*****************************************************************
08/14/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.187
*****************************************************************
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 Climatic [Global Warming] Tipping Point? Effects On Nuclear Weapons,
2 Guardian Unlimited U.S.: Iraq Facility Could Have Made Bombs
3 [NYTr] Germany Warns US on Threatening Iran
4 [NYTr] Iran Is Not Bulding a Bomb, says UN Nuclear Watchdog
5 Conservative Physicist on Iran & Nukes
6 Bush raises option of using force against Iran
7 London Times: Bush should show Iran some respect -
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Asks Talks With Europe on Uranium
9 BBC: Bush warns Iran on nuclear plans
10 BBC: Schroeder plays the Iran card
11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Pushes Ahead on Nuclear Path
12 WorldNetDaily: What's to report about Iran's nuke activity?
13 Independent: UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying t
14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Calls for EU Talks on Enrichment
15 Xinhua: More IAEA inspectors arrive in Iran
16 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Fills Cabinet With Hard-Liners
17 Telegraph: Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant
18 Reuters: Tests appear to back Iran on nuke traces -diplomat
19 MNA: IAEA cannot legally force Iran to suspend uranium conversion
20 MNA: Iran rejects IAEA resolution, says decision irreversible
21 Mehr News: Oil embargo best response to nuclear boycott
22 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Won't Stop Uranium Conversion
23 Daily Times: REGION: United Nations may break the logjam on Iran’s N
24 Guardian Unlimited Bush: All Options Open for Iran Nukes
25 Guardian Unlimited McCain: Iran Military Option Must Be Kept
26 Korea Herald: Washington stresses no rift with South Korea
27 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: U.S. sees no rift with Seoul over stand on No
28 Washington Times: Seoul nuke stance blindsides U.S.
29 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Willing to Prove It has No Urani
30 Reuters: NKorea willing to prove it has no uranium scheme -CNN
31 US: The State: Time to revisit opportunities of
32 Rediff: Pak vows to impove N-capability
33 Sunday Herald: Nuclear Powerplay -
34 Daily Times: VIEW: Why do nations want nuclear weapons? —
35 Indian Express: Energy independence has to be priority No.1 - Kalam
36 Japan Times: Energy myths and illusions
37 Scotsman.com: Curse of the Kursk still haunts Russia
38 Daily Times: Shaukat reiterates nuclear restraint offer to India
NUCLEAR REACTORS
39 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear energy's future focus of talks
40 US: Washington Post: Calvert Residents Content In Nuclear Plant's Sh
41 canadaeast.com: Ontario unplugs nuclear generators
42 The Globe and Mail: Utility abandons Pickering reactor overhaul
43 i-Newswire.com: The ecological effects of the Chernobyl disaster
NUCLEAR SECURITY
44 US: Journal News: Nuclear security review ordered
NUCLEAR SAFETY
45 US: RGJ: A lingering cloud Atomic vets: 50 years later
46 US: The Indy Star: Feds probing nuclear mishap
47 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Risk management: Pure luck kept blast from be
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
48 [NYTr] Price to Clean Up Britain's Nuke Sites: #56 billion
49 Las Vegas SUN: Report: Some damaged containers expected to arrive at
50 The Observer: US firm to clean up UK's atomic facilities
51 US: London Times: Uranium shortage poses threat -
52 RGJ: Reid, Ensign forging close ties
53 US: AP Wire: Truck carrying low level radioactive material catches f
54 US: Deseret News: Blowing a hole in the road
55 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'
56 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear agency denies request
57 AU: ninemsn.com: Nuclear waste sparks debate
58 Cincinnati Post: Million-year guarantee
59 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Support Envirocare
60 East Valley Tribune: Court tells EPA: Go long
61 US: AU ABC: Barnett, Birnie at odds on uranium.
62 AU ABC: NT nuclear dump decision purely political - MP.
PEACE
63 asahi.com: Horrific memories of war I will never forget
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
64 The State: SRS wants museum to be hot v
65 Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon plant infrastructure management team se
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Climatic [Global Warming] Tipping Point? Effects On Nuclear Weapons, Power Reactors, N-Waste?
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:00:36 -0400
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5402&method=full
And how would/will[?] this effect nuclear
reactors, nuclear waste and possibly lead to
nuclear terrorism and nuclear war, especially in
regions such as Pakistan/India and the Middle
east? They are very related issues as the ultimate
subsidy [the environment] breaks down and leads to
social, economic and political dislocation and
mass turbulance. Everything is interconnected.
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited U.S.: Iraq Facility Could Have Made Bombs
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 15, 2005 12:01 AM
AP Photo WX107
By ANTONIO CASTANEDA
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Early tests of chemicals seized at a
suspected insurgent hideout in northern Iraq indicate they
included substances that could be used in explosives, the U.S.
military said Sunday.
About 1,500 gallons of various chemicals were found in what the
military called an insurgent chemical production facility in
Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.
Col. Henry Franke, a nuclear, biological, and chemical defense
officer, said chemical samples indicate that the facility could
have been used to produce explosives, and that it appeared to be
associated with insurgents. However, he said no explosives -
only their components - were found.
Chemical samples have been sent to the United States for further
tests, Franke said. The military did not say when the tests -
which will determine the exact chemicals found, among other
things - are expected to be complete.
Franke said it was ``very doubtful'' that the facility, which
appeared to have been manned daily and included escape routes,
could have been producing chemicals for industrial use.
``While the facility appears to have been put together using
components readily available commercially, this was a relatively
sophisticated set up,'' Franke said.
Franke said the facility apparently stopped operating about a
month ago because of equipment failures, and explosives may have
been removed in the meantime.
U.S. troops, acting on a tip from detainees under interrogation,
raided the building early Tuesday, the military said. The
military did not say if anyone was detained in the raid.
The military has found many suspected chemical sites in the
past, none of which ended up containing chemical or biological
weapons. Testing of such sites can take several days.
Officials said the seized chemicals do not appear to be linked
to Saddam Hussein's former government.
The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003 to destroy Saddam's
purported weapons of mass destruction. No stockpiles were ever
found.
U.S. arms investigators have said there was evidence that Iraqi
insurgent groups had tried to manufacture chemical weapons,
including one group that recruited a Baghdad chemist who tried
and failed to make a nerve agent.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Germany Warns US on Threatening Iran
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:35:08 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
BBC News Online - Aug 13, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm
Germany attacks US on Iran threat
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away
from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear
programme.
His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force
remained an option but only as a last resort.
Iran has resumed what it says is a civilian nuclear research programme
but which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear arms.
Germany, France and the UK have led efforts to end the crisis
peacefully.
Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't
work
Schroeder launches poll bid
Mr Schroeder's rejection of force came at the official launch of his
party's election campaign.
The BBC's Ray Furlong - reporting from Hanover - says there was an
echo of his last election campaign three years ago, when his steadfast
opposition to the use of force against Iraq helped get him re-elected.
Applause
Mr Schroeder directly challenged Mr Bush's comment that "all options
are on the table" over the Iran crisis.
"Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't
work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to
rapturous applause from the crowd.
Mr Schroeder said it remained important that Iran did not gain atomic
weapons, and a strong negotiating position was important.
"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal," he said.
"Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this."
Schroeder wants military action "off the table"
Mr Schroeder reiterates his views in an interview to be published
Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, labelling military action
"extremely dangerous".
"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the
German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper.
Mr Schroeder was among Europe's sternest critics of the Iraq war,
causing a bitter rift with the US which poisoned relations between the
two countries.
His opposition, in tandem with that President Jacques Chirac's France,
led to US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's stinging attack on "old
Europe".
Iran's press defiant
The UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
backed a resolution this week expressing "serious concern" at the
resumption of the nuclear programme, and demanding it be halted again
at once.
Mr Bush's comments about the military option came in an interview on
Israeli TV.
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants to
send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US already has
its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.
Mr Schroeder is lagging well behind his conservative rivals in the
German election campaign, but has been narrowing the gap in recent
days.
In the 2002 poll, he came from behind to snatch victory after
anti-Iraq war feeling - and an outbreak of serious flooding in Germany
- helped him attract last-minute support.
Sidebar:
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
* Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known
as yellowcake
* Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
* Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and
process is repeated until uranium is enriched
* Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
* Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 [NYTr] Iran Is Not Bulding a Bomb, says UN Nuclear Watchdog
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:20:31 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Independent - August 14, 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article305741.ece
UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to make A-bomb
By Anne Penketh
The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that Iran is
not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining a warning of
possible military action from President George Bush.
The US President told Israeli television that "all options are on the
table" if Iran fails to comply with international calls to halt its
nuclear programme. Both the US and Israel - the Middle East's only
nuclear-armed power - were "united in our objective to make sure Iran
does not have a weapon", he said.
However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a
scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities
were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a
nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in
Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western
capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon
under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from
Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed
from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.
But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful
purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the
Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the
father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.
The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the
IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of
weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is
likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat
told The Independent on Sunday.
The new information, which strengthens Iran's case after last week's
contentious IAEA board meeting in Vienna, will be a central part of
the next report to the board by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief.
"The biggest single issue of the past two years has now fallen in
their [the Iranians'] favour," the diplomat said. The meeting of the
35-nation board, which ended last Thursday, urged Iran to suspend the
uranium-related activity at its Isfahan plant, which many fear will be
the first step towards building a nuclear weapon.
The resumption of uranium conversion at the plant last week caused an
international crisis and prompted Britain, France and Germany, which
have been attempting to find a negotiated solution to the dispute, to
call the emergency IAEA meeting. In its resolution concluding the
meeting, the board also asked Dr ElBaradei to report back by 3
September. Hardliners on the board - including Britain, the United
States and Canada - had hoped that Dr ElBaradei's next report would be
sufficiently damning to increase the pressure on Iran.
However those hopes will be dashed by the revelation about the IAEA
analysis of the particles from Pakistan, which will remove any chance
of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council. But the IAEA is not
closing the book on its investigation of Iran's possible weapons
programme. A team of IAEA experts arrived in Iran on Friday to pursue
other outstanding issues, but they are unlikely to be resolved by the
time Dr ElBaradei reports to the board.
The three European countries are fast running out of options, as there
is no appetite among non-nuclear states on the IAEA board to report
Iran to the Security Council for punitive sanctions, when there is no
legal basis to do so. Iran, which agreed to suspend its uranium
conversion during the talks with Britain, France and Germany, insists
on its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich
uranium for peaceful purposes.
The Iranian authorities restarted Isfahan after rejecting a package of
security and economic incentives submitted to Iran 10 days ago by the
three countries which sought a binding commitment that Iran would not
pursue fuel cycle activities. "It's difficult to see things moving
ahead if Europeans think that every country can have enrichment
facilities except Iran," one Western diplomat said.
Dr Ian Davis, the director of the British-American Security
Information Council (Basic), an independent nuclear thinktank, said
that if the Europeans were prepared to compromise on the fuel cycle
issue, "the negotiations may yet prevent a crisis".
However, a Foreign Office spokesman insisted that a new round of
negotiations scheduled with Iran for 31 August would go ahead only if
Tehran again suspended uranium conversion. "There are no talks with no
suspension," the spokesman said.
Iran, sensing that it is gaining international support for its stand
and with a new hardline President in power, also looks as if it is in
no mood to compromise at this point.
) 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
5 Conservative Physicist on Iran & Nukes
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:58:16 -0500 (CDT)
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
What's to report about Iran's nuke activity?
Posted: August 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 WorldNetDaily.com
According to Reuter's Louis Charbonneau - a neo-crazy media sycophant
if ever there was one - those despicable Iranians "broke U.N. seals
at a uranium processing plant" last week.
According to Charbonneau, the International Atomic Energy Agency
"put on the seals after Tehran agreed with the European Union's
biggest powers to halt all nuclear fuel work last November to ease
tensions after the IAEA found Iran had hidden weapons-grade highly
enriched uranium."
"Tehran defied EU warnings [that] it could now be referred to the
U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions for having kept its
uranium enrichment work secret for years - until it was found out
in 2002 - breaking the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Now, all of that "reporting" is - at best - misleading.
And deliberately so.
Charbonneau is deliberately misleading you about a) what the IAEA
"found" back in 2002, b) why the IAEA seals were in place, c) what
the Iranians did last week, and last - but most important - d) what
constitutes a "breaking" of the NPT.
Bush-Cheney officials have repeatedly charged that the Iranians
have broken the NPT and that they are seeking to manufacture or
"otherwise acquire" nuclear weapons.
But, if the Iranians were breaking the NPT, who would be in the
best position to know? The Bush-Cheney officials who made similar
charges about Iraq?
Neo-crazy media sycophants like Charbonneau?
No. It does you no good to have a nuclear weapons program if you
can't beg, borrow or steal the tens of kilograms of fissile material
that are absolutely required to make a nuke. So, the NPT requires
no-nuke states like Iran to subject all "source or special fissionable
materials" and all activities involving such materials to an IAEA
Safeguards Agreement.
The IAEA Statute - not the NPT - provides a mechanism for ensuring
"compliance with the undertaking against use [of safeguarded materials
and activities] in furtherance of any military purpose."
The IAEA Statute - not the NPT - requires the IAEA Board of Governors
to report any use "in furtherance of any military purpose" to all
IAEA members, to the U.N. General Assembly and to the Security
Council.
If, as Charbonneau charges, IAEA inspectors had found "hidden
weapons-grade highly enriched uranium" in Iran, they would have
been required to report that to the Board and the Board would have
been required to report that to the Security Council.
But, they didn't. In fact, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has
reported to the Board on numerous occasions that IAEA inspectors
have found no "indication" that Iran now has, ever had or intends
to have a nuclear weapons program.
So, what did the IAEA "find" back in 2002.
In the process of negotiating an Additional Protocol to the existing
Iranian Safeguards Agreement, Iran voluntarily told the IAEA back
in 2002 that, as a result of the United States forcing Russia to
cancel the sale of a turn-key gas-centrifuge plant - to which the
Iranians had an "inalienable right" to acquire and operate under
the NPT - the Iranians had been attempting to construct gas centrifuges
of similar design. Furthermore, once they had constructed several
thousand and got them to work, they planned to construct a
uranium-enrichment pilot plant and, eventually, construct a commercial
scale uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz.
But, contrary to Charbonneau and the neo-crazies, under the Iranian
Safeguards Agreement as it then existed, the Iranians were not
obligated to tell the IAEA about any of that activity until they
began processing "source or special nuclear materials" for introduction
into those gas centrifuges.
So, why were there IAEA "seals" on those uranium-conversion facilities?
Well, the Iranians had volunteered to suspend all such activities,
for the duration of the EU-Iranian negotiations. Since the facilities
were all already Safeguarded, the IAEA was "invited" to verify the
suspension.
But, the IAEA is not a party to the EU-Iranian talks.
So, what could the Board possibly report to the Security Council?
That the EU and Iran hoped to conclude an agreement that "will
provide objective guarantees" that "Iran's nuclear program is
exclusively for peaceful purposes" and that it "will equally provide
firm guarantees" to Iran "on nuclear, technological, and economic
cooperation and firm commitments on security issues"?
That on March 23, Iran offered a package of "objective guarantees"
to the EU that included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear
programs? That the EU never responded to the Iranian offer? That
the EU never offered Iran "firm commitments on security issues"?
That the Iranians decided to end their voluntary suspension of
Safeguarded activities and had so informed the IAEA?
None of that is any of the IAEA's business. So why report it?
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the
Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development
Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served
as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen.
Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget
Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations
Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons
physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California
and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45748
*****************************************************************
6 Bush raises option of using force against Iran
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:34:15 -0500 (CDT)
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Bush raises option of using force against Iran
Aug 13, 5:27 AM (ET)
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President Bush said on Israeli television he could
consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear
programme.
"All options are on the table," Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford,
Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.
Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options
are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and
you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."
Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium
conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of
political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear
programme.
Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations
it is seeking a nuclear bomb.
Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution, noting that EU
powers Britain, Germany and France had taken the lead in dealing with Iran.
Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's
suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the
country.
"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we're working
feverishly on the diplomatic route and we'll see if we're successful or not,"
Bush told state-owned Israel Channel One television.
Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the
possibility of military strikes. But U.S. officials have played down media
speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against
Iran.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Friday that negotiations
were still possible with Iran on condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear
activities.
The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.
Douste-Blazy said the next step would be on September 3 when IAEA chief
Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Iran's activities.
If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will likely be
held, where both Europe and Washington will push for a referral to the U.N.
Security Council for possible sanctions.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050813/2005-08-13T092731Z_01_SPI329552_RTR
IDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-BUSH-DC.html
*****************************************************************
7 London Times: Bush should show Iran some respect -
thetimes.co.uk
The Sunday Times - Comment
August 14, 2005
MICHAEL PORTILLO
Washington, we have a problem. The famous distress call from
Apollo 13 in 1970, not to Washington but to Houston, resonated
last week as Nasa brought the space shuttle safely home after a
white knuckle ride. But what brought that memorable phrase back
to me was not the shuttle’s epic survival, but rather the
shipwreck of American foreign policy towards Iran, highlighted by
new suggestions yesterday from President Bush that America might
resort to force.
Nothing has gone right. Establishing democracy in Iraq was meant
to strengthen the moderates in Iran and topple the corrupt
autocracy of its mullahs. American sanctions against Iran were
supposed to warn it off developing nuclear technologies. If
those measures did not work, hints of military attack ought to
have done the trick. If none of the above, perhaps bribery would
succeed.
Hopes have been dashed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president. He
was the mullahs’ candidate. He campaigned on issues such as
public probity and private piety. During his stint as mayor of
Tehran he imposed dress codes on public servants and banned
advertising that featured the face of David Beckham. He trounced
the pragmatic former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the
contender favoured by the West. America is unlikely to proclaim
the result as a triumph for emerging democracy.
US sanctions have not led to a moderate takeover in Iran. They
have helped the mullahs by increasing anti-Americanism. Perhaps
the embargo has contributed to today’s unemployment rate of a
third among Iranians in their twenties, which gave a focus for
Ahmadinejad’s campaign.
American military threats also help the theocracy in its
propaganda. The United States has invaded Iran’s neighbour Iraq.
The mullahs can scarcely be thought paranoid if they arm Iran
against aggression.
The US has already had to execute a modest policy U-turn. Bush,
having first despised efforts by Britain, France and Germany to
persuade Iran to forgo uranium conversion work in return for
aid, later pledged to add US funds to the European initiative.
As the president said: “We’re relying upon others because we’ve
sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran.”
Even before Ahmadinejad became president, Iran announced that it
would restart its programme to upgrade uranium and last week it
put its Isfahan plant back into operation.
So the European Union’s approach has been no more successful
than America’s. Now the Europeans seem as exasperated as the US
and threaten to seek a United Nations security council
resolution imposing international economic sanctions.
Securing agreement on that might not be easy. China might veto.
Russia fears Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but would like to
continue to sell nuclear kit for peaceful purposes. Anyway, the
case against Iran is not clear-cut.
Under article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT)
nations have “an inalienable right . . . to develop research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination”. Iran claims to be interested only in
producing electricity. The Europeans argue that the Iranians
have been deceiving the world for 20 years.
Securing sanctions would be a pyrrhic victory. Then Europe, too,
would be “sanctioned out” and Iran would acquire new grievances
with which to set its population seething.
So it is not just Washington that has the problem. Events have
confounded optimists like me who thought that reformers would
gain the upper hand in Iran and European leaders who believed
that American obduracy was the main impediment to an
accommodation with Tehran.
Maybe the Euro carrot has failed because the US stick is not
credible. Bush has again raised the prospect of military
intervention. But only a few paranoid liberals now think that an
American attack on Iran is imminent. For nearly 2½ years the US
military has been sinking into the quicksand of Iraq. America
lacks the resources and willpower and public support for another
war in the Middle East, at least while the two in which it is
engaged remain unfinished. These days even neoconservatives do
not talk much about invading Iran.
So it is far from obvious how to deal with this state that views
America as the Great Satan and exports terror. Ahmadinejad’s
inauguration was greeted with cries of “Death to America” and
“Death to Israel”. True, the new president has denounced weapons
of mass destruction but it is small comfort given that nuclear
policy is decided not by him but by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
supreme leader. It is hard to guess Iran’s real intentions.
Does it merely see the West’s present weakness as an opportunity
to increase the price for any concessions? It complains that the
EU has failed to live up to its promises. It says it will allow
the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its
activities. So maybe the bargaining will continue. The Iranian
regime is not unintelligent. It aims to avoid UN sanctions and
so sounds reasonable.
On the other hand, perhaps Iran has a non-negotiable desire to
possess nuclear weapons. I would guess that it does. It would
increase its security. US neoconservatives rarely suggest
invading nuclear weapons states. Joining the nuclear club would
give Iran prestige. Look at how America now courts India and
Pakistan.
What are the West's arguments against Iran having the bomb: that
it would export nuclear technology? It could hardly outdo Abdul
Qadeer Khan, who headed Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme and
sold secrets around the world. That it would put nuclear weapons
in the hands of an unstable Islamic state? See Pakistan again.
That the Middle East should be a nuclear weapons-free zone? Tell
that to Israel.
Anyway, the West appears to be in breach of the NPT article VI
that requires nuclear weapons states to work for disarmament.
Britain, for example, is upgrading its mass destruction systems.
So what moral authority do we have? Supposing Iran is intent on
getting nuclear weapons; how frightening is that, given that it
would not be the first scary state to do so? The chances are that
it would never use them. Only the United States has, 60 years ago
last weekend. All other countries that have nuclear weapons have
employed them only to intimidate. So far.
Coinciding with Ahmadinejad's inauguration, a long-awaited US
intelligence analysis estimated that Iran will not get the bomb
for another decade, double previous estimates. The new data do
not make the problem disappear but perhaps give time for
reflection on both sides.
America believes that it cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
In that case it must consider everything else. Bush yesterday
said again that he preferred a diplomatic solution. So far the
hostility to Iran has brought no dividend. It must therefore
contemplate engagement. After all, President Nixon engaged with
China and President Reagan with the Soviet Union, both hostile
powers that were more frightening than Iran.
Tehran is looking for respect. Perhaps the US should show it
some. It would be a brave policy shift for America with no
guarantee of success. But if Bush wants an example of political
courage he should look at Ariel Sharon.
Next week the Israeli army will remove by force any Israeli
settlers left in Gaza, then bulldoze their houses and hand the
land to the Palestinians. Benjamin Nethanyahu's opportunistic
decision to resign from the Israeli cabinet merely serves to
underline that Sharon is a leader of exceptional grit. In the
face of intense domestic opposition the prime minister is
tackling Israel's least defensible policy: the planting of
settlers in Palestinian lands. He recognises that peace stands no
chance unless Israel demonstrates the willpower to remove them.
Sharon is unilaterally unrolling part of the road map to peace
and challenging the Palestinian Authority to prove that it can
enforce security. He shows that you can be tough but imaginative.
The question is whether Bush, a president who has not flinched
from carrying war to Afghanistan and Iraq, has the leeway and the
creativity to try an equally radical and risky new approach to
Iran.
As with Apollo 13 after it suffered an explosion in space, things
in Iran look pretty grim right now. The failures call for
exceptional measures. If we try something unprecedented we might
just succeed in steering the Iran problem towards a safe landing.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Asks Talks With Europe on Uranium
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 14, 2005 7:46 PM
AP Photo VAH102
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - An increasingly defiant Iran called Sunday
for Europe to open talks on Tehran's intention to enrich
uranium, and dismissed a veiled Bush administration warning of
military action against Iranian nuclear operations as
psychological warfare.
The new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, named
a hard-line Cabinet, a move that looked certain to intensify
Iran's confrontation with the West.
While Iran says it would use enriched uranium only to power
nuclear reactors for generating electricity, Tehran's past
concealment of portions of its atomic program has created
distrust in the West and strengthened suspicions in Washington
that the material is meant for bombs.
The United States has stood aside while European governments
negotiated with Iran. After prolonged talks with Britain, France
and Germany during which Tehran put uranium conversion on hold,
Iran this month rejected a package of aid measures, including
offers of nuclear fuel in exchange for a promise to abandon
plans for uranium enrichment.
Iran then restarted its Isfahan plant that converts uranium to
gas, which is the last step in processing the radioactive ore
before it can undergo enrichment to become reactor fuel or the
material for nuclear weapons.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency responded with a resolution
Thursday urging the Iranians to again put the process on hold.
Diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency's
proceedings said Iran was given a Sept. 3 deadline to halt or
face possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for
consideration of sanctions against its struggling economy.
Tehran hotly rejected the resolution and on Sunday said there
was nothing more to talk about on the conversion issue.
``The Isfahan issue is over,'' Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head
of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told state television.
``What is left on the table for discussion is Natanz,'' where
Iran has built a uranium enrichment plant.
``We definitely have plans for Natanz in the near future,''
Saeedi said, without offering any details.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran had not
decided to begin uranium enrichment, but added: ``Europe's
behavior will heavily influence the decision.''
Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Sirus Nasseri, indicated
Thursday that any talks about enrichment would be about setting
safeguards for operations at Natanz to reassure those with
suspicions but not about closing the plant.
President Bush initially had said he was heartened by Iran's
hinted readiness for additional talks on its nuclear program
even as it rejected the European aid offer. But on Friday, after
Iran became increasingly defiant, Bush said in an interview with
Israeli TV that ``all options are on the table'' if Iran refused
to comply with international demands.
That prompted Asefi on Sunday to notch up the rhetoric, warning
against any attack.
``I think Bush should know that our options are more numerous
than the U.S. options,'' Asefi said. ``If the United States
makes such a big mistake, then Iran will definitely have more
choices to defend itself.''
He offered no specifics but characterized Bush's words as part
of a U.S. psychological war against Iran.
Further complicating relations with the West, Iranian President
Ahmadinejad picked 21 hard-liners to head government ministries.
The parliament was expected to quickly approve the nominees, all
followers of Iran's conservative supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters.
The proposed foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has
criticized the nuclear negotiations with Europe and called for
Iran to refuse to make concessions. Several other nominees have
ties to the Revolutionary Guards and security agencies, which
also take a hard-line on maintaining the country's nuclear
program.
The new Cabinet also was seen as unsympathetic to the democratic
and social reforms pushed by the previous government of
President Mohammad Khatami, who tried to build bridges to the
West.
``The list means Iran will behave more secretly in its dealings,
both with the nation and the international community,'' said
Saeed Madani, a political scientist.
The United States and its allies have been reluctant to use
their ultimate diplomatic weapon - asking the Security Council
to impose sanctions on Iran. China, a permanent member of the
council, is opposed and could kill the measure with its veto.
In Washington, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, backed President Bush Sunday, saying
the United States must keep open a military option.
``For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to
do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military
option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they
want to do,'' McCain said on Fox television.
About 300 Iranian students pelted the British embassy in Tehran
with eggs, tomatoes and stones to protest Europe's call for Iran
to permanently freeze its nuclear program.
The students, who gathered in front of British embassy in
downtown Tehran, chanted ``Death to England,'' and ``Nuclear
energy is our obvious right.''
Anti-riot police blocked the students from entering the embassy
grounds.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
9 BBC: Bush warns Iran on nuclear plans
Last Updated: Saturday, 13 August 2005
[Nuclear plant at Isfahan]
Work restarted at Isfahan this week
US President George W Bush says he still has not ruled out the
option of using force against Iran, after it resumed work on its
nuclear programme.
He said he was working on a diplomatic solution, but was
sceptical that one could be found.
The UN's atomic watchdog has called on Iran to halt nuclear fuel
development.
Iran, which denies it is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms,
restarted work at its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan on
Monday.
"All options are on the table," said Mr Bush, when asked about
the possible use of force during an interview for Israeli TV.
"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know
we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he
said.
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Mined urani ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form
known as yellowcake Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating
it to about 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its
isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is
enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons Iran's
press defiant
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants
to send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US
already has its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.
'Cost them dearly'
The former Iranian President, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has
expressed surprise at Thursday's call by the UN nuclear agency,
the IAEA, for Iran to suspend its nuclear activities.
The IAEA asked its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report on Iran's
compliance by 3 September.
Speaking at Friday prayers in Tehran, Mr Rafsanjani said western
opposition to Iran's decision to resume its nuclear programme
would, as he put it, cost them dearly.
"Our people are not going to allow their nuclear rights to be
seized," Mr Rafsanjani said. He said he was astonished that no
country opposed the European Union-sponsored resolution, adopted
by the IAEA, that urged Iran to stop any work on processing
uranium for enrichment.
He emphasised that Iran's decision to resume its nuclear
programme was irreversible, and said his country could not be
treated like Iraq or Libya. The IAEA's 35-member governing body
met in emergency session this week after Iran ended a nine-month
suspension of work at Isfahan.
Iran insists it needs nuclear power as an alternative energy
source, but Western nations fear it has plans to produce nuclear
weapons.
*****************************************************************
10 BBC: Schroeder plays the Iran card
Last Updated: Saturday, 13 August 2005
By Ray Furlong BBC News, Hanover, Germany
[Gerhard Schroeder on the campaign trail]
Schroeder is relaxed and predicting victory
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has told an election campaign
rally that the military option for resolving the dispute over
Iran's nuclear programme should be "taken off the table".
"We're all concerned about the developments in Iran," he said.
"We don't want nuclear weapons to proliferate further."
But Mr Schroeder said diplomacy was the answer.
"I've read that military options are also on the table," he said.
Chancellor Schroeder is a ve good actor - he's playing a better
game than Angela Merkel
Gero Neugebauer Free University, Berlin
"My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let's
develop a strong negotiating position towards Iran, but take the
military option off the table'."
His words may cause irritation in Washington, where President
George W Bush has just said he does not rule out the use of force
in dealing with Iran.
Mr Schroeder's speech will also revive memories of the last
election campaign three years ago, when he strongly opposed the
idea of attacking Iraq.
Then, as now, his Social Democratic Party (SPD) was far behind in
the opinion polls, and the position on Iraq is generally believed
to have been a factor in helping him win the election.
Schroeder confident
It is too early to judge whether Iran can help revive Mr
Schroeder's fortunes in a similar way, but his remarks drew
rapturous applause and whoops of support from the several
thousand-strong crowd gathered by the Hanover Opera House.
"He made it clear Germany won't take part in any military action.
This is just the policy I would hope for from a German
perspective," said one man who identified himself as an SPD
supporter.
His neighbour said he had not yet decided who to vote for, but
that he agreed with Mr Schroeder's remarks. "They were very, very
good. They should be the guidelines for international policy on
this case," he said.
"I don't know what the conservative view on this is."
Mr Schroeder also focused on domestic policy in his speech,
savagely criticising the opposition conservatives, the CDU/CSU,
and pledging to maintain Germany's welfare state.
Issues like this may be decisive in the election.
Years of near-zero growth and an unemployment rate that topped
five million people - 12% - earlier this year, have made the
SPD-led government unpopular.
Mr Schroeder has been relaxed and confident in recent weeks, and
his party has narrowed the CDU/CSU's lead.
'An act'
Gero Neugebauer, a political scientist at the Free University in
Berlin, says it is at least partly an act.
"It's a difficult job for him - on the one hand knowing he won't
return to the chancellor's office, and on the other obliged to
save the Social Democrats," he said.
"So he can't be as relaxed as he pretends. But Chancellor
Schroeder is a very good actor. He's playing a better game than
Angela Merkel."
Mrs Merkel, the CDU leader, is still widely expected to be the
next chancellor, but her campaign has been beset by setbacks.
First, she herself confused the terms "net" and "gross" in two
television interviews, damaging her claim to greater economic
competence than the government.
Then the CSU leader, Edmund Stoiber, added to her troubles in
speeches where he made disparaging remarks about "frustrated East
Germans".
Mr Stoiber was complaining that in the former communist East
there is high support for a new left-wing alliance made up of
reformed communists and disaffected social democrats.
[Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber]
Angela Merkel was embarrassed by Edmund Stoiber's comments
"It's a pity people in other parts of the country are not as
clever as in Bavaria" he said, referring to his own regional
stronghold.
The remarks, widely seen as "Ossie-bashing", caused a storm of
indignation, and are expected to cost the CDU dear in eastern
Germany.
Mrs Merkel, herself from the east, said the comments were
"counterproductive" and that she wanted to be a chancellor for
all Germans.
When she officially launched her campaign last week she made it
clear she wanted to focus on different issues.
"I find it depressing that we have nearly five million
unemployed," she said.
"In the 1998 election campaign the current chancellor said he
wanted to be judged on this issue alone.
"If he didn't reduce unemployment he didn't deserve to be
re-elected. And I think this issue is exactly what he should be
judged on."
Unfortunately for Mrs Merkel, the speech was hardly reported in
the German media. It was overshadowed by Mr Stoiber's remarks.
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Pushes Ahead on Nuclear Path
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday August 13, 2005 8:46 AM
AP Photo VAH114
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
KHONDAB, Iran (AP) - As the U.S. and Europe struggle to stop
Iran's uranium development, the Iranians are pushing ahead on
another track - construction of a heavy-water reactor that Iran
says will be used only for peaceful purposes but which could
also produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
It will take at least another four years for Iran to complete
the reactor, making it a less immediate worry for the West than
the uranium program, parts of which are either in operation or
ready to go at a moment's notice.
But ultimately, the heavy-water reactor could prove more
dangerous, since bombs made with plutonium are smaller and
easier to fit onto a ballistic missile.
In a comprehensive package aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear
program, Europe proposed that it give up the heavy-water project
in return for a light-water reactor, seen by arms control
experts as easier to monitor to ensure it's not being used for
weapons.
Iran - which says its nuclear program is peaceful - rejected the
entire package this week. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization called the heavy-water reactor offer a ``joke.''
``We have developed this capability. The heavy-water project
today is a reality,'' Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also vice
president, said on state-run television. ``This knowledge
belongs to Iran. Nobody can take it from us. As they (Europeans)
see Iran's determination, they will be forced to show
flexibility and accept it.''
While Iran has agreed to suspend parts of its uranium program as
a gesture in negotiations with Europe, it has repeatedly
rejected European calls for it to freeze the heavy-water
project, which is moving full steam ahead.
``Work has not been halted there even for a day, allowing Iran
to constantly advance its heavy-water project,'' lawmaker Rasoul
Sediqi Bonabi told The Associated Press on Friday. Bonabi, a
nuclear scientist, said Iran developed the plant because the
world would not give it ``a drop of heavy water.''
Iran says the heavy-water reactor will have a range of peaceful
applications. Iran intends to use the facility in the
pharmaceutical, biological and biotechnological fields as well
as in cancer diagnosis and control.
Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed only at producing
electricity, but the United States accuses it of secretly
intending to build nuclear weapons. Europe is trying through
negotiations to persuade Iran to give up technology that can be
used for military purposes and limit its program to possessing
reactors using fuel provided from abroad.
The 40-megawatt heavy-water reactor could produce enough
plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, an amount experts
commonly say is 8.8 pounds.
The reactor - ringed with anti-aircraft guns as are all of
Iran's nuclear facilities - is being built at the foot of a
mountain in the deserts outside the small town of Khondab, 60
miles northwest of the central city of Arak.
Construction began in 2004 and is expected to be completed by
2009. Most Iranian nuclear facilities have portions built
underground to protect them from airstrike - and Aghazadeh
suggested that an underground portion may be built at Khondab as
well.
``This knowledge belongs to us. It (the knowledge) won't be
destroyed if attacked. Equipment could also be moved under the
mountain,'' he said.
A plant next door began producing heavy water for the reactor
last year, using water from the nearby Qara-Chai River. It
produces 16 tons of heavy water a year, putting it on track to
have the 90 tons needed by the time the reactor is finished.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.
nuclear watchdog, visited the Khondab facility in February 2003.
North Korea followed a similar two-track process in its nuclear
program, which it overtly says aims to produce weapons. In 1994,
it signed a deal with the United States freezing its plutonium
program, but in 2003 it was discovered that North Korea was
secretly building a uranium program.
Nuclear weapons can be produced using either plutonium or highly
enriched uranium as the explosive core. Either substance can be
produced in the process of running a reactor.
Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is
then spun in centrifuges. If it is enriched to a low level, it
can be used as fuel for a reactor; at a high level, it can be
used for a bomb.
Iran's enrichment program is at an advanced stage, with
thousands of centrifuges ready to start working. While Iran is
continuing its suspension of enrichment, it ended its freeze
this week on the first step in the process - turning raw uranium
into gas - bringing a sharp rebuke from Europe.
Reactors fueled by enriched uranium use regular - or ``light'' -
water as a ``moderator'' in the chain reaction that produces
energy. The Khandub reactor, however, uses ``heavy water,''
which contains a heavier hydrogen particle. That allows the
reactor to run on natural uranium mined by Iran, forgoing the
expensive process of enrichment.
The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to
extract plutonium for use in a bomb.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
12 WorldNetDaily: What's to report about Iran's nuke activity?
SATURDAY AUGUST 13 2005
[Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather]
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
According to Reuter's Louis Charbonneau – a neo-crazy media
sycophant if ever there was one – those despicable Iranians
"broke U.N. seals at a uranium processing plant" last week.
According to Charbonneau, the International Atomic Energy Agency
"put on the seals after Tehran agreed with the European Union's
biggest powers to halt all nuclear fuel work last November to
ease tensions after the IAEA found Iran had hidden weapons-grade
highly enriched uranium."
"Tehran defied EU warnings [that] it could now be referred to
the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions for having kept
its uranium enrichment work secret for years – until it was
found out in 2002 – breaking the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty."
Now, all of that "reporting" is – at best – misleading.
And deliberately so.
Charbonneau is deliberately misleading you about a) what the
IAEA "found" back in 2002, b) why the IAEA seals were in place,
c) what the Iranians did last week, and last – but most
important – d) what constitutes a "breaking" of the NPT.
Bush-Cheney officials have repeatedly charged that the Iranians
have broken the NPT and that they are seeking to manufacture or
"otherwise acquire" nuclear weapons.
But, if the Iranians were breaking the NPT, who would be in the
best position to know? The Bush-Cheney officials who made
similar charges about Iraq?
Neo-crazy media sycophants like Charbonneau?
No. It does you no good to have a nuclear weapons program if you
can't beg, borrow or steal the tens of kilograms of fissile
material that are absolutely required to make a nuke. So, the
NPT requires no-nuke states like Iran to subject all "source or
special fissionable materials" and all activities involving such
materials to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
The IAEA Statute – not the NPT – provides a mechanism for
ensuring "compliance with the undertaking against use [of
safeguarded materials and activities] in furtherance of any
military purpose."
The IAEA Statute – not the NPT – requires the IAEA Board of
Governors to report any use "in furtherance of any military
purpose" to all IAEA members, to the U.N. General Assembly and
to the Security Council.
If, as Charbonneau charges, IAEA inspectors had found "hidden
weapons-grade highly enriched uranium" in Iran, they would have
been required to report that to the Board and the Board would
have been required to report that to the Security Council.
But, they didn't. In fact, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei
has reported to the Board on numerous occasions that IAEA
inspectors have found no "indication" that Iran now has, ever
had or intends to have a nuclear weapons program.
So, what did the IAEA "find" back in 2002.
In the process of negotiating an Additional Protocol to the
existing Iranian Safeguards Agreement, Iran voluntarily told the
IAEA back in 2002 that, as a result of the United States forcing
Russia to cancel the sale of a turn-key gas-centrifuge plant –
to which the Iranians had an "inalienable right" to acquire and
operate under the NPT – the Iranians had been attempting to
construct gas centrifuges of similar design. Furthermore, once
they had constructed several thousand and got them to work, they
planned to construct a uranium-enrichment pilot plant and,
eventually, construct a commercial scale uranium-enrichment
plant at Natanz.
But, contrary to Charbonneau and the neo-crazies, under the
Iranian Safeguards Agreement as it then existed, the Iranians
were not obligated to tell the IAEA about any of that activity
until they began processing "source or special nuclear
materials" for introduction into those gas centrifuges.
So, why were there IAEA "seals" on those uranium-conversion
facilities? Well, the Iranians had volunteered to suspend all
such activities, for the duration of the EU-Iranian
negotiations. Since the facilities were all already Safeguarded,
the IAEA was "invited" to verify the suspension.
But, the IAEA is not a party to the EU-Iranian talks.
So, what could the Board possibly report to the Security
Council? That the EU and Iran hoped to conclude an agreement
that "will provide objective guarantees" that "Iran's nuclear
program is exclusively for peaceful purposes" and that it "will
equally provide firm guarantees" to Iran "on nuclear,
technological, and economic cooperation and firm commitments on
security issues"?
That on March 23, Iran offered a package of "objective
guarantees" to the EU that included a voluntary "confinement" of
Iran's nuclear programs? That the EU never responded to the
Iranian offer? That the EU never offered Iran "firm commitments
on security issues"?
That the Iranians decided to end their voluntary suspension of
Safeguarded activities and had so informed the IAEA?
None of that is any of the IAEA's business. So why report it?
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico.
[WorldNetDaily.com]
webmaster@worldnetdaily.com
*****************************************************************
13 Independent: UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to make A-bomb
"Independent.co.uk Online Edition:
By Anne Penketh
Published: 14 August 2005
The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that
Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining
a warning of possible military action from President George
Bush.
The US President told Israeli television that "all options are
on the table" if Iran fails to comply with international calls
to halt its nuclear programme. Both the US and Israel - the
Middle East's only nuclear-armed power - were "united in our
objective to make sure Iran does not have a weapon", he said.
However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results
of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's
authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not
developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of
weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003
set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that
Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil
programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium
enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.
But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful
purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from
the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan.
He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.
The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by
the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the
traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The
investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a
Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.
The new information, which strengthens Iran's case after last
week's contentious IAEA board meeting in Vienna, will be a
central part of the next report to the board by Mohamed
ElBaradei, the IAEA chief. "The biggest single issue of the past
two years has now fallen in their [the Iranians'] favour," the
diplomat said. The meeting of the 35-nation board, which ended
last Thursday, urged Iran to suspend the uranium-related
activity at its Isfahan plant, which many fear will be the first
step towards building a nuclear weapon.
The resumption of uranium conversion at the plant last week
caused an international crisis and prompted Britain, France and
Germany, which have been attempting to find a negotiated
solution to the dispute, to call the emergency IAEA meeting. In
its resolution concluding the meeting, the board also asked Dr
ElBaradei to report back by 3 September. Hardliners on the board
- including Britain, the United States and Canada - had hoped
that Dr ElBaradei's next report would be sufficiently damning to
increase the pressure on Iran.
However those hopes will be dashed by the revelation about the
IAEA analysis of the particles from Pakistan, which will remove
any chance of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council.
But the IAEA is not closing the book on its investigation of
Iran's possible weapons programme. A team of IAEA experts
arrived in Iran on Friday to pursue other outstanding issues,
but they are unlikely to be resolved by the time Dr ElBaradei
reports to the board.
The three European countries are fast running out of options, as
there is no appetite among non-nuclear states on the IAEA board
to report Iran to the Security Council for punitive sanctions,
when there is no legal basis to do so. Iran, which agreed to
suspend its uranium conversion during the talks with Britain,
France and Germany, insists on its right under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful
purposes.
The Iranian authorities restarted Isfahan after rejecting a
package of security and economic incentives submitted to Iran 10
days ago by the three countries which sought a binding
commitment that Iran would not pursue fuel cycle activities.
"It's difficult to see things moving ahead if Europeans think
that every country can have enrichment facilities except Iran,"
one Western diplomat said.
Dr Ian Davis, the director of the British-American Security
Information Council (Basic), an independent nuclear thinktank,
said that if the Europeans were prepared to compromise on the
fuel cycle issue, "the negotiations may yet prevent a crisis".
However, a Foreign Office spokesman insisted that a new round of
negotiations scheduled with Iran for 31 August would go ahead
only if Tehran again suspended uranium conversion. "There are no
talks with no suspension," the spokesman said.
Iran, sensing that it is gaining international support for its
stand and with a new hardline President in power, also looks as
if it is in no mood to compromise at this point.
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Calls for EU Talks on Enrichment
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 14, 2005 1:31 PM
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top Iranian nuclear official on Sunday
called for negotiations with Europe on its uranium enrichment
plans but said Iran will never again suspend its conversion of
uranium ore into gas.
Last week Iran rejected a U.N. nuclear agency resolution that
urged it to stop converting uranium at its facility in Isfahan,
central Iran. Conversion is a step before enrichment, for which
Iran has built facilities in Natanz.
``The Isfahan issue is over. What is left on the table for
discussion is Natanz,'' the deputy head of the Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told state television.
``We definitely have plans for Natanz in the near future,''
Saeedi said. He did not give any timeframe.
Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed only at producing
electricity, but the United States accuses it of secretly
intending to build nuclear weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
15 Xinhua: More IAEA inspectors arrive in Iran
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-14 03:48:00
TEHRAN, Aug. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- Four more inspectors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived here Saturday
to monitor Iran's nuclear activities, the semi-official Mehr
news agency reported.
The inspectors are due to visit Iran's various nuclear sites
including the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, and hold
talks with officials of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization,
the report said.
They will also present their findings to IAEA Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei for a report on Sept. 3 on Iran's
compliance to the latest IAEA resolution adopted on Thursday,
the report added.
On Monday, a group of inspectors arrived at Iran's uranium
conversion facilities in the central city of Isfahan to install
surveillance equipment, which allows the IAEA to supervise
Tehran's performances after its resumption of sensitive nuclear
activities.
Iran restarted part of the facilities soon after the
inspectors finished installing some of the equipment Monday
afternoon. Regardless of warnings of the European Union (EU) and
the United States, Iran unsealed and fully restarted Isfahan
facilities on Wednesday.
The IAEA Board of Governors on Thursday approved a
resolution on the Iranian nuclear file, which voices "serious
concern" over Iran's recent resumption of uranium conversion
activities and urges Iran to "re-establish full suspension of
all enrichment-related activities."
The resolution also requests ElBaradei to provide a
comprehensive report on the implementation of Iran's
Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement and the resolution
by Sept. 3.
Iran has rejected the resolution as politically motivated
and tyrannical but voiced readiness to continue talks with the
EU and cooperation with the IAEA.
Iran suspended enrichment activities last November under an
agreement reached with the European trio of Britain, France and
Germany in Paris one month earlier, but insisted that the
suspension be a "voluntary and temporary move" for confidence
building and subject to resumption under Tehran's will.
The EU trio has been trying but in vain to persuade Iran to
permanently halt uranium enrichment activities in order to
provide objective guarantees that its nuclear research will not
be used for military purposes.
The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons
secretly, a charge denied by Tehran. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Fills Cabinet With Hard-Liners
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 14, 2005 1:46 PM
AP Photo NY107
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's new president nominated a Cabinet on
Sunday that has hard-liners in all key ministries and is likely
to lead to more confrontation in the country's dispute with the
Washington and Europe over its nuclear program.
Also, a top Iranian nuclear official called for negotiations
with Europe on its uranium enrichment plans but said Iran will
never again suspend its conversion of uranium ore into gas.
Not one of the 21 ministers that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
nominated is known to be pro-democratic reform in Iran. The
nominees, who have to be approved by parliament, are widely seen
as followers of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a
noted conservative who has the final say on all state matters.
The proposed foreign minister is Manouchehr Mottaki, a
conservative lawmaker who has criticized Iran's nuclear
negotiations with the Europeans, saying the country should adopt
a tougher position and make no concessions.
Several other proposed ministers are either members of the
Revolutionary Guards, or have a history of cooperating with the
Guards and security agencies, which take hard-line positions on
Iran's nuclear program.
If new Cabinet is confirmed, it is expected to adopt more
aggressive positions with the Europeans, who have been trying to
persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program to avoid
being taken to the U.N. Security Council by the United States.
Washington alleges that Iran has a secret plan to build nuclear
bombs - a charge Tehran denies.
A former hard-line deputy intelligence minister, Mostafa
Pourmohammadi, was named as interior minister. Ahmadinejad named
as intelligence minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehei, a cleric
whom reformist journalists regard as an unyielding opponent of
press freedom.
The proposed Cabinet contained only one member of the outgoing
government of former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who
tried to moderate the Islamic social code and build bridges to
the West. The centrist politician Mohammad Rahmati remained as
transportation minister.
``All those who worked against Khatami's reformist agenda have
now been nominated to sit in the government,'' the reformist
writer Ali Reza Rajaei said. ``Most of them are either former
military commanders or people in close touch with security
agencies.''
Political analyst Saeed Madani agreed, saying that the
appointment of people associated with security forces to
executive positions would retard Iran's progress.
``The list means Iran will behave more secretly in its dealings,
both with the nation and the international community,'' he said,
adding it would also put greater emphasis on security.
There are no women in the nominated Cabinet. Khatami, who was
president from 1997 until this month, did not appoint women to
his Cabinets, but he appointed two women as vice presidents.
Ahmadinejad named his close ally Ali Saeedlou as oil minister.
Saeedlou was Ahmadinejad's deputy when he served as mayor of
Tehran until the June elections.
Ahmadinejad has promised to purge the hierarchy in Iran's oil
administration. Outgoing Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh was
at odds with some of the hard-liners who backed the new
president in his election campaign.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
17 Telegraph: Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant
Monday 15 August 2005
telegraph.co.uk
By Colin Freeman
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
An Iranian foreign policy official has boasted that the regime
bought extra time over its stalled negotiations with Europe to
complete a uranium conversion plant.
In comments that will infuriate EU diplomats, Hosein Musavian
said that Teheran took advantage of the nine months of talks,
which collapsed last week, to finish work at its Isfahan
enrichment facility.
Technicians working at the Isfahan uranium conversion facility
"Thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year
in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan," he told an
Iranian television interviewer.
Mr Musavian also claimed that work on nuclear centrifuges at a
plant at Natanz, which was kept secret until Iran's exiled
opposition revealed its existence in 2002, progressed during the
negotiations.
"We needed six to 12 months to complete the work on the
centrifuges," said Mr Musavian, chairman of the Iranian Supreme
National Security Council's foreign policy committee. He made
his remarks on August 4 - two days before Iran's foreign
ministry rejected the European Union offer of incentives to
abandon its uranium enrichment programme.
Critics of the regime will see his comments as confirmation that
Iran never contemplated giving up its programme, despite
top-level diplomacy involving Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary,
and his French and German counterparts.
The US was always pessimistic about the talks' chance of
success. Yesterday President George W Bush refused to rule out
using military force to press Iran into giving up its nuclear
programme, which Washington suspects is a front for
weapons-making. "All options are on the table," Mr Bush told
Israeli television.
Mr Musavian, whose remarks were translated by the Middle East
Research Institute based in Washington, was responding to
criticism from Iranian hardliners that Teheran should never have
entered into the EU negotiations.
He said that until then, Iran had dealt solely with the
UN-backed International Atomic Energy Authority, which had given
it a 50-day deadline to suspend uranium enrichment on pain of
referral to the UN Security Council.
"The IAEA give us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment
and all related activities," he said. "But thanks to the
negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we
completed the [project] in Isfahan."
The plant, about 250 miles south of Teheran, carries out an
early stage of the cycle for developing nuclear fuel, turning
yellowcake into UF4 and then into UF6, a gas essential to
enrichment.
"Today, we are in a position of power," Mr Musavian said.
"Isfahan is complete and has a stockpile of products." Mr
Musavian also said that Iran had further benefited from
sweeteners offered by the EU, including the invitation to enter
talks on Iran joining the World Trade Organisation.
Iran is facing possible referral to the Security Council after
scientists began breaking seals at the Isfahan plant, a
precursor to resuming the research it agreed to suspend during
the EU talks.
The Foreign Office declined to comment on Mr Musavian's
rem-arks. Last week it said Iran made a "serious mistake" by
opting to resume uranium conversion.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, is due to report on
Iran's renewed nuclear activities on September 3, which could
trigger a Security Council referral.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms &Conditions
*****************************************************************
18 Reuters: Tests appear to back Iran on nuke traces -diplomat
Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:33 PM ET
By Francois Murphy
VIENNA, Aug 14 (Reuters) - Tests by the U.N. nuclear watchdog
appear to confirm that traces of weapons-grade uranium found in
Iran came from abroad, reinforcing Tehran's assertion it does not
seek atomic weapons, a diplomat said on Sunday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said the issue
of contamination is one of two main outstanding questions in its
two-year investigation into Iran's nuclear programme. Tehran
insists the programme is peaceful, but Western countries suspect
it may be a front for developing nuclear weapons.
An analysis of Pakistani components for enrichment centrifuges
identical to ones Iran bought on the black market appear to back
Tehran's assertion that traces of bomb-grade uranium were the
result of contamination, a Western diplomat familiar with the
IAEA said.
"There's still some final corroboration to go on but all the
preliminary analysis does show that the particles seem to have
come from Pakistan," he said, adding that the final result was
unlikely to change as a result of work still outstanding.
This appeared to confirm earlier results, reported by Reuters on
June 10, that also suggested Tehran did not produce the
highly-enriched uranium itself.
Asked whether this cleared up the contamination issue, the
diplomat said: "More or less. The contamination issue will never
be 100 percent clear."
The IAEA declined to comment.
JURY STILL OUT
Diplomats say several other questions about the nature of Iran's
nuclear programme remain, including the extent of its work with
advanced P-2 centrifuges and the scope of its experimentation
with plutonium, which is usable in an atom bomb.
"All declared (nuclear) material in Iran is under verification,
but we still are not in a position to say that there is no
undeclared nuclear material or activities in Iran," IAEA chief
Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters after an emergency meeting of
the IAEA's governing board last week.
"With regard to the country as a whole, the jury is still out,"
he added.
France, Britain and Germany called the emergency IAEA board
meeting after Iran said it would resume uranium conversion -- the
step before enrichment, a process that purifies uranium to levels
at which it can be used in power stations or bombs.
Iran resumed conversion last Monday and broke U.N. seals on
machinery on Wednesday to make its conversion plant near the
central city of Isfahan fully operational.
The 35-nation IAEA board reacted by urging Iran to resume a
suspension of nuclear work usable in an atomic bomb programme,
including conversion, and expressed "serious concern" at Iran's
move.
The trio of European states and Iran are due to meet at the end
of August, in hopes of defusing a crisis in which Iran has
rejected a European package of economic and political incentives
aimed at convincing it to abandon sensitive nuclear technology.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
19 MNA: IAEA cannot legally force Iran to suspend uranium conversion
- Esmaeili
2005/08/12
[ src=] Print version [ src=]
VIENNA, Aug. 12 (MNA) -- Tehran Times and Mehr News Agency
Managing Director Parviz Esmaeili said on Thursday that there is
no legal means to force Iran to suspend its uranium conversion
activities at the Isfahan plant.
In an interview with Iranian state television at the
International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna,
Esmaeili said that the European Union has violated the terms of
the Paris agreement.
Some political analysts in Vienna believe the EU’s position
toward Iran is baseless and empty, he noted.
The IAEA Board of Governors approved a resolution on Thursday
calling on Iran to resume the suspension of all nuclear fuel
related activities and asking the agency to verify Tehran’s
compliance.
So far, Iran has adopted logical approaches and cooperated
transparently with the IAEA, Esmaeili said.
Iran has no reason to return to a state of suspension, and
indeed there are numerous legal avenues for the country to
continue its nuclear activities at the Isfahan Uranium
Conversion Facility, he emphasized.
“Iran should ignore the resolution, since it has ridiculously
called the country’s voluntary measure (in suspending uranium
enrichment related activities) essential, and should arrange
talks with Europe on restarting enrichment at the Natanz
complex,†Esmaeili added.
“The IAEA can never obstruct our activities in Isfahan
technically or legally, since it cooperated with Iran --
although with some delay -- in re-launching the UCF and removing
its seals.
“This just shows that the agency regards the action as
Iran’s right and cannot support efforts to refer Iran to the
UN Security Council. In fact, Iran’s activities in Isfahan do
not run counter to the IAEA Charter or international law.â€
In the Paris pact, Iran agreed to continue its suspension as
long as there was progress in the talks, he noted.
“We even gave three and afterwards five more months to Europe
to show our goodwill, but they responded by making insulting
proposals and asking Iran to renounce its rights. Therefore,
since both Iran and Europe currently agree that no progress was
made in the talks, Iran has the right to break the
suspension.â€
Iran and Europe had also agreed to resolve various issues
through dialogue and not at the IAEA Board, but the EU clearly
violated the Paris agreement by calling for an emergency meeting
of the IAEA Board of Governors, he added.
HL/HG
End
MNA
© 2003 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
20 MNA: Iran rejects IAEA resolution, says decision irreversible
2005/08/12
[ src=] Print version [ src=]
TEHRAN/VIENNA, Aug. 12 (MNA) –- Expediency Council Chairman
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Friday that Iran's decision to
resume uranium conversion is "irreversible"
Iran resumed work at Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF)
on Monday.
In a sermon at Friday prayers in Tehran, Rafsanjani called the
resolution on Iran recently approved by the UN nuclear watchdog
“unfairâ€. Foreign Ministry also rejected the resolution on
Iran on Thursday, saying it was "politically motivated" and
passed under pressure from the United States and its allies.
In a resolution issued on Thursday, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors asked Iran to resume its
suspension of all nuclear fuel related activities and asked the
agency to verify Tehran’s compliance.
The resolution was initially drafted by Europeans and supported
by U.S. and its allies.
“We advise Western countries not to deal with industry and
science in this manner, since they can never rob the Iranian
nation of this great right,†said Rafsanjani.
"Do not take lightly what happened at the IAEA," he warned.
"It is very important and will create new conditions for our
country and the region. It will turn a new leaf in the history
of our revolution.
“The 35 nations of the IAEA Board, some supporting Iran, spent
two days conferring, but finally what the three European
countries (Britain, Germany, and France) and the United States
wanted was approved and no one objected,†Rafsanjani pointed
out.
“The IAEA Charter clearly says that Iran has the right to make
peaceful use of nuclear energy, and we are currently preparing
to enrich the uranium that exists deep in our lands in order to
use its energy for scientific purposes.â€
Iran accepted supervision even before approving the additional
protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he noted.
“So far, Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA has been beyond
what is required. We even halted our activities to win
confidence, but we never thought they would declare that Iran
should suspend all its nuclear activities.â€
The major powers think they have succeeded in suppressing Iran,
Rafsanjani said, adding, “Israel and the United States even
talked about attacking the country.
“But they are mistaken, for they should bear in mind that they
cannot treat Iran like Iraq or Libya.
“The Westerners can drag things out, but Iran's decision is
irreversible.â€
Resolution is politically motivated
"This resolution is politically motivated and has been approved
under pressure from the U.S. and its allies and is void of any
legal or rational basis and (therefore it) is unacceptable,"
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.
"By ratifying this resolution, the three European states have
acted contrary to the spirit of the safeguards agreements, the
negotiations conducted during the past two years, and the Tehran
and Paris agreements," the Foreign Ministry spokesman added.
"While the activities of the Islamic Republic have always been
peaceful and carried out under the supervision of the IAEA, the
approval of this resolution puts the efficiency and independence
of the agency under serious question," Asefi stated.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has not given up its legitimate
rights and places emphasis on the peaceful utilization of
nuclear technology, as before," he explained.
On Thursday, a senior Iranian nuclear official rejected the
resolution, calling it unacceptable. "Iran cannot accept this
resolution," Iran Atomic Energy Organization Deputy Director
Mohammad Saeedi.
Annan: nextstep on Iran nuclear issue may be meeting in New York
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday he will use
September's UN General Assembly to bring Iran's new leader
face-to-face with his Western critics if no deal on Tehran's
nuclear program is reached by then.
Top officials of Britain, France and Germany, dubbed the EU3 for
their long-standing negotiations with Tehran, are supposed to
next meet Iranian officials at the end of August.
But if there is no session, "We will use the General Assembly to
bring them together. It will be a way for all of us collectively
to talk to them," Annan told Reuters in a brief interview.
The United Nations intends to hold a summit, which Iran's new
president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, is expected to attend, in
mid-September followed by a foreign ministers' session.
Annan has some hope that Ahmadinejad will be flexible, after
speaking to him on Monday. "He indicated to me that they want to
stay with the negotiating process. He has new ideas and
initiatives he wants to put forward," the secretary-general
said.
Annan also called on Iran to suspend nuclear fuel work.
"The (IAEA) has spoken with one voice and the secretary general
expects its resolution to be implemented," Annan said through
his spokesman.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said however that he saw a "window
of opportunity" for talks since both sides remain willing to
negotiate.
ElBaradei said the two sides were scheduled to meet in Paris at
the end of August and "I hope that meeting will go through."
French representative Philippe Thiebaud told the board the
Europeans "are willing to continue discussions (with Iran) in
the framework of the Paris agreement" but were also ready to
consider "any proposals or new ideas" from Iran.
U.S. President George W. Bush welcomed the resolution as "a
positive first step" and said U.S. strategy was to work with the
Europeans "so that the Iranians hear a common voice speaking to
them about their nuclear weapons ambitions."
EU diplomats said if Iran did not comply they would ask the
board to refer the matter in September to the 15-member UN
Security Council, which can take punitive action. But
indications are that the IAEA board is divided on
seeking Council involvement.
Council members Russia, China and Brazil, who have seats on the
IAEA board, are cool toward council action as are developing
nations, questioning whether
Iran has yet violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Big mistake
Sirus Naseri, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, said on
Wednesday that the United States and the EU would be making a
"big, big mistake" if they referred Iran to the UN Security
Council for resuming sensitive nuclear activities.
Naseri stated that there was no legal basis for a referral after
Tehran broke UN seals at the Isfahan UCF.
"I think that would be a grave miscalculation by the U.S., and
particularly by Europe, to move towards the path of
confrontation," he told the BBC's "News Night" program.
"It will be (a) big, big mistake."
Iran restarted work in areas of the Isfahan plant on Monday
after rejecting a nuclear proposal from the EU3 to scrap its
uranium enrichment program.
Naseri told the BBC the seals were removed after talks with
Europe ended in "disappointment and despair".
"We did not do this as an act of intimidation," he said. "We
want to have an agreement on this, and because of this we
suspended our activities for two years."
He noted that Iran has a "legal right" to produce nuclear
energy. "This is not a security issue, it is a commercial
issue," he said.
"What we have been trying to do is see whether it would be
possible to continue our enrichment activity with an agreement
and through an agreement with Europe.
"It seems, with the offer that the Europeans made, that is no
longer a possibility, at least not for the time being, and
therefore we have no other alternative but to do what is our
right."
Naseri told reporters, "Iran will not bend. Iran will be a
nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade."
"What is absurd is that a decision is passed here which betrays
(the IAEA's) ability to verify that a peaceful facility remains
peaceful," he said.
Tehran had voluntarily halted work at the Isfahan UCF in
November 2004 as a goodwill gesture to kick-start nuclear
negotiations with the EU.
Naseri said Iran has the right to carry out fuel cycle work for
peaceful purposes under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and refuses to abandon such activities. Any future talks
would have to be on this basis, he added.
He went on to say that "operations in Isfahan will continue
under full-scope safeguards" and that Iran was fully within its
rights.
Naseri also announced that Iran would maintain its suspension of
enrichment activity at another facility, in Natanz, "to keep the
door open for negotiations."
HL/HG/MS
End
MNA
© 2003 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
21 Mehr News: Oil embargo best response to nuclear boycott
MehrNews.com - Iran, world, political, sport, economic news
Tehran Times Opinion Column, Aug. 14, By Hassan Hanizadeh
TEHRAN, Aug. 13 (MNA) -- Thursday’s resolution of the
International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, issued
under pressure from the United States and the European Union big
three, actually indicated that the status of international
organizations, including the IAEA, has declined seriously in the
face of the blackmail of the neocolonialist powers.
The resolution was ratified despite the fact that the Islamic
Republic had proven its good faith and observed all IAEA
regulations.
Unfortunately, under the tutelage of the U.S., the EU trio of
Britain, France, and Germany drafted an unfair resolution against
Iran by fostering disunity among the member states of the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
The resolution, which violates the terms of the Tehran and Paris
accords, was ratified to meet the objectives of the Zionist
regime and the United States.
Many political analysts say the IAEA resolution also violates the
terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because the NPT
states that signatories have the right to access nuclear
technology meant for peaceful purposes.
The double-standard policy applied by the U.S. and other Western
countries to the nuclear issue and other global issues is one of
the most significant challenges facing the modern world.
Although several countries, including the Zionist regime,
Pakistan, and India, are producing nuclear weapons, and most of
them have conducted nuclear tests, the United States and its
Western allies are trying to deprive Iran of its right to gain
access to civilian nuclear expertise.
This double standard on international issues obliges NAM members,
including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to review their relations
with the West.
The U.S. and other Western countries are making use of the
natural resources of various countries, including the fossil fuel
resources of the Middle East, to power their military and
civilian industries.
The continuation of the unequal relationship between Third World
countries, particularly Muslim countries, and the U.S. and other
Western countries, which have adopted an unfair attitude, will
never benefit the countries of the global South.
Therefore, the oil-rich countries, including Iran, which possess
the most significant pressure lever, should wisely use this tool
to punish the Western neocolonialist countries.
Oil is the lifeline of the West, and most of the West’s
military industries are dependent on it. Therefore, it is the
most potent economic weapon for settling scores with
neocolonialist countries.
The Iranian nation clearly has the right to stand up to the
dictatorship of the EU3 and the U.S., and the best act of
resistance would be to impose an embargo on oil sales to those
countries.
Iran is a country with great potential to respond to Western
meddling.
Therefore, after consulting with some OPEC countries, Iran should
propose plans to confront the hegemonistic actions of the West.
Islamic countries must unite and formulate a political strategy
to respond to Western neocolonialist countries, since the efforts
to prevent Iran from accessing nuclear technology are the first
step in the plan to prevent other Islamic and Third World
countries from developing this vital technology.
SA/HG End
MNA
© 2003 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Won't Stop Uranium Conversion
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 14, 2005 4:31 PM
AP Photo NY107
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran will never again suspend conversion of
uranium ore, but it is willing to pursue talks with the European
Union about its uranium enrichment program, Tehran officials
said Sunday.
A spokesman also notched up the rhetorical battle with
Washington, declaring that Iranians have the means to defend
themselves should President Bush act on his warning that
military force could be a final option if Iran doesn't halt its
nuclear program.
The comments came as Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
nominated hard-liners for all his key ministries, signaling the
likelihood of an intensified confrontation with the United
States and Europe over the issue.
Iran already rejected Thursday's resolution from the U.N.
nuclear agency urging it to halt the conversion of uranium into
gas at its atomic plant in Isfahan. Conversion is a step before
enrichment, which produces material usable for both
energy-producing reactor fuel and atomic bombs.
After the International Atomic Energy Agency's board issued its
appeal, diplomats familiar with the proceedings said Iran was
being given until Sept. 3 to halt uranium conversion or risk
being referred to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of
sanctions.
Washington and others have long suspected Iran's nuclear program
is intended to develop weapons, and European governments grew
concerned after it was revealed the Iranians had kept parts of
its atomic operations hidden from U.N. inspectors.
Iran denies it is working on nuclear arms, saying the program's
sole purpose is to generate electricity. It insists it has a
sovereign right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to
convert uranium at Isfahan and do enrichment at its plant in
Natanz for peaceful activities.
``The Isfahan issue is over. What is left on the table for
discussion is Natanz,'' Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told state television.
``We definitely have plans for Natanz in the near future,'' he
added, although he did not give a time frame.
The Foreign Ministry's spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, also said
Iran would not stop uranium conversion.
``Work in Isfahan will not be suspended again for confidence
building,'' he said, referring to the suspension of nuclear
activities that Iran imposed last year to allow negotiations
with the European Union to proceed in a good atmosphere.
Asefi said at a news conference that Iran had no set plans for
resuming uranium enrichment in Natanz. ``Europe's behavior will
heavily influence the decision,'' he said.
Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Sirus Nasseri, indicated
Thursday that any talks about enrichment would be about setting
safeguards for operations at the Natanz facility to reassure
those with suspicions but not about closing the plant.
The EU, lead by Britain, Germany and France, has been trying to
persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment program in return for a
supply of nuclear fuel to power reactors and other economic
help.
Iran rejected the offer earlier this month, objecting to the
Europeans' insistence it give up its uranium conversion and
enrichment programs. The IAEA then issued its warning.
On Friday, Bush said on Israeli television that efforts to shut
down Iran's atomic program should rely on diplomacy, but he also
had a veiled warning for the Tehran regime.
If diplomacy fails ``all options are on the table,'' he said.
``The use of force is the last option for any president. You
know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our
country.''
Asefi characterized the comment as part of Washington's
psychological war against Iran and said Iran had its own warning
about any U.S. attack.
``I think Bush should know that our options are more numerous
than the U.S. options,'' Asefi said. ``If the United States
makes such a big mistake, then Iran will definitely have more
choices to defend itself.''
He offered no specifics.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he hoped Iran would
change its mind about its nuclear program, but added that he
opposed any threats of military force.
``I see a military option a high-grade danger,'' Schroeder said
in an interview published Sunday by the Bild am Sonntag
newspaper. ``Therefore I can certainly rule out that a German
government under my leadership would take part in one.''
He said Iran should be allowed to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes, ``but we must ensure that Iran is not put in
the position to be able to manufacture atomic weapons.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
23 Daily Times: REGION: United Nations may break the logjam on Iran’s N-programme
Saturday, December 30, 1899
* General Assembly session may take up the issue
UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday
he will use September’s UN General Assembly to bring Iran’s new
leader face-to-face with his Western critics if no deal on
Tehran’s nuclear programme is reached by then.
Top officials of Britain, France and Germany, dubbed the EU3 for
their long-standing negotiations with Tehran, are supposed to
next meet Iranian officials at the end of August. But if there
is no session, “We will use the General Assembly to bring them
together. It will be a way for all of us collectively to talk to
them,” Annan told Reuters in a brief interview.
The United Nations intends to hold a summit, which Iran’s new
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected to attend, in
mid-September followed by a foreign ministers’ session.
The September summit will be attended by more than 170 world
leaders to chart an approach to development, human rights,
terrorism and proliferation of nuclear arms and UN management
reform for the 21st century.
Many envoys worry that Ahmadinejad, whose previous political
experience is limited to serving as Tehran’s mayor, may lack
experience to deal with a major international crisis.
Western powers fear Iran wants to produce nuclear arms rather
than atomic energy, as its government insists. Annan has some
hope that Ahmadinejad will be flexible, after speaking to him on
Monday. “He indicated to me that they want to stay with the
negotiating process. He has new ideas and initiatives he wants
to put forward,” the secretary-general said.
Council involvement: On Thursday, the Vienna-based International
Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors adopted a resolution
saying Iran must suspend fully all nuclear fuel related
activities and asked the UN agency to verify Tehran’s
compliance.
Iran resumed work at its uranium conversion plant in Isfahan on
Monday. EU diplomats said if Iran did not comply they would ask
the board to refer the matter in September with the 15-member UN
Security Council, which can take punitive action.
But indications are that the IAEA board is divided on seeking
Council involvement. Council members Russia, China and Brazil,
who have seats on the IAEA board, are cool towards council
action as are developing nations, questioning whether Iran has
yet violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Western diplomats do not expect any imposition of sanctions
against Iran in the near future but want to issue a warning
statement. They assume no nation wants to be on the powerful
council’s agenda and be watched, named and shamed. reuters
Home | Foreign
*****************************************************************
24 Guardian Unlimited Bush: All Options Open for Iran Nukes
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday August 13, 2005 5:16 PM
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said
``all options are on the table'' if the Iranians refuse to
comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program,
pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S.
security.
Bush's statement during an interview on Israeli TV late Friday
was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used
to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if that
failed then the U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions.
The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is
secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders
deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.
In the interview, Bush said the United States and Israel ``are
united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a
weapon.''
But, he said, if diplomacy fails ``all options are on the
table.''
``The use of force is the last option for any president. You
know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our
country,'' he said.
Iran's government resumed uranium conversion at its nuclear
facility in Isfahan this past week. The U.N. nuclear watchdog
agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, responded by
issuing a warning to Iran on Thursday that expressed ``serious
concern'' about Iran's intentions.
Bush welcomed the warning, which signaled that the West wanted
to give diplomacy time to ease the standoff.
In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran
faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion or face
possible referral to the Security Council, which has the power
to impose crippling sanctions. The diplomats spoke on condition
of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the
IAEA board's proceedings.
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful, responded
with indignation to the IAEA warning.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited McCain: Iran Military Option Must Be Kept
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 14, 2005 8:16 PM
By REBECCA CARROLL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president must keep open a military option
in dealing with Iran and its nuclear program, Sen. John McCain
said Sunday, calling recent Bush comments appropriate.
``For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to
do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military
option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they
want to do,'' the Arizona Republican said on ``Fox News
Sunday.'' ``So I think the president's comment that we won't
take anything off the table was entirely appropriate.''
Bush said on Israeli TV on Friday that ``all options are on the
table'' regarding Iran, which rejected Thursday's resolution
from the United Nations' nuclear agency urging it to halt the
conversion of uranium into gas.
The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is
secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders
deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.
McCain said one nonmilitary option still open to Bush is to let
the U.N. take up the issue of Iran's ``clear and blatant
violations'' of treaties it has signed. ``Let's see how that
plays out,'' McCain said.
Conversion of uranium into gas, which Iran does at its atomic
plant in Isfahan, is a step before enrichment, which produces
material usable for both energy-producing reactor fuel and
atomic bombs.
After the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its appeal,
diplomats familiar with the proceedings said Iran was being
given until Sept. 3 to halt uranium conversion or risk being
referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
26 Korea Herald: Washington stresses no rift with South Korea
The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
Amid the spider web of negotiations on the North Korean nuclear
standoff, the United States reasserted no rift exists with South
Korea in pushing for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
but remained ambiguous on allowing the North to develop nuclear
energy for peaceful use.
"There's no rift between the United States and South Korea. We
are close allies. We are close partners in a broad bilateral
relationship and particularly in our common approach to
denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula," said Adam Ereli, deputy
spokesman of Washington State Department said Thursday.
Earlier the same day, South Korean Unification Minister Chung
Dong-young, who also heads the National Security Council, told
the Internet's Daum Media that South Korea viewed it as North
Korea's general right to develop nuclear power for peaceful use,
adding that South Korea and the United States saw the situation
differently. The United States has not commented directly on
whether North Korea should be allowed civilian use of nuclear
power.
Top U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill instead has brought up the
issue of North Korea's demand for a light-water reactor,
pinpointing it as one of the main reasons the six-party talks
recessed for three weeks last Sunday.
While both South Korea and the United States are ambiguous to
how North Korea should be allowed to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes, they both oppose recommencing the suspended
construction of a light-water reactor sponsored by South Korea
with U.S. technology until 2003.
Starting a brand new light-water reactor project is extremely
costly and certainly an impossible energy alternative for the
North on its own. A light-water reactor itself is considered
more as a symbol of North Korean access to civilian nuclear
power.
Some speculate North Korea may be using the light-water reactor
demand to buy time in the negotiations, due to reopen in the
week of Aug. 29 in Beijing.
South Korea's deputy nuclear negotiator Cho Tae-yong reasserted
South Korea's position late Thursday night.
"(Our position) is that when North Korea abandons its nuclear
weapons program and returns to the Nonproliferation Treaty and
fulfills the safety guards by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, it can use nuclear for peaceful purposes," Cho said.
The United States has not been opposed to allowing North Korea
leeway to discuss civilian nuclear use as long as it dismantles
all nuclear programs and returns to the international treaty
controlling nuclear exploitation.
It wants to remove the core of the nuclear standoff by stating
clearly in a joint agreement of principles from the six-party
talks that the North will discard all its nuclear programs,
without elaborating on any next steps that would include access
to civilian nuclear energy.
Cho flatly denied some reports that South Korea was getting
ready to persuade other members to the six-party talks to allow
North Korea to pursue peaceful nuclear activities.
Ereli in Washington refused to provide further details on the
U.S. position towards North Korea's demand.
"... our views on civilian nuclear use, our views on the issue
of denuclearization, I think, are very well known and I don't
have any elaboration to make on it," he said.
Asked to clarify unclear remarks and comments from the chief
negotiators and security officials, Ereli said, "Look, this is a
complex negotiation. It's more than one issue; there are a
number of issues out there."
To another question whether the issue of a light-water reactor
was separate from North Korea's ability to maintain a civilian
nuclear program, he brought up once again the history of North
Korea converting a civilian nuclear program for military use on
short notice.
The North's Vice Foreign Minister, Kim Kye-gwan, will visit the
U.S. in the fall to discuss nuclear issues at a Harvard
University program, the professor in charge of the event said.
"I invited Vice Foreign Minister Kim to come to Harvard
(University) to lead a delegation in the fall for further
discussions of the nuclear issue with staffers and members of
the U.S. Senate, and he generously agreed to that," Jim Walsh
said at a Brookings Institution seminar, according to Yonhap
news agency.
Walsh runs "Managing the Atom" at Harvard's Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs that has exchanges with
Pyongyang. He was in Pyongyang in July, just days before the
communist regime announced it was returning to the six-party
talks.
Walsh said Kim has been invited to come to the United States in
October or November.
Kim has not yet applied for a visa, but Walsh said unless the
six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear issue collapse, he
expects the State Department to approve his entry into the
country. Washington and Pyongyang do not have diplomatic
relations.
"I suggested that I in turn reciprocate in the spring with a
visit, again primarily with people from Capitol Hill, to go to
Pyongyang again for further discussions, and that's been
accepted as well," Walsh said.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2005.08.13
*****************************************************************
27 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: U.S. sees no rift with Seoul over stand on North
August 13, 2005 KST 11:34 (GMT+9)
August 13, 2005 ¤Ñ A statement from South Korea's top North
Korea policymaker that Seoul opposes Washington's stand that
Pyongyang should have no right to develop civilian nuclear power
prompted both governments yesterday to attempt to paper over
what is seen as a deep division.
"There's no rift between the United States and South Korea,"
Adam Ereli, a U.S. State Department spokeman, said at a briefing
Thursday in Washington. "We are close allies. We are close
partners in a broad bilateral relationship and particularly in
our common approach to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula."
The six-party nuclear disarmament talks broke up temporarily
last weekend when negotiators failed to resolve whether
Pyongyang could retain a nuclear program with peaceful purposes.
On Thursday, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young publicly
split with the U.S. position. "In terms of general rights, the
right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as in
agriculture and hospitals, and to generate power is something
the North has," he said. "Building light-water reactors is a
general right. It's a North Korean right. This is different from
the United States' position."
Mr. Ereli, however, said South Korea, the United States, Japan,
China and Russia ¡ª all particpants in the six-country talks
along with North Korea ¡ª have agreed that a light-water reactor
project in the North, called the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization, or KEDO, should be abandoned. North
Korea has demanded that the work be resumed to complete the
non-military nuclear reactors.
In Seoul, officials were busy yesterday seeking to close the
split.
"After giving up nuclear weapons programs, returning to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and respecting international
nuclear safeguards, the North should be able to pursue peaceful
nuclear activities," Cho Tae-yong, the Foreign Ministry aide who
heads Seoul's North Korea nuclear crisis task force, said. "We
also believe the light-water reactor project should be ended."
Mr. Cho said that the North should not be allowed to pursue
uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing and uses of graphite
moderated reactors, making clear that strings are attached to
allow Pyongyang's civilian nuclear programs.
A diplomatic source in Washington said Mr. Chung's remarks were
being treated with "benign neglect."
by Choi Sang-yeon, Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
28 Washington Times: Seoul nuke stance blindsides U.S.
South Korean delegates walk past a monument for the former North
Korean leader Kim Il Sung on their way to Inter-Korean
working-level military talks at Panmunjom truce village
yesterday. (AP)
By Bill Sammon
August 13, 2005
The Bush administration yesterday scrambled to repair a rift
with South Korea that opened when Seoul proclaimed that North
Korea has a right to develop nuclear energy.
"When we saw those comments, phone calls were made," said a
senior administration official who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. "We want to remain on the same page" with South
Korea.
The source reaffirmed U.S. opposition to North Korea's
nuclear ambitions, including the ostensibly peaceful development
of nuclear-generated electricity.
But that position is now at odds with remarks made Thursday
by Chung Dong-young, Seoul's unification minister and National
Security Council chairman.
"Our position is that North Korea has a general right to
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as for agriculture,
hospitals and electricity generating," he told Daum Media, an
on-line news site. "We have a different view to the United
States."
Mr. Chung's comments, which appeared to catch the United
States by surprise, were echoed later Thursday by South Korean
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who will visit Washington next
week.
Mr. Ban said Pyongyang should be allowed to build
nuclear-power plants if it rejoins the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) and readmits inspectors from the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to South Korea's Yonhap
news wire.
Yesterday, South Korea emphasized that it would not give its
blessing to a North Korean nuclear-energy program until
Pyongyang jumps many hurdles.
"Our official stance is that North Korea would be able to
engage in civilian nuclear activities if and when it gives up
weapons programs, returns to the NPT and observes IAEA
safeguards," Cho Tae-yong, head of the Foreign Ministry's task
force on the nuclear issue, told reporters.
"There is nothing like a rift between Seoul and Washington
on this issue," he added.
U.S. officials say that North Korea was caught, and
admitted, secretly enriching uranium for the development of
nuclear weapons in 2002.
After trading charges over uranium, North Korea went on to
withdraw from the NPT, kick IAEA inspectors out of the country,
restart a graphite-moderated reactor and reprocess nuclear fuel
into plutonium.
Page 1 of 2 next » | Email | Print
*****************************************************************
29 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Willing to Prove It has No Uranium Program
Home> National/Politics Updated Aug.14,2005 21:56 KST
talks Kim Kye-gwan has said his country could present evidence
that it does not have a uranium enrichment program, as the U.S.
alleges.
"We don't have any uranium-based weapons program, but in the
future if there is any kind of evidence that needs to be
clarified we are fully prepared to do so,¡± Kim told CNN Sunday.
It was a clear conciliatory gesture ahead of the restart of the
talks, which went into recess when Washington and Pyongyang
failed to agree on a statement of principles.
"As we resolve the nuclear issue we are willing to return to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and fully abide by International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards,¡± Kim said. But he also said
Pyongyang ¡°would like to pursue peaceful nuclear energy power
generation, and this is a quite urgent issue that faces our
nation. And this is a very appropriate policy in light of the
economic situation of our country. That is why we cannot make a
concession in this field." The issue proved the main stumbling
block in negotiations because the U.S. has been adamant that
North Korea cannot be trusted with a nuclear program of any
kind.
"If someone is concerned with regard to our possible nuclear
activities which could lead up to the manufacture of nuclear
weapons out of the operations of a light-water nuclear reactor,
then we can leave the operations under strict supervision,¡± Kim
said. ¡°The U.S. itself can participate directly or it can pick
a nation it trusts."
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
30 Reuters: NKorea willing to prove it has no uranium scheme -CNN
Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:44 AM ET
SEOUL, Aug 14 (Reuters) - North Korea is willing to prove it
does not have a uranium-based nuclear programme, CNN quoted the
country's top negotiator to six-party nuclear talks as saying.
Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan also said his country could
not give up the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme, CNN
reported from Pyongyang on Sunday.
"We don't have any uranium-based weapons programme, but in the
future if there is any kind of evidence that needs to be
clarified we will be fully prepared to do so," Kim was quoted as
saying in the report posted on the television network's Web site.
He said Pyongyang was willing to accept inspections by
Washington but stopped short of saying whether it would do so in
order to break a deadlock in the current round of negotiations.
North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and
China broke from talks in Beijing on Aug. 7 after failing to
agree on a set of principles to end Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions
in return for aid and security guarantees.
The countries will reconvene in the week of Aug. 29.
Kim said his country was in urgent need of electricity, which it
hoped to secure with nuclear power plants.
"If someone is concerned with regard to our possible nuclear
activities which could lead up to the manufacture of nuclear
weapons out of the operations of a light-water reactor, then we
can leave the operations under strict supervision," he said.
"The U.S. itself can have direct participation or the U.S. can
pick a nation that they trust."
A U.S. claim that North Korea has secretly operated a
uranium-based nuclear programme and the North's insistence on a
civilian nuclear power programme were the most contentious issues
at the six-party talks.
Construction of two light-water reactors in the North by an
international consortium remain suspended and is likely headed
for demise after Washington accused Pyongyang of breaking a 1994
pact. The North accused the United States of breaching the deal.
Washington wants to see all nuclear programmes removed
irreversibly from the North, and has offered better relations and
aid in return. Pyongyang has said it wanted the removal of what
it saw as a threat of a U.S. nuclear attack at the same time.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 The State: Time to revisit opportunities of
08/14/2
AMERICAS ENERGY FUTURE is built on unsteady ground.
Petroleum and natural gas are both getting more expensive, as
worldwide demand rises quickly. They also must increasingly be
imported, often from unstable or unfriendly countries. These
fuels, along with coal, release the gases that are believed to
increase global warming and other environmental problems. With
economic growth pushing Americas demand for energy higher, the
nation must ensure that it can meet future needs. To do that, we
must end the logjam that has prevented the opening of any new
nuclear power plants for more than two decades. South Carolina
is well-positioned to be at the head of new nuclear expansion.
The rising price of a barrel of oil has been the headline-maker,
but all major fuel costs are headed upward. Booming,
industrializing economies such as China and India are straining
energy supplies worldwide. Many of these fuels come from regimes
that foster anti-American attitudes, or even attacks. Others are
simply too politically unstable to be reliable, especially when
tight supplies magnify any problems. Americas energy future
should not be totally dependent on calm in the Middle East or
Central Asia.
Our energy solution also cannot depend on sending ever more
carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If our dependence on
fossil fuels for transportation and electricity continues to
increase, climate change is likely to be demonstrated as much
more than a theory. Nuclear powers ability to generate without
worsening the greenhouse effect has caused some in the
environmental movement to reverse their opposition recently.
• CONTAINING THE RISKS
Nuclear power uses uranium, which the United States can produce
in abundance. It also, of course, requires abundant caution.
Reactor designs must make a meltdown as unlikely as possible
and, as a fail-safe, contain radiation in the worst case. While
U.S. reactor production has been stalled, reactor designs have
still been improving. New plans include gravity as a safety
measure in case of a major problem, water would flow down into
the reaction chamber, cooling off the core. In short, new
reactors will be better and safer than what has come before.
Still, the problem of nuclear reactor waste will continue. It
must be contained safely for thousands of years. We still
believe the best option is the repository at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada, which seems certain to remain stable for millennia.
Certainly, storage there is preferable to the current answer:
keeping containers of waste next to hundreds of active reactors,
many near populated areas. The environmental threat of carbon
emissions far outweighs the smaller risks of a rational nuclear
waste disposal policy.
Central storage of waste would address another risk of nuclear
power: terrorism. New reactors and facility security would have
to be designed to withstand attack. Reactors are reinforced
structures by nature. Still, adequate planning is necessary to
make nuclear plants, new and old, uninviting targets.
• SOUTH CAROLINAS OPPORTUNITY
Many of these concerns also highlight why South Carolina offers
a prime locale for a new nuclear power plant. The proposal is to
build one inside the Savannah River Site. That location would
provide intrinsically excellent security and community safety.
SRS is one of six sites being considered for the first two new
nuclear plants, which would be built by a consortium of power
companies.
South Carolina should have an edge in this competition; the
state already has seven active power reactors, supplying more
than half of its electricity. Our congressional delegation is
unanimous in support of the project. The project also would tie
in nicely with the states potential to take a lead in
developing hydrogen as a power source of the future. The
proposal includes a small research and teaching facility.
Nuclear power could offer a way, free of fossil fuels, to
produce the needed hydrogen.
Nuclear power provides about one-fifth of Americas electricity.
Even with a crop of new reactors, it wont solve our energy
problems alone. America needs a broad effort to find cleaner,
more secure sources and to waste less of what we have. Meeting
future challenges will require ambitious efforts and tough
actions. Some, such as nuclear power, this White House favors;
others, such as considerably higher vehicle efficiency
standards, it opposes. But America needs a whole slate of better
answers on energy. On balance, nuclear powers benefits make it
one part of the solution.
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
32 Rediff: Pak vows to impove N-capability
PTI
Pak vows to improve nuclear, missile capabilities
K J M Varma in Islamabad | August 14, 2005 19:03 IST
Marking its 59th Independence Day, Pakistan on Sunday vowed to
improve its nuclear and missile capabilities while asserting
that the resolution of the Kashmir issue was 'a must for durable
peace' in South Asia.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz hoisted the national flag at an
indoor auditorium in Islamabad due to security concerns.
Without directly referring to India, he said in his speech that
Pakistan would continue the process of improving its nuclear and
missile capabilities to keep pace with the changing scenario in
the neighbourhood, a day after Information Minister Sheikh
Rashid stated that the country was on course to develop a
1000-km-range missile.
"The most recent example is the successful test-firing of Babur
cruise missile. It is a great responsibility to safeguard our
independence. Pakistan today is a nuclear power and no one can
cast an evil eye on our beloved country," Aziz said.
+ Pakistan test fires nuclear cruise missile
He said regional peace is directly linked to justice and
fair-play. "Solution of the burning issue of Kashmir is a must
for durable peace in South Asia. Its resolution must reflect
aspirations of the Kashmiri people."
On the occasion, President Pervez Musharraf said the nation
should reject elements who want to drag Pakistan into darkness,
referring to his campaign against extremism.
"I appeal to the nation to reject the retrogressive elements
politically and socially as they are opposed to progress," he
said.
Information Minister Rashid told a public meeting in Rawalpindi
on Saturday night that after the successful test of 500-km range
Babur cruise missile, Pakistan was developing yet another
missile with a range of 1000 km, local news agency
Online reported.
After the test-firing of the cruise missile, Pakistan would
further develop its missile capability, he said.
In his address on Sunday, Aziz said Pakistan's defence
capability is a guarantee of peace and regional balance of power
and all resources would be provided to strengthen this
capability.
He also said Pakistan is trying to promote friendship and
cooperation with India with a view to addressing all issues.
The composite dialogue process is proceeding ahead, he noted and
hoped that India would adopt a 'positive attitude to
sustain it'.
Aziz claimed that Pakistan is pursuing an independent foreign
policy and would make every possible contribution for
regional peace and security.
While appealing to discard the obscurantist forces, Musharraf,
who on Saturday night sang and danced along with top
musicians and artists to the tunes of patriotic songs at a
function at the President's House in Islamabad, said the August
12 cruise missile test was a gift of the 'talented' scientists
to the nation on the Independence Day.
"Nobody should harbour any doubts that Pakistan has come to stay
-- we shall make Pakistan a strong country," he said at the
function telecast live by the state-run PTV.
The General, dressed in trendy ethnic clothes, danced for a
while on stage along with his wife Sehba and Prime Minister
Aziz and other top officials to the tunes of patriotic songs.
7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile!
© Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
Copyright © 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 Sunday Herald: Nuclear Powerplay -
By Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor
When US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld makes a joke its not
always easy to know if he expects people to laugh or be scared.
The subtext has to be examined as well as the punch line and
when the body language is all smiles the warning light should
switch to amber: Rumsfeld likes living on the edge.
There was an all-too-familiar moment in Washington last week
when he addressed the press on the question of Iran and accused
the regime of being unhelpful by allowing weapons to be smuggled
into Iraq.
The other factor was the countrys recent defiance in pushing
ahead with the development of its Isfahan nuclear plant,
following the decision to break the security seals installed by
the International Atomic Energy Agency. Asked if his criticism
of the country implied a threat, Rumsfeld retorted: I dont imply
threats. You know that.
As it turned out, the crisis failed to materialise when the IAEA
passed a resolution calling on Iran to suspend its programme for
uranium conversion at Isfahan and call a halt to its work on the
enrichment of uranium for its fledgling nuclear power industry.
British and European diplomatic sources described the result as
a strong consensus-based resolution which sent a clear message
to Tehran and which avoided direct con frontation, but their
counterparts in Washington are not holding their breath.
The hawks in the Bush administration would have preferred
passing the issue to the United Nations Security Council, and
imposing sanctions on Iran, as a first step to curbing the newly
elected regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
What the second step would be is not difficult to imagine. Stung
by the failure to contain Saddam Hussein and the intelligence
blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the
hawks are determined not to allow Ahmadinejad to defy the rest
of the world by building up a nuclear arsenal.
According to assessments produced by the National Intelligence
Council (NIC), Iran is about 10 years away from constructing
nuclear weapons and although President Bush continues to
maintain that all options are on the table, it is clear that the
hawks in the military favour a pre-emptive strike on Irans
nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.
As a US diplomatic source put it: We have the right to be highly
sceptical and to act according to our best interests. If Saddam
was punished for illegally attempting to build weapons of mass
destruction, we cant sit and play possum while the Iranians do
the same.
Playing possum could also involve the Israelis. There are
persistent rumours that Israel could act as a proxy by
destroying Irans facilities on the pretext that they threaten
regional stability and are in breach of IAEA resolutions.
The US has recently supplied the Israeli Defence Force with new
bunker-busting bombs, capable of penetrating the stoutest
defences and during Ariel Sharons most recent visit to
Washington, the Israeli prime minister called on the US to take
action against Irans growing nuclear programme. The Israelis
certainly have the experience to carry out such a raid: in 1981,
they attacked and destroyed Iraqs nuclear power station at
Osirak, cleverly flying in their strike aircraft under the
screen of a civilian airliner.
However, what makes this scenario unlikely is the charge of
hypocrisy that would accompany it. Not only would an Israeli
attack on an Islamic country cause outrage and further
destabilise the relationship between the West and the Muslim
world at a time when it is already dangerously stretched by the
terrorist bombing campaign in London, but as Norman Solomon, the
controversial author of War Made Easy: How Presidents And
Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death, points out, Israeli
complicity in any attack would undermine the US in its attempts
to win hearts and minds in the Middle East.
Unlike Irans government, Israel is not even a signatory of the
Non- Proliferation Treaty, he says. With a nuclear bomb
stockpile estimated at more than 200 warheads, Israel is
fuelling the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But from the
White House to Capitol Hill to newsrooms across the US, the
Israeli nuclear arsenal draws scant mention, let alone criticism.
That conundrum lies at the heart of the US response to both Iran
and North Korea, the other rogue country pushing ahead its
nuclear programme. Sixty years after the first atomic bombs were
exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US clings to its
policy of restricting nuclear weapons to a handful of countries,
in accordance with the philosophy laid down by President Dwight
D Eisenhower in 1953 who was determined to solve the fearful
atomic dilemma by ensuring that the miraculous inventiveness of
man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his
life.
Doing that has proved harder than Eisenhower might have
expected. At present, seven countries are known to possess
nuclear weapons under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, signed in 1968 to regulate the possession of nuclear
weapons the US (5300 warheads), the United Kingdom (185
warheads), France (350 warheads), China (400 warheads), Russia
(7200 warheads), Pakistan (48 warheads) and India (60 warheads).
A further four countries are thought to be on the cusp of
production or already in possession of weapons Israel, Iran,
North Korea and Ukraine and 20 countries have either stopped
development or possess the facilities to develop weapons but for
various reasons have not proceeded.
These include Libya, which forswore the production of nuclear
weapons last year, and Canada, which has the uranium reserves
and capability but has never developed weapons. In 1994,
Kazakhstan returned more than 1000 nuclear weapons to Russia
after the break-up of the Soviet Union and became a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
For the time being, Iran remains the most significant problem
for the US. It has been given until September 3 to comply with
the IAEA resolution and it is clear that the Iranian
administration has been thrown into confusion by the speed and
seriousness of the demands. Ahmadinejad is less than a fortnight
into office and his response will influence the direction he
wants to take. On the one hand, he is known to be keen to
co-operate with the IAEA, but on the other he does not want to
be seen to be bowing to external pressure, not least from the
US.
Earlier this year, Irans ambassador to Britain, Dr Seyed
Mohammad Hossein Adeli, produced the reasonable argument that
Iran has a right to continue its conversion and enrichment
programme, for its nuclear industry, as part of the countrys
diversification of its energy needs and that attempts to halt it
were not only unfair but ungrounded.
At the same time, however, the US remains suspicious that the
same programme will be used to begin the manufacture of nuclear
weapons.
The impasse is complicated by the presence of Russia, which
regards Iran as an important strategic partner and is keen to
provide it with nuclear technology through its Scientific
Research and Design Institute of Power Technology.
Moscows point of view is quite straightforward: it argues that
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and
that, so far, no convincing evidence has been produced by the
IAEA to indicate that Iran has embarked on a programme of
nuclear arms production (the IAEAs director Dr Mohamed ElBaradei
has merely said that on that point the jury is still out.) As
happens so often in diplomacy, though, nothing is done for
nothing and as a quid pro quo for supporting Irans nuclear
ambitions, Russia wants to co-operate with Iran on a number of
related energy issues, including the development of oil and gas
reserves in the Caspian Basin.
For Ahmadinejad, the Russian connection is both a prop and a
problem. It gives him the background strength to defy the IAEA
but he also knows that resistance or defiance could encourage
the US to pressure the UN to introduce sanctions. Until Iran
produces its response at the start of next month, Washingtons
policy is to support the Europeans secretary of state
Condoleezza Rice is minded to give Ahmadinejad the benefit of
the doubt but that stay of execution cannot last forever. So
far, Rice has been able to rein in those hawks who argue that
engagement and incentives have not worked and that the time has
come for a more robust policy of confrontation and containment.
Critics of the European approach of working with Iran to produce
a peaceful nuclear programme argue that it has failed to
encourage a moderating influence in Tehran, where Ahmadinejads
administration is considered to be conservative and hardline.
In return for positive incentives, the Europeans have failed
signally to build any constituencies within Iran, claims the
Sunday Heralds US diplomatic source. Instead we seem to be
legitimatising the regime by giving it credence, propping it up
and providing tacit support for other rogue states to follow
suit.
That analysis is also applied to North Korea, which has already
announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons and
refuses to be bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Following 13 days of six-nation talks aimed at convincing North
Korea to halt its production of nuclear weapons, the discussions
went into recess last week and are not due to reopen until
August 29. The US envoy, assistant secretary of state
Christopher Hill, hoped that the North Koreans would go back,
think long and hard what to do so that the talks could bridge
the remaining gaps but he will also be looking to China to exert
some influence, even though sources close to Hill acknowledge
that Chinese pressure will be limited.
Ideally the US would prefer a regional solution to what it sees
as a regional problem but that approach is stymied by North
Koreas insistence on one-on-one talks with Washington. Whether
it likes it or not, the US has to take the lead role and make
sure that its two closest allies in the talks, Japan and South
Korea, remain on-side. It also needs to produce a package of
financial, economic and political enticements and free itself of
the scepticism that North Korea is only capable of acting in bad
faith in 1994 the Agreed Framework allowed the exchange of
nuclear technology in return for abandoning the weapons
programme: that has obviously been breached.
But as the Arms Control Association insists in a recently
published discussion document on North Korea, the US has to
build on its experience of 10 years of negotiation and make sure
that it takes place at the highest level: To make progress,
President Bush must take the next step: test North Korea
directly and conclusively. If a positive result materialises,
the President must be willing to invest his personal prestige
domestically and abroad to make and sell a deal with the North.
If the result is negative, having tried the alternative,
punitive options will remain viable, and broader support for
confronting North Koreas continued pursuit of nuclear weapons
may materialise.
As with Iran, the outcome is obvious: if diplomacy and the
carrot fail to achieve a result Bush can always resort to
punitive options. Rice insists that the use of military force
against North Korea is not on the agenda and that the current
round of talks has brought more results than the US has achieved
in 10 years. But all the while there is growing impatience with
both Irans and North Koreas refusal to renounce the technology
which creates nuclear weapons. John R Bolton, Bushs nominee
ambassador to the UN, put the hawks point of view with typical
bluntness: North Korea already has nuclear weapons and if we
permit Irans deception to go on much longer, it will be too
late, Iran will have nuclear weapons.
14 August 2005
© newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
34 Daily Times: VIEW: Why do nations want nuclear weapons? —
Monday, August 15, 2005
Ahmad Faruqui
When nations that are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons
urge others not to acquire them, their voices fall on deaf ears.
Chain-smoking fathers calling on their teenage sons to quit
smoking don’t carry much credibility
On US urging, the European Union is trying to rein in Iran’s
nuclear weapons programme by offering to support its civil
nuclear-energy programme, provided uranium enrichment is
suspended. Nevertheless, Iran is going ahead with its plans to
restart processing uranium at a plant in Isfahan.
Similarly, China and five other nations are trying to rein in
North Korea’s nuclear programme. But North Korea has rejected
the fourth draft agreement that would have provided it with
electricity, food, economic and security guarantees in return
for scrapping its nuclear programme.
One can understand why the terrorists, who attach no value to
human life, including their own, would want nuclear weapons. But
why do nations want such weapons of mass destruction? Everyone
who is observing the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki agrees that they are a bad idea.
Yet the world is awash in nuclear weapons. According to Richard
Rhodes, Russia tops the list with 16,000 warheads and the US
comes in second with 10,000. China, France and China
collectively account for another 1,000, followed by Israel with
200. India and Pakistan together are estimated to have between
50 to 100 warheads and North Korea may have six to eight.
There are three reasons why nations cling to nuclear weapons.
The first is purely military. Even though every politician says
they have no military value, they have some perceived value as a
deterrent. A North Korean official told a US Congressional
delegation in June 2003 that “our purpose in having a deterrent
is related to the war in Iraq”.
Pakistan wants them to ward off an Indian attack. Many credit
Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons for India’s inability
to mount even a limited war in 2002. India’s generals couldn’t
guarantee to their civilian masters that Pakistan would not
retaliate with a nuclear strike in case of an Indian attack,
since General Musharraf had made it very clear that even an
attack in Kashmir would be regarded as an attack on Pakistan. He
reinforced the message by firing three ballistic missiles in
May, causing then Indian defence minister George Fernandes to
say that India was not threatening the sovereignty of Pakistan.
India developed its programme after China exploded a bomb in
1964, just two years after defeating India militarily in the
northeastern Himalayas. China went nuclear to ward off an attack
by the USSR and, of course, the USSR went nuclear to ward off an
attack by the US.
Somewhere along the way, Britain and France got them to ward off
a Soviet invasion. Israel got them to ward off an Arab attack
and came close to using them during the October 1973 war.
Since American’s decision to nuke two Japanese cities 60 years
ago appears to have triggered a chain reaction, a historical
flashback is in order. Why did President Harry Truman bomb
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Some say it was done to compel a
Japanese surrender. There is no question the war ended after the
second bomb was dropped but what if Japan had not surrendered?
Would a third have been dropped? If the Japanese were willing to
fight to the last man in the face of a ground assault and
inflict a million casualties, as some have argued, why did they
fold so quickly?
Stanford historian David Kennedy says President Harry Truman
“regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt
that it should be used”. Neither did Winston Churchill “hear the
slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise”.
While arguing that President Truman’s main aim had been to end
the war with Japan, King’s College historian Lawrence Freedman
adds that the bombing may not have been militarily justified.
President Dwight Eisenhower, who was the Allied commander in
Europe during the war, stated in a 1963 Newsweek interview that
“the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to
hit them with that awful thing”.
Even Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in
his memoirs, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”
In his book, The Bomb: A Life, Gerard DeGroot, a professor of
modern history at the University of St Andrews, believes that
Japan was looking for a way to surrender in June and July. But
there were other considerations — demonstrating American power,
especially to the Soviet Union.
Using the bomb quickly became a test of patriotism. He says that
for most Manhattan Project scientists the bomb was a deterrent,
not a weapon. Physicist Leo Szilard had done as much as anyone
to try to persuade President Franklin D Roosevelt to develop the
bomb because Germany was doing so. But on the day after that
first test, he sent government officials a petition signed by 69
project scientists arguing that using the bomb would ignite a
dangerous arms race and, by damaging America’s post-war moral
position, impair its ability to control the “forces of
destruction.”
The petition was ignored, and Gen Leslie Groves, the senior
military official in charge of the project, began making a case
that Szilard was a security risk. It’s a pattern that would be
repeated often.
The bomb ultimately came to be associated with Great Power
status, and that is the second major reason why nations want the
bomb. Britain, a former great power, is unwilling to let go of
its nuclear arsenal. India, an aspiring great power, sees them
as a ticket for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The third major reason for nations wanting the bomb is economic.
The perception is that possession of the bomb can reduce overall
military expenditure, since it allows for a smaller number of
conventional forces. Of course, there is no evidence that this
benefit has ever been realised, since the acquisition of nuclear
weapons usually triggers a nuclear arms race. For example, every
time India develops a more advanced delivery vehicle or warhead,
Pakistan feels more insecure about the value of its deterrent.
All nuclear aspirants ignore the statement by Presidents Ronald
Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva at their first summit in
November 1985: a nuclear war “cannot be won and must never be
fought”.
But when nations that are armed to the teeth with nuclear
weapons urge others not to acquire them, their voices fall on
deaf ears. Chain-smoking fathers calling on their teenage sons
to quit smoking don’t carry much credibility.
Dr Ahmad Faruqui is director of research at the American
Institute of International Studies and can be reached at
Faruqui@pacbell.net
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
35 Indian Express: Energy independence has to be priority No.1 - Kalam
Monday, August 15, 2005
President A P J Abdul Kalam
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 14: As world crude prices soared to new
heights, President A P J Abdul Kalam, addressing the nation on
the eve of the Independence Day, defined a new goal for India’s
energy policy: Of energy independence.
President Kalam, in his address today, stayed away from political
events that unfolded over the week but based it on international
events and natural disasters in the country in the last couple of
months.
Noting that the ‘‘barrel cost of oil has doubled within a
year,’’ the President called for ‘‘an economy which will
function well with total freedom from oil, gas or coal
imports’’.
‘‘Energy independence has to be our nation’s first and highest
priority. We must be determined to achieve this within the next
25 years.’’ Terming this as a ‘‘national mission’’ that must be
formulated, the President urged that funds be guaranteed and
leadership entrusted without delay.
In fact, Kalam did not limit it to the goal of energy security.
Rather the goal he defined was ‘‘energy security as a transition
to total energy independence’’ for which he outlined a detailed
roadmap, even going into the potential savings the country could
make through increased efficiency.
On nuclear power, Kalam said that a ‘‘ten-fold increase’’ was
needed ‘‘even to attain a reasonable degree of energy
self-sufficiency’’ and it was, therefore, essential to pursue
development using the country’s high thorium reserves.
In his vision on energy, Kalam said that ‘‘by 2020 the nation
should achieve comprehensive energy security’’ and ‘‘by 2030
energy independence’’ through solar power and other forms of
renewable energy; maximum utilisation of hydro and nuclear
power; an, through enhanced bio-fuel production, courtesy
large-scale energy plantations like Jatropha.
While energy security for the nation (ensuring that our country
can supply lifeline energy to all its citizens at affordable
costs at all times) is ‘‘a very important and significant need
and is an essential step forward’’, Kalam said this ‘‘must be
considered as a transition strategy, to enable us to achieve our
real goal that is—Energy Independence.’’
In his address, he made two observations: ‘‘The climate of the
globe as a whole is changing’’ and that the end of the fossil
fuel era ‘‘is fast approaching’’.
While from an energy security angle it’s important ‘‘to secure
access to all sources of energy including coal, oil and gas
supplies worldwide’’, the country should simultaneously
‘‘provide a diverse supply of reliable, affordable and
environmentally sustainable energy’’.
To achieve energy independence, Kalam focused on two sectors:
power and transportation.
Mentioning that ‘‘our annual requirement of oil is 114 million
tonnes’’ and that ‘‘a significant part of this is consumed in
the transportation sector’’, he added: ‘‘fortunately for us (at
present) 89 per cent of energy used for power generation today
is indigeneous’’. But then again, ‘‘the import cost today of oil
and natural gas is over Rs 120,000 crores’’ with prices
‘‘escalating’’.
Kalam said that there was need for ‘‘complete substitution of
oil imports for the transportation sectors’’ and called this
‘‘as the biggest and toughest challenge for India’’. Based on
the results from using Jatropha, he said ‘‘there is a need to
formulate a comprehensive Bio-Fuel Policy’’ for a ‘‘full fledged
fuel for fleet running in the country’’.
‘‘India has the potential to produce nearly 60 million tones of
bio-fuel annually, thus making a significant and important
contribution to the goal of Energy Independence.’’
According to Kalam, the country’s demand for power would touch
400,000 MW by 2030 and this will require significant build-up of
thermal power stations and large-scale expansion of coalfields.
But he added that it was important to change the structure of
energy sources.
‘‘Fossil fuel imports need to be minimised and secure access
(need) to be ensured’’ and at the same time ‘‘maximum hydro and
nuclear power potential should be tapped’’.
‘‘For true energy independence, a major shift in the structure
of energy sources from fossil to renewable energy sources is
mandated.’’ The target for renewable energy should be 20 to 25
per cent as against the present 5 per cent, Kalam said.
He also pointed out that ‘‘our farmers’ demand for electric
power today is significantly high to make solar energy
economical in large scale’’, adding ‘‘there was a need to embark
on a major national programme in solar energy systems and
technologies’’.
© 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
36 Japan Times: Energy myths and illusions
Monday, August 15, 2005
By DAVID HOWELL
LONDON/OSLO -- People like to discuss whether the world is
running out of oil and gas, and the big oil companies round the
world have now joined in with warnings about energy shortages
and the need to retool our economies on a more energy-efficient
basis. And to emphasize their dire warnings, they are currently
predicting huge and immediate rises in the price of gas and oil
in Europe.
But the whole debate between the pessimists -- yes we are
drinking oil faster than we can find it -- vs. the optimists --
no, there is plenty more to be found and extracted -- is really
irrelevant. Energy resources themselves are not the problem. The
problem is the management of the world's vast energy resources,
and all the complex political and economic decisions and choices
and events that surround that management task.
Energy sources available to the human race are unlimited,
however much we use. Nuclear energy is all about politics. But
it can provide enough electricity to warm and light the whole
planet forever, and even to colonize space as well. Fusion, now
being explored, seeks in effect to encase in a bottle the entire
energy equivalent of the sun. Even traditional energy resources,
like coal and oil and gas, exist in quantities so vast that it
would take centuries for the world to run out, if ever, despite
the repeated claims if some scientists that we have "reached the
peak," or are about to reach it.
To take only oil itself, "black gold" as it is called, every
four or five years experts come up with new estimates both of
proven reserves in the ground and, more vaguely, of likely but
unexplored reserves, as indicated by certain geological markers
and pointers.
Until recently the figure for "unexplored" oil reserves was
about 900 billion barrels. The analysts have added that to the
1.7 trillion barrels of proven reserves (mostly in the Mideast)
and divided the total by the amount the world consumes each day,
about 85 million barrels. The answer comes out at about 50
years, although if oil consumption rises at present rates it
would be more like 30 years.
But now in turns out that up in the Arctic areas of the Barent
Sea, the High North as the Norwegians call it, there could be an
other 25 percent of unexplored reserves, pushing that 900
billion figure to something nearer 1.2 trillion.
Hitherto the problem has been how to get it out from under the
ice. Giant platforms on the ice would be much too dangerous. But
along, as always, comes new technology. Drills can now burrow
sideways for miles under the ice and suck out oil from distant
reservoirs, pumping it back to land bases.
Together with the Russians, the Norwegians now think they are
on top of this challenge and in a few years the edge of Europe
will have oil and gas availability that matches the Middle East.
In fact, gas is already being extracted, frozen and shipped to
the ever-thirsty United States. And it is oil and gas not from
the turbulent Persian Gulf region, where anything could happen
any day politically, but from the most reliable, stable and
democratic region on Earth.
This changes the face of world oil politics, invalidates all
those assertions about having to depend more and more on the
unstable Middle East and makes nonsense, yet again of gloomy
views about the oil running out. Leading Asian oil-consuming
economies like Japan can give a sigh of relief that growing
Middle East oil and gas dependence is not, as we have constantly
been told, "inevitable."
If one adds to this vista of plentiful oil the progress of
technology that makes more and more efficient use of oil -- for
instance via the hybrid cars now soaring in popularity -- a
picture emerges in which oil and gas, far from running out,
become the gradual gateway to a cleaner and greener future,
rather than standing in the way of it. The same can be said for
"clean" coal -- that is, coal being burned with the
carbon-dioxide emissions diverted and minimized.
So the real problems of energy supply lie not in the sources,
or in global warming effects, but in the terrifying political
dangers in certain oil-producing regions, in the prospect of
terrorist attacks on complex installations, in the vulnerability
of long pipelines, in lack of timely infrastructure investment
(usually due to wrong economic and price forecasts) and in
misguided decisions by governments and politicians. These are
the points where wise energy planners should be concentrating
and planning to find a way round. That is their duty and what
their peoples have a right to expect.
The present strong oil price is entirely due to a mixture of
these factors on the supplier side, plus very heavy demand from
fast-growing China, and from India, coming on top of America's
ever-rising demand for oil imports. It probably will not last.
Growth will slow, new refineries (a key bottleneck at present)
will come on stream and cleaner and greener alternatives will
provide their share, although very slowly.
Feelings of shortage and energy crisis will doubtless persist
as governments panic, taxes are piled on to energy sales,
political earthquakes occur in sensitive regions. But the one
certainty is that there is no shortage of oil or gas in the
ground and no longer-term shortage of energy at all. It is just
a question of surviving the difficult, and man-made, present.
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former
chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a
member of the House of Lords.
The Japan Times: Aug. 15, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
37 Scotsman.com: Curse of the Kursk still haunts Russia
Sat 13 Aug 2005
MARIA DANILOVA
IN MOSCOW
COMMEMORATIONS were held across Russia yesterday to mark the
anniversary of the sinking of the Kursk, the naval disaster that
still haunts the country after five years, amid accusations that
sailors continue to be sent on "suicidal missions".
The memorials to the 118 submariners who perished when the
nuclear vessel sank came just a week after the nation was
riveted by another submarine accident that demonstrated the
navy's insufficient rescue capacities.
"Where is the underwater technology that the navy authorities
solemnly promised to get into shape after the Kursk?"
Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official government newspaper, asked in
yesterday's issue.
And speaking to reporters at a Kursk memorial ceremony in
Moscow, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, the Russian navy's chief of
staff, admitted that while the navy had bought foreign rescue
gear after the Kursk catastrophe, its navy personnel were not
yet able to operate it.
"No matter how many vehicles we have, there never will be enough
if we can't use them correctly," he said.
Flags were flown at half-mast on Russian ships, as the dead
sailors' relatives and ordinary citizens flocked to Kursk
memorials around Russia to commemorate the victims of the
disaster.
Wreaths were thrown into the water in Vidyayevo, the Kursk's
home port.
In the city of Kursk, home to 16 of the sailors who died on the
submarine named after their hometown, a monument made from the
vessel's scrap was unveiled yesterday and blessed by an Orthodox
priest in an elaborate church ceremony.
Crowds of people, some of them weeping, laid flowers in front of
the monument.
The Kursk nuclear submarine was shaken by explosions and sank
during naval exercises in the Barents Sea on 12 August, 2000.
All of the men on board died.
The incident shocked Russians, not only because the Kursk was
one of the navy's most sophisticated vessels, but also because
Russian equipment was unable to reach the submarine to rescue
anyone, and because for days officials refused foreign offers of
help.
Almost exactly five years later, Russian officials were tested
by yet another submarine's sinking, prompting people to question
whether any lessons had been learned from the Kursk tragedy.
On 5 August, a mini-submarine with seven people on board became
trapped deep under the Pacific, off Russia's eastern Kamchatka
peninsula, and again the Russian navy was unable to reach it or
rescue its crew.
But this time, Russian officials asked for foreign help, and a
British team and their equipment were flown in to rescue the
mini-submarine. All seven men on board were saved.
Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defence analyst, said that
while the Kursk taught Russian officials to ask for foreign
help, the "rescue service isn't working, just as it wasn't
working back then".
"Five years later they are still sending [sailors] into suicidal
missions ... knowing that only foreigners can rescue them," Mr
Felgenhauer said.
While the Kursk sailors' families received financial
compensation from the state, many complained that authorities
have failed to investigate the disaster properly and draw the
necessary conclusions. [ border=]
The Scotsman
*****************************************************************
38 Daily Times: Shaukat reiterates nuclear restraint offer to India
Daily Times - Site Edition Saturday, December 30, 1899
By Khalid Mustafa
HONG KONG: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said on Friday that the
risk of a nuclear exchange and a conventional arms race in the
South Asian region would decrease if India accepted Pakistan’s
offer to set up a strategic restraint regime.
The Pakistani prime minister said this when asked about the role
nuclear deterrence had in the 21st century, as the notion was an
obsolete method to ensure peace.
Addressing a lecture on ‘Pakistan’s Vision for the Asian
Century: Promoting Cooperation for Peace and Development’ at the
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Aziz said that however Pakistan
would maintain a minimum nuclear deterrence to ensure peace in
the region, as it was Pakistan’s nuclear capability and
intervention by important countries that started the Indo-Pak
peace process after India gathered a million troops on its
border with Pakistan in 2001, increasing tension in the region.
“We achieved peace through strength,” he added.
Pakistan was a responsible nuclear country and opposed taking
part in an arms race, he said, adding, “We have the National
Command and Control Authority to ensure the safety and security
of our nuclear installations. We have also enacted legislation
as well as engaged with the International Export Control Regime
to ensure against nuclear proliferation.”
About Dr AQ Khan’s involvement in nuclear proliferation, he said
it was the act by an individual and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) had investigated him. “The AQ Khan chapter
is closed,” he added.
About Kashmir, Aziz said all stakeholders including Pakistan,
India and Kashmiris should sit together and show flexibility,
sincerity and sagacity to resolve the issue to ensure peace in
the region.
He said the Indo-Pak peace process should be irreversible. Asked
why books in Pakistan did not mention the Indus civilisation,
which flourished in the area before the advent of Islam, Aziz
said there was mention of the Indus civilisation in the
curriculum and textbooks. “We have access to our history in the
curriculum,” he said, adding that heritage was the permanent
asset of any country and Pakistan was proud of its heritage.
However, he said Pakistan was rationalising its national
education policy.
About the role of women in Pakistan’s development, Aziz said,
“We have mandated a third of a total number of seats for women
in the local council elections and have allocated a 25 percent
quota for women in parliament.”
He also said good relations between China and Pakistan was
another important factor for peace. Aziz also expressed
Pakistan’s resolve to contribute to the emergence of a new Asian
Order based on the principle of mutual cooperation and peace and
development.
Earlier, during a lunch with businessmen and chief executives of
multinational companies at the Hong Kong Chamber, Aziz said
there was a lot of potential for investment in Pakistan.
In another meeting, Aziz and Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald
Tsang discussed measures to increase economic relations, promote
investment and increase interaction in the private sector.
Agencies add: Aziz told businessmen that the recent bombings in
London and Egypt had “nothing to do with” Pakistan, and vowed to
fight terrorism. “One of the challenges we face is an image
problem,” Aziz told businessmen.
He also said Pakistan was “committed to our security
environment”. “The number of foreigners coming today is the
highest,” he said. He said Pakistan won’t trade freely with
India until their dispute over Kashmir was resolved.
“With India, free trade and investment has to move in tandem
with progress on overall relations, and the main issue is
Kashmir,” Aziz added. “Progress on free trade and investment
will be linked to progress on the issue,” he said.
Separately, Mainland China welcomed Aziz’s visit to Hong Kong
and hoped it would strengthen their relations.
Home | National
*****************************************************************
39 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear energy's future focus of talks
| 08/14/2005 |
This week's workshop in Sacramento will look at Diablo Canyon
and San Onofre power plants' waste storage, aging operating
components and effects on the Pacific Ocean's environment
By David Sneed
The Tribune
As Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant marks 20 years of
operation, the California Energy Commission will hold a two-day
workshop Monday and Tuesday to take a comprehensive look at the
future of nuclear power in the state.
The workshop in Sacramento will be the first time in almost 30
years the state is taking such a complete assessment of nuclear
issues. About an hour at the end of each day of the workshop
will be devoted to public comment.
Energy officials do not know whether any new policies or
regulations will result from the workshop, said Mary Ann
Costamagna, commission spokeswoman.
Thirteen percent of the state's electrical power is provided by
its two nuclear power plants -- Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo
County and San Onofre in northern San Diego County.
The plants have been reliable sources of low-emission
electricity. However, they face several challenges in the coming
years, including radioactive waste storage and expensive
equipment replacements.
Two San Luis Obispo County residents on opposite sides of the
nuclear energy issue will participate in the workshop. Diablo
Canyon plant manager David Oatley will represent Pacific Gas and
Electric Co.
"He will talk about the excellent safety record of Diablo Canyon
and the contribution it makes to the state's electrical needs,"
said Jeff Lewis, plant spokesman.
Rochelle Becker, executive director of the San Luis Obispo-based
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, will argue that nuclear
power should be phased out in favor of renewable energy sources.
"We've had 20 years of nuclear power and waste," she said.
"Twenty years is enough."
The first day of the workshop will be devoted to the biggest
challenge facing nuclear plants nationwide -- storage of the
highly radioactive waste they produce. Both Diablo Canyon and
San Onofre will build aboveground dry cask storage facilities in
the coming years at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars
each.
They are necessary because storage pools at each plant are
filling up and construction of a centralized storage facility at
Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert near Las Vegas has been
repeatedly delayed. The earliest that facility could open is
2012.
The second day will focus on the operating status of the two
nuclear plants. Although the plants are licensed to operate for
20 more years, some crucial components are aging and in need of
replacement.
The most significant are their steam generators. Diablo Canyon's
steam generator replacement is expected to cost ratepayers more
than $700 million starting later this decade.
Both plants also face concerns about earthquake safety, the
threat of terrorist attacks and the effect of the plants'
cooling systems on the ocean environment.
Michael Thomas, with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board in San Luis Obispo, and Peter Douglas, executive
director of the California Coastal Commission, have been invited
to the workshop to discuss the impacts of the nuclear plants on
the state's coastal environment.
State energy officials say it is unlikely any new nuclear plants
will be built in the state in the near future. State law
prohibits the construction of any new nuclear plants until the
federal government provides a permanent place to store the spent
fuel.
The workshop also will explore the complex way nuclear plants
are regulated. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
sole jurisdiction over radiation safety and plant security.
However, the state Energy Commission regulates other aspects of
nuclear power including its economic viability, reliability and
cost to ratepayers.
To participate ...
The nuclear energy workshop is open to the public. Those who
cannot attend can listen to the proceedings via an Internet
broadcast. To listen in, go to www.energy.ca.gov/webcast/.
The public can also call in and participate in the meeting. Call
1-888-323-9686 by 9 a.m. the day of the meeting and ask for call
leader Peggy Falgoust. The password is "workshop."
David Sneed covers environmental issues for The
Tribune. E-mail story ideas and comments to him at
dsneed@thetribunenews.com.
*****************************************************************
40 Washington Post: Calvert Residents Content In Nuclear Plant's Shadow
washingtonpost.com > Metro > Maryland > Calvert Print This
Jobs, Fishing Outweigh Potential Fears
By Amit R. PaleyWashington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 13, 2005; Page B01
The orange-and-white buoys, bobbing slowly in the waters in
front of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, are covered in
block letters that read "DANGER" and "KEEP OUT" and "RESTRICTED."
Pete Dahlberg barely glanced at the signs as he floated a few
hundred feet from the plant in his 21-foot motorboat, Runaway
Ruthy, with his 8-year-old son, Nick, in tow. They hooked
six-inch, neon-green lures onto their poles and cast them into
the Chesapeake Bay in search of rockfish.
[Aboard the Runaway Ruthy, Pete Dahlberg and son Nick, 8, fish
near the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant on the Chesapeake
Bay, which Dahlberg describes as ] Aboard the Runaway Ruthy,
Pete Dahlberg and son Nick, 8, fish near the Calvert Cliffs
nuclear power plant on the Chesapeake Bay, which Dahlberg
describes as "the perfect place to bring the wife and kids."
(By James A. Parcell -- The Washington Post)
"You can't beat the nuclear power plant as a fishing spot," said
Dahlberg, 41, a fishing guide who goes by the name Walleye Pete
and has lived for five years in Calvert County, home of the
plant, 50 miles southeast of Washington. "It's the perfect place
to bring the wife and kids."
Such warm feelings for the plant have transformed Calvert into
something of a national anomaly: a community that has developed
a love affair with what hundreds of other cities and towns have
long regarded as, at best, an eyesore and at worst, a
life-threatening menace.
Residents of this Southern Maryland county like the plant's two
reactors so much, in fact, that they want another. The Lusby
facility is on a short list of six sites that could become the
location of the first nuclear energy reactor to be built in the
United States in 30 years.
Locals here quickly rattle off the plant's benefits: It's the
county's largest taxpayer, biggest private employer and, of
course, a top-notch fishing hole.
Almost no one worries about the possibility of accidents or
radiation leaks. "It doesn't even, like, cross my mind," said
Roxanne Arellano, 18, of Lusby. "You kind of don't think about
it. It's just there, I guess."
That sort of blase attitude might seem strange to those who
began to fear nuclear plants after the 1979 Three Mile Island
accident in Pennsylvania and the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl
facility in Ukraine. The most famous plant for many young adults
is the comically dysfunctional plant on "The Simpsons" that
spawned a mutant three-eyed fish named Blinky.
But those negative images couldn't seem more off base to
Arellano and the other 60 or so locals who spent a recent
scorching afternoon at a swimming pool for Calvert Cliffs
employees and their families on the nuclear plant's 2,300-acre
grounds. Babies in diapers tottered by the edge of the
82.5-foot-long pool, which is ringed by a barbed-wire fence.
Girls in bikinis baked in the sun. Arellano slid into the pool
to teach the children of plant employees how to tread water and
do the backstroke.
The kids splashed in the water, seemingly unconcerned about the
two nearby reactors spitting out 1,700 megawatts of power.
Eight-year-old McKenzie Turpin, though, had a gripe: She is not
allowed to go to the plant on Take Our Daughters to Work Day
with her mom because of extra security since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. "She doesn't like it that President Bush won't let
mommy take her to work," said Raeann Turpin, 33, a computer
analyst at the plant who lives in Huntingtown.
Few people in Calvert County are even that critical of the
nuclear plant. Instead, most praise the facility for reversing
the economic fortunes of this once-impoverished county.
When Calvert Cliffs went online in 1975, the county's total
budget was $6.6 million. The plant's $6.8 million tax payment
the following year more than doubled Calvert's revenue.
"We went almost overnight from being the second-poorest county in
Maryland to being one of the richest," said Kirsti Uunila, the
county's historic preservation planner.
The nuclear plant, which is owned by Baltimore-based
Constellation Energy, pays about $15.3 million in property taxes
-- about 10 percent of the county's revenue -- and employs about
1,000 workers. A third reactor could add as many as 400 jobs and
millions in tax revenue.
Aboard the Runaway Ruthy, Pete Dahlberg and son Nick, 8, fish
near the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant on the Chesapeake
Bay, which Dahlberg describes as "the perfect place to bring the
wife and kids." (By James A. Parcell -- The Washington Post)
That's why county officials were thrilled to learn in May that
Calvert Cliffs is one of six sites that the nation's largest
consortium of nuclear power companies is considering for a new
type of advanced reactor. The consortium, NuStart Energy
Development LLC, plans to narrow that list to two sites by Oct. 1
and apply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for licenses
to build and operate plants there. The group hopes the reactors
will be operational by 2014.
Sipping from a marble-colored coffee mug emblazoned with the
Constellation logo, Board of County Commissioners President David
F. Hale (R-Owings) called for a resolution last month in support
of a third reactor in the county. It was approved unanimously by
the five-member board. Not a single person spoke in opposition.
Board members also praised the plant's outreach to the community.
Calvert Cliffs said its employees raised $330,351 for local
charities last year and volunteered 4,300 hours of time, many of
which were logged teaching public school students about the
plant.
"I do a pro-nuclear power session," said Elizabeth McAndrew, 26,
a senior engineer at the plant who is one of 32 Calvert Cliffs
employees who tutored and taught in the county's public schools.
The nuclear plant also distributes coloring books about
electricity to elementary school children.
As they drifted in the Chesapeake Bay in front of Calvert Cliffs,
the Dahlbergs were a lot more concerned with fish than the
mechanics of nuclear power. Over the years, Pete Dahlberg has
gotten his fair share of jokes about glowing in the dark and
three-eyed fish, but he still doesn't understand why outsiders
don't trust his friends and neighbors who work at the plant.
"Do they think that Homer Simpson's up in the place running it?"
he asked.
Whatever their view of the plant, outsiders continue to come for
the fish at Calvert Cliffs -- some from as far as Boston. During
February and March, when the rockfish are biggest and most
plentiful around the plant, dozens of clients come to fish there
with Dahlberg, who casts his lures near the plant every day.
On a recent morning when temperatures pushed past 84 degrees, the
Dahlbergs pulled up to the huge stream of water being discharged
from the plant, which local anglers have nicknamed "the river" or
"the rips." It reeked of sulfur.
The boat's electronic fish finder lit up. "Look at that. That's
fish!" Dahlberg yelled to Nick. "They're thick under the boat,
buddy. You have about a 20-incher chasing your lure!"
Suddenly Nick, in a tiny, red life vest, lurched forward as he
began reeling in a catch. "Good job, buddy," his father shouted.
The two high-fived in the air.
"It's fun here," Nick said. "It's easier to catch fish than other
places."
Then Nick pointed at the nuclear power plant and asked: "Dad,
what do they do in there?"
"They make electricity, so you can play your PlayStation,"
Dahlberg replied.
Staring down at his untied white sneakers, Nick said, "Ohhhhhhh."
Then he grabbed a shiny lure off the deck and tried to catch
another rockfish.
Copyright1996- The Washington Post Company | User
*****************************************************************
41 canadaeast.com: Ontario unplugs nuclear generators
TP Canadian Business
As published on page C1 on August 13, 2005
Proposed refurbishment of two Pickering units not deemed cost
effective
Canadian Press
TORONTO - Ontario Power Generation said Friday it won't go ahead
with a proposed refurbishment of two units at its Pickering A
nuclear generating facility.
Instead, the province's electricity generating agency said it
will "devote its resources and expertise to maximizing the
performance" of its 10 existing nuclear units.
"For several months we have studied the economics of the
Pickering A Units 2 and 3 return to service, including
third-party reviews," OPG president and CEO Jim Hankinson said in
a statement.
"Our mandate is to operate our assets as efficiently and as
cost-effectively as possible.
We don't see a sound business case for returning Units 2 and 3 to
service." The company's board has advised the Ontario government
of its decision, OPG said.
"The return-to-service project is technically feasible and the
units could be operated safely for several years," Mr. Hankinson
said. "However, the physical conditions of Units 4 and 1 made
them better candidates for return to service than Units 2 and 3."
OPG's nuclear units produced almost 30 per cent of the power used
by the province last year. Its nine nuclear units produced 42.3
terrawatt hours of electricity in 2004, 4.6 terrawatt hours more
than in 2003.
The utility returned the Pickering A Unit 4 to service in 2003
and the refurbished Unit 1 is expected to be in service in
October at a projected cost of about $1 billion.
Units 2 and 3 have been maintained in a safe shutdown state since
December 1997.
Over the next two years the fuel and heavy water will be removed
from Units 2 and 3 and the units will be put into a long-term
layup state, OPG said.
Copyright © 2005 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 The Globe and Mail: Utility abandons Pickering reactor overhaul
theglobeandmail.com
Plan's $2-billion cost not viable, OPG says
By KAREN HOWLETT
Saturday, August 13, 2005 Page A1
BANFF, ALTA. -- The Ontario government's electricity utility has
scrapped plans to restart two of its mothballed nuclear
reactors, at a time when the province is struggling to meet
demand for electricity.
Ontario Power Generation announced yesterday that it is not
economically viable to spend $2-billion refurbishing Pickering
A's unit 2 and 3 reactors. The two units have been maintained in
a safe shutdown state since the end of 1997.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said the decision by OPG has no
bearing on the government's interest in using nuclear power to
help meet the province's energy needs.
"We are not ruling out new nuclear, but we are ruling out old,
uneconomic nuclear wherever we find it," he told reporters in
Banff yesterday, where he was attending the premiers' annual
gathering.
The decision not to restart the two units comes at the same time
provincial and territorial leaders reached an agreement to
develop a pan-Canadian energy strategy. Newfoundland Premier
Danny Williams will chair a council on energy.
Mr. McGuinty said a pan-Canadian approach to energy would be
similar to the way the country built the railway.
"There are too few things that link this country together," he
said.
The committee will consider all viable energy sources to meet
future demand for power.
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord urged his colleagues to
develop a nuclear energy strategy at this week's meeting. He
announced earlier this month that New Brunswick will spend an
estimated $1.4-billion to overhaul an aging nuclear power plant.
The Ontario government's electricity utility has scrapped plans
to restart two of its mothballed nuclear reactors, at a time
when the province is struggling to meet demand for electricity.
Ontario Power Generation announced yesterday that it is not
economically viable to spend $2-billion refurbishing Pickering
A's unit 2 and 3 reactors. The two units have been maintained in
a safe shutdown state since the end of 1997.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said the decision by OPG has no
bearing on the government's interest in using nuclear power to
help meet the province's energy needs.
"We are not ruling out new nuclear, but we are ruling out old,
uneconomic nuclear wherever we find it," he told reporters in
Banff yesterday, where he was attending the premiers' annual
gathering.
The decision not to restart the two units comes at the same time
provincial and territorial leaders reached an agreement to
develop a pan-Canadian energy strategy. Newfoundland Premier
Danny Williams will chair a council on energy.
Mr. McGuinty said a pan-Canadian approach to energy would be
similar to the way the country built the railway.
"There are too few things that link this country together," he
said.
The committee will consider all viable energy sources to meet
future demand for power.
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord urged his colleagues to
develop a nuclear energy strategy at this week's meeting. He
announced earlier this month that New Brunswick will spend an
estimated $1.4-billion to overhaul an aging nuclear power plant.
In Ontario, OPG chief executive officer Jim Hankinson said the
utility could not make a sound business case for returning the
two reactors to service. OPG provides 70 per cent of the
province's electricity supply of about 30,000 megawatts. Its
nuclear units produced almost 30 per cent of the power used by
the province last year. Units 2 and 3 had a capacity of 1,000
megawatts.
Ontario New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said yesterday that
the government has an agenda to have the private sector develop
new sources of nuclear power.
But Energy Minister Dwight Duncan dismissed that, and said Mr.
Hampton is "just out to lunch."
Mr. McGuinty said 9,000 megawatts of new power generation is "in
the pipeline" but he has acknowledged that Ontarians would face
two or three summers of strain before that new generation comes
into service.
The sweltering heat in much of the province this summer has
forced the government to import expensive power from the United
States to meet soaring demand.
OPG said it has been studying the economics of returning units 2
and 3 to service for several months. It said it found that while
it was "technically feasible" and they could be run safely for
several years, their physical conditions would make them too
expensive to repair.
"OPG's decision on units 2 and 3 is financially prudent and
reflects our objective of keeping our costs as low as possible,"
Mr. Hankinson said.
In late 2003, the provicial government fired the top three
executives of OPG for botching the restoration of the unit 4
reactor at the Pickering A station, which was years late and
millions of dollars over budget.
The utility returned unit 4 to service in 2003 and the
refurbished unit 1 is expected to be in service in October at a
projected cost of about $1-billion. On a high-demand day, the
province consumes 25,000 megawatts of electricity, while on
off-peak days it uses between 16,000 and 18,000 megawatts.
Separately, OPG also reported that it earned $63-million, or 25
cents a share, in the three months ended June 30, compared with
a loss of $42-million, or 16 cents a share, a year ago.
Globeandmail.com
+ © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Globeandmail.com:
*****************************************************************
43 i-Newswire.com: The ecological effects of the Chernobyl disaster
Press Release And News Distribution -
Nearly 20 years ago Reactor number 4 at Chernobyl exploded,
sending radiation across a large region of what is now the
Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Some 40 radionucleotides were
released into the environment, including Strontium 90 (90Sr) and
Cesium 137 (137Cs). Yet despite radiation levels dangerous to
humans, most natural areas in the region have rebounded, and by
ecological standards, are functioning normally. The session,
organized by James Morris and Timothy Mousseau (University of
South Carolina, US) will reveal how the environment has
responded -- from genetic mutation rates, to plant and animal
communities, to nutrient cycling.
(I-Newswire) - Sergey Gaschak ( International Radioecology
Laboratory, Ukraine ) will open the session with his
presentation, "Determinants of levels of 90Sr and 137Cs in birds
in Chernobyl." Studying 228 birds of 23 different species
captured in Chernobyl, Gaschak and colleagues from the
University of South Carolina ( US ) and University Pierre et
Marie Curie ( France ) measured the birds' levels of radioactive
strontium and radioactive cesium, comparing migrating
populations with those that remain in the area, as well as
examining age, sex, and nesting preferences to determine the
amounts and types of radiation accumulating in the birds. In the
presentation, Gaschak will discuss how quantities of 90Sr and
137Cs vary with feeding, nesting and migration habits.
Timothy Mousseau will present "Consequences of radiation for
reproduction and survival of barn swallows Hirundo rustica from
Chernobyl." Barn swallows are long-distance migratory birds,
which nest across Europe, providing researchers with numerous
populations to sample. Examining swallows from the Chernobyl
region and Kanev, southeast of Kiev, Mousseau and his colleague,
Anders Moller ( Laboratorie de Parasitologie Evolutive, France
), found reproductive success was significantly reduced for the
Chernobyl-nesting birds. Survival rates, number of eggs laid,
and overall body condition was lower, despite similar nesting
and laying dates.
The radio nucleotides in the area also filter into the soil, and
from there into plants. Animals that consume these plants,
including livestock, then take up the radionucleotides. Viktor
Dolin ( National Academy of Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine ) will
discuss a newly described process of environmental self-cleaning
in the talk, "Biogeochemical cycling of radionucleotide:
Implications for the human food web." Dolin calculated the rate
of 137Cs and 90Srs moving through the environment, then used the
data to determine an ecosystem's ability to "clean" itself of
excess radiation.
Oleksander Orlov's ( Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute )
presentation, "The distribution and cycling of 137Cs in forests
of the Chernobyl exclusion zone," will focus on 137Cs levels in
three 50-year old Scotch Pine forests. Forest litter, moss,
lichens, understory, macromycetes, and canopy 137Cs activity
measurements will be described. Also working in these pine
forests, Vadim Skripkin and colleagues from the Institute for
Environmental Geochemistry, Ukraine and the University of South
Carolina will report their findings on the distribution of 14C
in, "The turnover of 14C carbon in forests of the Chernobyl
exclusion zone."
The final presentation of the session, Ronald Chesser ( Texas
Tech University, US ) will describe the distribution and effects
of radiation doses that hit wildlife that were living in the
area at the time of the accident, as well as how the populations
recovered in the talk, "Temporal trends in radiation doses,
survival, and recovery in wildlife populations at Chernobyl."
Organized Oral Session 7: "Ecological effects of the Chernobyl
disaster: Genes to ecosystems," will take place Monday 8 August
2005, 1:30 - 5:00 PM in Meeting Room 510 A, Level 5, Palais des
congrès de Montréal.
For more information about this session and other ESA-INTECOL
Meeting activities, visit: http://www.esa.org/montreal.The theme of the
meeting is "Ecology at multiple scales," and some 4,000
scientists are expected to attend.
Annie Drinkard
annie@esa.org
Ecological Society of America
If you have questions regarding information in this press
release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a
press release service and not the author of this press release.
The information that is on or available through this site is for
informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular
date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR
Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or
quarter, make sure check the official company website for
accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com
distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of information on or available through this site,
and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that
information or for actions taken in reliance on that information.
Published on:
2005-08-14
*****************************************************************
44 Journal News: Nuclear security review ordered
By GREG CLARY gclary@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
• Starting Sept. 12, representatives from a half-dozen federal
agencies, led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, will
spend four days reviewing security at Indian Point in Buchanan.
• Other agencies Included in the review are: the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the FBI, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast
Guard.
• The 10- to 12-person team will talk to plant employees and
engineers, and to local emergency response and law enforcement
officials.
• The review is part of a comprehensive federal program to
coordinate security updates on key infrastructure sites across
the nation, including more than 70 nuclear sites, thousands of
chemical plants, and telecommunications and banking networks.
(Original publication: August 13, 2005)
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will lead a team of
officials from five federal agencies into Indian Point next
month for a four-day, comprehensive review of security at the
nuclear power plant, part of a new program to strengthen the
defense across 17 sectors of the nation's infrastructure.
The program has started with nuclear plants, agency officials
said, because that sector is one of the most regulated, and it
has a smaller roster of sites than the chemical or
telecommunications industries.
Indian Point is eighth on the list of more than 70 nuclear sites
that are scheduled to be reviewed in the next 18 to 24 months.
Homeland Security officials said that position was a function
only of schedules and plant availability, not specific concerns
about security at the plant in Buchanan.
"We look upon it as kind of an unprecedented coordinated effort
by federal agencies in partnership with local and private sector
folks to look at critical infrastructure and consider the
potential consequences of an attack," said William Flynn,
director of the agency's protective security division. "We'll
also look at the response capability not only of the owner, but
also the local law enforcement and the emergency response
groups."
Flynn said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the FBI, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard will send experts as
part of the 10- to 12-person teams conducting the review.
Indian Point became a frequent target of critics following the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Opponents cited security
concerns and called for the plant to be shut down. The plant's
owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, has defended its ability to
keep the plant and its surrounding communities safe.
Efforts have been made to boost security at Indian Point and
other nuclear power plants since the attacks.
In September, federal legislation passed that allowed security
guards at New York state's nuclear power plants to use deadly
force to prevent sabotage at the sites, and that put a patrol
boat on permanent duty off Indian Point's shores.
In its report on the attacks, the federal 9/11 Commission last
year confirmed that Mohamed Atta, who piloted one of the planes
that hit the World Trade Center, "considered targeting a nuclear
facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New
York."
The plant was not identified, but the report stated that the
terrorists' test flights included trips along the Hudson River
air corridor, where Indian Point is based. Entergy has
repeatedly said that even though the plant did not make a
logical target, millions has been spent since 9/11 to improve
security.
More recently, two power outages knocked out the plant's
emergency notification sirens, prompting Entergy finally to
agree to install a new backup power generation system.
Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, yesterday said his company saw
the federal visit as "an opportunity" to determine how the
plant's security stacks up and figure out ways to improve it.
"It's an opportunity to spend time with security experts from
the Department of Homeland Security and get their views or
criticisms on the security that we have now," Steets said.
"We've been reassured by a variety of things, like the
assessments that have been done in the past and the
force-on-force exercise, but this is another opportunity to show
our capabilities and perhaps learn some things about how we can
even further enhance our security."
Homeland Security officials would not speak specifically
yesterday about which security issues would be reviewed, other
than to say the list would be comprehensive and include
employees, engineers, local law enforcement and emergency
officials.
"We'll look at issues that would be inside the facility, and we
will look at things that are in the buffer zone, the area around
the facility, to see where a potential terrorist attack would
take place and what we could do to devalue or deflect that,"
Flynn said. "We want to make it less of a target of opportunity."
Agency officials said there would be similar reviews of the
nation's chemical and natural gas plants, as well as
transportation systems, banks, drinking water sources and other
sectors.
Flynn said he expected three separate teams to fan out across
the nuclear sites, reviewing about one each per month until the
list was exhausted.
No cost estimates for the program were available from Homeland
Security officials late yesterday.
Anthony Sutton, Westchester County's director of emergency
services, figures to play a key role among local officials when
the federal regulators arrive next month. Sutton said he
welcomed the review.
"This will bring a new level of awareness to all the different
responders here," Sutton said. "NRC ran the security, but
Homeland Security is another set of eyes. It's the difference of
the NRC being on the inside looking out. Now, we'll have
Homeland Security on the outside looking in."
An attempt to reach the environmental group Riverkeeper, a
leading opponent of Indian Point that has been working to shut
down the plant, was unsuccessful late yesterday.
Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
45 RGJ: A lingering cloud Atomic vets: 50 years later
[Reno Gazette-Journal] [Reno
Frank X. Mullen Jr.RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Posted: 8/14/2005 01:50 am
Scott Sady/RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
Peder B. Christiansen, with wife Lois and their wedding picture,
is a veteran of atomic testing at the Nevada Test Site 50 years
ago. He has survived cancer and has anemia and is having trouble
getting benefits.
In 1955, Peder B. Christiansen and about 350 other U.S.
servicemen were ordered to stand on a desert ridge about five
miles from an atomic bomb blast at the Nevada Test Site as part
of what the Pentagon called an effort to dispel the “folklore
and superstition” about atomic explosions and radiation hazards.
“You get an order, you obey it without question,” said
Christiansen, now 72, who has survived colon cancer but still
suffers from anemia, chronic fatigue and forgetfulness that he
blames on his exposure to radiation. “We stood on a ridge with
our backs to ground zero and the blast went off.”
After the hot wind and the shock wave passed, he said, officers
told the Marines to turn around and look at the boiling cloud.
They had no goggles or other protective gear, Christiansen said,
and weren’t issued radiation badges.
“It was like a waterfall of dirt flowing up to the sky,” he
said. “It’s something I’ll never forget, although I forget a lot
of things now. Of my three buddies who stood with me that day,
two are dead of cancer and one so far is healthy. I’m getting
more tired by the day and I worry about what the future holds.”
Christiansen is among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and
sailors deliberately exposed to radiation at atomic bomb tests
in the Pacific, Nevada and elsewhere between 1945 and 1963. At
the Nevada Test Site alone, about 100,000 soldiers, sailors,
Marines and civilian employees took part in atomic battlefield
exercises in the 1950s, according to the Department of Defense.
Some were observers placed as close as a half-mile from nuclear
blasts. The troops marched through fallout, charged mushroom
clouds, “assaulted” objectives at ground zero in helicopters,
flew planes through radioactive dust and worked for hours or
days a stone’s throw from the blast craters. It was practice for
an atomic war that never came, an experiment to prove to
soldiers they could safely operate on a nuclear battlefield,
according to military documents.
Christiansen said he is one of the lucky ones because he
survived cancer and has a 10 percent disability rating from the
Veterans Administration, although the VA has rejected his
appeals to increase his $108 per month payments as his health
deteriorates.
No relief
Of the almost one million men and women exposed to bomb
radiation while in the military, about 400,000 are now dead and
many of the surviving 600,000 are sick, according to the
National Association of Atomic Veterans, an advocacy group.
Those who have veterans’ benefits had to fight hard for them,
advocates and veterans said.
“Getting help for atomic veterans is a tough proposition,”’ said
Joseph R. Scamihorn, service officer for AMVETS in Reno, a
regional agency that helps veterans apply for federal benefits.
“Anything to do with exposure to radiation is complicated and
(the Department of Veterans Affairs) is real slow. It takes
years to process a claim and even then it may be denied. I’ve
seen guys die before they even get an answer about benefits.”
R.J. Ritter of Houston, a Navy atomic veteran and national
commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, said
service members exposed to atomic-bomb radiation have had varied
success in getting VA benefits.
“There’s a lot of roadblocks in place and it’s hard to get
anything done,” Ritter said. “These men served their country
with dignity and pride, and we ought to take care of them when
they are sick. Instead, they keep running into brick walls.”
Providing proof
Some veterans have a hard time proving they were near radiation
because records were classified, inaccurate or lost, Ritter
said. Others like Christiansen have trouble proving their
current ailments are related to radiation exposure so long ago.
“It’s like they are able to prove they were made to stand in the
rain without a raincoat, but they can’t prove how wet they got,”
Ritter said. “It’s a Catch-22...These guys paid their dues in a
big way. To forget about them now just isn’t right.”
Officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have said they
are doing the best they can with limited resources. Last year,
VA officials said they were expediting atomic veterans’ claims.
Regional VA officials in Reno last week declined to be
interviewed for this story. The newspaper submitted written
questions to the officials on Thursday, but received no answers
or local claims statistics by deadline Friday.
While veterans advocates criticize the VA for its glacial pace
in handling claims, they admit the agency is navigating a
complex system that requires evidence that isn’t readily
available.
“It’s really difficult to prove a claim for these folks because
there are so many factors involved,” said Paul Ruprect, a
benefits specialist with the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno.
“It may appear that the VA is just waiting for these guys to
die, but it’s difficult enough to prove that an injury or
illness was manifested while the person was on active duty and
here (with atomic vets) we’re talking about conditions that
didn’t manifest themselves until years later
“You have to go in with enough evidence. That’s all the VA has
to rely on.”
That evidence is often difficult or impossible to gather.
Declassified documents
It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the Department of Defense
began to declassify some of the records of the Cold War atomic
exercises in Nevada and the Pacific.
According to the documents, the military feared that troops who
read accounts of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki might be so terrified of radiation that they would be
ineffective during an atomic war. In 1953, a Pentagon briefing
paper noted that soldiers and sailors were subject to “folklore
and superstition regarding atomic explosions ... particularly
effects associated with nuclear radiation hazards.”
The military wanted to gauge the effect of radiation on
building, equipment, ordnance, food supplies, animals and troops
who were exposed to atomic blasts. The declassified documents
show that scientists took measurements of radiation in an effort
to limit the danger to troops, but commanders were interested in
other matters.
In an Oct. 18, 1951 memo, Rear Adm. W.K. Mendenhall Jr., a
senior nuclear weapons official, chided scientists for spending
so much time calculating safe human-exposure limits. Mendenhall
wrote that a field commander isn’t interested in measuring
radiation: “He merely wants to know, can the troops tolerate the
radiation to which they are being subjected for five minutes or
five days.”
Atomic indoctrination
Richard J. Kraske, 69, of Seattle was a Marine in 1955 and
participated in “Shot Bee,” an 8 kiloton atomic blast at the
test site on March 22, 1955, the day before the 1 kiloton
explosion attended by Christiansen. Like Christiansen, Kraske
was stationed at Camp Horno, a part of Camp Pendleton, Calif.
“Our unit was an ABC outfit — an atomic-biological-chemical
warfare unit,” he said. “It really sounded impressive to a
19-year-old kid from Billings, Montana.” He said Camp Horno’s
units were involved in the development of fast-attack helicopter
tactics that were later used in Vietnam.
“They told us we were sent to Nevada to get psychologically
vaccinated against atomic blasts.”
Kraske and the other Marines were in trenches about two miles
from ground zero when the blast went off at 5 a.m. The Marines
then boarded 30 helicopters to assault an “objective” closer to
the explosion site. He said the Marines later toured the site on
foot and saw melted pieces of military equipment and the twisted
remains of the 500-foot tower that had held the bomb.
“I was fine for a long time, but I’ve recently developed an
aggressive skin cancer and have applied for benefits,” he said.
“The experience at the test site is the kind of thing you can
tell your grandchildren about — if you live long enough to meet
them.”
Christiansen, who also trained in helicopters at Camp Horno,
said he is glad he wasn’t ordered to “assault” ground zero.
“I know other guys had more exposure to radiation and I know
there are a lot of guys worse off than me,” he said. “They did
their duty same as I did and now they are looking to the
government to hold up their end of the deal. But it doesn’t seem
to matter how many things you send to the VA, they always seem
to deny the claims.”
Still, Christiansen said he doesn’t resent what the military
ordered him to do 50 years ago. He has only praise for the
Marine Corps, the VA health care system and its employees.
“I don’t know what I’d do without the VA,” he said. “The doctors
and staff in Reno are wonderful. I just have a problem with the
system of handling claims. They seem to go any length to deny
claims and that’s a cop-out. It’s the system, not the people.”
Ritter, the leader of the national atomic veterans group, agreed
the VA claims system needs to change. He said of 280,000 atomic
veterans claims submitted nationally, only 50 were approved at a
50 percent disability level or greater. Under current law, he
said, some types of cancer are “presumptive,” meaning that a
veteran who was exposed to radiation can be presumed to have
developed cancer as a result of that exposure.
But if the veteran’s cancer isn’t on the list, the person must
prove how much radiation he or she was exposed to. That’s nearly
impossible in light of missing, inaccurate or nonexistent dosage
data from 50 years ago, he said.
He said House Resolution 2962, which is pending in Congress, is
designed to abolish the system of “dose reconstruction” that
currently determines the theoretical radiation exposure of
atomic veterans who have filed claims for service-connected
disabilities.
“Atomic veterans are still dying, but it’s on a battlefield of
indecision,” Ritter said.
“We want the whole list of cancers to be presumptive. If you
were there and you are sick now, you should qualify for
benefits.”
He said nothing will happen until veterans speak with “a
clearer, stronger voice” and the public gets involved to
pressure Congress to change the claims procedures. “To just
forget about these guys who did their duty and faced great risks
50 years ago just isn’t right. There must be justice.”
Kraske said he doesn’t fault the military for exposing troops to
radiation when people thought an atomic war might break out at
any moment, but he questions the government’s policies today.
“Back then, they didn’t know what they were doing,” he said.
“And now that it’s clear what mistakes were made, they don’t
want to know.”
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
46 The Indy Star: Feds probing nuclear mishap
August 13, 2005
Feds probing nuclear mishap Damaged gauge at DaimlerChrysler
plant may have exposed workers to low radiation.
By Tammy Webber
Federal regulators want to determine how a nuclear gauge was
damaged at the DaimlerChrysler Foundry on Indianapolis'
Westside, possibly exposing several workers to low levels of
radiation.
The gauge, a cylinder about 4 inches in diameter and 6 inches
deep, somehow overheated July 29, causing part of a lead shield
around the radioactive cesium core to melt and shift, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission spokesman Jan Strasma said Friday.
The gauge emits a periodic beam of radiation that determines
when a tank of molten metal is full.
None of the cesium, a radioactive metal encased in a
double-walled steel capsule, was released. Most of the capsule
still was shielded by the lead, but the part that wasn't, at the
top of the gauge, allowed radiation to escape toward a
second-level steel floor, Strasma said.
Because the gauge is elevated and the radiation was pointed
toward steel, workers in the plant were not at risk and
operations continued normally, he said.
However, several workers who examined the gauge after the
malfunction might have been exposed to radiation, though not at
levels that would cause health problems, NRC and company
officials said.
DaimlerChrysler spokesman Ed Saenz said it is still unclear how
the gauge overheated.
"We have to complete our own investigation," Saenz said, "but
the gauge shouldn't have gotten hot under regular conditions."
The foundry, 1100 S. Tibbs Ave., manufactures cast iron engine
blocks.
Strasma said a manufacturer's representative inspected the gauge
Aug. 2, and the damage was reported to the NRC Wednesday. Three
NRC inspectors arrived at the plant Thursday, Strasma said.
He said inspectors will conduct independent surveys and
assessments of radiation levels and review plans to remove and
replace the gauge. The NRC will issue a report about 30 days
after the inspection is completed.
The gauge has been shut down and could be replaced by the
manufacturer as soon as next week, Strasma said.
Cesium is a soft, silvery-white radioactive metal. The form used
in the DaimlerChrysler gauge -- cesium-137 -- is commonly used
in industrial devices, including moisture-density gauges used in
construction, leveling gauges that detect liquid flow in pipes
and tanks, and gauges that measure the thickness of sheet metal
and other products.
Call Star reporter Tammy Webber at (317) 444-6212.
Copyright 2005 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
47 Salt Lake Tribune: Risk management: Pure luck kept blast from being
catastrophic
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 08/12/2005 11:26:53 PM
HAZARDOUS CARGO
We were lucky.
If the two men who were inside that explosives-laden
tractor-trailer when it turned over on U.S. 6 in Spanish Fork
Canyon Wednesday had been killed, knocked out or just lazy, the
resulting blast could have left a lot more than a 35-foot-deep
crater in the roadway.
As it was, the drivers scrambled out of their overturned cab,
with the help of passers-by who were braver than they knew, then
warned everyone away before the 35,000 pounds of high-explosive
cargo, and the truck's fuel, ignited with enough force to
obliterate the truck, knock a 75-foot-wide hole in the road,
damage a nearby railroad track and start brushfires.
No deaths. Some 20 hospitalized. We were lucky.
If the drivers hadn't been able to shoo everyone away, or if
the confusion had trapped people and vehicles in a traffic jam.
If a nearby truck or train had also been carrying explosives, or
hazardous chemicals. If Amtrak's California Zephyr passenger
train had been due about then.
Shudder. And then shudder to think that, given the untold
number of trucks on the road at any given moment, carrying
anything from explosives to chlorine gas to nuclear waste, it
seems amazing that things like this, and worse, don't happen
more often.
That highway has been upgraded over the years. But it is
still a secondary road through a mountain canyon, and so will
always be a hazardous path for hazardous vehicles.
Especially when, as the Utah Highway Patrol now theorizes, the
driver was exceeding the posted 40 mph speed limit.
The state is in the midst of laying out $110 million worth of
improvements along that stretch of highway, including plans for
detectors that will flash warnings at trucks seen to be going
too fast. That will help.
But the best insurance against such a thing happening again
is insurance.
The underwriters have the incentive and the means to crack
down on trucking firms to better train and police their drivers,
and to enforce their demands by threatening higher rates or
refusing to issue coverage.
Governments cannot reasonably prevent all accidents through
ironclad enforcement or accident-proof roads. But they can make
it clear that the fines faced by sloppy shipping of hazardous
materials are higher than any shipper or supplier wants to
contemplate.
Because the loss of life that may come the next time is
certainly more than we want to think about.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
48 [NYTr] Price to Clean Up Britain's Nuke Sites: #56 billion
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:43:53 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Simon McGuinness
The Independent - 12 August 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article305372.ece
[UK] Taxpayers face #56bn bill for clean-up of nuclear sites
By Saeed Shah
The cost of dismantling and cleaning up Britain's civil nuclear power
stations and infrastructure has escalated by #8bn to at least #56bn, the
organisation given the task reported yesterday.
The increase in costs announced by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) for the 20 nuclear sites that comes under its remit, was
immediately seized upon by critics of nuclear energy, who said the
figures demonstrated that the power source was not economically viable.
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Nuclear
power is an expensive liability with a long track record of huge cost
overruns."
Supporters of the nuclear industry claimed, however, that the NDA study
showed that costs involved were quantifiable and manageable. The Nuclear
Industry Association said that nuclear power was needed in order to have
a balanced mix of energy sources.
The Government has yet to make the politi-cally charged decision on
whether to replace Britain's ageing nuclear power stations with a new
generation of plants.
Andrew Stunell MP, the energy spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said:
said: "This [NDA report] is the first dose of official realism there has
been over the fantastic costs of the nuclear industry. It blows away the
argument for repeating the mistake of relying on nuclear power as the
way ahead to tackle climate change."
Nuclear power currently generates more than a fifth of Britain's
electricity. The NDA is in charge of the clean-up of the 11 "Magnox"
power stations that were the earliest built in Britain - only four of
these are still operational. It is also responsible for a range of other
nuclear facilities involved in nuclear research and processing of fuel.
British Energy also has nuclear power stations that do not fall under
the NDA's authority.
The NDA was only set up in April. Its chairman, Sir Anthony Cleaver,
said that the rise in the estimated cost of the clean-up operations,
from a previous estimate of #48bn to #56bn, was due to greater
understanding of the task and to common standards being adopted across
all the sites, for the first time, to calculate costs.
Sir Anthony warned that even the #56bn figure could go up by a further
#5bn to #10bn if stockpiles of plutonium were reclassified as
liabilities, rather than their current status as assets.
The nuclear body also recommended that the time scale for the
decommissioning of the Magnox stations be drastically shortened. Within
25 years, it aims to have cleared all of these for alternative uses.
Previously, it had been planned to make the sites safe over 10 to 15
years and then to leave them for 60 or 70 years, before returning to
finish the job. Even under the new plan, the clean-up of the huge
Sellafield site would take 75 years, at a cost of #31.5bn, rather than
over a century as was originally envisaged.
Sir Anthony said that taking a large gap between starting and completing
the decommissioning process would mean leaving the problem to future
generations.
"First of all, you obviously don't have that long period where you have
the problem of security and safety in the storage of that material on
the site. A major advantage in addition is the impact on employment. The
current plan assumes after the initial period the level of employment on
those sites goes down almost to zero, then suddenly 60 years later you
have to re-emerge with the appropriate skills to finish the job," he
said.
Next year, the NDA said it would invite bids from companies to begin the
decommissioning process. Sir Anthony said that there were three current
contractors in the sector but he wanted more competition to emerge.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
49 Las Vegas SUN: Report: Some damaged containers expected to arrive at Yucca
August 13, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A small percentage of nuclear waste containers
is expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain with undetected leaks
and cracks, potentially exposing workers at the proposed
repository to high levels of radioactive contamination, the Las
Vegas Review-Journal reported Saturday.
Without special precautions, spent nuclear fuel contained in
these damaged tubes could trigger chemical reactions when
extracted from protective canisters in preparation for long-term
storage, according to an Energy Department study obtained by the
newspaper under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Completed in March by DOE and outside engineers, the study
concluded the department had not fully evaluated the hazards
associated with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor designed
a process for effectively managing it.
"It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking
about this stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and
president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research. "It is truly astonishing that they have not thought
about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a century after serious
work on repositories began."
Earlier this year, DOE officials abandoned a 2010 opening date
for the repository, saying it could be 2012 or later before
Yucca Mountain could begin accepting nuclear waste. The
government plans to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste
at the Yucca Mountain site, located in the southern Nevada
desert about 90 miles from Las Vegas.
"There have been a lot of meetings on this," a DOE official
wrote in an e-mail to the Review-Journal on condition of
anonymity. "You are talking about design, and you can't have a
license application without a design."
The tubes carrying the spent fuel are expected to arrive at
Yucca Mountain at a rate of about 9,000 per year for 25 years.
About 4 percent are expected to have varying degrees of damage,
according to the study.
Most are expected to be identified through reactor records, but
a small percentage, about 0.4 percent, are expected to have
unknown or undetected damage that could allow the fuel to
oxidize and possibly trigger a chemical reaction during the
storage process.
Although the tasks would be handled by machinery and robots,
workers would be present.
The study identified areas to research, including the rates at
which fuel might degrade, the potential exposure risk for
workers and the chances of a chemical reaction.
"The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is
not yet detailed in current design documents, and the related
hazards have not yet been evaluated," the study said.
Among the options considered by DOE is the addition of pools at
the repository to handle damaged fuel rods underwater, a process
currently used at nuclear power plants, according to the
Review-Journal.
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said it appears DOE has overlooked an important safety issue.
DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface
operations, from what we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates
Nevada's opposition to the repository. If DOE decides to install
such pools, it would create questions about earthquake
vulnerability, Loux said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a Yucca Mountain
opponent, said the study proves the project is flawed and should
not move forward.
"At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to
proposed storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from
being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
50 The Observer: US firm to clean up UK's atomic facilities
The Guardian
[UP]
Oliver Morgan
Sunday August 14, 2005
The Observer
British Nuclear Group, the company that dismantles old atomic
sites in the UK, is set to sign a deal with US engineer Jacobs to
decommission Britain's collection of Magnox first-generation
power stations.
The deal, which will see Jacobs take charge of decommissioning
the plants, could be a precursor to a takeover of BNG by a US
player.
Senior industry and Whitehall figures believe that BNG, a
subsidiary of BNFL, is incapable of carrying out decommissioning
projects on its own.
Last week it emerged that BNG believes it spends twice as much,
and takes twice as long, as it needs in the preliminary stages
of decommissioning Magnox plants.
At the same time the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA),
the government body that owns most of the UK's major nuclear
sites and is responsible for overseeing their safe dismantling,
published a consultation paper stating that current plans for an
80-year timescale for each plant should be reduced to just 25.
Jacobs' involvement follows an earlier deal between BNG and
another US player, Fluor, which is advising BNG on safety.
Whitehall sources have indicated that they believe BNG needs a
partner to provide expertise in a number of areas. But it has
emerged that they believe such a partner should take a majority
stake in any such deal - in effect turning BNG over to foreign
ownership.
BNFL, headed by chief executive Michael Parker, has been
state-owned since it was set up in the 1950s to reprocess spent
uranium fuel as part of the UK's civil nuclear energy programme.
It is believed that BNG chief Lawrie Haynes, last week promoted
to the BNFL board, considers such a move inevitable, and
desirable.
Industry sources also indicate that were a partnership sale
agreed, the management of BNG would need to be paid in line with
those operating in the private sector. This could involve
considerable salary and bonus packages.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
51 London Times: Uranium shortage poses threat -
While Britain has no plans to begin building a new generation of
nuclear reactors, pressure has been growing to take a decision
to restart a nuclear programme as a way of cutting carbon
dioxide emissions that lead to climate change and reducing
Britain’s reliance on imported gas.
However, a recent report by the Asia Pacific Foundation of
Canada said that there was likely to be a 45,000-tonne shortage
of uranium in the next decade, largely because of growing
Chinese demand for the metal. Prices for uranium have almost
tripled, to about $26/lb between March 2003 and May 2005, after
being stable for years.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and
Development’s Nuclear Agency’s “red book” — its statistical
study of world uranium resources and demand — the world consumed
67,000 tonnes of uranium in 2002. Only 36,000 tonnes of this was
produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from
secondary sources, in particular ex- military sources as nuclear
weapons are decommissioned.
In 2001 the European Commission said that at the current level
of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42
years. With military and secondary sources, this life span could
be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that
nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the
world’s energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold, then
the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.
Paul Mobbs, an environmental campaigner, said: “It would be
unwise to advocate adopting the nuclear option when we have no
realistic idea of how long the uranium resources will last. We
would very quickly shift from shortages of oil and coal to
shortages of uranium.”
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association,
said: “Increased demand for uranium is going to be a factor, but
the industry believes that nuclear power has served the UK very
well and that we should look at the issue of replacing those
generators that are due to be closed, whether the uranium supply
is plentiful or not.”
China has said that it intends to build 40 new nuclear power
stations by 2020. Last month, Canadian officials confirmed that
China wants to buy Canadian uranium and to participate in joint
mining ventures. Canada is the world’s largest uranium producer.
Uranium mining production peaked in 2001. Experts believe that
it will take more than ten years to open new mines.
Despite a resurgence in interest in nuclear power around the
world, the Government has insisted that British Nuclear Fuels
puts its Westinghouse division, which builds new power stations,
up for sale. The company said that the decision to sell
Westinghouse was prompted by 15 serious expressions of interest
in the past 18 months.
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
52 RGJ: Reid, Ensign forging close ties
[Reno Gazette-Journal] [Reno Gazette-Journal] August 14, 2005
Erica Werner ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted: 8/13/2005 12:43 am
WASHINGTON — The home state of the Senate Democratic leader
might not seem like the best place to be a first-term Republican
senator up for re-election. But Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., is
finding he could hardly ask for a safer haven.
Once bitter opponents, Ensign and now-Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid emerged from a hard-fought 1998 campaign, which
Ensign lost by 428 votes, to forge a close relationship.
Now Reid, in charge of growing the Democratic minority in the
Senate, is signaling that Ensign is one Republican who won’t be
in his cross-hairs.
“We’ve got other places where we’re going to focus our
attention,” Reid said.
“We don’t say anything negative about each other. That’s the
only agreement we have,” Ensign said.
So far, not a single prominent Democrat has shown interest in
the Nevada Senate race. Ensign says potential candidates are
drawn to other races, for governor and statewide offices.
Political analysts also say that Ensign’s popularity and proven
fundraising strength have scared off potential opponents.
But Reid’s apparent reluctance to work against the junior
senator is a major factor in keeping the field clear, analysts
agree.
“The most powerful Democrat in the country is essentially saying
that in my home state, I cannot find a Democrat to run against
John Ensign. I mean, it’s laughable,” said Jon Ralston, a
nonpartisan Nevada political analyst who writes a column in the
Las Vegas Sun and produces a daily political newsletter. “I
guarantee no one has a chance to beat John Ensign without Harry
Reid’s help. And he’s not going to help. ... I think he thinks
that relationship is just too important.”
Asked if he would like to see Ensign beaten, Reid responds: “Oh,
I could always use another Democrat in the Senate.” But he said
that in the absence of a viable candidate to run against Ensign,
the party will focus elsewhere.
With 15 Republican senators up for re-election next year and
Democrats defending 18 seats, Reid has plenty of other races to
worry about. But Nevada political analysts offer another
explanation of his apparent indifference to the one Senate race
in his own back yard: Campaigning against Ensign could be bad
politics in Nevada, where Republicans slightly outnumber
Democrats and voters tend to be independent.
Having opposite-party senators who work well together has helped
the state fight the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump,
get public lands bills and protect the gambling industry. Donors
and voters of both parties appear to like it that way.
“I think that they’re hearing a lot of positive reinforcement
from the contributors and the other spheres of influence in
Nevada saying this is working, don’t screw it up you guys, keep
working together,” said Billy Vassiliadis, a longtime Democratic
consultant in the state.
The Nevada tourists and business travelers who turn out for the
weekly breakfasts Reid and Ensign co-host in the Capitol also
say they appreciate their relationship.
“It is nice to see that on issues where the two senators can
work together, that they do,” Richard Farris, 41, a 7-Eleven
franchise owner from Las Vegas, said at one of the breakfasts
last month. “It’s kind of refreshing.”
Farris said he’s a Republican, but supports Reid — a frequent
phenomenon in the small world of Nevada politics, in which
common interests, like support for gambling and opposition to
nuclear waste, pit the state against the rest of the country
regardless of party allegiance. Ensign’s father, Mike Ensign, a
Las Vegas casino executive, even donated to Reid’s campaign last
year.
That backing from Republicans and independents helped Reid win
re-election to a fourth Senate term last year with 61 percent of
the vote, a welcome change from his near-loss to Ensign six
years before. Turning against Ensign now could only jeopardize
that support, analysts said.
“Politics is still local, and I think Sen. Reid in a Republican
state would probably cause as many problems as he would solve”
by campaigning against Ensign, said Pete Ernaut, a GOP operative
and campaign chairman for Ensign’s successful 2000 Senate race.
“That may play well in Washington, but it certainly doesn’t play
well at home.”
In personal style Reid and Ensign are almost opposites. Reid,
65, is stoop-shouldered and slight, and speaks so quietly his
comments are sometimes barely audible. Ensign, 47, is tall,
good-looking and charismatic.
During their 1998 campaign, Reid mocked Ensign’s background as a
veterinarian, and Ensign ran ads labeling Reid “that old card
shark.” They began mending their relationship after Ensign
conceded defeat, and they now say they have a genuine friendship
that helps the state.
It also helps each of them.
“I respect him, I disagree with him on a lot of issues and we
fight for what we believe in on our various issues,” Ensign told
Nevada visitors at one of their recent breakfasts. “But we never
attack each other personally, we give each other space when we
disagree, and it works out very, very well.”
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co.
Inc.Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
53 AP Wire: Truck carrying low level radioactive material catches fire on I-5
Posted on Sun, Aug. 14, 2005
Associated Press
GRAPEVINE, Calif. - A tractor-trailer carrying low level
radioactive material used to help identify potential oil wells
caught fire on Interstate 5 Saturday afternoon, shutting down
the southbound lanes of the freeway for three hours, but there
were no reports of serious injuries or damages.
The passenger in the truck was treated for smoke inhalation at
the scene. The driver was unhurt. Their names were not
immediately released.
The truck, owned by Houston-based Schlumberger Oil Field
Services, caught fire around 3 p.m., near the Grapevine exit,
about 65 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Fire crews quickly
extinguished the flames.
Kern County hazmat crews were called in after officials
discovered the cargo area of the truck contained materials
identified as radioactive but determined the containers had not
been affected by the fire.
"They were still in their containers. There was no danger," said
county fire Capt. Doug Johnson.
Schlumberger spokesman Steven Harris said the material was
triple encased to withstand extreme heat and pressure.
Radioactive material is commonly used in the oil industry to
identify wells, he said. "We take samples of wells before we
drill into them. The radioactive material is used to see into
the well."
Schlumberger operates oil wells in 80 countries around the
world.
On the Net:
http://www.slb.com/
*****************************************************************
54 Deseret News: Blowing a hole in the road
[deseretnews.com]
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Deseret Morning News editorial
On a highway once considered to be one of the most dangerous in
the nation, a semitruck carrying 35,500 pounds of explosives
overturned Wednesday afternoon triggering a massive explosion,
All that remained on that stretch of U.S. 6 in Spanish
Fork Canyon was a crater, some 70 feet wide and 30 feet deep.
Incredibly, no one was killed, although 10 people were injured.
The explosion started small fires, devastated nearby railroad
tracks and forced the closure of U.S. 6 in both directions.
Excessive speed is believed to be a factor in the accident.
A number of improvements have been made to U.S. 6 over
the years, but it remains a hazardous roadway. Drivers need to
strictly follow posted speed limits because the road is heavily
traveled by trucks and it has steep grades in certain sections.
Anyone carrying hazardous materials needs to be doubly cautious.
Wednesday's incident provides other food for thought.
Utah Department of Transportation and Union Pacific worked
around the clock to repair the damaged road and railway. UDOT
made remarkable progress, considering the blast eliminated an
entire section of road, shoulder to shoulder. The agency was
quick to establish alternative routes for drivers.
The incident exposed a great vulnerability. When a major
route is paralyzed due to an accident, natural disaster or even
acts of terrorism, there are incredible impacts to commerce and
individuals. Utah's public safety officials must be ever
vigilant to deter or minimize incidents of this nature and
develop effective contingency plans. The response to Wednesday's
accident suggests UDOT has made great strides in this area.
Any accident of this nature gives rise to concerns for
the safety of the motoring public. People who motor along the
Crossroads of the West frequently encounter vehicles carrying
hazardous and toxic materials. Most times, motorists are unaware
of the potential threat — until an incident such as the
explosion in Spanish Fork Canyon occurs.
If nothing else, the accident reaffirms the Deseret
Morning News' long-held opposition to creating a disposal site
for spent-nuclear fuel rods on Utah's West Desert. There is a
substantial degree of risk in motoring among semitrucks full of
petroleum products, chemicals, explosives and a limited amount
of nuclear materials. Adding to the existing dangers would be
foolish.
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
55 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Report: DOE hasn't fully studied how to handle damaged fuel
assemblies By STEVE TETREAULT
The Energy Department says it could be 2012 or later before the
Yucca Mountain complex will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel
for burial.
Photo by John Gurzinski.
Work continues on the Yucca Mountain repository, which is years
away from accepting spent nuclear fuel.
Photo by Gary Thompson.
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Thousands of fuel assemblies containing
radioactive nuclear waste are expected to arrive damaged at
Yucca Mountain, including some with undetected leaks and cracks,
posing potential risks to workers and the public, according to a
report prepared for the government.
Handled without special precautions, fuel with damaged cladding
that is extracted from protective canisters and exposed to the
air could trigger chemical reactions, causing gases to escape
and fuel pellets to oxidize into micron-sized dispersible
powders.
The released powders would result in "high levels of radioactive
contamination" in fuel-handling areas of the repository complex,
Energy Department and contractor engineers concluded in a study
completed in March. The Review-Journal obtained a copy through
the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Only months before the department has said it may apply for a
license to build a Yucca Mountain complex, the engineers
concluded DOE had not fully evaluated the hazards associated
with handling damaged fuel at the site, nor designed processes
for managing it effectively.
Experts outside DOE expressed surprise.
"It is rather late in the day for these people to be thinking
about this stuff," said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and
president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research. "It is truly astonishing that they have not thought
about this issue thoroughly a quarter of a century after serious
work on repositories began.
"This is a big deal. It throws one more monkey wrench into the
process of what issues are resolved and not resolved."
The Department of Energy wouldn't provide a representative to be
interviewed about the topic but supplied written answers to
e-mailed questions.
"There have been a lot of meetings on this," a DOE official said
on condition of not being identified. "You are talking about
design, and you can't have a license application without a
design."
The report identified areas where more research was advisable.
They include the rates at which fuel might degrade into powder
form, potential worker doses, and whether under any
circumstances oxidized fuel could provoke a nuclear chain
reaction.
"The process for handling failed fuel in damaged fuel cans is
not yet detailed in current design documents, and the related
hazards have not yet been evaluated," the report's authors said.
DOE managers believe the matter can be addressed, "but it gets
into cost and other things -- like time -- depending on the
design," an official said. "They know what to do. It's a
question of how they want to do it and what will be required.
And I'm sure the schedule has come up."
DOE officials earlier this year abandoned a 2010 opening date
for the repository, saying it could be 2012 and possibly later
before Yucca Mountain could begin accepting spent fuel for
burial.
Among the options DOE is considering, according to officials
familiar with the issue, is adding a pool on the repository
grounds so damaged fuel rods can be handled underwater, as they
are at nuclear power plants.
In its written responses, the DOE said it was planning
"confinement cells that include thick concrete walls and air
locks to protect the worker and the public from exposure to
radiation."
At a June 6 public meeting in Pahrump, DOE official Richard
Craun said managers were working on designing rooms where oxygen
would be pumped out and replaced with nitrogen to create an
inert atmosphere in which to handle problem fuel.
"As a conservative measure, DOE will handle all assemblies in
confinement cells, whether damaged or not, to ensure the safety
of the worker and the public," the department said in its
written replies.
"Operations may occasionally be interrupted to facilitate
confinement cell cleanup. Potential risk to the worker and the
public from repository operations are well within established
federal radiation protection standards."
DOE added it was considering "other design and operational
practices that would further prevent or mitigate the release of
radionuclides. DOE is evaluating the various options described
in the report for inclusion in the license application."
Potential fuel oxidation at Yucca Mountain has become a priority
topic that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring as it
awaits DOE's repository licensing request, Tim Kobetz, an NRC
senior project manager, said at an Aug. 4 advisory board
meeting.
NRC staff is preparing an evaluation of the issue, anticipating
it could be raised during Yucca license hearings.
"Fuel oxidation is definitely a potential risk," said Marissa
Bailey, engineering section chief in the NRC's division of
high-level waste repository safety. "It is something (DOE) will
have to address in the license application."
Nuclear utilities deal with damaged fuel on a regular basis, and
it has been studied extensively, said Dan Bullen, an engineering
risk consultant and former member of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, which evaluates Yucca Mountain science.
Even though Yucca Mountain would be a first-of-its-kind
facility, Bullen said, he believed DOE could minimize risks.
Over 25 years that fuel would arrive at the site, the number of
damaged assemblies would be small, he said.
"If they keep it in an inert atmosphere, it will not be a
problem; and I would agree with that," Bullen said. "I don't
want to say it is easy, but it is a realistic engineering
approach."
Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for the state of Nevada,
said, "Given time and enough experimental work, they can
probably figure out how to run an industrial operation which
doesn't have the risk of high exposures which they say are
unacceptable.
"But either way, they haven't got enough knowledge of design of
fuel transfer at this point to have a license application in six
months," he said.
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said DOE appears to have overlooked an issue important to
safety.
DOE "has not thought through the issues of the surface
operations, from what we've seen," said Loux, who coordinates
Nevada's official opposition to the repository.
If DOE decides to install spent fuel pools, it would open a new
set of questions about earthquake vulnerability, Loux said.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report shows evidence of
project flaws and more reasons why it should be ended.
"At no point while moving waste off site, to transportation to
proposed storage, can DOE protect workers and communities from
being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation," Reid said. "New
so-called standards were released this week for supposedly a
million years into the future; but according to this latest
report, DOE can't even figure out how to remove the waste from
plant sites safely."
While much public attention has been focused on the projected
performance of an underground Yucca repository over thousands of
years, nuclear waste would be handled routinely at an industrial
complex on the east side of the mountain.
There, waste-bearing shipping casks arriving by train and truck
would be unloaded, unpacked and repackaged into burial
containers or aging canisters. Although the tasks would be
handled by machinery and robots, workers would be present.
Spent fuel assemblies are expected to arrive at Yucca Mountain
at a rate of about 9,000 a year, or 222,000 assemblies over 25
years.
The fuel study said about 4 percent, equating to 8,880
assemblies, "are expected to have varying amounts of cladding
damage that could lead to fuel oxidation when the assemblies are
handled in air."
Each of the damaged assemblies is expected to have an average of
2.2 failed fuel rods, the study said.
Most of the damaged fuel will be identified through reactor
records, "but a small percentage of assemblies (approximately
0.4 percent or 1,000 fuel assemblies) is expected to have
unknown or undetected cladding damage that could allow the fuel
to oxidize."
During handling operations, a typical assembly is expected to be
exposed to the air for more than 100 hours at temperatures up to
400 Celsius, the study stated.
"At these times and temperatures, fuel oxidation is expected for
failed fuel during normal waste handling operations," the study
stated.
The rate of oxidation would depend on time and temperature.
Frishman said the report appeared to show that damaged fuel
cladding at the 400 Celsius temperature could be susceptible to
failure after two hours of exposure to air.
DOE officials didn't comment on that point Friday.
During the oxidation process, the oxidized fuel would swell and
could cause further failure, a process called "clad unzipping."
"The contamination levels and dose rates resulting from normal
handling of commercial spent nuclear fuel are expected to be
much higher than desirable," the study stated. "Oxidized
material released from fuel rods will be difficult to control
and account for."
According to government scientists, a preliminary analysis
concluded the amount of oxidized material that would be released
would not pose concerns for criticality, or a nuclear reaction.
"However, the uncertainty with oxidation rates and release
fractions needs further evaluation to determine if this
preliminary analysis is conclusive," it said.
Bailey said the potential for criticality "is pretty low,
because they are handling fuel in a dry environment. There is
not an issue of criticality."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
56 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear agency denies request
Saturday, August 13, 2005
State sought to revise technical ruleon waste repository
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned down a
request to alter a long-standing technical rule that Nevada
attorneys had complained prejudges the completion of Yucca
Mountain.
The commission said the state misinterpreted the rule and did
not provide the proper information to allow the matter to be
opened for reconsideration.
The agency, which regulates nuclear waste facilities, notified
Nevada attorneys in an Aug. 10 letter that was made public
Friday.
The state sought to challenge the NRC's "waste confidence"
decision that was written in 1990.
For purposes of streamlining nuclear plant licensing, the waste
confidence rule assumes that a nuclear waste repository will be
operating by 2025.
The rule does not mention Yucca Mountain, but state officials
said NRC might feel pressured to approve the Nevada site for
nuclear waste disposal unless the regulation was changed.
The NRC in its response said its commitment to a "fair and
comprehensive" review of Yucca Mountain "is not jeopardized by
the 2025 date."
Joe Egan, the state's lead nuclear waste attorney, said to his
knowledge this was the first time the NRC had turned down a
petition without first publishing a formal notice and seeking
public comment.
Earlier Friday, the NRC said it would gather public comment on
another Nevada petition, clarifying what issues the agency could
consider during licensing hearings for the Yucca repository, 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
57 AU: ninemsn.com: Nuclear waste sparks debate
12:33 AEST Sat Aug 13 2005AAP
About 120 people attended a public meeting in Darwin on Friday
to discuss plans for a nuclear waste facility in the Northern
Territory.
Many expressed opposition to the Commonwealth's decision to
build the facility at one of three sites in the Territory - Mt
Everard or Harts Range near Alice Springs, or Fishers Ridge near
Katherine, the Northern Territory News reported.
Darwin resident Cindy Watson asked: "If the facility is safe and
it's only going to be 3600 cubic metres, which is less than half
a square kilometre, why not build it in the ACT or Sydney?"
Dr Ron Cameron from the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO) insisted the storage facility
would be safe because the containers used to ship and store
reprocessed intermediate waste "were designed to last 100,000
years".
"The packaging is very robust," Dr Cameron said. "It can take
explosions, being dropped in water and left for a long time, or
burned."
Senator Nigel Scullion said he understood Territorians felt the
facility had been forced on them.
"I think the dump is being put in the Territory because of
amenity but also because the Commonwealth can overthrow
Territory laws," he said in the report.
ninemsn.com.au
About ninemsn - Our sites - Media Centre - List your site -
Contact us - Help
© 1997- 2005 ninemsn Pty Ltd - All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
58 Cincinnati Post: Million-year guarantee
It is tempting to say that by the time the Yucca Mountain
controversy, now in its 18th year, is resolved, the nuclear
waste it is supposed to house will have decayed into
harmlessness.
Here's the latest chapter. According to an Environmental
Protection Agency press release this week, "EPA is proposing
public health standards for the planned high-level radioactive
waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that will
protect public health for 1 million years."
One million. That's a number that jumps out and grabs you.
The EPA was responding to a court ruling that found an earlier
standard, for a relatively brisk 10,000 years, didn't go far
enough. So the agency tacked on a regulation limiting radiation
exposure for another 990,000 years, providing protection, it
said, for the next 25,000 generations of people living near the
site.
Human beings in their recognizable modern form have only been
around for 150,000 years or so - some say as long as 195,000 -
and only spread out of Africa and into the rest of the world
28,000 years ago.
Talk about hubris. Not only does the standard assume that we'll
still be around, but that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit will be around to enforce it. Then
again, maybe the EPA knows something the rest of us don't. Maybe
by then radioactivity will be good for you.
Publication date: 08-13-2005
[Cincinnati.Com]
Copyright2005 The Cincinnati Post, an E.W. Scrippsnewspaper.
*****************************************************************
59 Salt Lake Tribune: Support Envirocare
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 08/12/2005 11:27:04 PM
It appears that the only talent Jason Groenewold of Healthy
Environment Alliance of Utah has qualifying him as an
environmentalist is his perpetual complaining about Envirocare
(Tribune, Aug. 8). Before we get ahead of ourselves, it would be
nice if we were clear on exactly what Envirocare does. It stores
things like shoe covers, lab coats and paper towels from places
where radiation is managed. It also stores dirt. Class A
low-level waste loses its radioactive hazard in less than 100
years through natural decay.
Let's compare that with the Huntsman Cancer Institute. I'm
certain that no one would complain about the potential miracles
from its research, or that we'd all benefit if cancer were
eradicated from the earth. However, such research generates
radioactive waste. That type of waste is generally Class B waste,
which is too “hot” for Envirocare to store. In fact, Envirocare
willingly withdrew its application to store such waste.
We live in a nuclear age from which we all benefit. As an
environmentalist, I commend Envirocare for the work it is doing.
I appreciate the care and safety with which it operates and
request the support of our legislators in its behalf.
Jeremy Roberts
Sandy
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
60 East Valley Tribune: Court tells EPA: Go long
Daily Arizona news for Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale
Tribune Editorial
August 13, 2005
Here’s the latest chapter in the now 18-year Yucca Mountain
nuclear-waste controversy: According to its press release this
week, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed "public
health standards for the planned high-level radioactive waste
disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., that will protect
public health for 1 million years."
One million. That’s a number that jumps out and grabs you. The
EPA was responding to a court ruling that found an earlier
standard, for a relatively brisk 10,000 years, didn’t go far
enough.
So the agency tacked on a regulation limiting radiation exposure
for another 990,000 years. Human beings in their recognizable
modern form have only been around for 150,000 years or so — some
say as long as 195,000 — and only spread out of Africa and into
the rest of the world 28,000 years ago.
Talk about hubris. Not only does the standard assume that we’ll
still be around, but that a federal appellate court will be
around to enforce it. Then again, maybe the EPA knows something
the rest of us don’t. Maybe by then radioactivity will be good
for you.
Copyright 2005 East Valley &Scottsdale Tribune
Freedom Communications, Inc.
| © 2001 - 2005 All Rights
Reserved. Freedom Communications, Inc.
*****************************************************************
61 AU ABC: Barnett, Birnie at odds on uranium.
13/08/2005. ABC News Online
Former Western Australia opposition leader Colin Barnett has
contradicted his successor, Matt Birnie, on the issue of uranium
mining.
Mr Birnie has sided with WA Premier Geoff Gallop on the issue
of uranium, saying the material will not be mined in Western
Australia.
But Mr Barnett has told the ABC's Stateline program that will
change if the Liberal Party wins the next election.
"I think it's absolutely certain that Western Australia will
become a uranium-producing economy," he said.
Mr Barnett says the world is increasingly leaning towards
nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and WA is well
placed to supply the uranium required.
"If we are to reduce greenhouse emissions the only realistic
alternative for fossil fuels for large-scale power generation is
nuclear," he said.
Mr Barnett says the world's most populous nations, India and
China, are both embarking on nuclear energy programs.
Neither Mr Birnie nor his spokesman has returned the ABC's
calls for a response.
*****************************************************************
62 AU ABC: NT nuclear dump decision purely political - MP.
15/08/2005. ABC News Online
A Labor politician says the Federal Government has gone against
its own advice by choosing to put a nuclear waste dump in the
Northern Territory.
The Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, says the National
Sites Advisory Committee found four prospective sites in the
Territory were unsuitable to house radioactive waste.
The committee was set up by former federal science minister
Peter McGuaran before the last federal election and identified
seven "more suitable" sites in Victoria, the ACT and New South
Wales.
But Mr Snowdon says the reason the committee's advice has not
been taken is because the seats covering the sites are held by
Coalition politicians.
"What this demonstrates is, there's no scientific or
environmental logic to the decisions being made by the Federal
Government under [Science] Minister Nelson," Mr Snowdon said.
"This is just all a political fix. It's because they're not
prepared to put one of these dumps in one of their own federal
or National party electorates.
"What they're trying to do is make political decisions not
decisions based on rational scientific or environmental
assessments.
"They're making assessments on the best political outcome for
them ... it is the wrong way to do public policy.
"It's clearly wrong in terms of the Northern Territory's
interests because we in the Northern Territory, certainly the
people of Lingiari, don't want these dumps."
Mr Snowdon says a site just eight kilometres from Canberra was
seen as appropriate to store nuclear waste.
"They've found a site at Mount Reedy or near Mount Reedy in
Canberra, which is in the ACT obviously. It was deemed as a
suitable site, none of the four sites investigated in the
Territory were deemed as suitable."
Mr McGauran's office says the list is obsolete.
*****************************************************************
63 asahi.com: Horrific memories of war I will never forget
POINT OF VIEW/Tatsuhiko Sakamoto:
08/13/2005 Special to The Asahi Shimbun
I recently had the chance to read a collection of essays titled
"Records of 60 Years after the War" that was compiled by a
friend who works in publishing. The accounts were so vivid that
I felt as if I were reading about yesterday's events. Flashbacks
of my own experiences six decades ago raced through my mind.
Recalling the night of the Great Tokyo Air Raid on March 10,
1945, an 82-year-old woman pauses, telling her daughter: "Akiko,
your father died on March 17. The government's official report
listed the day Japanese on Iwojima died honorable deaths."
With nowhere to seek refuge, the woman stood on a ridge between
rice paddies clutching her daughter on that night. Akiko was 2
years old.
Was her husband alive that night? It's a question she has asked
ever since.
"On a white, frosty night/ I stood under the moon/ Asking
passers-by to sew a stitch for a senninbari belt to shield
bullets."
This tanka poem composed in 1937 refers to the "1,000-stitch
belt" that Japanese women created for their men. The belt was
believed to bestow courage and immunity from injury. The deeply
engraved mental image remains touching, even after all these
years.
The collection also includes an account of a woman who stood up
to the enemy in China with a grenade as well as people's
memories of violent attacks by Soviet soldiers.
When Japan lost the war, I was a first-year student at Harbin
Junior High School in former Manchuria. My father, who was an
elementary school principal, lived in a settlement with the
family apart from me. On Aug. 15, 1945, I was living in the
school dormitory. Soon, we were forced out the dormitory and the
school by Soviet troops. We moved into a vacant housing unit
belonging to the Manchurian railroad company and dug potatoes
for the Soviets.
It was in late September when our family of five reached Harbin
along with a woman and her child. The woman's husband had been
killed by Chinese troops.
Although we managed to move out of a camp and settle in a vacant
government housing complex, we had to find a way to support
ourselves.
Someone suggested that we make and sell millet cakes to Japanese
workers. So my father went to a Chinese market and bought a
large pot. My mother and others made millet cakes filled with
sweet bean paste and I stood on a street corner and sold them.
At 5 yen a piece, they sold well. Finally, we were able to make
ends meet.
In early October, when the temperature dropped to 10 degrees
below zero, the Nakamura brothers, who I had lived with in the
school dormitory, visited the stall where I sold millet cakes.
The elder brother was a third-year student and the younger was
in the second year.
They told me they knew their family was in Heihe near the Soviet
border but had not heard from them. The brothers were living
with their relatives but said they no longer wanted to trouble
them. I invited them to join me and sell millet cakes. They
moved in and we slept crowded together on the floor.
One December day, as we manned the stall, we received news that
the brothers' mother and younger brother and sister had reached
the Hanazono internment camp. When the brothers went to meet
them, their mother was wearing a tattered hemp sack with holes
for the head and arms. Her shabby appearance spoke of the
hardships she suffered over the several thousand kilometers she
had traveled with her children. They had been unable to ride on
a train. The boys were told their father had died fighting the
Soviet army.
The brothers then told me they wanted to look after their family
and moved into the internment camp. With no income, the family
had no choice but to rely on rations of thin gruel to sustain
themselves.
In January of the following year, the younger Nakamura came and
told me that his big brother had died. In mid-February, the
younger brother also died. When I rushed to see him, his
emaciated body with a swollen stomach was laid on the floor. He
was in thin summer clothing. He died from malnutrition. His
mother, who stood by his side, was speechless.
In March, I heard that the people who died in the camp were
being buried together. I ran after a truck filled with bodies
and stood behind a tree in the woods outside the city as I
watched the bodies being scooped out of the truck and dropped
into the ground. I couldn't identify which of them were the
bodies of the brothers. Sixty years later, the image still
haunts me. I will never forget the place where the brothers'
short lives came to an end.
Later, the sister, 2-year-old Mitchan, who was living with her
mother, also died, her tiny body withered and wrinkled.
I admit I was once a militaristic boy who thought it was cool to
go to war and die in battle. But I also realized as a boy that
"death by war" makes it impossible for people to go about their
everyday lives.
Sixty years after the end of the war, as I remember the
expressions of the Nakamura brothers and Mitchan, I am renewing
my determination never to tolerate such deaths again.
The author is a freelance journalist.(IHT/Asahi: August 13,2005)
[The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network]
+ The Asahi Shimbun Company
*****************************************************************
64 The State: SRS wants museum to be hot v
08/14/2
By LAUREN MARKOE
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON Looking for a fun family outing and tired of the
beach and zoo?
Try the Savannah River Site.
Boosters of the nuclear storage and research facility near Aiken
say its high time the Department of Energy facility welcomed
tourists.
Almost every other DOE site in the country has a museum and
visitors center to help tell the story of that site, said Mal
McKibben, a former SRS employee and executive director of
Aiken-based Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness.
The museum for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico,
for example, gets 100,000 visitors a year.
McKibben and friends last week kicked off a campaign for The
Savannah River Site Heritage Center, which they hope will open
within the next two to three years.
The Department of Energy has already donated an SRS office
building for the project. Funding goals, which McKibben said
have not yet been set, will mostly be fulfilled by corporate and
private donors.
SRS was built in the 1950s at the request of the Atomic Energy
Commission and in the decades after provided much of the nuclear
fuel mostly tritium and plutonium for the nations nuclear
weapons.
Six thousand people living in six towns had to leave to make
room for SRS, which at its peak employed about 20,000.
Cant wait for the SRS Heritage Center to open? Go to
www.srs.govand click on About SRS, then History Highlights,
and then SRS at Fifty an online history of SRS, published by
the Department of Energy.
RAMBLIN JOE
U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., on Monday kicks off a five-day,
37-stop tour of his district that will take him from a Lizards
Thicket in Columbia to the Hilton Head Island Medical Center.
The goal is to meet and chat with constituents from the 2nd
Congressional District, which stretches from the Midlands to the
Lowcountry and includes 10 counties. Wilson will hit all 10.
Here are a few stops in the Columbia area:
• Monday 7:30-8:30 a.m., Lizards Thicket, 818 Elmwood Ave.,
Columbia; 6-7 p.m., District Quarterly Meeting focusing on
Medicare, Irmo Town Hall Courthouse.
• Tuesday 7:30-8:30 a.m., Sunset Grille, 1214 Sunset Blvd.,
West Columbia
To confirm event details, call (803) 939-0041. For a complete
schedule of Wilsons tour, go to http://joewilson.house.gov.
VERBATIM
This is World War III... For us to leave prematurely would
allow this infant democracy to be eaten alive by the wolves of
terrorism.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., this week on why American
troops cant soon pull out of Iraq
Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
65 Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon plant infrastructure management team set
www.chillicothegazette.com
Sunday, August 14, 2005
The Gazette staff
PIKETON - Theta Pro2Serve Management Company, LLC (TPMC) has
announced its company officers for providing infrastructure
services at the U.S. Department of Energy's Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant.
TPMC assumed the infrastructure services work June 27 under
contract to DOE. The work was previously performed by Bechtel
Jacobs Company.
Leading the management team is President Clarence Sheward.
Sheward has spent 29 years at the site in a variety of
management positions, including operations and production,
Environment, Safety &Health (ES), waste management, security,
infrastructure and engineering.
As Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Transition program
manager, he successfully led field activities transitioning
plant operations from DOE to Nuclear Regulatory Commission
oversight. He also implemented the plant's first effective work
control system and developed and implemented its Highly Enriched
Uranium management plan.
Mark Scott will serve as the vice president of business
management and chief financial officer for TPMC. Scott has held
senior management positions in finance, information technology
and environmental engineering organizations in both the
government and commercial sectors over the last 29 years. Most
recently, he was site manager for Pro2Serve at the Piketon plant.
Overseeing TPMC's operations program will be Roger McDermott,
vice president of technical operations. McDermott has 40 years
of site experience, including management of infrastructure
services, in which he directed all support operations, managed
environment, safety and health functions and all maintenance
activities. Some of the highlights of his career at the Piketon
plant have been implementing a maintenance work control program
with engineered standards and performance measures, establishing
area safety committees for the site's labor union and
negotiating a five-year labor contract designed to smooth plant
operations.
TPMC, with its corporate office in Waverly, was formed as a
joint venture between Theta Technologies, Inc. and Professional
Project Services, Inc. (Pro2Serve) to provide infrastructure
services at the Piketon plant.
Originally published August 14, 2005
Copyright ©2005 Chillicothe Gazette. 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:
*****************************************************************