*****************************************************************
07/14/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.166
*****************************************************************
   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 Bulletin: When could Iran get the Bomb? 
2 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran seeking strategies to solve nuclear issue 
3 Guardian Unlimited: Western Incentives for Iran Released
4 IRNA: South African FM: Iran is committed to NPT 
5 IRNA: President: Iran desires to hold talks on nuclear issue in a po
6 IRNA: Bush calls for suspension of Iran's peaceful nuclear activitie
7 IRNA: Larijani warns against derailing from negotiation track
8 IRNA: Putin warns against stepping up pressure on Iran over nuclear 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Insists on Quick N. Korea Resolution
10 AFP: Japan gives ground on NKorea sanctions 
11 Bulletin: Lost in translation 
12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Urges Single Voice From G-8 Leaders
13 IRNA: India, US review lifting ban on trade in atomic field
14 RIA Novosti: Russia returns to idea of global security
15 IRNA: Grand Duke of Luxembourg: Negotiations only conceivable path t
16 The Nation: The G-8's Risky Nuclear Embrace
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
17 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Entergy on July 19th to Discuss 	Pilgrim L
18 EBR: Nuclear power industry lukewarm on UK governments atomic propos
19 US: APP.COM: Danger at Oyster Creek plant could bring disaster |
20 US: Detroit Free Press: Entergy buying Michigan nuclear generator
21 US: Detroit Free Press: Consumers Energy to sell Palisades nuclear p
22 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Entergy on July 20th to Discuss Vermont Ya
23 US: PRN: Entergy Corporation: Entergy to Buy Palisades Nuclear Energ
24 US: NEWS.com.au: Reactor licence decision 'reckless' - 
25 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear reactor safe enough: watchdog - 
26 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: Exelon gets closer to building Limerick f
27 AU ABC: ANSTO granted nuclear reactor licence
28 US: SPI: Reactor used to simulate 3 Mile Island accident to be disma
29 Platts: Court sides with Barsebaeck management on decommissioning pl
30 Platts: French nuclear plant maker 'surprised' at regulator's critic
31 AU ABC: Nuclear reactor granted license to operate
32 UPI: U.K.: Nuclear power gets go-ahead
33 times and star: Hopes high for nuclear lab
34 Times and star: Opportunities group questions nuclear option
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
35 US: Middletown Press: Connecticut Yankee to install monitoring well 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Governor lobbies Cabinet officials on nukes
37 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH93
38 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Weapons material turned into fuel
39 US: AP Wire: Last radioactive waste removed from former nuclear site
40 US: AU ABC: Uranium drilling draws positive results
41 Platts: USEC uranium sale unlawful - Government Accountability Offic
42 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Senators oppose effort to open market to
43 US: The Mercury: Limerick OKs fuel storage project
44 times and star: Unions press for new Sellafield power plant
 
                           PEACE
 
45 US: Salem-News.Com: Oregon Atomic Veteran's Day Celebration July 16t
46 Bulletin: Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006 | 
47 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah high court to get waste expansion case
48 US: RR: Oregon Atomic Veterans Day Celebration 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
49 KnoxNews: Y-12 plant lauded for uranium conversion
50 DOE: China and Russia to Join the Generation IV International Forum
51 DOE: Secretary Bodman Visits Alberta, Canada
52 SF New Mexican: LANL, DOE might face dumping fines       
53 Hanford News: State appeals ruling that tossed Hanford initiative
54 Hanford News: State to fight I-297 ruling: Voters passed Hanford was
55 Tri-City Herald: Governor listens to Tri-City residents 
56 Idaho Statesman: Dismantling of reactor will end era at INL
57 DOE: Environmental Management Advisory Board Meeting
58 lamonitor.com: IG report said to support the whistleblowers 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Bulletin: When could Iran get the Bomb? 

| thebulletin.org Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

What we know and what we don't know about Iran's nuclear
program. 

By David Albright July/August 2006  pp. 26-33 (vol. 62, no. 4) © 
2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 

Though hardly transparent, Director of National Intelligence
John Negroponte's testimony on Iran before the Senate
Intelligence Committee on February 2 was clearly cautious. The
U.S. intelligence community judges that Iran probably has
neither a nuclear weapon nor the necessary fissile material for
a weapon, he stated. If Iran continues on its current path, it
"will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon
within the next decade," he added. The basis for this estimate
remains classified, although Iran's lack of knowledge and
experience in building and running large numbers of centrifuges
for uranium enrichment was reportedly an important
consideration. When pressed, U.S. officials have said that they
interpret Negroponte's remark to mean that Iran will need
roughly 5-10 years before it possesses nuclear weapons. 

Despite this caution, a handful of U.S. officials have since
attempted to overstate Iran's nuclear progress, contradicting
even this latest estimate. It appears that in the ongoing crisis
between Iran and the United States, the crucial struggle for
public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat is well under
way. 

Following an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) briefing
of U.N. Security Council permanent members and Germany in
mid-March about a group of 164 centrifuges at Iran's Natanz
uranium enrichment site, U.S. officials began to distort what
the IAEA had said. Under the cloak of anonymity, these officials
told journalists that Iran's actions represented a significant
acceleration of its enrichment program. The IAEA was "shocked,"
"astonished," and "blown away" by Iran's progress on gas
centrifuges, according to these U.S. officials, leading the
United States to revise its own timeline for when Iran will get
the bomb. In reality, IAEA officials said they were not
surprised by Iran's actions. These U.S. statements, a senior
IAEA official told the Associated Press, came "from people who
are seeking a crisis, not a solution." [1] 

Some outside experts and officials, including Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, may be trying to undermine U.S. intelligence
assessments on Iran's timeline to the bomb by highlighting the
intelligence community's failure to correctly assess Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction efforts. [2]  Although the
intelligence community deserves strong criticism for its
analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, the more recent Iranian
analysis has been subject to more thorough review and is more
consensual than the Iraqi assessments. For example, centrifuge
experts at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who challenged faulty
CIA conclusions that Iraqi aluminum tubes were for a
reconstituted nuclear weapons program long before the war, have
been central in assessing Iran's gas centrifuge program for the
intelligence community, according to a U.S. intelligence
official. 

Iran is indeed on the verge of mastering a critical step in
building and operating a gas centrifuge plant that would be able
to produce enriched uranium for either peaceful or military
purposes. However, it can be expected to face serious technical
hurdles before it can reliably produce large quantities of
enriched uranium. 

Many details about Iran's technical nuclear capabilities and
plans are unknown, and the IAEA has neither been able to verify
that Iran has declared its nuclear activities in full nor to
establish conclusively that Iran does not have hidden nuclear
enrichment sites. Western governments view with skepticism
Iranian denials of intentions to produce highly enriched uranium
(HEU) or to build nuclear weapons. Yet there is no evidence of
an Iranian decision to build a nuclear arsenal, let alone any
knowledge of an official Iranian schedule for acquiring nuclear
weapons. 

During the past three years of IAEA inspections, the
international community has learned a great deal of information
about the Iranian program that can be used to estimate the
minimum amount of time Iran would need to produce enough HEU for
a nuclear bomb. According to several possible scenarios, Iran
appears to need at least three years before it could have enough
HEU to make a nuclear weapon. Given the technical difficulty of
the task, it could take Iran much longer. 

With political rhetoric likely to intensify during the coming
months, it is essential to have as clear an evaluation as
possible of Iranian nuclear capabilities. It is also essential
to avoid repeating the mistakes that were made prior to the Iraq
War, when senior Bush administration officials and their allies
outside government hyped the Iraqi nuclear threat to gain
support in confronting Iraq. 

  
Out of the gate
 

Iran's recent actions appear aimed at rapidly installing and
running gas centrifuges, which can be used to separate uranium
235 from uranium 238--the process known as enrichment. In early
January 2006, Iran removed 52 IAEA seals that verified the
suspension of Iran's P-1 centrifuge uranium enrichment program
that had been in effect since October 2003. (The P-1 centrifuge
is a design that Iran developed from plans acquired through the
nuclear smuggling network of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan.)
The seals were located at the Natanz, Pars Trash, and Farayand
Technique sites, Iran's main centrifuge facilities. On February
11, Iran started to enrich uranium in a small number of
centrifuges at Natanz. 

After removing the seals, Iran also started to substantially
renovate key portions of its main centrifuge research and
development facility, the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz.
Iran secretly began construction on the pilot plant in 2001, and
it installed about 200 centrifuges in 2002 and 2003. The pilot
plant is designed to hold six 164-machine cascades, groups of
centrifuges connected by pipes that work together to enrich
greater amounts of uranium to higher enrichment levels than a
group of individual centrifuges. The plant has space for
additional, smaller test cascades, for a total of about 1,000
centrifuges. 

At Natanz and Farayand Technique, Iran quickly restarted testing
and checking centrifuge components to determine if they were
manufactured precisely enough to use in a centrifuge. By early
March, Iran had restarted enriching uranium at the pilot plant
in 10- and 20-centrifuge cascades. 

Iran also moved processing tanks and an autoclave--used to heat
centrifuge feed material known as uranium hexafluoride into a
gas prior to insertion into a centrifuge cascade--into its main
production facility, the underground Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP)
at Natanz. This plant is designed to eventually hold
50,000-60,000 centrifuges. Iran told the IAEA that it intends to
start installing the first 3,000 P-1 centrifuges at the FEP in
the fourth quarter of 2006. A key outstanding question is
whether Iran has procured from abroad or domestically
manufactured all the equipment and materials it needs to finish
the first module of 3,000 centrifuges. 

Iran's Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan, which converts
natural uranium into uranium hexafluoride, has continued to
operate since restarting in August 2005, following the beginning
of the breakdown in the suspension. By May 2006, Iran had
produced 110 metric tons of uranium hexafluoride. [3]  Assuming
that roughly 5 metric tons of uranium hexafluoride are needed to
make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, this stock represents
enough natural uranium hexafluoride for more than 20 nuclear
weapons. Although this uranium hexafluoride contains impurities
that can interfere with the operation of centrifuges and reduce
their output or cause them to fail, most IAEA experts believe
that Iran can overcome this problem and that the issue of
hexafluoride impurity has been overblown in the media. Iran is
known to be working to improve the purity of its uranium
hexafluoride. If necessary, Iran could use its existing stock of
impure material, either further purifying this uranium
hexafluoride or settling for reduced output and a higher
centrifuge failure rate. 
  
Centrifuge know-how

A key part of the development of Iran's gas centrifuge program
is the operation of the 164-machine test cascades at the Natanz
pilot plant, which will be the workhorses of any future
centrifuge plant. Iran finished installing its first test
cascade in the fall of 2003, but the cascade never operated with
uranium hexafluoride prior to the October 2003 suspension. On
April 13, 2006, Iran announced that it had produced low-enriched
uranium (LEU) in its 164-machine cascade. Soon afterward, it
announced that it had enriched uranium up to a level of almost 5
percent. 

Restarting the cascade took several months because Iran had to
repair damaged centrifuges. According to IAEA reports, many
centrifuges crashed or broke when the cascade was shut down at
the start of the suspension in 2003. Before introducing uranium
hexafluoride, Iran had to reconnect all the pipes, establish a
vacuum inside the cascade, and prepare the cascade for operation
with uranium hexafluoride. 

The initial performance of the P-1 centrifuges in this cascade
has been lower than expected. Based on the April 12 statements
of Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization
of Iran, the average annualized output of the centrifuges in
this cascade is relatively low. [4]  In the same interview,
Aghazadeh implied that he expects the average output of each P-1
centrifuge to almost double in the main plant. 

In addition, Iran has not yet run this cascade continuously to
produce enriched uranium. According to a Vienna diplomat, the
cascade operated with uranium hexafluoride only about half of
its first month of operation, although it continued to operate
under vacuum the rest of the time. During this period, according
to a May 19 Agence France Presse report, the cascade produced
only "dozens of grams" of enriched uranium, far below the more
than 2,000 grams Aghazadeh predicted the cascade would produce
running continuously for that length of time. The Iranian
centrifuge operators do not yet have sufficient understanding of
cascade operation and must conduct a series of longer tests to
develop a deeper understanding. 

The IAEA reported in April that Iran is building the second and
third cascades at the pilot plant. A senior diplomat in Vienna
said in a late-April interview that the second and third
cascades could start by early summer. This schedule would allow
Iran to test multiple cascades running in parallel, a necessary
step before building a centrifuge plant composed of such
cascades. The diplomat speculated that Iran could continue with
this pattern, installing the fourth and fifth in July and
August, respectively. The space for the sixth cascade is
currently occupied by the 10- and 20-machine cascades, he said. 

Iran would likely want to run its cascades individually and in
parallel for several months to ensure that no significant
problems develop and to gain confidence that it can reliably
enrich uranium in the cascades. Problems could include excessive
vibration of the centrifuges, motor or power failures, pressure
and temperature instabilities, or breakdown of the vacuum. Iran
may also want to test any emergency systems designed to shut
down the cascade without losing many centrifuges in the event of
a major failure. Absent major problems, Iran is expected to need
until the fall or later to demonstrate successful operation of
its cascades and their associated emergency and control systems. 

Once Iran overcomes the technical hurdle of operating its
demonstration cascades, it can duplicate them and even create
larger cascades. Iran would then be ready to build a centrifuge
plant able to produce significant amounts of enriched uranium
either for peaceful purposes or for nuclear weapons. 

  
The underground path
 

Answering the question of how soon Iran could produce enough HEU
for a nuclear weapon is complicated and fraught with
uncertainty. Beyond the technical uncertainties, several other
important factors are unknown. Will Iran develop an enrichment
capability but produce only LEU for use in nuclear power
reactors and not any HEU for use in a nuclear weapon? Will Iran
withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), expel
IAEA inspectors, and concentrate on building secret nuclear
facilities? How does the Iranian regime perceive the political
risks of a particular action, such as trying to make HEU in the
pilot plant? What resources will Iran apply to finishing its
uranium enrichment facilities? Will there be preemptive military
strikes against Iranian nuclear sites? 

For the purposes of these estimates, a crude fission nuclear
weapon is estimated to require 15-20 kilograms of weapon-grade
uranium (HEU containing more than 90 percent uranium 235). [5] 
Iran's most direct path to obtaining HEU for nuclear weapons is
to build a relatively small gas centrifuge plant that can make
weapon-grade uranium directly. [6]  If Iran built such a plant
openly, it would be an acknowledgement that it seeks nuclear
weapons and would invite a harsh response from the West and the
IAEA. 

As a result, Iran would likely pursue such a path in utmost
secrecy, without declaring to the IAEA the facility and any
associated uranium hexafluoride production facilities. Because
Iran announced earlier this year that it was ending its
implementation of the Additional Protocol--an advanced
safeguards agreement created in the 1990s to fix traditional
safeguards' inability to provide adequate assurance that a
country does not have undeclared nuclear facilities or
materials--the IAEA would face a difficult challenge discovering
such a clandestine facility. The IAEA has already reported that
it can no longer effectively monitor centrifuge components,
unless they are at Natanz and within areas subject to IAEA
containment and surveillance. 

A centrifuge plant containing about 1,500-1,800 P-1 centrifuges
is sufficient to make more than enough HEU for one nuclear
weapon per year. (Each P-1 centrifuge is assumed to have an
output of about 2.5-3 separative work units [swu] per year. [7] 
With a capacity of 4,500 swu per year, this facility could
produce as much as 28 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium a year.
[8]) 

Iran has enough components to build up to 5,000 centrifuges,
according to some senior diplomats in Vienna. Other senior
diplomats, however, have said that Iran may not have 5,000 of
all components, and that many components are not expected to
pass quality control. In total, Iran is estimated to have in
hand enough decent components for at least 1,000 to 2,000
centrifuges, in addition to the roughly 800 centrifuges already
slated for the pilot plant. Iran could also build new centrifuge
components, and, in fact, may have already started to do so.  

If Iran had started to build a clandestine plant with
1,500-1,800 centrifuges in early 2006, it could assemble enough
additional usable machines in about 15-18 months, or by about
mid-2007. It would need to assemble centrifuges at the upper
limit of its past rate, about 70-100 centrifuges per month, to
accomplish this goal. In the meantime, Iran would need to
identify a new facility where it could install the centrifuge
cascades, since it is unlikely to choose Natanz as the location
of a secret plant. It would also need to install control and
emergency equipment, feed and withdrawal systems, and other
peripheral equipment. It would then need to integrate all of
these systems, test them, and commission the plant. Iran could
start immediately to accomplish these steps, even before the
final testing of the 164-machine cascades at Natanz, but final
completion of a clandestine plant would be highly unlikely
before the end of 2007. 

Given another year to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, and
a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components,
Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time,
Iran could have had sufficient time to prepare the other
components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be
small enough to be deliverable by a ballistic missile. 

This result reflects a worst-case assessment for arms control.
Iran can be expected to take longer, as it is likely to
encounter technical difficulties that would delay bringing a
centrifuge plant into operation. Factors causing delay could
include difficulty assembling and installing so many centrifuges
in such a short time period, inability to achieve the relatively
high separative work output used in these estimates, difficulty
acquiring sufficient dual-use equipment overseas, taking longer
than expected to overcome difficulties in operating the cascades
as a single production unit, or a holdup in commissioning the
secret centrifuge plant. 

Iranian officials have recently announced that they are also
working on developing the more advanced P-2 centrifuge, the
designs for which were also obtained from the Khan network.
Iran's progress on this centrifuge appears to lag behind that of
the P-1 centrifuge, as evidenced by a lack of procurement
records for P-2 parts. The IAEA has been unable to determine the
exact status of the P-2 program, but what is known appears to
exclude the existence of undeclared P-2 facilities sufficiently
advanced to significantly shift projections of the amount of
time Iran would need to produce nuclear weapons. 

  
Readying a "breakout"
 

Another way that Iran could produce HEU for nuclear weapons
would be to use its Natanz production facility, even though the
centrifuge module is being designed to produce LEU for use in
nuclear reactors. Iran has said it intends to start installing
its first module of 3,000 centrifuges in the production
facility's underground halls in late 2006, though it doesn't
presently have enough centrifuge parts to complete the module.
Since the pilot plant would likely have already produced a
relatively large amount of LEU, the time to produce enough HEU
for a nuclear weapon in this facility could be dramatically
shortened. 

At the above rates of centrifuge assembly, and assuming that it
has, can produce, or acquire abroad enough P-1 centrifuges and
associated equipment, Iran could finish assembling the module's
3,000 centrifuges sometime in 2008. Although Iran would likely
build and operate some cascades before all the centrifuges are
assembled, it will probably need at least another year to finish
this module, placing the completion date in 2009 or 2010.
Unexpected complications could delay the commissioning date.
Alternatively, Iran could accelerate the pace by manufacturing,
assembling, and installing centrifuges more quickly. Given all
the difficult tasks that must be accomplished, however, Iran is
unlikely to commission this module much before the start of
2009. 

If Iran decided to make HEU in this module, it would have
several alternatives. Because of the small throughput and great
operational flexibility of centrifuges, HEU for nuclear weapons
could be produced by reconfiguring the cascades in the module or
by batch recycling, which entails feeding the cascade product
back into the same cascade for subsequent cycles of enrichment. 

Reconfiguration could be as straightforward as connecting
separate cascades in series and carefully selecting the places
where new pipes interconnect the cascades. Iran's
3,000-centrifuge module is slated to be composed of almost 20
164-centrifuge cascades, operating together under one common
control system. With such a setup, reconfiguration would not
require the disassembly of the individual cascades and could be
accomplished within days. Such a setup could lessen by 10
percent the enrichment output, and the HEU's final enrichment
level may reach only 80 percent, which is still sufficient for
use in an existing implosion design, albeit with a lower
explosive yield. 

With a reconfigured plant, and starting with natural uranium, 20
kilograms of HEU could be produced within four to six months. If
Iran waited until it had produced a stock of LEU before
reconfiguring and then used this stock as the initial feedstock
in the reconfigured plant, it could produce 20 kilograms of HEU
in about one to two months. 

Batch recycling would entail putting the cascade product back
through the cascade several times, without changing the
cascade's basic setup. Starting with natural uranium, cascades
of the type expected at Natanz could produce weapon-grade
uranium after four to five recycles. Twenty kilograms of
weapon-grade uranium could be produced in about six to twelve
months. If the batch operation started with an existing stock of
LEU, the time to produce 20 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium
would drop to about one to two months. 

Whether using batch recycling or reconfiguration, Iran would
likely operate the module to make LEU so that any production of
HEU would be expected to happen quickly. Still, using either of
these breakout approaches, Iran is not likely to have enough HEU
for a nuclear weapon until 2009, and technical obstacles may
further delay the operation of the module in the production
facility. 

Looking at a timeline of at least three years before Iran could
have a nuclear weapons capability means that there is still time
to pursue aggressive diplomatic options and time for measures
such as sanctions to have an effect, if they become necessary. 

In the short term, it is imperative for the international
community to intensify its efforts to disrupt or slow Iran's
ongoing overseas acquisition of dual-use items for its
centrifuge program. Iran has encountered greater difficulty
acquiring these items because of the increased scrutiny by key
supplier states and companies, forcing Iranian smugglers to look
elsewhere. As Iran applies more devious methods or seeks these
items in other countries, greater efforts will be required to
thwart it from succeeding. 

It is vital to continue to understand what Iran has
accomplished, what it still has to learn, and when it will reach
a point when a plan to pursue nuclear weapons covertly or openly
could succeed more quickly than the international community can
react. Although these estimates include significant
uncertainties, they reinforce the view that Iran must foreswear
any deployed enrichment capability and accept adequate
inspections. Otherwise, we risk a seismic shift in the balance
of power in the region. 

1. George Jahn, "U.N. to Inspect Iran Enrichment Program,"
Associated Press, March 25, 2006. 

2. In an April 18, 2006 interview on the Laura Ingraham Show,
Rumsfeld said he was "not confident" that the U.S. intelligence
community's estimate of Iran's nuclear timeline was accurate
(transcript available at
www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060418-12862.html). At
a May 9, 2006 press conference, he said that the "wrong"
intelligence used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq should
"give one pause" when evaluating the credibility of intelligence
regarding Iran ("Rumsfeld: Iraq Errors Affect Assessment of
Iran," CNN, May 9, 2006). 

3. This quantity refers to the amount of uranium mass in the
uranium hexafluoride. 

4. The annualized average output of each centrifuge was about
1.4 separative work units (swu) per machine per year, based on
Aghazadeh's statement of a maximum feed rate of 70 grams per
hour and the production of 7 grams per hour of 3.5 percent
enriched uranium. The feed and product rates imply a tails assay
(the fraction of fissionable uranium 235 in the waste stream) of
0.4 percent. This relatively low output could mean that the
aluminum centrifuge rotors are spinning at a lower speed than
possible. For the main plant, Aghazadeh said that 48,000
centrifuges would produce 30 metric tons of low-enriched uranium
per year. Assuming a tails assay of 0.4 percent and a product of
3.5 percent enriched uranium, the estimated average output of
each machine would be about 2.3 swu/year. With an assumed tails
assay of 0.3 percent, the estimated output rises to 2.7
swu/year, high for a Pakistani P-1 design but possible if the
centrifuge is further optimized. 

5. Iran could be expected to initially build a crude,
implosion-type fission weapon similar to known designs. In 1990,
Iraq initially planned to use 15 kilograms of weapon-grade
uranium in its implosion design. An unclassified design using
almost 20 kilograms was calculated in a study by the author and
Theodore Taylor in about 1990. A larger quantity of HEU is
needed than the exact amount placed into the weapon because of
inevitable losses during processing, but such losses can be kept
to less than 20 percent with care. 

6. Alternatively, Iran could secretly build a "topping plant" of
about 500 centrifuges and use a stock of low-enriched uranium
produced in the pilot plant as feed to produce HEU. However, the
estimated timeline for this alternative route is not
significantly different from the one outlined in this scenario. 

7. These values for separative work are at the high end of the
possible output of Iran's P-1 centrifuge. Actual values may be
less. 

8. This calculation assumes a relatively high tails assay of 0.5
percent. As a centrifuge program matures and grows, it typically
reduces the tails assay to conserve uranium supplies. 

David Albright is president of the Institute for Science and
International Security and a member of the Bulletin's Editorial
Advisory Board. 

July/August 2006 pp. 26-33 (vol. 62, no. 4) © 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists               
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran seeking strategies to solve nuclear issue 

Tehran, July 13, IRNA
Iran-FM-Nuclear 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in a meeting with his South
African counterpart Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma here Thursday, said
that Iran is seeking multifaceted strategies to solve its
nuclear issue concurrent with assessment of Europe's proposal.

 Speaking to domestic and foreign reporters after the
 meeting, he said that Iran's approach to the issue is quite
clear.

 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, currently on a four-day visit to
East Azarbaijan province, said in his speech delivered at a
gathering of people in the provincial capital of Tabriz that
Iran should take action according to law.

 The president urged that if the other side involved in the
issue remains committed to the relevant rules and regulations,
Iran will also comply with them.

 Mottaki stressed that Iran is seeking tranquility and stability
and hoped that Iran's negotiators will have a similar approach
and avoid any measure resulting in pessimism, just as Iran does.

 Concerning the outcome of assessment of the package of
incentives received from the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council plus Germany (5+1), he said, "Assessment of
such an important issue requires thinking and time. Meanwhile, a
hasty decision will result in great loss for all the parties.

 "For the time being, with such an approach we welcome the
preliminary comments of the negotiators involved in the issue
and hope to hear their more comprehensive and proper response
within a few days."
 The minister said that once a matter gets solved by approaching
its various dimensions, all parties will benefit from it, adding
that on the contrary failure in solving it will bring about a
great loss.

 "Therefore, attempts should be made to hold talks on the issue
-- which is being assessed by both sides -- to come up with a
solution," he added.

 Mottaki underlined that Iran is reluctant to talk about the
`empty half of a glass of water' and hoped that the process of
negotiations will not end up in debating any possible losses.

*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Western Incentives for Iran Released
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Friday July 14, 2006 3:46 AM
 	
AP Photo MEU104 
By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The world powers are prepared to provide
Iran with advanced technology and possibly even nuclear research
reactors if it agrees to suspend uranium enrichment under a
package of incentives revealed in full for the first time
Thursday. 

The package - put together by the United States, Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany - was given to the Iranians on June
6 and some details were leaked at the time. 

But the full proposal showed a broader range of economic,
political and energy incentives. They include promoting Tehran's
membership in the World Trade Organization, and the possible
lifting of U.S. and European restrictions on the export of
civilian aircraft and telecommunications equipment. 

Under the incentives, the six powers are prepared to help Iran
build state-of-the-art light water nuclear power reactors and to
give legally binding guarantees that nuclear fuel will be
provided for these civilian reactors meant to produce energy. 

This would be done by making Iran a partner in an international
facility in Russia where all Iranian uranium could be enriched,
and establishing a five-year buffer stock, it said. 

The six would authorize the transfer of goods ``and the
provision of advanced technology to make (Iran's) power reactors
safe against earthquakes.'' 

The package confirmed that a demand by the United States,
France, Britain and Germany that Iran commit to a prolonged
freeze on uranium enrichment was softened to require only
suspension during negotiations with Tehran. 

``We propose a fresh start in negotiations on a comprehensive
agreement with Iran'' which would be deposited with the
International Atomic Energy Agency and endorsed in a Security
Council resolution, the six powers said. 

To create the right conditions for negotiations, the six powers
said Iran should make a commitment to address all outstanding
IAEA concerns about its nuclear program. It should also
``suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities ...
and commit to continue this during these negotiations.'' 

Iran should resume implementation of the Additional Protocol to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the IAEA to
conduct surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities, and
inspect other facilities not officially declared as nuclear
sites, the six powers said. 

On their side, the six would reaffirm Iran's right to develop
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, make a commitment to
support the construction of new light water reactors in Iran
through international partnerships, and agree to suspend
discussion of Iran's nuclear program in the Security Council. 

They would also ``provide a substantive package of research and
development cooperation, including possible provision of light
water research reactors, notably in the fields of radioisotope
production, basic research and nuclear applications in medicine
and agriculture.'' 

The six powers would support a conference ``to promote dialogue
and cooperation on regional security issues,'' establish a
long-term energy partnership between Iran and the European Union
and other willing partners, and cooperate ``in fields of high
techology.'' 

They also offered to support agricultural development,
``including possible access to U.S. and European agricultural
products, technology and farm equipment.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: South African FM: Iran is committed to NPT 

Tehran, July 13, 2006

South Africa-FM-Nuclear 

South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma here
Thursday said that Iran has always been committed to NPT.

 Speaking to domestic and foreign media after meeting her
Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki, she said that according
to this legal treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled to some rights
which should be recognized.

 Stressing that South Africa believes that in accordance with
NPT, the member countries have some rights, the African minister
said that all signatories to this treaty, including Iran deserve
to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

 "Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council plus Germany (the 5+1 group) are expected to
talk about an issue, which is highly significant to both sides.

 "Therefore, the matter should be discussed accurately and in a
friendly atmosphere to enable them to come up with a solution,"
she said.

 Turning to recent developments in the occupied lands and
Israel's aggression on South Lebanon, the minister said that her
country believes that Palestinians are seeking independence.

 Dalemini-Zuma said that the matter cannot be solved through
violence and confrontation, adding that today the world is
facing a human crisis and that the United Nations should accept
its responsibility and take action in this respect.

 She added that the peace-seeking world community, including
South Africa cannot put up with the issue.

 The South African foreign minister said that during her talks
with Mottaki, the roles of both countries in the peace and
tranquility in their relevant regions, participation in
international affairs, multifaceted cooperation, Palestine and
Iran's nuclear issue were on the agenda.

*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: President: Iran desires to hold talks on nuclear issue in a positive atmosphere - 

, East Azarbaijan Prov, July 13, IRNA

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that Iran is
willing to hold talks with Europe on the nuclear issue in a
legal, fair, positive atmosphere away from any tension.

 Speaking at a gathering of the residents of Sarab, the chief
executive said that though the proposal of the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (5+1 group) is
being assessed by Iran with a positive approach, the US in bent
on causing problems in this respect.

 Turning the US attempts to foment tension, the president said
that eruption of any unrest in the region will also harm other
parties.

 "We will manage to settle the issue with Europeans and need
time to discuss the issue to materialize such a goal.

 "Iran's policy is based on solving the nuclear issue within the
framework of the relevant laws, treaties and agreements of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," he added.

 Ahmadinejad said that if the American officials continue
causing problems and create a polluted atmosphere, Iran will
revise its policies.

 "Iran's nuclear policy is based on peaceful use of nuclear
technology, which reflects the will of the Iranian nation.
Meanwhile, the comments made by other individuals are only their
personal views," he added.

 The president said that Iran will respond to Europe's proposal
towards the end of the second month of summer, adding that time
is not so important in nuclear talks.

 Stressing that assessment of the proposal needs time, he said
that Iran has remained committed in its nuclear issue and
declared the country's willingness to hold talks in a reasonable
atmosphere.

 He pointed to the pretexts brought up by the West on Iran's
nuclear activities for peaceful purposes over the past three and
a half years and said, "The political and propagandist pressures
against Iran forced the Iranian officials in charge at that time
to withdraw from confidence building.

 "The West even went as far as halting our research activities
within universities. This is while, proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction is against our policy."

 The president said that the main goal in the pressures exerted
on Iran by the West was not its nuclear activities for peaceful
purposes, rather, in principle, it was a sign of their
opposition to progress and development of Iran.

 On the third day of his visit to East Azarbaijan province, the
president, who is accompanied by the cabinet, arrived in the
city of Sarab in the east of province this afternoon.

 With a population of 145,000, the city is situated 130
kilometers to the east of the provincial capital of Tabriz.		
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: Bush calls for suspension of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities
     
, July 13, IRNA

US President George W. Bush on Thursday called once again on
Iran to suspend its peaceful nuclear activities.

 Speaking at joint press briefing with Chancellor Angela Merkel
in the northeast German town of Stralsund, Bush said, "I made it
clear to the Iranians that if they were to do what they said
they would do which is to stop enrichment in a verifiable
fashion, we are more than pleased to come back to the table."

 Tehran has repeatedly made clear that it will not accept any
pre-conditions for talks on its peaceful nuclear activities.

 Bush accused Iran again of pursuing a military nuclear program
without providing any evidence or proof.

 "The key first step is common goal which is no nuclear weapon
program..."
 Despite Bush's baseless allegations, numerous inspections by
the UN nuclear watchdog agency have found no evidence whatsoever
that Iran is following a military nuclear program.

 The US chief executive stressed that there is still a chance
for a diplomatic solution of the Iranian nuclear dispute.

 "There is no question that it can be solved diplomatically," he
added.

 Bush is currently in Germany for a 36-hour visit ahead of this
weekend's G8 Summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Larijani warns against derailing from negotiation track

Tehran, July 14, IRNA

Iran-Larijani-Nuclear
 
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, 
warned on Thursday that any act for derailment of Iran's nuclear 
case from the negotiation track will force Tehran to react and 
return to the previous stage.

 In a joint news conference with South African Foreign Minister
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Larijani said the proposal package of
the Europeans is primarily a "positive potential" which requires
to be nurtured by negotiation.

 "The European proposals have some problems which should be
removed through talks and include the opinions of both sides,"
he said.

 Larijani noted that the sides should have a specific definition
of negotiation.

 "We should avoid any measure that damages the rationality and
logic of the negotiations," he said.

 He reiterated that Iran is seeking the track of negotiations
and that the nuclear weapon is not its policy.

 Asked about the expulsion of the head of inspectors of the
International Atomic Energy Organization, he said it was a
decision made by the IAEA itself.

*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Putin warns against stepping up pressure on Iran over nuclear program

Berlin, July 14, IRNA

Germany-Iran-Putin 

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned against attempts to
exert too much pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, saying
it could lead to a political "impasse".

 "We are of the opinion that one should not aggravate the
situation which could lead to an impasse," Putin said in an
interview with Germany's ZDF public television network late
Thursday evening.

 "We think that we have worked out a good common mechanism for
such sensitive questions of the international situation which
includes also the Iranian nuclear program," the Russian leader
added.

 Putin pointed to past "negative examples" in the Mideast region
where efforts for a swift solution of a political problem have
led to a quagmire like in the case of Iraq.

 "We have the same objectives which is to ensure permanent
security throughout the world. Perhaps we have differences over
solution methods for certain problems. However you can normally
achieve excellent results in an open and partnership dialogue. I
hope that this will also be the case with Iran this time," Putin
said.

 Tehran has repeatedly said it is reviewing the latest 5 plus 1
offer as it contained a series of ambiguities and questions.

 Iran plans to respond to the 5 plus 1 proposal sometime after
mid-August.

*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Insists on Quick N. Korea Resolution
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 14, 2006 1:31 PM
 	
AP Photo XKK101 
By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Japan insisted on a U.N. Security
Council resolution threatening sanctions against North Korea for
its recent missile tests as diplomats scrambled to unify
competing proposals. 

South Korea said it was dispatching envoys to China, Japan and
the United States to coordinate the response to the crisis,
sparked on July 5 when the North test-launched seven missiles
off its eastern coast. At a summit in Russia this weekend, the
Group of Eight major industrialized nations were expected to
issue a statement demanding North Korea refrain from any more
launches, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported. 

U.N. ambassadors from Japan and the five veto-wielding Security
Council members - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and
France - were set for talks Friday, a day after they met three
times to discuss a resolution. 

Japan has proposed a resolution - backed by the U.S., Britain
and France - that would ban North Korean missile tests and
prevent the country from acquiring or exporting missiles,
related technology, weapons of mass destruction or their
components. 

The resolution calls the recent missile launches a threat to
international peace and security and authorizes restrictions
that could be militarily enforced. 

China and Russia have introduced a rival resolution that
``strongly deplores'' the missile launches and calls on
Pyongyang to re-establish a moratorium on testing but drops
mandatory sanctions, military action and the determination that
the launches threatened international peace. 

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, speaking in Jordan
during a tour of Middle Eastern countries, said Japan was hoping
for a U.N. resolution before the G-8 summit this weekend. 

Of the criticism from Russia and China, he said, ``I don't think
there would be such a response if our message is understood
properly.'' 

China has brushed off the push for speedy action, saying the
Security Council needs more time. In New York, China's U.N.
Ambassador Wang Guangya said he had instructions to veto the
Japanese draft proposal and hoped Tokyo would be flexible. 

``There are still some differences, but I think we have made
some progress,'' he said after a meeting Thursday evening. 

The State Department said diplomatic efforts to persuade North
Korea to return to deadlocked six-nation nuclear disarmament
talks, where the missile issue could be raised, were shifting
away from Asia to the United Nations. 

Chinese officials visiting Pyongyang apparently ``haven't heard
anything to indicate that the North Koreans have come around to
making a positive response to the rest of the world,'' State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Thursday. 

South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Lee Kyu-hyung will head to
China on Saturday for talks with Beijing's top nuclear
negotiator, Wu Dawei, who was to return home that day from
Pyongyang. South Korea's main nuclear negotiator, Chun
Young-woo, will travel next week to Washington and Tokyo. 

Closing off another possible avenue for diplomacy, the North
pulled out Thursday from high-level talks with South Korea after
Seoul refused to discuss any aid while Pyongyang abstains from
the nuclear negotiations. 

McCormack called Pyongyang's withdrawal ``another example of
North Korea rejecting the entreaties of their neighbors to
engage in constructive behavior.'' 

Still, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun pledged Friday to
continue engaging the communist regime, saying North Korea
wouldn't behave wrongly if its insecurity was resolved through
dialogue. 

The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Alexander Vershbow, repeated
Washington's stance that it won't use force against the North.
He said he expected a possible U.N. resolution to take into
account the South's considerations. 

The leaders at the G-8 summit will issue a statement this
weekend ``to note their strong concern about North Korea's
missile launches for undermining peace and stability and to
demand Pyongyang freeze further launches,'' Kyodo reported,
citing unidentified Japanese government officials. 

The statement may not mention North Korea by name, Kyodo said,
but will be drafted with the country in mind to stress the need
to block the international transfer of missile-making
technology. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Japan gives ground on NKorea sanctions 

 by Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura Fri Jul 14, 5:30 AM ET 
		 	 
TOKYO (AFP) - Japan has agreed to compromise after strong 
opposition to its drive to impose sanctions over North Korea " /> 
's missile tests, and called for quick action at the UN Security 
Council. 

 China and Russia, which hold veto power on the Council, have 
rejected Japan's Western-backed resolution to punish North Korea, 
which sparked an outcry last week by launching seven missiles.
 
Japan, which had insisted for days it would not budge on its
resolution, said it was ready to give ground.
 
"It's commonly understood that two camps have to come to a
middle point where they feel satisfied through fiddling (with
their proposals), because it's impossible for both parties to be
completely satisfied," Foreign Minister Taro Aso said on Friday.
 
He called for UN action before the summit of the Group of Eight
leading industrialized nations, which gets underway Saturday in
Saint Petersburg.
 
Russia and China earlier made a concession by drafting their
own, watered-down resolution after previously opposing anything
more than a non-binding statement by the Security Council.
 
Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe denied Japan was backing down
and said it would still press to punish North Korea.
 
"Japan will seek a resolution that includes mandatory
sanctions," said Abe, the government spokesman.
 
Diplomats at the United Nations
" /> were locked in talks on a compromise resolution with a
dispute over Japan's attempt to invoke Chapter Seven of the UN
Charter, which can authorize sanctions or, in theory, military
force.
 
China, the North's main ally, and Russia both believe it would
be counter-productive to put further pressure on impoverished
North Korea, which has already been hit by a raft of sanctions.
 
But efforts to engage the North after its missile launches have
faltered, with a Chinese delegation to Pyongyang failing to
produce a breakthrough and inter-Korean ministerial talks
breaking up in acrimony.
 
North Korea, which declared last year it had nuclear weapons,
said it tested the missiles including a new long-range
Taepodong-2 to boost its defenses in the face of US hostility.
 
Pyongyang lashed out at South Korea
" /> after it expressed concern over the tests during
ministerial talks which collapsed a day early in Busan Thursday.
 
South Korea has been reconciling with its neighbor and opposed
strong reprisals over the missile tests.
 
But the North's official Korean Central News Agency Friday
accused South Korea of "toeing the US hostile policy."
 
"The south side will have to pay a due price before the nation
for having made the hard-won talks fruitless and brought
unpredictably catastrophic consequences to the inter-Korean
relations," it warned.
 
US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said that
"Pyongyang's intransigent attitude remains unchanged," meaning
that the United States and Japan would push for "a vote sooner
rather than later."
 
Aso, the Japanese foreign minister, called for the United Nations 
to prioritize action on North Korea over Iran " /> , a fellow 
member of US President George W. Bush " /> 's "axis of evil." 

"Looking at the level of crisis, that in this region is much
higher. I want them (the United Nations) to adopt a resolution
with priority," Aso said. 

Japan is one of the strongest critics of North Korea, but has
warm relations with Iran and is a major investor in the Islamic
republic's oil sector. 

Tokyo is particularly sensitive to North Korea as its last
long-range tested missile, the Taepodong-1, flew over Japan into
the Pacific Ocean in 1998. 

North Korea is also widely reviled here for its past kidnappings
of Japanese civilians to train its spies, a row that has
prevented the two countries from establishing diplomatic
relations.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 Bulletin: Lost in translation 

thebulletin.org
 
[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]    

A tabloid newspaper? An amateur space enthusiast? U.S. government 
assessments of China's military prowess are sometimes based upon 
shaky sources. 

By Gregory Kulacki

 May/June 2006  pp. 34-39 (vol. 62, no. 03) © 2006 Bulletin of 
the Atomic Scientists 

For President Bill Clinton, a high point of his 1998 state
visit to China was a speech at Peking University. His remarks
were broadcast live and uncensored, using a simultaneous
translation supplied by the United States--the first time in
history a sitting U.S. president would speak directly to the
Chinese people in their own country. 

American commentators who watched the speech on U.S. television
thought it was an astonishing success, but as soon as it was
over the Chinese news anchor covering the live broadcast for
Chinese Central Television felt compelled to apologize to his
audience, noting that Americans "translate Chinese differently."
While technically correct, the U.S. translation of the
president's remarks was a dull and confusing failure. Tens of
millions of Chinese viewers walked away from their televisions
disappointed. 

Nearly a decade later, the United States and China still
struggle to understand one another--their mutual suspicion and
misperceptions are frequently manifested in official documents
and policy statements. The Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) warned that of all the major and emerging powers,
"China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the
United States and field disruptive military technologies that
could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages
absent U.S. counter strategies." [1]  In response, Beijing
registered a formal protest and chided the United States to
"review China's peaceful development from an objective
perspective and stop its random and irresponsible remarks on
China's normal defense construction." [2] 

The QDR is just the latest in a series of U.S. government
reports (including intelligence analyses and reports
commissioned by Congress) expressing alarm over China's growing
economic and technological prowess in the development of
aggressive military capabilities. Some of these reports,
however, contain mistakes that call into question the
reliability of the information presented to Congress and to the
American public. The analysts who produce the reports include
information based on poorly translated documents and unreliable
Chinese press accounts. They often fail to include information
from more reliable Chinese open sources. Their selections of
information often appear biased toward confirming the prevailing
view of China. 

Chinese analysts read these reports, as well as the
recommendations of U.S. military planners on how to respond to
the threats from China they describe. Those Chinese analysts
then write their own reports and publish them in Chinese
military journals that are in turn read by U.S. analysts. Like
compound interest on a savings account, the consequences of
erroneous intelligence grow larger over time. Small mistakes can
mushroom into major misperceptions that become increasingly
difficult to correct. The end result is increased suspicions
among both parties that the other side is not genuinely
interested in a cooperative approach to the security problems
that divide them. 

  
Space Pearl Harbor
 

The most serious security issue confronting the United States
and China is a shared concern of being drawn into a military
conflict over Taiwan. The prospect of this scenario escalating
into a nuclear exchange has prompted some commentators to liken
the situation to the brinkmanship of the Cold War. 

But this comparison obscures more than it reveals. Unlike the
Soviet Union, or even contemporary Russia, China does not have a
large nuclear arsenal on hair-trigger alert; nor does it possess
a conventional force that could threaten the United States or
easily overrun its allies in the region. The imagined future
conflict is what Chinese military writers call "high-tech
regional warfare." [3]  Concerned that Beijing might seek to
prevail over U.S. high-tech forces through asymmetric attacks on
command, control, communications, and information systems, U.S.
analysts have scoured articles and reports for evidence of
Chinese efforts to develop these capabilities. 

In January 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security
Space Management and Organization (the "Space Commission")
published a report that claimed to have found such evidence,
stating that "China's military is developing methods and
strategies for defeating the U.S. military in a high-tech and
space-based future war." The commission, chaired by Donald
Rumsfeld (until he was nominated as defense secretary), warned
of a "space Pearl Harbor" and cited a conflict in the Taiwan
Strait as one of several possible crises where "the potential
vulnerability of national security space systems would be
worrisome." [4] 

While these concerns may be valid, the commission misrepresented
and misinterpreted the information it cited to support this
claim. Citing "warning signs of U.S. vulnerability," the
commission quoted a Xinhua news agency report that noted, "for
countries that could never win a war by using the method of
tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an
irresistible and most tempting choice." [5]  

By using this source, the commission created the impression it
was an official announcement from the Chinese government. But
although Xinhua is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist
Party and does often serve as a conduit for official government
statements, it is also a huge commercial enterprise that owns
hundreds of publications from fashion magazines to journals on
current affairs. The source cited by the commission is an essay
in one of those publications, a magazine named Liaowang, which
is sometimes translated as "outlook" in English. The magazine is
well-known in China for publishing opinion pieces and for an
editorial policy that favors highly nationalistic and
anti-American viewpoints. The essay in question, however, was
not an official policy statement, but instead was written by a
junior military officer named Wang Hucheng. [6] 

Contrary to the assertions made by the commission, the essay,
which was titled "The Soft Underbelly and Strategic Weaknesses
of the American Military," did not contain any reference to
Chinese "methods and strategies for defeating the United States
in a high-tech and space-based future war." Most of the Liaowang
article discusses supposed vulnerabilities that have nothing to
do with space warfare, such as recruiting problems and whether
the U.S. Air Force has enough planes and pilots to fight two
wars at once. The only specific references in Wang's article to
space "methods and strategies" are a few sentences discussing
how India monitored U.S. spy satellites to avoid detection of
preparations for their 1998 nuclear tests, and a brief
description of Russian-made hand-held GPS jamming devices that
were later used (ineffectively) in Iraq. 

What's more, all of the "strategic weaknesses" Wang identifies
are based on assessments from U.S. sources, including the
Quadrennial Defense Reviews of 1997 and 2001; statements by
former National Security Agency Director John McConnell and
former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay Johnson; an unnamed
1998 U.S. Air Force report; and the 1998 U.S. Space Command
Long-Term Plan. Wang never used the phrase "space Pearl Harbor,"
although he did directly quote a passage in the 1996 Report of
the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare,
which coined the term "electronic Pearl Harbor." [7] 

Like a game of telephone gone horribly wrong, the space
commission quoted a low-ranking Chinese military officer who had
been quoting U.S. sources. In doing so, the commission's report
misrepresented America's own estimates of its military
weaknesses as original Chinese observations and intentions. 

Tabloid intelligence

Ironically, during the same month that the United States was
sounding the alarm about a space Pearl Harbor, two Hong Kong
newspapers (Sing Tao Jih Pao and Xing Dao Daily) published
articles describing a secret weapon that China was supposedly
developing to carry out a surprise attack against enemy space
assets. [8]  They called it a "parasite satellite"--a small,
sophisticated device that could attach itself to an enemy
satellite and disrupt or destroy it on command. References to
these Hong Kong newspaper articles subsequently appeared in the
2003 and 2004 editions of the Pentagon's Annual Report on the
Military Power of the People's Republic of China. [9] 

An extensive web search traced the origin of the newspaper
articles (and others that later appeared) to an online posting
by a self-described "military enthusiast" named Hong Chaofei who
resides in a small Chinese town in Anhui province. [10]  He
posted a description of the supposedly secret antisatellite
(ASAT) weapon, along with fanciful descriptions of other
"secret" Chinese weapons, on his personal website in October
2000. (One such secret weapon described on Hong's website is the
"scaring bow," a device that allegedly sends false images to
fighter aircraft to fool their systems into believing an enemy
has locked on. According to Hong, because they are not "real
radar" they can be mass manufactured and distributed to every
soldier and even the general population.) [11]  The Hong Kong
newspaper articles are virtual copies of his website post. The
Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a U.S. government agency
that monitors foreign media, translated the two newspaper
accounts and made them available to the U.S. intelligence
community. 

However, the poor quality of Hong's technical descriptions, his
use of extremely provocative language, and the nature of the
other materials on his website raise very serious doubts about
his credibility. (Hong, for instance, took personal credit for
sending the Chinese government these purported plans for
parasite satellites in the 1990s. He also claimed to reveal a
new Chinese nuclear posture that calls for a full-scale nuclear
attack on Britain, France, and Russia in the event Beijing
detects a U.S. nuclear launch against China.) [12]  In writing
his online article, Hong appears to have simply used publicly
available information about Chinese civilian satellites and
added his own speculative comments. Additional web articles from
Hong about his alleged parasite satellite continued to appear on
Chinese news websites in 2003 and 2004. In the circular pattern
that often seems to haunt this issue, Hong added introductions
to his updates that cite U.S. concerns about Chinese killer
satellites as proof that his original post should be believed. 

Pentagon analysts should have been able to trace the story to
Hong despite the common practice in Chinese newspapers of
sharing stories without attribution, since the article appearing
in Xing Dao Daily presents the relevant information in the same
sequence as Hong's original internet posting with several
passages copied verbatim (character for character in the
Chinese). In considering the credibility of the information, the
Pentagon should also have noted changes in the Xing Dao Daily
that could have affected the quality of the newspaper's
reporting. In particular, the March 1999 sale of the staid but
unprofitable newspaper led to editorial changes designed to
increase circulation and target a younger audience. As a result,
by the time the article appeared, the Xing Dao Daily had been
converted into a tabloid-style newspaper. 

  
Word games
 

Poor selection, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation are not
the only problems evident in the U.S. intelligence community's
handling of Chinese sources. In a March 2005 report entitled
"Challenges to U.S. Space Superiority," published by the
National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), a quote from
a Chinese source about Chinese antisatellite development is
translated in ways that significantly alter its meaning. [13] 

The quote in the NASIC report, attributed to a "Liying Zhan" of
the Langfang Army Missile Academy, clearly states that China is
actively developing antisatellite weapons: "China will monitor
closely foreign developments in advanced satellite technology,
paying close attention to progress made in military use of space
while actively developing ASAT systems." [14] 

Tracking down this statement in the original Chinese revealed
that it was taken from the final sentence of an article
published in a 2004 Chinese aerospace journal and written by
three instructors at Langfang--Zhang Li-ying, Zhang Qixin, and
Wang Hui. [15]  A more accurate translation is: "While properly
following foreign satellite advanced technology, [China] also
should actively develop antisatellite weapons and pay close
attention to the progress of international space arms control,
in order to facilitate the timely determination of a response."
[16] 

The NASIC translation makes several important errors. The first
is rendering the Chinese word ying as "will" instead of
"should." The actual text makes clear that the authors believe
China has not yet made a decision about proceeding with
antisatellite weapons, and they therefore offer a recommendation
about China's course of action.  

The second translation error is more disturbing. NASIC
translates the phrase junbei kongzhi as "military use of space"
when it should be translated as "arms control." The result
completely obscures the Chinese authors' intention, which is to
recommend that China should factor developments in international
arms control into its decision on how to respond to the
escalating competition in military space technology that is
described in the body of their article. NASIC compounds this
error by omitting the final phrase "to facilitate the timely
determination of a response," which makes clear that the Chinese
authors are saying that China has not yet made a decision about
whether to respond by fielding anti-satellite weapons. More
importantly, it reveals that the Chinese authors believe that
China's policy toward antisatellite weapons should depend on the
state of international arms control negotiations. The authors
are advocating a hedging strategy, recommending that China
should have antisatellite weapons ready if the diplomatic effort
to protect its space assets fails. 

Unrepresentative sampling
 
From intelligence gathered from the public domain, it is unclear
whether China is preparing to engage in an intense security
competition with the United States, whether it is aggressively
acquiring asymmetric military capabilities, or whether it is
serious about its diplomatic efforts to control antisatellite
weapons. And while the public is not privy to analysts'
potential use of classified U.S. sources on Beijing's intentions
and capabilities, the errors in these reports cannot help but
raise concerns about the overall quality of U.S. intelligence
gathering on China. 

To be sure, China's government is far less transparent than the
U.S. government. It was only a few months ago that Beijing
finally decided that information about natural disasters should
no longer be considered a state secret. Yet, while Americans
often blame their lack of knowledge about China on secrecy and
deception, a fair share of the fault lies with Americans
themselves. U.S. intelligence reports available in the public
domain, like those from NASIC and the nonclassified versions of
the Pentagon's annual reports to Congress, rely on a
surprisingly small set of Chinese sources--often press reports.
Such a practice is inexcusable given the ease with which
properly trained U.S. analysts could go beyond news accounts and
access Chinese open source material on topics of concern. China
is building an enormous digital archive of mainland Chinese
language publications it calls the China National Knowledge
Infrastructure. It currently contains more than 10 million
books, articles, doctoral dissertations, conference proceedings,
and government documents published in China. Many of these are
technical articles. Researchers can conduct full-text searches
of the entire database online and download complete articles (in
Chinese) for a small fee. [17] 

A recent search of the archive for the Chinese word for
"antisatellite" returned more than 1,500 articles published in
China since 1994. Like Wang's article on "strategic weaknesses,"
many of these articles are summaries or commentaries based on
information taken from U.S. reports. Other articles on different
topics mention antisatellite weapons in passing. Some of the
articles, however, contain technical details about actual
Chinese capabilities that U.S. analysts apparently failed to
discover because of their focus on military journals and
newspapers. 

For example, the 2000 edition of the Pentagon report to Congress
states, "Although specific Chinese programs for laser ASAT have
not been identified, press articles indicate an interest in
developing this capability, and Beijing may be working on
appropriate technologies." [18]  Looking beyond press reports, a
search of the Chinese digital archive returned 50 articles
containing the Chinese terms for "laser" and "ASAT" that were
published during the one-year period covered by the Pentagon
report. One article from a technician at the 53rd Research
Institute of the Ministry of Electronics in Jinzhou contains an
analysis of the 1997 U.S. antisatellite test using the
high-power laser known as MIRACL. In commenting on the test, the
author includes a rather detailed technical discussion of beam
steering and adaptive optics that includes comparisons to
Chinese capabilities that suggest China had already researched,
developed, and tested comparable technology by April 1999. 

The U.S. intelligence community could learn a lot more about
Chinese military capabilities and intentions by simply examining
such sources more carefully. Policy makers could feel more
confident in their assessments of possible Chinese threats if
their analysts made the effort to investigate whether the
information these sources contain is both credible and, in the
case of determining intentions, broadly representative of the
Chinese government or the opinion of a minority or a single
individual. 

Unfortunately, bringing about these simple changes may be
difficult. Many of the people gathering the intelligence and
producing the analysis that informs U.S. policy on China are not
proficient in the Chinese language. [19]  Moreover, they have
not spent an appreciable amount of time studying, living, or
working in the country they are being asked to analyze, and
therefore do not really understand the culture--which can be
important, for example, in assessing the credibility of sources.
They apparently lack the basic ability to distinguish an
editorial by a junior officer from an official policy statement,
or the good sense to distinguish tabloid journalism from
credible news reports. Training in social sciences, politics,
history, economics, area studies, and international relations
cannot alone make up for this deficiency. 

Responsible agencies are slowly awakening to these shortcomings.
Recent reports published by the Government Accountability Office
point to continued deficiencies in the language and cultural
training of government personnel, including diplomats and
intelligence specialists working on China. [20]  A January 2005
Defense Department report admits that "language skills and
regional proficiencies are not valued as Defense core
competencies." [21]  Until they are, policy makers should be
aware that some of the assessments they read on Chinese military
capabilities and intentions may be, literally, lost in
translation. 

1. Defense Department, Quadrennial Defense Review Report,
February 2006, p. 29. 

2. "China Firmly Opposes U.S. Report Playing Up 'China Military
Threat,'" People's Daily Online, February 13, 2006. 

3. Gao jishu jubu zhanzheng or "high-tech regional warfare" is a
commonly used term that appears in the titles of 129 journal
articles, and as a keyword in 1,063 journal articles, published
in China between April 1993 and February 2006. A detailed
definition of the term's history and meaning is contained in a
textbook by Guo Meichu, Yang Fenghua, and Huang Fang, Gao Jishu
Jubu Zhanzheng Lun (The Theory of High-Tech Regional Warfare),
(Junshi Kexue Chubanshe [Military Science Publishing House]:
Beijing, 2003). 

4. Report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security
Space Management and Organization, January 11, 2001, p. xiv and
p. 22. 

5. Ibid, pp. 22-23. 

6. Wang Hucheng, "Meiguo de Junshi 'Ruan Lei' yu Zhanlüe
Ruodian," ("The Soft Underbelly and Strategic Weaknesses of the
American Military"), Liaowang, vol. 27, July 3, 2000, pp. 32-34. 

7. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information
Warfare, November 1996, p. A9. 

8. Tung Yi, "China Completes Ground Test of Antisatellite
Weapon," Hong Kong Sing Tao Jih Pao (online version), January 5,
2001, in FBIS-CPP20010105000026; "China is Developing
Antisatellite Weapons as a Counter Measure," Hong Kong Ming Pao
(online version), January 30, 2001, in FBIS-CPP20010130000049. 

9. Defense Department, Annual Report on the Military Power of
the People's Republic of China, July 28, 2003, p. 36; Defense
Department, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's
Republic of China, May 29, 2004, p. 42. 

10. Gregory Kulacki and David Wright, "A Military Intelligence
Failure? The Case of the Parasite Satellite," August 16, 2004
(www.ucsusa.org/global_security/china/page.cfm?pageID=1479). 

11. See
www.milchina.com/bbs/wdbread.php?forumid=27andfilename=f_14ands=7
3bac7ffd91b8576900a1997bf4cedf8. 

12. See www.redfox88.com/z595.htm. 

13. NASIC is the air force's center for "integrated intelligence
on aerospace systems forces and threats," NASIC, "Mission and
Vision" (www.wpafb.af.mil/nasic/mission.html). 

14. NASIC, "Challenges to U.S. Space Superiority,"
NASIC-1441-3894-05, March 2005, p. 21
(www.armscontrolwonk.com/Challenges_to_Space_Superiority.pdf). 

15. Zhang Liying, Zhang Qixin, and Wang Hui, "Fanweixing Wuqi
Jishu ji Fangyu Cuoshi Qianxi" ("A Cursory Analysis of
Antisatellite Weapons Technology and Defensive Measures"),
Feihang Daodan, vol. 3, 2004, pp. 28-30. 

16. The subject in Chinese sentences is often not explicitly
stated. As is common practice in translating Chinese to English,
this is indicated by including the word "China" since it is
implied but not stated in the original Chinese. 

17. China National Knowledge Infrastructure (www.cnki.com.cn). 

18. Defense Department, Annual Report on the Military Power of
the People's Republic of China, July 28, 2000, p. 36. 

19. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Foreign Languages:
Five Agencies Could Use Human Capital Strategy to Handle
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls," GAO-02-237; GAO, "Foreign
Languages: Staffing Shortfalls and Related Information for the
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation,"
GAO-C-02-258R; and Douglas Jehl, "CIA is Reviewing its Security
Policy for Recruitment," New York Times, June 8, 2005. 

20. GAO, "Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help
Address Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls," GAO-02-514T; GAO,
"Military Training: Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning
Could Benefit the Special Operations Forces Foreign Language
Program," GAO-03-1026. 

21. Defense Department, "Defense Language Transformation
Roadmap," January 2005, p. 3. 

Gregory Kulacki is a senior analyst and the China Project
manager for the Global Security Program of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. He has lived and worked in China for more
than 12 years, facilitating scholarly exchanges between the
United States and China. 

May/June 2006 pp. 34-39 (vol. 62, no. 03) © 2006 Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists 
  
Sidebar: Artistic license
 
Published in 1999, the Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare:
Deciding War and Warfare in the Age of Globalization has been
widely portrayed in the United States as a Chinese military
manual for a dirty war against the West. Case in point is a 2002
U.S. edition of the book that opted for a sensationalist cover
linking it to the threat of terrorism. 

But as Harvard University's Alastair Johnston noted in the 2004
book, Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and
Efficiency, the authors of Unrestricted Warfare were "not
strategists, but political officers," whose primary
responsibility was "to write reportage about life in the
military." The book, he adds, "was highly controversial inside
China" and was "criticized in internal meetings in the
military." Yet, "none of this contextual information was part of
the U.S. discourse." 

2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists               
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Urges Single Voice From G-8 Leaders
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 14, 2006 11:46 AM
 	
AP Photo FLAA103 
By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer 

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - President Bush brought a
straightforward message Friday to Russian leader Vladimir Putin
and world leaders gathering for a weekend summit: when possible,
speak with a single voice in combating crises such as the
flare-up in the Middle East. 

Followed by a host of global troubles, Bush arrived in St.
Petersburg in the afternoon local time to an understated
welcome. 

He went straight to pay respects at a monument honoring those
who defended Leningrad - the Soviet name for St. Petersburg -
during the 900-day World War II siege of the city. More than
half a million people died, most of hunger. 

Bush and his wife, Laura, walked slowly toward the tall obelisk
inscribed with the dates of the siege before two high-stepping
soldiers bearing a large wreath. With the flowers laid at the
base, they paused for a long moment of silence. 

Making a gentle statement about democratic backsliding under
Putin's leadership, Bush went from there to sit down with 20
Russian civil society activists. They are involved in promoting
human rights, education, environmental protection, public health
and other issues. 

The highlight of the president's first day here was dinner with
Putin at the opulent 18th century Konstantin Palace, the
luxurious venue Putin chose for the Group of Eight meetings. 
In meetings between the president and Putin, Bush was pressing
his case that Russia should be more tolerant of political
liberties and a free press. The president says he will make his
point in a respectful way. 

But it is Bush's fierce support for Israel that puts him at odds
with some of the other G-8 nations. Summit host Russia as well
as France have criticized the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush was certain to
discuss Israel's attacks on Lebanon and the counterattacks on
Israel with Putin and the other G-8 nations: Germany, Britain
France, Italy, Japan and Canada. 

Rice told reporters it seemed likely those countries would issue
a statement on the rising violence in the Middle East. 

``It's unthinkable that these leaders could get together and not
discuss what's going on there,'' she said. 

She said a three-person team sent by the United Nations to the
region should get a chance to try to defuse the crisis. 

At the same time, she said, ``We don't want to send confusing
signals. The too many cooks in the kitchen is one we want to
avoid.'' 

On Thursday, Bush defended Israel's attacks in Lebanon but
raised concerns that they could weaken or topple the fragile
government in Beirut. 

But his strong support of Israel conflicted with European Union
allies two days before the U.S. had hoped to see the G-8 produce
a united stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions and North
Korea's long-range missile test. 

Bush and Putin are meeting as U.S. and Russian negotiators try
to conclude a deal to let Russia join the World Trade
Organization. The presidents could announce it as early as
Saturday. 

But while officials announced a breakthrough in banking,
officials said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab and
Russian Economics Minister German Gref continued working Friday
on a number of other sticking points. 

``There is no resolution at this point,'' said Sean Spicer,
Schwab's spokesman. 

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said the White House
understands the Russian desire to have an announcement during
Bush's visit, but that they weren't quite there yet. 

Bush finished his German visit by joining Chancellor Angela
Merkel for a wild boar barbecue feast at a restaurant in the
small village of Trinwillershagen. He told invited guests that,
coming from Texas, being treated to a barbecue was ``one of the
greatest compliments.'' 

``Let's go eat,'' he said, then shook the hands of hunter and
restaurant owner Olaf Micheel and sliced several pieces off the
boar on the spit and served them to guests. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: India, US review lifting ban on trade in atomic field

New Delhi, July 14, IRNA

India-US-Nuke 

Amid hope of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal getting approval of
the Congress by the month-end, the two countries have reviewed
the progress and discussed the next steps in the process of
lifting ban on trade with India in the atomic field.

 Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and US Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who met in Paris last
night, also discussed the way forward towards concluding a
bilateral nuclear agreement or 123 agreement, PTI report said
here Friday quoting official sources.

 The two countries have held two rounds of expert-level
discussions on the 123 agreements and covered "60 per cent" of
the negotiations.

 With both the countries aiming to conclude the agreement by
October, further expert-level talks are expected shortly.

 The civil nuclear deal, which entails change of US law to
enable the country to have trade with India in the atomic field,
has already been approved by the key international relations
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

 It is now expected to be taken up by both Houses of the US
Congress soon for debate and voting.

 The Bush Administration has expressed the hope that the bill
will be cleared by the month-end.

 Saran and Burns also deliberated upon the progress in the
negotiations on proposed India-specific safeguards agreement
between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
the sources said.

*****************************************************************
 14 RIA Novosti: Russia returns to idea of global security

Opinion &analysis - 

14/ 07/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) 

Outlining Russia's positions at the forthcoming G8 summit,
President Vladimir Putin virtually returned to the idea of
Mikhail Gorbachev - to look at global security from an entirely
new angle and to approach it in a way which would be suitable
for the majority of civilized nations, or, in other words, to
establish firm guarantees of mankind's steady and predictable
development. 

In Gorbachev's times this idea was dubbed "a new political
mentality for Russia and the rest of the world." In Putin's
words the idea sounds somewhat different, but the gist is the
same. In an interview with the American NBC, he said: "We need
to develop a system of guarantees that can ensure security in
the world and I think that we can achieve this." 

Putin believes that Russia can and must play a major role: "How
can one talk about ensuring global security and address the
issues of non-proliferation and disarmament if Russia, one of
the biggest nuclear powers, is not included? And how can the
problem of poverty in the world be tackled without Russia,
taking into account its vast territory and opportunities for
interaction with Asia and with the developing world in general?"
His view on the economic component of universal security is
similar: "I'd like to point out that in proven reserves alone
the Russian Federation has four times more oil and gas than all
the other G8 countries together. How can we tackle the problems
of energy security without taking Russia's views into account
and involving it in finding common solutions?" 

During perestroika Gorbachev's idea became a thing of the past
together with the Soviet Union. It faded into oblivion when
Gorbachev resigned. This was unfortunate, because as the
subsequent period has shown, it is the absence of a common
approach to the global situation that has prevented the world's
leaders, such as the G8, from tackling the arising challenges.
It is essential to talk about important details, and this is
what will be done at the summit in St. Petersburg, which will
focus on the problems of energy, education, and healthcare. It
is only too obvious that without agreement on global issues, the
G8 is bound to run into more difficulties, some of which it may
not be able to overcome. 

How can the G8 tackle the energy problem if they have different
views on the Middle East settlement or the Iranian issue? How
can the world community cope with terrorism if it doesn't even
have a common definition of it? How can it defend human rights
if there are double if not triple standards in their observance?
The United States and Russia criticize each other, and Europe
lashes out at both of them. 

Defense of democracy will be another difficult subject. It is
enough to recall Iraq, or the situation in the post-Soviet
space, where the positions of the U.S., Europe and Russia are
significantly different. 

There is obvious lack of harmony in fundamental approaches. But
there is more to it. Every big power has its own geopolitical
interests, and it is even more difficult to find common ground
here. It is not a complete list of difficulties, but this is not
the point. 

What matters here is that Russia, the host of the summit, is
certainly right. In the 21st century the world has encountered
global threats of a new dimension - from terrorism to clashes
between civilizations. But it has not even started looking for
new instruments to deal with all these challenges. It is simply
dangerous to sit and wait like this, afraid of problems at
negotiations. Mankind is like a boiler, where a safety valve is
the last defense against failure. If the safety valve does not
release the pressure adequately, the boiler may explode, and so
may mankind. The world needs security guarantees, and only its
leading countries can provide them, but with due account of the
opinion of other nations. 

It is easy to see that in suggesting a search for acceptable
ways of resolving global problems, Russia is pursuing its own
ends. Having parted with its communist past, Russia has firmly
opted for democratic development and the market economy. But
every now and then it falls into the Western traps designed to
catch the Russian bear in the remote years of the Cold War. 

It is enough to mention the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment
adopted by the U.S. in 1974, when the U.S.S.R. prevented its
Jews from leaving for Israel. The Soviet Union is no more, and
Russian Jews can freely go to Israel and come back, but this
amendment is still there. What is it protecting now? Last time
the U.S. used it to force Russia into buying chicken legs - a
move which caused indignation even among former Soviet
dissidents. Natan Sharansky said that it was not for chicken
legs that he had spent time in Soviet prisons. 

Moscow has to live with this theater of the absurd all the time.
It certainly does not like a situation where selfish interests
prevail over considerations of principle. Under the
circumstances, Russia has a stake in the elaboration of common
and hard rules for all. Many other countries also suffer from
double standards. The U.S. is also interested in common rules
and guarantees because it has increasingly encountered lack of
understanding on behalf of the world community. It would be
simply ridiculous if the U.S. with its military, political,
economic and democratic background were afraid to engage in an
open and constructive discussion on major issues of our time. If
Russia with its growing pains and lack of democratic experience
is not afraid, why should America be? But if it is not, Putin's
idea has a chance of succeeding. 

The 20th century forgot about the idea; we simply cannot afford
such a luxury today. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Grand Duke of Luxembourg: Negotiations only conceivable path to
resolve Iran's nuclear issue

Brussels, July 13, IRNA

Luxembourg-Iran 

Iran's ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, Ali Ahani, met the
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Thursday and briefed him about
the progress in bilateral ties, the latest development
concerning Iran's nuclear case and the current situation in the
Middle East.

 The Grand Duke praised Iran's determination to resolve the
nuclear issue through negotiations and stressed that the only
conceivable path to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is through
negotiations, Iranian diplomatic sources told IRNA.

 He also welcomed the expansion of bilateral relations and said
he was aware of the great civilization and culture of Iran.

 The Grand Duke underlined the important role of Iran in the
region and in creating stability in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*****************************************************************
 16 The Nation: The G-8's Risky Nuclear Embrace

July 31, 2006
  
Mark Hertsgaard
   
At their summit in St. Petersburg this weekend, leaders of the
G-8--the world's richest economies--are poised to endorse a
major expansion of nuclear power as part of the "energy
security" agenda proposed by Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Leaked draftsof the summit's final communique mirror a statement
released by energy ministers of the eight nations, which read,
"For those countries that wish, wide-scale development of safe
and secure nuclear energy is crucial." 

Nuclear power is often perceived as a potential counter to
climate change because nuclear plants release much less carbon
dioxide than coal or natural gas plants do. But aside from the
safety and security risks of nuclear power, the fact is that the
atom's unfavorable economic performance means that going nuclear
would actually make climate change worse. 

During the lead-up to the summit, Russia and the United States
have been the strongest pro-nuclear voices. France, which
generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity in nuclear
reactors, is a strong supporter as well. Germany and Italy
remain opposed, both having passed laws prohibiting additional
nuclear power plant construction. 

But the country to watch is Britain. The pro-nuclear argument got 
a strong push earlier this week when Prime Minister Tony Blair's 
government endorsed nukes as a crucial weapon in the fight 
against climate change. The endorsement came as part of the 
government's new energy policy. While that policy includes 
increased reliance on wind and other forms of renewable energy, 
nuclear power is expected to make, in the words of Alistair 
Darling, the trade and industry secretary, a "significant 
contribution" to cutting carbon emissions. 

The Blair government's announcement triggered a political
firestorm in Britain. The embrace of nuclear power, which had
been rejected by a government White Paper on energy in 2003, was
widely attacked both by environmentalists to Blair's left and
the two opposition parties to his right. 

But there is a big catch in Blair's nuclear plan--one that could
settle the question once and for all of whether nuclear power
makes sense as a response to global warming. 

The catch is that Britain will not publicly subsidize nuclear
power. According to Secretary Darling, private investors alone
must pay to finance, construct, operate and eventually dismantle
any new nuclear plants. They also must help pay to dispose of
the plants' radioactive waste--an activity whose cost is
unknown, since scientists remain uncertain about how to store
the waste safely. 

This no-subsidy pledge amounts to a revolution in nuclear
economics. There are 440 nuclear plants now operating around the
world. Not one of them was built without sizable public
subsidies. 

Governments have subsidized nukes both directly--through R&D 
funding, cheap loans and guaranteed insurance--and indirectly, by 
allowing electric companies to pass billion-dollar cost overruns 
onto consumers. The US government has historically spent ten 
times more on nuclear subsidies than it has for solar, wind and 
other renewable energy sources, according to studies by the 
Renewable Energy Policy Project and the energy policy analyst 
Charles Komanoff. Perhaps the most critical subsidy is the Price- 
Anderson Act, which shifts most of the liability for a major 
accident at a US reactor to the federal government--in other 
words, the taxpayers. Without Price-Anderson's protections, no 
nuclear plant would remain in operation, as pro-nuclear 
legislators point out every time the act comes up for renewal by 
Congress. 

Despite these ongoing subsidies, nuclear power remains
forbiddingly expensive. A recent MIT study calculated that in
the United States, nuclear power costs 6.7 cents per kilowatt
hour. That's nearly 50 percent higher than natural gas, coal or
wind, and it is vastly higher than energy efficiency, the least
polluting form of electricity. 

None of this stops nuclear industry flaks from regularly
claiming, as one did not long ago on public radio, that nuclear
power is the cheapest electricity around--a statement so
deliberately misleading, it qualifies as a lie. It's true that
nuclear's operating costs--for fuel, labor and personnel--are
low. But its capital costs--for buying the reactor, concrete and
other materials and, above all, for borrowing the money needed
to finance years of construction and permitting--are
astronomical. 

In short, saying nuclear power is cheap is like saying a
Rolls-Royce is cheap. It's true, but only if you count just the
money you spend on gas and repairs, not the price of buying the
car in the first place. 

Investors know all this. That's why nuclear power survives today
only in countries like Russia, China and France, where
state-controlled electricity systems can ignore market forces. 

"The financial outlook of nuclear power has always been, and 
remains today, poor," says Brice Smith, an analyst at the 
Institute for Energy and Environment Researchand author of 
Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to 
Combat Global Climate Change. "Nuclear is seen as such a risk 
that Standard & Poor's issued a report in January saying that 
despite all the new nuclear subsidies the Bush Administration 
inserted in the 2005 Energy Act, S&P still might downgrade the 
bond rating of any utility company that ordered a nuke." 

If G-8 leaders want to honor last year's pledge to fight climate
change, they need to understand that going nuclear would
actually represent a big step backward. Because nuclear power is
so expensive, it delivers seven times fewer greenhouse
reductions per dollar invested than boosting energy efficiency
does. 

Tony Blair--like George W. Bush, for that matter--says it's not
an either/or question; we need energy efficiency and nuclear
power and lots of other energy sources in the future. But in the
real world, capital is scarce. To divert capital to nuclear when
efficiency can work so much faster would delay our transition to
a low-carbon economy when in fact we need to accelerate it. 

It's hard to believe Blair doesn't know this. In any case, he's
in for a big surprise if he truly expects any nuclear plants
will be built anywhere, without continued subsidies from the
public purse. 
  
about Mark Hertsgaard 
Mark Hertsgaardis environment correspondent for The Nation and
author of Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our
Environmental Future (Broadway Books.) 
more... 
  
also by Mark Hertsgaard 

Green Grows Grassroots Mark Hertsgaard | In the Bush era, the
green movement has become a paper tiger. It must regroup,
reframe and reach out across the lines of race and class that
have kept environmental issues at the political fringe.
07/31/2006 issue 

Party of a Different Color Mark Hertsgaard | "Vote Blue, Go
Green" is the new slogan of Britain's Conservative Party, a
measure of just how great a concern climate change is becoming
to politicians of all stripes. [SUBSCRIBERS ONLY] 07/10/2006
issue 

Copyright © 2006 The Nation
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: NRC to Meet with Entergy on July 19th to Discuss 	Pilgrim License Renewal Audit
Findings 

News Release - Region I - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, 
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-06-040                          
July 13, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Entergy
representatives on Wednesday, July 19, to discuss the findings
of a team audit associated with the license renewal application
for the Pilgrim nuclear power plant. Entergy submitted the
application to the NRC in late January. It seeks an additional
20 years of operation for the plant, which is located in
Plymouth, Mass. The current operating license for the facility
is set to expire on June 8, 2012.
 
The NRC performs audits early in the license renewal review
process to evaluate whether the application is consistent with
established guidance and NRC staff positions. Additional
technical reviews, including inspections, of the application
will take place over the next 12 months. The conclusions from
the audits, technical reviews and inspections will be
incorporated into a safety evaluation report, which is expected
to be issued next July. 

The meeting is scheduled to take place from 9 a.m. until noon at
the Radisson Plymouth Harbor Hotel, 180 Water St. in Plymouth.
It will be open to public observation. Following the business
portion of the meeting, the NRC staff will be available to
answer questions from the public. 

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant has a duration of up to 40 years. The
license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC
requirements are met. Information on the license renewal process
is posted on the NRCs web page at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.
Information specific to Pilgrims application is posted at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/pilgrim.html. 
  



  


 	Last revised Thursday, July 13, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 18 EBR: Nuclear power industry lukewarm on UK governments atomic proposals - 

Energy Business Review
 	 	 	 
 12th July 2006 By Stephen McNamara 	

While welcoming the newly published energy review's endorsement 
of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the industry itself 
has said that proposals to facilitate the next generation fleet 
are not workable and must go further.
 

According to a report in the Guardian newspaper, the UK's nuclear 
energy community believes that incentives to encourage the 
private sector to build a new fleet of nuclear power plants do 
not go far enough to ensure the vision is realized.['' /] 
Advertisement

 In the lead-up to the review's July 11 publish date, the 
government had hinted that it would not be offering major 
financial incentives to the private sector to build new nuclear 
power facilities. This proved to be the case when the details of 
the review became known.

 The government said it would be willing to work with the
industry to aid the process, including reducing red tape in the
approval process and allowing reactor designs to be licensed in
advance, but significant sums of public money have not been put
on the bargaining table.

 In response to the publishing of the review, the Association of
Electricity Producers (AEP) has said politicians must get away
from the "froth" of words and come up with something more
concrete to win its support, the Guardian reports.

 David Porter, chief executive of the AEP, added: "They (the UK
government) have to spend at least GBP20 billion on clean, new
power stations."         

©2006 Business Review Ltd 				 			 		 			 				 			 		 
*****************************************************************
 19 APP.COM: Danger at Oyster Creek plant could bring disaster |
                    
Asbury Park Press Online

Thursday, July 13, 2006

BY JOSEPH C. SCARPELLI                                           

Two dangerous conditions at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in 
Lacey, combined with an unworkable evacuation plan, could spell 
disaster not only for the Jersey Shore but the entire state.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have recently 
acknowledged what former Department of Environmental Commissioner 
Bradley Campbell had said for years: Some areas around the 
reactor are inaccessible, making it impossible to test for safety 
or corrosion.

The metal container around the reactor has rusted since Oyster
Creek began operations in 1969. That much we know. If corrosion
eats through enough of the liner, NRC officials have
acknowledged that it can buckle and collapse on itself,
destroying a complex system of pipes, valves and electrical
circuits that protect the atomic reactor from a meltdown.

How much of a risk should we ask the public to tolerate?

Add to the accident probability equation terrorism. A recent
federal court decision gave a boost to the DEP's insistence that
radioactive waste stored in pools 70 feet high are a terrorist
risk that needs serious consideration before the NRC approves
Oyster Creek's relicensing application.

In light of these two disturbing conditions — the probability of
an accident and the terrorism issue — the unworkable evacuation
plan becomes a recipe for disaster.

In the three years in which I've been involved in the
relicensing battle, I have yet to meet a local law enforcement
or elected official who can say confidently that, in the event
of a nuclear meltdown or terrorist attack, the evacuation plan
will work and there will be no catastrophic loss of life.

Think of the difficulty in moving the population out of harm's
way before a hurricane when emergency workers have the advantage
of advance notification and a public that is not panic-stricken.

It's a given that intelligent and well-meaning professionals
devised the radiological evacuation plan that was the focus of a
public hearing Tuesday night in Toms River. The professionals,
however, were given a task that was unrealistic and unworkable
from the start given our system of roads and swelling population.

And confining an evacuation to a 10-mile radius around the plant
is ludicrous.

Last month, I attended a meeting with state officials that
included Robert Alvarez, senior policy adviser to the Secretary
of Energy under President Clinton. Alvarez's expertise was used
by the scientists who wrote the National Academy of Sciences
study concluding that nuclear power plants with Oyster Creek's
design are vulnerable terrorist targets. They concluded that an
accident would have catastrophic effects for the Eastern
Seaboard, far worse than the consequences of Chernobyl.

Alvarez warned that much of New Jersey could become
uninhabitable from radiation contamination, and the loss of life
could be catastrophic.

Alvarez implored state officials to guard public safety in the
absence of strong leadership from Washington. He called the
operation of plants with elevated fuel pools horribly
irresponsible in a post-9/11 world because an attack would
result in fire that would send plumes of radioactive steam
throughout the state.

There simply is no escape.

DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson has shown strong leadership in
regard to Oyster Creek. She is pushing plant owner Exelon to
clean up its environmental messes with state-of-the-art
technology. And she is going head to head with the NRC on the
terrorism issue.

It is painfully evident that the NRC consistently puts the
interests of the nuclear industry before public safety. For
example, test results used by Exelon to prove the safety of the
corroding metal liner around the reactor are wrong calculations.
These faulty results, which showed a scientifically impossible
occurrence — that metal had spontaneously grown in areas where
rusting and corroding occurred — had been kept out of the public
domain for more than 10 years.

It is the determination of a coalition of citizen activists and
environmental groups that has brought this scenario to light.
But what's most disturbing is that the NRC had those
questionable results in hand for 10 years and not one inspector
ever raised an eyebrow.

That is why we need Jackson now more than ever. She is our
radiation barrier. Let's admit what we all know. The evacuation
plan will not work. The state must not certify it.

Joseph C. Scarpelli is mayor of Brick. 		 		 		 [E-mail] E-mail

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 Detroit Free Press: Entergy buying Michigan nuclear generator

AP Michigan News
 
July 12, 2006 	 	 	

By ALAN SAYRE ASSOCIATED PRESS                                                                                                 

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Utility holding company Entergy Corp. said 
Wednesday that it will buy the 798-megawatt Palisades Nuclear 
Plant near South Haven, Mich., from Consumers Energy for $380 
million.

Entergy currently owns 10 nuclear generating plants and manages 
another.

Consumers Energy, the principal subsidiary of Jackson, 
Mich.-based CMS Energy Corp., will buy all of the plant's power 
output for 15 years, Entergy said.

Entergy said the price tag includes $242 million for the
physical plant, $83 million in nuclear fuel based on current
market prices and $55 million in related assets.

As part of the deal, Entergy also said it will assume
responsibility for the eventual decommissioning of the plant
with Consumers Energy retaining $200 million of the $555 million
set aside for the plant's shutdown.

Consumers Energy also will pay Entergy $30 million to accept
responsibility for the spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock
Point nuclear plant near Charlevoix, Mich.

Entergy also said it would issue 18-month employment offers to
the plant's 500 workers at their current salaries, and would
continue to maintain their benefits for 36 months.

Entergy said it hoped to close the deal during the first quarter
of 2007. The sale must be reviewed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Michigan Public Service Commission.

Plans call for the plant to be operated by Entergy Nuclear, the
Jackson, Miss.-based unit of Entergy that handles the company's
nuclear properties. New Orleans-based Entergy also has regulated
power sales to 2.7 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.

Shares of Entergy rose 70 cents, or 1 percent, to $73.95, while
CMS shares rose 10 cents to $13.37, in morning trading on the
New York Stock Exchange.

------

On the Net:

Entergy Corp.: http://www.entergy.com

Consumers Energy: http://www.consumersenergy.com		 		 		 		 		
		 		 	 	 	 	
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc. 

*****************************************************************
 21 Detroit Free Press: Consumers Energy to sell Palisades nuclear plant
 
Critics fear boost in electricity rates 

July 13, 2006                   

BY ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER                                                                                                       

The Palisades nuclear power plant near South Haven, in operation
since 1971, accounts for about 18% of the utility company's
energy output. (Associated Press) 			 			 			 			 				 		 		 

Consumers Energy has agreed to sell its Palisades Nuclear Plant
near South Haven to Entergy Corp. for $380 million in a deal
that some consumer advocates worry could raise electricity rates
for some customers.

Jackson-based Consumers Energy, a unit of CMS Energy, said the
proposed sale of its 798-megawatt nuclear reactor in Covert came
after a seven-month bidding. The deal calls for Entergy to pay
$242 million for the plant itself. Another $83 million will go
to pay for nuclear fuel, while the remaining $55 million is for
other assets related to the plant.

Consumers, which has 1.8 million electric customers in Michigan,
also agreed to pay Entergy $30 million to accept responsibility
for the spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock Point nuclear
plant near Charlevoix.

Entergy said it will offer Palisades' 500 employees jobs at
current salaries for 18 months and keep other benefit programs
available for 36 months.

The proposed sale, which must pass federal regulatory scrutiny,
is a result of competitive bidding that began in December.

"The decision to sell reflects what's going on in the national
marketplace, in that ownership of nuclear power plants is
consolidating," said Jeff Holyfield, a spokesman for Consumers
Energy. "At the end of the day, it was a financial decision for
Consumers Energy."

New Orleans-based Entergy is one of the country's largest
integrated power companies. Its nuclear power business, located
in Jackson, Miss., is the second-largest in the nation.

Shares of CMS Energy fell 2 cents to close Wednesday at $13.25,
while Entergy's stock increased 9 cents to end the day at $73.34
on the New York Stock Exchange.

The long-anticipated deal worried some consumer advocacy groups
that complain Consumers Energy is getting out of the nuclear
power game and leaving electric ratepayers holding the bag.

"It's about Consumers Energy looking out for its own interests,
and it's a cash grab," said Dave Waymire, a spokesman for the
Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE), a
group representing commercial, industrial and other large-volume
energy customers throughout Michigan. Ratepayers "securitized
the Palisades plant, which means that ratepayers could be on the
hook for the deal."

Consumer advocates, meanwhile, point to the 15-year power
purchase agreement that requires Entergy to sell 100% of the
power generated by Palisades back to Consumers Energy under a
price structure that "retains the benefits of the low-cost
nuclear generation" for customers as a key unknown in
determining whether the deal is good for consumers or not.

"The question we have is, if Consumers Energy will be buying
this power from Entergy at market rates, it could increase costs
for consumers," said Nate Bailey, a spokesman for Michigan
Attorney General Mike Cox. "The ratepayers bought and built this
plant. We, along with the Michigan Public Service Commission,
will be watching closely to make sure that no unnecessary costs
are passed on to ratepayers."

When asked if consumers would see higher utility rates as a
result of the sale, Holyfield said it was premature to make that
determination.

"There is no way to link this sale with an effect on rates in
the future," he said.

Palisades, which makes up 18% of Consumers Energy's total power
generation, has been providing electricity in Michigan since
1971.

MPSC officials, meanwhile, argue that the state has no
regulatory oversight on the sale of the power plant. The state's
powers are limited to examining the merits of the power purchase
agreement struck by Entergy and Consumers Energy.

"The commission is not involved in reviewing the sale, but the
purchase power agreement will have to be approved," said Judy
Palnau, a spokeswoman for the MPSC. "The commission has no
bearing on whether the sale happens or not."

Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or . 		 		 		 		
		 		 		 	 	 	 	
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: NRC to Meet with Entergy on July 20th to Discuss Vermont Yankee License Renewal
Audit Findings

News Release - Region I - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, 
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-06-041                          
July 14, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

  Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Entergy
representatives on Thursday, July 20, to discuss the findings of
a team audit associated with the license renewal application for
the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Entergy submitted the
application to the NRC in late January. It seeks an additional
20 years of operation for the plant, which is located in Vernon,
Vt. The current operating license for the facility is set to
expire on March 21, 2012. 

The NRC performs audits early in the license renewal review
process to evaluate whether the application is consistent with
established guidance and NRC staff positions. Additional
technical reviews, including inspections, of the application
will take place over the next 12 months. The conclusions from
the audits, technical reviews and inspections will be
incorporated into a safety evaluation report, which is expected
to be issued next July. 

The meeting is scheduled to take place from 3 to 5 p.m. at the
Quality Inn and Suites, 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro, Vt. It
will be open to public observation. Following the business
portion of the meeting, the NRC staff will be available to
answer questions from the public. 

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant has a duration of up to 40 years. The
license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC
requirements are met. Information on the license renewal process
is posted on the NRCs web page at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.
Information specific to Vermont Yankees application is posted
at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/vermont-yankee.html.
   
Last revised Friday, July 14, 2006      
*****************************************************************
 23 PRN: Entergy Corporation: Entergy to Buy Palisades Nuclear Energy
Plant From Consumers Energy 

JACKSON, Miss., July 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Entergy
Corporation (NYSE: ETR) and Consumers Energy, the principal
subsidiary of CMS Energy (NYSE: CMS) , have reached an agreement
for Entergy to purchase the 798- megawatt Palisades Nuclear
Plant near South Haven, Mich., for $380 million. 

With the addition of Palisades, Entergy -- the nation's second
largest nuclear power company -- will own 11 nuclear generating
reactors and manage a 12th. Palisades is the company's second
reactor in the Midwest. Five others are in the South and five
are in the Northeast. 

The $380 million price represents $242 million for the plant
itself, $83 million in nuclear fuel based on current market
prices, and $55 million in related assets. The sale also
includes the Big Rock Point Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation and compensates Entergy for accepting this
responsibility. 

"The Entergy fleet advantage will assure customers of Consumers
Energy that Palisades will continue to be a safe, clean,
reliable and low cost producer of electric energy for Michigan
for the long term," said Entergy Nuclear Chief Executive Officer
Gary J. Taylor. 

"This is also good news for Palisades employees because Entergy
is a strong people-oriented nuclear operator. Being a part of a
fleet of 12 power reactor units could open many new career
opportunities for Palisades people in the future." 

In addition to the $380 million purchase price, Entergy will
make employment offers to all 500 of the plant's active
employees at their same salaries for 18 months. Entergy has also
committed to maintain the benefits programs for the employees
for 36 months. 

As part of the purchase, Entergy also agreed to sell 100 percent
of the plant's output, up to its current 798 megawatts, back to
Consumers Energy for 15 years at a price structure that retains
the benefits of the low-cost nuclear generation for Consumers
Energy's 1.8 million electric customers. 

  Other highlights of the sales agreement:
   * Entergy will assume responsibility for eventual
decommissioning of the
     plant.  Consumers Energy will retain $200 million of the
current $566
     million Palisades decommissioning funds balance, with the
later return
     of $116 million more pending a favorable federal tax ruling.
   * Consumers Energy will pay Entergy $30 million to accept
responsibility
     for the spent fuel at the decommissioned Big Rock Point
nuclear plant,
     which is located near Charlevoix, Mich.
 

Palisades has operated at an average capacity factor of 89
percent from 2002 through 2005. The plant set a CMS Energy
record in 2004 for the longest continuous operation of any of
its electric generating units at 478 days. Palisades already has
applied for a 20-year extension of its operating license and
expects to receive it in early 2007. Its current operating
license expires in 2011. 

Entergy knows the reactor design of Palisades. Entergy already
has two Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors in its
11-reactor fleet. Palisades will be the third, opening up
opportunities to improve Palisades' operations through fleet
purchasing, inventory management, and shared management and
other economies of scale. 

The sale transaction is targeted to close in the first quarter
of 2007. The final purchase price will be subject to several
adjustments at closing. The sale must be reviewed by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
the Michigan Public Service Commission, and other regulatory and
state agencies. 

The other nuclear plant operated by Entergy in the Midwest is
the Cooper Nuclear Station at Brownville, Neb., owned by
Nebraska Public Power District. 

David Joos, CMS Energy's president and chief executive officer,
said the sale agreement with Entergy capped a competitive bid
process launched in December. 

"We are pleased with the outcome of this auction. Entergy has a
national reputation as one of the premier operators of nuclear
energy plants in the country and can continue the long tradition
of safe, reliable, and economic production from the Palisades
plant," Joos said. 

Concentric Energy Advisors, located in Marlborough, Mass.,
served as Consumers Energy's financial advisor and auction
manager for the Palisades sale. Concentric Energy Advisors also
is providing strategic support throughout the transaction and
regulatory approval process. 

Entergy Corporation, headquartered in New Orleans, La., is an
integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power
production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity. Entergy Nuclear, its nuclear
businesses headquartered in Jackson, Miss., is the
second-largest nuclear power operator in the United States and
the largest in the Northeast. Entergy delivers electricity to
2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Entergy has annual revenues of more than
$10 billion and approximately 14,000 employees. Additional
information regarding the transaction is available in Entergy's
investor release dated July 12, 2006, on Entergy's investor
relations website at
http://www.shareholder.com/entergy/publications.cfm . 

CMS Energy is a Michigan-based company that has as its primary
business operations an electric and natural gas utility, natural
gas pipeline systems, and independent power generation. 

Consumers Energy is on-line at http://www.consumersenergy.com/ 

Entergy Nuclear is on-line at http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/
Website: http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/
Website: http://www.consumersenergy.com/
Website: http://www.shareholder.com/entergy/publications.cfm
  
Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 24 NEWS.com.au: Reactor licence decision 'reckless' - 

From: AAP                       

July 14, 2006                                                            

[Nuclear reactor] Granted ... the licence will allow a new 
reactor at Lucas Heights / File GREEN groups have condemned the 
nuclear watchdog's decision to grant the Australian Nuclear 
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) an operating licence 
for a new $330 million research reactor.

 The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA) today gave the go ahead for ANSTO to operate the Open
Pool Australian Light-water (OPAL) research reactor at Lucas
Heights, in Sydney's south. 

However, the watchdog has imposed strict conditions on ANSTO's
licence, including the need to provide regular safety and
security reviews.

 [Related story] Survey: Your say on going nuclear 

But green groups and local residents say the safety and
environmental risks associated with the new reactor are too high
and it should not be allowed to operate.
 
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner Dave
Sweeney said it was irresponsible for the facility to start
operating amid a battle over the Federal Government's plan to
build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
 
"We believe for the federal regulator to licence the operation
of what will be by far the largest generator of radioactive
waste in Australia before there's an agreed management of that
waste, is a deeply flawed decision," he said.
 
                 
There are also concerns about giving the go-ahead to the new 
reactor just a month after four accidents occurred in one week at 
the existing Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.
 
"That should have been a wake up call about how quickly things 
can go wrong with nuclear reactors," Greenpeace campaigns manager 
Danny Kennedy said.
 
"Unfortunately, decision makers don't seem to be listening.
 
"It's extremely reckless to introduce a nuclear reactor into a
major growth corridor of our largest city."
 
Local residents have also accused the nuclear watchdog of
ignoring the concerns they outlined in 11,000 submissions
opposing the new reactor.
 
People Against a Nuclear Reactor (PANR) spokeswoman Genevieve
Kelly said residents were worried that there was no adequate
emergency plan in place in the event of a major accident or
terrorist attack.
 
She said residents' fears were compounded by the fact there had
been no independent assessment of whether the new reactor should
be allowed to operate.
 
"It is like having Dracula in charge of the blood bank," she
said. 

"No one with any independence is appointed to protect the public
in these matters. The Federal Government regulates itself."
 
But ANSTO defended the need for the new reactor and said it met
the highest possible standards imposed upon the nuclear industry.
 
"Not only will OPAL increase ANSTO's capacity to supply
Australia and the region with critically important
radiopharmaceuticals, it will provide world leading capability
for our scientists to apply nuclear research to such areas as
biotechnology, food and molecular biology, nanotechnology,
health, environmental management processes and engineering,"
ANSTO executive director Ian Smith.
 
"This research will result in tangible social and economic
benefits for Australia."
 		  		 		 		 			Search for more stories on this topic on , our
Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
 25 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear reactor safe enough: watchdog - 

www.smh.com.au

July 14, 2006 - 11:09AM
 	 	
The head of Australia's nuclear watchdog has played down fears
about a new nuclear reactor in suburban Sydney, saying it can
withstand terrorist attacks and other safety threats.

Local residents and green groups argue the safety and
environmental risks with the new reactor at Lucas Heights, in
Sydney's south, are too high and that it should not be allowed
to start operating later this year.

But Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA) chief John Loy said the $330 million reactor was based
on a cutting-edge design with plenty of safety features.

"The physical security arrangements have been examined very
closely," Dr Loy said.

"They are at the leading edge in the world of protection of such
a facility and all the scenarios that have been thought about
have been protected against.

"One can never give 100 per cent guarantees, but I think I can
assure people that these issues have been looked at very closely
and the best arrangements possible have been made."

The $330 million reactor moved one step closer to becoming fully
operational after Dr Loy granted the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) an operating licence.

The federal government decided nine years ago to build the Open
Pool Australian Light-water (OPAL) reactor to replace the
existing 48-year-old reactor on the same site.

In granting the licence, Dr Loy imposed a series of strict
conditions, including the need for regular safety and security
reviews.

Dr Loy's decision to allow ANSTO to operate the reactor comes
amid a row over the federal government's plan to build a nuclear
waste facility in the Northern Territory.

Dr Loy said he had taken the government's plan into account when
making his decision, adding that the US and France had agreed to
dispose of OPAL's spent nuclear rods until 2016.

The OPAL facility also has the capacity to store other
radioactive waste on site.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said it was irresponsible
for OPAL to start operating while the row over the NT nuclear
waste dump continued.

Greenpeace also criticised Dr Loy for giving the go-ahead to
OPAL just a month after four accidents occurred in one week at
the existing Lucas Heights reactor.

This included gases escaping after a pipe ruptured on June 8,
which disrupted the production of isotopes used in medical
scans, and three workers being exposed to radioactive material
in separate accidents.

"That (the accidents) should have been a wake-up call about how
quickly things can go wrong with nuclear reactors," Greenpeace
campaigns manager Danny Kennedy said.

Local residents fear existing emergency plans for the site are
inadequate and have criticised the lack of independent
assessment of OPAL.

"It is like having Dracula in charge of the blood bank," People
Against a Nuclear Reactor (PANR) spokeswoman Genevieve Kelly
said.

"No-one with any independence is appointed to protect the public
in these matters."

But ANSTO defended the need for the new reactor and said it met
the highest possible standards.

"Not only will OPAL increase ANSTO's capacity to supply
Australia and the region with critically important
radiopharmaceuticals, it will provide world leading capability
for our scientists to apply nuclear research to such areas as
biotechnology, food and molecular biology, nanotechnology,
health, environmental management processes and engineering,"
said ANSTO executive director Ian Smith.
 	
© 2006 	AAP

*****************************************************************
 26 Philadelphia Inquirer: Exelon gets closer to building Limerick fuel-storage facility

07/14/2006 | 

 By Sandy Bauers Inquirer Staff Writer 

By granting preliminary approval for what is basically a
concrete pad - thickness unspecified - the Limerick Township
supervisors last night cleared one of several hurdles for Exelon
Corp., which wants to build a storage facility for spent fuel at
its Limerick nuclear power plant. 

The issue has prompted public outcry, and dozens of citizens
have attended municipal meetings and Exelon information sessions
to ask why the facility is needed and whether it is safe. 

The plant has been storing its spent fuel in a special pool of
water within the facility. The original plan was to eventually
move the fuel to a permanent national storage site, Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. But plans for that site have stalled. 

Meanwhile, Limerick's pool, like those at other nuclear power
plants nationwide, is getting full. So the company has turned to
"dry cask" storage, which entails loading the spent fuel into
steel canisters and storing them in concrete vaults at the power
plant. 

The township has no say in whether the fuel-storage system is
safe or appropriate. According to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the site is already licensed for spent-fuel storage,
and this is just a different, approved method. 

Supervisors Chairman David Kane reiterated several times to a
roomful of dozens of residents and others that while the
supervisors, like many residents, were "very concerned," they
could consider only land-development questions. "We will be
voting on the approval of a concrete pad and stormwater. That's
all we are voting on." 

He said at an information session before the meeting that the
supervisors would, however, contact their U.S. representatives
and "I ask that everyone do the same." 

"Please don't quit here," he said. "This board realizes that
this session... doesn't answer all the questions." 

The company must now return to the township Planning Commission
with more specifics on the plan before getting final approval
from the supervisors. 

Last month, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the supervisors deny the proposal because they
did not have enough information. 

Exelon attorney Michael Skarloff said security concerns
prevented the company from being more specific in public. Since
then, township engineer Khaled Hassan visited the site and
looked at additional plans. 

"Is the applicant in compliance at this point?" Kane asked him
last night. 

"Yes," Hassan said. 
staff writer Sandy Bauers at 215-854-5147 or . The
*****************************************************************
 27 AU ABC: ANSTO granted nuclear reactor licence
 
ABC New South Wales | Local News | Story 
 Friday, 14 July 2006. 12:10 (AEDT)Friday, 14 July 2006. 11:10

The Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney will be
replaced.Reuters 

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) has been granted the licence to operate Australia's new
$300 million nuclear reactor. 

The nuclear watchdog has awarded the licence to ANSTO, but there
will be some additional conditions imposed to ensure periodic
safety and security reviews at the Lucas Heights site in
Sydney's south. 

The reactor is due to be commissioned later this year, replacing
the existing reactor. 

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency chief
John Loy says he is confident ANSTO will be able to safely
manage radioactive waste. 

"They've made a lot of investment in it," he said. 

"They're undertaking activities that will reduce the volume
substantially and also they'll be able to condition the waste so
it's ready to be put in a repository when that comes along." 

Dr Loy says in approving the licence he was well aware of
concerns over the storage of radioactive waste. 

"On the site the waste is well managed," he said. 

"The proposals for a repository and a store are advancing. 

"They're obviously politically difficult and controversial in
the community, but nonetheless the Government is moving down the
track of creating the Commonwealth radioactive waste management
facility." 

*****************************************************************
 28 SPI: Reactor used to simulate 3 Mile Island accident to be dismantled
     
[seattlepi.com] Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Friday, July 14, 2006 · Last updated 12:08 p.m. PT
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 	 		
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho -- A test nuclear reactor in eastern Idaho 
that scientists originally intended to put through a meltdown to 
gather data about that type of catastrophe is being dismantled 
this year.
 		
The Idaho National Laboratory's Loss of Fluid Test reactor, built 
in the late 1960s, is a 1/60th scale version of a commercial 
nuclear power plant.
 		
It performed accident scenarios and was put through other tests 
to improve nuclear power plant safety systems before being shut 
down in 1985.
 		
It is being removed now as part of a seven-year, $7.9-billion 
project to clean up material and equipment left over from decades 
of tests at the 890-square-mile federal nuclear research area. 
Washington Group International, based in Boise, and CH2M Hill, 
based in Denver, are doing the cleanup.
 		
Initial plans for the LOFT reactor were to have a meltdown of its 
nuclear core occur by making breaks in the pipes that delivered 
coolant. But nuclear regulatory agencies eventually decided the 
reactor was more useful keeping it as a safety testing facility.
 		
The Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor to the U.S. 
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
"carefully handled the LOFT to avoid the question it was designed 
to answer," Paul Leventhal, president emeritus of the Nuclear 
Control Institute in Washington, D.C., told The Idaho Statesman. 
"They were never prepared to bring it to melt and see what the 
consequences were."
 		
 [advertising] Instead, in 1977 researchers began using the LOFT 
reactor to see what would happen if a primary pipe break 
interrupted the coolant sent to the reactor. At the time, that 
was considered one of the most likely ways a meltdown of a 
nuclear plant could occur.
 		
"If you look at the time when LOFT was being planned there were
dozens of plants that had been ordered, and we were looking at a
continued rapid growth of nuclear power," Leventhal said. "The
data out of LOFT was to be the insurance and verification that
all future plants of similar design would be safe. But things
didn't quite turn out that way."
 		
On March 28, 1979, at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant
near Middletown, Pa., an open valve that interrupted coolant
flow caused about half of that reactor's core to melt. The
result was a move away from nuclear power in the United States,
and no new nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. in
more than 20 years.
 		
"Three Mile Island was definitely a body blow to an industry
that still hasn't fully recovered," Leventhal said.
 		
Following the event at Three Mile Island, tests at the LOFT
reactor helped explain what happened.
 		
Jim Wolf, manager of the thermo fluids and heat transfer
departments at INL, said that putting the LOFT reactor through a
meltdown before the event at Three Mile Island probably wouldn't
have prevented the partial meltdown at the commercial plant.
 		
"What Three Mile Island really did was point out a need for a
continuing analysis and safety program," Wolf said. "We found
out that we didn't know as much about plant behavior as we
thought we did, but we saw it as an opportunity to go out and do
the research and make sure that future plants were going to be
safer."
 		
With current concerns about energy demands in the United States,
nuclear power plants are being reconsidered.
 		
"A lot was learned from the LOFT on how systems worked and
didn't work, but it may not be as applicable to new plants,"
said David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for
the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 		
He said more could have been learned from the LOFT reactor if it
had been working before most nuclear power plants were already
built.
 		
"We need to do the experiments prior to breaking ground on a new
reactor," he said. "It's cheaper and safer to identify problems
before the plant is built. That's a lesson I hope we haven't
forgotten after all these years."
 		
---
 		
Information from: The Idaho Statesman,
http://www.idahostatesman.com
	                 
Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 
(206) 448-8000
 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 29 Platts: Court sides with Barsebaeck management on decommissioning plan
 
Stockholm (Platts)--12Jul2006
 
The two Barsebaeck 600-MW reactors can be decommissioned 
according to plant management's long-term plan, rather than 
immediately, a Swedish court ruled July 12. 

Plant management wants to wait until 2020 to begin dismantling 
the units, when a final storage facility for the reactor 
components is scheduled to be ready. 

Officials in the town of Kaevlinge, where the plant is located, 
want dismantling to begin immediately. They said there were 
disappointed by the decision, but did not say whether they will 
appeal.
 
														Terms & Conditions 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       




*****************************************************************
 30 Platts: French nuclear plant maker 'surprised' at regulator's criticism
 
Paris (Platts)--13Jul2006
 
Areva said it was "deeply surprised" by the critical report 
issued by Finnish nuclear regulatory agency STUK Wednesday on 
delays in construction of a 1,600-MW nuclear plant at 
Olkiluoto-3.

     The French vendor, whose Areva NP unit is building the 
1,600-MW EPR (European pressurized water reactor) unit for 
Finnish utility TVO, said the STUK report "reflects a unilateral 
point of view" and that it would seek a meeting with STUK "to 
understand and clarify the situation."

     STUK's report concluded that Areva NP--formerly Framatome 
ANP--had underestimated the time needed for the work and thus 
committed to schedules that caused "confusion" on the work site. 
It also said Areva had failed to properly manage construction of 
the reactor basemat by a subcontractor. In late 2003, Areva and 
Siemens committed to build the first-of-a-kind reactor for TVO on 
a turnkey basis in 48 months, with commercial operation in 
mid-2009, but the vendor and utility both announced this week 
that the plant would be commissioned in the second quarter of 
2010.

     Areva said in a statement that "the investigation found 
problems in construction but not (in) nuclear safety" and said it 
and TVO had always reported on construction issues in a "regular 
and transparent" manner. For similar stories, take a trial to 
Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 31 AU ABC: Nuclear reactor granted license to operate
 
The World Today - Friday, 14 July , 2006  12:37:00
 
Reporter: Simon Lauder

 ELIZABETH JACKSON: The new nuclear reactor in Sydney's southern
suburbs has been granted a license to operate, but there's still
nowhere to put the waste.

The Federal Government plans to build a nuclear waste dump in
the Northern Territory, but in the meantime waste from the new
reactor will be stored onsite, at Lucas Heights.

And, after several people were exposed to radiation at the site
last month, the Federal Opposition is raising concerns about
safety at the new facility.

Simon Lauder reports.

SIMON LAUDER: About a decade after the Federal Government gave
the nod and several hundred million dollars to the building of a
replacement nuclear research reactor, the facility now has a
license to operate.

Named Opal, the new reactor is due to be commissioned later this
year.

Dr John Loy is the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency, or ARPANSA. 

ARPANSA is the regulator, which assessed the project, and today
gave it the green light.

JOHN LOY: In the case of Opal, up till 2006 it will be sent to
the United States and not returned. Subsequently, there'll be
arrangements in France for dealing with the spent fuel and the
return of waste to Australia.

Some waste from the earlier reactor, the HIFAR reactor will
return around 2012.

SIMON LAUDER: By then the Federal Government plans to have set
up a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, after passing
legislation last year to overcome any possible legal challenge
by the Territory Government.

In the meantime waste will be stored at Lucas Heights.

GENEVIEVE KELLY: Sydney, under this decision, is the nuclear
waste dump of Australia. 

SIMON LAUDER: Genevieve Kelly is from the group People Against a
Nuclear Reactor.

GENEVIEVE KELLY: The waste will stay there at least for 10
years; there is no proposal for where the waste will go after
that.

SIMON LAUDER: Dr John Loy, in February 2002 you said you would
not license a reactor to operate until there was a nuclear waste
dump in Australia. There's currently no such facility, so why
has the license been granted? 

JOHN LOY: Well, I don't think I quite said that, I said I needed
to be satisfied that the arrangements for dealing with the waste
and the spent fuel were firm. And certainly, I mean, I've looked
into this very closely because it is a matter of major interest
and concern to the public, as I said, on the site, the waste is
well managed. The proposals for a repository and a store are
advancing.

They're obviously politically difficult and controversial in the
community, but nonetheless, the Government is moving down the
track of creating the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management
Facility and has invested a fair amount of political capital in
that, and has passed an act in the parliament that overcomes the
legal obstacles to it.

So I was satisfied that there's sufficient progress to make the
licensing possible.

SIMON LAUDER: Nonetheless it's still an issue very much up in
the air, and 2012 is only six years away. Are you confident
there will be a waste dump by then?

JOHN LOY: In terms of a store for that intermediate level waste,
yes I believe there will be.

SIMON LAUDER: While the long-term storage of waste is an issue
for generations to come, more worrying for Sydney residents is
the security of the facility and containment of radiation.

Several workers at the sight were exposed in separate accidents
last month, but Dr John Loy says that didn't make him concerned
about the operator's safety credentials.

JOHN LOY: That facility obviously deals with a huge amount of
radioactivity in an unsealed, and minor accidents can be
expected to occur from time to time. 

SIMON LAUDER: If minor accidents are almost inevitable, as you
seem to be saying, how can you assure people there'll be no
major ones?

JOHN LOY: Well, I think there's a difference. If the
radiopharmaceutical production facilities are dealing with
significant quantities of radiation, just like a nuclear
medicine laboratory, you can expect from time to time there'll
be a minor spillage. 

SIMON LAUDER: But the Federal Opposition isn't convinced.

Labor's Science spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin.

JENNY MACKLIN: I'm certainly very concerned about the safety
both of the people working at the Lucas Heights reactor, and of
course for the neighbouring community. 

The regulator for the reactor has indicated today that he thinks
the safety culture for the new reactor needs constant attention,
so I certainly hope we will see very close attention paid to the
safety both of the current and new nuclear reactors.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Labor's Jenny Macklin, ending that report
from Simon Lauder.   


*****************************************************************
 32 UPI: U.K.: Nuclear power gets go-ahead
     
 United Press International - Energy - 

7/14/2006 10:47:00 AM -0400                             

By HANNAH K. STRANGE UPI U.K. Correspondent

LONDON, July 13 (UPI) -- Nuclear power is set for a comeback in
Britain after ministers agreed that building a new generation of
atomic plants was essential to meeting the country's future
energy needs. 

A government energy review recommended constructing new nuclear
power stations to replace the country's ageing plants, all but
three of which are due to expire by 2020. 

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told the European
Parliament on Tuesday that the new plants would be economically
viable, helping to tackle climate change and ensuring energy
security. 

But the announcement prompted outrage among opponents of nuclear
power, who argue that it is dangerous and is not the answer to
the challenge of global warming. 

In a statement to parliamentarians, Darling said: "The
government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could
make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy
goals. 

"It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct
and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of
decommissioning and their full share of long term waste
management costs." 

"Safety and security" would be "paramount" in the construction
and operation of the plants, he pledged. 

Darling stressed that the government also intended to step up
efforts on renewable and other clean energy sources, saying: "a
mix of energy supply is essential and we should not be over
dependent on one source." 

However, he added: "Nuclear does mean we can generate
electricity without carbon emissions. It does provide a
consistency of energy which wind power cannot." 

The energy review, ordered by Prime Minister Tony Blair last
November, has been mired in controversy from the outset. 

Environmental campaigners and political opponents have accused
Blair of using the review as a smokescreen for a decision he has
already privately taken. He was criticized for prejudging the
study after he said nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a
vengeance" - just three years after an earlier energy review
rejected nuclear power in favor of increased energy efficiency
and renewables. 

But the prime minister's official spokesman said Tuesday:
"Nuclear is not the only answer, but neither is renewables the
only answer is energy efficiency." 

He told reporters: "You have to think hard about the energy gap.
The reality is, if we do nothing, the amount of energy we get
from nuclear will decline from 20 percent to 6 percent." 

The review also recommended an increased focus on renewable
generation and energy efficiency, he noted, "but that in itself
will not be enough to make up the shortfall and therefore you do
need nuclear." 

"Wishful thinking will not keep the lights on," he added. 

The government says that the expiry of Britain's existing plants
by 2023 will leave an energy gap of around 20 percent of current
consumption. Ministers say nuclear energy will play a key role
in plugging that gap, while also helping Britain to meet its
target of cutting carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050. 

London is also concerned about security of energy supply, with
Britain becoming increasingly reliant on imports as its own
reserves of oil and gas dwindle. 

Last year the country imported 10 percent of its gas - which
accounts for 37 percent of total energy consumption -- but
officials have warned that could rise to 90 percent by 2020. 

The review also recommends requiring electricity companies to
provide 20 percent of their energy from renewables -- up from 15
percent at present. 

Carbon dioxide could be stored in old oil fields, it says, an
idea, which Britain is already working on with Norway. 

But the current controversy centers on the focus on nuclear
power, which opponents say will inevitably leach investment from
renewable energy production and efficiency measures. 

Conservative Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Duncan
said Blair was "out on a limb" with his desire for nuclear
power, which, he claimed, was opposed by much of the Cabinet. 

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman,
said nuclear power was unsafe, unnecessary, and would impose a
heavy financial burden on the taxpayer. 

"Every nuclear power station ever built has needed public
subsidies and government guarantees. The government's belief
that nuclear can now survive without a rigged market flies in
the face of the recent evidence from the U.S.A and Finland," he
said. 

It was "utterly irresponsible" to create more nuclear waste when
there was still no long-term solution for the waste created in
the last 50 years, he argued, adding that nuclear
decommissioning and waste disposal costs were already
approaching $180 billion. 

"If the government invested more in energy efficiency and
renewable technologies, along with support for local combined
heat and power and microgeneration and clean coal technology,
then new nuclear build would not be necessary," added Davey. 

But the review was broadly welcomed by business. Trades Union
Congress General Secretary Brendan Barber said it outlined a
balanced approach which would deliver security of supply and
sufficient cuts in carbon emissions. 

Meanwhile Richard Lambert, director-general of the Confederation
of British Industry, said the government was correct to include
both nuclear and renewable power in its thinking. However,
ministers must move promptly to put forward detailed proposals,
he said.

 														
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 33 times and star: Hopes high for nuclear lab

workington lake district

Published on 14/07/2006

Industry Secretary Alistair Darling 

SECRETARY of State for Trade and Industry Alistair Darling was 
due to attend a meeting in West Cumbria today.
 
It is understood that he may announce the establishment of a 
British nuclear laboratory in the area.
 
A similar facility in the United States employs 4,000 people.
 
Mr Darling was due to attend a meeting of the West Cumbria 
Strategic Forum, the government-led forum set up to help offset 
the effects of nuclear decommissioning, at Sellafield this 
morning.
 
The meeting was private but the Times &Star understands that Mr 
Darling intended to make an announcement here about future 
proposals.
 
Mr Darling may also have been set to address a proposal for a 
university campus around Lakes College West Cumbria at Lillyhall.
 
The private meeting was to include representatives of Allerdale, 
Copeland and county councils and local MPs.
 
It would inform Mr Darling about the progress of the strategic
forumâ€™s master plan which covers economic and social
strategies.
 
*****************************************************************
 34 Times and star: Opportunities group questions nuclear option

workington lake district

Published on 14/07/2006

WEST Cumbria's nuclear opportunities head has questioned the 
feasibility of building a second generation nuclear power plant 
at Sellafield.
 
Rosie Mathisen, manager of the West Cumbria Nuclear Opportunities 
group, set up to ensure that the area capitalises on the nuclear 
industry, said a decision not to rebuild here would give the area 
a chance to reduce its reliance on the nuclear industry.
 
In a statement released after the Governmentâ€™s energy review, 
she said that if a plant was built here, there were local people 
with the skills to service such a plant.
 
She said: â€œHowever, whether West Cumbria is a commercially 
feasible site is questionable because of connectivity and 
transmission issues. 

â€œWest Cumbria could be looking longer term at supporting the 
research into new generations of nuclear reactors for the future.
 
â€œThere is an opportunity for West Cumbria to reduce its 
reliance on the nuclear industry. â€œIt has already been 
identified that the process of decommissioning will offer 
opportunities for adapting existing technology for use in other 
industries and there are plans in the pipeline to encourage 
future entrepreneurs to take advantage of these opportunities.â€
 
Workington MP Tony Cunningham disagreed with Mrs Mathisen.
 
He said there were some transmission difficulties â€œbecause 
Sellafield is not next door to London.â€
 
But he said a lot of power would be needed for the 
decommissioning process and that could be provided from the site 
if a new plant was built.
 
â€œA nuclear plant here would also attract business to the 
site,â€ he added.
 
â€œIf I am going to attract industry to West Cumbria I want to 
say there is plenty of water, plenty of inexpensive land and 
plenty of electricity.â€
 
y
*****************************************************************
 35 Middletown Press: Connecticut Yankee to install monitoring well at state park
 		 			 	 	 
By: Josh Mrozinski                      

07/14/2006

HADDAM - The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company is 
installing a monitoring well at the Haddam Meadows State Park.

 The state Department of Environmental Protection asked that 
Connecticut Yankee, which has been decommissioning since 1998, to 
install the well.

 The well will be drilled in July and August, Monday through 
Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

 "Before they want to pull up stakes and leave, they want to make 
sure its clean," First Selectman Tony Bondi said.

 In 2003, the DEP tested residential wells across the Connecticut 
River area and did not find radiation related to the plant's 
activity, Kelley Smith, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman said.

 Smith added that the radiation level of the 45 monitoring wells 
on the plant site decreased as the decommissioning progressed.

 All but one well, Smith said, meets the Environmental Protection 
Agency's drinking water standards for radioactivity.

 The well is located on the southwest side of the containment
dome, which will be demolished by August.

 Smith said the spent-fuel building has been turned over for
demolition.

 "The pool has been drained and the steel liner has been
removed," Smith said.

 The progress of the plant's buildings will be discussed
Tuesday, during the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee
meeting.

 CDAC Chairman Hugh Curley said the community group, which has
overseen the decommissioning, will have its last meeting in the
fall.

 The new group will oversee the storage of the fuel roads and
radioactive reactor vessel metal pieces, which are in casks
located on a pad three-quarters of a mile away from the plant
site.

 "It will be a communication committee with federal and state
regulators and local community leaders overseeing the long-term
storage of the fuel until it is moved to a federal repository,"
Curley said.

 Curley said that anyone interested in learning about the new
committee could attend the CDAC meeting on Tuesday.

 The meeting begins at 7 p.m. at the Haddam Neck Fairgrounds
Grange Hall.
 
To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or 
e-mail jmrozinski@middletownpress.com
 
©The Middletown Press 2006                                      
*****************************************************************
 36 Salt Lake Tribune: Governor lobbies Cabinet officials on nukes

  Article Last Updated: 07/13/2006 12:06:03 AM MDT  

  By Thomas Burr The Salt Lake Tribune 
    
  WASHINGTON - Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. made the 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 and 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 Dirk 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. 

   tburr@sltrib.com 
    
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 37 NRC: RIN 3150-AH93
 
                        FR Doc E6-11027 
[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)] [Rules 
and Regulations] [Page 39520] From the Federal Register Online 
via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13jy06-2]                         
 

 
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NUHOMS[supreg]HD 
Addition; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
withdrawing a direct final rule that would have added the 
Transnuclear, Inc., NUHOMS[supreg]HD cask system to the ``List of 
Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to add Certificate of 
Compliance No. 1030. The NRC is taking this action because it has 
received significant adverse comments in response to an identical 
proposed rule which was concurrently published with the direct 
final rule.
 
DATES: The final rule published on May 2, 2006 (71 FR 25740) is 
withdrawn effective July 13, 2006.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6219 
(e-mail: jmm2@nrc.gov).
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 2, 2006 (71 FR 25740), the NRC 
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule amending 
its regulations in 10 CFR 72.214 to add the Transnuclear, Inc., 
NUHOMS[supreg] HD cask system listing within the ``List of 
Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to add Certificate of 
Compliance No.
 
1030. Holders of power reactor operating licenses would have been 
allowed to store spent fuel in the NUHOMS[supreg]HD cask system 
under a general license. The direct final rule was to become 
effective on July 17, 2006. The NRC also concurrently published 
an identical proposed rule on May 2, 2006 (71 FR 25782).
 
In the May 2, 2006, direct final rule, NRC stated that if any 
significant adverse comments were received, a notice of timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule would be published in the 
Federal Register. As a result, the direct final rule would not 
take effect.
 
The NRC received significant adverse comments on the direct final 
rule; therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the direct final rule.
 
As stated in the May 2, 2006, direct final rule, NRC will address 
the comments received on the May 2, 2006, companion proposed rule 
in a subsequent final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second 
comment period on this action.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations.
 
[FR Doc. E6-11027 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 38 Albuquerque Tribune: Weapons material turned into fuel

By Associated Press

July 14, 2006

WASHINGTON - A milestone has been reached in the campaign to
reduce the stockpile of weapons-grade uranium left over from the
Cold War years. 

Two private companies announced they have finished converting 50
metric tons of weapons-suitable highly enriched uranium to
uranium that can be used by commercial nuclear power plants but
not in weapons. 

The conversion by mixing the highly enriched uranium with
depleted uranium was conducted by BWX Technologies at its
facility in Lynchburg, Va., for the USEC Inc., the uranium
enrichment company that supplies reactor fuel for the nuclear
industry. 

USEC obtained the 50 metric tons - enough for 800 nuclear
warheads - when the government's two enrichment facilities were
privatized in 1998, resulting in the creation of USEC. The
uranium conversion began a year later and was completed earlier
this year, the officials said. 

Separately, the Energy Department is providing 39 tons of highly
enriched uranium to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which, after
converting it, uses it in TVA's power reactors. About half of
that amount already has been converted. 

About 660 metric tons of low-enriched uranium was produced and
already has been provided to dozens of utilities to be used in
power reactors. 

Linton Brooks, head of the Energy Department's National Nuclear
Security Administration, said the conversion of the uranium was
an important part of the government's nonproliferation effort. 
"We have successfully turned weapons material into something
people can use to turn the lights on in their house," said
Brooks. 

Brooks said the government has "several hundred" tons of highly
enriched uranium that is being withdrawn from the weapons
stockpile, although some of it remains in warheads awaiting to
be dismantled. Most of that material is being kept for use by
the Navy, although about 17 tons are expected be made available
for conversion in the next few years. 
  
*****************************************************************
 39 AP Wire: Last radioactive waste removed from former nuclear site

07/14/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

MIAMISBURG, Ohio - A decade-long cleanup of a former nuclear
weapons plant moved closer to completion with the departure of
the final truckload of radioactive waste. 

A tractor-trailer hauling two barrels of sealed radioactive
material left the Mound facility at 8:45 a.m. Thursday, headed
from this Dayton suburb to Nevada where the waste will be
buried. 

The cargo isn't dangerous, containing radioisotopes in amounts
less than used in home smoke detectors, said Jeffrey Bradford,
deputy site manager and chief operating officer for contractor
CH2M Hill Mound Inc. 

Mound began making triggers and detonators for nuclear weapons
in 1949 and at its height employed more than 2,000 workers. The
U.S. Department of Energy ended production at the plant in 1996,
leaving cleanup of radioactive and hazardous waste as the
primary activity. 

Removing a landfill is the one remaining project in the cleanup,
which originally was scheduled for completion last year. 

The Energy Department plans to turn over the land and nine
buildings to local authorities for commercial use. 

ON THE NET 

Mound Advanced Technology Center: http://www.mound.com/
Information from: Dayton Daily News,
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: Uranium drilling draws positive results

ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 
 Friday, 14 July 2006. 14:43 (AEDT)Friday, 14 July 2006. 13:43

 Australia's next uranium mine could be north-west of Alice
Springs in central Australia. 

Deep Yellow, a Western Australian uranium exploration company,
released positive results this week from its exploration
drilling at Napperby Station, 150 kilometres from Alice Springs. 

Stockbroker Matthew Baker says that at just under half a pound
per tonne reported it could be economic. 

"It's still very early stage but if you're looking at uranium
companies, to me the angle is quite simple," he said. 

"You look at them and say 'well I want one in the Territory
because it doesn't matter what the Government here says'. 

"They're going to get overridden and the Federal Government says
we'll have more uranium mines and this is about the only place
you can do it, and they've started drilling that very heavily
there, so it looks like that could be the next uranium mine." 

*****************************************************************
 41 Platts: USEC uranium sale unlawful - Government Accountability Office
 
london (Platts)--14Jul2006
 
DOE UNLAWFULLY AUGMENTED ITS APPROPRIATIONS BY HAVING USEC SELL 
900 METRIC TONS of uranium between December 2004 and November 
2005, according to a legal opinion from the congressional 
Government Accountability Office.

The July 12 letter report to Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican 
from New Mexico and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, noted that USEC sold the uranium for $62 
million to four buyers. DOE had transferred the uranium  to USEC 
to pay USEC for decontaminating DOE- and USEC-owned uranium that 
had  excess levels of technetium. In November 2005, Congress 
passed legislation that  allows DOE to barter, transfer or sell 
uranium to cover the costs of  decontaminating its own uranium. 

The report said DOE circumvented the receipts statute by using 
USEC as its sales agent and using the sales proceeds to pay  USEC 
for decontamination services. Under federal law, DOE should have 
turned the sales proceeds over to the US Treasury and used funds 
Congress had appropriated  to pay USEC.

 However, at the time of the transaction, DOE did not have such 
funds in its budget to pay for the decontamination services. To 
remedy the violation of a miscellaneous receipts statute, DOE 
should transfer $62 million to the miscellaneous receipts of the 
Treasury, the report said. Alternatively, DOE could seek 
congressional approval for transfer of the 900 MT, the report 
said, which would also remedy the violation of the receipts 
statute.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 42 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Senators oppose effort to open market to more uranium 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., with three other
senators, has outlined opposition to changing two international
agreements with Russia on enriched uranium that could result in
pulling the plug on an increasingly resurgent U.S. nuclear
energy industry. 

In prelude to President Bush's participation this weekend in the 
G-8 summit in Russia, Domenici and senators Jeff Bingaman,
D-N.M.; and Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, both R-Ohio,
issued a letter opposing any changes to the Suspension Agreement
and Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement with Russia. The letter
was prompted by indications that Russia would like to alter the
agreements in order to ship more enriched uranium to the United
States. 

In the letter to the President, the lawmakers say allowing
Russia to dump more enriched uranium on the U.S. market would
make the nation more reliant on foreign energy and imperil
construction of two planned uranium enrichment facilities in the
United States — including the National Enrichment Facility near
Eunice. 

"Any changes proposed in either agreement would have the
potential of making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources
of nuclear fuel at a time when domestic sources are being
developed. Additionally, Russian access to the U.S. market at
this time is likely to result in market destabilization
potentially jeopardizing resurgence of the nuclear-related
industry," the letter to Bush states. 

The two proposed uranium enrichment facilities — planned by the 
Louisiana Energy Services in New Mexico and by the U.S. 
Enrichment Corp. in Ohio — involve the investment of roughly $3.2 
billion. By 2013, the two facilities could have combined capacity 
to provide just half of the enriched uranium required by U.S. 
nuclear power reactors, according to a press release from 
Domenici's office. 

In addition to these two facilities, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is considering applications to construct more than 20
new nuclear power plants in the United States. 

The senators recommended that the federal government undertake
an initiative to examine the options for uranium fuel supply
options after 2013 while accounting for domestic and
international commercial nuclear expansion and sources of fuel
for those reactors. 

This assessment should consider a balance between
nonproliferation objectives and market factors, the release
states. 

Russia signed an agreement with the United States in 1992,
amended in 1994, 1996, and 1997, which currently stipulates that
no additional Russian nuclear fuel supplies beyond those derived
from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons will be delivered to
U.S. utilities. Russia is now the single largest supplier of
uranium enrichment services to U.S. utilities, providing 44
percent between 2001 and 2005.   
            
*****************************************************************
 43 The Mercury: Limerick OKs fuel storage project
             
Saturday 15 July, 2006

Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

07/14/2006

LIMERICK -- Township supervisors unanimously granted preliminary 
approval Thursday to a plan that will allow for the storage of 
highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods in outdoor steel and 
concrete casks at Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generation Station.                                                   

The approval followed an hour of public comments and questions, 
fielded primarily by a team of six officials of the federal 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Supervisors’ Chairman David Kane stressed several times that 
despite the majority of the questions having to do with the 
safety of the project, the only jurisdiction the supervisors have 
is related to the land development aspects of the project.

"We have no control over the use and safety issues at the plant," 
said Kane. "We’re voting to approve a concrete pad and stormwater 
controls."

He said the board had met earlier with the NRC officials and had 
asked many of the same questions and expressed many of the same 
concerns. 

He urged those concerned about the project to direct those 
concerns to the elected federal officials with the authority to 
direct the NRC. "Please don’t quit here," he said.

"This is only preliminary approval," said supervisor Elaine
DeWan. "They have to come back."

The board’s vote contradicted the recommendation of the
township’s planning commission, which on June 15 rejected
Exelon’s plan, complaining that not enough information had been
provided.

However since that vote, Township Engineer Khaled Hassan told
the supervisors that he had visited the plant and been provided
with additional information that satisfied him that the plan met
the legal requirements for preliminary approval.

It was not legal requirements, however, that appeared to be on
the minds of the more than 50 people in the audience, a handful
of whom spoke and asked questions in the hour provided by the
supervisors.

Donna Lacey said no amount of reassurance by NRC officials could
"guarantee the safety of my family," adding she is "worried
Limerick will become a dump site for this waste."

Sam Hansell, NRC’s on-site inspector at the Limerick plant, said
for the site to accept spent nuclear waste from other plants
would require NRC approval. 

The supervisors did the NRC one better, including a "binding"
condition in their approval that no waste from any other plant
be allowed to be stored at the Limerick site -- a condition to
which Exelon agreed.

Other concerns, however, were not so easily remedied.

Resident Bob Robinson questioned whether the township could be
evacuated in the event of an accident given the amount of growth
and development Limerick has experienced since the evacuation
plan was first drawn up.

"I don’t care how safe everyone says it is, the Titanic sank and
the tunnel is already falling down in Boston," Robinson said.

Bob Prince, a health specialist with the NRC, said there is a
"misconception" that an evacuation would have to be immediate.

"Under realistic scenarios, we have hours or days even," said
Prince. "There is not a scenario that requires action in a
matter of minutes."

It is not minutes, but centuries that should have people
worried, said Tina Daly of Charlestown.

Noting that a previous speaker, Joseph Mangano of the Radiation
and Public Health Project, had identified just one constituent
of the fuel that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of
years, Daly said the 20-year-history of dry cask storage was
inadequate as a long-term guarantee of safety.

"This fuel is going to outlive those casks," she said.

And although the theory is that the fuel will only be on site
until the federal nuclear fuel repository at beneath Yucca
Mountain, Nev., is ready -- by 2015 under the most optimistic
estimates -- some worried that the storage of the fuel at the
Limerick site may become permanent.

Mangano was among them.

"Dry cask storage was never supposed to happen," Mangano said.
"I think this may become a permanent solution."

While admitting that the requirement for additional on-site
storage is "a situation the NRC did not envision," Randy Hall, a
senior project manager with NRC responded that "the potential
for this site to become permanent is, I believe, unrealistic."

And while an attack on the facility by terrorists has become
more realistic in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks, Marie Miller,
chief of NRC’s "decommissioning branch," said, "It is not
anticipated that there would be any off-site impact if there was
a terrorist attack on a dry cask storage station."

Donna Cuthbert, vice president of the Alliance for a Clean
Environment, said the casks can be breached by a missile and
that the only missiles the cask designs are required to prevent
are those hurled by tornadoes and hurricanes.

Equally worrisome, she said, are the implications contained in a
June 16 letter from the NRC that indicates the cooling period
during which the spent fuel must be stored in water before it is
transferred to the dry casks may be lessened.

"I take exception to the inference that the NRC may be relaxing
its safety requirements in any way," said Jim Trapp, chief of
the NRC branch based in King of Prussia. "The cooling time for
spent fuel will be thoroughly analyzed by the NRC."

Trapp also refuted Cuthbert’s claims about the vulnerability of
the casks to missile attack. 

"Regardless of the method, our extensive modeling has determined
there would not be a significant radioactive risk" from a
terrorist missile attack, Trapp said, adding that the NRC’s
modeling included "something similar to a crash of a fully
loaded jet liner like was used on 9/11."

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that a similar spent
fuel project in California is required to conduct a full-scale
environmental impact statement that considers the effects of a
terrorist attack.

Although the NRC has not responded to the court decision, it did
announce Wednesday that it will hold two public hearings about
"issues" at the plant in question -- Diablo Canyon.

The effect of the ruling on the Limerick project remains unclear
and was not raised Thursday night except that Cuthbert did ask
for a "full-blown" environmental assessment before the project
is approved.

Hall said since 9/11, security at all the nation’s nuclear
plants has been upgraded. "We want to make sure events we think
could possibly happen do not result in serious consequences in
terms of health and safety."

One of those events could be seismic.

After resident Bob Miller noted there is a fault line under the
plant, Kevin Carrabine, Exelon’s project manager at the site,
said the concrete pad on which the casks will sit has to be
designed and approved to deal with any possible seismic event.

Not all comments were negative.

Resident Bill Conway said the country depends on the NRC and
that "there has never been a fatality at a nuclear power plant
in the United States."

Bob Mandik, a Limerick resident since 1969, joined with a
handful of other Exelon employees in the audience who stood to
indicate their belief that the plant operates, and will continue
to operate, safely. 


©The Mercury 2006                                       
*****************************************************************
 44 times and star: Unions press for new Sellafield power plant

workington lake district

Published on 14/07/2006
                                                        
A PETITION of 10,000 signatures calling for the Government to 
reopen Sellafield as a second generation nuclear plant was 
presented to the Prime Minister this week.
 
Unions representing Sellafield workers drew up the petition in 
the wake of the energy review, in which the government has 
signalled a nuclear future for the country.
 
Peter Kane, spokesman for the GNB at Sellafield, said he 
understood that Tony Blair had given the union representatives an 
encouraging hearing.
 
The energy review, by Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, has given 
the green light to more nuclear power plants on the grounds that 
they are economically viable.
 
Workington MP Tony Cunningham said he believed Sellafield was the 
ideal site for a new generation power station.
 
â€œThereâ€™s been a nuclear power station at Sellafield for the
last 50 years and I see no reason why there should not be one in
the future,â€ he said.
 
Copeland MP, Jamie Reed said: â€œI welcome the announcement, in
particular on behalf of the 40,000 nuclear workers in the UK and
the 17,000 in my constituency. 

Mr Kane, said: â€œSellafield has several advantages over the
other sites. The local community would accept it, thereâ€™s room
to build it and the nuclear expertise is here already.
 
â€œReactors at Sellafield would also have the advantage of using
plutonium recovered from the reprocessing of spent fuel.
 
â€œA new nuclear reactor would create between 250 and 500 jobs
in the long run and more workers while it is being built. The
technology is there. Now we just need the political will.â€
 
Cumbria County Council has cautiously welcomed the energy review.
 
Councillor Timothy Heslop, who is responsible for nuclear
issues, said that while building new nuclear power stations was
an option that needed to be considered, many unresolved
questions remained over the disposal of nuclear waste. 

He added: â€œSafety must be paramount and the experience of the
past 50 years, where decommissioning and waste management
liabilities have not been recognised until recently, is not a
sound basis for a new programme of construction.â€
 
Mr Heslop said the county council welcomed an energy mix rather
than relying too heavily on one source.
 
The energy review aims to cut Britainâ€™s carbon emissions by up
to 17 per cent by 2020.
 
The review also looked at power generation and usage; deciding
that standby modes on televisions, DVDs and videos would be
phased out as, eventually, will energy guzzling light bulbs.
 
The energy review also emphasised the need to increase renewable
energy supplies. 

Offshore windfarms and wave energy could be offered financial
incentives with money being transferred from incentives to
onshore windfarms which are now deemed to be self sufficient.
 
The Government will encourage the use of domestic wind turbines.
 
Sarah Hemsley-Rose, secretary of Friends of Cumbriaâ€™s
Environment (FORCE), said her group would urge the Government to
offer financial incentives to bring down the cost to consumers. 

Despite campaigns against several Cumbrian windfarms, she said
FORCE would favour domestic turbines provided they were not too
prolific in villages in the Lake District National Park.
 
*****************************************************************
 45 Salem-News.Com: Oregon Atomic Veteran's Day Celebration July 16th in Albany Oregon
 
Salem-News.com - July 13, 2006 - 10:54 pm
                                                                  
                      Salem-News.com July 16th also marks the 
first anniversary of a legislatively approved date to honor 
Oregon's Atomic Veterans--military members who participated in 
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the United States, the 
Pacific and Atlantic Oceans during and after World War II.                                                             

Photo courtesy: U.S. Department of Energy
 								  
 (ALBANY) - Members of Oregonâ€™s Atomic Veterans organization
will be hosting a ceremony and celebration in Albany, Sunday,
July 16th, to remember Atomic Veterans Day. All military
Veterans and their families are invited to attend the
celebration being held at the Linn County Fairgrounds and Expo
Center, between 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM. 

Guest speakers during a ceremony that begins at 1:00 PM will
include State Senator Ted Ferrioli, State Representatives Donna
Nelson and Jeff Kropf, and Jim Willis, the Director of the
Oregon Department of Veteransâ€™ Affairs. 

July 16th also marks the first anniversary of a legislatively
approved date to honor Oregonâ€™s Atomic Veterans--military
members who participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in
the United States, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans during and
after World War II. In 2005, Oregonâ€™s Legislature passed House
Concurrent Resolution 9, sponsored by Ferrioli, that designates
July 16th of every year as Atomic Veterans Day in the state.

The testing of the first atomic bomb on July 16th, 1945 in
Alamogordo, N.M. later prompted President Ronald Reagan, in
1983, to declare July 16th as National Atomic Veterans Day. 

â€œOregonâ€™s first anniversary celebration will bring more
recognition to some forgotten veterans,â€ said Oregon Atomic
Veteran and group organizer, Fred Schafer. â€œSeveral veterans
have called me who didnâ€™t know about our organization or
werenâ€™t aware that they could now talk about what theyâ€™d
experienced when they were exposed to radiation while serving in
the military. The more people who hear about us, the more we can
reach out and help these veterans and their families.â€

In 1996, atomic veterans were released from their military oaths
of secrecy. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) then
formally recognized atomic veterans. They were then eligible to
receive VA medical treatment. The VHA reports that between 1945
and 1962, approximately 195,000 U. S. service members
participated in the post-World War II occupation of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, Japan following the atomic bombings there. 

Approximately 210,000, mostly military members, are confirmed
participants in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests prior to the
1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. Others were nuclear technicians
responsible for the operation and maintenance of nuclear power
plants on aircraft carriers or submarines. Additional veterans
were exposed to depleted uranium munitions during and after the
Gulf War. 

The Linn County Fairgrounds and Expo Center in Albany, is
located off of Interstate 5 at exit 234A. For more information
call Fred Schafer at 541-258-7453 or Frank Farmer at
541-259-1559.


  Contact: adsales@salem-news.com| Copyright © 2006
Salem-News.com | news tips &press releases:
newsroom@salem-news.com.
*****************************************************************
 46 Bulletin: Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006 | 

thebulletin.org
 
[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]

NRDC: Nuclear Notebook
 	
Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006
 
By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen

 July/August 2006  pp. 64-66 (vol. 62, no. 4) ) © 2006 Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists 

[E] xcessive secrecy prohibits the public from knowing the exact
number of nuclear weapons in the world. Each nation shields the
details of its own nuclear arsenal and generally knows few
precise details about the size and composition of other
countries' stockpiles. 

Despite the uncertainty, we know that the total global nuclear
weapons stockpile is considerably smaller than the 1986 Cold War
high of 70,000-plus warheads. Through a series of arms control
agreements and unilateral decisions, nuclear weapon states have
reduced the global stockpile to its lowest level in 45 years. In
the same period, the number of nuclear weapon states has grown
from three to nine. 

We estimate that these nine states possess about 27,000 intact
nuclear warheads, of which 97 percent are in U.S. and Russian
stockpiles. About 12,500 of these warheads are considered
operational, with the balance in reserve or retired and awaiting
dismantlement. We are able to make our estimates by monitoring
all known nuclear weapon developments, by studying long-term
trends, and by tracking the implementation of arms control
treaties. 

Estimating the arsenal sizes of the smaller nuclear
powers--Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea--poses special
difficulties, considering how minuscule they are compared with
Russian and U.S. stockpiles. India and Pakistan have about 110
nuclear warheads between them, fewer than the number of warheads
carried on a single U.S. Trident submarine, and the North
Koreans could have around 10. Though Israel has not acknowledged
it possesses nuclear weapons, the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) estimates it has between 60 and 85 warheads. 

More than 128,000 nuclear warheads have been built since 1945,
according to our calculations, and all but close to 3 percent
were built by the United States (about 55 percent) and the
Soviet Union/Russia (about 43 percent). Since the end of the
Cold War, the United States and Russia have moved an increasing
percentage of their warheads from operational status to various
reserve, inactive, or contingency categories, as arms control
agreements traditionally have not required the destruction of
warheads. For example, the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty (the "Moscow Treaty") contains no verification provisions
and ignores nonoperational and nonstrategic warheads altogether.
With any number of warheads in indeterminate status, nuclear
stockpiles are becoming more opaque and difficult to describe
with precision. It's a situation that will only worsen after
2009 if the United States and Russia do not extend the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty I, which requires biannual reporting on
the status of intercontinental ballistic missiles,
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and bombers. 

United States. The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000
stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active
or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or
inactive. Details from an Energy Department 2004 stockpile plan
indicate that some 4,000 warheads will eventually be retired,
returned to Energy's custody, and disassembled at the Pantex
Plant near Amarillo, Texas, though that task could take many
years to accomplish. Refurbishments and upgrades to existing
warheads will take priority over disassembly in terms of
man-hours for the foreseeable future. 

Of the more than 70,000 warheads produced by the United States
since 1945, more than 60,000 have been disassembled by mid-2006.
More than 13,000 of these warheads have been taken apart since
1990, but Energy retains more than 12,000 intact plutonium pits
from dismantled warheads and stores them at Pantex. 

Russia. Moscow has released very little information about the
size of its stockpile, and its future plans are not known with a
great deal of certainty. We estimate that since 1949 the Soviet
Union/Russia produced some 55,000 nuclear warheads and that
about 30,000 warheads existed in 1991 at the end of the Cold
War. A few statements from Russian officials provide an
occasional benchmark to help roughly calculate stockpile size
and trends. But these statements typically lack detail, and the
referenced dates are often ambiguous. In 1993, Victor Mikhailov,
then minister of atomic energy, revealed that in 1986 the Soviet
Union had 45,000 warheads in its stockpile. A decade later,
Mikhailov said that nearly half of these warheads had been
dismantled. [1] 

The Defense Department and the CIA estimated that Russia
dismantled slightly more than 1,000 warheads per year during the
1990s, though how firm those estimates were is unknown. Of the
16,000 intact warheads we estimate to be in Russia's possession
today, around 5,830 are considered operational. Because Russia
has removed warheads from its deployed and operational forces
faster than it could dismantle them, there is a backlog of
warheads awaiting dismantlement. The Moscow Treaty limits
Russia's "operationally deployed strategic warheads" to no more
than 2,200 by 2012, but its arsenal could shrink below this
limit. Russia's production of new systems has been slow, and it
is uncertain whether it can maintain such a large number of
warheads because of limited resources and funding. Russia had
previously pressed for a limit of 1,500 operational strategic
warheads as part of the treaty, but the United States rejected
this limit. 

Britain. Since 1953, Britain has produced approximately 1,200
warheads, according to our estimates. The British arsenal peaked
in the 1970s at 350 warheads and has mostly declined since. The
current stockpile consists of some 200 strategic and
"sub-strategic" warheads for delivery by Trident II SLBMs aboard
Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines
(SSBNs). The Labour government declared in July 1998 that it
would maintain "fewer than 200 operationally available
warheads," of which 48 would be on patrol at any given time on a
single SSBN. 

France. The current French stockpile includes approximately 350
warheads, down from some 540 in 1992. We estimate that France
produced more than 1,260 nuclear warheads since 1964. In the
past decade, France dismantled its land-based ballistic missiles
and retired its nuclear bombs intended for delivery by naval
strike aircraft. France initially planned to arm its M51
sea-launched ballistic missile, which is scheduled for
deployment in 2010, with an entirely new warhead, the Tête
Nucléaire Océanique (TNO), but the missile will instead be
equipped with a more robust version of an existing design,
probably the TN-75. 

China. We estimate that China has an arsenal of some 200 nuclear
warheads, down from an estimated 435 in 1993. This change is due
to new information about the arsenal. China is thought to have
produced some 600 nuclear warheads since 1964, and U.S.
intelligence and defense agencies predict that over the next
decade, China may increase the number of warheads targeted
primarily against the United States from 20 to about 75-100. 

India and Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan has released any
official information to the public about the size of its nuclear
arsenal. Combined, the two are thought to possess as many as 110
warheads, some of which may not be operationally deployed.
Independent experts estimate that India has produced enough
fissile material for between 60 and 105 nuclear warheads but may
have assembled only 50-60 warheads. In contrast, these experts
believe that Pakistan has produced fissile material sufficient
for between 55 and 90 weapons and has assembled 40-50 warheads.
[2]  Both countries are thought to be increasing their
stockpiles. 

Israel. Although Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that it
possesses nuclear weapons, the DIA concluded in 1999 that Israel
had produced 60-80 warheads. Israel is estimated to have
produced enough fissile material for between 115 and 190
warheads. The DIA projected that Israel's stockpile would
increase only modestly by 2020. 

North Korea. North Korea has a 5-megawatt-electric (MWe)
graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactor that began operations in
1986. Independent experts estimate that it has produced about 43
kilograms of separated plutonium, give or take 10 kilograms. [3]
 Depending upon the North Koreans' technical capability and the
desired yield of the bomb, Pyongyang could have as few as five
weapons or as many as fifteen. Ten weapons seems to be a
reasonable estimate, with the addition of about one weapon per
year. It is unknown if North Korea has weaponized its nuclear
capability and made a deliverable or usable weapon that can be
mated to a missile, for example. If North Korea completes an
under-construction 50 MWe reactor in a few years, it could
produce about 60 kilograms of plutonium per year, which could
potentially grow the stockpile by 10-15 weapons per year. 

The future. All five original nuclear weapon states continue to
insist that nuclear weapons are essential to their national
security, which translates into substantial global nuclear
weapon stockpiles for the foreseeable future and the possibility
that more nations will want the Bomb as well. India has
committed to possessing a triad of nuclear forces including
land-based ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft, and
sea-based missiles that will probably require an arsenal of
100-150 warheads. Not to be outdone, Pakistan will likely keep
pace with a similarly sized arsenal. Whether Israel's nuclear
arsenal remains opaque will likely depend on the development of
Iran's nuclear program, which appears to be about three to ten
years away from joining the nuclear weapon club. Despite nuclear
weapon states' progress in reducing global stockpiles,
convincing nations to abandon their nuclear arsenals altogether
remains a formidable task, one that will likely remain
impossible until the nuclear powers themselves renounce their
weapons. 

1. Interfax, "Country Dismantles Nearly Half Its Nuclear
Arsenal," April 27, 1997 (transcribed in FBIS-TAC-97-117). 

2. Estimates of fissile material production are from David
Albright, Institute for Science and International Security,
"Global Stocks of Nuclear Explosive Materials: Summary Tables
and Charts," revised September 7, 2005
(http://www.isisonline.org/global_stocks/end2003/tableofcontents.
html). 

3. Siegfried S. Hecker, "Technical Summary of DPRK Nuclear
Program," presentation at Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference,
November 8, 2005. 

Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Hans M. Kristensen of the
Federation of American Scientists. Inquiries should be directed
to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington,
D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868. 

July/August 2006 pp. 64-66 (vol. 62, no. 4) ) © 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

Nuclear weapons states*, 1945-2006
 							   						 						
   Year     U.S.     Russia     Britian     France     China    
Total   						
   1945     6                     6   						
   1946     11                     11   						
   1947     32                     32   						
   1948     110                     110   						
   1949     235     1                 236   						
   1950     369     5                 374   						
   1951     640     25                 665   						
   1952     1,005     50                 1,055   						
   1953     1,436     120     1             1,557   						
   1954     2,063     150     5             2,218   						
   1955     3,057     200     10             3,267   						
   1956     4,618     426     15             5,059   						
   1957     6,444     660     20             7,124   						
   1958     9,822     869     22             10,713   						
   1959     15,468     1,060     25             16,553   						
   1960     20,434     1,605     30             22,069   						
   1961     24,126     2,471     50             26,647   						
   1962     27,387     3,322     205             30,914   						
   1963     29,459     4,238     280             33,977   						
   1964     31,056     5,221     310     4     1     36,592  
						
   1965     31,982     6,129     310     32     5     38,458  
						
   1966     32,040     7,089     270     36     20     39,455  
						
   1967     31,233     8,339     270     36     25     39,903  
						
   1968     29,224     9,399     280     36     35     38,974  
						
   1969     27,342     10,538     308     36     50     38,274  
						
   1970     26,662     11,643     280     36     75     38,696  
						
   1971     26,956     13,092     220     45     100     40,413 
 						
   1972     27,912     14,478     220     70     130     42,810 
 						
   1973     28,999     15,915     275     116     150     45,455
  						
   1974     28,965     17,385     325     145     170     46,990
  						
   1975     27,826     19,055     350     188     185     47,604
  						
   1976     25,579     21,205     350     212     190     47,536
  						
   1977     25,722     23,044     350     228     200     49,544
  						
   1978     24,826     25,393     350     235     220     51,024
  						
   1979     24,605     27,935     350     235     235     53,360
  						
   1980     24,304     30,062     350     250     280     55,246
  						
   1981     23,464     32,049     350     274     330     56,467
  						
   1982     23,708     33,952     335     274     360     58,629
  						
   1983     24,099     35,804     320     279     380     60,882
  						
   1984     24,357     37,431     270     280     415     62,753
  						
   1985     24,237     39,197     300     360     425     64,519
  						
   1986     24,401     45,000     300     355     425     70,481
  						
   1987     24,344     43,000     300     420     415     68,479
  						
   1988     23,586     41,000     300     410     430     65,726
  						
   1989     22,380     39,000     300     410     435     62,525
  						
   1990     21,004     37,000     300     505     430     59,239
  						
   1991     17,287     35,000     300     540     435     53,562
  						
   1992     14,747     33,000     300     540     435     49,022
  						
   1993     13,076     31,000     300     525     435     45,336
  						
   1994     12,555     29,000     250     510     400     42,715
  						
   1995     12,144     27,000     300     500     400     40,344
  						
   1996     11,009     25,000     300     450     400     37,159
  						
   1997     10,950     24,000     260     450     400     36,060
  						
   1998     10,871     23,000     260     450     400     34,981
  						
   1999     10,824     22,000     185     450     400     33,859
  						
   2000     10,577     21,000     185     470     400     32,632
  						
   2001     10,527     20,000     200     350     400     31,477
  						
   2002     10,475     19,000     200     350     400     30,425
  						
   2003     10,421     18,000     200     350     400     29,371
  						
   2004     10,358     18,000     200     350     400     29,308
  						
   2005     10,295     17,000     200     350     400     28,245
  						
   2006     10,104     16,000     200     350     200     26,854
  						
*As outlined in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
							   						 
Nuclear weapons states*, 1945-2006   

Copyright 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists               
*****************************************************************
 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah high court to get waste expansion case

  Article Last Updated: 07/14/2006 12:29:52 AM MDT  

  By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 
  
  Whether it was right for state regulators to let a Tooele
County radioactive waste site double in size is now a question
before the Utah Supreme Court. 

    The state Court of Appeals said Wednesday it would hand the
case up to the higher court, even before completing its own
assessment of the case. 

    The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) filed suit
after the state Radiation Control Board backed granting a
license to EnergySolutions Inc. to expand the boundaries of its
landfill. The facility, formerly called Envirocare of Utah,
disposes of low-level radioactive and hazardous waste from more
than 30 states. It wanted to expand it from 1 square mile to
nearly 2. 

    Radiation Control Director Dane Finerfrock originally
approved the request last summer, and the radiation board agreed
in January that he had the authority to do so. 

    The expansion was the 81st time regulators have amended the
company's license to permit more and more types of waste
disposal since the business began in 1988. 

    But the environmental group believes state law does not allow 
the radiation director alone to amend the license in such 
significant ways. HEAL said regulators have been too liberal in 
allowing EnergySolutions to grow without clearing a higher 
hurdle. A 1990 law gives the governor and the Legislature final 
say on new waste site and significant expansions, but that 
multi-step process has never been initiated for a facility 
handling radioactive material. The Tooele County site was 
grandfathered in before the 1990 law was enacted. 

    Neither side is sure if the Supreme Court requested the
HEAL-EnergySolutions case or if the Appeals Court sent it up to
the higher court. 

   Sometimes it makes sense for cases to go directly to the
Supreme Court, such as times when the court has cases involving
similar questions before it. Other times it appears likely the
case will wind up in the Supreme Court no matter want the
appeals judges do. 

   Jonathan Tichy, a Salt Lake City attorney, said he was not
sure if the move helps any particular party in the case. He did
say, though, “It seriously raises the profile of this case.” 

    James Holtkamp, an attorney for EnergySolutions, said the
move to the Supreme Court would have at least one benefit. 

    “It just shortens the whole process.” 

    fahys@sltrib.com 
    
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 48 RR: Oregon Atomic Veterans Day Celebration 

RogueRiverNews.com                                                                              

July 14, 2006                                                                                               
 			 			 				 			 				 					Rogue River News and Classifieds. An
Interactive Online Newspaper for Rogue River, Oregon 				 			 			
 			 			 			 			   
SALEM, Oregon - Members of Oregon's Atomic Veterans organization 
will be hosting a ceremony and celebration in Albany, Sunday, 
July 16th, to remember Atomic Veterans Day. All military Veterans 
and their families are invited to attend the celebration being 
held at the Linn County Fairgrounds and Expo Center, between 12 
p.m. and 4 p.m.                                                                                                                                                 
					 					 						
Guest speakers during a ceremony that begins at 1 p.m. will 
include State Senator Ted Ferrioli, State Representatives Donna 
Nelson and Jeff Kropf, and Jim Willis, the Director of the Oregon 
Department of Veterans' Affairs. 

July 16th also marks the first anniversary of a legislatively 
approved date to honor Oregon's Atomic Veterans--military members 
who participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 
United States, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans during and after 
World War II. In 2005, Oregon's Legislature passed House 
Concurrent Resolution 9, sponsored by Ferrioli, that designates 
July 16th of every year as Atomic Veterans Day in the state. 

The testing of the first atomic bomb on July 16, 1945 in 
Alamogordo, N.M. later prompted President Ronald Reagan, in 1983, 
to declare July 16th as National Atomic Veterans Day. 

"Oregon's first anniversary celebration will bring more 
recognition to some forgotten veterans," said Oregon Atomic 
Veteran and group organizer, Fred Schafer. "Several veterans have 
called me who didn't know about our organization or weren't aware 
that they could now talk about what they'd experienced when they 
were exposed to radiation while serving in the military. The more 
people who hear about us, the more we can reach out and help 
these veterans and their families." 

In 1996, atomic veterans were released from their military oaths 
of secrecy. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) then 
formally recognized atomic veterans. They were then eligible to 
receive VA medical treatment. The VHA reports that between 1945 
and 1962, approximately 195,000 U. S. service members 
participated in the post-World War II occupation of Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki, Japan following the atomic bombings there. 

Approximately 210,000, mostly military members, are confirmed 
participants in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests prior to the 
1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. Others were nuclear technicians 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of nuclear power 
plants on aircraft carriers or submarines. Additional veterans 
were exposed to depleted uranium munitions during and after the 
Gulf War. 

The Linn County Fairgrounds and Expo Center in Albany, is located 
off of Interstate 5 at exit 234A. For more information call Fred 
Schafer at 541-258-7453 or Frank Farmer at 541-259-1559. 

For more information on the Oregon Department of Veterans 
Affairs, go to <FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" 
size=3>http://www.odva.state.or.us/</FONT>

Â©2006 RogueRiverNews.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 49 KnoxNews: Y-12 plant lauded for uranium conversion

By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com 
                                
July 14, 2006
                      
WASHINGTON - Oak Ridge's Y-12 nuclear weapons plant and its 
management contractor won praise Thursday from federal officials 
for their role in helping to convert weapons-grade uranium into 
enough nuclear power plant fuel to potentially provide 
electricity for all U.S. households for 81 days. 

Linton Brooks, administrator of the Department of Energy's 
National Nuclear Security Administration, said the processing of 
50 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, formerly stored in a 
secured area at Y-12, eliminated the equivalent of 800 nuclear 
warheads and improved global security. 
			 			
BWXT Y-12, the manager of Y-12, also manages the Lynchburg, Va., 
plant that successfully down-blended the weapons-grade uranium to 
a low level used as fuel in nuclear power plants. 

Separately, Brooks credited the Tennessee Valley Authority for
working with a contractor in Erwin, Tenn., to process 39 metric
tons of highly enriched uranium to make it usable at TVA's
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama. The original uranium
material did not meet the specifications of commercial nuclear

plants. 
TVA spokesman John Moulton said the agency is achieving a net
savings of about $25 million every two years on fuel costs
compared to regular prices in the commercial market. The
conversion process produced a 10-year supply of cheaper fuel for
two Browns Ferry units, he said. 

John Fees, president and chief operating officer at BWXT, said
it is wise energy policy for the country to produce its own fuel
for nuclear power plants. 

"It would be a shame ... where we would go from dependency on
foreign oil to dependency on foreign uranium," Fees said. 

Y-12 stored the weapons-grade uranium from 1999 to 2005, Fees
said. DOE also has plans to dilute other highly enriched uranium
but has not made a decision on the timing, Fees said. 

Many of the country's utilities are using fuel produced from
former nuclear weapons, said John Welch, president of USEC Inc.,
a global energy company supplying fuel for nuclear power plants. 
Brooks said the conversion milestone is worth wide public notice
and celebration. 

One way to consider the news, he said, is that "one in 10 light
bulbs in the United States is being powered by (former) Cold War
atom bombs. That's what the president and the administration are
trying to do - while preserving our security - to convert this
large Cold War legacy to peaceful uses." 

His one-tenth ratio comes from the fact that 20 percent of U.S.
power generated is from nuclear plants, and half of their fuel
is coming from dismantled nuclear warheads. 

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, whose district includes Oak Ridge, released
a statement saying the conversion program is proving how
dangerous stockpiles of weapons "can be transformed into an
economical benefit to society." 

Welch credited BWXT with achieving a safe, effective process for
the weapons-grade fuel. 

"It is no simple task to down-blend this," Welch said. "There is
an awful lot of strict discipline, quality control that goes
into that process. ... Certainly we're all proud to have been
involved in the program." 

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.
 					
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 50 DOE: China and Russia to Join the Generation IV International Forum
 
  July 13, 2006
 
International Scope of Nuclear Nations Pursuing Advanced
Reactors Broadens 

WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary
for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon today announced that China
and Russia are expected to join the Generation IV International
Forum (GIF), a group of the worlds leading nuclear nations who
are working together to develop more efficient and less
waste-intensive advanced reactors to meet future energy
challenges.  Earlier today, the GIF Policy Group voted
unanimously to extend an offer of membership to China and
Russia.  China and Russias formal entry into GIF is expected to
be finalized by November 2006. 

We are pleased that China and Russia will bring their
considerable technical capabilities to the Generation IV
International Forum as we work globally to develop the next
generation of nuclear power reactors, Assistant Secretary
Spurgeon said.  As global demand for electricity soars, and as
we seek to diversify our nations energy mix, the use of nuclear
power is becoming an increasingly valuable, large-scale,
reliable, and non-emitting base load source of energy. 

As a result of todays vote, China and Russia will join the
United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the
United Kingdom, and Euratom in the forum that was chartered in
2001.  Senior representatives from GIF participate in a range of
committees that coordinate the research activities required to
develop the six next generation nuclear energy systems selected
by GIF in its December 2002, Generation IV Roadmap.  These six
concepts are: gas-cooled fast reactor, lead-cooled fast reactor,
molten salt reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, supercritical
water-cooled reactor, and very high temperature reactor. 

In addition to the acceptance of China and Russia, the GIF
Policy Group also announced the selection of Jacques Bouchard,
of France, as its new chairman, succeeding the United States
Shane Johnson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.  Bouchard currently
serves as one of the two vice-chairmen for the GIF Policy Group.
 He will begin a three-year term as chairman at the next GIF
Policy Group meeting, anticipated to be held in Paris, France,
in the fall of 2006.  Bouchard formerly served as head of the
Nuclear Energy Division of Commissariat a LEnergie Atomique in
France until his retirement in 2004. 

We look forward to working with Dr. Bouchard and the rest of
the GIF Policy Group during this exciting time for nuclear
energy around the world, Assistant Secretary Spurgeon said.    

Earlier this week, the GIF Policy Group honored William D.
Magwood IV, founding chairman of the GIF Policy Group and former
director of DOEs nuclear energy office, for his leadership in
establishing the GIF. 

For more information on the U.S. Department of Energys nuclear
energy programs, visit: http://nuclear.gov/. 

Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
Contact
*****************************************************************
 51 DOE: Secretary Bodman Visits Alberta, Canada
 
  July 14, 2006
 
Tour of Oil Sands and Bilateral Meetings Highlight Importance of
Strong Relationship between U.S. and Canada 

CALGARY, ALBERTA  U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
concluded his two-day visit to Canada today by participating in
bilateral and private industry energy discussions in Alberta,
Canada.  Yesterday, Secretary Bodman toured the oil sands in
Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada with Canadian Natural Resources
Minister Gary Lunn, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, and Alberta
Energy Minister Greg Melchin.   

During his visit to Alberta, Secretary Bodman encouraged the
development of oil sands and other unconventional oil resources,
supported increasing North Americas natural gas supply, and
explored with government and industry the challenges to optimal
and sustainable energy resource development.   

I was very pleased to see first-hand the magnitude of the oil
sands development, and look forward to discussions of the
opportunities and challenges in the oil and natural gas sector
that our governments and industries are facing, Secretary
Bodman said.  Canada remains an important ally to the United
States as well as our largest trading partner and most important
and reliable supplier of oil and gas.  We look forward to
continuing to develop our mutually beneficial relationship. 

Current oil sands production is over 1 million barrels per day,
and is expected to double by 2010 and reach 3 million barrels
per day by 2015.  By 2015, approximately three out of every four
barrels of Canadian oil production is expected to come from the
oil sands.  By 2020, over $100 billion will have been invested
in oil sands development. With 175 billion barrels of proven oil
sands reserves, Canada ranks second only to Saudi Arabia in
global oil reserves.  

Secretary Bodmans visit to Canada follows President Bushs and
Prime Minister Harpers meeting earlier this month in Washington
where the two discussed the importance of the Canadian oil sands
in providing energy security.  During that meeting President
Bush and Prime Minister Harper also agreed to task respective
officials in their country to provide a more forward-looking
approach focused on the environment, climate change, air
quality, and energy issues. 

Canada is Americas most important, reliable and secure supplier
of imported crude oil and petroleum products, natural gas,
electricity and uranium.  Canada accounts for more than 16
percent of our total imported crude oil and petroleum products,
and 16 percent of U.S. gas requirements.  Canada also supplies
electricity to over 30 U.S. states, and about 30 percent of
total U.S. reactor requirements for uranium. 

Today, Secretary Bodman met with Minister Lunn.  During their
meeting Secretary Bodman discussed the development of
unconventional oil resources, especially Canadas oil sands, and
the associated challenges; our cooperative efforts on a broad
spectrum of oil sands issues; and carbon sequestration
initiatives. 

Secretary Bodman also met with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein,
Energy Minister Greg Melchin, and International and
Intergovernmental Relations Minister Gary Mar.  They discussed
Albertas role as a key supplier of oil and natural gas to the
United States and its importance to North American energy
security; oil sands production potential as well as refinery
capacity and other challenges to increased development; and
Albertas growing production of natural gas from coalbed methane
(CBM).  

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins and Canadian Ambassador
to the U.S. Michael Wilson participated in the Secretarys
meetings in Calgary and accompanied the group to the oil sands
on Thursday.  

Secretary Bodman, Minister Lunn, and Minister Melchin also took
part in an energy roundtable discussion with senior oil and gas
industry leaders and associations regarding oil and gas
production opportunities and challenges facing industry in both
Canada and the United States. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
Contact
*****************************************************************
 52 SF New Mexican: LANL, DOE might face dumping fines       

 Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:55 pm   							 						

By ANDY LENDERMAN | 

The state Environment Department may fine the U.S. Department of 
Energy and Los Alamos National Laboratory for dumping 20 tons of 
hazardous, Cold War-era waste into a Los Alamos County landfill.

 The state sent the federal agencies a notice Wednesday alleging
they had violated a consent order, or agreement, the parties had
reached regarding a massive cleanup at the lab.

 The state says the agencies agreed to a work plan that would
have sent the waste, which contains lead, dioxins and
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, to a dump in Utah.

 The Energy Department acknowledged Thursday, a subcontractor
sent it to the Los Alamos County landfill in November 2005.

 Environment Secretary Ron Curry said in a statement the work
plans "are designed to protect the environment and the public
health and safety of New Mexicans."

 Curry said the notice underscores the importance the state
assigns to the cleanup agreement.

But the state will not ask the department to dig up the waste and 
send it to Utah now, spokesman Adam Rankin said. "We don't 
believe there's any threat to human health or safety," he said.

 The county's dump is a modern, lined landfill, he said, and the 
state is not sure if the waste can be classified as hazardous.

 But the state did propose a fine in its notice. The amount was 
not disclosed. The most the department or the lab could pay is 
$125,000, according to the state.

 The waste came from the dump known as the Incinerator Ash Pile, 
located near Los Alamos County Airport. The lab generated the 
waste from the 1940s to 1975.           
 	   	 	 	 			
      
  By Janet Persons (Submitted: 07/14/2006 3:22 pm) ( Report this
comment )   
  Now contrast the two sentences: 
"...the waste, which contains lead, dioxins and polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCBs..." 

and then "...the state is not sure if the waste can be
classified as hazardous..."
   
      
  By Anthony Benedict (Submitted: 07/14/2006 1:57 pm) ( Report
this comment )   
  After all, it's fashionalbe to bash LANL and the people of Los
Alamos, and the liberal rag called The SF New Mexican can't
stand that there are people much smarter than them in the same
region, so they embellish every story about the Lab like it's
the next Nuclear meltdown or something.  Talk about knee-jerk
reporting!   
      
  By Anthony Benedict (Submitted: 07/14/2006 1:34 pm) ( Report
this comment )   
  
Yeah, Andy's not the sharpest one in the room.  He's heavily
influenced by the higher-ups at the paper who all hate Los
Alamos and anything to do  with the lab, so he writes to favor
them in spite of the truth.  Sad really.
   
      
  By Ryszard Michalczyk (Submitted: 07/14/2006 9:28 am) ( Report
this comment )   
  
One more example of a Santa Fe reporter senzationalizing the
story about the lab. We all know the lab is evil, right? So
obviously the waste had to be hazardous. Now contrast the two
sentences:
 
"...for dumping 20 tons of hazardous, Cold War-era waste..." 

and then "...the state is not sure if the waste can be
classified as hazardous..."
 
While dumping the waste and disregarding the agreement is wrong,
sensationalizing the story this way is not good reporting and
does not serve anybody. Does the SF New Mexican have any
editors? What on earth are they doing - shouldn't it be their
job to check stuff like that?
   	
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 53 Hanford News: State appeals ruling that tossed Hanford initiative
 
This story was published Thursday, July 13th, 2006 

By John K. Wiley, Associated Press Writer By John K. Wiley,
Associated Press Writer By John K. Wiley, Associated Press
Writer 


SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - Washington state is appealing a judge's
ruling that struck down a voter-approved initiative barring the
federal government from accepting more radioactive waste at
Hanford, Attorney General Rob McKenna says. 

U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald ruled last month in Yakima
that Initiative 297, now called the Cleanup Priority Act, was
unconstitutional. The initiative would bar the government from
accepting more nuclear waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation
until the waste already there has been cleaned up. 

Attorneys representing the state Department of Ecology filed a
notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco on Wednesday. 

"We respectfully disagree with the federal district court's
conclusion that Initiative 297 is unconstitutional and we are
not content to let this decision rest with a single district
court judge," McKenna said in a news release from Olympia. 

Voters approved I-297 by a nearly 70 percent margin in 2004. The
federal government immediately filed suit to overturn it. 

Sponsors of the initiative applauded the state's action
Wednesday and pledged to work with McKenna and Gov. Chris
Gregoire in moving the appeal forward. 

"Sponsors of I-297 believe an appeal is vital to protect the
state's interests because, if left unchallenged, the lower court
ruling places at risk state authority to require the federal
Energy Department to empty high-level nuclear waste tanks and to
clean up the leaks from those tanks," Heart of America
Northwest, one of the sponsors, said in a release. 

"USDOE has proposed to abandon 10 percent of the waste in the
tanks and has sought to have the state agree to plans that would
avoid cleanup of the spreading contamination," the activist
group said. 

"We believe the district court correctly ruled that I-297 is
unconstitutional and that the court's ruling will be upheld on
appeal," Energy Department spokeswoman Megan Barnett said in an
e-mail from Washington, D.C. "We remain committed to safely
cleaning up Hanford under the Tri-Party Agreement." 

McDonald ruled that the initiative is unconstitutional because
it violates federal authority over nuclear waste, as well as the
Constitution's interstate commerce clause. 

He also found that the initiative impairs the Tri-Party
Agreement, a consent enforcement order signed by Ecology, the
U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to govern cleanup at Hanford. 

"Given the high level of public interest and the importance of
this issue, the state of Washington's perspective needs to be
reviewed by the Ninth Circuit," McKenna said. 

His office had argued that the state has authority to regulate
hazardous wastes, including radioactive materials. The state
also argued that the federal government could not strike down a
law without first seeing how it would be applied. 

Hanford was built in the 1940s as part of the top-secret
Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. It continued to
produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal for 40 years. 

Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site.
Cleanup costs are expected to total as much as $60 billion, with
the work to be finished by 2035. 

Last July, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that parts
of the initiative could stand even if a federal judge found
other parts unconstitutional. McDonald, however, struck the
measure down in its entirety. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 Hanford News: State to fight I-297 ruling: Voters passed Hanford waste
measure in 2004; federal court tossed it out
 
This story was published Thursday, July 13th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The state of Washington will appeal a federal court ruling that
the Hanford waste initiative is unconstitutional, Attorney
General Rob McKenna announced Wednesday. 

Initiative 297 was passed by voters in 2004 to prevent the
Department of Energy from sending more waste to the Hanford
nuclear reservation until waste already there is cleaned up. The
site is contaminated from more than 40 years of production of
plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. 

"We respectfully disagree with the federal district court's
conclusion that Initiative 297 is unconstitutional and we are
not content to let this decision rest with a single district
court judge," McKenna said in a statement. 

Sponsors of the initiative also plan to file an appeal, said
Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest
and chairman of Yes on I-297 Protect Washington. 

Last month, U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald found that the
initiative, which has yet to become law, violated the Supremacy,
Commerce and Contracts clauses of the U.S. Constitution. 

"In general, we think the court ruling is unnecessarily broad,"
said Andy Fitz, assistant attorney general. "We think the court
reached further than it needed to in making decisions." 

The state is still considering the issues to be raised in the
appeal and how they will be framed, Fitz said. 

The state filed papers Wednesday in federal court in Yakima
saying that it intended to file its appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but it will have
about three months to file its initial appeals brief outlining
its arguments for the appeals court. 

"Given the high level of public interest and the importance of
this issue, the state of Washington's perspective needs to be
reviewed by the Ninth Circuit," McKenna said. 

The initiative was a mandate from voters, said Joye
Redfield-Wilder, spokeswoman for the Washington State Department
of Ecology. Nearly 70 percent of those voting in the election
favored it. The only counties not approving the initiative were
Benton and Franklin counties. 

The Department of Ecology will make sure cleanup of the nuclear
reservation continues as the appeal is decided, she said. 

Under a settlement in a different lawsuit, the Department of
Energy has agreed to stop most waste shipments to Hanford until
a new environmental study is finished - likely in 2008 - to
replace a flawed study on solid waste completed in 2004. 

In the ruling on the initiative, McDonald found the initiative
would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by
allowing the state to regulate radioactive materials. Congress
has reserved that authority for the federal government. 

The state argued that the initiative does not expand its
authority to regulate waste, but requires it to regulate waste
to the full extent of its authority, including radioactive waste
when it is mixed with hazardous chemical waste. Congress has
given the state authority to regulate hazardous chemical waste. 

But McDonald found language of the initiative showed its real
purpose was to regulate radioactive materials. 

The initiative also violates the Commerce Clause, which
prohibits the states from discriminating in matters of
interstate commerce, McDonald ruled. Most of the radioactive
waste DOE plans to send to Hanford would be shipped from other
states. 

And he found that the initiative violates the Contract Clause
because it impairs the Tri-Party Agreement, a legally binding
agreement between the state and federal government. It would
also interfere with private contracts, including Battelle's
obligations to import radioactive materials to conduct prostate
cancer research and Areva NP's ability to import materials for
the production of nuclear fuel, he said. 

Sponsors of the initiative believe the ruling calls into
question the state's authority over certain radioactive waste at
the site, including mixed radioactive and chemical waste held in
underground tanks and contamination in ground water beneath the
state. 

The stakes are much higher than preventing DOE from bringing
more waste to the site, Pollet said. 

Initiative sponsors will discuss how they should proceed with
the state before filing their appeal, he said. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 Tri-City Herald: Governor listens to Tri-City residents 

Published Friday, July 14th, 2006
 
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The top concern of voters in the Tri-Cities is economic
development, followed by education and health care, according to
a representative sampling of 52 voters by the Washington
governor's office. 

But when Gov. Chris Gregoire held a town hall meeting in Pasco
on Thursday night, she heard a more personal list of concerns.
Why can't the state provide more help for my disabled child, and
why is health insurance so expensive, residents asked. 

The Pasco town hall session was the third stop in a series of
meetings the governor is holding to hear how residents want tax
dollars spent and how to measure whether state programs are
successful. 

In meetings in Vancouver and Spokane, voters shared the same top
three concerns as Tri-City voters who participated in a forum
the night before the Pasco meeting. Only the order differed,
with Vancouver voters saying education was their top concern and
Spokane voters picking health care.
 
Instead of just hearing from state employees in Olympia about
where budget dollars need to be spent, Gregoire wants to hear
from residents across the state, she told about 300 who attended
Thursday night's meeting. 

Several parents of children with disabilities said getting
services their children need in the Tri-Cities is difficult. One
mother of two autistic children said she drives to Spokane and
Seattle to get help. Another mother talked about the fear that
her disabled teenage daughter would regress while her name
languishes on the long waiting list for state services. 

The state could better serve developmentally disabled residents
by shifting money from institutional care to provide more help
for the greater number of people living in family homes, said
Donna Tracy, of The ARC of the Tri-Cities. 

Day care is one service needed in the Tri-Cities, she said. And
elderly parents are worried about what will become of their
children when they're no longer alive to care for them, she
said. 

"Thousands of people are desperate," she said. 

The Legislature has been unable to pass legislation for the
controversial move of closing down an institution, Gregoire
said. 

But the state is looking at a process that would rely on
independent experts to make a recommendation, she said. 

Sandy Owen of the Benton Franklin District Health Department
asked for increased and stable funding for public health
programs. Twenty years ago nurses visited the family of every
first-born baby in the two counties. But that program to
identify and provide help to families who are struggling was
discontinued as the health department faced multiple demands for
its limited resources, she said. 

Early intervention can prevent social problems later, she and
others at the meeting told the governor. 

Ricardo Espinoza, president of the Pasco School Board, said he
was concerned about the high dropout rate among minority
students and their scores on standardized tests. 

"Education reforms are not reaching these students," he said. 

While the state of Washington has focused on helping high school
students who are struggling with education, the state also needs
to focus on making sure every child is ready for kindergarten,
Gregoire said. 

A Georgia program that offered universal, voluntary preschool
for 4-year-olds showed that children at risk had closed the
achievement gap between their peers by third grade, she said. 

Every child in the state needs a top-quality education, she
emphasized. 

Leo Guillen of Kennewick was one of the few people to raise an
economic issue. 

Every citizen of the state should be able to afford to live
here, but many people are struggling financially, he said. The
state needs to encourage more business and have an equitable
system for taxing businesses and distributing the revenue so
Eastern Washington benefits, he said. 

About 120,000 jobs were created in Washington in the last 18
months, with two-thirds of them middle income or higher-paying
jobs, Gregoire said. However, they were not evenly distributed
across the state, she said. 

Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility also came up in the meeting. 

Gregoire said she would tell Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman that
there is interest in the Tri-Cities in seeing if the research
reactor and nearby unused facilities might play a role in
advancing new nuclear energy programs. However, she stopped
short of endorsing FFTF's role, saying she did not have enough
facts about the issue. 

She also drew applause when she said that the state does not
have confidence that the Department of Energy is committed to
and can clean up the Hanford nuclear reservation. 

The governor will continue to take comments about how tax
dollars should be spent. They may be sent to Gov. Gregoire, P.O.
Box 40002, Olympia, or e-mailed to her at the link at
www.governor. wa.gov.
 
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 56 Idaho Statesman: Dismantling of reactor will end era at INL

07-14-2006                

LOFT taught lessons about nuke plant procedures and safety and 
has no current equivalent
 
Photo courtesy of the Idaho National Lab 

Cleanup and decontamination are now under way at the LOFT
reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory. The reactor, with its
unmistakable dome, gained national recognition when it was used
to simulate the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant.

Additional Images photo courtesy of the Idaho National
Lab. 

Former Idaho Gov. Don Samuelson, center, visits the LOFT
construction site in 1967. Samuelson was speaking with Bill
Ginkel, left, and Joe P. Lyon from the Idaho Nuclear Corp.

 Additional Information                 

Cleanup mission at LOFT 
In April 2005, CH2M-WG Idaho LLC, a joint venture between
Boise-based Washington Group International and Denver-based CH2M
Hill was awarded a $2.9 billion contract from the U.S.
Department of Energy to clean up the Idaho National Lab site.
The cleanup mission consists of treating and disposing of
radioactive waste, managing nuclear fuel, dismantling nuclear
reactors and other buildings, and additional environmental
remediation.

The contract requires the company to finish the cleanup by 2012.
So far company officials say they are on track to meet that
deadline. 

Between May 2005 and this past May the company has already
completed the following projects:

• Demolished 38 facilities/structures.
• Exhumed 2,091 cubic yards of targeted waste from the
Subsurface Disposal Area.
• Disposed of 62,629 cubic meters of contaminated soil and
debris.
• Remediated 22 contaminated environmental sites.
• Closed 46 hazardous waste tank systems.
• Cleaned all empty high-level waste tanks.
• Transferred 308 units of spent nuclear fuel from wet to dry
storage.

Idaho Statesman
 
The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 07-14-2006

Over the next year, one of the Idaho National Laboratory's most
recognizable reactors will be demolished and decontaminated.

In the 1970s and early '80s, the LOFT (loss of fluid test)
reactor, a 1/60th scale version of a commercial nuclear power
plant, performed dozens of tests and accident scenarios to
verify computer codes and test safety systems at nuclear plants.

The reactor closed in 1985. Its cleanup is part of the $7.9
billion, seven-year project awarded in April 2005 to a joint
venture between Boise-based Washington Group International and
Denver-based CH2M Hill, to remove decades' worth of material and
equipment left over from the original nuclear mission at the
nearly 570,000 acre lab located west of Idaho Falls.

Today, there is new interest in nuclear power but there is no
modern test facility similar to LOFT. As the last remnants of
the LOFT reactor leave Idaho, nuclear energy experts are hopeful
that in the desire to rebuild the nuclear power industry, the
lessons learned at LOFT will not be forgotten.

In the '80s, LOFT gained national recognition when it was used
to simulate the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant, but delays, cost overruns and a changing
mission made it controversial in its time.

In 1976, a General Accounting Office report commissioned by the
Senate Committee on Government Operations called the LOFT "this
country's most expensive light water reactor safety test
facility."

When ground was broken in October 1964, the reactor's estimated
cost was $38 million. A year after the reactor was finally
operational, the cost was up to $162 million. Today, it's hard
to find someone who either remembers or is willing to share the
overall cost of the LOFT, but the GAO report estimated the
LOFT's total cost including construction and operation would top
$300 million.

Some critics say because the LOFT's original mission to melt
down its reactor core was changed, the industry missed an
opportunity to gather data about such a catastrophic disaster to
better prepare people for such a possibility.

But others say tests completed at the LOFT are the basis of the
safety systems now in place at nuclear plants that are key to
making sure a meltdown doesn't happen.

"The computer codes we rely on today got their start by
analyzing data from LOFT," said Jim Wolf, manager of the thermo
fluids and heat transfer departments at the INL. He was one of
the few lab employees still working at the site who had been
involved with LOFT. "The basis of all current reactor safety
work can be traced back to the LOFT tests."

LOFT born in the 1960s
 	 	
The LOFT was first proposed in the early 1960s.

According to "Proving the Principle" by Susan M. Stacy, a
history of the lab from 1949 to 1999, LOFT would test the
performance of safety components existing plants were using.
Such information would help prevent a meltdown of a nuclear core.

To do that, the original plan was to take LOFT beyond the
testing phase to study something that researchers had never
seen: a complete meltdown of the core.

To accomplish the so-called "China Syndrome" scenario  a
popular term at the time that came from the exaggerated notion
that molten reactor material from the U.S. could burrow through
the earth and emerge in China  the plant would build up to the
meltdown by making increasingly larger breaks of the pipes that
brought coolant to the core. The final break would cut off all
coolant, causing a complete meltdown of the core.

The idea for a complete meltdown was shelved. Nuclear regulatory
agencies at the time decided LOFT was more valuable as a safety
testing facility and shouldn't be destroyed.

"The AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) carefully handled the LOFT
to avoid the question it was designed to answer," said Paul
Leventhal, president emeritus of the Nuclear Control Institute
in Washington. "They were never prepared to bring it to melt and
see what the consequences were."

The debate about imposing the China Syndrome continued through
the 1960s while the construction of the reactor started, stopped
and started again. Ongoing disagreements about design coupled
with funding issues and labor disputes extended construction
well into the 1970s.

LOFT Costs keep growing
 	 	
By the early '70s, LOFT still wasn't providing the safety tests
that the industry needed.

"We were interested to find out whether it was a boondoggle or
whether it could actually test for an accident," said Leventhal,
a young staffer on the Senate Government Operations Committee at
the time.

The GAO report, which looked at LOFT's skyrocketing costs, also
questioned whether it should be used to document the effects of
a full meltdown. "It still wasn't clear at that point whether a
core would stand a total loss of coolant," Leventhal said.

At the time of the 1976 report, LOFT was complete but hadn't
been used.

Five nuclear energy experts in the GAO report concluded,
however, that LOFT shouldn't be destroyed by a meltdown, but
should begin tests without delay to validate safety systems at
nuclear power plants.

The nuclear experiments began in 1977.

At the time, LOFT was designed to test for what would happen if
there was a primary pipe break that interrupted the coolant flow
to the reactor. A primary break was what those in the industry
at the time felt was the most likely accident scenario.

"If you look at the time when LOFT was being planned there were
dozens of plants that had been ordered, and we were looking at a
continued rapid growth of nuclear power," Leventhal said. "The
data out of LOFT was to be the insurance and verification that
all future plants of similar design would be safe, but things
didn't quite turn out that way."

Three Mile Island changes debate
 	 	
At 4 a.m. on March 28, 1979, the nation's bright nuclear future
lost its luster when an open valve at the Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa., led to the nation's
worst nuclear disaster.

The open valve caused coolant to leave the core, leading to a
meltdown of about half the core before the valve was closed.

Because it was caught in time, there was no breach of
containment walls, which could have caused widespread
devastation to the surrounding area.

Still, the damage to the industry was done.

"Three Mile Island was definitely a body blow to an industry
that still hasn't fully recovered," Leventhal said.

Today there is a resurgence of interest in nuclear power,
including incentives for nuclear power plant production in the
latest Energy Bill. But no new nuclear power plant has been
built in the United States in more than two decades.

Testing at LOFT after the accident was instrumental in
determining what happened at Three Mile Island, but there have
always been questions about whether LOFT could have predicted
such an accident.

Wolf says no, because all the testing at the LOFT prior to the
accident was for a scenario of a large pipe break that
interrupted the flow of coolant.

"What Three Mile Island really did was point out a need for a
continuing analysis and safety program," Wolf said. "We found
out that we didn't know as much about plant behavior as we
thought we did, but we saw it as an opportunity to go out and do
the research and make sure that future plants were going to be
safer."

The legacy of LOFT
 	 	
With renewed interest in nuclear power, the INL is once again
gearing up to play a key role in the nuclear power industry. But
David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the
Union of Concerned Scientists, fears that the lesson learned at
LOFT will be lost in the rush to rebuild the industry.

"A lot was learned from the LOFT on how systems worked and
didn't work, but it may not be as applicable to new plants," he
said.

Although LOFT's contribution was substantial, Lochbaum said it
could have done more had it been operating before the bulk of
plants were built.

"We need to do the experiments prior to breaking ground on a new
reactor," he said. "It's cheaper and safer to identify problems
before the plant is built. That's a lesson I hope we haven't
forgotten after all these years."
   
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE: Environmental Management Advisory Board Meeting
 
                        FR Doc E6-11104 
[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)] 
[Notices] [Page 40083] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jy06-45]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Advisory Board (EMAB). 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: Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Thursday, August 
24, 2006, 9 a.m.-12 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: The Courtyard by Marriott, 480 Columbia Point Drive, 
Richland, Washington 99352.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Lamb, Executive Director 
of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EM-13), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585. Phone (202) 586-9007; fax (202) 586-0293 or e-mail: 
terri.lamb@em.doe.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to provide the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management with advice and recommendations on corporate issues 
confronting the Environmental Management Program. The Board will 
contribute to the effective operation of the Environmental 
Management Program by providing individual citizens and 
representatives of interested groups an opportunity to present 
their views on issues facing the Office of Environmental 
Management and by helping to secure consensus recommendations on 
those issues.
 
Tentative Agenda Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9 a.m. Welcome. 9:15 
a.m. Opening Remarks. 9:45 a.m. EM Program Update. 10:15 a.m. 
Break. 10:30 a.m. Acquisition and Project Management 
Presentation. 11 a.m. Roundtable Discussion. 11:45 a.m. Public 
Comment Period. 12 p.m. Lunch Break. 1 p.m. Regulatory Compliance 
Presentation. 1:30 p.m. Roundtable Discussion. 2:15 p.m. Public 
Comment Period. 2:30 p.m. Break. 2:45 p.m. EM Human Capital 
Initiatives and Re-Organization Update.
 
3:30 p.m. Roundtable Discussion. 4:15 p.m. Public Comment Period. 
5 p.m. Adjournment. Thursday, August 24, 2006 9 a.m. Opening 
Remarks. 9:05 a.m. Hanford Advisory Board Presentation. 9:20 a.m. 
Board Business. Approval of March Meeting Minutes.
 
Action Items Report Back/Status.
 
New Business.
 
Roundtable Discussion.
 
Set Date for Next Meeting.
 
11:30 a.m. Public Comment Period. 12 p.m. Adjournment. Public 
Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Terri Lamb at the 
address or telephone number above. Requests must be received five 
days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made 
to include the presentation in the agenda. Those who call in and 
register in advance will be given the opportunity to speak first. 
Others will be accommodated as time permits. The Board Chair 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 the meeting will be available at 
http://web.em.doe.gov/emab/boardmeet.html and for viewing and 
copying at the U.S. Department of Energy 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 calling Terri Lamb at (202) 586-9007.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on July 10, 2006.
 
James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-11104 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 lamonitor.com: IG report said to support the whistleblowers 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A report by the Department of Energy Inspector General validated
financial management problems uncovered by internal auditors at
Los Alamos National Laboratory that were not acknowledged at the
time. 
The report surfaced as a result of a request under the Freedom
of Information Act in a whistleblower complaint against the
University of California. It was released to attorney Lynne
Bernabei on June 30.

"The audit pretty much corroborates the audit findings of Tommy
Hook and Chuck Montano concerning the unallowable costs at Los
Alamos." Bernabei said 

Hook and Montano brought suit against the University of
California and laboratory officials in a dispute related to the
management crisis that resulted in the resignation of former
director John Brown in January 2004.

While UC and laboratory officials claimed publicly to be
auditing and correcting financial problems at the laboratory,
the complaint declares, they were suppressing information and
pressuring their own auditors to avoid problems areas. 
The inspector general's audit increases the claims on the
University of California by another $8 million, based on audits
that Hook and Montano helped perform, while noting that about
$14.7 million are unresolved from previous matters, dating from
1996 to 2002.

The report, dated December 2005, said that the contracting
officer was still making a final determination on the questioned
costs, awaiting guidance from the National Nuclear Security
Administration Office of Financial Management. 
A spokesman for the University for the University of California
said this morning that the negotiations were a normal part of
closing out a contract.

"These are large contracts," said spokesman Chris Harrington,
"We will work with the Department of Energy to reach a
resolution as appropriate."

At the Los Alamos Site Office, a spokesman said the local NNSA
managers had not yet received information on what comments could
be made.

By way of background, the IG report refers to management cuts
going back to 1992 and resulting in a procedure by which the
IG's oversight function began to rely upon self-reported
information provided by a contractor's internal auditors.

In this case, the authors wrote, the laboratory's audits met the
necessary standards and that $8 million in unallowable costs
cited by the auditors were valid and that there is "more than a
relatively low risk that unallowable costs are claimed and
reimbursed to Los Alamos."

Unallowable costs were cited for excessive costs for meals and
per diem, lack of documentation for travel and to justify
express freight charges.

While trying to validate the overcharges related to freight that
the lab's internal auditors had documented, the IG's auditors
found that the lab had realeased a questionnaire to employees,
"that pre-empted our interviews concerning freight costs."

The report said management "generally concurred with our
findings."

Chuck Montano, one of the principals in the whistleblower suit
said this morning that he was among the auditors who was
transferred from the University of California's President's
Office to Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1987, which
effectively ended independent auditing of the laboratory.

"We were concerned that we would end up where we are now -
subject to retaliation, with careers damaged or terminated, or
isolated like me."

He said congress has placed auditors in an untenable position.
"Either they lose their professional standing by failing to
report what they have discovered, or lose their jobs or careers
if they do report," he said.

Although he is still employed at the laboratory, Montano
believes he has been marginalized and sidelined in retaliation
for his findings.

Tommy Hook, who is also a party in the suit, left the laboratory
after a violent incident at a Santa Fe nightclub in June 2005,
when he was savagely beaten while leaving the club.

Hook claimed he was attacked in order to intimidate him from
giving testimony, but an investigation by the Santa Fe police
department rejected any connection between the beating and
Hook's status as a whistleblower.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************