first hand about how he sees the situation, but certainly the indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete," she told reporters. But she stressed that "negotiation is still the best path and negotiation is still open". World powers are seeking a rapid response from Iran on a package of economic and political incentives designed to persuade it to freeze uranium enrichment -- a process needed to fuel a nuclear reactor but which could also be used to make a bomb. Western powers have repeatedly warned that Iran would be exposing itself to Security Council action if it rejects the offer, made by the EU on June 6 and backed by the United States, Russia and China. However both Russia and China -- which have UN Security Council veto rights -- have made it clear they oppose sanctions against Iran. "If in fact we go to the Security Council, we will take our time in terms of putting together the best reponses from the Security Council in order to get the Iranians to reconsider their ways," Rice told reporters. "I think the best thing is to make sure that the Iranians understand that the world considers a suspension (of uranium enrichment) to be mandatory, volontary... but mandatory," Rice said. The EU urged Iran Wednesday to quickly accept the international offer. "We urge Iran to give an early positive response," said Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency. "If Iran is not ready for conciliation, we'll have to continue the process at the UN Security Council level," Erkki said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said Wednesday that negotiations based on these proposals should "start as soon as possible". Following Tuesday's talks in Brussels, Iranian envoy Ari Larijani warned of a "long road" ahead, saying the offer was "broadly suitable" but that suspending uranium enrichment remained a central problem. Though pressed to give a response before a meeting of the Group of Eight major industrialised countries in Russia this weekend, Iran is refusing to bow to international pressure and has said it would not answer before August. Iran insists that it only wants to develop nuclear energy although its lack of cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and enrichment activities have raised suspicions that it is covertly trying to build an atomic bomb. In Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upped the rhetoric on Tuesday, vowing to continue sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work. The Paris talks start at 1400 GMT at the French foreign ministry. France's Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy will host Rice, Britain's Margaret Beckett, Russia's Sergei Lavrov, Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the Chinese deputy foreign minister Zhang Yesui, as well as Solana. Douste-Blazy is to make a statement to the press after the end of the talks. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: Russian FM calls for Iran-5+1 Group talks on nuclear issue , July 12, IRNA -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov here Wednesday urged that talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (5+1 group) on the country's nuclear issue start now. Speaking to reporters, the minister said that the six countries which offered Iran a package of incentives have agreed that talks on the offered incentives start right away. Lavrov stressed that the 5+1 Group does not intend to introduce changes to the incentives offered in the package. Turning to the initial talks held between Iran's top negotiator Ali Larijani and EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana in Brussels on Tuesday, he said that the outcome of the talks will be discussed in today's meeting of foreign ministers of the 5+1 Group in Paris. Iran has said it will give its reply to the new proposals after its experts have thoroughly assessed them. ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Introduce N. Korea Resolution From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday July 13, 2006 12:31 AM AP Photo XIN101 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - China and Russia introduced a resolution Wednesday deploring North Korea's missile tests but dropping language from a rival proposal that could have led to military action against Pyongyang. Japan and the United States welcomed the draft but said it had major deficiencies and they would still press for a Security Council vote on their resolution - though no date has been set. The Japanese resolution's supporters have delayed a vote to wait for the outcome of a high-level Chinese visit to North Korea which began on Monday. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said the delegation, which will return Friday, delivered a message from China's top leaders expressing concern over the missile tests ``and also what we considered the North Koreans should do to make diplomacy succeed.'' ``So far we hve not received any feedbacks from the North Korea leadership,'' he said. Wang confirmed that he had been instructed to veto the Japanese resolution and expressed hope that through negotiations in the next few days ``we can find a way and the language that could unify the whole council.'' He said the Chinese-Russian proposal would calm the situation in northeast Asia and ``be beneficial for peace and stability in the region.'' Wang previously said Beijing objected to three key elements in the Japanese draft: the determination that the missile tests threatened international peace and security, authorizing action under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which can be enforced militarily, and mandatory sanctions aimed at curbing North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. The Chinese-Russian draft resolution drops these three elements, which Japan and the United States consider crucial. The Chinese-Russian draft ``strongly deplores'' North Korea's multiple missile launches and calls on Pyongyang to reestablish a moratorium on missile tests. It requests - but does not demand - that all U.N. member states ``exercise vigilance in preventing supply of items, materials, goods and technologies that could contribute'' to North Korea's missile program. It also calls on all members ``not to procure missiles or missile-related items'' or technology from the North. By contrast, the much stronger Japanese resolution would ban North Korean missile tests and prevent the reclusive communist nation from acquiring or exporting missiles and missile technology or weapons of mass destruction and their components. It also demands that North Korea immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling ballistic missiles. Both resolutions strongly urge the North to immediately return to six-party talks on its nuclear program without preconditions. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Beijing and Moscow would have preferred a presidential statement, which is weaker and not legally binding, but agreed to a resolution to respond to the wishes of other council members. ``I think the initial response of Security Council members was quite encouraging,'' he said. ``I don't want to sound too optimistic but I think that the ground is there for a successful outcome of this process.'' Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima called the Chinese-Russian draft ``a move in the right direction'' and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said ``we view this as a significant step and think it's important.'' But both envoys made clear it had serious deficiencies. ``A quick glance shows that there are very serious gaps on very important issues,'' Oshima said of the Chinese-Russian draft. Bolton cited the Chinese-Russian draft's elimination of Chapter 7 and the declaration that the tests constitute a threat to international peace, and its use of the weaker words ``calls upon'' rather than the Japanese text's ``decides'' which is an order. ``As of now, we're prepared to proceed at an appropriate time with a vote on the draft resolution,'' Bolton said. ``We're going to study this draft that the Russians and Chinese have submitted, but if they vote no, that's their perfect right under the (U.N.) Charter, and everyone can draw their conclusions.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy: North Korea Not Cooperating From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday July 12, 2006 12:46 PM AP Photo XED104 By AUDRA ANG Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - The U.S. nuclear envoy accused North Korea on Wednesday of refusing to cooperate in efforts to end the uproar over its missile and nuclear programs - a sign that Pyongyang had rebuffed lobbying by ally China. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing to assess Beijing's effort to persuade the North to stop missile tests and return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks. Hill said he had ``very good'' discussions with Li but reported no progress. ``China's really trying. We're trying. Everyone is trying except, unfortunately, the DPRK,'' Hill told reporters, referring to the North by the initials of its formal name. ``So far the DPRK seems to want to choose a road of deeper isolation.'' Hill said a Chinese delegation visiting Pyongyang have held meetings with North Korean officials but want to conduct more. He had no details of the talks. Supporters of a U.N. resolution that would impose sanctions on the North over its missile tests last week have postponed a vote to give China time to use its influence as the North's main ally and aid donor to push for renewed negotiations. ``Unfortunately, we don't yet have any sign that the DPRK attaches the same amount of importance to this process,'' Hill said. The resolution, introduced by Japan, would ban North Korean missile tests and prevent the regime - by force, if necessary - from acquiring or exporting missiles and missile technology or weapons of mass destruction and their components. It is backed by the United States, Britain, France and other countries. But China and Russia, both veto-weilding members of the U.N. Security Council, have criticized it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized Japan for what he called its uncompromising stance on the resolution. ``The Security Council's reaction must be firm, but it mustn't be overloaded with emotions and mustn't contain threats that could drive the situation into a deadlock,'' Lavrov said Wednesday. ``Unfortunately, the draft Security Council resolution now under discussion is fraught with all these unacceptable drawbacks.'' Beijing has proposed an alternative resolution with many of the same measures - on a voluntary basis. It calls for a return to the six-party talks, which involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. China appealed Wednesday to Washington and Pyongyang to settle a dispute over U.S. sanctions on North Korean companies accused of weapons trafficking and other offenses. The North has refused to return to the talks while the sanctions are in place. ``We hope this issue could be resolved quickly. In fact, it has already affected the progress of the six-party talks,'' said Liu Jianchao, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman. Hill said he did not discuss the sanctions with Li but that Washington would do its best to ``to prevent the DPRK from financing these sorts of activities.'' North Korea is ``a country that seems to be more interested in launching missiles than it is in providing electricity to its citizens, more interested in missile production than it is in food production,'' Hill said. ``We are looking for ways that we can protect ourselves from this type of very ... militaristic national priorities.'' North Korea, meanwhile, appealed for aid during talks with South Korea in the South's port of Busan. A South Korean official, Lee Kwan-se, said the South's diplomats warned that the missile tests were threatening reconciliation efforts on the divided peninsula. Lee said the North didn't respond, and instead requested 500,000 tons of rice. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said sanctioning North Korea would have a negative effect on the region and would not help efforts to resume the six-party process. He also warned that divisions in the Security Council could send the wrong signal to Pyongyang. Hill echoed that sentiment, saying it was necessary to send a ``clear and unified message.'' ``They fired off a bunch of missiles and basically they're daring us to ... let them get away with it,'' he said. Pyongyang ignited the furor July 5 by test-firing seven missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2 potentially capable of hitting the United States. The weapons, which landed in the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, created a major new challenge to international efforts to defuse the North's nuclear threat. Hill's visit to Beijing was his second in a week, following stops in Tokyo and Seoul to coordinate a response to the missile tests. The American envoy said he had no intention of meeting with a North Korean delegation that was in Beijing to mark the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the two governments. He said talks with the North would only take place within the framework of the six-nation negotiations, which have been stalled since November. ``What we are not prepared to do ... is just allow the DPRK in effect to hijack the entire process,'' Hill said. --- Associated Press reporters Jae-Soon Chang in Busan, South Korea, and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Draft UN resolution on North Korea 'unacceptable' - Russia Wednesday July 12, 01:03 PM (Updating with further details) MOSCOW (AFX) - A draft UN resolution opening the door to sanctions on North Korea in response to its missile tests is 'unacceptable', Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. 'The draft resolution that has been proposed contains unacceptable points,' Lavrov told reporters after meeting his counterpart from Luxembourg, Jean Asselborn. 'The Security Council's response must be firm but should not be excessively emotional and should not include threats that could lead the issue of a Korean nuclear resolution into an impasse,' Lavrov said. 'Unfortunately, one of the co-authors of the draft, Japan, has adopted an absolutely uncompromising stance, saying it will not accept any change to the draft. 'Japan is saying that all countries must vote the way Japan wants and is warning that if they do not these countries will face negative consequences. I regard such statements as absolutely unacceptable,' he said. His comments came as discussion remained stalled at the United Nations in New York on a tough Security Council resolution drafted by Japan and backed by the United States, Britain and France, but opposed by Russia and China. The Japanese resolution calls for mandatory sanctions on North Korea over its test-launches last week of seven missiles, reportedly including a long-range rocket technically capable of reaching parts of the United States, in defiance of international appeals to forego the tests. Today, Japan reiterated its resolve to secure a binding UN resolution on North Korea, even if Pyongyang agrees to return to multilateral talks on its nuclear programme. 'It is only natural that North Korea returns to the six-way talks. That in itself would not mean that our proposal would not be adopted,' Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the government's top spokesman, told reporters in Tokyo. Japan also reacted cautiously to a suggestion from France that the UN Security Council first adopt a non-binding presidential statement before tackling the Japanese draft text that would impose sanctions on North Korea. 'There is no change to our stance to push for the passage of the resolution,' Abe told the press conference about the French proposal. 'The eight nations, including the United States, that jointly submitted (the draft resolution) are closely coordinating among ourselves to move towards its early approval,' said Abe. The UN Security Council on Monday put off a vote on a Japanese draft resolution that would slap sanctions on North Korea over its missile tests, to allow more time for Chinese diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis. China has submitted a non-binding text as an alernative to Japan's draft. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: US backs diplomacy as push to sanction NKorea falters - by Peter Harmsen Wed Jul 12, 7:29 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - A US envoy has said that diplomacy could still resolve the standoff over North Korea" /> 's missile tests as China and Russia stood firm against a push at the United Nations" to impose sanctions. Japan, however, refused to back down in its Western-backed draft resolution to punish Pyongyang, although it also clarified earlier statements of a theoretical pre-emptive strike that set off fury in both North and South Korea" /> . South Korea, which opposes strong reprisals against the North, hoped to use diplomacy to resolve the crisis, warning a high-level visiting delegation from the North against firing more missiles. Christopher Hill, the top US envoy on North Korea, was back in Beijing on a regional tour, hoping to hear from Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on a Chinese delegation's ongoing talks with Pyongyang's reclusive leadership. When asked by reporters if time was running out to settle the crisis through negotiations, Hill responded: "No, I wouldn't use that. Obviously, we are going to evaluate every day how we are (doing) on the diplomacy." "The DPRK is in a historic moment," Hill told reporters in Beijing, referring to North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "They must decide further isolation or to join the rest of the world. Yet they cannot decide what to do with this historic moment," he said. North Korea on July 5 test-fired seven missiles, including a new Taepodong-2 which was said to be able to hit Alaska or Hawaii but quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Pyongyang declared last year it had nuclear weapons and has warned that it would consider sanctions an "act of war." The communist regime walked out of six-nation talks in November that aimed to end its nuclear program and ease concern over its missiles. Hill refused to cede to the North's demands for re-entering talks -- lifting US financial sanctions on a bank in Macau alleged to launder and counterfeit money for the impoverished regime. "How much money laundering would you suggest we allow? A small amount, a medium amount?" Hill said. North Korea's last long-range tested missile flew over Japan into the Pacific Ocean in 1998, leading Tokyo to step up work on a missile shield with the United States. China and Russia do not share Japan's security concerns and instead fear the consequences of putting too much pressure on the North. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that the Japanese draft resolution, which is backed by the United States and European powers, "contains unacceptable points." French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the president of the Security Council for July, hinted that China had threatened to veto the draft. He suggested the body might want to first adopt a weaker Chinese text before tackling the Japanese resolution. China has proposed a presidential statement, which carries no legal force. The French envoy said the wording needed to be "stronger" to be acceptable to all members. Japan refused to budge on a binding resolution. "There is no change to our stance to push for the passage of the resolution," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the spokesman for the Japanese government. Abe, a leading contender to become Japan's next prime minister, clarified his statement earlier this week on a theoretical pre-emptive attack on the North. He said he was talking only of a hypothetical scenario under which Japan, which is officially pacifist, were under attack. But Rodong Sinmun, the mouthpiece of the ruling Workers Party, said an attack would be a throwback to Japan's 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula. "Japan must realize that a reinvasion would soon lead to its self-destruction," said the newspaper, as monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. South Korea, which has been reconciling with its neighbor, was also outraged by Abe's earlier statement. It has tried to use its warming ties with Pyongyang to exert pressure and expressed international concerns to a ministerial-level North Korean delegation visiting the southern port city of Busan. "We have made it very clear that the situation would get out of control if the North fires off more missiles," said Lee Kwan-Se, spokesman of the South Korean delegation to the inter-Korean talks. South Korea's intelligence agency told parliament there were no indications that North Korea planned to test a second long-range missile, theoretically capable of reaching American soil. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: China, Russia introduce watered-down NKorea resolution - Wed Jul 12, 7:06 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China and Russia tried to wrest initiative from Washington and Japan by introducing a watered-down UN resolution on North Korea" /> North Koreathat refuses to sanction the Stalinist state for its missile test. As Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putincautioned world powers against any action that might "provoke" the North, China and Russia circulated a text that they hoped would form the basis for a united response from the council to the North Korean missile tests last week. But the new text was swiftly criticised for having "very serious gaps" by Japan which -- backed by Britain, France and the United States -- had introduced its own draft resolution last week requiring punitive action against Pyongyang for the tests. It also got a cool reception from the White House, with national security spokesman Frederick Jones restating US support for the Japanese draft. "We have previously expressed support for the Japanese resolution. We remain supportive of the Japanese resolution," he said. Unlike the Japanese draft, the Russian-Chinese text does not make the proposed weapons-related sanctions mandatory and does not invoke Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which can authorize sanctions or even military action. It also does not characterize the missile tests as a "threat to international peace and security." The alternative draft merely "calls upon all member states not to procure missiles or missile-related items, materials, goods and technologies" from North Korea. It urges "all member states to exercise vigilance in preventing supply of items, materials, goods and technologies that could contribute" to the North Korean missile program. Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin argued that the new text formed the basis for the Security Council to send "a unified strong signal" to North Korea. "It is also a good support for ongoing diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation," Churkin told reporters after a closed-door meeting of the 15-member Security Council meeting. Both Japan and the United States were not impressed, although they welcomed the fact that Beijing and Moscow had acknowledged the need for a resolution at all, having previously favoured a non-binding presidential statement. "There are still very serious gaps on a number of issues," Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said after a round of consultations with co-sponsors of his own draft at Britain's UN mission Wednesday afternoon. He said further consultations would be held later Wednesday and Thursday to narrow differences between the two competing drafts. "We need action from the Security Council as soon as possible," Oshima said. "We must not allow this process to drag on." Earlier in the day, he said that Japan still planned to move for a vote on its own draft. That vote has been deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing high-level Chinese delegation's talks in Pyongyang. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said he had not received any feedback from Pyongyang, but made it clear that the Japanese text remained unacceptable to Beijing. "If that draft is put to a vote without any modification, the instruction (from Beijing) is for me to veto it," he said, insisting that the Chinese-Russian proposal would "better serve" the aim of calming the crisis caused by Pyongyang's tests. Tensions have risen markedly in the region since North Korea tested seven missiles in rapid succession on July 5, triggering global condemnation. China fears that a tough Security Council resolution would jeopardize prospects for getting North Korea to resume stalled six-party talks on abandoning its nuclear weapons and missile programs in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees. US Ambassador John Bolton welcomed the "significant" compromise made by China and Russia in accepting the need for a resolution, but warned that it was probably too little too late. "We wish they had done this last week," Bolton said, stressing that the United States and other member states remained adamant that North Korea needed to be pressured rather than cajoled into changing its ways. "If there's language that the Russians and the Chinese have to propose that would have the same effect of binding North Koreans, then I suppose we are happy to take a look at it," he said. Meanwhile in a US television interview, Putin cautioned world powers against deliberately provoking North Korea. He argued it was possible to negotiate a "system of guarantees" from North Korea that could prove more effective than a military incursion, which he said he firmly opposed. Putin added that the track record of the US military action in Iraq" /> Iraqdoes not instill confidence. "The same applies to North Korea and Iran" /> Iran. We do not believe that we should take the route leading to an impasse." In Beijing, Christopher Hill, the top US envoy on North Korea, said after talks with Chinese officials that Pyongyang faced a "historic moment" and a choice between engagement and isolation. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 RIA Novosti: Putin blasts U.S. discrimination against Russian nuclear firms 12/ 07/ 2006 MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia opposes U.S. discrimination against its nuclear companies and wants to supply uranium directly, the Kremlin press service quoted President Vladimir Putin as saying Wednesday. "We disagree with the discriminatory restrictions that are currently in force in the U.S. for Russian nuclear companies, and would like to supply uranium for your [American] nuclear power plants directly, and not via an intermediary monopoly that was established, in our opinion, artificially," Putin said in response to a U.S. questioner who raised the issue at a Web cast with the president on June 6. The president added that he planned to discuss the issue with his U.S. counterpart George W. Bush. Restrictions on imports from Russia of low-enriched uranium have been in force since the Soviet era. Russia is currently allowed to operate on the U.S. market without a 116% import duty only through the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a special intermediary agent, under the HEU-LEU Conversion program, but is facing anti-dumping procedures. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power downplayed the political implications of the issue during a visit to the U.S. in May. "We believe that this is a commercial issue, which we intend to resolve in the framework of existing U.S. legislation," Kiriyenko said during his visit. "We are not demanding any preferential treatment, any benefits or special conditions, but we are demanding equal rights and equal opportunities for competition on the U.S. market." But the U.S. Department of Commerce appeared to dent his hopes on June 9 when it said it intended to keep the existing restrictions in place. Russia's nuclear agency said Wednesday that the U.S. International Trade Commission would vote on lifting the restrictions on July 18, but that it had little hope for a positive resolution of the issue. According to current procedures, if at least one U.S. company claims the existence of a dumping threat, the committee will vote to keep the restrictions in effect, the agency said. An agency official also said Russia and the U.S. had previously agreed to form a task force to draw up an action plan aimed at resolving the anti-dumping issue. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 20 ITAR-TASS: Russia, US confirm their adherence to plutonium disposition accord 12.07.2006, 15.42 Russia and the U.S. said they are committed to agreements on utilizing openly and transparently by each party 34 tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium no longer necessary for defence purposes, the Rosatom press service told. The two parties pointed out that they prefer the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in reactors as one of methods for utilizing plutonium, the press service said. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: G-8 Summit to Focus on Areas for Agreement From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday July 12, 2006 1:01 PM AP Photo MOS106 By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The upcoming annual Group of Eight economic summit, the first ever on Russian soil, is shaping up as a public relations coup for President Vladimir Putin, highlighting his country's return as a major player on the world stage. If the three days of meetings turn out as Putin has planned, he will be able to point to the start of negotiations on a long-desired civilian nuclear agreement with the United States and G-8 endorsements of Putin's major summit policy objectives in the areas of energy, infectious diseases and education. The activity will start Saturday when the leaders of the G-8 countries - Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States - gather for a glittering dinner in St. Petersburg, the former czarist capital founded 300 years ago by Peter the Great. In the more than three decades that the world's major countries have staged these get-togethers, foreign policy crises often have intervened to take time away from the economic issues, and this year is no exception. A search for ways to deal with North Korea's test firing of missiles and Iran's nuclear program are expected to take up much of the discussion time. Russian support is seen as critical in defusing both situations, and for that reason President Bush and the other leaders are expected to soften any criticism of Putin's backsliding on democratic reforms. Russia was added to the group of major industrial countries in 1998 after a number of years in which first Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then Russian President Boris Yeltsin were invited to meet with the G-7 leaders during a portion of their discussions to bolster the country's transition after seven decades of communist rule. But some critics including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called for a boycott of this year's meeting given what they saw as a disturbing drift by Putin away from democracy and toward more authoritarian rule, developments that have also raised alarms inside the Bush administration. In a May speech in Lithuania that angered Putin's government, Vice President Dick Cheney accused Russia of cracking down on religious and political rights and using its vast energy reserves as ``tools of intimidation'' against its neighbors. That was a reference to a January standoff over natural gas sales in which Russia briefly cut off supplies to Ukraine. In an interview broadcast Wednesday, Putin dismissed Cheney's criticism. ``I think the statements of your vice president of this sort are the same as an unsuccessful hunting shot,'' Putin told NBC's ``Today'' show, referring to Cheney's errant shot that wounded a hunting companion in February. Former President Mikhail Gorbachev, interviewed on ABC's ``Good Morning America,'' said, ``Americans have a severe disease, worse than AIDS. It's called winner's complex. You want American-style democracy in Russia. It will not work.'' ``We have made our mistakes. So what! Do you really think you're smarter than we are.'' While Bush plans to meet with civil society groups on Saturday in St. Petersburg, his discussions with Putin on democratic reforms will be done ``frankly but privately,'' Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, told reporters this week at a White House briefing. In addition to toning down its rhetoric during the summit, the Bush administration has said it will announce the start of negotiations on a civilian nuclear agreement with Russia, something that country has desired for many years as a way to get into the lucrative business of storing spent nuclear fuel from civilian power reactors. There also could be a breakthrough at the summit on another Russian goal - U.S. approval for Russia's bid to become a member of the World Trade Organization. Russia has been trying to join the WTO since 1993 and the U.S. is now the only country yet to reach a deal with Russia on membership terms. Putin's aides say Russia is determined to stage a summit that will showcase the country's economic rebound following the 1998 collapse of the Russian ruble, a rise that has been supported by soaring oil revenues, reflecting Russia's status as the world's second largest petroleum producer after Saudi Arabia. ``At the end of the summit, we would like that no one questions the membership of Russia within the G-8,'' Igor Shuvalov, Putin's personal representative to the summit, told reporters at a pre-summit briefing. The public opinion polls show that Putin, despite the criticism, remains popular, with approval ratings above 70 percent, the highest for any G-8 leader. Carlos Pascual, the Brookings Institution's director of foreign policy studies, said that after the chaos in Russia that followed the collapse of communist control, Putin has moved to sacrifice ``some level of political freedom in the name of restoring dignity and predictability.'' With oil prices surging briefly to new record territory above $75 per barrel over fears about North Korea's missile tests, Putin's decision to place energy at the top of the summit agenda has proved timely. The leaders are expected to approve a draft statement that will set goals of improving the investment climate for energy projects and encouraging competition, but the G-8 countries will have wide latitude in how to interpret their commitments. Putin's government has been moving to place limits on foreign investment in the country's oil and gas fields and boost the dominance of its own state-owned companies. ^--- On the Net: Russia's G-8 site: http://www.g8russia.ru Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: MPs could get vote on Trident Matthew Tempest and agencies Wednesday July 12, 2006 Tony Blair today hinted that MPs could get a vote on replacing Britain's controversial Trident nuclear deterrent. Although there is no strict precedent for a vote on purchasing military hardware, the prime minister told the Commons at question time that giving parliament a say was a "strong possibility". Until now, the most Mr Blair has been willing to promise is a "full debate" and wide consultation. With virtually unanimous Conservative backing for the Ł25bn new nuclear weapons system, a vote in the Commons would almost certainly be won, however big any Labour rebellion. Mr Blair told the Commons at question time that the government was "not averse" to votes on "extremely sensitive issues", referring to the unprecedented vote on military action prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The prime minister insisted that the defence secretary, Des Browne, would announce how MPs will be consulted when the government has published its decision on the future of the nuclear deterrent. " ... I would point out that we gave and have given votes on very, very sensitive issues before, and of course that is one strong possibility in relation to this particular issue," he added. Earlier, Mr Blair was warned by a Labour backbencher that renewing the Trident submarine fleet would make the world "a more dangerous place". Jeremy Corbyn called on the prime minister to give assurances that the government was "committed to the terms of the 1970 non-proliferation treaty, which does require the five declared nuclear weapons states to engage in a process of long-term disarmament". Mr Corbyn asked: "Do you not accept that re-armament by any of the five declared nuclear weapons states reduces any moral clout we might have in encouraging other states not to develop their own nuclear weapons and thus make the world a more dangerous place?" Mr Blair said the UK had "made considerable reductions both in our systems and, I think actually, in the number of warheads as well". "Although of course it is true that progressively ... if we can negotiate the right terms of this, we want to see a reduction in nuclear capability worldwide, but it has to be done by negotiation," he added. The Tory MP Richard Benyon told Mr Blair he would have full Tory backing for a new nuclear deterrent, while his colleague Julian Lewis demanded to know how the potential Ł25bn Trident bill would be paid. "If the decision is taken to replace the Trident submarine fleet with a successor, will it be funded from within the current defence budget or will extra funds be allocated to it from outside the defence budget?" he asked. Mr Blair said any decision on funding "has to await a later time and a later negotiation". He said Labour's pledge at last year's general election showed a commitment "to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent ... this means for the life of the current system". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 23 RIA Novosti: Russia says 137 nuclear submarines scrapped under global program 12/ 07/ 2006 MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has scrapped 137 out of 197 decommissioned submarines under an international program, a federal nuclear agency official said Tuesday. Russia has signed cooperation agreements on disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines with the United States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Norway. The disposal program costs an overall $2 billion, with Russia having allocated $850 million as of 2005. "The disposal program is proceeding well," said Andrei Malyshev, deputy head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power. "As of the second quarter 2006, we had scrapped 137 nuclear submarines. The disposal of another 22 is under way and we are planning to scrap 38 more in the future." The official said Russia had no complaints about its foreign partners in the program's implementation. Malyshev said the first part of long-term storage facilities for nuclear reactors from scrapped submarines in the Arctic Murmansk Region would be put into service on July 18. The facilities have been built with funds allocated by the German government under the Global Partnership Program, which started in 2003 after being signed at a summit of leaders from the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Canada the previous year. Germany has allocated a total of 300 million euro (over $382 million) for the construction of nuclear storage facilities in northern Russia. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 24 London Times: And, finally, there was heat and light - Comment - Times Online July 13, 2006 Philip Stott After years of hot air and outdated ideas, Whitehall has hit on the right mix of energy for Britain's needs IN ITS ENERGY Review the Government has at last faced up to serious problems in powering Britain for the next 50 years. During the past 40, governments have tried short-sightedly to pick winners in the energy stakes, be they coal, gas, nuclear or, as in the blinkered and overoptimistic 2003 review, “renewables” such as wind. Moreover, until recently, governments have been cushioned against energy realities by the resources of North Sea gas and oil. These are now squandered and declining, while our coal and nuclear power plants are ageing, so that by 2025 there will be, potentially, a 30 to 50 per cent shortfall in generating capacity. Urgent action is required, and, although it has taken nine years, Tony Blair seems finally to have grasped that the only way to fill this gap safely and effectively is by adopting a complex mix of policies, one that encourages diverse forms of energy generation, coupled with improvements in energy efficiency. If no action is taken, it will be Hobson’s choice, and we will be increasingly dependent on up to 90 per cent imported gas from unstable states, with little or no control over price. We will, effectively, become a second-class energy state, with diminishing political clout. Indeed, by 2020 the UK will represent only 1.5 per cent of world energy demand. Attaining the right mix is not easy. The different energy companies are never good at seeing the overall picture. All of them, from gas via nuclear power to wind, overstate their cases, while opportunistically chasing taxpayers’ cash. Some of the bigger companies play many hands at once, and, as with Enron and wind power, it is revealing to uncover who holds the cards. In addition, Britain is now hoist on its own global warming rhetoric, and morally it has to be seen to be doing something about carbon emissions. The record is lamentable, with emissions rising since new Labour came to power in 1997. There is also the need to overcome outdated perceptions about different forms of energy, such as “coal is dirty”, “nuclear power is unsafe” and wind and wave can “save the world” (without doing any environmental damage). These perceptions are political bunkum, and it is depressing to see the Liberal Democrats, and even the Conservatives, pandering to such misinformation for cheap gain. Expect to hear lots of nonsense about Chernobyl, a nuclear plant that would never have seen the light of day in the West, even at that time. Mr Blair has been brave in issuing a review that openly acknowledges that the core of our generating capacity should be a mix of imported gas, clean coal and new nuclear power, while at the same time promoting renewables, combined heat and power, and local microgeneration (where sensible), along with increased energy efficiency. Inevitably, protagonists will want to reduce the debate to a ding-dong between nuclear power and renew ables. This would be a mistake, repeating old errors. Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, is correct to emphasise that the package has to be considered as a whole, and that a complex mix of coal, gas, nuclear, and renewables is the way forward. The only debate should be over the precise mix. My own choice would be 30 per cent coal, 30 per cent gas, 25 per cent nuclear, and 15 per cent renewables. However, the nature of the mix will depend on the market, the price of carbon, the price of gas and the liberalisation of the energy scene in Europe. With respect to nuclear power, this could not be a better time to ask private industry to bid. The new plants are modular and simple in relation to older designs. For example, the modern Westinghouse AP 1000 has 50 per cent fewer valves, 35 per cent fewer pumps, and 70 per cent less cabling than its predecessors. The plant can be contained in a building half the size. This means that plants express a small environmental footprint (compare this to an extensive wind farm) and they are much safer, employing “passive” systems of control, not “active” human management. In the event of an emergency, the safety systems rely on natural forces, including gravity, circulation, and evaporation to shut itself down. Inevitably this makes the plants cheap to make (about Ł400 million to 500 million), and they can be constructed in 36 to 42 months, with a productive life of 60 years. They are also highly efficient and will produce only 10 per cent of the nuclear waste of the past. However, the main issue with the nuclear part of the mix must be to ensure that we choose just one system that can be serviced and maintained easily throughout the whole country. The European Pressurised Water Reactor (1,600 MW) would be sensible because we can share technical expertise with countries already committed to it, such as Finland and France. The review, correctly, does not ignore coal, which still produces a third of our electricity and where scrubbing techniques, combined with the eco-friendly capture of carbon in old oil wells, could give the industry fresh acceptability. There is also an immediate need to stabilise gas prices and supplies in Europe. By contrast, the push for renewables remains rose-tinted, with electricity companies having to provide a fifth of energy from such sources. There are unanswered environmental concerns over renewables, not least the potential ecosystem damage accompanying a tidal barrage across the Severn, and the biodiversity impact of one million acres of biofuels such as oilseed rape. But, whatever happens now, please can we ignore the usual whingers and whiners and get on with the job of powering Britain. Give the energy market its head and allow it to work with all forms of generation. We must not go back to picking just one or two fashionable winners. Philip Stott is Emeritus Professor of Biogeography of the University of London Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 25 Traverse City Record-Eagle: State eyes buying Big Rock www.record-eagle.com Local News 07/12/2006 Former nuke plant site has spent fuel rods By CRAIG McCOOL mccoolrecordeagle@sbcglobal.net[Big Rock Point] CHARLEVOIX — Hundreds of acres of pristine wilderness and over a mile of undisturbed Lake Michigan shoreline provide good reason for the state's interest in an available chunk of property. But there's also radioactive waste, the X-factor that has those who control the purse strings leery of a plan to use public funds to buy the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is asking the Natural Resources Trust Fund for millions — $3 million up front and additional money each year — to help finance a purchase of more than 500 acres on U.S. 31 east of Charlevoix. The trust fund board will make grant allocation decisions by year's end. Competition is fierce, said board member Sam Washington, and the Big Rock land acquisition proposal, which ultimately would involve around $10 million in NRC grant funds, has "some snags," Washington said. Snag No. 1: the waste — 441 fuel bundles, each containing more than 100 radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods, are stored on the Big Rock property. "If it stays on the site, they will have to convince the board that the plans for safeguarding it and safeguarding the public are credible," Washington said. "I've not seen such plans." The asking price for Big Rock is $20 million, said DNR spokeswoman Mary Dettloff. Natural resources trust fund grants would only cover a portion. "There are all sorts of ways we can finance this project. It would likely be spread out over several years," Dettloff said. The state and the Little Traverse Conservancy are pushing hard for public acquisition. "We cannot afford to pass this opportunity by," said Conservancy director Tom Bailey. Big Rock's current land owner, Consumers Energy, is nearing the end of a decade-long project to dismantle the power plant, which shut down in 1997. The reactor and plant buildings are long gone, but the fuel rods remain in concrete casks in a fenced-off area. They likely will stay until a national repository for such waste can be established. It probably won't happen before 2010, said company spokesman Tim Petrosky. In the meantime, the company wants to sell the remainder of the land, holding back the area where the waste is stored — about the size of basketball court — along with a "robust border," Petrosky said. Numerous developers already have expressed interest, Petrosky said, but the company is waiting to see whether the state and the conservancy can put together funding. "We are aware of the progress that various organizations have made and are committed ... to working with the local organizations first," Petrosky said. See related story: Demolition of Big Rock nears an end- July 9, 2006 © Traverse City Record-Eagle, 1998-2006 | Terms of Use| Privacy ***************************************************************** 26 BBC: MPs press over nuclear subsidies Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 July 2006 [Protestor against nuclear power] Some Labour MPs are suspicious of the subsidy claims Ministers face increasing questions over claims new nuclear power stations will be funded by the industry itself. Industry secretary Alastair Darling says any investment in replacing nuclear capacity will be funded by the private sector, rather than government. However, a stream of Labour MPs fear ministers may offer subsidies to the industry, particularly if it gets into financial difficulties. Mr Darling says nuclear power is needed to help meet future UK energy needs. 'Significant contribution' He gave the go-ahead for a new wave of nuclear power stations during his statement to MPs on Tuesday. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of the UK's electricity, but that is due to fall to 6% as all but one of the ageing plants shut down over the next 20 years. It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs Alastair Darling Nuclear power: In quotes Mr Darling said new nuclear power stations could make a "significant contribution" to meeting the UK's energy goals over the next 30 to 40 years. He said: "It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs." However, Elliot Morley, who was a minister in the Department of the Environment when the last Energy Review came out in 2003, was sceptical. He said he welcomed Mr Darling's "very clear statement" that there "will be no public subsidies". Labouring the point? "But you well know, as I do, that there's been a history of nuclear sectors going bankrupt over the years," he said. "Would you consider asking for a bond on new investment to cover that decommissioning and nuclear waste charges?" Does a full share of the lo term waste costs mean 100% - yes or no? Michael Weir SNP Mr Darling said problems in the past were caused by people who failed to make the right calculations. Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn pressed a little further: "Can you assure the House that there is going to be no subsidy whatsoever for the nuclear industry in the construction, operation or waste management or disposal as a result of this white paper?" Mr Darling said he had answered this point and suggested the MP look at the Energy Review. 'Unequivocal answer' needed Labour's Rob Marris wanted an assurance that there would be no "indirect subsidies" given, such as guaranteed prices, purchases or insurance cover. The minister said there would be no guaranteed prices, although EU rules required some insurance. The SNP's Michael Weir wanted an "unequivocal answer": "Does a 'full share' of the long term waste costs mean 100% - yes or no?" Mr Darling said he had nothing to add to what he had said in his statement to MPs. Labour's Gordon Prentice asked if the private sector would bear the whole cost of private security at nuclear plants. Mr Darling replied: "I said that anyone coming forward with proposals to build nuclear power stations has to be responsible for meeting the costs of building, operating, maintaining and the decommissioning." ***************************************************************** 27 The Herald: A nuclear legacy that simply won’t go away Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 Iain Macwhirter July 12 2006 Looks like Gordon Brown still hasn't forgiven Jack McConnell for those Forth Road Bridge tolls before the Dunfermline by-election. If the First Minister was hoping for any specific opt-out for Scotland from the new nuclear future, he has been disappointed. Yet the Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, was able to parade his conscience yesterday in his own backyard. He announced Northern Ireland would remain a nuclear-free zone. The Irish government is opposed to nuclear power and has vetoed any nuclear power stations on the island. Which rather makes it look as if the Irish have more say on energy policy in the UK than does Scotland. The SNP has drawn the obvious conclusion. So, it looks like a double whammy for McConnell from Brown. First renewal of Trident and now the possibility of six new nuclear stations, two of which could be in Scotland. It's little consolation that the first of the new nukes is likely to be sited in England. Or, indeed, that the latest energy review, announced unconvincingly in the Commons yesterday by Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, raised more questions than it answered. The FM will still have to argue the case for nuclear energy, at least in principle, at the Scottish elections in May - even though Scotland is awash with renewable energy. The Chancellor was the last obstacle in the way of the realisation of Tony Blair's vision of a new nuclear future. Hitherto, the Treasury has insisted that any new nuclear power stations would have to be financed by the private sector - decommissioning and all. Many took that as a sign that Brown was sceptical, at least, about the merits of nuclear power. The reason? If it were left to the private sector, there would never be another nuclear power station built in Britain because of the cost. The previous generation of nuclear stations left a multi-billion-pound mess that the state undertook to clean up. Last year, the government set up the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency endowed with Ł50bn of taxpayers' money to do the job. Little over a year on, the bill has risen to nearly Ł70bn, and most analysts expect that bill to rise to more than Ł100bn. Private capital deals in risk - that's what private enterprise is all about. But it doesn't deal in that kind of risk. Only governments have the resources to deal with the unkowns associated with nuclear generation - historically, the costliest form of energy production in history. Burning Ł10 notes would have generated cheaper energy than that provided by the "fast-breeder" reactor at Dounreay, and even the conventional reactors were uneconomic if you take into account their entire life cycle. They generate a lot of carbon, too, in the mining and refining of uranium, but that's another matter. Nor will insurance companies underwrite any new nuclear stations. The government may have forgotten Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale, but the City hasn't. And any fool can see that nuclear power stations are the ideal terrorist targets. They also require nuclear waste to be transported around the country, which multiplies the target count. No credible authority that I know of has ever suggested the private sector could cope with nuclear decommissioning and the cost of dealing with nuclear waste. Which makes it all the more puzzling that Alistair Darling seems to believe otherwise. Or rather his mentor does. "Gordon is fully up for nuclear," according to Treasury sources. The significance of yesterday's energy review lies in its assertion that nuclear power is now "economically viable"- that's code for Gordon gives the go-ahead. Curious that only three years ago, the government's previous energy review said exactly the reverse: that nuclear was "unnattractive" and likely to be a very costly form of energy generation. The Trade and Industry Committee of the House of Commons is still unconvinced, as it reported earlier this week. Yesterday's statement from Mr Darling, overturning those authorities, was uniquely uninformative as to what exactly has changed. He simply insisted that the private sector will have to pay its "full share" of the cost of nuclear decommissioning and waste storage. No-one knows what he means by this, and one suspects the industry department doesn't either. But Tony wants his nukes and Gordon wants his job - so that's that. Problem solved. The Chancellor's conversion occurred, I'm told, on the eve of the PM's recent nuclear summit in France, during which Tony Blair forgave the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" for their refusal to invade Iraq, in order to do a lend-lease deal over nuclear technology. Thus we enter, blind, another nuclear power cycle. Of course we're told - not least by the Chancellor's brother, Andrew Brown, who is a lobbyist for the nuclear industry - that new nuclear stations are far safer and more efficient than the old ones; that they practically fuel themselves and the only effluent that emerges is pure water and fresh air. Nuclear is clean, green, kind to animals: just look at Chernobyl, we're told, it's become a haven for wildlife. But this is exactly what we were told last time. The men in white coats said that electricity generated by nuclear power would be so cheap it wouldn't need to be metered. They said that nuclear power plants were "failsafe" - so expertly engineered and regulated that a nuclear accident was simply impossible. What's changed? I'm not entirely sure. Everyone expected that, by now, a solution would have been found to the problem of nuclear waste. But after yet another review, the committee on radioactive waste management, CORWM, has concluded that there isn't one, other than storing it in recoverable deep geological repositories. In other words, guarding the stuff for 10,000 years. That means through the forthcoming climate change sea-level rise that will inundate low-lying onshore nuclear power stations; through the next ice-age and beyond. Forever and ever . . . how do you calculate the private sector's "proper share" of that? Or Scotland's share? Scotland could almost certainly get by without nuclear power. We have huge undeveloped reserves of wind, tidal, solar (yes, even that), hydro, biomass and just about every other form of non-nuclear energy, from clean coal to peat. Storing CO2 off Peterhead is almost certainly viable and could regenerate the North Sea. There is a vast renewables industry here waiting to be developed. And, to be fair, Alistair Darling promises it will be developed. The target is an ambitious 20% of UK electricity generation from renewables. But few believe that the government is committed sincerely to a renewable future. The crucial strategic decision has been made. Constructing six new nuclear stations at half-a-billion each will "crowd out" other forms of energy for a generation, just as the first generation crowded out hydro-electric power. This is an epic centralised and massively expensive dash for a nuclear solution to global warming. If, as reported in the Sunday Herald, the G8 nations are intending a global nuclear solution, then renewable energy will remain a bobble-hat alternative, dismissed as trivial and drained of resources. Well, at least it means the Prime Minister will have his legacy. Chances are he really will be remembered for 10,000 years.   Read Iain Macwhirter also in the Sunday Herald. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 28 The Herald: Is nuclear the answer? Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 Editorial Comment July 12 2006 With more leaks from the government than from Chernobyl, it came as no surprise that Alistair Darling's statement yesterday on Britain's future energy policy included official support for a new generation of nuclear power stations. However, the Trade Minister fell short of making the emphatic commitment to nuclear that the industry's most ardent supporters had hoped for. In the event, he reserved much of his enthusiasm for renewables and energy efficiency. This offers Scotland a window of opportunity that it must now work to exploit. Sensing the public has yet to be convinced Britain has more to gain than lose from nuclear power, Mr Darling declared new nuclear stations "could" rather than "would" be contributing to lessening carbon emissions and reducing reliance on imported energy. So the debate will continue as to whether the country's looming energy gap can be bridged without nuclear fission. Given that the government appears to expect the private sector to bear the cost of construction and eventual decommissioning, doubt remains over whether new stations will ever be built. Much will depend on the detailed framework, and in particular the extent of preferential pricing for carbon-free transmission and whether the government is prepared to underwrite guarantees on waste disposal. With a lively debate continuing, in which much of big business and several trade unions will lobby hard in favour of nuclear, vital attention, energy and investment risks being diverted from energy efficiency and renewables, two areas in which Scotland has much to gain. With both the SNP and LibDems implacably opposed to nuclear power and the First Minister reputedly lukewarm, Scotland was never likely to be chosen for the first new nuclear stations. Besides, high transmission costs mean they would almost certainly be built in southern England. Meanwhile, Scottish geography lends itself to the exploitation of nature's powers better than any other area of Europe. In the past, the country has failed to exploit that position, allowing a useful lead in aerogenerator technology to be squandered for want of official backing. The same risks happening with emerging technology in tidal power, developed in Scotland but currently being exploited in Portugal. It is time to grasp the nettle. The Ł1bn National Institute for Energy Technologies, announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, should come to Scotland. Its strategic importance surely gives Aberdeen an unbeatable claim for this investment. The North Sea could be at the forefront of the carbon capture technology George Bush enthuses about, with plans already afoot to pump carbon dioxide into the BP Miller Field off Peterhead. The largest power plant in the UK fuelled solely by biomass is near Lockerbie in the Borders. Meanwhile, several Scottish firms, including Windsave in Glasgow, are leading the way in microgeneration. And, with 8% of Europe's untapped coal reserves and relevant engineering expertise, Scotland has an implicit interest in the development of clean coal technology. At present, although the Scottish Executive's Warm Deal initiative has provided thousands of pensioners with better insulated homes, for a chilly, windy place, Scotland is one of the least energy-efficient countries in Europe. Recent research suggests on average Scots households annually squander Ł300 because their homes fail to meet basic insulation standards. The Prime Minister is right to claim that wishful thinking will not keep the lights on, but it does not necessarily follow that the answer is a huge investment in nuclear that could as easily sow the seeds of our destruction as turn out to be the answer to our prayers. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 29 The Herald: Welcome for Energy Review which deals with current challenges Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 Your Letters July 12 2006 THERE is much to welcome in the government's latest Energy Review. The result appears to be a sound basis from which to achieve the twin objectives of moving the UK to a low-carbon economy, while meeting the challenge of securing affordable energy and increasing energy efficiency, thus ensuring the competitiveness of business. There is no doubt that the policy context has changed since the previous energy review in 2003 and we have a much better idea about the challenges ahead, particularly regarding climate change, rising energy prices and the decline of existing generating capacity. It is in the UK's national interest to secure clean, affordable energy in the long term and achieve its international emission-reduction commitments. Many countries are grappling with these issues; the emerging consensus that a broad mix of technologies will be needed is no coincidence. SCDI welcomes the government's intention that indigenous gas, clean coal and nuclear should form the backbone of the UK's long-term energy strategy, with a diverse range of renewable sources also making a greatly increased contribution  this cannot be an either-or situation. In particular, the production of indigenous mineral resources should be actively maximised through a stable fiscal and regulatory framework. This obviously means North Sea oil and gas, but also applies to our vast reserves of Scottish coal. This review is especially important to Scotland. It is sometimes forgotten that Scotland is an energy exporter. However, with the planned nuclear decommissioning timetable, Scotland will lose up to half of its generation capacity in the next few decades. Of course, governments can do more to develop nascent renewable technologies, but it is unlikely their impact will synchronise with the demise of existing nuclear capacity. While it appears that the costs of transmitting electricity to the populated areas of greatest demand in the UK make it unlikely that the private sector will finance new nuclear power stations in Scotland, at least for the time being, if circumstances change and it becomes more strategic to invest in new civil nuclear power in Scotland, then this investment should be encouraged. Alan Wilson, Chief Executive, Scottish Council for Development and Industry, 17 Park Circus Place, Glasgow. IT IS encouraging that the Scottish Executive now has proposals to make the provision of micro-renewable power essential in new developments. I have tabled amendments to the Planning Bill, currently in its Stage 2 at the Scottish Parliament, on this topic. They empower councils to insist on the provision of micro-renewables and energy conservation measures to their satisfaction before giving planning permission to new developments and require councils to give planning permission for applications for micro-renewables and energy conservation measures for existing buildings, unless there are exceptionally strong aesthetic reasons for refusal. The executive must take seriously the issue of better energy conservation as well as micro-renewables and the issue of enabling existing buildings to be improved in these ways. My amendments give the executive the earliest chance to get statutory endorsement for its policy; it should then also support the proposed Energy Efficiency and Micro-generation Bill by Sarah Boyack, already endorsed by many MSPs, on similar lines. Ministers should either support my amendments or table their own (in their eyes better) amendments. A positive reaction would be a welcome change. Ministers have opposed 23 of my 24 amendments voted on so far. Donald Gorrie, MSP, The Scottish Parliament. YOUR report (July 10) claiming that 76% of those questioned in a survey were in favour of wind power merely indicates the extent of misunderstanding of wind-produced electricity in the grid. It is likely that all the 76% think that wind power and nuclear power are alternatives  the "I'd rather have a windfarm than a nuclear power plant" attitude. The truth is that wind power in the grid needs almost 100% conventional power station standby or backup at all times to ensure a stable, continuous electricity supply. Wind power cannot provide base-load electricity. Wind power and nuclear power are not alternatives. Unfortunately, all Scottish political parties, except the Scottish Tories, seem unaware of this. Windfarms are an obstacle to effective action on greenhouse gas reduction and the provision of a reliable electricity supply. A R Nelson, 5 Scarletmuir, Lanark. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 30 The Herald: Sympathy for nuclear solution Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 CATHERINE MacLEOD, UK Political Editor July 12 2006 Analysis A recent convert to nuclear power, Alistair Darling set out the government's UK energy policy yesterday against a backdrop of rising gas and oil prices, and real concern about climate change and carbon emissions. He was fortunate. While the prevailing circumstances will not silence the anti-nuclear critics, the public are more likely to be sympathetic to a nuclear option as their electricity bills continue to rise, and uncertainty about energy supplies increases. Households and industrial users were hit by sharply higher bills last winter when inflation-busting rises were imposed by suppliers across the UK. The crisis saw wholesale gas prices quadruple one day in March when National Grid was forced to issue its first-ever warning that demand was outstripping supply. Rises have continued to rise, ScottishPower the latest hike to their prices. In the face of rising gas prices and uncertainty over future supply, Mr Darling, who inherited responsibility for the energy policy at the most recent reshuffle in May and is given credit for making it greener, argued that Britain's energy demands should be met by a mix of energy supply, including nuclear. He said: "The mix of energy supply in the UK has served us well over many years. And that is essential for the future too. Cleaner coal, oil and gas, more renewable sources of energy. But we must also look at nuclear power." He also placed greater emphasis on looking for ways to cut demand for energy, and he presented a range of measures, including an obligation on energy companies to deliver energy savings, and incentives to Britain's 27 million households to become more energy efficient. As he told The Herald last week, electric appliances left on standby account for 7% of all the electricity generated in the UK. Mr Darling's ambitions chime with targets published by Malcolm Chisholm, Scotland's Communities Minister, earlier this week. Mr Chisholm unveiled draft plans to incentivise householders and local authorities to embrace energy-saving schemes. In the main, MPs welcomed the government's commitment to renewables and its determination to cut down carbon emissions but there was less unanimity over the inclusion of a nuclear element. Mr Darling argued that the government had very little option. He said: "If we do nothing the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear will fall from just under 20% today to just 6% in 15 years time. And nuclear has provided much of the electricity base load  contributing to consistency of supply as well as security of supply." In response to a battery of questions about finance from sceptical MPs, Mr Darling insisted that market forces would prevail. The private sector, he said, would initiate, fund, construct and operate the nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and management costs of the long-term waste generated by the new build. The new-build investors will not be expected to pay the costs of the waste legacy. Significantly, Gordon Brown, who is likely to be prime minister when the policy becomes reality, fully supports the policy, a factor which will not go unnoticed in the City. Whether Scotland will see the building of new nuclear power stations may not be on the immediate agenda but the question remains an open one. Today a Dounreay trades unionist will tell Tony Blair that there is grassroots support in the far north for a new reactor on the site. John Deighan will be part of a nuclear workers' lobby at No 10 when he will tell Mr Blair that Caithness faces economic meltdown if nothing is found to replace the 2400 jobs associated with the decommissioning of Dounreay's three defunct reactors. He will hand over letters from Thurso and Wick Trades Union Council and Caithness and Sutherland Chamber of Commerce supporting the case for a new reactor. But opposition is likely to be overwhelming to the idea of nuclear if the time ever arises. Last night, in a BBC 2 interview, Tony Blair warned that any decision to rule out the construction of new nuclear power stations would represent a huge risk for Britain. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 31 The Herald: Nuclear vision: private firms power Blair's UK plan Web Issue 2570 July 12 2006 CATHERINE MacLEOD, UK Political Editor July 12 2006 ALISTAIR Darling lit the touch paper for a battle royal with the anti-nuclear lobby north and south of the border yesterday as he formally gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. Unveiling the long-awaited green paper on energy, Mr Darling signalled the probability of future nuclear power stations being built adjacent to present generators but the government will make further assessment of the most suitable sites. Scottish MPs are split over nuclear power but the final decision for any new build in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Executive. As Torness in East Lothian still has about 20 years of life, it is unlikely the Scottish Parliament will decide in the lifetime of the next parliament. Tony Blair immediately went on the offensive in support of the nuclear option. Speaking on television last night, he warned that the UK faces an energy gap in 15-20 years as North Sea oil and gas run out and the country's ageing reactors are shut down. He said renewable energy sources would not fill that gap, raising the risk of Britain becoming dependent on imported gas and oil from potentially insecure sources like Russia and north Africa. In an interview for BBC2's Newsnight, the Prime Minister said: "With the best will in the world you're not going to be able to fill all the gap." Mr Darling acknowledged the huge potential of the renewable industry in Scotland, and he, and his colleagues on the Scottish Executive, believe planning laws must be changed to speed up the applications to build wind farms. More controversially, Mr Darling championed nuclear power as a necessary part of the UK's energy supply for the next 40 years, and he said the entire cost of the new plants would be met by the industry. Speaking in the Commons, he said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals. It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning." He confirmed the nuclear option along with ambitious plans for renewable energy and energy reduction, which were widely welcomed by MPs. However, Ed Davy, the LibDems' trade and industry spokesman, accused the government of caving into the nuclear lobby. The Tories, who have conceded that the nuclear option should not be ruled out, were less robust. Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, said the statement contained no real policies, no real action, and no real decisions. Within the industry, Mr Darling's green paper, titled Energy Challenge, was welcomed as was his commitment to streamline the planning process for renewables and transport as well as nuclear build. Martin Temple, director general of the Engineering Employers Federation, said: "The government should be applauded for setting out a balanced strategy and grasping the nuclear nettle." Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, said: "It is clear planning will be crucial. What we don't need is a repeat of Sizewell B, where the planning process took five years." Opponents to nuclear energy, however, were incandescent. Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Slashing safety regulations and driving a short-cut through planning safeguards is as real a subsidy for nuclear power as if government had simply bunged it a very large brown envelope full of used Ł50 notes. "This will lead to devastating uncertainty for the desirable renewable energy and energy conservation projects." Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 32 AFP:Britain champions nuclear, renewable energy in major review - by Deborah Haynes Wed Jul 12, 8:14 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Nuclear power "could" make a significant contribution to Britain's energy needs alongside renewable energy sources, the government has said in a long-awaited review of its energy policy. The wording was softer than bullish comments made by Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairin May that nuclear energy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance", and appeared aimed at appeasing environmentalists who oppose the atomic option. But Blair warned Tuesday that any decision to rule out new nuclear power stations would be a "huge risk". He wants Britain to rely more on nuclear power rather than expensive and dirty carbon fuels in a bid to combat climate change and reduce the country's dependence on often volatile foreign energy imports. Environmental groups argue that there are better ways to do this, such as greater investment in renewable energy and a reduction in consumption. But Blair countered: "With the best will in the world -- and we're going to make a big increase in the use of renewables -- you're not going to be able to fill all the gap." He told critics to "just face up to the facts" in a BBC television interview. "If we're going to go from being self-sufficient in gas to importing it, if prices are rising, if we know that climate change is an even more serious problem than we thought a few years ago, how can we take nuclear out of the mix? "Isn't that a huge risk to take? "And if you take the wrong decision now, and it turns out to be wrong in 15 or 20 years' time, then of course it's too late to do anything about it. "We would be completely dependent on imports of possibly very highly-priced gas, with all the issues of security of supply because of where the gas comes from." Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, who unveiled the review in parliament, said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals." He warned that Britain would lose about one-third of its capacity to generate electricity over the next two decades as ageing coal and nuclear power stations close down. "Decisions will have to be taken on the replacement in the next few years," Darling told the House of Commons, noting that a wider use of renewable energy -- such as solar, tidal and wind power -- would help to fill the gap. "Far from getting rid of the renewables obligation, as some have proposed, we intend to increase it from 15 percent to 20 percent," the minister said. At the same time, without, for example, a new generation of nuclear power plants, Britain would also need to rely more on imports of gas from potentially unstable parts of the world, increasing the risk to its energy supply. The review, ordered by Blair late last year in the face of shrinking North Sea oil and gas reserves, did not mention how many new stations were desired. The Observer newspaper, however, reported at the weekend that the Department of Trade and Industry was considering building six. Darling said any investment in replacement nuclear capacity would be funded by the private sector rather than government subsidies. The report explores Britain's energy needs for the next 30 to 40 years. A statement of government policy is due to be published around the end of the 2006 after further consultation. Darling said the country faced two main challenges -- the need to tackle climate change and cut carbon emissions. Britain's electricity-guzzling households and businesses must be encouraged to reduce their energy consumption through incentives offered by power companies, the minister said, noting that seven percent of electricity is wasted on electrical appliances that are left on standby. Cleaner energy was also important, with the review setting a target of 20 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. Such environmentally-friendly overtures failed to appease critics who focused on the nuclear references. Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide around 25 percent of the country's electricity. Proponents of new reactors, which emit virtually no carbon dioxide, say they would help Britain meet a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, Firstenergy Nuclear FR Doc E6-10905 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39370] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-107] [[Page 39370]] Generation Corp., Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the indirect transfer of the Facility Operating License, No. NPF-3, for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS) to the extent currently held by FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. (FENGenCo), regarding its ownership of the facility. According to an application for approval filed by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensed operator of DBNPS, acting on behalf of FENGenCo and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FE Solutions), a corporate restructuring is planned such that FE Solutions will become the new direct corporate parent of FENGenCo. FE Solutions is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., as is FENGenCo. After the corporate restructuring, FE Solutions will continue to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., while FENGenCo will be an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of FE Solutions. No physical changes to the DBNPS facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve the application for the indirect transfer of the license, if the Commission determines that the proposed corporate restructuring will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below. Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C ``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Mr. David W. Jenkins, Esq., address: 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-GO-18, Akron, OH 44308, telephone: 330-384-5037, and e-mail: ; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: ); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated June 6, 2006, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen J. Campbell, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-10905 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear FR Doc E6-10906 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39370-39371] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-108] Generation Corp., Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the indirect transfer of the Facility Operating License No. NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP) currently held by FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. (FENGenCo), regarding its ownership interests in PNPP. According to an application for approval filed by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensed operator of PNPP, acting on behalf of FENGenCo and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FE Solutions), a [[Page 39371]] corporate restructuring is planned such that FE Solutions will become the new direct corporate parent of FENGenCo. FE Solutions is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., as is FENGenCo. After the corporate restructuring, FE Solutions will continue to be a wholly- owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., while FENGenCo will be an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of FE Solutions. The Ohio Edison Company, which holds a leased interest in PNPP and is licensed to possess such interest, is not involved in the planned corporate restructuring. No physical changes to the PNPP facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed corporate restructuring will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below. Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C ``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Mr. David W. Jenkins, Esq., address: 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-GO-18, Akron, OH 44308, telephone: 330-384-5037, and email: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated June 6, 2006, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen J. Campbell, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-10906 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear FR Doc E6-10907 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39371-39372] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-109] Generation Corp., Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the indirect transfer of the Facility Operating Licenses, Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73, for the Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Units 1 and 2, to the extent currently held by FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. (FENGenCo), regarding its ownership interests in BVPS, Units 1 and 2. According to an application for approval filed by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), the licensed operator of BVPS, Units 1 and 2, acting on behalf of FENGenCo and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FE Solutions), a corporate restructuring is planned such that FE Solutions will become the new direct corporate parent of FENGenCo. FE Solutions is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., as is FENGenCo. After the corporate restructuring, FE Solutions will continue to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., while FENGenCo will be an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of FE Solutions. The Ohio Edison Company and the Toledo Edison Company, which hold leased interests in BVPS, Unit 2 and are licensed to possess such interests, are not involved in the planned corporate restructuring. No physical changes to the BVPS facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, [[Page 39372]] through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve the application for the indirect transfer of the licenses, if the Commission determines that the proposed corporate restructuring will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the licenses, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below. Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C ``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Mr. David W. Jenkins, Esq., address: 76 South Main Street, Mail Stop A-GO-18, Akron, OH 44308, telephone: 330-384-5037, and email: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated June 6, 2006, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen J. Campbell, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-10907 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability FR Doc E6-10908 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39373-39374] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-111] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97, entitled ``Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power Plants,'' describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in complying with the agency's regulations with respect to satisfying criteria for accident monitoring instrumentation in nuclear power plants. Specifically, the method described in this regulatory guide relates to General Design Criteria 13, 19, and 64, as set forth in Appendix A to Title 10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 50), ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.'' In addition, Subsection (2)(xix) of 10 CFR 50.34(f), ``Additional TMI-Related Requirements,'' requires operating reactor licensees to provide adequate instrumentation for use in [[Page 39374]] monitoring plant conditions following an accident that includes core damage. This revision of Regulatory Guide 1.97 represents an ongoing evolution in the nuclear industry's thinking and approaches with regard to accident monitoring systems for nuclear power plants. Specifically, this revision endorses (with certain clarifying regulatory positions specified in Section C of the revised guide) the ``Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power Generating Stations,'' which the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) promulgated as IEEE Std. 497-2002. This revised regulatory guide is intended for licensees of new nuclear power plants.\1\ Previous revisions of this regulatory guide remain in effect for licensees of current operating reactors,\1\ who are unaffected by this proposed revision. (See regulatory position 1 in Section C of the revised guide for information regarding the applicability of IEEE Std. 497-2002 for current operating reactors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The terms ``new nuclear power plant'' and ``new plant'' refer to any nuclear power plant for which the licensee obtained an operating license after the NRC issued Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97. The terms ``current operating reactor'' and ``current plant'' refer to any nuclear power plant for which the licensee obtained an operating license before the NRC issued Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The NRC previously solicited public comment on this revised guide by publishing a Federal Register notice (70 FR 49953) concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1128 on August 25, 2005. Following the closure of the public comment period on October 14, 2005, the staff considered all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97. The staff's responses to all comments received are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061580516. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Requests for technical information about Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97 may be directed to Barry S. Marcus at (301) 415-2823 or . Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . Electronic copies of Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.97 are also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at , under Accession ML061580448. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e- mail to . Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to ; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-10908 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Availability of the FR Doc E6-10909 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39372-39373] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-110] Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site and Associated Public Meeting Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) has published Supplement 1 to NUREG-1811, ``Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site'' (SDEIS), and is making it available for comment. The site is located near the Town of Mineral in Louisa County, Virginia, on the southern shore of Lake Anna. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion, the applicant) is seeking an ESP for the North Anna site in accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52. The ESP process allows resolution of issues relating to siting separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or a combined construction permit and operating license referred to as a combined license (COL) for a nuclear power facility. At any time during the term of an ESP (up to 20 years), the permit may be referenced in an application for a CP or COL. The application for the ESP was submitted by letter dated September 25, 2003. In the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), published in December 2004 (69 FR 71854), the staff evaluated the proposed action (issuance of an ESP at the North Anna ESP site) including the no action alternative and alternative sites to determine if any alternative site identified was obviously superior to the proposed site. On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application. The revision described changes to the cooling water system for postulated Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site and an increase in power level for both postulated Units 3 and 4. In view of these changes, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.72, determined to prepare a supplement to its DEIS. A notice of intent to prepare a supplement to the draft environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2006 (71 FR 28392). In addition, on June 21, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 7 of the application. Revision 7 of the application included changes in response to the staff's request for additional information on Revision 6. The scope of the SDEIS is limited to the environmental impacts associated [[Page 39373]] with the changes in ER Revision 6, i.e., the new cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in the maximum power level described in the PPE. The evaluation in the SDEIS addresses the wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 and modifies the analysis of impacts related to the power level increase for both Units 3 and 4. There is no change to the cooling system for Unit 4. These revised evaluations will be incorporated into the final EIS. The final EIS will also set forth the public comments on the analysis presented in this SDEIS received within the comment period described below, together with comments concerning the draft EIS received within the draft EIS comment period, and the staff's responses to comments. The staff will address comments on portions of the DEIS not affected by the changes in Revisions 6 and 7 of the application in the FEIS only to the extent such comments were received during the comment period on the DEIS or there is otherwise time for the staff to address them. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the SDEIS is available for public inspection and comment. The DSEIS is available in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS Accession No. ML061800217), and will also be placed directly on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www. .nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Louisa County Library, located at 881 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia, has agreed to make the DSEIS available for public inspection. The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview of the SDEIS and to accept public comments on the DSEIS. The public meeting will be held in the Forum at the Louisa County Middle School, 1009 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia on Tuesday, August 15, 2006. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as necessary. The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the SDEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions 1 hour before the start of the meeting at the Louisa County Middle School. No formal comments on the SDEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting by contacting Mr. Jack Cushing, by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1424, or by Internet to the NRC at North_Anna_comments@nrc.gov no later than August 10, 2006. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of the meeting. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Mr. Cushing must be contacted no later than August 7, 2006, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. This draft report is being issued by the NRC for a 45-day comment period. The comment period begins on the date that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a Notice of Filing in the Federal Register which is expected to be July 14, 2006; such Notices are published every Friday. The Notice will identify the comment period end date. Members of the public may send written comments on the SDEIS for the North Anna ESP to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register Notice. Comments may also be delivered to Room T-6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be sent by the Internet to the NRC at North_Anna_comments@nrc.gov. To assist the NRC staff in identifying and considering issue and concerns, comments on the supplement to the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft supplement. Comments will be available electronically and accessible through the NRC's PERR link at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . For Further Information Contact: For further information regarding the environmental impact statement, contact Mr. Jack Cushing, Senior Environmental Project Manager, at telephone number 301-415-1424, or by mail at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Jack Cushing, Mail Stop 0-11F1, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. David B. Matthews, Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-10909 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI, China discuss coop on energy 2006/07/12 Chinese ambassador to Tehran Leo Jen Tung conferred Tuesday with the Head of Majlis Energy Commission Kamal Daneshyar on expansion of mutual cooperation on energy sector between the two countries. At the meeting, Daneshyar called for continued expansion of good relations between the two countries and voiced Iran's readiness to meet the demands of China in the energy sector. According to the News Bureau and Public Relations Department of Majlis, at the meeting, the Majlis representative highlighted deep-rooted ties between Iran and China and voiced the readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran in meeting the energy demands of China on a wide scale. Establishment of Iran-China Joint Venture Company would have positive impacts on expansion of mutual cooperation in the energy sector, he said. Iranian Majlis is ready to back implementation of such project, he said. Concerning the upcoming energy crisis along with increase in demands in the market for import of oil and gas, there would emerge the vital need for establishment of nuclear power plants in the world,he said. China's logical support of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities would not only defend the country's legitimate rights but also it could be considered as supporting the rights of all humans, he said. The Chinese ambassador, for his part, attached importance to expansion of economic cooperation in energy sector between the two countries and called for Majlis support for cooperation between Iranian and Chinese companies in oil and gas sectors. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. ***************************************************************** 39 Bangor Daily News: Scientist assails N-energy plan - Bangornews.com: Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, spoke against President Bush's nuclear energy proposal the University of Maine on Tuesday.BANGOR DAILY Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - ORONO - In an effort to raise public opposition to a Bush administration nuclear energy proposal pending before Congress, members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists and other groups are speaking up in Maine and other states. Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., spoke Tuesday morning at the University of Maine, arguing against the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, or GNEP. GNEP proposes the recycling of spent nuclear fuel to retrieve usable amounts of uranium and plutonium, which can be used to generate additional power. The initiative calls for the construction of at least one reprocessing facility somewhere in the U.S. and would establish a program under which the United States or its allies would provide uranium to fuel other countries' nuclear power plants and then retrieve the waste for reprocessing. With the proposed Yucca Mountain central storage site in Nevada tied up in political knots for the foreseeable future, proponents say GNEP will take pressure off the seemingly intractable problem of storing radioactive nuclear waste by reducing the space needed for storage. A centrally located reprocessing facility would enable stockpiles of waste - such as that currently stored at the site of the former Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset - to be removed for reprocessing and then stored permanently. By bringing the international supply of reactor fuel and waste under the control of the U.S. and its allies, they argue, the potential for environmental accidents or terrorist attacks would be diminished. Speaking to a small audience of about a dozen people, Lyman refuted all these claims, calling the initiative "extremely dangerous" and predicting that its passage would lead to "chaos in the issue of managing nuclear waste." Nonradioactive plutonium gleaned through reprocessing would be much easier for terrorists to obtain than plutonium currently tied up in bulky, radioactive nuclear waste assemblies, he argued. Funding for the initiative would take money away not only from research into alternative fuel sources but also from health care, education and other human services. And a provision to give the energy department the authority to identify appropriate sites for reprocessing facilities could force communities to store dangerous nuclear waste indefinitely, he said. Maine could potentially become the unwilling host to a reprocessing plant as well as all the nuclear waste produced in New England, Lyman said. "Any state that's politically weak could be ganged up on by stronger neighbors and forced to take spent fuel," he said. He said GNEP reflects the Bush administration's commitment to supporting the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. and called on Maine's moderate Republican senators to help defeat the initiative. Staff at the Washington offices of Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins indicated that it is too early in the debate to know what form the final legislation might take but that both senators would be studying the issue carefully. Snowe issued the following statement: "Having led the charge to defeat the potential placement of a second national nuclear repository in Maine in the 1980s, I will unequivocally oppose any legislation that could open up the State of Maine to either a nuclear fuel reprocessing site or an interim storage facility." Collins said, "I would vigorously oppose any effort to store outside waste in Maine. I will also continue to push the federal government to ensure that the waste that we have currently is removed from Maine in a safe and secure manner." The initiative is supported by the nuclear energy industry. A spokeswoman from the Nuclear Energy Institute said Tuesday, "GNEP... is a potential means of controlling proliferation and providing safe, reliable and economical energy to developing countries while reducing the increased emission of greenhouse gases produced by other forms of energy." Tuesday marked Lyman's third Maine presentation in as many days. He spoke on Sunday at the University of Southern Maine and on Monday at the University of Maine at Augusta. Sponsors of his speaking tour included Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club, the American Lung Association and Peace Action Maine, as well as the University of Maine's Department of Environmental Science. Bangornews.com Staff feedback@bangordailynews.net Bangor Daily News PO Box 1329 491 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 Switchboard: In-State Long Distance 1-800-432-7964 or 207-990-8000 ©2005 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 spiked: A self-defeating argument for nuclear power Wednesday 12 July 2006 Joe Kaplinsky and James Woudhuysen A self-defeating argument for nuclear power The UK governments energy review is more interested in changing the publics behaviour than in putting a positive case for nuclear. Contrary to press reports, the real story of the UK governments energy review published yesterday, 11 July 2006, is not about nuclear power (1). Yes, as the British media have endlessly insisted, on 16 May prime minister Tony Blair told the Confederation of British Industrys annual dinner that nuclear power was back on the agenda with a vengeance (2). And no doubt this latest review was in part a cover for a pro-nuclear shift that Blair felt uncomfortable making without backup. But Alistair Darling, New Labours secretary of state for trade and industry, was right when he complained on BBC Radio 4s Today programme that his critics were mesmerised by nuclear power; the government was not, he claimed. That, unfortunately, is true. Blair, after all, announced the review by getting himself filmed in front of a giant offshore wind farm. He wasnt going to be filmed in front of Sizewell B. How many nuclear plants does the country need? How many megawatts should they generate? Over what timeframe should they be built, and where, exactly? There were no answers to these questions, either in Darlings speech to the House of Commons or in the 215-page review. Darling has shown that pressing the nuclear button means a New Labour policy of&leaving the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear reactors (3). The policy of equivocation is also clear in the way that the future of nuclear power has been made dependent on a yet-to-be-published report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and future guidance to be developed by the Health and Safety Executive. Perhaps by the time those bodies have reported, there will have been yet another review about nuclear power in general&. Reading the review and the subsequent press coverage, it all sounds like a free-market, laissez-faire solution to the nuclear power issue, with just a little worry about what the mangled prose of the review describes as potential skills pinch points in the UKs supply of nuclear engineers. In fact, the review confirms that, in energy matters as elsewhere, government conceives of private sector firms as merely the executors of a state programme of safety first and risk aversion. The real message is that nuclear power must pull its weight helping Britons meet the twin challenges repetitiously cited throughout the review: climate change, and reliance on oil and gas from Russia, Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. This is unlikely to win over the public. Critics of the government share its politics of fear, but are more consistent. Michael Meacher, the left-leaning Labour MP, is the most daring here. He believes that nuclear power can only be uneconomic, and that the waste is unspeakable. His trump card is that terrorists might attack nuclear reactors. Replying to this charge, David Miliband, minister of communities and local government, told Radio 4s PM that other kinds of power plants could also be attacked. What a weak reply! If we are really going to talk up a terrorist attack, the man in the street would prefer that it happened to Drax B, not Sizewell B. Collapse of the nuclear argument. But the energy review contains more than a shaky commitment to nuclear power. Certainly the government truly is mesmerised by carbon trading and renewable energy. The market trading of CO2: A key role for government, goes the thrust of chapter 1, is to put in place a framework which will in turn go placing a value on carbon. Inspiring stuff  if youre one of the burgeoning ranks of pinstriped green-minded bean-counters at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and other City accounting firms. Renewables: The review hopes that electricity suppliers will raise the amount of supply they get from renewable sources from 6.7 per cent today to 20 per cent in 2015/16. Indeed, the Renewables Obligation under which suppliers now labour wins no fewer than 95 mentions in the review. But even more scary is the reviews declaration that the government intends to lead a new push to make thinking about carbon and energy an integral part of the culture. This will involve providing the information, advice, support networks and incentives to support energy efficiency and to change behaviour. Liberal Democrats and other critics of the review are welcome to their conspiracy theories about Blair surrendering to the nuclear lobby  just as BBC TV, the conscience of the nation, confronted Blair on a train by comparing the review to his famous dodgy dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But the surrender that is really going on is rather different. The British state is demanding that energy suppliers, like the common people, fully give in to a policy on which, by contrast with its vagueness on nuclear power, the government is very clear, firm and detailed: we must make do with less energy. As Blair says in his foreword to the review, In the end&we must all  government, business and individuals  play our part by changing behaviour. And he means it. Some basic statistics about the review bear out our interpretation of it as a ridiculous and deeply fearful mix of arm-waving about nuclear power, and finger-wagging about everything else: The review by the numbers: -- Longest chapter, at 24 pages: Saving Energy -- Mentions of raising, improving, promoting or increasing mass awareness of energy problems: 15 -- Mentions of changing peoples behaviour: about 20 -- Mentions of the word risk: 91. While the review does not dedicate a chapter to nuclear power, a move toward distributed generation, meaning local rather than central generation, does merit such treatment. The main advantage of the traditional system has been its ability to reduce costs through economies of scale explains the review. The new approach has other advantages: a more community-based energy system might lead to a greater awareness of energy issues, engaging people in the supply of energy and, in turn, prompting them to consider how to use it more efficiently. Then there is the section on better energy bills. Perhaps in this case you think small really is beautiful. The government has other ideas. Utilities have been told to address the important issue of consumer behaviour by ensuring, from 2007 onwards, that their bills tell householders how much energy they have used over, say, the previous year in graphical form: bar charts look like being preferred. The government will be discussing with electricity utilities how best to rapidly roll out the provision of real-time displays so that householders know, minute-to-minute, how much juice they are using and so how much costs they are incurring. Further ahead, Smart meters  that provide instant updates on energy use  and other sophisticated forms of monitoring designed to help consumers make more informed choices are set to become an offer you cant refuse. By 2011, in a kind of Cultural Revolution running, like Maos Red Guards in the Chinese countryside, through British homes, energy suppliers will also have an obligation to go about reducing absolute energy demand or carbon emissions among householders  though DEFRA is relying not just on the youthful cadres of the Boy Scouts, but also on the Womens Institute who will develop EcoTeams to spread the message. All through the review there is an emphasis on mobilising local and community organisations in the battle to raise awareness. Indeed, one of the key policies mentioned by the review is a new power for Parish Councils to promote microgeneration in their own parishes. Ah, those Parish Councils. They will really help us face down Gazprom and the Russians when Mr Blairs oil and gas chickens come home to roost. This approach to energy seems dedicated to weighing us all down with guilt and fear about the consequences of our actions. Here the worst sin is to use energy thoughtlessly. Because everything we do makes use of energy, the awareness crusade could yet have a paralysing effect on life as we agonise over the sustainability of our smallest actions. In this, its aim is diametrically opposed to what we should demand from a forward-looking energy policy. No one would argue that energy use should not be clean and efficient  and modern technology can provide energy that is both. But the dramatic impact that increased energy supply has had on society has come about as energy has become more freely available. The fact that we are able do anything from turning on a light to flying on a plane without worrying where the energy has come from is a miracle of technology and social organisation. It has liberated us to pursue any number of goals and projects. More important than a debate over nuclear, wind, coal or any other sort of fuel is the need for more invisible, ubiquitous and, yes, thoughtless energy. (1) Read the governments energy review, The Energy Challenge, . (2) For Blairs full speech to the Confederation of British Industry, click here. (3) Statement to the House of Commons, 11 July 2006 by Frank Furedi Editor's column Tuesday 11 July 2006 spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel: +44 (0)20 7269 9228 Email: © spiked 2000- All rights reserved. . spiked is not responsible for the content of any third-party websites. Powered by ***************************************************************** 41 Telegraph: Short cut to boost wind and nuclear power [telegraph.co.uk] By George Jones and Charles Clover (Filed: 12/07/2006) Your view: Is the Government right to embrace wind farms? Fast-track planning laws will be introduced to speed the development of new nuclear power stations and onshore wind farms despite fierce objections from environmental campaigners and local people, the Government announced yesterday. The long-awaited energy review gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations, which it claimed could make a "significant contribution" to securing energy needs for the next generation. Alistair Darling, the Industry Secretary, told MPs the Government wanted a mixture of clean, low-carbon energy sources that would include more renewable power generated by wind farms, wave and solar schemes. Measures were also unveiled to reduce demand for electricity, including phasing out inefficient consumer goods and limiting the time television sets and other products could be left on standby. But it was confirmation of support for nuclear power that caused the most argument, even though Tony Blair said in May - pre-empting the review - that nuclear was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". The 216-page review, The Energy Challenge, said the economics of nuclear as a source of low-carbon generation had improved. Mr Darling told MPs it would be for the private sector to "initiate, fund, construct and operate" nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and meet "their full share" of dealing with nuclear waste. But he admitted private firms would not invest without "fundamental reform" of the planning process to prevent objectors stringing out public inquiries for months on end by arguing whether nuclear power was needed. "We will be acting to ensure that energy companies, whether seeking to build gas storage facilities, wind farms or any other kind of large energy installation, are not faced with costly uncertainties and delay," Mr Darling said. "Local concerns about specific sites must be taken into consideration but the right balance has to be struck with the national need for our vital energy infrastructure." The most recently built nuclear power station, Sizewell B, in Suffolk, took more than six years to secure planning permission. But only 30 of the 340 inquiry days were devoted to local issues. The Government proposes to issue a clear statement highlighting the "strategic national need" for new power stations which will have to be balanced against local views at planning inquiries. They are likely to be built at the sites of existing nuclear stations to limit planning objections. Streamlined planning rules are proposed for small-scale wind turbines on homes and for 200 applications for wind farms, which are highly contentious because of their visual impact on rural landscapes and danger to birds. While Mr Blair has been the driving force behind the decision to back nuclear power, he chose to show his support for more wind power. On a boat trip yesterday to an offshore windfarm off the north Kent coast, he said: "If we're going to develop technologies for the future, we've got to make sure we're encouraging more than this." He admitted that he had changed his mind on nuclear power because of climate change and the fact that Britain was going to move from being self-sufficient in basic energy to becoming a big importer. "We have to at least replace our nuclear power stations," he said. "These decisions have to be taken now. Fifteen years down the line we have got high energy prices and real problems." David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has been given permission to install a wind turbine on his London home, urged the Government to kick-start a "revolution" in green power. He said measures should be taken to allow demand for renewable energy to "explode" and nuclear power should be used only as a "last resort". Mr Darling said Britain would need substantial new electricity generation over the next 20 years because of the closure of coal and nuclear plants equivalent to about a third of today's capacity. Coal played an important part in energy security, but to have a long-term future its heavy carbon emissions would have be tackled. The review spelled out the advantage of tidal generation, in particular plans for a Severn Barrage, which could provide five per cent of electricity demand by 2020. Mr Darling faced criticism from opposition MPs, who claimed taxpayers would have to subsidise nuclear power while future generations would have to pay for the cost of dealing with nuclear waste. Stephen Tindale, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations built, and that means anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains Prime Minister." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 42 Telegraph: Nuclear at the core of Britain's energy plans [telegraph.co.uk] By Charles Clover, Environment Editor (Filed: 12/07/2006) Plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations and help for 27 million home owners to reduce their fuel bills were among a raft of measures announced yesterday that are intended to shape the energy market for up to 40 years. The Government's Energy Review took the same facts that were available to the 2002 Energy White Paper - that Britain needs to cut its carbon emissions because of climate change and will be 85 per cent dependent on imported gas by 2020 - and came up with radically different, pro-nuclear conclusions. Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said that up to a third of Britain's power stations would need to be replaced over the next 20 years, otherwise nuclear stations would be providing only six per cent of the country's electricity by 2020. He said: "Our analysis suggests that, alongside other low carbon generating options, a new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy." The measures proposed would speed up the development of power station projects, whether wind or nuclear, phase out inefficient electrical goods, provide grants for low carbon forms of generation and reduce emissions from large organisations. Measures include: Planning A "fundamental reform" of the planning system for energy projects is promised. This could include a "statement of need" for projects such as nuclear power stations, which would resolve major national issues in advance and mean they were not discussed by public inquiries. Nuclear power stations and controversial onshore wind projects would be decided by a "high level inspector" - a QC or a judge. He or she would ensure the inquiries were run to clearly defined timescales, weigh them against national criteria already established and ensure maximum use was made of the powers set out in the new major infrastructure projects rules. The review is also proposing to "work with" the Scottish Executive to streamline its planning system. Currently 24 wind farm projects await approval in Scotland. Also under planning, the Government is proposing to remove the requirement for home wind turbines and solar panels to have planning permission, "wherever possible". Nuclear Any new nuclear power station would have to be proposed, developed, constructed and operated by the private sector, which would also meet decommissioning costs. The Government will help developers identify the most suitable sites but it will be up to potential builders of power stations to identify sites and negotiate access to them. Meanwhile, it has asked the Health and Safety Executive to develop a pre-licensing, design authorisation procedure and the Environment Agency to develop a similar system of pre-authorisation. A senior individual with experience of capital projects will develop arrangements for the disposal of nuclear waste. Cleaner energy Only four per cent of Britain's electricity currently comes from renewables - almost entirely onshore wind. That is well short of the 10 per cent the Government has committed to generating from renewables by 2010. To boost wind, wave and tidal forms of generation, the Government proposes to strengthen the Renewables Obligation, introduced in 2002, which obliges electricity suppliers to take a rising percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. The review says it wants to provide less subsidy to forms of renewable energy that are already profitable, such as onshore wind, and to provide greater long-term certainty for investors in offshore wind, wave and tidal power. Microgeneration The Government proposes to use the powers it gained under a Private Member's Bill, now an Act, this year to make generators pay more realistic prices for energy generated in the home by wind turbines, heat pumps or micro-combined heat and power plants. Carbon capture and storage A demonstration programme for capturing carbon and storing it in disused oil wells will be launched in September. The system might eventually take 80 per cent of the carbon from coal-fired power stations and isolate it from the atmosphere permanently. If successful, the next stage would be a commercial project. Dumping pollutants under the sea remains illegal under the London Dumping Convention. The Government promises to work internationally to change the rules. Energy efficiency There will be a move away from "estimated" gas and electricity bills: customers will get an actual bill at least once a year showing how their energy use compares with previous years. Retailers and manufacturers are to be encouraged to phase out inefficient household goods and office equipment, including standby functions on televisions. There will be moves to encourage large organisations not currently bound by the carbon trading scheme - such as supermarkets, hotel chains, local authorities and government departments - to save energy. Energy performance certificates will be in the new Home Information Packs. The Government intends to make its own estate carbon neutral by 2012. It will undertake a feasibility study into making the Thames Gateway a low carbon development area within a decade. The Government is to lobby the European Union to include road transport in the carbon trading scheme by 2008/9. No time to waste, says Blair © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 43 LCG Consulting: Planned Restart of Ontario Nuclear Reactors Gains Momentum EnergyOnline.com [rss] LCG, July 12, 2006--The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) last week accepted the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project to-restart two nuclear reactors at the Bruce A Nuclear Power Station near Kincardine in southwestern Ontario. The CNSC determined the project would have no significant adverse effects to the environment. Third New Coal-fired Unit Planned for Sunflower's Holcomb Station LCG, July 11, 2006--Sunflower Electric Power Corporation yesterday announced that its Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) that will result in Golden Spread's ownership interest of not less than 400 MW of the planned 700 MW Holcomb East unit to be built at Sunflower's Holcomb Station site near Holcomb, Kansas. Plans are underway to build two other 700-MW units that would be owned by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Sunflower would operate and maintain all of the new units. Industry News Planned Restart of Ontario Nuclear Reactors Gains Momentum LCG, July 12, 2006--The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) last week accepted the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project to-restart two nuclear reactors at the Bruce A Nuclear Power Station near Kincardine in southwestern Ontario. The CNSC determined the project would have no significant adverse effects to the environment. The two, 750-MW nuclear units commenced operations in 1977 and were shut down in 1995 and 1997 by the prior owner, Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Approval from the CNSC will be required prior to loading the reactors with new fuel and commencing full operations. With the EA accepted by the CNSC, the restart project will gain momentum. The work on Units 1 and 2 is scheduled to be completed by early 2008. When the work is complete, Bruce Power plans to apply to the CNSC for licenses to refuel the units and anticipates the units will return to service in 2009. Additional investments are planned to refurbish Unit 3 when it reaches the end of its operational life and to replace the steam generators in Unit 4. In total, it is estimated that Bruce Power will invest approximately C$4.25 billion. Copyright © 2006 LCG Consulting. All rights reserved. Terms ***************************************************************** 44 SNP: Salmond Challenges Darling on Subsidy for Nuclear Clean Up Costs SNP - Scottish National Party westminster SNP Leader Alex Salmond MP has today (Wednesday) written to Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling MP seeking clarification of the government's proposals on financial support for the clean up costs of any new nuclear power stations. In his letter, Mr Salmond wrote: "I couldn't help notice yesterday during the Energy Review statement that you were asked three times if a 'full share of long-term waste management costs' meant 100% or whether you were proposing yet another back-end subsidy for the nuclear industry. You of course failed to answer. "I'd be extremely pleased if you could clarify this for me. Many members of the public and parliament would appreciate being told about all the potential nuclear costs. "If, as I suspect, the government is trying to use a form of words to obscure possible future public subsidy for clean up costs, I'd be grateful if you would let me know early estimates of the cost per new nuclear station." Commenting Mr Salmond said: "If the Labour government fails to foist new nuclear stations on an unwilling Scotland, the suspicion is that they are opening the door for Scottish taxpayers to subsidise nuclear stations in England. "This is totally intolerable and will not be accepted. Labour must come clean on whether they will be forcing Scottish taxpayers to subsidise future nuclear clean up costs. "We now know that there will be no new nuclear stations in Northern Ireland as a result of an agreement with the Irish government. An overseas government has had a greater influence on UK energy policy than ministers in Edinburgh. "This is yet another sorry example of the current First Minister's failure to make Scotland's case. Once again, Mr McConnell has shown a complete lack of backbone. Labour in Edinburgh is little more than a nodding dog for Labour in London." ENDS Created by bob bob Contributors : Mary --> Published 12/07/2006 12:00 PM [ title=] More News ©Copyright 2006 Scottish National Party. All Rights Reserved. Promoted by Peter Murrell on behalf of the Scottish National Party, both at 107 McDonald Road, Edinburgh EH7 4NW. ***************************************************************** 45 icLiverpool: Can we afford not to have nuclear energy? Jul 12 2006 Bill Gleeson, Daily Post POWER cuts in midwinter don't sound attractive, but that's what was being discussed in Cape Town yesterday, where they have had months of blackouts. Fortunately for the city's inhabitants, South Africa's winter temperatures are not that much different from those of an English summer. Other African countries are also suffering from a critical lack of power as the continent's economy has grown faster than expected. It has reached the point where the lack of power is hindering future economic growth. The problem has been created by years of under-investment. Something similar could happen here if the government doesn't address the issue with the greatest of urgency. A combination of factors are at play in the energy supply market in the UK which could result in the country having insufficient power in the not too distant future. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of UK energy output, but all Britain's reactors are scheduled to be closed within two decades. Gas prices have risen sharply, driving power generators to switch back to the once unpopular coal as a source of fuel. But coal can't form the long term answer because it is a huge source of carbon and would damage the environment. The same it true of oil, which is also rising steeply. Between huge demand for energy in Britain and elsewhere, and constrained supply, there is a real danger that industry's ability to continue to power economic growth will diminish. POWER cuts in midwinter don't sound attractive, but that's what was being discussed in Cape Town yesterday, where they have had months of blackouts. Fortunately for the city's inhabitants, South Africa's winter temperatures are not that much different from those of an English summer. Other African countries are also suffering from a critical lack of power as the continent's economy has grown faster than expected. It has reached the point where the lack of power is hindering future economic growth. The problem has been created by years of under-investment. Something similar could happen here if the government doesn't address the issue with the greatest of urgency. A combination of factors are at play in the energy supply market in the UK which could result in the country having insufficient power in the not too distant future. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of UK energy output, but all Britain's reactors are scheduled to be closed within two decades. Gas prices have risen sharply, driving power generators to switch back to the once unpopular coal as a source of fuel. But coal can't form the long term answer because it is a huge source of carbon and would damage the environment. The same it true of oil, which is also rising steeply. Between huge demand for energy in Britain and elsewhere, and constrained supply, there is a real danger that industry's ability to continue to power economic growth will diminish. Copyright and Trade Mark Notice ***************************************************************** 46 icWales: Britain lays the ground for nuclear future Jul 12 2006 Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail The Government paved the way yesterday for a new nuclear dawn for Britain - but tried to head off criticism by announcing an expansion in renewable energy targets. The environmental sweeteners, dubbed a 'green sheen' by critics, include the aspiration of seeing 20% of UK energy created by wind, solar and tidal power by 2020. Trade and Industry Secretary Alastair Darling told MPs a new set of nuclear power stations to replace the ageing existing reactors 'could make a significant contribution' to meeting Britain's energy needs. And he insisted that it was for private firms, and not the taxpayer, to fund the new reactors. Introducing the long-awaited Energy Review, he said, 'Nuclear power already accounts for almost a fifth of our electricity, but this is likely to drop to just 6% by 2020. 'Our analysis suggests that, alongside other low-carbon options, a new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy.' The 216-page review, The Energy Challenge, said the economics of nuclear as a source of low-carbon generation had improved. Elsewhere in the review it was announced that the Sustainable Development Commission would carry out a study into the idea of a Ł14bn tidal barrage across the Severn. Other measures put forward include: Driving the least efficient domestic electronic goods out of the market; Providing incentives for large organisations such as supermarkets, hotels and local authorities to cut carbon emissions; More investment in renewable energy; Fundamental changes to the planning system to get new- generation schemes up and running more quickly, and A new coal forum bringing together generators and producers to try to secure the long-term future of coal-fired power generation. A White Paper will be published at the turn of the year to take forward the Government's proposals. But it was the nuclear proposals which drew the most attention. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been criticised for already deciding the new policy before the review reported. Cardiff Central Lib-Dem MP Jenny Willott, an anti-nuclear campaigner, said, 'This review is long on words and short on content. It confirms suspicions that this was a sham review designed to give the green light to Tony Blair's nuclear U-turn. 'In 2003, the Government rightly said that nuclear energy wasn't necessary. Now, under pressure from the nuclear lobby, they've changed their mind.' Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, a sceptic on nuclear power, hailed the extra focus in the review on alternative technology. He said, 'The review provides a massive new boost for renewables, raising the target for renewable energy to 20% by 2020 and bolstering the Renewables Obligation to provide a boost for offshore wind and other emerging forms of generation. The proposed changes to the planning system will reduce the time it takes to get approval for big renewable energy projects like offshore windfarms, which can make a big contribution to cutting emissions.' Mr Hain, a supporter of the Severn barrage idea, added, 'A barrage across the Severn estuary could generate massive amounts of clean, green energy - up to 5% of the UK's energy needs. No other renewables project comes close. The fact is that there are no easy answers on energy. But the review provides the right framework for ensuring secure, green energy for the future.' Although there are no firm proposals as to where new nuclear sites would be built, a new reactor at Wylfa on Anglesey, is a likely option. The local authority supports the idea and the current reactor is due to close in 2010. But Green groups remain implacably opposed. Gordon James, of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said, 'Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary. 'We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs without building new reactors. 'The argument that Wylfa nuclear power station could be replaced by a new nuclear power station in time to fill an energy gap caused by its closure is simply wrong. 'While Wylfa will close in four years' time, it would take 10 to 15 years to build a new nuclear power station.' Morgan Parry, of WWF Cymru, said, 'The idea that we are facing an enormous energy gap which only nuclear power can fill has been has been a fantastic piece of spin. 'We applaud the Assembly for its anti-nuclear stance, but we are concerned that the Government is fixated with a Barrage as the only alternative to nuclear.' Who stands where in the debate over nuclear power FOR Anglesey Council is in favour of keeping the Wylfa site running, as is Anglesey Aluminium - the manufacturer is Wales' biggest energy user. The plant is also popular locally as a key provider of jobs. The CBI and the Wales TUC have also said they want a new generation of atomic stations built. Prime Minister Tony Blair and most of the Cabinet now agree on the need for new reactors; many Tories agree, although official policy is that nuclear is a 'last resort'. AGAINST Welsh Secretary Peter Hain is a nuclear sceptic, although he admitted last week public opinion may be behind a new reactor at Wylfa. The Assembly Government is also resolutely anti-nuclear, as are some Welsh Labour MPs - including Sian James, Nia Griffith, Martin Caton and Paul Flynn. The Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru are also opposed, as are Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. From committed CND campaigner to a firm supporter of nuclear power With the Government putting atomic energy back on the agenda, Political Editor Tomos Livingstone traces Labour's troubled relationship with nuclear power.. BACK in February 1982 Wales declared itself 'nuclear free' after Clwyd Council become the final Welsh authority to pass an anti-nuclear resolution. That symbolic gesture could not have happened without the support of large parts of the Labour Party, then officially committed to nuclear disarmament as well as being dubious about the benefits of civil atomic power. Scratch the surface of today's Labour Party and that residual suspicion of the nuclear industry is still there. Some of the councillors involved in the 1982 declaration, like Paul Flynn, have gone on to become Labour MPs. Mr Flynn was one of four Welsh Labour MPs to sign a Commons motion calling for Wales to be nuclear free last year, and Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has been a leading critic of nuclear power. Political realities mean that Mr Hain, as a member of the Cabinet, has had to accept that new reactors are going to be built. Objections to nuclear power from the Left range from fears over its safety to suspicions over the big-business image of the technology - not to mention the eye- watering costs of building and running a nuclear reactor. But Labour has changed since 1982, and several key figures have unlikely links to the nuclear industry. Chancellor Gordon Brown's brother Andrew is head of media relations in the UK for EDF, the French firm which runs dozens of nuclear stations in France. Elsewhere Alan Donnelly, former leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament, now works as a lobbyist who represents US engineering firm Fluor, a large nuclear contractor. Mr Blair himself is emblematic of the changes within Labour. A former member of CND, Mr Blair has now changed his mind. The Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, is thought to have been influential in persuading Mr Blair of the need for more nuclear power. Labour has come a long way in the past 25 years; not everyone, however, will be content to leave the party's history behind. Western Mail comment: 21st century Wales needs N-power Passions inevitably run high when the issue of nuclear power is discussed, not least in Wales where there is a proud history of principled opposition to the controversial technology. Controversial it may be, and strong as those feeling are, a blanket rejection of civil nuclear power is simply not a viable option for Wales in the 21st century. That does not mean a blank cheque for an industry with a chequered history, but it does mean taking a long, hard and realistic look at how we can keep the standard of living to which we have become accustomed, while at the same time reducing the damage we do to the environment. The Government is right to say the economics of nuclear energy have changed, and even parts of the green lobby have accepted that nuclear, properly controlled and regulated, can be a low-carbon fuel. That said, there remain concerns over both the safety of nuclear power itself and over the potential of reactors to become terrorist targets. Neither must any new atomic stations become vast pits into which public money is poured; a nuclear Railtrack will not be tolerated. New nuclear sites can make a contribution to our energy needs and safeguard Welsh jobs - an uncomfortable truth, perhaps, but the truth nonetheless. The idea of a 10-mile barrage across the Severn estuary is a project of an altogether different nature, but one that provides a welcome foil to new nuclear build. The tidal range of the river makes it ideal for hydro- electricity generation, although the vast size of the scheme - and its cost - means it is not going to get the go-ahead without some serious thinking and serious persuading first. Putting a barrage across the Severn isn't a new idea either, and previous attempts to move it from the drawing board have all failed. A barrage across the Severn has much to commend it. It could, if successful, produce a large percentage of the country's electricity. This will be no thing of beauty, and the sight of huge turbines just off the Cardiff and Newport coast could well prove unpopular. Aside from the high initial cost of construction, there are also fears that the natural habitat of tens of thousands of birds will be destroyed. These are questions that the latest feasibility study, announced yesterday, will have to answer. There needs to be more clarity from Ministers too on a rather vague commitment, also made yesterday, to look again at the future of the coal industry - another energy sector whose environmental credentials have come on in leaps and bounds. These are not easy arguments. There has to be a grown-up debate about the future of energy in the UK; we need to find ways of maintaining the standard of living we have become accustomed to, and that may means some difficult trade-offs. We have the utmost respect for Wales' anti-nuclear campaigners, but the reality is that nuclear power will remain part of the industrial landscape. ***************************************************************** 47 icNorthWales: Inspectors make Wylfa visit to find 'viable site' for new nuclear plant Jul 12 2006 By Mark Hookham, Daily Post GOVERNMENT inspectors will visit Wylfa in Anglesey to decide if it is a "viable site" for a new nuclear power station. The long-awaited energy review promised a "strategic assessment" of the environ-mental impacts of potential sites for nuclear plants, starting in early 2007. It could mean aby-pass of some costly and time-consuming planning inquiry procedures - but prompting apossible backbench revolt. The assessment - tobe paid for by the government, rather than the private sector - will start by examining sites "adjacent" to Wylfa and the other existing plants. It comes despite industry secretary Alistair Darling's promise it would be up to private companies to "initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants". Story continues [Continue story] ADVERTISEMENT The Liberal Democrats immediately claimed the help with search costs was just one of the ways nuclear power would be subsidised - despite official denials. Cardiff Central MP Jenny Willott said: "It confirms suspicions that this was asham review designed to give the green light to Tony Blair's nuclear u-turn. "In 2003, the government rightly said that nuclear energy wasn't necessary. Now, under pressure from the nuclear lobby, they've changed their mind. " Controversially, because the public would be consulted, the assessment would mean a future planning inquiry would not "re-assess" whether aproposed site was viable. Ministers hope such a shake-up can avoid the delays that dogged the building of Britain's last nuclear plant, Sizewell B. That inquiry took six years and cost ś30m. However, the review - despite Tony Blair's insistence that "nuclear power is back on the agenda with a vengeance" - did not specify how many new plants would be built, or when. As aresult, the Tories condemned the 216-page document for containing "no real policies, no real action, no real decisions". The review said "industry" had pinpointed the existing nuclear plants as the most promising sites for replacements, although some, which were not identified, required "extensive upgrading". Planning inquiries would be expected to "act on the assumption" that issues such as health and safety, security and radioactive discharges will be properly dealt with by regulators. It would leave the inquiries to consider changes of appearance and precise location only - allowing them to be settled in weeks or months, Mr Darling has suggested. The review suggested 55% of electricity would be generated from gas - most of it imported - by2020, without new nuclear plants. The industry had an "excellent safety record", it said. However, a group of Labour backbenchers have already signalled they will vote against. They fear more nuclear power will divert resources from better energy efficiency and more power from wind and waves. Anglesey station plan for power PLANS for anew medium-scale power station are being investigated to provide energy for Anglesey Aluminium. Up to 1,500 jobs on the island are at risk if the aluminium smelting operation shuts along with the Wylfa nuclear plant by 2010. Assembly Government officials last night said all options could be considered, including abiomass power plant, fuelled by rubbish, animal manure and other wastes. The proposal for a300Mw power station was revealed by first minister Rhodri Morgan yesterday. He said any proposed new nuclear plant at Wylfa would come too late to allow continued supplies to the smelter. It would take 10-15 years to build areplacement nuclear plant. "We are trying to find a medium-scale power station that will fit the needs of the aluminium smelter," Mr Morgan said. The plea to extend the life of the ageing nuclear plant at Wylfa was "not too promising", Mr Morgan said. "That would give Anglesey Aluminium the chance to see the price of gas stabilising, afour-year extension of the window for a gas-fired power station, but that's not looking too promising. "Then what you need is amedium sized power station of 300Mw. The question of the fuel is something we are pursuing with the company and Department of Trade and Industry and we are working together to find the solution. "The company isn't interested in having anew nuclear power station." icNorthWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc. ***************************************************************** 48 UPI: Bush refuels German energy debate United Press International - Energy - 7/12/2006 3:59:00 PM -0400 BERLIN, July 12 (UPI) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has refueled the debate in Germany whether to phase out nuclear energy. "Nuclear energy because of increased global warming is a very important topic for me. If you really care about environmental protection, then nuclear energy is a good way to go," said Bush, in an interview with German financial daily Handelsblatt. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel fired back, telling the Berliner Zeitung daily: "The German plan to phase out nuclear energy will be upheld." He added he did not agree with Bush that nuclear energy would be good for the environment. "Radioactivity and global warming are two fouls that should not be weighed against each other," he said. "That's like choosing between the plague and cholera. We don't want to choose between two ailments, but we want to become healthy." Renewable energy sources are the way to go, Gabriel said. The remarks came on the eve of Bush's arrival in Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania, an eastern German state, which Bush will tour with German Chancellor Angela Merkel days before this weekend's Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Germany is the only G8 country that has decided to phase out nuclear energy by 2021. The plan has come under fire by Merkel's Christian Democrats, but the chancellor knows she would have no majority for a reversal of the plan. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 49 UPI: U.S., Russia issue third nuke pact report United Press International - Energy - 7/12/2006 2:30:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, July 12 (UPI) -- Top U.S. and Russian energy officials have submitted a joint report to each country's presidents on the implementation of a bilateral nuclear pact. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency Director Sergey Kiriyenko issued the report, which emphasized securing energy-grade uranium as well as weapons-grade. It is the third report from the joint Senior Interagency Working Group, which was set up during a meeting between Presidents Bush and Putin during a meeting in Bratislava, Russia in 2005. The two sides intend to agree on principals and criteria for evaluating how nuclear facilities are protected from accident or attack by the end of this year. Bodman said the two sides are working together to ensure current and old nuclear weapons are safe at Russia's Defense Ministry and Rosatom nuclear facilities. The next Senior Interagency Working Group is due in December. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved advertisement ***************************************************************** 50 News & Star: Nuclear has to be part of deal Published on 12/07/2006 In spite of the misgivings of environmentalists, it has been clear for a long time that nuclear power was always going to be a necessary part of any future energy package. The Government’s Energy Review reflects that necessity with backing for a new generation of nuclear power plants – an endorsement likely to provide a significant boost for Cumbria’s economy. Already anti-nuclear campaigners are criticising the plan as short-sighted, narrow-minded and downright dangerous. In contrast, backers are hoping west Cumbria will become an international centre for nuclear power. There is no doubt that Britain faces a looming energy crisis. There’s little doubt either that the majority of people, while favouring clean, safe, environmentally friendly production, want cheap, reliable energy to heat and light their homes – and plenty of it. Few are willing to surrender modern lifestyles and privileges to conservation arguments, however noble or worthy. The key to enlightened future energy policy lies in an intelligently considered mix of all sources, be they nuclear plants, wind farms or visionary schemes to harness solar and hydro potential. This Energy Review indicates a turning point but it should not block the route to ongoing exploration of all complementary possibilities for an energy efficient package to meet the ever more demanding needs of the country. ***************************************************************** 51 News & Star: Nuclear boost for Cumbrian economy Published on 12/07/2006 What's your view of the Government's energy policy? Email nturner@cngroup.co.uk with your views GOVERNMENT backing for a new generation of nuclear power plants was today hailed as an historic turning point for national energy policy and west Cumbria’s economy. Sellafield union bosses joined the area’s two MPs in enthusiastically welcoming yesterday’s Energy Review statement by industry secretary Alistair Darling, who said nuclear power will now play a significant part in government’s energy strategy. Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that the policy represents a lost opportunity for west Cumbria to wean itself off an economic dependency on the nuclear industry. But Copeland MP Jamie Reed and Workington MP Tony Cunningham said the policy will allow the area to become an internationally acclaimed centre of excellence for the nuclear industry. Mr Darling’s announcement heralds a fresh round of lobbying to convince ministers that west Cumbria should be the natural first choice for any new nuclear plant. It has also been confirmed that Mr Darling will visit west Cumbria on Friday, fuelling speculation that he may announce the choice of Lillyhall College as the site of a new nuclear academy. Whatever the outcome of the visit, yesterday’s announcement makes it more likely than ever that nuclear power will continue to be a central feature of west Cumbria’s economy for decades. Mr Reed has campaigned for more than a year to have nuclear power at the heart of the government’s energy policy. “This is the first pro-nuclear announcement by any government in the past 30 years,” he said yesterday. “Future generations will look back and see this announcement as the time when we as a nation got real about the threats posed not only by climate change but also by the issue of security of energy supply. “This announcement is a real turning point. The ramifications for west Cumbria and Cumbria as a whole are profound.” Mr Reed confirmed that in the House of Commons yesterday he volunteered west Cumbria as a candidate site for a new nuclear power station or stations. “We would appreciate at least one new nuclear reactor, and it’s my ambition for west Cumbria to be an international centre for the nuclear industry,” he said. He added: “We stand an extraordinarily good chance of that happening because public acceptability is going to be a huge factor, and by and large we know the people of west Cumbria will accept it. “Everything points towards us using Sellafield, where the workforce has the kind of world- class skills and experience that can’t be found anywhere else.” Mr Cunningham also welcomed the government’s pro-nuclear stance, saying it would help to both cut greenhouse gas emissions and help the UK retain control over its own energy supplies. “If we don’t build new nuclear power stations, we’ll be reliant on gas from other parts of the world,” he said. The policy could act as a catalyst for a concentration of nuclear know-how in Cumbria, he said. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority could be joined by a new nuclear power station, a nuclear skills academy, and a national nuclear laboratory for research and development, possibly employing hundreds of people. Peter Kane, a GMB convenor at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, said a new nuclear power plant would have a massive impact on the area’s economy. He said: “A modern plant would probably only employ around 300 people, but its construction would involve a lot more, potentially thousands. “There could also be future opportunities for further reprocessing at Sellafield. There would be massive job opportunities.” Experts have predicted the winding down of Sellafield, which employs around 12,500 people, could lead to the loss of around 8,000 jobs.” Mr Kane said the government was unlikely to license any new nuclear sites, but it should now strive to encourage companies which may be interested in building a new plant in the area. He suggested this could include a more relaxed approach to dealing with relevant planning issues. Janine Allis-Smith, from Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, said the policy statement had not come as a surprise. She said: “West Cumbria had a chance to lose its dependency on nuclear power. “Nuclear waste is here for hundreds of thousands of years and we still don’t have a solution. The people of Cumbria deserve better.” She said a question mark hung over where any new nuclear plant would find water for the cooling of live fuel rods, and suggested water may be taken from Ennerdale or Wastwater in the Lake District. “The nuclear cycle uses a tremendous amount of energy,” she said, adding that she doubted whether such plants do reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ***************************************************************** 52 Palladium-Item: Veterans being encouraged to get information booklet www.pal-item.com - Richmond, Ind. Recently Congressman Pence's office sent me a booklet that every veteran should have. Veterans may get this booklet by ordering it on the Internet at http://Bookstore.gpo.govor ordering by mail from the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It cost $7 including postage. This booklet covers just about everything a veteran might want to know about. Such things as when and where service people were exposed to radiation and the health problems that were the result of exposure. Also Agent Orange and the health problems that the U.S. has ruled are the results of exposure. It also includes Gulf War health problems and problems from exposure to depleted uranium. Exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam covers a span of time from Feb. 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975. Much more is included in this booklet. Also many benefits are covered. The name of the booklet is "Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents 2006." I suspect there are many veterans that now have health problems that they may not realize are service-connected. They may be due compensation and health treatment. Such veterans organizations as DAV and VFW can help a veteran with claims. Of course, the VA can only help you if you take the necessary steps to get help. Henry R. Coffey, Richmond Originally published July 12, 2006 Copyright ©2006 Palladium-Item. ***************************************************************** 53 Journal News: Trenton to help parents find answers to thyroid cancer issue Mothers suspect environmental link to disease. By Meghan Crosby Staff Writer TRENTON The parents of three Edgewood High School teens living with a rare thyroid cancer are looking to the environment for answers. Mothers Stephanie Carper, Melissa Snethen and Debbie Tucker last week asked Trenton city leaders to get involved in helping them determine whether environmental factors could be behind their childrens cancer. We have a problem with thyroid cancer going around in our town, Trenton resident Vicki Casey told Trenton City Council last week. We would like some help testing the water here. Two years ago, Bryce Tucker, 14, Lauren Thorman, 15, and Amber McIntosh, 18, were diagnosed with thyroid cancer within months of each other. Bryce and Amber have lived in the Trenton area most of their lives. Lauren lived in Colerain Twp. for five years before her family moved to Trenton three years ago. Today, they live within a mile of each another. Carper, Laurens mother, said the group is not trying to scare residents, but is looking for answers. Its sort of been my suspicion all along its environmentally linked, she said. Two other kids in my neighborhood have tumors and are being tested for thyroid cancer. So somethings going on. The teens cancer type is not common only 350 adolescents are diagnosed each year in the nation, according to the American Cancer Society, and diagnosis is rare before age 16. Carper, Snethen and Tucker have requested water and soil quality reports from the city, and are consulting with doctors and environmental experts as they search for answers. The most established risk factor for thyroid cancer is radiation exposure, but toxins found in drinking water also have been linked to the cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. One such chemical is perchlorate an inorganic salt often found in solid rocket fuel, missiles and explosives. The Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company has two lines that run through about 100 acres on the south side of Trenton. One is a natural gas line. The other is used to transfer various chemicals, including crude oil and propane. That pipeline also carries jet fuel to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Covington, Ky., said Trenton City Manager Patrick Titterington. Were going to help them get to the bottom of this if there is a bottom to get to, Titterington said. It could just be a very strange coincidence. The main health effect of perchlorate exposure is on the thyroid gland, according to the Butler County Health Department. Titterington said there were trace amounts of perchlorate found in a 2004 water test in Trenton. But the chemical was detected in such small amounts that it could be a false positive, he said. Titterington said the city will retest for perchlorate and has contacted the Miami Conservancy District, which has helped with the citys water quality testing. Meanwhile, the mothers are trying to coordinate their schedules to consult with city and to review water records. The city has been very accommodating, Carper said. Were just trying to save lives. Contact this reporter at (513) 705-2813 or mcrosby@coxohio.com. Journal-News.com: Contact Us | Advertise Copyright © 2006 Cox Newspapers, Inc. All rights reserved. By using Journal-News.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement and privacy policy. Review our business policies. [Cox Newspapers, Inc.] ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Wants to Store Nuclear Waste From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday July 12, 2006 11:31 PM AP Photo MOS107 By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin is maneuvering to take the nuclear waste the rest of the world shuns, hoping for a financial bonanza - and President Bush, in a reversal of U.S. policy, is offering to help. The two countries will announce as part of the upcoming G-8 summit that they will begin negotiations on a civilian nuclear agreement that would clear the way for Putin to achieve one of his top energy goals: expanding his country's power reactors and using Russia's vast territory as a storehouse for the world's used reactor fuel. A majority of the spent reactor fuel now at power plants - especially in such countries as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan - came from the United States and can't be shipped anywhere without U.S. approval. The United States has civilian nuclear agreements with nearly two dozen countries, including China, but it has opposed negotiating one with Russia, mainly because Russia has been helping Iran develop its nuclear energy program. While U.S. officials have emphasized the desire to increase cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear matters, some major hurdles must be overcome before an agreement can be reached, including assurances that any U.S.-origin waste that would go to Russia will be secure and safe. ``There would have to be all kinds of technical details and safeguards worked out,'' said Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, adding, ``It will take months to do.'' Others say it could take years and may find strong opposition in Congress, which does not have to approve a deal, but can veto it. U.S. officials believe Putin wants the civilian nuclear agreement so much that it gives the administration leverage to get more cooperation from Russia to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions. ``The Russians can make billions of dollars (from accepting foreign reactor waste) but only with U.S. OK. And that gives the United States a lot of leverage,'' says Matthew Bunn, a leading nuclear proliferation watchdog who heads the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University. As for the United States, the administration sees such cooperation with Russia as essential for its broader vision on the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. There are now 442 nuclear power plants in 32 countries including the U.S. and Russia, and the desire for more reactors is growing, especially in Asia. Earlier this year, the White House unveiled a long-range plan to renew reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as part of an international program in which a limited number of countries - including the U.S. and Russia - would provide uranium fuel to other countries and then retrieve the used reactor fuel for reprocessing. That would allow countries to have reactors to produce electricity, but not to pursue nuclear fuel enrichment, which - as has been the concern with Iran - poses the risks that uranium might be enriched to a point where it can be used in a weapon. A civilian nuclear agreement would help get Russian participation in the Global Nuclear Energy Project and development of the next generation of nuclear reactors: high-speed neutron reactors that are essential in nuclear fuel reprocessing. Putin has made clear his determination to expand Russian civilian nuclear programs. Like Bush, he envisions an international program to provide uranium fuel and a way to dispose of spent reactor waste. In 2001, Putin signed laws that clear the way for importing spent fuel from foreign reactors, despite strong opposition from many Russians. ``In poll after poll, 90 percent of the Russian population objected to Russia becoming essentially a repository for spent nuclear waste,'' says Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow in the Russia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. That could pose a sticky problem for the administration, she suggested, if the U.S. is perceived as conspiring with the Russian government against the will of most of its citizens. But many scholars of Russia and of global nuclear issues maintain that increased cooperation on civilian nuclear issues is likely to be beneficial to both countries. ``There are a lot of potential benefits, but there are at the same time potential risks,'' said Bunn, the Harvard scholar who specializes in nuclear proliferation issues. While generally supporting the U.S. initiative with Russia, Bunn said, ``The negotiations won't be quick'' as the United States seeks assurances from Russia on a broad range of issues from assuring spent fuel is kept secure to gaining some say in how the revenue from waste shipments - estimated by some to be as much as $20 billion - are spent by the Russians. While no U.S. reactor waste is likely to go to Russia, the United States is expected to press Russia to funnel a significant portion of the money it gets from foreign shipments to improving security not only at civilian waste facilities, but also defense sites where nuclear material is kept. Robert Einhorn, a senior CSIS adviser and former assistant secretary of state, said much of the impact of increased U.S.-Russia cooperation on civilian nuclear programs will be positive ``especially if Russia would devote some of the revenues from spent fuel storage to nuclear security and other threat reduction steps.'' ``Having material safely stored is a nonproliferation benefit,'' said Einhorn. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, isn't convinced. ``Our plan to deal with the global nuclear waste problem should not be turned into a nuclear waste marketplace in a country with such a poor record of securing their own nuclear material,'' said Markey. ``That is just plain naive.'' ^--- On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org/ Energy Department's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 55 Deseret News: Huntsman bends ears in D.C. [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, July 12, 2006 By Lisa Riley Roche Deseret Morning News Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. spent the past two days in Washington, D.C., pitching administration officials on several issues, including his ongoing fight to keep high-level nuclear waste out of Utah. After meetings with several cabinet members including recently named Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Tuesday, Huntsman said he remains optimistic the proposed Private Fuel Storage site in Tooele County can be stopped. Utah is waiting for a decision from the Department of the Interior on whether a road on Bureau of Land Management property can be used to transport spent nuclear fuel rods to the proposed PFS site on Goshute Indian land in Skull Valley. Huntsman said Kempthorne, who resigned earlier this year as Idaho's governor to take the federal post, didn't reveal his position on the use of the BLM road. "I think he understands the challenges," Huntsman said, but tipping his hand would have been "imprudent for him." Although there is no deadline for the decision, the governor said he believes Kempthorne is "more inclined to act sooner rather than later." That, Huntsman said, would be best for the state. "This is an issue we need to get over and done with." The governor said he also raised the PFS issue with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, even though his department is not directly involved. "I asked him to not forget about the importance of this issue to our state," Huntsman said. Bodman heard the governor's concerns before, when the pair met privately during a Western Governors' Association meeting in Colorado last summer. Huntsman said it's an issue that takes "a lot of massaging and a lot of tender loving care with senior officials." After Tuesday's meetings on PFS, the governor said he believes the issue "is situated very nicely for a final outcome that will be very favorable to our state." Huntsman said he's "always felt optimistic. I continue to be optimistic." On Monday, Huntsman said he talked with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson about speeding up the search to find a reason for high levels of mercury showing up in Utah waterfowl and fish. "This is a concern to me," the governor said, noting the contaminant could be coming from gold mines in Nevada, coal-fired power plants in the region or even from as far away as China. "I wanted to make sure we were all together on this one and it was registering at the highest levels of the EPA. It is now," the governor said. Utah's Department of Environmental Quality is already working with the federal agency to identify causes of the mercury. In May, DEQ Executive Director Dianne Nielsen said testing for mercury in the Great Salt Lake's brine shrimp and waterfowl would cost $1.5 million. She also said then that there were significant concerns about mercury in fish from Lake Powell. Last fall, Utahns were warned not to eat two types of ducks from the lake's marshes. And late last summer, the state issued health advisories about consuming certain fish from particular streams. Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to Singapore, was scheduled to conclude his visit to Washington, D.C., Tuesday night as the guest of honor at a US-ASEAN (Association of South Eastern Asian Nations) dinner. The governor will host the group next week at a state dinner July 18, the first day of an association conference in Utah that will include meetings with various business organizations and the University of Utah's Asian studies department. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 56 Energy Tribune: Yucca Mountain Update Posted on Jul. 12, 2006 In 1982, Congress passed a law making the Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for the removal and storage of all radioactive waste generated by America’s nuclear power plants. And yet, two and a half decades later, the federal government has yet to remove any of the waste, and the planned repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain continues to be stuck in political limbo. The result of the federal dithering: some 50,000 metric tons of spent radioactive fuel – to which we add 2,000 metric tons per year – is scattered across 39 states, at more than 100 plants that were never meant to store their own fuel. Plant operators are being forced to build more costly containment structures, which figures into new plant cost estimates. Meanwhile, legislation aimed at getting Yucca Mountain operational remains stalled in Congress. Nuclear power plant operators say that the lack of movement on Yucca Mountain is costing them money. Pacific Gas and Electric, which owns California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant, is in the process of building a new containment structure there. The building, which would sit near the plant, is an addition PG&E hopes it won’t have to use. But since Yucca Mountain has been stalled since 2002, there isn’t much reason to assume that Diablo’s nuclear waste will go anywhere but right next door. “We need to fix this, and soon,” Thomas King, PG&E’s CEO, said at an industry conference in May, referring to the country’s nuclear waste storage problems. There are similar troubles at Grand Gulf I, a 1,200-megawatt Entergy plant in Mississippi. The company has publicly admitted that, after 2007, it will no longer have the capacity to store waste. And while they still support the project, local residents are worried about the waste issue. “We still need to solve the problem of waste at these plants,” said James E. Miller, the administrator of Claiborne County, which hosts the facility. “What will happen at Grand Gulf I?” The waste-disposal woes are worrisome for utilities planning additional plants. Currently, 14 companies are considering building new nuclear plants, but cost estimates for these plants are sketchy at best, depending on factors like location, the cost of uranium, and the implementation of provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The potential costs of nuclear waste storage, and the possibility of building even more containment facilities, add yet another unknown factor that could deter would-be plant builders. This article has additional Pressure from White House on Alaska Deal banned Voice of America broadcasts. U.K. Government To Buy Nuclear Sites? The U.K. government is considering taking ownership of British Energy Group's nuclear sites to make it easier for companies such as Germany's E.On AG and Electricite de France to build new reactors. The U.K. government is likely to approve the building of new nuclear plants when it publishes its energy review July 11. Six to ten new plants could be built. China's Elusive Nuclear Contracts China is unlikely to award its $8 billion contract to build four third-generation 1,000-megawatt reactors by the end of 2006, due to a design adjustment in Westinghouse's bid. China Buys Into Russian Energy China's second-largest oil company, Sinopec, agreed to buy an oil-producing unit of a BP-controlled venture -- the Asian nation's first significant asset in Russia. Iran Moves Toward Nuclear Cooperation Iran is ready to limit its nuclear program but will not suspend uranium enrichment, the Financial Times reported June 19, citing unnamed sources. The country may be prepared to accept an eventual limit on the number of centrifuges for enriching uranium. [ border=] Stop the Whining! Americans paying $3 per gallon at the pump have it relatively cheap when compared with prices globally, say oil and gas company executives who defend their record profits as essential to maintaining supplies. [ border=] ©2006 Energy Tribune - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 57 Brattleboro Reformer: Jeffords wants tighter controls on nuclear fuel storage By EVAN LEHMANN, Reformer Washington Bureau Wednesday, July 12 WASHINGTON -- Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., wants to ensure that the state's nuclear power plant doesn't lose any more radioactive fuel rods. Jeffords, the ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday that would enhance oversight of spent fuel rods at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. "This bill will be an important step towards improving security related to one of the most hazardous materials made by humans -- spent nuclear fuel," Jeffords said in a press release. He added that his plan would reduce the possibility that dangerous fuel rods, a potential weapon for terrorists, would not end up "in the wrong hands." The bill is cosponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., introduced identical legislation in the House. The Yankee plant in Vernon lost track of two spent fuel rods for three months in 2004. They were discovered in a container located in the plant's spent fuel pool. The plant is owned by Entergy Nuclear, which has corporate offices in Brattleboro. Jeffords' bill would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish strict plans for fuel storage, conduct annual inspections at plants and increase the commission's reporting on misplaced fuel rods. New England Newspapers, Inc. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 58 Salt Lake Tribune: Huntsman presses Utah's case during seventh trip to Washington Article Last Updated: 07/12/2006 06:45:42 AM MDT By Thomas Burr The Salt Lake Tribune Posted: 6:53:11 AM- WASHINGTON - Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. made his seventh trip of his term to Washington this week, pressing Cabinet secretaries on a variety of issues, including efforts to keep nuclear waste from being stored in the state to finding the cause of high mercury levels in Utah fish. Huntsman met with four Cabinet secretaries and the White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, during a two-day whirlwind trip that the governor said was necessary to keep federal officials in the loop on Utah's concerns. "These are big issues that require a lot of massaging," Huntsman said Tuesday. "Every visit means something toward getting to completion." A main focus of the trip was a sit down with newly minted Interior Secretary Dick Kempthorne, a meeting during which Huntsman said he educated Kempthorne on Utah's efforts to keep 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from being stored in the state's west desert. Interior has a decision pending over whether a private consortium of energy companies can transport the nuclear waste over federal property and Huntsman said he urged Kempthorne to deny passage. "This is the most important issue facing our state," Huntsman said, noting that he also asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to pressure Kempthorne to deny Private Fuel Storage's use of federal land to transport the waste. The governor also said he was assured by Bodman that radioactive tailings along the Colorado River near Moab will be moved on the existing timetable and that money would be made available to clean up the site. Huntsman and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, also met with officials at the National Security Agency, which is setting up a language center in Utah. The governor says he is confident everything is moving forward with the center. Additionally, Huntsman called on Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson and asked the agency to step up efforts at finding the cause of high mercury levels in Utah fish. The governor also met with Bolten, though Huntsman said it was a social visit; the two are longtime friends. Capping off the trip, Huntsman - a former ambassador to Singapore - spoke to a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on Tuesday night. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 59 Political Resources: Yucca Mountain: The World's Largest Dirty Bomb? "Worst case" of this and potentially any other underground nuclear waste storage facility is not slow leaks into the atmosphere or groundwater. Worst case is a catastrophic steam explosion that releases tons of deadly radioactive material into the atmosphere, and renders the land upon which it falls a dead zone for thousands of years. + Large + 70,000 to 226,796 metric tons (77,162 to 250,000 tons) + Critique Page 1, Page 2, Page 3 + The Fix Is In + Hot + 200 degree C (392 degree F) Heating tests () + Proof of Safety at Yucca Mountain Page 1 + Covered with porous material + Proof of Safety at Yucca Mountain Page 2 + Sliced by earth quake faults + Exploratory Studies Facility Page 1, Page 2 + Map () + Nevada Sues to Obtain Key Yucca Document SCENARIO 1. Heavy rains saturate the porous material. 2. An earth quake shock wave suddenly forces water from the porous material into the repository through existing and new faults. 3. The water flashes into steam upon contact with the hot tunnel walls and the hot containers. 4. The expanding steam blows the top off the repository, releasing the leaked radioactive air of the tunnels into the atmosphere.* 5. The sudden cooling of the containers or the force of the explosion causes the containers to crack. 6. The rising cloud of steam carries the radioactive particles high into the atmosphere. 7. The steam condenses into water vapor. 8. Winds laterally distribute the cloud. 9. The radioactive dust particles "seed" the cloud, and precipitate as a deadly rain upon everything below. + * Just like ground water contacting hot lava blew the side from Mount Saint Helens. + * Just like water from the hot reactor core blew the top from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. ALTERNATIVES + Store on surface in pools - Current method + Pros + Allows the heat from radioactive decay to be slowly released through the container walls to the surrounding water and thence into atmosphere as water vapor. + Allows the containers to be easily monitored and replaced. + Cons + Requires a lot of real estate, because the containers must be widely separated to allow thermal convection to work fast enough to avoid boiling the water. + Proper water levels must be maintained for thousands of years. + Both water level and containers require human monitoring. Should a pandemic or economic collapse occur during that period, the monitoring may cease. + Susceptible to catastrophic damage by accidental or intentional plane crash. + Susceptible to rocket or projectile attack. + Intern in basalt + Containers placed below existing lava flows, like those off the coast of the island of Hawaii or the newest island south of the chain must be able to withstand extreme temperature distributions during their burial by layers of lava. + Recycle + Reprocess into nuclear fuel or other useful products. + Not yet technically or economically viable. + Launch into the Sun + Too expensive to lift such heavy material to Earth orbit much less beyond. + Too dangerous should any of a vast number of potential technical and material failures occur during the boost phase. + Position for subduction into the core of the Earth - Unfairly dismissed by environmentalists 20 years ago + Dangerous only during the brief plunge to the ocean floor during which the container would be kept cool by the ocean water. + Momentum will drive the container deep into the thick, cold, water-saturated sediment, which cools the container by thermal conduction. + Containers can be widely separated to avoid thermal concentration. + Any leaks are safely contained by the sediment while the container is slowly dragged with the sediment to below the mantel, where all the material melts and the heaviest (nuclear) sinks to the core. ADVOCACY Copy and paste one of the following into your favorite word processor, modify it, and send it to your local newspaper and radio and television stations, your U.S. federal government Representative and Senators, and the heads of neighboring states that would be affected by a Yucca Mountain explosion. Letter (Should be less than 150 words) The U.S. federal government is building the world's largest radioactive dirty bomb at Yucca Mountain where over 77,000 tons of plutonium, uranium, and other radioactive materials are to be stored in 392 degree F casks in tunnels that will be hot enough to evaporate minor leaks. The layer of porous rock above the tunnels is advertised as beneficial, but it can hold large quantities of water after heavy rains. Two earthquake faults intersect both the porous layer and the planned tunnels. If an earthquake were to occur, Yucca Mountain could experience a steam explosion similar to Mt. St. Helens, but with deadly fallout as dust and rain. Nuclear power can be beneficial, but not with underground storage systems. Basalt internment or recycling into the Earth's core along subduction zones are safer and less expensive methods. See political-resources.com/ym/. Article (Should be less than 500 words) A potential major disaster exists in the U.S. plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. 1. A few hundred feet above the tunnels is a layer of porous rock that can absorb water like a sponge during the rainy season. 2. The tunnels are cut by two earthquake faults, the Bow Ridge and the Ghost Dance. 3. Spent fuel rods enter the casks at about 500 degrees F (DOE admits to 392 degrees F) - and remain hot for a long time. 4. An earthquake damaged the DOE office at Yucca Mountain in 1992. What if it happened when the porous rock layer was saturated? An earthquake occurring after a period of heavy rain may force a large quantity of water from the relatively weak porous layer into the tunnels via the two fault zones. Once in the tunnels, the water will flash to steam, the mountain will explode, and any leaked radiation will be carried by the steam into the atmosphere. (Mt. St. Helens was a steam explosion.) If the containers rupture, the steam could contain up to 77,000 tons of plutonium, uranium, thorium and other radioactive metals. Southern Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, southern California and New Mexico would become death zones. Florida would be too close for safety. If it happened during a Santa Ana wind, all of Southern California would become a death zone. Think the Department of Energy (DOE) doesn't know? Letters from one government agency to another discuss bribes allegedly being paid to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspectors by the DOE to approve the various stages of Yucca Mountain "... without asking any more technical questions." The alleged bribes were as high as $22 million dollars. You may have heard of the data falsification by United States Geological Surveys (USGS) personnel last year, but you may have not yet heard about this activity. See political-resources.com/ym/. ***************************************************************** 60 The Mercury: Public worried over safety of spent fuel rods Thursday 13 July, 2006 Lindsay Moyer, lmoyer@pottsmerc.com0 7/12/2006 LIMERICK -- Many area residents who attended an information session on plans to store spent nuclear fuel left feeling better about the project, but others voiced concerns or outright opposition. Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Plant held the public open house Tuesday after the township planning commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors reject land development plans for the project. The supervisors’ vote is scheduled for Thursday. Officials from Exelon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Transnuclear Inc., the vendor from which Exelon is purchasing the dry cask system, were present at the open house to answer questions. The three groups set up informational tables that included brochures, display maps and photographs, videos, a project model and even simulated nuclear fuel pellets for those attending to peruse. Many people wanted to know where the above-ground casks housing spent fuel would be located, project manager Kevin Carrabine said. He drew a basic diagram that showed their placement, immediately west of the main power block of buildings and inside the plant’s security perimeter. Carrabine and other officials said that most people were also asking when Yucca Mountain would open, at which time spent fuel stored in the dry cask system would be transported to the nuclear depository in Nevada. Although the answer to that question isn’t definite, Carrabine said, it’s not expected to open before 2015. By 6:30 p.m., nearly 40 people had visited the open house, and project engineer Matthew Eyre said he’d heard widely varying opinions about the project from the visitors. "It went from one person who said, ‘You can talk to me all you want but I won’t like this,’ to one guy who said, ‘You should build more of these,’" Eyre said. Joseph Browne, a Pottstown resident, said he thought the proposal looked "pretty good safety-wise" and he didn’t think the storage facility would pose a terrorism risk. "I don’t see terrorists seeing this as a good source of material," Browne said. "It’s too limited. They want to do something in the middle of New York City." Joe Howard, also of Pottstown, agreed with Browne that Exelon’s project plans looked safe. "It seems like they’ll be protecting (the fuel storage casks)," Howard said. "I think they’ve got a responsibility and they’re trying to handle it pretty good." Limerick planning commission member Michele Chrisman said she came to the open house to see if Exelon would provide information that the commission requested, but didn’t receive, before it unanimously voted against recommendation of the proposal. Exelon said it didn’t provide the information because of security concerns. "It seems to be the same information," Chrisman said. "It’s the same photos from the brochures. I’m disappointed they’re not telling people more." Chrisman, who is also a member of the township emergency management team, said she has "reservations" about the safety of the project. "There’s too many unknowns -- what could fail, the ramifications if it does fail, and how do you move them?" she said. Deborah Yusko, who lives near the nuclear plant, said she was "extremely concerned and extremely opposed" to the dry cask storage project. "They tell you how safe it is," she said. "Most people who tell you that don’t live within the 20-mile radius affected. There’s probably a reason for that." Yusko said she was also concerned about the information provided by Exelon. "I think that there are a lot of safety issues that can happen, but they’re not going to tell you," she said. "Maybe it won’t affect me, but it will affect my kids." NRC health physicist Robert Prince assured residents who turned out for the open house that the project would be conducted safely with oversight from the NRC. That oversight, which would take place after approval by township supervisors, would include ensuring that Exelon’s existing programs are revised to address the dry cask storage project, overseeing a "dry run" of loading the casks and the actual loading, and routine inspections, Prince said. Township supervisors will meet at 6 p.m. Thursday at the township building on Ridge Pike to vote on Exelon’s land development proposal. ©The Mercury 2006 Copyright © 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 PRI: Oranges, Orange Juice and Enriching Yellowcake: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Explained [PR-inside.com] 2006-07-12 08:36:40 - R. Gene Clark, Chief Executive of TradeTech LLC, a nuclear energy consulting firm, explained the nuclear fuel cycle in terms of making orange juice. SARASOTA, Fla., July 12, 2006 - (PR-Inside) Gene Clark's presentation at the recent China Power and Alternative Energy Summit in Beijing drew strong applause. StockInterview.com has re-published an excerpt in the current Market Outlook Journal. Clark compares enriching uranium with making orange juice in his easy-to-understand description of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Clark wrote in today's Market Outlook Journal, 'The uranium enrichment process is analogous to the process of squeezing oranges to make orange juice. The raw oranges are like the feed to the enrichment process; the orange juice itself is like the product of enrichment; the resulting orange pulp and rind is like the waste stream of the enrichment process.' TradeTech LLC publishes the weekly update to the spot uranium price every Sunday night at the information center's website: www.uranium.info ABOUT STOCKINTERVIEW.COM Stockinteview.com is a rapidly growing online news service, which provides investigative reporting, editorial, analysis and commentary of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium mining, nuclear power, the environment and the natural resource industry. Over the past three years, the Internet news website has covered the nuclear energy renaissance, the worldwide uranium mining boom and the potential influence of alternative fuel sources on China's dramatic economic growth. To read Gene Clark's explanation of the nuclear fuel cycle, please visit StockInterview for his Guest Commentary found at http://www.stockinterview.com/journal.html ABOUT TRADETECH LLC TradeTech, LLC is a Colorado-based company with office in Denver, Chapel Hill, and Dallas. TradeTech also has representative offices in London, Tokyo, and Zürich. TradeTech, and its predecessor companies-NUEXCO Information Services, CONCORD Information Services, and CONCORD Trading Company, has supported the domestic nuclear fuel cycle (uranium) industry for more than 35 years, and is widely recognized for its expertise in trading activities and its comprehensive knowledge of the technical, economic and political factors affecting this industry. TradeTech provides expert market consulting, participates in the buying and selling of uranium products and services, and maintains an extensive information database on these industries. In addition, TradeTech is active in international organizations and associations affiliated with nuclear power, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and the World Nuclear Association. Website address: www.uranium.info Contact: Julie Ickes Editor, StockInterview.com Telephone: (941) 929-1640 Email: editor@stockinterview.com http://www.stockinterview.com (SOURCE: StockInterview.com) Author: James Finch e-mail Web: http://www.stockinterview.com ***************************************************************** 62 Canada Network: Nuclear industry welcomes NDP's change of attitude canada.com Network Gov't promotingSask. as potential sitefor uranium refinery James Wood, The StarPhoenix Published: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 REGINA -- There has been a change in how Saskatchewan is viewed within the nuclear industry as the provincial government tries to attract a uranium refinery to Saskatchewan, says the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association. Murray Elston, who heads the industry body, says the province's former "reluctance" appears to have been replaced by a view of uranium as a driver of the provincial economy. "I think that's a new day. The rather ambitious expression of interest I think by the current government and other people politically . . . has been a welcome event, I guess we might say, from the industry's point of view," he said in a telephone interview from Ottawa this week. Elston said the fact the province is "bullish" about attracting a refinery to go along with the largest deposits of uranium in the world will be helpful to its cause. But it is likely to face competition in attracting a facility not only from within Canada or North America, but also internationally. "Having a resource like uranium in your backyard, it probably makes a whole lot of sense to do an integrated operation. Having said that, we've lived with the uranium being mined in Saskatchewan for some time, processed initially in Blind River (Ont.) and then Port Hope (Ont.). . . . All I'm saying is that there are other sites now that are being opened up," he said. NDP Premier Lorne Calvert and Industry and Resources Minister Eric Cline travelled to France two weeks ago to meet with the head of nuclear giant Areva to sell the province as a site for a uranium refinery. While Calvert was there, Areva announced it would proceed with the long-awaited Midwest project, a new mine located about 15 kilometres away from the company's McLean Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan. Calvert also reported back that Areva looked favourably upon the potential of Saskatchewan as a site for a refinery when the need for one develops. Areva spoke publicly about Calvert's mission for the first time Tuesday. Company spokesperson Alun Richards said the politician's pitch was well-received. "As far as further developments, it can only help if these contacts are made," he said. Richards agreed there will likely be a competition of an international nature for a future refinery. "Certainly Saskatchewan has an argument because Saskatchewan produces a lot of uranium for Areva and a lot of others," he said, adding Canada and Saskatchewan make an attractive market because of its stability. Richards couldn't put a timetable on when Areva will need a refinery, but pointed out there is rapid expansion of the nuclear market. There are around 440 nuclear reactors operating in the world. There are 38 more on order or planned and a further 113 being proposed. There are around 20 new reactors being considered within the United States, while China has plans to build more than 30 new reactors, said Richards. In Europe, the British government announced Tuesday an energy strategy that will see six new nuclear plants built. There is also activity in France, Germany and Finland. Even in Ontario, the provincial government is moving to refurbish old reactors while hoping to build new ones. All that activity has driven up the price of uranium and spurred projects such as the $200-million Midwest mine, which has been on the drawing board for more than a decade. "We're looking at a difficulty in keeping pace with the refinement of uranium going forward," said Elston. "My view is that we need that capacity and the location of that capacity is a matter of commercial principles." jwood@sp.canwest.com c The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006 © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of . All rights ***************************************************************** 63 Vermont Guardian: Jeffords wants closer tabs on spent nuclear fuel July 12, 2006 U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) today introduced legislation aimed at better controlling radioactive spent fuel produced by the nations nuclear reactors, according to a press release from the senators office. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006 is aimed at improving the safety and security of about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel produced by the nation's 103 nuclear power plants annually, the statement said. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) is co-sponsoring the Jeffords bill, Jeffords office said, and Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced companion legislation in the House. The proposed legislation would require more effective control and accounting of spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and could prevent incidents of lost spent nuclear fuel like the one that occurred at the Vermont Yankee and other plants in recent years., Jeffords office said. Vermont Yankee officials in 2004 announced they had lost track of two pieces of broken fuel rods, which were later found in the bottom of the reactors spent fuel pool using special camera equipment. However, fuel rod pieces reported missing at other plants have never been located. Spent nuclear fuel is no longer efficient enough to generate power but is still intensely radioactive and continues to generate heat for tens of thousands of years, Jeffords office wrote. Radiation produced by the fuel can kill a person within minutes if directly exposed. Terrorist attacks in the U.S. have heightened public concern about whether this highly radioactive material could be stolen and used maliciously. The potential for harm to human health and the environment warrants close attention to the control and accounting of this material. This bill will be an important step towards improving security related to one of the most hazardous materials made by humans spent nuclear fuel, said Jeffords, the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. We must increase the scrutiny on the tracking of this material and ensure that spent nuclear fuel remains safely stored in appropriate facilities and does not end up in the wrong hands. The legislation calls for the NRC to pay closer attention to loose individual spent fuel rods and rod fragments like those lost at Vermont Yankee. It would require the NRC to report when loose fuel rods and fragments result from the loading or dismantling of a fuel assembly, and to conduct annual inspections to ensure plants are complying with waste tracking requirements. The measure also would require NRC to develop an updated electronic system for storing data and tracking spent fuel. This would help secure information from aging plants that are being uprated and also require the new fleet of plants to use a uniform electronic system, according to Jeffords press release. The senator was referring to new reactors in development, but not yet approved or licensed by the NRC. Agency officials testified before Congress on June 22 that they have received 18 utility letters of interest in new plants, according to Jeffords spokeswoman Diane Derby. The bill also would require the agency to track the movement of spent nuclear fuel onsite at nuclear power plants and offsite to other facilities by requiring that manifests indicate whether shipments contain fuel rods or fragments. Posted July 12, 2006 information| privacy policyNorthern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/072006/071206.shtml ***************************************************************** 64 KnoxNews: Rules shelter ORNL's work Lab follows measures to protect its technologies and classified information By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com July 12, 2006 OAK RIDGE - Extensive measures are taken at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to protect the federal lab's work on sensitive technologies and to control the spread of research information that is classified, sensitive or under proprietary restrictions. Alex Fischer, ORNL's director of technology transfer, said the lab currently is conducting a review of all its technology "clients" to make sure the ownership arrangements are fully understood and to establish the nature of any foreign involvement. "If there is a sensitive country, that kicks it to a different level of review," Fischer said Tuesday. He said there is a matrix of rules and regulations that must be addressed on a daily basis, whether the work involves a licensing agreement with a private company or a scientist's visit to a foreign country. Some of these rules are driven by security, but others are mostly concerned with intellectual property rights, Fischer said. "We are very aware that corporate espionage is alive and well in the world, and that doesn't have anything to do with national security. It's just companies trying to get an edge," he said. The Oak Ridge lab is managed by UT-Battelle, a partnership of the University of Tennessee and Battelle. Fischer said his office works closely with ORNL's Export Control Office and the Oak Ridge Office of Counterintelligence to make sure that technology agreements don't violate U.S. laws or compromise sensitive information. "There are several sets of rules any time you're dealing with technologies and licenses," he said. "We have a list of sensitive technologies we keep, and obviously we have a list of classified technologies. And then we have a list of sensitive countries. We're always cross-referencing those and making sure that we do checks on companies that are doing licenses and having contact with the lab related to those technologies." Fischer said he couldn't discuss specific activities of the Office of Counterintelligence, but he said there are a number of background checks and reviews that take place whenever work involves individuals or businesses from a foreign country. "On occasion, they'll come back with something (of concern)," he said. Tom Wilbanks, who chairs the Corporate Fellows Council, an elite group of research scientists at ORNL, said a visit to a foreign country is typically preceded by a visit to the Office of Counterintelligence. "First of all, before you can get (Department of Energy) clearance to travel to a sensitive country, you have to go to a briefing at Counterintelligence. That's a requirement," he said. "Usually, a week or two before you leave, you get an e-mail with a checklist of things to think about before making the trip." A briefing with counterintelligence officials also takes place following a visit to one of the sensitive countries, such as China, Israel or India. Wilbanks said he thinks most of the lab's research scientists and engineers are keenly aware of the do's and don'ts, especially if they work with developing technologies that are considered sensitive. Fischer said special precautions are taken to protect information scientists may be carrying on laptop computers. "If you're going to a sensitive country, more often than not you're not taking a laptop," he said. "And, if you're taking one, it is in essence a 'dummy' laptop - one that's been cleaned of everything before you go, so it's used simply for word processing." If a lab employee is traveling internationally, a laptop wouldn't have classified or sensitive information, but it might have "business sensitive" programs, Fischer said. In that case, laptops are embedded with software technology that safeguards information in case the computer is lost and falls into unwanted hands, he said. Billy Stair, the lab's communications chief, said he couldn't comment on whether any Oak Ridge employees had been detained, investigated or had their computers confiscated - similar to this week's news reports about retired UT professor J. Reece Roth following a trip to China. "If those things occurred, they would be classified, and they would be the type of thing we couldn't talk about," Stair said. He added: "I think there is general concern nationwide that laboratories and universities and federal employees need to be especially attentive to cyber-security issues." For instance, ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth elected not to take his laptop on his last trip to China, Stair said. Oak Ridge is a major destination for science research, with a broad presence of foreign nationals - including scientists from sensitive countries. Therefore, lab research activities are sometimes segregated according to those with U.S. citizenship, security clearance or approved access to project information. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 65 KIFI: Highway to Close Thursday While Tanks Are Moved at INL Site www.localnews8.com July 12, 2006 A local highway will be closed Thursday for the transfer of hazardous waste tanks at the INL. The Idaho National Laboratory and the Transportation Department will close State Highway 33 near Mud Lake for one hour Thursday morning, sometime between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. They're moving the tanks from Test Area North to a gate just south of where the route turns west to Howe on the INL site. ***************************************************************** 66 DOE: Joint Report Issued by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Russian Federations Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) July 12, 2006 Joint Report Issued by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Russian Federations Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman announced today that he and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency Director Sergey Kiriyenko have submitted to Presidents Bush and Putin the third report of the Senior Interagency Working Group on implementation of the February 2005 Bratislava Checklist. We have jointly agreed to maintain the aggressive timeline of prioritized repatriation of fresh and spent highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel and conversion of research reactors in third world countries, Secretary Bodman said. We will continue to implement the bilateral Joint Action Plans to improve the level of physical protection, control and accountability of nuclear weapons and materials stored at Russian Ministry of Defense and Rosatom facilities. The report highlights progress over the past six months, including a joint field exercise in Russia in late 2006 focused on a search for radioactive materials and elimination of consequences resulting from a nuclear or radiological emergency. It also highlights best practices for maintaining the security of sensitive nuclear facilities and adopts a joint definition of Security Culture. It commits both agencies to developing principles and evaluation criteria by the end of 2006. Both sides noted the successful shipments of spent highly enriched uranium fuel of U.S. and Russian origin to the United States and Russia, respectively. During the February 2005 meeting in Bratislava, Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin committed both governments to securing nuclear weapons and fissile material to prevent the possibility that such weapons or materials could fall into the hands of terrorists. The Presidents established a bilateral Senior Interagency Working Group to address issues of cooperation on nuclear security; the group is charged with reporting on the status of cooperation to the Presidents. Work under this initiative is of utmost importance for U.S., Russian and world security. It is the intention of both sides to continue cooperation for the foreseeable future and to provide the Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation with periodic reports on progress made. The Senior Interagency Working Group will submit its next report in December 2006. Media contact(s): Bryan Wilkes, (202)586-7371 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General Contact ***************************************************************** 67 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dogs staying home Published Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford guard dogs are back in the comfort of their handlers' homes, after the price for a permanent kennel sent Fluor Hanford officials into sticker shock. The estimated construction cost came in at almost $1.2 million, said Geoff Tyree, spokesman for Department of Energy contractor Fluor Hanford. "Management decided they would rather spend that money on cleanup" of the nuclear reservation, he said. The dogs had been staying at temporary kennels in central Hanford after a dispute between handlers and Fluor over the extra pay for caring for the dogs at home. When Fluor required the handlers to begin leaving the dogs at Hanford each day after work rather than taking them home, the company agreed to build a kennel that met the specifications of military guard dog kennels. Surprised by the price tag, Fluor did some checking and comparing and found the estimate was accurate, Tyree said. The kennel was to have 4,650 square feet of enclosed space with a kennel for each dog, in addition to a wash station, an exam table and an isolation kennel in case a dog got sick. Although for security reasons Hanford does not make public the number of guard dogs it has, nine dog handlers were involved in the earlier lawsuit over pay. "One thing that drives up the cost is there are more requirements to build any facility at Hanford and more rigorous requirements," Tyree explained. That includes an extensive and expensive permit process to deal with waste from the kennels, he said. Abandoning plans for a permanent kennel came down to a business decision, he said. But Fluor Hanford also recognized that the handlers and their families missed having the dogs at home, he said. Under a new agreement, handlers will be paid a half-hour of salary each day to care for the dogs. In addition, handlers were required to sign a hold-harmless agreement before taking the dogs home. In the past, Fluor said it was concerned about liability if the dogs caused any damage while off the nuclear site. Where the dogs would live became an issue when nine handlers sued Fluor Hanford, a Department of Energy contractor, for back wages and overtime for their work to house, care for and train the dogs at home. Fluor settled the suit for $131,000 last fall, admitting no fault. But the settlement left Fluor and Hanford Guard Union 21 to negotiate terms for caring for the dogs after Nov. 1. Fluor chose, over the protests of handlers, to end the practice of sending the dogs home each night with handlers. The handlers said the dogs would maintain a better bond with them if they continued to be kept at home. The canines lived in dog houses at the Hanford patrol operations center in central Hanford until last week when the agreement was renegotiated and plans for a kennel dropped. Kennels had been built previously at handlers' homes and Fluor covers the costs of food, grooming and veterinary care. Hanford is the only DOE site to keep dogs owned by DOE at handlers' homes, according to Fluor. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 68 Tri-City Herald: Congress was right to take DOE off program Opinions Published Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 Any lingering doubts about whether Congress should have taken the Hanford worker compensation program away from the Department of Energy have disappeared. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, showing several examples of how DOE mismanaged the program and wasted millions in administering it, settled the issue. The good news is the Department of Labor took over the program a little less than a year ago, so there is hope for improvement. That's little comfort, however, for those workers awaiting compensation. The Labor Department needs to push hard to make up for the lost time caused by DOE's negligence. The program was created about five years ago to help sick employees from Hanford and other nuclear sites file state worker compensation claims for illnesses caused by toxins they encountered on the job. But the process DOE set up to handle claims was riddled with problems, including the questionable spending of $26.4 million out of a total $92 million, according to the recent GAO report. A majority of those questionable payments were for labor charges and for purchase and storage of furniture and equipment. For example, DOE ordered $748,409 for furniture in July 2004 that was to be used by new personnel to speed up the claims process. Then a hiring freeze resulted in the furniture ending up in storage, costing $72,720 during the next year. In addition, it appears some contractors may have been paid even when their personnel weren't working. The GAO report also questioned payments made to doctors, some of whom worked out of their homes, reviewing cases and making quality checks. Some filed invoices for working 18 and 19 hours in a day, the report said. DOE did not have a method to evaluate the reasonableness of hours billed by the doctors, didn't observe the hours worked nor make certain a contractor was monitoring the hours, according to the report. It is ironic DOE officials were so overly concerned about the possibility of paying a fraudulent claim to a nuclear worker, yet failed to monitor the doctors reviewing the claims. Now, five years later, it is clear the program was horribly mismanaged from the start. Money has been wasted and people have been kept waiting. It's up to the Department of Labor to rectify the problem as soon as possible. While it is still too early to tell how well Labor officials will manage the program, it can hardly be worse than it was. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 69 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald; FR Doc E6-10938 [Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)] [Notices] [Page 39310] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12jy06-61] [[Page 39310]] Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Fernald. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Saturday, July 29, 2006, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. ADDRESSES: Crosby Township Senior Center, 8910 Willey Road, Harrison, Ohio 45030. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Sarno, The Perspectives Group, Inc., 1055 North Fairfax Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314, at (703) 837-1197, or e-mail: djsarno@theperspectivesgroup.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda 8:30 a.m. Call to Order. 8:35 a.m. Chair's Remarks and Liaison Announcements. 8:45 a.m. Closure Status Update. 9:15 a.m. Finalize Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board (FCAB) History. 10:15 a.m. Break. 10:30 a.m. Plan/Input to Fernald Community Alliance Forum. 11:15 a.m. Identify items to include in a final FCAB recommendation for closure and transition. 11:40 a.m. Identify timing for final FCAB meeting. 11:50 a.m. Public Comment. 12 p.m. Adjourn. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board, MS-76, Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, OH 43253-8704, or by calling the Advisory Board at (513) 648-6478. Issued at Washington, DC on July 6, 2006. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10938 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 70 Knox News: Munger: Whether tiger teams or not, inspectors at cleanup sites By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com July 12, 2006 There have been various reports in recent weeks of Department of Energy "tiger teams" conducting safety inspections in Oak Ridge, invoking fear and froth among contractor employees. Tiger teams, by their nature, do surprise inspections or visits, usually to test the safety or security of a government facility and the capabilities of the folks working there. In this case, there were no tiger teams, at least not officially. According to DOE spokesman Walter Perry, a team from DOE's Office of Independent Oversight and Performance - known as OA in agency parlance - was evaluating contractors in the Oak Ridge environmental management program. He said it was a regularly scheduled triennial (every three years) event. When asked about the inspections, DOE provided a summary response that was remarkable mostly for its verbose bureaucratese. "The purpose of this inspection was to access the effectiveness of the implementation of the core functions of integrated safety management for selected EM activities," DOE said in an e-mail message. What? DOE inspectors were checking safety plans for several projects, including the cleanup work at the old Molten Salt Reactor, work associated with an underground waste tank at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and other activities under the control of Bechtel Jacobs, DOE's cleanup contractor in Oak Ridge. The DOE inspectors also took a look-see at Foster Wheeler's nuke-waste processing operations in Oak Ridge. In addition to safety plans, the inspection team also took a look at several focus areas, such as quality assurance in engineering and workplace monitoring of nonradiological hazards, DOE said in response to questions. Perry said the inspectors currently are writing their report. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board doesn't have regulatory authority over DOE's nuke operations, but the board's recommendations historically have been followed without fail. Now, however, it appears that DOE is trying to minimize the safety board's influence. According to Weapons Complex Monitor, a Washington-based newsletter, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman distributed a memo to employees emphasizing that the board does not make the department's decisions. "The responsibility for the operation of the department belongs to us, and not the DNFSB," Bodman was quoted as saying in the memo. Bodman indicated that DOE would continue to use the board's advice but added, "We must never confuse advice with authority and accountability." Hmmmm. This sounds like a partner in the same thought process that prompted Bodman and his DOE team to dismantle the agency's environment, safety and health organization. According to a DNFSB staff report, a June 7 emergency exercise at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant was based on a scenario of a fuel truck colliding with a "material transport vehicle" - presumably one of the trucks that hauls nuclear weapons parts or highly enriched uranium. The Office of Secure Transportation, the federal outfit that transports warheads and special nuclear materials, participated in the Y-12 exercise. "While the site continues to evaluate the overall results, it does appear that the primary exercise objectives were achieved," the safety board staff said in a June 9 report to Washington. "Initial review of the exercise identified areas for improvement in scenario control, local hospital interface, and other areas." The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance is planning its annual Hiroshima Day events, Aug. 5-6, including a rally at the gates of Y-12 on Saturday, Aug. 5. For more information, visit the group's Web site at: www.stopthebombs.org. Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************