***************************************************************** 09/25/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.222 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] US, Allies Continue anti-Iran Pressure at IAEA 2 [NYTr] EU Backs Down on Iran 3 Faking 'Nuclear Crisis' Against Iran 4 Facing Opposition, US and EU Backpedal on Iran Action 5 IRNA: Britain opts for confrontation on Iran nuclear case - Envoy 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran hits back over UN nuclear censure 7 IRNA: FM discusses nuclear issue, bilateral ties with counterparts - 8 IRNA: IAEA to decide on EU resolution against Iran Saturday - 9 Xinhua: Backgrounder: Key points of IAEA resoluton on Iran's nuclear 10 Reuters: Key excerpts from U.N. nuclear resolution on Iran 11 Reuters: UN nuclear watchdog meets on Iran's atomic plans 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Official Blasts IAEA Resolution 13 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: U.N. Must Review Iran Nuke Record 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral 15 Korea Herald: 'U.S. threatened nuclear strikes on N.K. in 1995' 16 asahi.com: EDITORIAL/Nudging North Korea 17 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Would 'Deter' Provocation 18 US: San Francisco Chronicle: ATOMIC TIDBITS 19 San Francisco Chronicle: HOW THE BOMB MADE ITS CINEMATIC MARK 20 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral 21 Australian: Little nuclear yield 22 Deseret News: China trying to displace U.S. power in Pacific 23 Bellona: Analysis: Former Russian nuke Minister Adamov caught in 24 WorldNetDaily: Unratified additional protocol 25 Aljazeera: IAEA Arab members slam Israel over nuclear bombs - NUCLEAR REACTORS 26 US: Rita Endangers Nuclear Plants 27 London Times: Power to the people has to be nuclear - 28 Sydney Morning News: Nuclear future - Environment - 29 US: Deseret News: West seeing new energy boom 30 BBC: Ancram warns hopefuls over energy 31 Sunday Herald: Nuclear plant faces legal threat over safety breaches 32 US: Washington Times: Residents worried by plan for reactor - 33 Current Concerns: 20 Years of Living with Chernobyl 34 Pakistan News Nuclear power gives confidence to Pakistani nation - M 35 US: Boston Globe: The pendulum swings back toward nuclear power NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 36 US: Deseret News: Accept N-waste for a price - or keep on fighting? 37 US: Deseret News: Western N-storage not a fix 38 Las Vegas SUN: EPA extends comment period 39 US: Las Vegas SUN: Hatch to revive nuke waste options 40 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca advocates remain resolute on nuke storage 41 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada wins fight over draft license application 42 US: Independent: No 10 lines up top uranium job for Birt ahead of 6 43 RedNova News: Science - Alternative? 44 US: Rapid City Journal: Interest renewed in uranium exploration in S PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 45 Seattle Times: Hanford workers go home after 3rd problem 46 North Augusta Star: SRS oversite board meets Monday 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Rocky Flats changes from a maker of ruin to a 48 Guardian Unlimited: Richardson: Wen Ho Lee Was 'Mistreated' 49 Colorado Daily News: Contractor: speedy cleanup safe 50 LongmontFYI: Flats cleanup under budget ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] US, Allies Continue anti-Iran Pressure at IAEA Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:02:41 -0500 (CDT) WHITE_PHRASE 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 Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com IAEA Emergency Meeting Targets Iranian Nuclear Program Vienna, Sep 24 (Prensa Latina) The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Board of Governors endorsed a resolution on the Iranian nuclear program to be submitted to the UN Security Council. The European Union-US project --with support from Canada, Japan, Singapore, Argentina, Korea and Australia-- was discussed by all 35 IAEO member countries. The document calls to "denounce" at the Security Council Teheran's refusal to shut down its nuclear plan threatening peace and international security and resume negotiations. But Iran defends its legal right to produce the fuel for its own nuclear plants like Isfahan, where the IAEO installed monitoring devices from production was resumed last August. Iran also claims its right to produce enriched Uranium to fuel its nuclear plants which does not violate the Treaty for the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Austrian media recalls the US pressure on the Board of Governors to impose international restrictions on Iran, now caught in an artificial crisis devised by Washington with alleged attempt to produce weapons of mass destruction disguised with peaceful ends. The resolution also calls the board to discuss a report from the IAEO Director, Mohammed El Baradei, but a final decision will relay on the votes. nytr/hr/emw/to * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] EU Backs Down on Iran Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:17:43 -0500 (CDT) WHITE_PHRASE 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 Washington Post - Sep 23, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092202131_pf.html Facing Opposition, U.S. and E.U. Backpedal on Iran Action By John Ward Anderson Washington Post Foreign Service VIENNA, Sept. 22 -- The European Union and United States backpedaled Thursday in their drive to have Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council for nuclear treaty violations, following strong opposition from other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring group. Russia, China and members of the 115-nation Non-Aligned Movement said during a closed board meeting that they opposed a draft E.U. resolution backed by the United States to escalate pressure on Iran through a Security Council referral. That prompted the E.U. to float a second, somewhat softer resolution, but it, too, quickly came under fire. E.U. diplomats were scrambling Thursday night to gauge which of the two resolutions had greater support and whether to force a potentially divisive vote before the board meeting's scheduled end on Friday. The E.U. and United States contend Iran engaged in a covert, 18-year program to develop nuclear technologies, including nuclear weapons, and should be reported to the Security Council. That body could impose sanctions or otherwise try to force Iran to fully disclose and curtail its illicit activities. Iran responds that it is working only toward developing peaceful nuclear energy, and notes that independent inspections have found no evidence of nuclear weapons development. Iranian officials say the E.U. and U.S. allegations are politically motivated. At a meeting this week of the IAEA's 35-member board, the opposing sides launched intense lobbying campaigns. The E.U. and United States argue that doing nothing against Iran will undermine efforts to stem nuclear proliferation. Backing down now could hurt their credibility, diplomats and analysts here said. At Thursday's meeting, the representative from Russia, which is helping Iran build a $1 billion nuclear reactor, was "adamant" against referring Iran to the Security Council, according to a diplomat who attended the closed-door meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity. A Russian reportedly called such a move "counterproductive." Russia also opposed -- and thus seemed to doom -- the E.U.'s second draft resolution. The Reuters news agency said that resolution proposed finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its nuclear obligations but delaying any referral to the Security Council. China's representative on the board advocated settling the issue by "diplomatic means" and "continued dialogue." Both China and Russia hold Security Council vetoes. A statement by the Malaysian ambassador, Rajmah Hussain, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a Cold War-era grouping whose members avoided taking sides with the superpowers, completely dismissed the E.U.'s arguments against Iran, which is also a member of the movement. Diplomats here said many countries in the movement were sympathetic to Iran's claim that it was being subjected to "nuclear apartheid" by big powers that want to keep developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology. Individually, however, some members of the movement delivered more measured statements, diplomats said. Many called on Iran to suspend its recent resumption of uranium conversion. India and South Africa said in their statements that the board should seek a consensus, a signal that the E.U. should not force an up or down vote on the matter, but work out a compromise. ) 2005 The Washington Post Company *** sent by Simon McGuinness EU Observer - Sep 23, 2005 http://euobserver.com/?aid=19922&rk=1 EU backs down on Iran By Honor Mahony The EU has been forced to back away from its tough stance on Iran after it failed to get Russia's support for reporting Iran's nuclear ambitions to the UN Security Council. After a series of negotiations at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the EU, represented by France, Germany and the UK, decided to withdraw a draft resolution that called for Iran to be reported to the security council for breaching the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). According to the Guardian, the resolution said there was an "international absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes". While the EU's position, strongly backed by the US, had reportedly gathered just enough support to pushed through the governing council of the IAEA, it was feared that Russia and China would then block the initiative in the Security Council. Pushing for the Security Council route without consensus in the IAEA would also have sent a damaging message about international views towards nuclear proliferation. Both Moscow and Beijing believe that bringing the issue to the UN in New York would only escalate the crisis. The Financial Time writes that Russia objected to the draft's wording that Iran was in "non-compliance" with the IAEA's rules and to the assertion that the issue was now "within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". Iran welcomed the news of the EU's climbdown on Thursday. "The EU's withdrawal was a significant victory for Iran," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said according to Reuters. Meanwhile, IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei also welcomed the EU's move, saying "Whatever brings both sides back on the negotiating table, is a good thing". The EU and Tehran have been negotiating this issue for two years with the EU for a long time resisting pressure from Washington to take a tougher stance. Last November Iran agreed with the EU three to a "suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities" which included "all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation". Uranium conversion produces a gas that is used in the process of enriching uranium into a fuel that can either be used for civilian nuclear power plants or for producing atom bombs. For its part, Iran maintains that it is using its nuclear facilities only for civil purposes. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Faking 'Nuclear Crisis' Against Iran Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 03:17:04 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards Democracy. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of blank1x1.gif] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of blank1x1.gif] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of blank1x1.gif] Iran and the Invention of a Nuclear Crisis Part I of a Three-Part Series By Siddharth Varadarajan September 23, 2005 The Hindu BARELY TWO years after the United States invaded Iraq in the name of weapons of mass destruction which never existed, the world is being pushed towards a confrontation with Iran on a similarly flawed premise. On September 17, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations General Assembly that his country would not give up its sovereign right to produce nuclear power using indigenously enriched uranium. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1974, allows Iran to build facilities involving all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, subject to international safeguards. Given the fact that the U.S. continues to impose sanctions on the development of Iran's oil and gas sector (under the extra-territorial `Iran Libya Sanctions Act'), it is only logical that the Iranians should seek a civilian nuclear energy industry in which they won't have to be dependent on the West for fuel like enriched uranium. However, as a major concession to Britain, France and Germany the so-called EU-3 which has sought to prevail upon Iran to abandon enrichment in exchange for guarantees of assured fuel supply Mr. Ahmadinejad offered to run his country's enrichment plants as joint ventures with private and public sector firms from other countries. Britain and France have rejected this offer, which the Iranians say is a demonstration of their intent to be as transparent as possible. The EU-3 and the U.S. insist Teheran must not work on enrichment because once the technology is mastered, the same facilities could be used to produce not just low enriched uranium (LEU) for energy reactors but highly enriched uranium (HEU) for bombs. Accordingly, they have circulated a resolution in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting which began Monday calling for Iran's civilian nuclear programme to be referred to the U.N. Security Council as a potential threat to international peace and security. It is not difficult for the U.S. and its European allies to get a majority of the 35-nation Board of Governors to recommend referral; however, the board has operated on the basis of consensus for the past 12 years ever since the forced vote referring North Korea to the UNSC split the IAEA and the non-aligned group of countries and China remain opposed to taking Iran to the Security Council. If the U.S. is convinced a consensus will elude it for the foreseeable future, it could push for a vote this week rather than wait any longer. Next month, following the annual IAEA General Conference, a new Board of Governors will take over. And with Cuba and Syria entering the Board in place of Peru and Pakistan, the ranks of those firmly opposed to an SC referral are likely to increase. Although the immediate trigger for the European and American pressure is Teheran's decision last month to end its voluntary suspension of uranium conversion at its Esfahan facility, the Iranian case cannot be referred to the Security Council on this ground. First, the NPT allows uranium conversion and other processes central to enrichment. Secondly, the Esfahan facility is under IAEA safeguards and as recently as September 2 , i.e. nearly a month after Iran resumed uranium conversion there, the Director-General of the Agency, Mohammad El-Baradei, certified that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for and, therefore, such material is not diverted to prohibited activities." Thirdly, the agreement to suspend enrichment, which Iran reached with the EU-3 at Paris last November, clearly states that "the E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation." In other words, if the voluntary suspension was not a legal obligation, the ending of that suspension can hardly be made the grounds for legal action by either the IAEA or the UN. Myth of 'Concealment' If at all Iran is to be referred, then, its desire to pursue a complete fuel cycle for its civilian nuclear energy programme cannot be cited as legal grounds. Nor can the hitherto "secret" nature of its fuel cycle facilities currently under construction. Though there has been a surfeit of motivated and ill-informed commentary about how Iran "concealed" its uranium enrichment programme from the IAEA "in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002, the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about those facilities at the time. David Albright and Corey Hinderstein who first provided the international media with satellite imagery and analysis of the unfinished fuel fabrication facility at Natanz and heavy water research reactor at Arak on December 12, 2002 themselves noted that under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain and the European Union at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. The Arak reactor is planned to go into operation in 2014. As for the pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) at Natanz, it is still not operational today. This `six months' clause was a standard part of all IAEA safeguards agreements signed in the 1970s and 1980s. It was only in the 1990s, following the Iraq crisis, that the Agency sought to strengthen itself by asking countries to sign `subsidiary arrangements' requiring the handing over of design information about any new facility six months prior to the start of construction. Many signed, some did not. Iran accepted this arrangement only in February 2003. Later that year, it signed the highly-intrusive Additional Protocol. Though it has yet to ratify it, Teheran has allowed the IAEA to exercise all its prerogatives under the protocol, including more than 20 "complementary accesses," some with a notice period of two hours or less. Dr. El-Baradei also reported that "Iran has, since October 2003, provided the Agency upon its request, and as a transparency measure, access to certain additional information and locations beyond that required under its Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol." What Iran has yet to do is provide the IAEA sufficient information on the history of its centrifuge programme for it to satisfy itself that there are no "undeclared nuclear materials or activities." However, this alone can hardly constitute grounds for referring the country to the Security Council under Article III.B.4 of the Agency's Statute since the IAEA, in the past two years, has found discrepancies in the utilisation of nuclear material in as many as 15 countries. Among these are South Korea , Taiwan , and Egypt . In 2002 and 2003, for example, South Korea refused to let the IAEA visit facilities connected to its laser enrichment programme. Subsequently, though Seoul confessed to having secretly enriched uranium to a 77 per cent concentration of U-235 a grade sufficient for fissile material neither the U.S. nor EU suggested referring the matter to the UNSC. In contrast, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has produced weapon-grade uranium. Despite intrusive inspections, no facility or plan to produce weapon-grade uranium has been discovered, nor have any weapon designs surfaced. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Global Research Contributing Editor Siddharth Varadarajan s a leading Indian journalist and editor of Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy published by Penguin Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com Copyright Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, 2005 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleId=987 ======================================================================== =============================================== ***************************************************************** 4 Facing Opposition, US and EU Backpedal on Iran Action Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:01:21 -0500 (CDT) autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: smtp2.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Go to Original Facing Opposition, US and EU Backpedal on Iran Action By John Ward Anderson The Washington Post Friday 23 September 2005 Vienna - The European Union and United States backpedaled Thursday in their drive to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for nuclear treaty violations, following strong opposition from other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear monitoring group. Russia, China and members of the 115-nation Non-Aligned Movement said during a closed board meeting that they opposed a draft EU resolution backed by the United States to escalate pressure on Iran through a Security Council referral. That prompted the EU to float a second, somewhat softer resolution, but it, too, quickly came under fire. EU diplomats were scrambling Thursday night to gauge which of the two resolutions had greater support and whether to force a potentially divisive vote before the board meeting's scheduled end on Friday. The EU and United States contend Iran engaged in a covert, 18-year program to develop nuclear technologies, including nuclear weapons, and should be reported to the Security Council. That body could impose sanctions or otherwise try to force Iran to fully disclose and curtail its illicit activities. Iran responds that it is working only toward developing peaceful nuclear energy, and notes that independent inspections have found no evidence of nuclear weapons development. Iranian officials say the EU and US allegations are politically motivated. At a meeting this week of the IAEA's 35-member board, the opposing sides launched intense lobbying campaigns. The EU and United States argue that doing nothing against Iran will undermine efforts to stem nuclear proliferation. Backing down now could hurt their credibility, diplomats and analysts here said. At Thursday's meeting, the representative from Russia, which is helping Iran build a $1 billion nuclear reactor, was "adamant" against referring Iran to the Security Council, according to a diplomat who attended the closed-door meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity. A Russian reportedly called such a move "counterproductive." Russia also opposed - and thus seemed to doom - the EU's second draft resolution. The Reuters news agency said that resolution proposed finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its nuclear obligations but delaying any referral to the Security Council. China's representative on the board advocated settling the issue by "diplomatic means" and "continued dialogue." Both China and Russia hold Security Council vetoes. A statement by the Malaysian ambassador, Rajmah Hussain, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a Cold War-era grouping whose members avoided taking sides with the superpowers, completely dismissed the EU's arguments against Iran, which is also a member of the movement. Diplomats here said many countries in the movement were sympathetic to Iran's claim that it was being subjected to "nuclear apartheid" by big powers that want to keep developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology. Individually, however, some members of the movement delivered more measured statements, diplomats said. Many called on Iran to suspend its recent resumption of uranium conversion. India and South Africa said in their statements that the board should seek a consensus, a signal that the EU should not force an up or down vote on the matter, but work out a compromise. ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Britain opts for confrontation on Iran nuclear case - Envoy Vienna, Sept 24, IRNA Iran-Britain-Nuclear Britain is pushing forward the policy of confrontation with Iran instead of following the option of diplomacy, a senior member of Iranian negotiating team said. Talking to Iranian reporters, deputy head of Supreme National Security Council for International Affairs, Javad Vaeidi, said Britain, as the US representative, seeks to divert the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community from diplomacy and negotiations. "Despite current atmosphere and increasing opposition, Britain has chosen this way. Germany does not agree with any deviation from the current direction," he said. He added the representatives of Malaysia and South Africa are also unhappy with Britain's humiliating attitude towards other states, arguing, "Russia, China, Algeria, Mexico, India, Venezuela and South Africa called for a postponement of discussion but the British envoy strongly opposed it and the board of governors decided to hold the session on Saturday." The Iranian official said the board is to just discuss the European Union's draft resolution on Saturday, adding, "The resolution will be ratified by consensus or voting." The British policy means continuation of threat, pressure and deadline setting in negotiations, he said, adding, "Such an attitude is completely politically-motivated and is a breach of other countries' rights." He stressed, "Iran will never accept any call beyond the country's legal commitments." ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran hits back over UN nuclear censure Ian Traynor in Vienna Monday September 26, 2005 The Guardian Iran threatened yesterday to curb UN inspections of its nuclear projects in retaliation for the decision by the UN nuclear watchdog to take the nuclear dispute to the security council in New York. Western diplomats said that the remarks from the Iranian foreign minister were expected, but also pointed out that such a response would defy the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution adopted on Saturday and hasten the reporting of Iran to the security council. Though the security council has the power to impose sanctions, the US and the main European countries behind Saturday's decision are not pushing for specific penalties on Iran, not least because Russia could cripple such a move by wielding its security council veto. "We're absolutely talking of a measured, graduated response," said a European official involved in drawing up the policy. "That does not mean sanctions." The Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said that the IAEA decision - by a vote of 22 to one with 12 abstentions - was "illegal, illogical, and politically motivated". If and when the dispute is taken to the UN security council, it is not entirely clear what difference it will make. Sceptics say that the council will be as divided as the IAEA board in Vienna has been, with the difference that Russian and Chinese vetoes can cripple any action. A decision on when Iran will be reported to the security council will be made by the IAEA board, possibly in November, but will probably also entail another big battle and another divisive vote. [UP] Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: FM discusses nuclear issue, bilateral ties with counterparts - United Nations, New York, Sept 24, IRNA UN-Iran-Nuclear Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Friday discussed nuclear issues as well as bilateral ties with his Malaysian and Nigerian counterparts on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meet. Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, in his meeting with Mottaki, expressed his country's support for continuation of talks and attempts to find a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear programs. Albar voiced his concerns about the firm stance of certain EU members towards Iran's nuclear case. Mottaki, for his part, outlined ongoing discussions in Vienna on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and broad consultations with senior officials of world countries within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and highlighted Tehran's efforts to prevent any tension and find a peaceful solution. He praised efforts made by Malaysia, as head of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and coordinator of the movement's policies, its appropriate stance on Iran and opposition to Europe's pressures and hoped "the NAM's united stance would persist in the future." Meanwhile, Mottaki briefed Nigerian Foreign Minister Oluyemi Adeniji on Iran's position on access to peaceful nuclear energy. During the meeting, the two ministers discussed bilateral relations in all fields and stressed the importance of expanding bilateral cooperation in implementing joint economic projects. The Iranian foreign minister, who arrived in New York on September 13 to attend the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly, left New York for home Friday night. ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: IAEA to decide on EU resolution against Iran Saturday - Vienna, Sept 24, IRNA The 35-member Board of Governors of the UN's nuclear watchdog agreed Friday to render its decision on the EU's proposed resolution against Iran Saturday afternoon, it was reported here Friday. The International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board has scheduled a meeting on Saturday at 15:00 hours local time at the IAEA's Vienna-based headquarters to decide on the EU resolution, said the board's head, Catherine Hall. Some member states of the IAEA governing board, namely Russia, China and some Non-Aligned countries (NAM), had called for a postponement of the meeting to November, it was learned. It is not clear if a decision in the meeting would be reached by by consensus or through voting. France, Britain and Germany, which have been representing the EU in negotiations with Iran, submitted to the UN nuclear watchdog a draft resolution on Friday requiring Iran to fully suspend its uranium enrichment program, the related activities in its uranium conversion facility in Isfahan as well as the construction of its heavy water power plant in Arak and to give the IAEA chief access to authorities, centers and documents related to Iran's nuclear program beyond those provided by the agency's by-laws. The resolution also calls on the Majlis to abide by the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Iranian delegation to the IAEA has denounced the EU move and said it would in no way accept the resolution. The text of the resolution shows Europe is using confrontation instead of diplomacy and Iran will react, said a senior official of the Iranian delegation, Javad Vaeedi. Go Top [Go Top] ***************************************************************** 9 Xinhua: Backgrounder: Key points of IAEA resoluton on Iran's nuclear isssue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-25 13:14:31 VIENNA, Sept. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors adopted a resolution on Saturday accusing Iran of breaching the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement, threatening to refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council at an unspecified time. Following are the key points of the EU-proposed resolution which was approved by a 22-1 vote, with 12 abstentions. The IAEA Board of Governors: Finds that Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligationsto comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement ... constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the agency's statute. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities referred to in the report of the Director General (Mohamed ElBaradei), the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are withinthe competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace andsecurity. In order to help the director general to resolve outstanding questions and provide the necessary assurances, the board urges Iran: -- To implement transparency measures, as requested by the director general in his report, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development locations; -- To re-establish full and sustained suspension of all (uranium) enrichment related activity ... and (plutonium) reprocessing activity -- To reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. The board also calls on Iran to observe fully its commitments and to return to the negotiating process that has made good progress in the last two years. Enditem Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: Key excerpts from U.N. nuclear resolution on Iran World Crises | Reuters.com Sat 24 Sep 2005 3:51 PM ET Sept 24 (Reuters) - Following are key excerpts from a resolution on Iran submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by France, Britain and Germany and passed by the IAEA's board of governors by a majority vote on Saturday. The text did not report Iran immediately to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions, due to opposition from Russia, China and at least a dozen other members of the IAEA board. It did, however, require that Iran be reported to the Security Council at a later, unspecified date. The Board of Governors: * Finds that Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement ... constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency's Statute. * Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities referred to in the Director General's (Mohamed ElBaradei's) report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. * In order to help the Director General to resolve outstanding questions and provide the necessary assurances urges Iran: (excerpts) - To implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General in his report, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations; - To re-establish full and sustained suspension of all (uranium) enrichment related activity ... and (plutonium) reprocessing activity - to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. * Calls on Iran to observe fully its commitments and to return to the negotiating process that has made good progress in the last two years. (Compiled by Francois Murphy in Vienna) Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: UN nuclear watchdog meets on Iran's atomic plans World Crises | Reuters.com Sat 24 Sep 2005 8:07 AM ET By Louis Charbonneau VIENNA, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog was due to vote on Saturday on an EU resolution requiring Iran to be reported to the Security Council over what the West fears is a covert atomic weapons programme. Despite Iranian threats to begin enriching uranium if the resolution that could eventually lead to sanctions against the Islamic country is passed, the EU's top powers and Washington were confident it would be approved. The meeting, which is due to begin at 1300 GMT, has widened the split between rich Western nations and poorer developing nations led by Russia, China, India and South Africa, which disagree with Washington and Europe on how to deal with Iran. And diplomats said there was a possibility that Russia, China and other non-aligned members of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board might not show. The meeting needs two-thirds of the members present for a quorum. But most said the simple majority needed for approval should be reached. "We have a majority of votes, but no consensus. We tried to win over Russia, but did not succeed," an EU diplomat said. "Most likely they will vote against it." Iran denies seeking atomic bombs and says its nuclear programme is only for generating electricity. However, it concealed its atomic fuel programme from the IAEA for 18 years. Russia, which is building a $1 billion nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran and has much to gain from Iran's plans to develop atomic energy, is a fierce opponent of referring Iran's programme to the Security Council. China, which needs Iran's vast energy resources for its own booming economy, also opposes the Western drive against Iran. Both countries fear a U.N. referral will cause the standoff over Iran's programme to escalate into an international crisis. "FAILURES AND BREACHES" The EU resolution requires Tehran to be reported to the Security Council, but at an unspecified date -- watering down an earlier demand from the Europeans for an immediate referral. This means Iran would most likely not be referred to the Council until the IAEA board meets in November, diplomats say. The resolution, which diplomats said was prepared in close consultation with Washington, said Iran's "many failures and breaches" of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement "constitute non-compliance" with the pact. It added there was an "absence of confidence" that Iran's atomic programme was exclusively peaceful and this gave rise to questions "within the competence of the Security Council". For two years, the EU's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have tried to persuade Iran that it needed to abandon its enriched uranium fuel programme to convince the world that its atomic ambitions are peaceful. Last month, the talks collapsed after Tehran resumed uranium processing and rejected an EU offer of economic and political incentives if it scrapped its uranium enrichment programme, prompting the EU trio to join Washington in calling for the case to be sent to the Security Council. Tehran has threatened to retaliate. On Friday, diplomats said the Iranian delegation had been showing some board members and IAEA general director, Mohamed ElBaradei, two unsigned letters informing the IAEA what would happen if the EU resolution is approved. One letter said that Iran would begin enriching uranium, a process that produces fuel for atomic power plants or weapons, at an underground facility at Natanz. The second says Tehran would end short-notice inspections under a special NPT protocol. The head of South Africa's delegation, Abdul Minty, said he did not like the EU resolution. However, he also hoped Tehran would not limit U.N. inspections in any way. "We hope they don't do it," Minty told Reuters. "It's very important that the agency is there on the ground." Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Official Blasts IAEA Resolution From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday September 25, 2005 10:01 PM By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's foreign minister called a resolution by the U.N. nuclear watchdog that puts it just one step away from possible Security Council sanctions ``illegal and illogical'' and accused the United States on Sunday of orchestrating the measure. Separately, in a letter to Iran's ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, some 180 out of 290 lawmakers called on his government to cancel Iran's voluntary suspension of nuclear activities and scale back cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resolution passed Saturday by the IAEA board could lead to Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - and possible sanctions - unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating electricity. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the resolution ``political, illegal and illogical'' and threatened unspecified punitive measures against Britain, France and Germany - the key three European countries negotiating with Iran. ``The three European countries implemented a planned scenario, already determined by the United States,'' he said on state-run television. ``The Foreign Ministry will define and implement an appropriate response,'' he said. ``Their motion has paved the way for creation of a new situation that will create obstacles for cooperation.'' Tehran had already warned that, if the resolution was approved, it could respond by starting uranium enrichment - a possible path to nuclear arms - and by reducing IAEA powers to inspect its activities. Mottaki said the rotating presidency of the European Union ``is unable to manage the situation'' and made decisions under U.S. pressure. Britain holds the current EU presidency. France, Britain and Germany, ``through rendering this politically motivated, illegal and illogical resolution, removed any final doubts that they are not committed to their obligations under agreements reached with Iran in the past 20 months,'' Mottaki said. Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for possible Security Council referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session. To avoid referral, diplomats said, Iran is being told to suspend all uranium enrichment activities, to give up construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor and to give agency experts access to research and development locations and documentation. The resolution also demands that Iran immediately ratify an additional protocol to the NPT that allows more extensive IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran has repeatedly said that the treaty allows it to pursue such activities for peaceful purposes, and that it will not give up the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. Parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said parliament will not ratify the additional NPT protocol because it is ``against the definite rights of the Iranian nation,'' according to state-run radio. Russia, one of the countries that abstained from Saturday's vote, called on Iran on Sunday to cooperate with the agency. ``We expect that Iran will actively cooperate with the IAEA with the purpose of quickly closing all outstanding questions,'' said a statement from Russia's Foreign Ministry. The resolution was approved by 22 of 35 board nations, with 12 abstentions and one rejection - by Venezuela - rather than the usual consensus. Only twice in the past decade has the IAEA board voted on an issue instead of adopting it by consensus. Both times were on North Korea for leaving the nonproliferation treaty, first in 1993, then in 2003. While the U.N. Security Council could impose sanctions, that is unlikely because of opposition by veto-wielding council members Russia and China. The United States had applied strong pressure on Russia, China, India and other countries to join in a ``unified message'' to Iran. China also chose to abstain. Both Russia and China look to energy-rich Iran as a major trading partner. Russia is building a nuclear reactor in Iran and China relies on oil imports to support its economic growth. Iran resumed uranium conversion early in August, a step prior to enrichment, but continues to suspend uranium enrichment, the last stage that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The resolution represents a victory for Washington, which had tried for more than two years to enlist board support to haul Iran before the Security Council. Associated Press Writers George Jahn in Vienna, Austria and Tarek Al-Issawi in Dubai, UAE, contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: U.N. Must Review Iran Nuke Record From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday September 25, 2005 12:01 AM AP Photo XPZ105 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said the United Nations Security Council must review Iran's nuclear record after a harsh assessment from its nuclear watchdog agency Saturday, and U.S. officials warned that Iran is losing the support of influential friends. A majority vote against Iran at the U.N. atomic agency was an interim step toward what the Bush administration has long sought - review and punishment by the Security Council that would help derail an alleged secret program to build an Iranian bomb. ``We have a patient long-term strategy,'' Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said after the vote. ``It's to isolate Iran on this question; it's to ratchet up the international pressure on Iran,'' and assemble the kind of global coalition against Iran that helped persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons last week. The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna approved a resolution Saturday that said Iran has a ``long history of concealment and deception'' in the nuclear program that Tehran insists is only for the peaceful production of nuclear power. The IAEA resolution does not send Iran directly before the Security Council, which can impose economic sanctions. It finds Iran has not complied with an international arms control treaty and openly doubts Iran's claim about nuclear energy. The resolution called on the board to consider reporting Iran at a future meeting. Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session. Burns and Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph, who handles arms control matters, said the vote is a significant step toward calling Iran to account. It is not, however, the decisive rebuke that Burns and other U.S. officials had predicted in the weeks leading to the IAEA meeting. U.S. officials said the open-ended delay gives Iran diplomatic maneuvering room, and they urged Iran to drop provocative actions and return to negotiations with European nations aimed at cutting off any weapons ambitions. Some outside analysts said the IAEA action is a half measure that represents the best the Bush administration could salvage from a diplomatic effort that met stiff resistance from Russia, China and other powerful nations. Without effective oversight and immediate consequences at the Security Council, Iran can game the system, said Paul Leventhal, founder of the nonpartisan Nuclear Control Institute. ``Iran is getting away with murder here,'' and every delay allows the Islamic nation to get closer to a bomb, Leventhal said. ``They have been winning the diplomatic game and outmaneuvering the United States,'' and the IAEA bureaucracy, he said. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refuse to rule out a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails, but Rice has tried to reassure alarmed European diplomats that the notion is far-fetched. Ahead of the IAEA meeting, the United States prepared a 44-page power-point presentation for diplomats that includes maps of suspected nuclear sites and detailed satellite images of what the U.S. claims are dummy buildings erected to disguise covert activity below ground. The United States, which has no diplomatic relations with Iran, has taken a back seat to the European Union in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Iran rejected a package of economic and security guarantees and walked away from the talks over the summer. It then resumed some nuclear fuel production activity it has voluntarily suspended during negotiations. Burns said Iran is alienating a broad range of countries by refusing to back down. He said Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, provoked Saturday's vote with a defiant speech about Iranian nuclear rights at the United Nations. Burns noted India's vote against Iran, and the abstention of other allies or friends Russia, China and South Africa. India was previously seen as supporting Iran's nuclear position and Russia has repeatedly said it opposes Security Council referral. The United States had assumed Russia would vote no. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday September 25, 2005 6:16 AM AP Photo XPZ103 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. atomic watchdog agency on Saturday put Iran just one step away from referral to the Security Council over its disputed nuclear program but Tehran quickly rejected the resolution as ``political, illegal and illogical.'' The decision by the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency board represented a victory for Washington, which asserts Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions. For more than two years, it has failed to enlist the support of the IAEA board to haul Iran before the council for allegedly violating commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. ``The international community is ... not satisfied with the level of confidence-building measures Iran has so far taken,'' IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said. The chief U.S. delegate to the agency hailed the decision, describing it as a wake-up call for Tehran ``to come clean'' or face the consequences. But Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reacted Sunday by saying the resolution removed any doubt that Britain, France and Germany - the three key European countries that had been negotiating with Iran to try to avert referral to the council - had violated previous agreements with Tehran. ``The three European countries implemented a pre-planned scenario already determined by the United States,'' Mottaki said on state-run television. He called the resolution ``political, illegal and illogical.'' Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity. Saturday's decision was far from unanimous. Only 22 of the 35 board nations voted for the U.S.-backed European Union motion. The resolution called on the board to consider reporting Iran to the Security Council at a future meeting for noncompliance with the nuclear arms control treaty and suspicion that Iran's nuclear activities could threaten international peace and security. Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session, unless it dispels international concerns. Outlining what Iran must do to avoid such action, the draft called on it to give IAEA experts access to nuclear-related documents and sites, suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ratify an inspection agreement with the IAEA. Iran last month resumed uranium conversion - a precursor of uranium enrichment, which can make material for either nuclear fuel or the fissile core of warheads. The Europeans for years avoided U.S. demands to support Washington's push to haul Iran before the Security Council. They reluctantly swung behind the U.S. last month after Tehran effectively walked away from talks with Britain, France and Germany meant to reduce suspicions about its nuclear aims and began uranium conversion. The chief U.S. representative to the meeting, Gregory Schulte, said the approval reflected board concern over Iran's ``long history of concealment and deception.'' In opting for referral, the board is ``concerned that Iran's activities pose an increasing threat to international peace and security,'' Schulte said. ``The IAEA has called on Iran to ... come clean.'' ``We have a patient long-term strategy,'' Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said after the vote. ``It's to isolate Iran on this question; it's to ratchet up the international pressure on Iran,'' and assemble the kind of global coalition against Iran that helped persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons last week. But Iran's delegation head, Javad Vaeidi, said the vote was evidence ``there is no consensus on the way forward.'' He also warned, ``Threat invokes threat.'' Tehran already warned Friday that if the resolution was approved, it could respond by starting uranium enrichment - a possible path to nuclear arms - and by reducing IAEA powers to inspect its activities under the additional agreement it signed but had not yet ratified. Both threats were contained in unsigned letters and shown by a member of the Iranian delegation to ElBaradei, diplomats accredited to the agency said on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential. Javier Solana, the chief EU foreign policy official, welcomed the board's ``broad support'' and said it left the door open to negotiations with Tehran. The Security Council could impose sanctions if it determines that Iran violated the treaty, but the draft did not mention sanctions in recognition of Russian and Chinese opposition. A nation's failure to comply with the nonproliferation treaty is automatic grounds for a report to the Security Council under IAEA statutes, and the draft said ``Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations ... constitute noncompliance.'' Additionally, Iran's spotty record on cooperating with an IAEA investigation that began in 2002 has led to an ``absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes,'' the document said. That finding puts Iran ``within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,'' the text said. In Saturday's vote, 12 nations abstained, including Russia and China, which are veto-wielding members of he Security Council, diplomats said. The others were developing nations. Those supporting the resolution included the United States, European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. They were joined by India, Peru, Singapore and Ecuador, reflecting some support in the developing nations' camp. Venezuela cast the only vote against. On Friday, Foreign Integration Minister Gustavo Marquez told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency that powerful countries with nuclear energy programs were unfairly keeping others from developing their own. --- Associated Press reporter Andrea Dudikova contributed to this report. --- On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 Korea Herald: 'U.S. threatened nuclear strikes on N.K. in 1995' The U.S. military deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea in 1987 and possibly until the early 1990s, and threatened pre-emptive atomic strikes against North Korea in 1995, a lawmaker claimed yesterday citing declassified U.S. documents. Rep. Choi Sung of the ruling Uri Party unveiled a Pentagon document dating back to Sept. 22, 1987, which details guidelines for a nuclear weapons support unit in Camp Page in Chuncheon, Gangwon Province. "The document on standard operating procedures contains concrete operation guidelines regarding the transportation, maintenance and launch of nuclear weapons deployed in the relevant unit," said the lawmaker in a news conference. It is the first time that the presence of nuclear weapons in South Korea has been confirmed. He assumed that the U.S. military may have taken the nuclear arms out of the country around 1992 when the two Koreas signed an agreement not to possess nuclear arms on the peninsula. The declassified document came from the archives of the U.S. Defense Department and he obtained it from a U.S. research group. Citing a separate report, he also said the United States sent a message in 1995 to North Korea saying that it could conduct pre-emptive nuclear attacks on the communist state. He cited material from a University of Maryland research center, which contains a U.S. military commander's testimony at a Congress hearing in 1997 that U.S. warnings of nuclear attacks were effective in deterring Iraq in 1991 and North Korea in 1995. The threat seemed to be designed to pressure North Korea to implement a 1994 U.S.-North Korea deal that ended a crisis surrounding North Korea's nuclear development programs. (kkt@heraldm.com) By Ko Kyoung-tae 2005.09.26 ***************************************************************** 16 asahi.com: EDITORIAL/Nudging North Korea 09/24/2005 Strong push is needed to achieve even more change. The decision to resume bilateral talks between Tokyo and Pyongyang, agreed to at recently ended six-party talks in Beijing, signals an apparent move to break a deadlocked situation that has continued for nearly one year. A joint declaration issued at the end of six-party talks in Beijing on the North Korean nuclear problem says Japan and North Korea will work toward normalizing their diplomatic relations. The resumption of bilateral dialogue is the first step. "Although we have yet to position the resumption of dialogue as the start of normalization talks, it is the first step in that direction," said Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura. But prior to that, working-level negotiations must be arranged to discuss the abduction, nuclear and missile issues. We hope full-fledged negotiations will follow. Three years have passed since Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Pyongyang, which resulted in five abductees being allowed to leave, later to be joined by their family members. That is basically the only progress made on the abduction issue. Normal communications effectively became impossible and bilateral contacts all but broke down after DNA testing on human remains sent to Japan by North Korea showed that they were of someone other than abductee Megumi Yokota. Now that bilateral dialogue is to be resumed, Tokyo must make the best of it. Resolving the abduction issue is an urgent matter. However, the same holds true for other pending issues. Tokyo will have to address them in the broader context of stability and prosperity in East Asia by exploring how best to "thaw" the vestigial Cold War structure in this region. Pyongyang's attitude was notably different during the latest round of six-way talks. Previously, the Pyongyang delegates barely bothered to communicate with the Japanese side. But this time they agreed to talk with their Japanese counterparts almost daily. On the abduction issue, a ranking Pyongyang official stated the matter was being "duly considered" at home. And even on the nuclear issue, which North Korea used to insist was none of Japan's concern, there was a dramatic change in attitude. The North Korean delegation members opened up and explained why their country needs light-water reactors. North Korea promised its five negotiating partners that it would abandon all existing nuclear weapons and nuclear development programs. Although nothing specific was put in writing, there is no question this is the first step in the right direction. Obviously, Pyongyang realizes this is a condition it must meet to normalize relations with Japan-specifically, to receive the economic aid agreed to in the Pyongyang Declaration signed between Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. We believe the decision reflects the high hopes Pyongyang places on Koizumi following his landslide victory in the Sept. 11 Lower House election. Having visited Pyongyang twice, Koizumi is clearly anxious to normalize relations with North Korea. Given that his power base is more solid that ever, and with one more year remaining in his term, it seems only natural that Pyongyang would want to seize this opportunity. Once dialogue gets going, Japan should sustain the move toward a negotiated settlement that emerged during the six-way talks and urge North Korea to freeze or abandon its nuclear development program before anything else. Japan should also explain to North Korea that normalization cannot happen unless there is progress in the abduction and missile issues. Whether through six-way talks or bilateral negotiations, Japan must try to convince North Korea that every effort it makes in this regard is in its own best interest. Whether the tide has really changed remains to be seen. But if the winds are blowing in that direction, Japan should act on it and aim for a even greater change. --The Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 23(IHT/Asahi: September 24,2005) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Would 'Deter' Provocation From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday September 25, 2005 3:46 PM By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea warned Sunday it had a powerful ``deterrent'' against a U.S. nuclear attack, criticizing moves in Washington to authorize pre-emptive use of atomic weapons against states or terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. The communist nation's government did not elaborate on the deterrent, but a commentary in North Korea's official Minju Joson newspaper said that ``nuclear weapons are no longer the monopoly of the U.S.'' ``The army and people of (North Korea) are proud of having built such a self-defensive deterrent, strong enough to protect the national dignity and security from the U.S. nuclear threat,'' said the commentary carried by North's Korean Central News Agency. In February, the North publicly claimed it had nuclear weapons, but it has not performed any known tests that would confirm it can make them. Experts have said they believe the North is capable of building about six bombs. The state-run newspaper was deriding a document being updated by the Pentagon to reflect President Bush's 2002 doctrine of pre-emption. The revised version of the ``Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations'' envisions the prior use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies. The Bush administration laid out the pre-emption doctrine months before the Iraq war began in March 2003. It argued that the United States cannot rely on its vast arsenal to deter attacks, especially from biological weapons, and must be willing to strike first to destroy the threat. North Korea fears it might become the next U.S. target after Iraq. Bush has labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the ``axis of evil.'' ``The U.S. nuclear stick will not work'' on North Korea, the newspaper said. ``If the U.S. recklessly forces a nuclear war on (North Korea), its army and people will exercise their legitimate right to self-defense as a powerful means of retaliation.'' North Korea has been locked in a bitter standoff with Washington over its nuclear program for nearly three years. The two countries were part of a landmark six-nation accord last week in which the North pledged to abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid, security assurances and improved ties with the United States. The North, however, threw that commitment into question a day later when it refused to dismantle its nuclear program unless Washington gives it civilian nuclear reactors for power generation. The issue is expected to be the key topic when the six countries - the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia - meet again in November. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 San Francisco Chronicle: ATOMIC TIDBITS Sunday, September 25, 2005 The libretto: Peter Sellars crafted the libretto based on a range of historical and literary sources, including published memoirs and declassified government documents, played off against poetry of John Donne, Charles Baudelaire, the Bhagavad Gita (all Oppenheimer favorites) and of Muriel Rukeyser, the American poet and contemporary of Oppenheimer. Director Peter Sellars: Flunked physics in high school, and he was going to flunk physics at Harvard, but his teachers passed him because they finally went to his shows and saw what he was spending his time doing. J. Robert Oppenheimer: Who had once aspired to be a poet, read Baudelaire to calm himself before the testing of the bomb. He read the Bhagavad Gita in the original Sanskrit, and in the aftermath of the blast reflected on the passage in which Krishna reveals himself as the Creator and Destroyer. The Bomb: Model in the opera weighs 460 pounds with its pulley; its cart weighs 420 pounds. It was created from photographs of the original bomb used at Trinity. Jumbo: "Doctor Atomic" includes a reproduction of Jumbo, the $40 million vessel built to contain the fragments of an atomic bomb whose detonation failed to cause a nuclear explosion. The model weighs 600 pounds; 3,000 pounds with its platform. Preperformance talks: Peter Sellars and John Adams will give the Opera Talks 55 minutes prior to each performance; the talks are free to ticket holders (Sellars does the first six, Adams the last four). "Doctor Atomic" Web sites: Go to for a list of lectures and symposiums tied to the production. Exploratorium.edu/doctoratomic provides scientific, historical and cultural context for the opera. Source: San Francisco Opera Page 21 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 19 San Francisco Chronicle: HOW THE BOMB MADE ITS CINEMATIC MARK Mick LaSalle Sunday, September 25, 2005 The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II but introduced an age of anxiety and despair in politics and culture. This new, unsettled sense was felt by everyone everywhere and inevitably found expression in movies. The previous World War had ended differently. The jubilation that had ended World War I resulted in a decadelong spree that only gradually turned into a hangover. "The Great War" brought about a change in consciousness, a new irony, a frenetic, live-for-today spirit with an undertone of despair, but the fear didn't kick in until about 1930, with the beginning of the Great Depression and the growing realization that a new world war would eventually have to be fought. But with World War II, the hangover was almost instantaneous because of the atomic bomb. For the first time in history, human beings had to live with the knowledge that humanity and civilization could be eradicated, that "the world" -- as opposed to "the Earth" -- was in no way permanent or guaranteed, that it all could end. Given the track record of the 20th century, it seemed not only possible but inevitable that it would all soon end, especially after the communist takeover of China in 1948 and the Soviet Union's detonation of a nuclear bomb in 1949. This new awareness of human impermanence required a major psychological adjustment within people alive at the time. And for every person born thereafter, there came a moment when the child was told or first heard about nuclear weapons and the possibility of everything being wiped out and the world ending. This knowledge is so enormous and so horrible, with implications so pervasive, that it cannot help but have produced a different kind of human being, someone whose mental wiring is unmistakably different from that of the average person, circa 1850. But that's a subject for a whole book, or a shelf full of them, while our subject for today is cinema and how it changed after the bomb. Some changes were, of course, obvious. There were the public service films, sponsored by the government, instructing school children to "duck and cover," as though hiding under a desk could provide protection in a nuclear holocaust. There were also a series of science-fiction films, featuring monsters that were in some way linked to the bomb. The Japanese film "Godzilla" (1954) was about a dinosaur living under the ocean, who is awakened by nuclear testing. Other monsters were the result of radiation. "The Beginning of the End" (1957) featured monster-size grasshoppers. "Them!" (1954) had monster-size ants. "The Amazing Colossal Man" (1957) had a monster-size man, a military officer who'd been exposed to radiation. Even a movie such as "The Blob" (1958), which featured an alien invasion, traded on the same images of civic unrest and on the idea that, in a matter of a day, life could turn chaotic, then hellish and then cease altogether. If we look at these films as manifestations of the internal consciousness of the 1950s, we can get an insight into that decade's retreat into conformity, which was quite the opposite of the culture's response to World War I in the 1920s. Though in 1920 Warren Harding had run on the slogan "A Return to Normalcy," American culture never returned to its prewar ways. But in the 1950s, many people really did aspire and attempt to return to a placid, conformist way of life, as if pretending that things hadn't changed might make it true. The bomb formed an incidental background for films such as the noir thriller "Pickup on South Street" (1953), and was front and center in some serious pieces of work, such as the sci-fi "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951), the brilliant noir "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955), the drama "Fail-Safe" (1964) and its dark comic twin, "Dr. Strangelove" (1964). But even more interesting is the more subtle, unconscious influence of the bomb on cinema. For example, film noir. As a genre, it had gradually emerged in the first years of the 1940s and had come into full bloom before World War II ended, with "Double Indemnity" (1944). But the brave yet despairing philosophy of noir -- that there's nothing of importance or permanence that can be accomplished in life, that the only noble course is to stay true to some inner sense of value and face doom with a stoic irony -- is very postwar and postbomb. After the bomb, mothers and fathers knew they couldn't really protect their children. They could no longer offer their children a vision in which they were all part of some ongoing legacy, in which tradition and precedent had meaning. And if they tried, their kids wouldn't believe them. Adults may have responded to the prospect of nuclear annihilation by building fallout shelters, but young people responded with fear, frivolous distraction, smirky irony and hedonism. The movies since the 1950s are just one manifestation of a cultural response to the bomb, which must also include the Beats, the hippies, rock 'n' roll and drug use. William Faulkner saw this all coming. In his Nobel banquet speech in 1950, upon winning the prize for literature, he criticized the current trend in writing as no longer being about "problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" He said that the writer "must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid. ... Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion." He could have been describing movies, as well, especially movies in the decades since he spoke. "Lust without love" and victories "without pity or compassion" have become the province of popular entertainment, while movies featuring "defeats in which no one loses anything of value" are the province of independent film. But across the board, a faith that life is big, important and meaningful is missing from movies. It's what's missing, period. E-mail Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Page 30 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday September 24, 2005 9:46 PM AP Photo XPZ102 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. atomic watchdog agency Saturday put Iran just one step away from referral to the Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities in coming months - a move the United States has been pushing for years. The chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency hailed the decision, describing it as a wake-up call for Tehran ``to come clean'' or face the consequences. But his Iranian counterpart blasted the approval of the resolution and warned of retaliation. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity. The decision by the 35-nation board represented a victory for Washington, which asserts Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions. For more than two years, it has failed to enlist board support to haul Iran before the council for allegedly violating commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. ``The international community is ... not satisfied with the level of confidence-building measures Iran has so far taken,'' IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said. Saturday's decision was far from unanimous, though. Only 22 of the 35 board nations voted for the U.S.-backed European Union motion. Twelve nations abstained, including Russia and China, which are veto-wielding members of the Security Council, diplomats said. The others were developing nations. Those supporting the resolution included the United States, European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. They were joined by India, Peru, Singapore and Ecuador, reflecting some support in the developing nations' camp. Javier Solana, the chief EU foreign policy official, welcomed the board's ``broad support'' and said it left the door open to negotiations with Tehran. Venezuela cast the only vote against. On Friday, Foreign Integration Minister Gustavo Marquez told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency that powerful countries with nuclear energy programs were unfairly keeping others from developing their own. The resolution called on the board to consider reporting Iran at a future meeting. As grounds, it mentioned noncompliance with the nuclear arms control treaty and suspicions that Iran's nuclear activities could threaten international peace and security. Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session, unless it dispels international concerns. Outlining what Iran must do to avoid such action, the draft called on it to give IAEA experts access to nuclear-related documents and sites, suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ratify an inspection agreement with the IAEA. Iran last month resumed uranium conversion - a precursor of uranium enrichment, which can make material for either nuclear fuel or the fissile core of warheads. The chief U.S. representative to the meeting, Gregory Schulte, said the approval reflected board concern over Iran's ``long history of concealment and deception.'' In opting for referral, the board is ``concerned that Iran's activities pose an increasing threat to international peace and security,'' Schulte said. ``The IAEA has called on Iran to ... come clean.'' But Iran's delegation head, Javad Vaeidi, said the vote was evidence ``there is no consensus on the way forward.'' He also warned, ``Threat invokes threat.'' Tehran already warned Friday that if the resolution was approved, it could respond by starting uranium enrichment - a possible path to nuclear arms - and by reducing IAEA powers to inspect its activities under the additional agreement it signed but had not yet ratified. Both threats were contained in unsigned letters and shown by a member of the Iranian delegation to ElBaradei, diplomats accredited to the agency said on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential. The Security Council could impose sanctions if it determines that Iran violated the treaty, but the draft did not mention sanctions in recognition of Russian and Chinese opposition. A nation's failure to comply with the nonproliferation treaty is automatic grounds for a report to the Security Council under IAEA statutes, and the draft said ``Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations ... constitute noncompliance.'' Additionally, Iran's spotty record on cooperating with an IAEA investigation that began in 2002 has led to an ``absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes,'' the document said. That finding puts Iran ``within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,'' the text said. The Europeans for years avoided U.S. demands for support in its push to haul Iran before the Security Council. They reluctantly swung behind Washington last month after Tehran effectively walked away from talks with Britain, France and Germany meant to reduce suspicions about its nuclear aims and began uranium conversion. --- Associated Press reporter Andrea Dudikova contributed to this report. --- On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 Australian: Little nuclear yield [September 24, 2005] GREG SHERIDAN IF Sydney or Melbourne are ever blown up in a nuclear holocaust, it's not going to matter much whether the failure to stop the terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons was a result of multilateralism or unilateralism, of the UN or the Bush administration. The point is, the spread of nuclear weapons, and their potential hook-up with terrorists, is the most serious security issue of our time. So this week's announcement of a deal in which North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons and programs is a stunning breakthrough, yes? Alas, there is every reason to think that this agreement has much less to it than meets the eye. In Beijing, six-party talks involving the US, China, North and South Korea, Russia and Japan agreed that North Korea would forsake nuclear weapons and programs in exchange for energy aid from the other five. They also provided for discussions, down the track, of a peaceful nuclear energy industry for North Korea and, in other forums, to pursue a comprehensive peace treaty. (The Korean War from 50 years ago is technically still on, while a mere temporary armistice prevails.) The agreement also calls for the denuclearisation of the entire Korean Peninsula and the Americans promise not to attack North Korea with conventional or nuclear weapons. There are good reasons to be intensely sceptical of this agreement. But first the good sign, and that is China's involvement. That Beijing was both the host and the midwife suggest that China will have a big investment in the agreement working, that China will lose face if it falls apart. As the Chinese have more influence on the North Koreans than anyone that's a good dynamic. But when you've said that, you've said more or less everything. The list of Korean breakthroughs that have led nowhere is long and depressing. There was the 1992 agreement on the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Most famously, following the real possibility of war, there was the 1994 framework agreement in which the US promised to build two light-water nuclear reactors (from which it is more difficult to produce nuclear weapons) for the north in exchange for it halting the production of plutonium at its graphite reactor at Yongbyon. The chairman's statement issued by the Chinese from the 2004 six-party talks contained most of the political provisions in Monday's agreement. But to go back to the 1994 framework agreement, the problem was it turned out North Korea was cheating for the whole life of this agreement. It never shut down Yongbyon, but worse, it opened up an entirely different program of producing highly enriched uranium, which can also produce nuclear weapons. When then US assistant secretary of state Jim Kelly confronted the North Koreans with this information they at first admitted it, then later denied it. They also threw out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North Korean leaders are not finally irrational. Unlike Iraq's Saddam Hussein, they have never encompassed their own destruction. But they are very kooky, a very weird mob almost impossible to read. Let me illustrate. Quite a few years ago, well before North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, held a summit with any Western leader, I interviewed South Korea's then president, Kim Young-sam in Seoul. Turn off the tape recorder, KYS told me at one stage, I want to tell you something highly secret. The reason Kim Jong-il cannot hold a summit is that he has a debilitating physical and mental illness, which means he can't function in public, KYS said. I thought I had a pretty good story from a pretty good source and duly wrote it. Not too many months later, however, Kim Jong-il had Madeleine Albright round for afternoon tea and showed himself, if not exactly the Cary Grant of northeast Asia, perfectly capable of appearing in public. So, either the South Korean president was just pulling my leg, which would seem pretty unlikely or, and here's the point, even the South Koreans at the highest possible level did not know what was going on in North Korea. US intelligence has said, more or less publicly, that it believes Pyongyang already has several nuclear weapons. This assessment may well be true, but I have grown a little sceptical of it, not so much because of the Iraq intelligence failures as the Kim Young-sam factor - no one really knows anything for sure. However, the Kim Jong-il and Saddam comparison may well be apt, too. Saddam came to believe that his entire power structure, his ability to intimidate his own population, and his standing with his neighbours, rested on their believing that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. What other bargaining chip does Kim Jong-il have apart from nuclear weapons, or the belief by others that he has nuclear weapons? In the latest agreement, South Korea has promised to provide 2000MW of power per year to North Korea, which over 10 years will cost the south something like $US12 billion. And everyone else will pitch in too. Would anyone do anything like this for a Stalinist terror camp such as North Korea without the threat of nuclear weapons? Which leads me to believe that North Korea is not going to give up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. If it has them it will hold on to them, if it doesn't have them it will hold on to the bluff. It took Pyongyang only one day to start to complicate the breakthrough agreement. It said it wanted two light-water nuclear reactors before it gave up any nuclear weapons or nuclear programs. But no US government, after all the cheating of the past 15 years, could secure a dime for an agreement such as that from Congress, in which the North Koreans get new reactors only on the basis of a promise for future good behaviour. That's basically what Bill Clinton negotiated in 1994, though he sensibly took forever to build the reactors, which are still barely begun. He was much aided in this dawdling by the maddening behaviour of the North Koreans themselves. In the meantime what does the denuclearisation of the whole Korean Peninsula mean? The US has not had nuclear weapons in South Korea for 15 years and the South Koreans aren't making any of their own. Maybe the North Koreans believe that the US-South Korea alliance itself is enough to constitute nuclearisation. There's no doubt the Bush administration has been flexible to get this agreement. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State has been able to empower Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary, whereas poor old Jim Kelly was always snookered by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And the agreement is worth a try. It could, however, just end up handing over energy aid, on some sort of interim basis, to Pyongyang while the north procrastinates about giving up its weapons. That, of course, will be a marvellous crunch point. The north sometimes claims it has weapons and sometimes claims it doesn't. If US intelligence is correct that it does have weapons then anything less than bringing them into the open and physically destroying them will lead to the suspicion that we're just being hoodwinked all over again. Meanwhile, nuclear profileration's infinite dangers remain. The Australian ***************************************************************** 22 Deseret News: China trying to displace U.S. power in Pacific [deseretnews.com] Sunday, September 25, 2005 Charles Krauthammer WASHINGTON In September 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire) that settled the Russo-Japanese War. Settling an extra-hemispheric dispute between foreign powers marked the emergence of the United States, an economic and demographic dynamo, as a world power and serious actor on the international stage. Exactly 100 years later, a statement of principles has been issued from Beijing on dismantling North Korea's nuclear program. If it holds the "if" is very large it will mark China's emergence from an economic and demographic dynamo to a major actor on the world stage and serious rival to American dominance in the Pacific. Why is the Beijing agreement different from the worthless "Agreed Framework" Bill Clinton signed in 1994 and North Korea violated (we now know) from the very first day? That agreement was bilateral. This one is six-party, but the major player is China. China conspicuously made itself the locus of the conference and its host. Its vice foreign minister declared, "North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to a nuclear nonproliferation treaty." If China can succeed where the United States failed miserably in solving the knottiest problem in the Pacific, China will have emerged. That means a lot for China. It has a large stake in this agreement. Moreover, China controls 30 percent of the food and at least 70 percent of the fuel going into North Korea. That is leverage. The question is why China has decided to use it now. Until now, China had been content to allow North Korea to putter along with its threats, bluster, promises and violations. This served a useful purpose for China in that it was a distraction to the United States, a thorn in its side. Nor were the Chinese in a particular mood to jeopardize the stability of a useful client state. If this new agreement bears fruit, it will be because China has recalculated its interests, by first deciding that if these negotiations go nowhere and North Korea remains nuclear, it is only a matter of time before Japan goes nuclear too. A nuclear Japan is China's ultimate nightmare. Second, the usefulness of North Korea as a thorn in the side of the United States may have diminished. America has thorns aplenty, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine to Venezuela, to say nothing of its Katrina-related domestic problems. Third and perhaps most important, this was less a crisis than an opportunity. China spent the past decade trying to translate its economic power into geopolitical power to make itself the arbiter of Asian affairs. It has established several new regional organizations with Asian neighbors (ASEAN Plus Three, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, East Asian Summit) that pointedly exclude the United States. Its major ambition is to displace the United States as the major Pacific power. At which point, specific and smaller objectives, such as the absorption of Taiwan and the extension of oil rights to waters claimed by weaker neighbors, become infinitely more possible. By succeeding at denuclearizing Pyongyang, China can demonstrate that the road to getting things done in Asia runs through Beijing. It will have shown its neighbors that the future lies in association with China, with or without the United States. For this to happen, however, the declaration of principles has to translate into actual dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program. The declaration itself is problematic. It leaves ambiguous the fate of the uranium enrichment program, which North Korea admitted to in 2002 and now claims does not exist. Success is also contingent on the North Koreans agreeing to postpone, at U.S. insistence, talks about a new light-water nuclear reactor until after it has dismantled its nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons facilities. Yet within a day after the declaration of principles, Pyongyang issued a statement directly contradicting this and saying that nothing will occur unless it gets the light-water reactors right away. China is the only country that can force North Korea to give way. China will do so if it decides that this is its Portsmouth moment. That would be a blessing, but not unalloyed. It would solve the most acute and dangerous problem in the Pacific nuclear weapons in the hands of the half-mad Caligula that is Kim Jong Il at the warranted but still significant cost of seeing our principal rival in the Pacific rise from its slumber. Charles Krauthammer's e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com. Washington Post Writers Group 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 23 Bellona: Analysis: Former Russian nuke Minister Adamov caught in diplomatic extradition battle Moscow says nulcear secrets hang in the balance As a Russian citizen privy to state secrets and as a regular Russian citizen, former Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeny Adamov who has done so much for the Russian State is counting on Moscow to get him out of his current extradition tug of war between Washington and Moscow. Former Russian Atomic energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov. Kurchatov Institute Anna Kireeva, 2005-09-23 13:22 Translated by Charles Digges Ever since his arrest and detention in a Swiss prison in Bern, the former minister, who was picked up on a US warrant for, among other things, allegedly laundering $9m in funding from the US Department of Energy for eliminating nuclear waste in Russia, has not passed up the chance to give interviews and comment on his situationsomething Swiss courts are currently working to put a damper on. He was arrested May 2nd during a visit to Switzerland to help his daughter with several of her bank accounts that had been frozen. But so far, Adamov has published two letters in his defence in two Russian papers and given a jailhous interview to Russias popular Ekho Moskvy radio station. The assertions he delivers in each of his public addresses is the same: He is a patriot whose service to the Russian nuclear industry is obvious, all of the accusations against him are fantasy, the case against him is political, and he himself wishes strongly to return to Russia. Former nuke minister Adamov wants trial in Russia, but US has other plans Former Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeny Adamov, who has been siting in a Swiss jail since May 2nd on extradition allegations from both Washington and Moscow that he laundered $9m in US nuclear aid funds through American front firms, has agreed to be prosecuted in a Russian court, news agencies reported. The accusations Both Russia and the United States are now struggling for Adamovs extradition, and the Swiss judiciary is the only body that can make a decision on his final destination. After his arrest on May 2 on a US federal warrant, Russia hurriedly filed an extradition request with the Swiss government for his extradition to Russia on charges of fraud and exceeding his powers as a minister. The American extradition requesta 20 page list of charges originating in the Western Pennsylvania Districts US Attorney where the Adamov hold propertywas filed later, but the US court had a June 20 deadline to file its charges and extradition request. Upon his arrest, the former minister refused to comment on the accusations levied against him. I have a general rule, he said. While abroad, dont speak about matters at home. Even more so, dont criticise domestic situations. Returning to Russia, I will speak on these matters, first of all with those who are dealing with this case, and then with the press. The Russian Prosecutor General also refused to comment on the Adamov case, saying all evidence and information was an investigative secret. Rumyantsev: Adamov should be sent back to Russia Former Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov should be given an opportunity to return to Russia and answer the questions of Russian law enforcement agencies, Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), told Itar-Tass Russian news agency reported. The Adamov casepolitical or criminal? Speaking about the nuances of his arrest in connection to the American accusations, Adamov threads the needle from the political side. These are not accusations over business, and arent even an attempt to kill the strong beast, but an attempt to get the whole herd, he said on Ekho Moskvy. According to him, the first task of his accusers is to show that all authority in Russia is on the take. Not putting a country with nuclear capabilities under western purveiw is unthinkable. Rosatom spokesman Nikolai Shingaryov. Charles Digges/Bellona Nikolai Shingrayov, information director for the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy (Rosatom) said in an interview with Bellona Web that, from his point of view, there is more politics than criminal activity involved in the case against Adamov. I have not read the case, I dont know the facts, but I consider Adamov to be an honest man, he said. Ecologists are of a different mindset. Specifically, one of Russias most prominent environmentalists, Alexei Yablokovwho is president of the Center For Ecological Politicsis convinced that Adamovs detention is connected to financial corruption. From the Dumas Anti-Corruption files on Adamovs activities The professional policies of Adamov while serving as Minister of Atomic Energy and the structural changes he effected characterize a substantial breach of current legislation in the field of nuclear safe production, a decline in the general level of professionalism among management of the field owing to consistent gradual guided line of replacing high-level specialists by tangential officials that are connected to him via cooperative business activities, and directed toward the commercialisation of the Ministry and of the use of its structures for personal use. The investigation into money transfers received by Adamov for nuclear remediation and security apparently began a number of years ago. It arose as a result of the scandalous audit by the US General Accountability Office, which concluded that a significant portion of the funding the US government was sending was being used for purposes other than agreed in both the United States and Russia. Vladimir Kuznetsov, director of nuclear safety issues for Russias Green Cross NGO, alleged to Bellona Web in an interview that There is no politics in this case. Adamov is a thief and a thief must go to jail. Privy to government secrets? Adamovs guilt, however, can only be proven in court, and Adamov wants that trial to take place in his homeland. He confirmed in his interview that They [US authorities] need me not only in court, and they dont really need a court case, they are afraid to lose. They need to violently bring in a hand-cuffed carrier of state secrets. If I spend even one night in an American prison, then problems between state departments cannot be ruled out. Many analysts consider such expressions from Adamov to be blackmail aimed at Russia to actively seek his extradition. Indeed, Shingaryov said that a person who had occupied a post such as Adamovs knows secrets. But Kuznetsov was of the opposite opinion. What secrets? Adamov has always been around the atomic branch. The nuclear industry under Adamov In all his public utterances, Adamov speaks of how the nuclear industry in Russia, thanks to him, has been revived. He also said he inherited an industry that was not in the best of shape: striking nuclear workers at nuclear stations, a lack of money, and the low production of Russin nuclear power plants. When I began, atomic stations received five to seven percent of their production. It is not surprising that all of this was accompanied by strikes. You probably remember that in 1997, the Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant practically marched on Moscow, said Adamov in his interview. The Nikiet institute, formerly headed by Adamov. Nikiet.ru Adamov defended at any cost the Scientific and Engineering Institute of Engery Techology (NIKIET in its Russia abreviation). Saving a government structure from the government, of course, I did not always think of the exorbitant allocation of taxes that would have to be paid to the government. I performed illegally when they forced private enterprises to share profits with the government enterprise. And I finally encouraged theft. I called for stealing specialists from failing institutes of academies, schools of higher education and other fields. And we saved many specialists and their families, said Adamov. I am proud of such theft. Workers and specialists at NIKIET are backing their former chief, as evidenced by their Website. The site now includes letters of support for Adamov, one of which reads: Ask anyone in NIKIET and he will tell you that it was thank to fate that they were able to work side by side with such a person. He taught, and we, by his side, learned in fits and starts to work, think and finally live in the new circumstances of new specialists, scholars, engineers, who as a result of the great reforms of the 90s were on the edge of life with holes in one of their pockets and garbage from the government in the other. Shingrayov also gave Adamov high marks as atomic minister, He said that Adamov took over the helm of Russias nuclear industry in hard times. During Adamovs tenure, said Shingaryov, electricity production went up, and the number of floating atomic energy stations increased. In 2000, Minatom forwarded a strategy to develop the atomic industry over the next 50 years and it was approved by the government. This was an enormous achievement and I evaluate the work that Adamov did as minister with a plus grade, said Shingaryov. However, public environmentalist have a very negative assesment of Adamov while he was minister of atomic energy. For us, Adamov personifies the most dangerous plans and the direction atomic workers are taking, said Yablokov. He was the biggest lobbyist for the most dangerous anti-environmental policiesturning Russia into an international nuclear waste dump, Yablokov said in relation to a package of legislation allowing Russia to accept nuclear waste from abroad. But Shingaryov commented that the approval of this legislation has a severe ecological thrust. It seriously toughens the demands for the import of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). According to Shingaryov, the scale of SNF imports to Russiawhich have been lowhave been such because of Russias high regulatory standards. It is worth noting, however, that the United States controls some 70 to 90 percent of the world SNF and Washington has thus far refused imports to Russia for political reasonsmost significantly for Moscows cooperation with Iran in building a light water reactor on the Persian Gulf. Shigaryov chalks up ecologists concerns about the environment to a PR campaign. He said that there are more people for the import of radioactive waste in Russia than there are againtdespite a poll conducted by Greenpeace in 2001 showing that 90 percent of the Russian population was opposed. In Shingaryovs opinion, Adamovs mistake was that he put the discussion of the legislation forth into the public arena across the country. More of the negative opinion among ecologists toward Adamov can be explained by the fact that he actively supports the construction of floating nuclear power plants. According to Yablokov, Adamov is hindering knowledge about the actual truth behind the Chernobyl disaster. Adamov has said, for instance, that the catastrophe was an insignificant technical incident. The liquidators [of the fallout], who worked after the accident at the Chernobyl reactor fall ill even more rarely than the average person. Adamov hides the truth about the terrible repercussions of irradiation on the health of nuclear industry workers. He publicly called Yablokov a liar when he presented official data about illness within the nuclear sector. Yablokov sued Adamov for slander and won. Many, including Yablokov, consider that Adamov has betrayed the national interests of Russia not only on the level of the nuclear industry, but on commercial and personal as well. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 24 WorldNetDaily: Unratified additional protocol SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 24 2005 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: September 24, 2005 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Ever since Condi Rice became secretary of state, she and her lackeys have been running around in circles of diminishing radius, muttering something about the necessity of "referring" Iran to the U.N. Security Council for "action." What necessity? What action? Well, according to their statute, whenever inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency discover "special nuclear materials" that are or ought to be subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement, being used "in furtherance of a military purpose," the IAEA Board of Governors is required to report such use to the Security Council for possible "action." Way back in 1991, IAEA inspectors discovered that Iraq a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons had attempted to produce fissile materials "in furtherance of a military purpose." Under Iraq's existing Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA had had no authority to look for "special nuclear materials" and/or activities involving their physical or chemical transformation that should have been "declared," but weren't. So, by 1997, the IAEA Board had developed a Model Additional Protocol providing intrusive go-anywhere, see-anything authority similar to that provided the IAEA in Iraq by the Security Council which all IAEA members were urged to accept. In 2003, Iran did sign an Additional Protocol, but the Iranian Parliament has not "ratified" it. (And, thanks to Condi, may never.) Iran's existing Safeguards Agreement is virtually the same as Iraq's. Hence the IAEA is only authorized to inspect facilities and activities that Iran has "declared." However, pending ratification, the Iranians volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA as if the Additional Protocol was in force. But, if Condi wants to "refer" Iran to the Security Council for "non-compliance" with its Safeguards Agreement, it is the original agreement, in force since 1974, that counts. Under that agreement, the Iranians were not obliged to inform the IAEA about any of their activities that did not involve the acquisition, disposition, storage, physical or chemical transformation of "special nuclear materials." In particular, they were under no obligation to tell the IAEA they were buying or producing equipment that could be used to physically or chemically transform "special nuclear materials." They were under no obligation to tell the IAEA about the plant they were building at Natanz, nor about the thousands of gas-centrifuges they had been attempting to manufacture for use in that plant. Under their existing Safeguards Agreement, the Iranians were obligated to tell the IAEA about Natanz only in sufficient time so that once "special nuclear materials" were introduced into the Natanz plant, the IAEA would be in a position to determine whether or not those materials were diverted to some military purpose. Hence, nearly all the "violations" that Condi and the neo-crazies are loudly claiming the Iranians were guilty of over the past 20 years, were not violations of their existing Safeguards Agreement at all. True, when the Iranians began to divulge everything they had done since 1974, there were some things they should have reported, but hadn't. For example, their Safeguards Agreement says that "the objective of the safeguards procedures set forth in this part of the Agreement is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons." What is a "significant" quantity? For referring Iran to the Security Council, the "significant" quantity is defined to be that quantity of material containing "one-kilogram equivalent" of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. However, the IAEA has decreed that the acquisition or production of any amount of "special nuclear materials" even milligram quantities has to be reported. Iran is not the only country South Korea is another failing to report to the IAEA at the time the acquisition or production of materials containing less than "one-kilogram equivalent." But, the Iranians have now made those reports. So, insofar as complying with their existing Safeguards Agreement is concerned, case closed, Condi. Furthermore, after two years of go-anywhere, see-anything inspections, ElBaradei has found no indication that any special nuclear materials or activities involving them are being or have been used in furtherance of a military purpose. Nevertheless, Condi and her lackeys are charging that Iran is in "non-compliance" with its Safeguards Agreement, and thus now "within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Nonsense. Condi needs to re-read and try real hard to comprehend the existing Iranian Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA Statute and the U.N. Charter. 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] ***************************************************************** 25 Aljazeera: IAEA Arab members slam Israel over nuclear bombs - Aljazeera.com 9/24/2005 10:00:00 AM GMT Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East Arab member states of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency plan to push the agency to condemn Israel as a threat to peace in the Middle East for possessing nuclear weapons, reported Reuters. Under its policy of "nuclear ambiguity," Israel refuses to neither deny or admit possessing a nuclear arsenal, though experts say that Jewish state has between 100 and 200 atomic bombs. In a letter submitted to the IAEA, Oman, on behalf of the Arab member states, demanded that the agency's annual General Conference of the IAEA's 138 member states in Vienna next week to consider a statement strongly criticising Israel. "Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to a destructive nuclear arms race in the region, especially if Israel's nuclear installations remain outside any international control," a text attached to the letter said, listing 11 UN General Assembly resolutions asking Israel to sign the NPT. The move follows a row at the IAEA's 35-nation governing board over how to deal with Irans nuclear programme. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons and has not signed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT, aimed at halting the spread of atomic arms. "Whereas all Arab states have acceded to the NPT, Israel continues to defy the international community by refusing to become a party to the treaty or to place its installations under the (IAEA's) comprehensive safeguards system, thus exposing the region to nuclear risks and threatening peace," the text added. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has urged Israel to scrap its atomic arsenal. "The policies of the present Israeli government have obstructed the peace process in the Middle East and all initiatives to free the region of the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular of nuclear weapons, have failed," the text said. Israeli claims [ hspace=10 src=] Israel stepped up pressure on the UN nuclear watchdog agency earlier this week, asking the Security Council to stop the "evil regime" in Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors met in Vienna to discuss a draft resolution submitted by the EU big three; Britain, France and Germany, demanding that Iran be referred to the Security Council for breaching international atomic safeguards. The Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said "I call on them to stop this evil regime (Tehran) from acquiring nuclear weapons," referring to the IAEA governors. "The security and stability of the entire globe is at stake." "This is why it is essential and urgent that the Security Council take action," he added. "The international community must rally as one and use all the means at its disposal to stop Iran, before it goes nuclear. The Israeli foreign minister called Iran's nuclear ambitions the "central threat" to global security. Aljazeera.com ***************************************************************** 26 Rita Endangers Nuclear Plants Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 03:13:23 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species. Subject: FYI: Some stuff that's in the current path of Rita... September 21st, 2005 A WARNING TO CITIZENS OF THE TEXAS / LOUISIANA GULF COAST REGION: South Texas Project 1 and STP 2 are two nuclear power plants located just 90 miles SW of Houston. That's not very far if an accident occurs and radiation is released during 100+ MPH winds. There is no guarantee the plants can survive the conditions they are about to face. STP's two reactors, and all the spent radioactive fuel stored outside the reactor domes in pools at the site, could be subjected to a category 5 (strongest possible) hurricane (ie, BIGGER than Katrina). Swarms of tornados are also not unheard of during hurricanes. A fuel tank or truck could, for example, be picked up and lofted into the spent fuel pools. The plants will be off the grid (if they aren't already) and operating on emergency generators, but these could be knocked out as well. The intakes or outlets for the cooling systems could be damaged or plugged. All of these are possible, but none of them are considered credible by the authorities. Perhaps the most dangerous thing is the arrogance of the plant's operators. Local residents should simply NOT TRUST their lame assurances (see below). And they want to build MORE nuclear power plants in these poor, hurricane-stricken areas! Who knows if the workers at the plants will stay to try to prevent problems? After all, they didn't swear an oath to faithfully do their job, as the cops in New Orleans did -- many of whom WALKED OFF THE JOB during Katrina. But even if the nuclear power plant workers DO stay and try to keep things working, there may be NOTHING they can do, and they will just be committing suicide. Who knows what might crash into these power plants when Rita hurls its fury at them? Who knows what problems might occur, leading to a meltdown and MASSIVE radiation release? Details of the two plants are shown below, along with a CNN puff piece (or is it just a press release from the STP owners?). Russell Hoffman Concerned Citizen Carlsbad, CA ===================================================== South Texas Project LOCATION: Matagorda County (nearest major city: Galveston, TX; 90 miles SW of Houston, TX; 8 miles west of Wadsworth, TX, 12 miles SSW of Bay City, TX) South Texas Project Electric Generating Sta.: Unit 1 1,250 Mw PWR/Westinghouse 'pressurized to 2,300 pounds per square inch to keep water liquid at 600: F' (Source: STP web site.) Spent fuel on site: 320 tons as of 1995. Commercial start-up date: Aug., 1988 Current Status: Making waste 1982 CRAC-2 est. ?Worst Case? Casualties: 39,000; Property Damage: $112 Billion South Texas Project Electric Generating Sta.: Unit 2 1,250 Mw PWR/W (See Unit 1 for information.) Commercial start-up date: June, 1989 Current Status: Making waste 1982 CRAC-2 est. 'Worst Case' Casualties: 39,000; Property Damage: $104 Billion The Reactor Containment Buildings are 200-foot domes. The plant site is an official wildlife area providing habitat for several threatened species, including bald eagles, peregrine falcons, white-tailed hawks and alligators. (Source: STP web site.) April 19th, 2003: "[A radioactive] powdery material was found April 12 on the outside of two instrument guide tubes where the tubes enter the bottom of the reactor". (Source: New York Times; Unit unknown.) May 8th, 1990: Pipe crack in reactor at South Texas (Source: Greenpeace; Unit unknown.) =================================================== List of nuclear power plants in America: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm Visual display of nuclear activities in America: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf ==================================================== From: Molly Johnson Subject: Nuclear plant to shut down for Rita "Thanks Augie, the problem will not be with the containment, but with the Auxiliary building which houses the radioactive waste processing as well as the spent fuel pool. That building normally only has a metal siding. Interesting. We'll see how this plays out. Ernie Goitein - nuclear engineer" ------------------------------------- Nuclear plant to shut down for Rita 2 Texas reactors built to stand up to Category 5 storm (CNN) -- Officials at a Texas nuclear power plant in the path of Hurricane Rita prepared Wednesday to shut down two reactors. The South Texas Project plant serving 1 million customers is built on elevated ground in Bay City, 12 miles inland from the Texas coast. It is designed to withstand storm surges from Category 5 hurricanes. "We have a specific plan in place on what to do with a hurricane approaching," spokesman Alan Mikus said. "Our plan calls for the complete shutdown of the plant in advance of the storm's arrival." (Watch video of a strengthening Rita -- 1:53) The two reactor containment buildings are made of 4-foot-thick steel-reinforced concrete walls -- strong enough to withstand a Category 5 storm, or the direct impact of a Boeing 767. They are two of the strongest buildings in Texas. "The plant is designed to withstand tornadic force winds, which are higher than hurricane force winds," Mikus said. He added that the plant shutdown would likely occur about seven hours before landfall. If Rita maintains the forecast track, the hurricane would come ashore early Saturday somewhere between Corpus Christi and Galveston. Customers will not lose power during the shutdown because other power companies will pick up the load, the spokesman said. The nuclear plant itself will operate off power from other companies for cooling the fuel supply and spent fuel storage, he added. If the power grid fails, Mikus said, on-site diesel generators will provide back-up power to maintain the proper cooling. Asked his biggest concern with Rita headed toward the region, Mikus said, "I don't know if we have any." He said the plant has a "safe shutdown condition" and was designed "to protect the safety of the public." Bob Watts, the emergency management coordinator for Matagorda County, said he is confident the plant "will be on top of the situation." The South Texas Project is the largest employer in the county, with about 1,300 workers. "Non-essential" workers are being asked not to come to work, and about 300 "essential" workers will ride out the storm at the plant, Mikus said. Construction began at the plant in 1976, with the first reactor going into operation in 1988 and the second going online a year later. In addition to the 4-foot-thick walls of the containment buildings, each reactor is housed inside a carbon steel vessel with 6-inch-thick walls. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/rita.nuclear/index.html ************************************************* ** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY ** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer ** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936 ** (800) 551-2726 ** (760) 720-7261 ** Fax: (760) 720-7394 ** Visit the world's most eclectic web site: ** http://www.animatedsoftware.com ************************************************* IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com ======================================================================== ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 27 London Times: Power to the people has to be nuclear - Sunday Times - Professor Roland Dobbs Wadhurst, East Sussex SORRY MESS: Portillos article was a comprehensive analysis of the utter bankruptcy of the governments energy policy. The whole sorry mess has been festering since privatisation in 1989. No large power stations of any kind are being constructed as the electricity pricing mechanism is not giving power companies the signals for long-term investment. His views of the cost of new nuclear plants are not up-to-date. Plants are now much more standardised and Canadian-designed ones are being built in China in about 50 months. The new plant in Finland should be quite straightforward, as will the new ones in France. The principal advantage of using uranium is that, with a breeder cycle, we can produce controllable power and dramatically reduce our dependence on imported energy with inexhaustible fuel and very small quantities of waste. Paul Spare Chartered Engineer Davenham, Cheshire NEW ENERGY: Never mind global warming (serious though that is). We need many new nuclear power stations to produce at least half the power we require. In 10-15 years time we will be dependent on very expensive oil and gas largely from the former Soviet Union and the Middle East hardly reliable suppliers. Oil production will peak in the next few years, gas after another decade. ***************************************************************** 28 Sydney Morning News: Nuclear future - Environment - Specials - smh.com.au September 26, 2005 We hear the Secretary of State [John Foster Dulles] boasting of his brinksmanship - the art of bringing us to the edge of the nuclear abyss. Adlai Stevenson, The New York Times, February 26, 1956. It's often said that the sun is nuclear energy at a safe distance. In this era of climate crisis, however, the role of Earth-based nuclear power is being reassessed, and what was until recently a dying technology may yet create its own day in the sun. The revival began in earnest in May 2004, when environmental organisations around the world were shocked to hear the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock, deliver a heartfelt plea for a massive expansion in the world's nuclear energy programs. Lovelock did so, he said, because he believed that climate change was advancing so rapidly that nuclear power was the only option available to stop it. He compared our present situation with that of the world in 1938 - on the brink of war and nobody knowing what to do. Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth immediately rejected his call. Yet Lovelock has a point, for all power grids need reliable "baseload" generation, and there remains a big question mark over the capacity of renewable technologies to provide it. France supplies nearly 80 per cent of its power from nuclear sources, while Sweden provides half and Britain one-quarter. Nuclear power already provides 18 per cent of the world's electricity, with no carbon dioxide emissions. Its proponents argue that it could supply far more, but even the Bush Administration's energy forecasters believe that its share will in fact fall - to just 10 per cent of production - within a decade. In discussing nuclear power as a means of creating electricity, we must keep in mind that nuclear power plants are nothing more than complicated and potentially hazardous machines for boiling water, which creates the steam used to drive turbines. As with coal, nuclear power stations are very large, about 1700 megawatts, and with a starting price of $US2 billion ($2.6 billion) apiece they are expensive to build. The power they generate, however, is at present competitive with that generated from wind. Because they are large, and many factors relating to safety must be considered, the permitting process for a nuclear power station can take up to a decade, with construction taking about five years. With a 15-year gestation period before any power is generated, and even longer before any return on the investment is seen, nuclear power is not for the impatient investor. It is this, as much as concerns about safety, which explains why no new reactors have been built for 20 years in either the US or Britain. Three factors loom large in the minds of the public, however, whenever nuclear power is mentioned - safety, disposal of waste and bombs. The horror of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine was a catastrophe of stupendous proportions whose consequences keep growing. Thyroid cancer is a rare illness, with just one in a million children developing it spontaneously. But a third of children under four years old who were exposed to fallout from Chernobyl will develop the disease. Seven per cent (some 3.3 million people) of the population of Ukraine have suffered illness as a result of the meltdown, while in neighbouring Belarus, which received 70 per cent of the fallout, the situation is even worse. Only 1 per cent of the country is free from contamination, 25 per cent of its farmland has been put permanently out of production, and nearly 1000 children die each year from thyroid cancer. Currently, 25 per cent of the Belarus budget is spent on alleviating the effects of the disaster. In the US and Europe, safer reactor types predominate but, as the Three Mile Island incident shows, no one is immune to accident, or to sabotage. With several nuclear reactors in the US located near large cities, there are real concerns about a terrorist attack. In summarising the situation for nuclear power as it stood late last year, the US National Commission on Energy Policy said: "One would want the probability of a major release of radioactivity, measured per reactor per year, to fall a further tenfold or more [before considering a doubling or tripling of nuclear power capacity]. This means improved defences against terrorist attack as well as against malfunction or human error." The management of radioactive waste is another issue of concern. The nuclear industry in the US long looked to the proposed high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a solution. But the waste stream has now reached such proportions that even if Yucca Mountain were opened tomorrow it would be filled at once and another dump would be needed. In reality, the opening of the Yucca Mountain dump looks to be delayed for years as challenges drag on through the courts. And the problem of what to do with old and obsolete nuclear power plants is almost as intractable: the US has 103 nuclear plants that were originally licensed to operate for 30 years, but are now slated to grind on for double that time. This ageing fleet must be giving the industry headaches, especially as no reactor has ever yet been successfully dismantled, perhaps because the cost is estimated to be about $US500 million a pop. The majority of new nuclear power plants are being built in the developing world, where a less tight-laced bureaucracy and greater central control make things easier. China will commission two new nuclear power stations a year for the next 20 years, which from a global perspective is highly desirable, for 80 per cent of China's power now comes from coal. India, Russia, Japan and Canada also have reactors under construction, while approvals are in place for 37 more in Brazil, Iran, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Finland. Providing the uranium necessary to fuel these reactors will be a challenge, for world uranium reserves are not large; at the moment a quarter of the world's demand is being met by reprocessing redundant nuclear weapons. This brings us to the issue of nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands. As the current dispute over the proposed Iranian reactor indicates, anyone who possesses enriched uranium has the potential to create a bomb. As reactors proliferate and alliances shift, there is an increasing likelihood that such weapons will be available to those who want them. The nuclear industry hopes that technological developments will lead to foolproof reactors that produce electricity at a cost equivalent to coal. New reactor types include pebble-bed reactors, which utilise low-enriched uranium and can be built on a smaller scale than conventional plants, and pressurised water reactors, one of which will be built soon in Normandy, France, a plant which promises to produce power more cheaply than coal. As with geosequestration, however, these technologies are still to be developed. What role might nuclear power play in averting the climate change disaster? China and India are likely to pursue the nuclear option with vigour, for there is currently no inexpensive, large-scale alternative available to them. Both nations already have nuclear weapons programs, so the relative risk of proliferation is not great. In the developed world, though, any major expansion of nuclear power will depend upon the viability of new, safer reactor types. Humanity is at a great crossroads. Trillions of dollars will need to be invested to make the transition to the carbon-free economy and, once a certain path of investment is embarked upon, it will gather such momentum, it will be difficult to change direction. So what might life be like if we choose one over the other? In the hydrogen and nuclear economies the production of power is likely to be centralised, which would mean the survival of the big power corporations. Pursuing wind and solar technologies, on the other hand, means that people could generate most of their own power, transport fuel and even water (by condensing it from the air). If we follow this second path, we will have opened a door to a world the likes of which have not been seen since the days of James Watt, when a single fuel powered transport, and industrial and domestic needs, with the big difference being that the fuel will be generated not by large corporations, but by every one of us. TOMORROW: It's over to you: Tim Flannery's guide to combatting global warming. Edited extract from The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change by Tim Flannery (Text Publishing, $32.95, published today). Copyright 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 29 Deseret News: West seeing new energy boom [deseretnews.com] Sunday, September 25, 2005 By Sandy Shore Associated Press PARACHUTE, Colo. John Loschke climbs out of his truck in the cramped parking lot outside the Outlaws restaurant and surveys the collection of cars, trucks and RVs. It's lunch hour on a hot summer day and he figures about 70 percent of the vehicles bear the unmistakable signs of oil and gas country. It reminds Loschke, the town's mayor, of the chaotic scene when Parachute's fortunes were changed during an oil shale boom some 30 years ago. Today's energy boom, he says, is "managed chaos." "We're better prepared. It's 25 years later, and we've got infrastructure," he said. Some two decades after the West's last oil bust, production of coal, natural gas, oil and uranium is on the upswing as the world's energy supplies dwindle and demand rises unabated. Even oil shale is getting a fresh look. Operations are scattered across the sparsely populated land, prompting concern about potential impacts on land, water, air and even the communities, says Pete Kolbenschlag of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. "Communities in the West are not being given the opportunity to really see what this package of possibilities means," he said. Audra Moore, who owns a video game rental shop in Battlement Mesa, is worried about the landscape, noting the oil wells seem to be sunk every few acres in the Grand Valley area. "I'm concerned about the looks and how it will affect the wildlife," she said. Natural resources have helped sustain the West's economy since it was settled gold, silver, copper, coal, natural gas, oil. It's proven to be a roller-coaster ride with thousands of jobs created during prosperous times and then lost as demand ebbed. A recent example occurred when Middle East producers shut off oil supplies to the United States in 1973 over U.S. support of Israel. The move sent companies scrambling to develop domestic supplies as gas was rationed and prices skyrocketed. Thousands of workers filled housing complexes; city and state coffers were bolstered with revenue, and the government began bolstering infrastructure. Then the price free-fall began, sending the West spiraling into economic doldrums as tens of thousands of jobs were lost, bankruptcies jumped and businesses were shuttered. Difficult years followed as the region eased its reliance on natural resources by diversifying the economic base to include tourism, manufacturing, technology, construction and services. "All of Colorado has grown in the meantime to a much more sophisticated place," said Russell George, a native of nearby Rifle who heads the state Department of Natural Resources. "We have a much broader mix of people than we had then." As the United States and other countries search for reliable energy sources, the West's industry has turned around yet again with a new demand for oil, natural gas, coal and uranium. Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association said the resurgence in mining is "almost unprecedented in modern times." The bulk of the nation's electricity is produced in coal-generated plants, with nuclear power plants generating about 20 percent and natural gas, 17 percent to 18 percent, Arch Coal Co. spokesman Deck Slone said. St. Louis-based Arch, which operates the world's largest coal mine near Gillette in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and three other mines in Colorado and Utah, is gearing up to open other facilities. "We expect demand to be tremendous for coal going forward," he said. In Colorado, coal production hit a record in 2004 for the fifth consecutive year with 40 million tons produced. Wyoming, the nation's No. 1 coal producer, had a record 396 million tons, up 5.4 percent, according to the Wyoming Mining Association. Standing in Parachute about 160 miles west of Denver, oil rigs are on buttes; crude oil is produced in Rangely, and uranium and coal reserves aren't far away. "This is a natural area for energy development. And it's not going to be stifled. People are going to complain and all that stuff, but they're not going to stop it," said Robert Loucks of Grand Junction, a former manager of oil shale operations here for Shell and Occidental Oil Shale. "Hopefully, they'll get it to where it's far more acceptable to more people." With most industry watchers predicting production will continue for years, government leaders and residents are hoping they can strike a balance between the need for energy and the desire to protect the environment. Each energy process has the potential to affect the environment. George says governments need to coordinate development. "You can't have oil shale on the same place as a gas field," he said. "I think there are ways of sorting all that out." 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 30 BBC: Ancram warns hopefuls over energy Last Updated: Saturday, 24 September 2005 [Michael Ancram] Michael Ancram has not yet declared his hand Conservative deputy leader Michael Ancram has warned those hoping to replace Michael Howard that they are ignoring the issue of energy. Describing it as Britain's "greatest crisis", Mr Ancram told leadership hopefuls energy must be debated. He said an "energy audit" was necessary with oil and gas reserves dwindling, and coal and nuclear unpopular. Britain must consider more nuclear power, alongside increased investment in areas like biofuels, he said. Mr Ancram - who was forced out of the last leadership race in 2001 at the first hurdle - has not revealed whether he will stand this time. He said: "It is astonishing that the Conservative leadership campaign has proceeded so far without any real mention of what is almost certainly the greatest crisis facing our citizens in the next generation." With oil prices rocketing and even the price of coal having endured highs because of massive demand in China and India, the energy debate is becoming prominent. Political challenge Mr Ancram added: "Some politicians dismiss the energy crisis as a hyped green agenda. It is not. "Our political system will be severely challenged the day a British citizen turns on the light switch and nothing happens or switches on the kettle and the kettle stays cold." Despite recognising the potential of nuclear power and biofuels, Mr Ancram stressed the importance of conservation. "We need an urgent 'energy audit', both of our potential and import requirements. "We need to know the finite limits of our own energy and begin urgently to develop alternatives, including conservation. "The one thing we cannot do is to pretend that energy is not a matter for urgent debate." ***************************************************************** 31 Sunday Herald: Nuclear plant faces legal threat over safety breaches - By Rob Edwards THE Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness is facing a legal crackdown after a government watchdog found 28 breaches of safety rules on radioact- ive waste. In inspections over the last six months, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) has uncovered a series of problems in the plants arrangements for discharging radioactive dust and gases into the air. Pollution levels were higher than normal, because contamination that had built up inside ducts and chimneys became dislodged. There have also been seepages of radioactive liquid onto the Dounreay foreshore, and the failure of radiation sampling equipment after maintenance. On Friday afternoon, Sepa served a major legal enforcement notice on Dounreays managers, the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). It ordered them to carry out nine wide-ranging remedial actions, or risk facing court action. The UKAEA now has to inspect its ducts, review its radiation alarms and come up with new procedures for radioactive waste handling equipment. It must also check filters, stem the leak of radioactive waste from a tank and stop dumping waste on the foreshore. Sepas action has prompted calls for the UKAEA to be removed as managers of Dounreay. The UKAEA has shown a constant, grinding negligence and contempt for safety at the plant, alleged Lorraine Mann, from Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping, yesterday. Over the last 20 years, they have kept promising to change but nothing has changed. There is a deep, deep rot within the UKAEA system that nobody seems to be able to get rid of. She said that the governments new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority should find a new organisation to run the plant. And she praised Sepa for doing a good job as regulator. The UKAEA accepted that Sepa had found some areas of good practice and some areas where improvements were required. But it pointed out that its radioactive discharges had fallen substantially over the years. We are working very hard to address the issues identified by Sepa and ensure that all our equipment and arrangements meet the standards expected, said Dr Guy Owen, head of safety and environment at Dounreay. The effect of the current discharge levels on the public, arising from the decommissioning and clean-up of the site, is a very small fraction of the dose that everyone receives from natural sources of radiation. Dounreay is also facing court proceedings over the thousands of dangerous radioactive particles that have leaked into the sea and onto local beaches over the past 25 years. 25 September 2005 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 32 Washington Times: Residents worried by plan for reactor - Gary Emerling September 25, 2005 Bob Richards doesn't mind taking a dip outside his lakefront home in central Virginia, even when the water temperature hits 98 degrees. "It's like swimming in a hot tub," said Col. Richards, 65. But the retired Air Force colonel is worried his swims in Lake Anna could turn scalding if Dominion Resources, which owns and operates a nuclear-power plant at the lake, receives permission to install a third water-cooled nuclear reactor at the plant. Officials say the temperature where water exits the plant could reach 113 degrees if the plan is approved by state and federal agencies. "Am I concerned that it's going to get hotter and take that privilege away from me?" Col. Richards asked. "Most definitely." Lake Anna, about 90 minutes southwest of the District, covers roughly 13,000 acres, making it the third-largest lake in Virginia. The lake is divided into two parts: a 3,400-acre "warm side" where Col. Richards lives and which provides water for the power plant's cooling requirements. The 9,600-acre "cold side" is used to disperse the warmer water from the cooling process. The plant has two reactors, and Dominion is considering adding two more -- one that would be cooled by lake water and one that would be air-cooled. The company has applied for an Early Site Permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the reactors. If the permits are approved, the company has a 20-year option to explore the site for building and to seek other approvals necessary for construction. "I think our customers would think we were negligent if we did not plan for the future," said Dominion spokesman Richard Zuercher. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of ensuring the permit is consistent with the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act. Dominion has asked the department to wait until Nov. 7 to release a final report. Tom Faha, a water-permit manager for the department, said Dominion will have to take measures to assure public safety if the permit is issued. "No matter what anybody wants to do, so long as they treat it properly, they can proceed," he said. However, the proposal has united Col. Richards and Lake Anna residents, who are concerned that an increase in temperature where water exits the power plant could lead to such problems as property damage, an increased drought cycle and an insufficient water supply. A group called Lake Anna Friends has gathered the support of nearly 2,000 area residents who say they would not oppose the third reactor if it was air-cooled. "We're not anti-nuclear," said Harry Ruth, who spearheaded the group's formation. [The Washington Times - ***************************************************************** 33 Current Concerns: 20 Years of Living with Chernobyl No 5, 2005 P.O. box 223 CH-8044 Zurich +41-1-350 65 50 25 Sep 2005, 09:00 PM Otto Hug Strahleninstitut – MHM e. V., D Land Vorarlberg, A invite to an International Conference Experiences and Lessons for the Future Chairman: Dr. Herbert Sausgruber, Provincial Governor of Vorarlberg/Austria 9–12 March 2006 Montforthaus, Feldkirch, Vorarlberg/Austria Aims of the Conference Immediately after the Chernobyl disaster the Soviet secret service (KGB) classified a long list of issues as “top secret”. There was no truthful reporting on the radiation damage among the population and among the emergency workers, no truthful documentation of the radioactive contamination of the affected areas. 20 years ago, efforts to conceal the disaster and its consequences prevented important measures which could have been taken to protect the population. And since 1990, major industrial countries have participated in trivializing these consequences. Until today, institutions influenced and controlled by powerful nuclear interests produce the majority of reports on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Internationally prominent committees still speak of only 31 radiation deaths after Chernobyl. Almost every health defect attributed to Chernobyl is disclaimed –except for thyroid cancer among children. There are, however, more and more scientists in both the east and the west struggling to discover the real truth and to help the people affected in the Chernobyl region. The aim of the conference is therefore to provide experts with the necessary platform to openly report on the situation of these people, the lives they are now forced to lead, to expose the lies and strategies to cover up what happened, and to draw conclusions. We invite physicians, scientists and other experts to present and discuss their ‚inopportune‘ research and experiences in connection with Chernobyl. We also invite all interested citizens, Chernobyl Initiatives, politicians, physicians, energy scientists and representatives of institutions to listen, study, pose questions and seek realistic measures, whose priority is the well-being of the Chernobyl victims and the lessons learned from the disaster rather than the support of senseless specialist nuclear technology projects. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Edmund Lengfelder, conference president Program committee Abelin Th., Berne Kundas S., Minsk Agejets W., Gomel Lengfelder E., Munich Barraud St., Berne Naralenko V., Gomel Dubreuil G., Paris Nyagu A., Kiev Frentzel-Beyme R., Bremen Oberfeld G., Salzburg Frenzel Ch., Munich Okeanow A., Minsk Jablokow A., Moscow Rudya K., Kiev Jatschenko A., Bragin Tsalko W., Minsk Conference topics Medical problems in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia How has data for illnesses, for instance of the thyroid, breast cancer, leukaemia, eye diseases, teratogene damage and for the general state of health changed? Have new results for the evaluation of the radiation effects been found? Medical problems in Western Europe Has people‘s state of health in other European countries also been affected (e.g. changes in the occurrence of infant mortality, abnormalities, Down syndrome, cancer and leukaemia)? Socio-economic aspects What are the socio-economic consequences for the affected population, for the job situaton, for people‘s health and general well-being, for the population development? Examples of national measures and aid projects (e.g. by NGOs) Questions related to disaster management Is the expensive building of a second sarcophagus necessary? Which dangers still emanate from the Chernobyl site? Is there new information about the cause of the disaster? What happens in the prohibited areas? Which lessons result from Chernobyl for the disaster control and the risk evaluation of nuclear power plants in the west? International organizations and information policy What are international committees such as ICRP, WHO, IAEA, EURATOM, UNSCEAR and others contributing towards the evaluation and overcoming of the Chernobyl consequences, and what are they not doing? The goals and effectiveness of international programs, e.g. of the CORE program? Program coordination and registration for all countries except Switzerland Prof. Dr. Edmund Lengfelder Strahlenbiologisches Institut der LMU Schillerstraße 42 D-80336 München Tel. 0049-89-218075-833/834 Fax 0049-89-218075-835 Email: Conference office and registration in Switzerland Tschernobyl 2006 Feldkirch Postfach CH-8501 Frauenfeld Tel: 0041 71 931 51 56 Email: Dates 1 September 2005: Submissions deadline for presentations and posters (abstracts!). 30 September 2005: Notifications for presentations and posters. January 2006: Mailing of conference programme. 15 February 2006: Registration deadline for participation. After the deadline, registration will be available at conference reception desk. 9 March 2006: Registration and public evening event. 9-12 March 2006: Conference in Feldkirch, Austria [printer friendly version] [''] Article published on 30-07-2005 2001-2004. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Pakistan News Nuclear power gives confidence to Pakistani nation - Mushahid PakTribune.Com Sunday September 25, 2005 (1624 PST) ISLAMABAD: General Secretary of Pakistan Muslim League Mushahid Hussain Syed has said that nuclear power has given confidence to Pakistani people and strongly condemned to call it Islamic bomb. He stated this while addressing a 10th Management Accountant conference held here on Sunday. He said that Pakistan was playing the role on three fronts including international, Muslim and regional and had become a bridge between west and the Muslim world. He said that Pakistan's nuclear power had given confidence to Pakistani nation and Pakistan itself and it was not right to call it Islamic bomb. He said that it was so because Pakistan was a Muslim country and added that it was a dual standard role that the world community was playing. He said that it was the need of the hour to activate the OIC as it could voice the Muslim world in the international community and afforded a platform to the Muslim world in this regard. He further said that Pakistan wants peace with the India but president general Pervez Musharraf had cleared to Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh that it linked with the resolution of held Kasmir.He added that it would be resolved according to the aspirations of Kashmir people. He said that educated base society could contribute a lot to uplift of the country and government was focusing on the education in keeping this in view and making all out efforts in this regard. Pakistan News Service PakTribune.com Pvt Ltd 2003-2004 ***************************************************************** 35 Boston Globe: The pendulum swings back toward nuclear power ECONOMIC LIFE By Charles Stein | September 25, 2005 I spent more years than I would care to admit writing about the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. The Seabrook story was exhausting, but it taught me a valuable lesson: When it comes to energy, especially the price of energy, the future is very hard to see. Seabrook was conceived in the late 1960s, a time of great optimism about nuclear power. Nuclear plants, the utilities promised, would produce electricity that was ''too cheap to meter." When oil prices shot up in the 1970s, eventually reaching the unheard of price of $30 a barrel, Seabrook had another selling point: it would reduce New England's dependence on costly foreign oil. Things turned out differently. Like many of the nuclear plants in that era, Seabrook ran into engineering and political problems. Construction advanced at a snail's pace. Every year, the plant's estimated cost got higher and its completion date got pushed further into the future. When Seabrook finally went on line in 1990, its price tag had reached $6 billion. The owners had to eat some of that money, because regulators refused to pass the costs along to consumers. Changes in the price of oil made Seabrook's economics even worse. By 1990 oil was selling for less than $23 a barrel and the price fell even lower in the years that followed. The verdict was clear: Nuclear power was a financial disaster; oil was a bargain. Fast-forward to today. In case you hadn't noticed, the price of oil has gone up a lot -- to about $64 a barrel. The price of natural gas -- the most popular fuel source in New England's power plants -- has gone up even more sharply. Utilities that venture out to buy electricity in the spot market are paying three times as much for power as they did a year ago. Consumers could pay about 20 percent more for electricity this winter, largely because of higher oil and gas prices. And those ''white elephant" nuclear plants like Seabrook? It turns out they are sitting in the catbird seat. Their steep initial costs have been written off over time. Their cost of fuel is minuscule, according to Steven Taub, an executive at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. Even with all other costs thrown in, nuclear plants today produce power at less than half the cost of plants that burn natural gas or oil. Like the Saudi Arabians, the owners of nuclear plants have plenty of cheap power that they can sell at high prices in deregulated energy markets, earning big profits in the process. Many of the plants, Seabrook included, were purchased by new owners in recent years who paid relatively little for the assets. In 2002, FPL Energy, a Florida company, bought a controlling interest in Seabrook for $836 million. ''In today's market, many of those plants are worth significantly more," Taub said. The verdict is clear: Nuclear power is a bargain; oil and gas are a financial disaster. There are plenty of specialists around who are firmly convinced that high oil and gas prices are here to stay. Richard Lester suggests we should be wary about such pronouncements. ''Smart people don't get this right," said Lester, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of nuclear science and engineering. In 2003, Lester and some colleagues wrote a report on the future of nuclear power. They assumed natural gas prices -- the main competition -- would stay in a range of $3 to $6 per million BTUs. Last week natural gas was selling for more than $12 per million BTUs. The solution here is obvious: We need to be diversified. Investors spread their bets around because they don't know which stocks will do well and which will do poorly. We need to do the same with sources of energy because, in truth, we don't have a clue what will happen to their prices in the future. The cheap may become expensive and the expensive cheap. When it comes to the energy future, a little humility goes a long way. Charles Stein is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at stein@globe.com. [ /] Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 36 Deseret News: Accept N-waste for a price - or keep on fighting? [deseretnews.com] Sunday, September 25, 2005 Frank Pignanelli &LaVarr Webb Webb: Plan B. Those are swear words for a lot of Utah politicians. I may be ridden out of town on a rail simply for raising this issue, but it's time for Utah politicians to start thinking seriously about having a Plan B in case we continue to lose every battle in our war against storage of high-level nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation. Here's a question that's no joke: What would be worse than getting high-level nuclear waste in Utah? Answer: Getting high-level nuclear waste and getting absolutely nothing in return. Believe me when I say I'm dead set against storage of nuclear waste in Utah. I helped Gov. Mike Leavitt fight it back in the mid-'90s as his policy deputy. I come from a "downwinder" family and have seen four immediate family members suffer early (and awful) deaths from cancer as a result of eating radiation-laced vegetables and raw milk on a ranch outside of St. George in the '50s. I'm a walking cancer time bomb myself. I agree with all the arguments against storage of this nasty stuff. I agree that if storage is so safe, then the fuel rods should remain on site at nuclear power plans or be reprocessedas is done by the European nuclear power industry. But despite all of our great logic and reasoning against storage in Utah, we may still lose. We've lost every fight on every front so far. The nation wants some place to dump this stuff, and Utah is an easy victim. At some point, we have to face the fact that those spent fuel rods might be headed here. And to get them and receive absolutely nothing in return would be adding horrible insult to horrendous injury. The nuclear power industry has been squirreling away multibillions of dollars to pay for waste storage. If the time comes when it appears the industry and the federal government are going to shove it down our throats, we need to be able to say, OK, we've fought to the bitter end. We've lost. But we get to determine where this junk is stored and you give us, say, $15 billion to go into our school trust and transportation funds. Then we find a remote location near I-70 or a rail corridor that isn't upwind a few dozen miles of the highly populated Wasatch Front, that isn't adjacent to an Air Force bombing range (what insanity to put it there!), and that doesn't have to be transported through Utah's population centers. We get the junk, but it's far from urban areas and transportation is much safer. And we bring in $15 billion, enough so just spending the interest moves us into the middle of the pack in per-pupil spending. And we solve our transportation needs. Fair trade? No. I'd still rather keep the stuff out, but at least we'd get something in return. These suggestions are all very heretical, directly contrary to the strategy of the political establishment. But if a few years from now we get spent nuclear fuel rods slapped on a slab of concrete next to a bombing range, upwind of the Wasatch Front, and we get absolutely nothing in return, then politicians Huntsman, Hatch, Bennett, Bishop, Matheson and Cannon ought to be ridden out of town on a rail right behind me. Pignanelli: What ever mind-altering substance LaVarr is consuming is certainly potent -- it has destroyed the remnants of his common sense. Our state leaders must fight on every front the courts, Congress and the media to prevent the dumping of nuclear waste in Utah. We may lose certain battles, but the war must continue so our opponents eventually choose another method of disposal. To simply surrender and accept the nation's poison with a smile, in exchange for monetary compensation, is a recipe for disaster. No incentive will exist to develop safer means of containing radioactive and toxic byproducts where they were generated. Over time, our beloved state will become addicted on these garbage fees and not expand into other economic activities. National companies will perceive Utah the best locale for their trash, not their operations. "America's Latrine" is not a sound basis for our economy. Congressman Jim Matheson was the first to lock arms with other Western congressional leaders to prevent the disposal at Yucca Mountain. With his usual clarity of thought, Matheson knew that Utah is a loser in the Yucca option because the waste will travel through or end up here anyway. (Remember, Utah and Nevada do not have nuclear power plants. Our fellow Americans are happy to share the remnants of their cheap electricity with us.) Gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman Jr. concurred with this approach, and other Utah politicians are now working with their Nevada compatriots to prevent the discarding of hot radioactive waste in this region. The recent announcement by Sen. Bob Bennett to reverse his prior stance of supporting the Yucca site is a huge development. Bennett is a respected political insider, and this change is a clear sign of a wrongheaded federal policy in trouble. Indeed, Utahns and Nevadans have every justification to doubt promises by the federal government to safely transport and store the nuclear waste. Matheson frequently reminds us how his family and other Utahns were exposed to radioactivity in the 1950s. Although the government knew of harmful effects from testing nuclear weapons, they gave little warning and no protection to southern Utahns. The death toll from this negligence continues. At least this controversy demolishes the tired argument that Matheson, because he is a Democrat, is not an effective representative for our state in Congress. Early in his first term, Matheson articulated the tactic of challenging the Yucca Mountain site to prevent the "temporary" storage of spent nuclear rods in Utah. His congressional colleagues hoped in vain for a reprieve from the Bush administration, which never came. (Indeed, Orrin Hatch is under attack from GOP challenger Stephen Urquhart for supporting Yucca.) The Matheson strategy of bipartisan cooperation with Sen. Harry Reid and other Western leaders has become the best defense for the Rocky Mountain region from becoming a giant toilet. Republican LaVarr Webb was policy deputy to Gov. Mike Leavitt and Deseret News managing editor. He now is a political consultant and lobbyist. E-mail: lwebb@exoro.com. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser. A former candidate for Salt Lake mayor, Pignanelli served 10 years in the Utah House of Representatives, six years as House minority leader. Pignanelli's spouse, D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli, is executive director of the state Department of Administrative Services in the Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. administration. E-mail: frankp@xmission.com. 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 37 Deseret News: Western N-storage not a fix [deseretnews.com] Saturday, September 24, 2005 Deseret Morning News editorial If nothing else, we're in good company. Earlier this week, Sen. Bob Bennett withdrew his support for storing spent nuclear rods underground at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Bennett's decision came on the heels of the nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to grant a license to Private Fuel Storage to store spent fuel rods on Goshute tribal lands in Skull Valley, Tooele County. Bennett, speaking on the floor of the Senate, said, "I am making it clear that my support for Yucca Mountain . . . does no longer hold in the situation we find ourselves. "It makes sense for (nuclear) waste to be stored on site and to be shipped to a reprocessing center." As long-time readers of this page know, the Deseret Morning News long opposed nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. As the PFS proposal continued to clear regulatory hoops and the science behind Yucca Mountain had been called into question, Utah's west desert became the most likely disposal site for the nation's waste from commercial power plants. We shifted positions, surmising that, while an underground repository was not the best solution, it was a better option than an above ground storage facility near the Utah Test and Training Range, where F-16s train using live ammunition. Like Bennett, we've had a change of heart. Given the volumes of nuclear waste being generated by the nuclear energy industry, it is abundantly clear that PFS will become a permanent facility even if Yucca Mountain opens. The Bush administration has called for expanded use of nuclear energy in the United States, which will mean the production of even more waste. In other words, storage of nuclear waste anywhere in the western United States is a flawed solution. Sen. Orrin Hatch has not retreated from his support of Yucca Mountain, despite the urging of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., and others. Utah needs a united front to fight this threat. Meanwhile, Hatch has introduced legislation that would prohibit the transportation and off-site storage of waste at a "non-federally owned, off-site facility." Hatch's legislation also calls on the secretary of energy to study storage of spent nuclear fuel at Department of Energy sites around the country. The DOE also would contemplate whether the federal government should take ownership of wastes stored at more than 100 nuclear power plants. And it would require the DOE to study developing facilities to reprocess nuclear waste. Extensive study on the reprocessing of spent nuclear rods is a must. Some scientists believe the cost of this is prohibitive; that the transportation of waste creates a terrorism risk; and that the process does not substantially reduce the waste stream. Steve Fetter, professor and dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, and Frank N. von Hippel, professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University, wrote recently that existing reprocessing methods "would not significantly reduce the total heat output, and thus they would not significantly reduce the amount of repository area required per unit of electricity generated." Fetter and von Hippel, writing for Arms Control Today, concluded that spent fuel can be stored safely and economically for 50 years in dry cask interim storage. "That leaves plenty of time to clarify the future of nuclear power in the United States and to explore in an open and systematic manner the Yucca Mountain and disposition options for spent fuel discharged by the current generation of reactors." Utah's elected officials need to stand with other Western leaders to urge a more reasoned approach to the nation's nuclear waste dilemma. 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas SUN: EPA extends comment period September 23, 2005 SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency extended the public comment period for the proposed radiation standards for the Yucca Mountain project by 30 days. Nevada officials and Yucca critics have called for additional time since the EPA last month issued new radiation protection standards for Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The EPA sent a letter Thursday to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and others that requested additional time. "We agree that it is important to allow adequate time for public information to readily reach more rural areas, particularly in Nevada, which may be affected by decisions related to Yucca Mountain," according to the letter sent by Acting Assistant Administrator William Wehrum. The public comment period will now end on Nov. 21, giving three full months of public comment time, according to the EPA. A coalition of environmental groups, including Nevada-based Citizen Alert and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, demanded an additional 180 days and public comment hearings in places other than Nevada and Washington, D.C. The EPA letter said nothing about additional public hearing locations. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: Hatch to revive nuke waste options September 23, 2005 By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch is planning to breathe fresh life into a bill aimed at seeking options to Yucca Mountain. Hatch, R-Utah, unsuccessfully tried to attach the legislation as an amendment to the energy bill approved by Congress earlier this year. Now he plans to introduce it again, likely next week, in the wake of his colleague's surprising call for abandoning Yucca as a permanent waste repository. In a Senate speech Tuesday, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said the nation should leave waste where it sits in storage at nuclear plants and shift U.S. waste policy away from the 18-year-old, $58 billion plan to develop Yucca. Bennett called for development of waste reprocessing, or recycling, technology as an alternative to permanent burial. Reprocessing involves recovering plutonium from highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors. The senator's comments came after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a Indian reservation in Utah as a temporary nuclear waste storage site. Hatch did not join Bennett and stuck by the Bush administration, although he left the door open for a change in stance. For now he is not calling for an end to Yucca, although he told the Sun, "I never had a lot of support for it (Yucca)." He told the Salt Lake Tribune, "Our only chance of getting rid of this (Utah proposal) is with the administration. It isn't with the Senate. It isn't with Harry (Reid)." The White House and federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Energy Department and Homeland Security Department still could take actions that block the proposed site in Utah, and Hatch wants to keep those options open, he said. "This is a continuing dialogue and I'm going to continue to talk" to the White House, Hatch said at a news conference Thursday. Hatch's bill would launch a study of whether the government should take ownership of waste and then either leave it on-site at plants or ship it to another government site. The legislation also would direct the Energy Secretary to request a National Academy of Sciences study of reprocessing technology. Hatch's legislation is designed to protect his own state's interests because it seeks alternatives to the proposed temporary nuclear waste storage site in Utah. A consortium of eight nuclear utilities won NRC approval earlier this month to develop that project on Goshute Indian land 50 miles from Salt Lake City. But Hatch's legislation has potential to help Nevada in its fight against Yucca Mountain. Nevada lawmakers have long argued that waste should be left at plants until recycling technology or another better option to Yucca is developed. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca advocates remain resolute on nuke storage September 23, 2005 By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Yucca Mountain's destiny as the country's final resting place for used nuclear fuel, either in its current form or after reprocessing, has not changed, site supporters say. Utah Sen. Robert Bennett, a Republican, pushed Yucca into the congressional spotlight this week, calling for the country to move away from storing waste in the West and to rethink nuclear waste reprocessing or storing it onsite, in an 18-minute speech on the Senate floor. Discussions on interim storage and reprocessing nuclear waste can -- and should -- take place, but nothing will substitute for the country's plan to store nuclear waste inside rock, according to one House member and one nuclear industry expert. "At the end of the day, something has to go somewhere and that somewhere is Yucca Mountain," said Steve Kraft, director of waste management of the Nuclear Energy Institute at a nuclear conference in Washington Thursday. Kraft said it could take years for a reprocessing plan to be researched, developed, located, built and actually implemented while nuclear waste would continue to pile up at nuclear power plants. "The federal government must remain committed to moving the program forward," Kraft said. Kraft said the department should stick to the current plan, stick to the current design and get the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission going. For two decades, the Energy Department has been figuring out a way to store 77,000 tons of used nuclear fuel, also known as nuclear waste. It was supposed to take waste in 1998, with another target set for 2010 but several obstacles have pushed the department to no longer declare any specific opening date. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who is head of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that writes the energy and water spending bill, said Yucca still needs to be funded and still needs to move forward. "This is more important than building any stupid little bunker buster." Hobson said. He supports reprocessing - which he prefers to call recycling -- and is the catalyst for renewed interested in interim storage, but he insists Yucca will still be needed. "We are going to need more than one repository," Hobson said. There will be enough waste at nuclear power plants by 2010 to fill the legal limit of 77,000 tons inside Yucca. Hobson said it will be just as difficult to find another repository, let alone the estimated eight needed to hold all future nuclear waste so reprocessing needs to be explored. But reprocessing still produces radioactive waste that would eventually need to go to Yucca or some type of repository, Hobson said, so the need for one is not gone. Kraft said the industry has longer argued that without progress on the country's proposed repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, it would be hard to build new nuclear powers plants. Now, Kraft said Thursday, the argument is changed. "We've got to solve the nuclear waste problem, because new nuclear plants are coming," Kraft said. "It is now reversed." He said the Nuclear Waste Policy Act already allows for high level nuclear waste and spent fuel to be stored at Yucca. If spent fuel was reprocess, high level waste would be left. It could be treated and still sent to Yucca. "These are not new concepts," he said. Hobson said it would be "folly" to move forward with new nuclear power plants and not have the waste problem solved. "I think people need to face reality and not hide in fiction," Hobson said, referring to the fact that Yucca is already full once it opens. Blocks away from the nuclear conference, a consortium of nuclear power companies held a press conference announcing that it will apply for new nuclear power plant licenses in Mississippi and Alabama, partially funded by the Energy Department. Known as NuStart, the consortium will work on the license applications and aims to turn them into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2007 or 2008. There is no decision to build a new plant yet. Entergy, another power company, also announced its plan to prepare a license application for a new plant in Louisiana. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada wins fight over draft license application September 23, 2005 By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada has won its fight against the Energy Department's attempt to keep the Yucca Mountain project's draft license application out of its hands. The Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled Thursday that the department must turn over the 5,800-page draft when it finalizes it document collection in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission database. "It's an absolute, overwhelming victory, both symbolically and for our team," said attorney Charles Fitzpatrick, partner of the Virginia firm that represents the state on Yucca issues. Fitzpatrick acknowledged it is not the final version that the department will submit to the commission sometime next year, but it will be a tremendous help to the state to know what direction the Energy Department is taking. He said some areas within the application will change, but many components will not. "Absent this decision, we would not have had any access to any draft," Fitzpatrick said. "It is not final, but it is a very valuable document. We will see a lot of what will go to the NRC." Fitzpatrick said this also proves there are "obstacles in front of the juggernaut" because a fair and impartial licensing board will evaluate credible arguments in this case. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said this serves as a reminder to the department that the state is watching and will challenge assertions that certain documents are off-limits. "Getting this information has always been like pulling teeth, and DOE has a long track record of trying to hide unfavorable materials behind a veil of secrecy," Berkley said. "They would prefer that Nevada be kept in the dark, and this is not the first time they have refused to hand over documents, nor will it be the last. While it may not seem like a giant victory, access to this data will help our fight to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada." Last year Bechtel, the project's main contractor, delivered a draft license application for the license. The department intended to turn a final application into the commission by the end of last year, but several issues stood in its way. Gov. Kenny Guinn demanded the draft from the department in February after it denied Freedom of Information Act requests by the state's attorney general to access it, but the Energy Department would still not turn it over. Nevada wants the draft license application to learn more on the repository's exact design and specifically how it planned to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standard of 15 millirem per year for 10,000 years. A federal court threw out the standard last year, but the agency proposed it again last month, along with a second tier that would limit exposure to 350 millirem per year up to 1 million years. In July attorneys for the state and the Energy Department argued over the draft license application before Atomic Safety Licensing Board, an administrative court within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Attorneys for the department argued that the draft Bechtel delivered last year was not a final document and is still in various stages of review. Department officials only took 'sneak previews' of the draft or asked for feedback, but no official review took place. This disqualified it as a document that would have to go into the database. But Nevada lawyers insisted that once Bechtel finished the draft and department management began reviewing it last year, it qualifies under commission rules as a document that should be made public. In a 57-page order handed down Thursday, Judges Thomas Moore, Alex Karlin and Alan Rosenthal said the draft met the criteria needed to be put into the Licensing Support Network, a database run by the commission to hold all documents related to the project. More than 90 people saw the draft in some form among other aspects that made it suitable to do public. The department cannot turn in the application until six months after it declares its document collection is done. It tried to do this last year, but Nevada objected, saying it left out key documents. The board ruled in Nevada's favor. The department said in a Sept. 1 monthly status report that it could finalize its documents by the end of the month, but that board's decision on the draft could change that goal. The department could not specifically say how the decision would affect things on Thursday. "Department lawyers are currently reviewing the document, and once the review is complete, the department will assess its options and go from there," said Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens. The commission staff was also reviewing the ruling, according to the press office. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Independent: No 10 lines up top uranium job for Birt ahead of 6bn flotation www.independent.co.uk By Solomon Hughes, Katherine Griffiths and Tim Webb Published: 25 September 2005 Former BBC director-general Lord Birt has been lined up as the new chairman of Urenco, the 6bn uranium producer jointly owned by the British, German and Dutch governments. Lord Birt was interviewed last Wednesday for the role. The Government is expected to offer him the job formally this week but the Dutch government is also understood to be putting forward its own rival candidate for the post. A disagreement over the appointment could delay the planned 6bn flotation of the company. The Government believes Lord Birt is ideally equipped to shake up corporate governance standards at Urenco and oversee its eventual sale. Britain currently manages its share of Urenco through the reprocessing and clean-up group British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). However, following deep dissatisfaction with its management, the Government has decided to take Urenco away from BNFL ahead of the sale of the com- pany. Floating Urenco on the London stock market is expected to raise 6bn for the three government owners. But this move, along with the announced sale of BNFL's Westinghouse reactor design subsidiary and the expected sale of its clean-up arm, will leave BNFL with little continuing business. The Government was drawn into discussions over the leadership of Urenco because the current chairman, Neville Chamberlain, is retiring. BNFL's chief executive, Mike Parker, was not felt to have done enough to find a new, effective British chairman for the firm. The Department of Trade and Industry would normally take the lead over BNFL, but because the department's new permanent secretary, Brian Bender, does not take up his post until 3 October, Number 10 officials have been drawn into the succession discussions. The management of Urenco is currently carefully balanced to reflect its tripartite ownership, with a German chief executive and Dutch finance director. Having become involved in the chairmanship issue, No 10 decided that Lord Birt should take the helm. He is believed to have been interviewed at a hotel in Buckinghamshire near the Marlow headquarters of Urenco. Lord Birt is one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers. Earlier this year he severed his ties with the management consultancy McKinsey amid a controversy over possible conflicts of interest between his role at No 10 and the firm's many public sector contracts. 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 43 RedNova News: Science - Alternative? Posted on: Sunday, 25 September 2005, 06:00 CDT The fear-mongering regarding nuclear power and spent-fuel storage seems to grow daily. It appears as though the underground depository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain might never be constructed, or if it is will not be functional for decades. So a recent permit approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to store at most 44,000 tons of spent rods in steel casks on concrete pads on an Indian reservation in Utah makes sense. According to the NRC, the 103 nuclear power plants throughout the U.S. contain more than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste -- which remains on the reactor's grounds, in cooling pools or in steel casks. Only one-fifth has been transferred to the casks. Usually sensible people, such as Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, scream bloody murder when it comes to their own back yard. Says the powerful senator, "This is a reckless, dangerous proposal, and I am pulling out all the stops to make sure the waste never makes a home in Utah." And consider an argument by Utah's attorney general's office that F-16s from a nearby Air Force base could crash into the nuclear storage units. If the facility holds 44,000 tons of radioactive waste, then it could contain all nuclear waste already in such casks nationwide. Is it more effective to protect one place from terrorists or runaway planes than it is to safeguard 103 sites? After all, Dominion Virginia Power's Surry reactors are not too far from the F-16s at Langley and the F-18s at Oceana -- and Surry stores its spent fuel in exactly the same manner as the facility at Skull Valley Indian Reservation would. In light of political and legal foot-dragging at Yucca, an alternative in Utah works fine -- not for centuries-long burial but for temporary hibernation. Source: Richmond Times - © 2002-2005 RedNova.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Rapid City Journal: Interest renewed in uranium exploration in South Dakota RapidCityJournal.com Sunday, September 25, 2005 By Steve Miller, Journal Staff Writer BURDOCK -- Uranium mining could be making a comeback in southwestern South Dakota because of rising prices for the mineral and better methods of getting it out of the ground. In July, two companies leased mineral rights to 2,600 acres of state land in Fall River and Custer counties. The area of interest is near the former community of Burdock, northwest of Edgemont a few miles west of the concentration of uranium mines that fell silent more than 30 years ago, according to Mike Cepak of the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Energy Metals of Vancouver, British Columbia, acquired leases on four tracts. Neutron Energy of Casper, Wyo., and Phoenix leased one tract. The companies are also talking to local landowners in hopes of getting leases from them, Cepak said. However, he noted that it could be years before mining actually resumes. Cepak said new methods of getting uranium out of the ground are safer than those used back in the 1950s and '60s and that the state has tightened its laws since then, but the new interest is prompting DENR to review its environmental regulations. Cepak, DENR's natural- resources engineering director, said prices for uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, have increased from $9 a pound a few years ago to about $30 a pound now. Although there has been no nuclear power plant development in the United States for more than 20 years, nuclear energy is still expanding worldwide, Cepak said, helping drive up demand for uranium. China, for example, plans to build 30 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years, he said. Meanwhile, worldwide stocks of uranium are slowly being depleted, Cepak said. The oil price crunch is another factor. "With oil prices going up, suddenly uranium is being looked at as another viable source of energy," he said. "There is even some talk among environmental groups that uranium might not be as bad as fossil fuels because it doesn't contribute to global warming." Kelsey Boltz, president of Neutron Energy, obviously agrees. "It's finally dawning on people that nuclear power for electricity generation is one of the very few solutions to this enormous energy problem we have," Boltz said in an interview this week from his Phoenix office. Neutron Energy is mining or exploring for uranium in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. Boltz said he doesn't know when he will seek a South Dakota permit to explore for uranium. "We're still in the acquisition stage." Cepak said it could be months before DENR begins seeing applications for exploration permits. After an exploration permit is granted, a company could begin application for a mining permit. That process could take years, Cepak said. A mining permit would come under existing mining laws. Cepak said the current uranium-mining methods are safer than old open-pit mines used when mining began in western South Dakota. The companies propose to use "in-situ leach" mining in which they inject oxygenated carbonated water into the ground, Cepak said. The practice wouldn't involve open pits or underground mines, only structures on the surface. Boltz explained that the solution injected into the ground oxidizes the uranium. The solution is pumped to the surface, where the uranium oxide is stripped from the solution in the form of a powder or slurry known as yellow cake. The yellow cake is hauled to another facility where it is concentrated and upgraded. Boltz said there is little risk on site because the yellow cake has very slight radiation levels. Residents of Fall River County in the southwest and Harding County in the northwest corners of the state have complained in past years that radioactive pollution from the old, abandoned uranium mines has posed health risks, including higher incidences of cancer. State Health Department officials said earlier this year that there is no statistical evidence to support the most recent claims from Harding County. In any case, Cepak said, state regulations are much stricter now than when uranium mining began in Fall River County in the early 1950s. "The regulations we have in place now would never allow a company to walk away from a site like they did in the 1960s, where they stripped off the overburden, dumped it over the side and just left the site," he said. "We wouldn't allow them to leave the site like that." The U.S. Forest Service is developing plans to reclaim abandoned uranium mine sites in Harding County that were further exposed by erosion. Cepak said the Fall River open pits didn't seem to have erosion problems as severe as those in Harding County, but the Blue Lagoon mine eight miles north of Edgemont has a pit lake containing acid water and heavy metals, some of which are radioactive. Cepak said DENR's main concern for in-situ mines would be the potential for groundwater contamination. DENR is re-examining its regulations and comparing them with those used in Nebraska and Wyoming to regulate in-situ uranium mines in those states, he said. Cepak said the state closed out its last uranium exploration permit in 1993. There has been no mining since the early 1970s, he said. That could begin to change, although it might not be soon. "I think we're in the grassroots stage," Cepak said. "It could be a 10-year process to get these things running." Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or steve.miller@rapidcityjournal.com ***************************************************************** 45 Seattle Times: Hanford workers go home after 3rd problem Saturday, September 24, 2005 - Page updated at 12:44 AM By The Associated Press RICHLAND  About 600 workers were sent home early from a construction site at the Hanford nuclear reservation after a third safety problem in a week. The incident was the latest in a string of problems associated with the waste-treatment plant under construction at the south-central Washington site. Construction was halted indefinitely this summer on a large portion of the project because of seismic problems, rising costs and delays. The plant is being built to turn millions of gallons of radioactive waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear-waste repository. The waste, the remnants of Cold War-era plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, is stored in 177 underground tanks nearby. In the Thursday incident that caused managers to shut down construction, a worker in an excavated hole cut a gas line without ensuring there was no propane in the line, said John Britton, a spokesman for Bechtel National, the contractor for the project. The line held only residual propane. But had more propane been in the line, the worker could have been killed, Britton said. Propane, which is heavier than air, would have settled at the bottom of the hole, possibly asphyxiating the worker. Earlier in the week, one worker was shocked when a metal pole was driven into the ground and touched a buried electrical line. Another worker failed to shut off one of three conveyor belts  assuming it was already off  while sampling gravel at the construction project's plant for making concrete. No one was seriously injured, but managers were concerned the incidents had the potential to harm or kill workers. All were caused by human error and workers not following safety procedures, Britton said. Bechtel National officials met with labor leaders yesterday to try to ensure that the site is safe so work can resume, Britton said. The meetings were to continue through the weekend. The Energy Department has levied fines against and withheld part of the fee for Bechtel over safety concerns, although the project's injury statistics have improved in recent months. Copyright 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 46 North Augusta Star: SRS oversite board meets Monday Sun, Sep 25, 2005 The Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board will hold its next bi-monthly business meeting Sept. 26-27, at the Holiday Inn-Coliseum at USC, 630 Assembly Street, Columbia. Committees will meet in combined session on Monday, Sept. 26, from 1-5 p.m. The full board meets Tuesday, Sept. 27, from 8:30 a.m.- 4 p.m. Public comment sessions will be offered on three occasions during the day. Topics include loss of expertise to support cleanup, clearance levels for D projects, transuranic waste from Columbus Ohio, the National Academies of Sciences Interim Report regarding tank waste at three sites, and plutonium consolidation. The Board will also receive briefings on the SRS Annual Environment Report and the Savannah River National Laboratory. Public comment sessions will be offered on several occasions during the day. The Board's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations on environmental restoration, waste management and related activities to the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency Region IV and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. For more information on the meetings, please contact Mike Schoener at (803) 641-8166 ***************************************************************** 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Rocky Flats changes from a maker of ruin to a nurturer of life Article Last Updated: 09/25/2005 01:39:14 AM Planting seeds: Cleanup of this former nuclear-weapons maker nears its completion By Todd Neff The Associated Press Land which once contained the 800 buildings at Rocky Flats has been re-vegetated near Denver. Roughly a month before the plant's cleanup is scheduled for completion, all but a few outbuildings are gone from the 385-acre U.S. Department of Energy factory zone. (Mark Leffingwell/The Associated Press ) DENVER - It has been decades since a visitor to the Rocky Flats industrial area could see why the former nuclear weapons plant got its name. Beneath myriad buildings, parking lots, roads and guard towers, eroded rubble filled in the earth like cereal in milk. The coarse jumble of rocks is seeing the light again. Roughly a month before the plant's cleanup is scheduled for completion, all but a few outbuildings are gone from the 385-acre U.S. Department of Energy factory zone. Soon the tainted factory that employed thousands while producing hydrogen bomb cores from 1952 to 1989 will be reduced, mostly, to Rocky Flats. Officials expect the cleanup to be complete by late October. Dozens of gondola railcars packed with rubble from the leveled Building 371 stood waiting one day recently for an engine to haul them to Envirocare, of Utah, as low-level radioactive waste. In place of the 300,000-square-foot concrete monolith were orderly heaps of backfill. Just one of the paved roads in the former industrial city remains. Heavy equipment tore at it. The western access road, the facility's connection with Colorado 93, will revert to dirt within a week or so. ''It's a lot different than it was last week,'' said John Corsi, spokesman for Kaiser-Hill Co., as he drove past. Kaiser-Hill is the Department of Energy's lead contractor on the $7 billion Superfund cleanup. Buried contamination will remain, as well as a series of water monitors to make sure it doesn't escape into Woman or Walnut creeks. Slightly radioactive hotspots probably also will stay on parts of the industrial area and blow immediately downwind, although spots disclosed Sept. 1 will be cleaned up next week. Such hotspots, including the former industrial area and hundreds of acres surrounding and downwind of it, will not be part of the roughly 5,000-acre Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. What was the Rocky Flats industrial area soon will be an open expanse of surprisingly hilly, rough earth commingled with straw to aid plant growth. Some of it, where the seeds of native grasses have had months or years to grow, already looks ''native.'' The removal of Building 371, the creation of drainages, removal of temporary rail lines, and landscaping and revegetation are the cleanup's final actions, said David Shelton, vice president for environmental stewardship at Kaiser-Hill. The hands-on cleanup force of about 6,500 when Kaiser-Hill took over the effort in 1995 has dwindled to about 250, Corsi said. Sixty-three steelworkers remain. By October, there will be just five steelworkers left, he said. More than 100 salaried workers are immersed in the paperwork generated from the project, Corsi said. Regulators aren't expected to sign off on the cleanup until late 2006. John Rampe, director of closure project management at Rocky Flats, has worked on environmental issues at the plant since 1990. ''It's really started to hit home, the magnitude of the effort around here,'' he said. ''It's hard to remember what the place looked like.'' © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 48 Guardian Unlimited: Richardson: Wen Ho Lee Was 'Mistreated' From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday September 25, 2005 7:46 PM SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - A former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist who was held in solitary confinement for nine months was ``badly treated,'' Gov. Bill Richardson acknowledges in his new autobiography. Richardson was former President Clinton's energy secretary when Wen Ho Lee was indicted in 1999 on 59 counts alleging he mishandled nuclear information. Lee was released in September 2000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count and received an apology from the judge who released him. ``As for Lee, he committed a crime, but he also was badly treated,'' Richardson wrote in ``Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life,'' due out Nov. 3. ``Here was the government putting this skinny 60-year-old guy into solitary confinement for nearly a year. I have come to realize that it was wrong and I should have spoken out more, although I did try to influence the Justice Department on their incarceration of Lee.'' The Taiwanese-born Lee acknowledged downloading data to computer tape but said he made copies to protect data from being erased. Lee, a U.S. citizen, was never charged with espionage and said he never passed any sensitive or classified material to anyone. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 49 Colorado Daily News: Contractor: speedy cleanup safe By ROBERT WELLER Associated Press Writer Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:29 PM MDT DENVER (AP) - The Government Accountability Office issued a preliminary report Thursday that said the contractor in the $7 billion cleanup of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant assured auditors that its speeded up cleanup is safe. The GAO report quotes the contractor, Kaiser-Hill, and federal and state regulatory agencies as saying an estimated $510 million bonus led to innovations to complete the work next month, more than a year ahead of schedule, and within budget. In 2001 the GAO had said the cleanup was behind schedule and over-budget. The agency says its staff did not "review the science underlying" the claims of the contractor, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and Colorado health department. "We reviewed the data used to prepare this report and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report," wrote Gene Aloise, director of the GAO's natural resources and environment. The report was requested by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., after environmentalists said the cleanup of the plant where plutonium triggers were manufactured during the Cold War was incomplete because radioactive waste had been dumped clandestinely and illegally on the 6,500-acre compound 10 miles downwind from Denver. Further, the GAO said that once the cleanup is deemed complete the work must be reviewed and approved by federal and state agencies. The report noted that after an independent team found some contaminated areas that had not been cleaned up, "DOE has remediated some of these already and plans to remediate the others." Initially the Energy Department said the contamination was not significant. Once the cleanup is complete and health officials have declared the area safe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to turn a portion of the area into a wildlife refuge with hiking, hunting and other public uses. Erin Hamby of the Rocky Mountain Justice and Peace Center said the GAO had not been asked to determine itself whether the cleanup was adequate or safe. "I don't have the confidence that the site will ever be cleaned up enough to say it is safe. The contractor might be able to say they have met their obligation but that is a far cry from saying it is safe," she said. Colorado Daily Online Edition 2610 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 303.443.6272 ***************************************************************** 50 LongmontFYI: Flats cleanup under budget Publish Date: 9/25/2005 Debris is all that is left of a parking lot and trailer facility on the Rocky Flats site. Rocky Flats is in its final cleanup stages, coming in a year ahead of schedule and $400 million under budget.Times-Call/Erin McCracken Company: Project costing $400M less than anticipated By Brad Turner The Daily Times-Call BROOMFIELD The decontamination of Rocky Flats may cost half a billion dollars less than initially projected, according to the company in charge of the project. Kaiser-Hill plans to declare the 6,500-acre former nuclear weapons plant remediated in mid- to late October, shaving between $400 million and $500 million off the estimated $7.3 billion contract, company spokesman John Corsi said. He pointed to a process by which on-site workers partially decontaminated glove boxes used to shape plutonium cores for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The glove boxes were so radioactive that Kaiser-Hill would have been forced to ship them to a nuclear waste facility near Carlsbad, N.M., that charges high fees to accept radioactive material, he said. By cleaning them on site, Kaiser-Hill could ship the waste to less expensive, lower-level hazardous waste dumps in Utah or Nevada, Corsi said. The company will also save on worker wages by shutting down early, Department of Energy spokesman John Rampe said. Hundreds of employees at the site are scheduled to finish their work later this week. Time is money, in some respects. If you finish early, youre not maintaining a full site infrastructure, Rampe said. Additionally, the company cut costs by shipping contaminated waste off-site in railcars rather than trucks, he said. By contract, Kaiser-Hill will get to keep 30 percent of the money it saved $120 million to $150 million as a bonus. The remaining 70 percent will be retained by the federal government, Rampe said. Few of the hundreds of buildings that once stood on Rocky Flats remain, and all of the buildings involved in nuclear weapons production and plutonium processing have been razed. Many of the single-lane dirt roads that crisscross the sites rolling hills already have been closed for revegetation. David Abelson, director of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments, said hes cautiously optimistic that the early closure will be a success. Neighboring city governments and regulatory groups, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state Department of Public Health and Environment, will spend months reviewing the cleanup after Kaiser-Hill halts work in a few weeks. Its good, assuming the final steps of the cleanup as its been scoped have been met, Abelson said last week. We remain hopeful. This summer, a team of scientists hired to verify Kaiser-Hills work found a cluster of radioactive hot spots near a former waste-storage site where barrels of radioactive waste leaked into the topsoil in the 1950s and 1960s. Kaiser-Hill initially said the hot spots were not concentrated enough to warrant cleanup, but DOE officials ordered the company to remove the tainted soil. The hot spots did not delay Kaiser-Hills projected mid-October completion date. About 5,000 acres surrounding the former weapons-production site are slated for conversion to a wildlife refuge with public access. Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at bturner@times-call.com. All contents Copyright 2005 Daily Times-Call. 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: *****************************************************************