***************************************************************** 01/11/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.9 ***************************************************************** 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 csmonitor.com: Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion 2 [progchat_action] Dem Hawk wants sanctions on Iran 3 IPS-English IRAN: Opens Nuclear Locks and Hornet's Nest 4 [NYTr] Blair Rattles Saber at Iran: "No Option Ruled Out" 5 [NYTr] Iran Urges West to Use Good Sense on Nuke Program 6 Guardian Unlimited: Confusion on the streets, solidarity in the 7 Guardian Unlimited: Let's make sure we do better with Iran than we d 8 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Says Sanctions Could Face Iran 9 AFP: Iran prompts international outrage over resumed nuclear activit 10 BBC: Blair threatens UN action on Iran 11 AFP: Iran will not give up its nuclear right: Rafsanjani 12 SF Chron: Iran cuts U.N. seals on equipment used to enrich uranium 13 Reuters: EU talks only if Iran pledges no atomic work-Germany 14 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Feels 'Dismay' Over Iran Nuke Move 15 AFP: EU-3 foreign ministers to meet in Berlin over Iran nuclear cris 16 AFP: Iran nuclear moves 'alarming' - Russian defense minister 17 AFP: Blair, Merkel discuss Iran 18 AFP: Blair said Iran referal to UN 'seems likely' 19 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Says West Likely to Sanction Iran 20 AFP: US goes back to Plan A in Iran nuclear row 21 AFP: Iran nuclear row coming to a head" US 22 AFP: US tells Iran this time it may have gone too far 23 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Defiant As Sanctions From West Likely 24 Guardian Unlimited: US warns Iran as nuclear row escalates 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Wants Quick Resumption of Nuke Talks 26 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeking North Korean Nuke Update 27 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul steps up efforts to push 6-way meeting 28 Reuters: US envoy to N.Korea nuclear talks starts Asia tour 29 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pointman on Nuke Talks Visiting Asia 30 Bellona: Norwegian participation in AMEC could be dissolved 31 AFP: Major polluters launch controversial global warming talks - 32 Guardian Unlimited: Tough response may seem inevitable but could NUCLEAR REACTORS 33 [NukeNet] Japanese NGOs Label Electric Utility Plutonium 34 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Town balks at nuclear question 35 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC advisory panel: Approve Vermont Yankee 36 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear question looms large at climate chang 37 edmontonsun.com: Energy scientists to work with Idahoans 38 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear power agency head to visit Ukraine soon 39 US: Platts: Michigan report does not recommend adoption of a nuclear 40 ISN Security Watch: Lithuania delaying nuclear closure 41 US: NRC: Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force; Reques 42 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 43 CTK: International law expert believes Austria can deal with Temelin 44 US: MyWestTexas.com: Support for Andrews reactor comes from Midland, 45 US: Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuclear safety record mixed 46 US: MyWestTexas.com: Test reactor could be finished by end of 2012 47 US: Odessa American Online: Officials stress reactors safety 48 US: Daily Utah Chronicle: 'Primetime' exposes U's nuclear reactor se 49 UPI: Europe debates nuclear energy NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 US: PE.com: Feinstein demands military perform studies on perchlorat NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 51 Las Vegas SUN: American Indian tribe in Nevada says railroads stole 52 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Canadians bid $19.7m for uranium debutant 53 US: SLO Trib: Supervisors will send letter urging state to study nuc 54 US: Salt Lake City Weekly: Whose Mine Is It? 55 Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: Nuke classes 56 Pahrump Valley Times: Tri Cities contain tough Yucca lessons 57 Pahrump Valley Times: DOE shuts down Yucca Mountain PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 RMN: Rocky Flats grand jurors seek permission to reveal alleged misc 59 KIFI: Confusion Over Lay Offs at INL 60 DOE: Secretary Bodman Begins Australia Visit 61 Hanford News: Wash state, DOE settle lawsuit challenging Hanford was 62 Hanford News: Review finds problems in Hanford study 63 Hanford News: DOE agrees to stop shipments of most wastes to Hanford ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 csmonitor.com: Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion World > Terrorism &Security posted January 10, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. New study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded soldiers. By Tom ReganArthur Bright--> | csmonitor.com A by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could . Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far. "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars." The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war. Before the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high." The Office of Management and Budget "does not comment on this type of speculation," said spokesman Rich Walker. Reuters also reports that a Marine Corps spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, said Monday that the war is costing the US about in military "operating costs," not including procurement of new weapons and equipment. Colonel Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date. Stiglitz has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. He was an adviser to President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank. Bilmes was a former assistant secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration. The BBC reports that Stiglitz himself says that there will be some people who will as based on his opposition to the war. The Boston Globe reports, however, that despite his view, Stiglitz is not considered to be . "Stiglitz rants against globalization, and generally barks louder than he bites," said Timothy Kane, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "That is, he is a champion to the lefties, but ." Martin Wolf of the Financial Times writes that while its true that critics will dismiss the two Clinton-era economists work, that . In fact, Wolfe argues, the Stiglitz-Bilmes study ignores some other critical data. Among these are: costs borne by other countries, including those created by higher oil prices; costs consequent upon creating a link between Iraq and the jihadi movement that did not, on the evidence, previously exist; costs of increasing the income of some of the world’s least desirable regimes, above all, Iran’s; costs of throwing away the option to fight ground wars elsewhere or to fight in Iraq later on, under better conditions, better information and a better state of preparedness; costs of enraging many Muslims; costs to the effectiveness of the US military; costs of fragmenting the western alliance; the loss of Iraqi lives; the cost to US credibility of going to war on a false premise; and the cost to the US reputation of the torture scandals. An editorial in the Brattleboro Reformer of Vermont argues that even if the Stiglitz-Bilmes estimates are exaggerated, it obvious that the war in Iraq is going to far more than the Bush administration first said it would. Conservatives are already pooh-poohing these figures, and the Bush White House will not comment on them. But it is more than clear that even if a plan was put on the table right now for a phased withdrawal from Iraq over the next 12 months, Americans will still be paying the heavy human and economic costs of this war, the largest and most expensive military engagement since Vietnam. We can't undo the mistake of invading Iraq. But we can confront the cost of doing so and have a realistic plan for paying for it. Time magazine notes that "even as the economic toll worsens, there is some ." According to Army data obtained by the magazine that have not yet been officially released, there were 8,367 divorces in 2005, down from 10,477 in 2004. It's still higher than before the war, but the lower figure shows that the programs, put into place by the military to help spouses deal with the pressures of long deployments and then reentry into the country, are showing signs of making a difference. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 [progchat_action] Dem Hawk wants sanctions on Iran Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:47:48 -0600 (CST) (Congressman Tom Lantos, it will be remembered, presided over the infamous 1990 hearing that presented fraudulent testimony that Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti babies in incubators. SR) Lantos: US and EU should sanction Iran if UN won't By Etgar Lefkovits The United States and the European Union should impose a range of sanctions against Iran for continuing to press ahead with its nuclear program if the UN security council does not do so, US Congressman Tom Lantos said Tuesday. "Iran poses a very serious threat to the entire world community and collective action is called for," Lantos said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. Lantos was in Israel this week to take part in the 'International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians,' a three-day gathering of Jewish lawmakers from around the world. The California congressman, who serves as the senior Democrat on the House's International Relations Committee, said that if the UN security council failed to impose "long-overdue" sanctions against Iran due to opposition by countries such as Russia or China, then the United States and the European Union should do so on their own. He said that, while such sanctions would not be as comprehensive as ones initiated by the UN, they would nevertheless force Iran to change course on its nuclear program. His comments came as Iran publicly removed seals at its nuclear facilities, heightening ever-growing concerns that Teheran was fast moving toward building atomic weapons. The 77-year-old Hungarian-born congressman, who is the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the US Congress, said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust was "beyond irrational or lunatic." "These observations are the manifestations of either total ignorance or a demented mind," he said. He added that the Iranian president's recent call to "wipe Israel off the map" should give the civilized world "a very serious warning" that a country with huge petroleum earnings and a resolute determination to develop nuclear weapons and long range missiles must be taken very seriously. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly insisted that Iran would continue to conduct nuclear research, despite repeated warnings from the international community about punitive measures if it did so. "We cannot remain silent and neutral when the president of a country in a volatile region is advocating the destruction of another country in the region," he said. In addition, however, Lantos reiterated that Iran represented a threat to the international community at large and was not simply an American or Israeli problem. He declined to comment on Israeli intelligence estimates, repeated on Monday by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, that Iran was as little as six months away from acquiring the know-how to make a nuclear bomb. Lantos said that three years of on-again, off-again European negotiations were clearly used by Iran to gain time and press ahead with its nuclear research. "We fully expected this, but now the cards are on the table," he said. The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, put off referring Iran to the UN Security Council two months ago, in part out of an effort to secure Russian and Chinese support on the Iranian matter. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ***************************************************************** 3 IPS-English IRAN: Opens Nuclear Locks and Hornet's Nest Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:10:36 -0800 ROMAIPS AP WD IP ML=20 IRAN: Opens Nuclear Locks and Hornet's Nest Analysis by Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI, Jan 11 (IPS)- Now that Iran has broken the seals it put two=20 and a half years ago on an atomic research facility at Natanz, 250 kms =20 south of Tehran, the threat of escalating conflict centred on the=20 Western power's effort to halt its nuclear activities looms large. =20 The major nuclear weapon states, led by the United States, have warned=20 Iran against pursuing even research which might lead to uranium=20 enrichment. Iran insists that it will go ahead with the research, but=20 that =F4production of nuclear fuel remains suspended=94. (Currently, Iran= is=20 only converting uranium into hexafluoride gas at Isfahan, not enriching=20 it.)=20 As both sides ratchet up the confrontation, the whiff of conflict hangs=20 in the air, with distressing implications for the whole world.=20 This time around, the contestation is likely to be more serious than in=20 September, when the US dragged Iran before the board of governors of the=20 International Atomic Energy Agency which held it =F4non-compliant=94 with= =20 its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran=20 could soon face tough sanctions from the United Nations Security Council=20 in a telescoped replay of a part of the drama over Iraq between 2000 and=20 2003, which eventually led to its invasion and occupation.=20 There are three differences, though. Iraq's alleged nuclear activities=20 were clandestine -- although they did not result in a capability to make=20 nuclear weapons of mass destruction, as Western governments falsely=20 claimed. By contrast, Iran's current activities are transparent and=20 taking place right in the presence of IAEA inspectors.=20 Second, Iraq in 2002-2003 had no civilian nuclear programme worth the=20 name. Most of its clandestine military nuclear infrastructure was=20 dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War under a tough United Nations Security=20 Council mandate.=20 Iran has a civilian nuclear programme, stretching from the mining of=20 uranium to its enrichment to constructing a power reactor. Also, unlike=20 Iraq, it can legitimately invoke its =F4right=94 to peaceful nuclear=20 activities under the NPT, subject to IAEA inspections. This right is=20 affirmed under Articles 1 and 4 of the treaty.=20 Third, Iraq in 2003 was a weak, militarily near-disabled country with an=20 economy crippled by decade-long sanctions. Its totally undemocratic=20 state had very little legitimacy in the eyes of the people.=20 Iran is a culturally vibrant, self-confident society with a strong=20 economy, which now stands further boosted by high oil prices. It is a=20 middle-level military power with a popularly elected government. It will=20 not be easy to isolate Iran, unlike Iraq.=20 =F4In fact=94, says Hari Vasudevan, professor of international relations = at=20 Calcutta University, =F4Iran enjoys unique strategic advantage because of= =20 the highly troubled situation in Iraq, which the U.S. has failed to=20 quell.=94 He adds: =F4Sixty percent of Iraq's population is Shia, and Ira= n=20 wields enormous influence in Iraq. It has so far desisted from fomenting=20 further trouble in Iraq, but could do so if cornered and provoked by the=20 U.S. and its allies=94.=20 Iran has two more advantages in its favour. It has been working closely=20 with Russia in its civilian nuclear programme. Russia is helping it=20 build a power reactor at Bushehr, due to be commissioned this year.=20 It also enjoys a degree of support and sympathy from the Non-Aligned=20 Movement (NAM) and China. The bulk of the NAM group at the IAEA, barring=20 India and a handful of small countries, abstained from or voted against=20 the US-sponsored Sep. 24 resolution against Iran. As did China and=20 Russia.=20 This week too, China refused to sign a joint statement with the other=20 permanent members in the Security Council and tried to water down the=20 final resolution.=20 =F4All this might only frustrate U.S. efforts to diplomatically isolate=20 Iran=94, says Qamar Agha, a Middle East expert at the Centre for West and= =20 Central Asian Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia university in New=20 Delhi. =F4Western Europe is far too dependent upon Iran's oil and gas to=20 go to extreme lengths in sustaining sanctions that cripple Iran's energy=20 generation. Therefore, the U.S. might be tempted to use military force,=20 jointly with Israel, to bomb select facilities in Iran.=94=20 In recent weeks, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Porter Goss=20 visited Turkey and briefed a number of other states in Iran's=20 neighbourhood on U.S. plans for attacking Iran. Israel has already=20 declared that Iran's nuclear programme =F4can be destroyed=94. And Likud=20 Party leader Benjamin Netayahu has nostalgically invoked Israel's 1981=20 attack on Iraq's experimental nuclear reactor under construction.=20 A number of U.S. doctrinal pronouncements, and reports about a recently=20 approved U.S. =F4global strike plan=94, with a nuclear option, suggest th= at=20 a pre-emptive American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, either=20 unilateral or jointly with Israel, cannot be ruled out.=20 A former Indian intelligence officer, Vikram Sood, believes that such an=20 attack might use nuclear weapons. =F4A conventional attack on Iran would=20 be expensive and not quite cost-effective. It would allow Iranian=20 retaliation=94. To pre-empt retaliation, the U.S. might use tactical=20 nuclear weapons against Iran's underground facilities.=20 =F4The tragedy unfolding=94, says Sood, =F4is that if the U.S. believes t= hat=20 its adversary possesses or has the intention to possess WMDs, then it is=20 justified to consider this a threat to itself and to U.S. forces in the=20 region. It must, therefore, act pre-emptively. The fear also is that=20 unlike in the case of Iraq when considerable time was spent in building=20 the case, this time the attack will be sudden and actual justifications=20 will be given later.=94=20 Any such attack would break the 60 year-old, very welcome, taboo against=20 the use of nuclear weapons -- with extraordinarily negative consequences=20 for global peace and security. It could also unleash violence on an=20 unprecedented scale in the Middle East and chaos in other disturbed=20 parts of the world.=20 Such a dreadful outcome can only be prevented if the West moves away=20 =66rom coercive diplomacy to isolate Iran and opens serious talks with it= ,=20 and if the nuclear weapons-states rethink their own policies. These are=20 based on total hypocrisy.=20 Today, as the West accuses Iran of nursing nuclear ambitions, it has=20 itself no intention of reducing nuclear arms. The U.S. has embarked on a=20 plan to expand its nuclear capability both upwards, through =F4Star Wars=94= ,=20 and downwards, through bunker-buster bombs. Similarly, Britain has=20 announced a 40 billion dollar replacement project for the Trident=20 missile. Smaller nuclear states like Israel, India and Pakistan too have set=20 negative examples.=20 If Iran is to be dissuaded from its nuclear pursuits, all these=20 countries must lead by example-- by taking concrete, measurable steps=20 towards nuclear arms reduction and disarmament. If they do not, the=20 situation could rapidly spin out of control.=20 (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/ML/PB/RDR/06)=20 =20 =3D 01111846 ORP007 NNNN ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Blair Rattles Saber at Iran: "No Option Ruled Out" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:46:05 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Ha'aretz - 11 January 2006 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/669075.html Blair: 'We don't rule out any measures at all' in dealing with Iran British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he aimed to get international agreement to refer Iran to the UN Security Council after it restarted research into nuclear fuel this week. "I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told parliament. "Then .. we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added. Blair said Iran's decision to resume nuclear activities caused "real and serious" alarm across the world. "The decision by Iran is very serious indeed," Blair said. "I do not think there is any point in people, or us, hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do." Iran removed UN seals at uranium enrichment research facilities on Tuesday and announced it would resume "research and development" on producing uranium fuel, prompting angry reactions from Washington, the European Union and Russia, as well as Britain. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain will meet in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the crisis caused by Iran's move to reactivate a nuclear fuel program mothballed under a November 2004 deal with the EU trio. Also on Wednesday, German deputy foreign minister Gernot Erler said the European Union cannot continue negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program unless it pledges not to enrich uranium. However, Erler cautioned on Deutschlandfunk radio against referring the dispute to the UN Security Council, saying it could further destabilize the Middle East. "I don't know what the three foreign ministers will decide [at Thursday's meeting], but I believe they cannot continue to negotiate without an Iranian assurance that there will be no concrete enrichment activity," Erler said. He cautioned that referring the matter to the Security Council would likely lead to the "threat of sanctions, and that can lead to an escalation that can get out of control." "That is the risk, and that is how it was with the preparation for and the road to the Iraq war," said Erler. "That would be in no way reassuring given the other problems we currently have in the greater Middle East." * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] Iran Urges West to Use Good Sense on Nuke Program Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:48:29 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Urges the West to Use Good Sense on Nuclear Program Tehran, Jan 11 (PL) Iranian former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafansjani urged western nations on Wednesday to act sensibly on the Iran peaceful nuclear program issue. The West "must avoid any action it will regret later," stated Akbar Hashemi Rafansjani, who governed the country from 1989 to 1997 and presently runs the Iranian Council of Determination. The ex president responded to threats and calls for punishing Tehran and even launch military operations against facilities engaged in peaceful nuclear research. One of the sharpest statements were made by Austrian Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schuessel, who said the Iranian stance had damaged world peace, while Japan supported remarks condemning the Tehran decision to reopen nuclear research facilities. Before International Energy Atomic Agency inspectors, Iran removed seals from a facility for uranium enrichment on Tuesday. It is slated to reopen those of Farayand, in Isfahan, and Pars Trash, in Tehran, today. Hashemi Rafsanjani asserted nations that signed the Non-proliferation Treaty of Nuclear Weapons are entitled to engage in atomic research with a peaceful purpose. Iran has been meeting sporadically with France, Germany and United Kingdom, which want it to stop enriching uranium. mh/ecq/mt/mf * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Confusion on the streets, solidarity in the regime as Iran chooses brinkmanship White House steps up pressure as Blair predicts referral to UN security council Robert Tait in Tehran Thursday January 12, 2006 The Guardian The heavy snowfall yesterday, compounding the thick blanket of pollution that habitually engulfs Tehran in the dead of winter, seemed emblematic of the confusion many Iranians now have over their government's decision to resume nuclear research activities in the face of fierce criticism from the west. The White House yesterday stepped up diplomatic pressure by saying that Iran had made a "serious miscalculation" by clearing the way to resume uranium enrichment, and that intensive diplomacy with European allies and others was starting over what to do next. In London, Tony Blair said it was likely that the US and Europe would agree to refer Iran to the UN security council. Conscious of the clamour from the west to refer Iran to the council, some people voiced mistrust of their country's nuclear ambitions and feared that the issue could escalate into military conflict. Others, more sympathetic to the Islamic regime, asserted Iran's right to nuclear energy, and even nuclear weapons, saying the nation was being singled out by Islam's enemies. It was a sharp division of opinion unlikely to be mirrored within the regime itself, said analysts. While the power structure is riddled with disagreements between the ultra-Islamist government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more traditional conservatives in parliament, senior regime figures are at one in backing the hardball approach on the nuclear issue. The reason is that the most sensitive nuclear decisions are in the hands of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rather than with President Ahmadinejad. Tactical "There is no issue in which everybody in the regime is united, but in this special case there is more unity than on any other," said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst based in Tehran. That was because the decision to break the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals to restart work at the Natanz nuclear facility came from the supreme leader, he said. "Nuclear issues are absolutely separate from the government and I don't believe this is Mr Ahmadinejad's decision." While western governments cast Tuesday's move as a serious step towards uranium enrichment and, ultimately, atomic weapons, analysts in Tehran argued that the regime's intentions were purely tactical. Mr Leylaz said: "This is not the beginning of enrichment. But diplomatically it's very aggressive and intended to gain advantage for the Iranian side. We've had two plane crashes in the past month caused by American economic sanctions against Iran. Those accidents are forcing Iran to take a more aggressive stance towards the sanctions. The regime wants to start real negotiations with the US, because it doesn't think the Europeans are authorised to negotiate properly. This move is aimed at breaking the circle and getting America's attention." Another analyst said: "This decision is about forcing the west to come up with something substantial and serious. Iran wants rewards for not turning its nuclear programme into a weapons programme. The Russians are saying, come and do uranium enrichment on our soil, but there's no reward for that. The regime is saying, if you want us to work with the Russians, there's a price - which is lifting the sanctions, security guarantees, economic incentives and recognition of Iran's role in the region." The image of a regime united over driving a hard bargain was exemplified by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and occasional opponent of Mr Khamenei, who accused the west of an "arrogant and colonial" attitude. "We will stand by our right to nuclear technology. They will regret creating any problems for us," he said in a sermon at Tehran University. But not all Iranians, on holiday for the Eid Ghorban festival, were so robust. Aidin, 26, a businessman and political science graduate, said: "The west and the IAEA are right to be tough with Iran. If Iran had any opportunity to turn itself into an international oppressor, it would do so through atomic weapons." A mechanical engineering student, Ali, 25, said: "I know the regime says it just wants to move to nuclear energy for electricity but they don't have the culture for that. Their first target would be to try to get weapons to destroy Israel. That's the impression they give everybody and it's not a good idea." Orkideh, 35, a housewife, said: "I'm not sure nuclear weapons are their objective but I do worry about ... military conflict. With ... Iraq, where they said it had weapons of mass destruction when it didn't, that could be our experience too. If we had a different type of government, one not Islamic, I don't think there would be a problem." Others were more bullish. Alaeddin Amiri, 43, a military employee, said: "If America has the right to nuclear weapons after dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why doesn't Iran have that right? Where's the evidence that Iran will use nuclear weapons? We are trying to protect ourselves. Iran is the heart of Islam and I believe it is Islam, and not just Iran, that is under attack." FAQ: nuclear states Has Iran the right to enrich uranium? Yes, under international rules. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). However it can only enrich for power generation, not for a weapons programme. What is the NPT? The 1970 treaty aims at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons while establishing the right of all states to develop nuclear energy. Non-nuclear states say the nuclear powers dictate who gets atomic weapons yet fail to move towards nuclear disarmament. Does the NPT apply to all? No. Russia, China, the US, France, and Britain have the nuclear bomb, are NPT signatories, and must, theoretically, disarm progressively. India, Pakistan, and Israel also have the bomb but did not sign the NPT. It is suspected North Korea has nuclear weapons but it abrogated the treaty three years ago. Iran could follow suit. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Let's make sure we do better with Iran than we did with Iraq Comment The west's next step on Tehran's nuclear plans should be to understand the regime and society, not to start bombing Timothy Garton Ash Thursday January 12, 2006 The Guardian Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran. As the Islamic revolutionary regime breaks the international seals on its nuclear facilities, and prepares to hone its skills in the uranium enrichment that could, in a matter of years, enable it to produce nuclear weapons, we in Europe and the United States have to respond. But how? If we mishandle this, it could lead not only to the edge of another military confrontation but also to another crisis of the west. The European policy of negotiated containment, mistrustfully backed by America and ambiguously accompanied by Russia, has failed. It was worth trying, but it was not enough. The Europeans did not carry sufficiently credible sticks and the Americans did not wave large enough carrots to sway the theocrats in Tehran. Neither half of the old transatlantic west could induce oil-hungry China and energy-rich Russia to play the diplomatic game sufficiently clearly our way. The seemingly half-crazed new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would probably regard a cost-benefit analysis as an invention of the Great Satan and a prime example of western secular decadence. Allah, he would say, is not an accountant. Yet if cooler heads in the regime behind him are making a cost-benefit analysis, they could still conclude that this is a risk worth taking. The mullahs are floating high on an ocean of oil revenue: an estimated $36bn last year. This money can be used to buy off material discontent at home. They know that the US is deeply mired in neighbouring Iraq, where the Iranians wield growing influence in the Shia south. As President George Bush might privately put it, Tehran has Washington by the cojones. The mullahs also know that China (which has a large energy-supply deal with Iran) and Russia have very different interests from Europe and the US; and they know that countries like Germany and Italy will be deeply reluctant to let sanctions restrict their lucrative trade with Iran. That's a strong hand. Everyone seems to agree that the next major step is for the matter to be referred to the UN security council. Even the Bush administration, so contemptuous of the UN during the Iraq crisis, now regards that as Plan B. What then? The security council raps Tehran over the knuckles. President Ahmadinejad says go to hell. The security council comes back with sanctions, which would be limited by the geopolitical and energy interests of China and Russia, and the economic interests of Germany, Italy and France. Iran continues (overtly or covertly) with uranium enrichment, while those sanctions produce a growing siege mentality in the country. The regime will tell its people that they are being unjustly and hypocritically punished by the west, merely for developing nuclear energy for peaceful use, as Iran is entitled to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Compare and contrast Washington's treatment of nuclear India! Many will believe that propaganda - which, like all the best propaganda, contains a grain of truth. External pressure, in this form, could thus consolidate rather than weaken the regime. What then? What's our Plan C? For the hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv, Plan C would be to bomb selected Iranian nuclear facilities, in order to slow down Iran's progress towards the bomb. Despite all the famous pinpoint precision of state-of-the-art US bombing, one can be quietly confident that this would take the lives of innocent civilians - or, at least, of people whom Iranian television could credibly claim were innocent civilians. A recent trip to Iran convinced me of two things: first, that there is a large reservoir of anti-regime and mildly pro-western feeling in Iran; and, second, that this reservoir could be drained overnight if we bombed. Instead, you would almost certainly have a wave of national solidarity with the regime. At the moment, the extremist Ahmadinejad is playing into the hands of the neoconservative extremists in the west; but at that point, the extremists in the west would have played into the hands of Ahmadinejad. So what should Europeans and Americans do on the edge of this Persian precipice? Here are a few things for starters. First, Europeans should take the threat of an unpredictable, fragmented Islamic revolutionary regime obtaining nuclear weapons very seriously indeed. Europeans led the movement against nuclear arms escalation by the superpowers in the 1980s; today's threat of nuclear proliferation is probably more dangerous. Americans, for their part, should not confuse European warnings about the need to proceed cautiously with cowardice, euroweeniness, and all those other failings of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" attributed to us by red-blooded American anti-Europeans. Second, we should share all the information, knowledge and intelligence that we have. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has observed that Iran is unique among the countries of the world in that the US has so little direct contact with it. The US has had no diplomats there since the end of the embassy hostage crisis a quarter-century ago. It has very few businesspeople or journalists there. And, if James Risen's State of War, is to be believed, the CIA managed to shop its whole network of agents in Iran to the Tehran authorities by inadvertently sending a list of them to a double-agent. So they don't even have any spooks there. The Europeans, by contrast, have diplomats, businesspeople, journalists and possibly also spooks aplenty in Iran, and so should be better informed. We need to share all this information and reach a common analysis. And before we take any step in the diplomatic dance, we need to ask ourselves two questions: how will this affect the Iranian regime, and how will it affect Iranian society? The regime is complex. Ahmadinejad is the president, but not the ultimate boss. The boss of this theocratic regime is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini. Without his say-so, the nuclear seals would not have been broken. But he is constrained by strong interest groups, such as the Revolutionary Guards, and by other ayatollahs, such as the president's fudamentalist guru, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi. As important is the dynamic within Iranian society. I feel deeply uncomfortable when I hear the American neoconservative Frank Gaffney calling for a revolution in Iran. It's so brave of him to risk other people's lives. Iranians would do well to remember what happened to their fellow Shias in the south of Iraq when the last President Bush encouraged them to rise up at the end of the Gulf war. But it is the case that Iranian society is potentially our greatest ally - indeed, probably the most pro-western society in the Middle East outside Israel. www.freeworldweb.net Useful links The Foreign and Commonwealth Office The Department for International Development What do you think? Email comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Says Sanctions Could Face Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 11:17 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that sanctions would be ``the number one item on the agenda'' if Iran is hauled before the U.N. Security Council for restarting nuclear activities. ``I think the next step will be probably to go before the U.N. Security Council,'' Cheney said in an interview on the Tony Snow show on Fox News radio. ``And that would be probably the number one item on the agenda would be the resolution that could be enforced by sanctions, were they to fail to comply with it.'' Ending a two-year freeze, Iran on Tuesday broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant and said it was resuming nuclear research for energy production. The United States insists Tehran wants a nuclear weapons program. Britain, France and Germany, which have been negotiating with U.S. backing with Iran over its uranium conversion and enrichment activities, are meeting in Berlin on Thursday to consider their next step. The United States has sounded increasingly confident it could win Security Council support for some action against Iran, but it is unlikely the votes would be there for sanctions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Iran prompts international outrage over resumed nuclear activity 11/01/2006 08h49 Mohammad Saidi ©AFP VIENNA (AFP) - Iran triggered a furious reaction from the West by announcing it had resumed sensitive nuclear research work after a two-year suspension, heightening the risk of being hauled before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Tehran defied international calls to maintain the suspension as it announced that it removed seals of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from its Natanz research facility in central Iran. IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed the move and said that seals at two "related storage and testing locations" were due to be removed by Wednesday. The UN nuclear watchdog's chief also confirmed that Iran planned to use centrifuges to enrich uranium "on a small scale." In Tehran, Mohammad Saidi, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, announced that "as of today these centres resume their activities." "The research will be carried out in all the centres that we told the IAEA about, and we will restart our work," Saidi said. Western nations fear that Iran will use its civilian nuclear programme to build an atomic bomb, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies. Angry over Iran's resumption of sensitive nuclear activities, the United States and European Union warned that the Islamic republic could be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. "We view this as a serious escalation on the part of Iran on the nuclear issue," said US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "What you see here is the international community coming out and sending a very clear message to Iran that their behavior is unacceptable," McCormack said. The administration of President George W. Bush said Tuesday it was "in close contact" with its partners, including Britain, Germany and France, discussing a response. "If the regime in Iran continues on the current course ... there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. At present, he added, the United States is "in close contacts with the Europeans and others about how to move forward" at the IAEA. McClellan said Bush for now has no intention of launching an attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, adding that, however, the military option remained on the table. Iranian technicians remove a container of radioactive uranium ©AFP/File - Behrouz Mehri US officials also signaled mounting frustration with stalled European efforts to persuade Tehran to renounce its suspected nuclear arms ambitions. The United States has long pushed for UN action against Iran, but last March came out in support of efforts by Britain, Germany and France to negotiate a solution to the nuclear standoff. Iran had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment pending negotiations with the EU-3 on economic and other incentives to renounce any nuclear weapons ambitions. The European Union, which described Iran's latest move as "serious and regrettable," has been trying to reopen talks suspended in August after Iran rejected an initial set of incentives to abandon uranium enrichment, which produces fuel for nuclear power reactors but can also be used to make atomic bombs. In a statement, the EU said Iran had eroded "international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called for a meeting with his French and German counterparts on Thursday and said referral of Iran to the UN Security Council would top the agenda. "Military action is not on our agenda, and I don't believe it's on anyone else's agenda," he said, pre-empting speculation that Israel or the United States might attempt a military strike. Mohamed ElBaradei ©AFP/PRESSENSBILD/File Gregory Schulte, the US ambassador to the IAEA, said Iran was "taking another deliberate step towards uranium enrichment, the process for creating nuclear bomb material. "By cutting the seals, the Iranian leadership shows its disdain for international concern and its rejection of international diplomacy," Schulte said in a statement. Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, but many nations question that claim, and Straw argued that Middle East peace and stability, and global security, would be compromised by an Iranian bomb. "There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful and it wanted to resolve longstanding international concerns," Straw said. In Germany, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned that Tehran had "crossed a line where the Iranians knew that it would not remain without consequences." French President Jacques Chirac said Iran -- along with fellow nuclear suspect North Korea -- "would be committing a serious mistake if they did not take the hand that we are holding out to them". Russia, which has offered to conduct Iran's enrichment work on its own soil as a confidence-building measure, voiced concern over Tehran's decision to resume sensitive research. Iran has yet to take up Russia's offer. "We call on Iran to return actively to a condition of moratorium and to full cooperation with the IAEA," Russia's foreign ministry said in a written statement. Iranian nuclear power plant of Natanz ©AFP/File - Henghameh Fahimi Negotiations on Russia's offer are due to continue in February in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, adding that the idea had been "endorsed by all interested parties -- Europe, the United States, China and other states." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the government's concerns over Iran's nuclear intentions had been "brought into sharp focus" by recent anti-Israeli comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "I am extremely disappointed by Iran's removal yesterday of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its Natanz uranium enrichment research facility, and by Iran's stated intention to undertake uranium enrichment research," Downer said in a statement. "Japan deems it a matter of deep regret," foreign ministry press secretary Yoshinori Katori said in a statement released late Tuesday. "Japan strongly calls on Iran to immediately cease the resumption of the research and development activities" related to uranium enrichment and reprocessing, Katori said. Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 BBC: Blair threatens UN action on Iran Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 January 2006 [Iranian technicians] Western powers suspect Iran's nuclear ambitions are not peaceful UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says Iran's decision to resume its nuclear activities is likely to result in a referral to the UN Security Council. Speaking in parliament, Mr Blair said European ministers meeting in Berlin on Thursday would decide how to proceed. A US state department spokesman also said it was now "more likely than ever" that the case would be sent to the UN. But Iran's leader dismissed the threat. He said the research would go on despite the Western "fuss". 'Spoiling for a fight' Tehran says it broke the United Nations seals on the Natanz nuclear research facility on Tuesday because it wants to produce electricity, not because it is pursuing nuclear weapons. IRAN'S NUCLEAR STANDOFF Sept 2002: Work begin on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites triggering IAEA inspections Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle In quotes: World reaction Blair 'talking gibberish' The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said Tehran is about to start small-scale nuclear enrichment. Addressing MPs in the House of Commons, Mr Blair described the current situation as "very serious indeed". "I don't think there is any point in us hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do," he said. "When taken in conjunction with their other comments about the state of Israel they cause real and serious alarm right across the world." Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said it was a personal disappointment giving him cause for alarm. Course of action On Thursday UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw will meet French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany and Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief to discuss the crisis. The EU talks could trigger an emergency meeting of the IAEA's board of governors which could refer the matter to the UN Security Council and lead to full-scale sanctions. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not be intimidated by "all of the fuss created by the big powers". The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says that Iran's conservative president seems almost to be relishing the sense of looming confrontation - and that those who had suggested Iran was just testing the waters look set to be disappointed. Iran is banking on divisions within the international community, our correspondent says. Its parliament has passed a law obliging the Iranian government to stop short notice visits of its nuclear sites by UN inspectors if it is referred to the UN Security Council. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Iran will not give up its nuclear right: Rafsanjani 11/01/2006 10h42 Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani ©AFP - Atta Kenare TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran insisted it would not give up its nuclear program despite being roundly condemned by world leaders over its resumption of nuclear fuel research, risking possible enforcement action by the United Nations. "This is a sensitive issue. We can not give up our rights, No Iranian will be ready to give up our rights, and they should know that we will remain firm," Iran's former influential president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Wednesday. "With wisdom we will get our rights, and if they create any trouble for us, they will regret it in the end, and Iran will emerge triumphant," said Rafsanjani, who heads the Expediency Council, Iran's top political arbitration body. Iran on Tuesday announced the end of a two-year suspension of nuclear fuel research, escalating the long-running stand-off with the West over its nuclear program. The move drew condemnation from the United States and the European Union and other countries around the world amid concerns that Iran could be seeking to build an atomic bomb. International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei, who has complained he was "losing patience" with Iran's lack of transparency, said Tehran also planned to use centrifuges to enrich uranium "on a small scale." "After yesterday afternoon's announcement, we witnessed a huge wave of unjust aggression against Iran in the West's political, military and economic circles of the West," said Rafsanjani, who was president from 1989 to 1997. Iranian nuclear power plant of Natanz ©AFP/File - Henghameh Fahimi Rafsanjani reiterated the Islamic republic's position that its nuclear program is strictly civilian. "During the worst situation that we were under chemical weapons attack, we did not use such inhumane weapons. We are not seeking nuclear weapons," he said, referring to the the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. "By attacking us they want to keep us underdeveloped." Iranians gathered at Tehran university campus for Rafsanjani's speech marking the Muslim feast of Eid Al-Adha chanted the habitual "Death to America, and Death to Israel." Iran had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities pending negotiations with the European Union on economic and other incentives to renounce any nuclear weapons ambitions. The European Union, which described Iran's latest move as "serious and regrettable," has been trying to reopen talks suspended in August after Iran rejected an initial set of incentives to abandon uranium enrichment, which produces fuel for nuclear power reactors but can also be used to make atomic bombs. Iran's stance has hardened since President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad took office in August. Earlier this week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also said Iran would not give up its nuclear program, and that any UN sanctions would not deter the will of the people. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that if Iran breaches its international obligations, "there's no other choice" but to refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Mohammad El Baradei ©AFP - Joe Klamar President George W. Bush's spokesman said the US leader has "made it pretty clear" that he has no plans to use military force against Iran, although "he never takes options off the table." The European Union said Iran's move was "continuously eroding international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and is of serious concern to the entire international community." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw expressed "profound concern" over Tuesday's development and left the door open to referring Tehran to the Security Council. Straw said the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- plan to meet Thursday to discuss Iran's action and that possible referral to the Security Council would be at the "top of the agenda." Ŕđŕáńęčé Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 SF Chron: Iran cuts U.N. seals on equipment used to enrich uranium James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Iran sharply escalated the battle of nerves over its nuclear program Tuesday, abandoning a year-old suspension of its uranium enrichment activities by cutting protective seals in full view of international inspectors and gaining access to equipment that could help the country produce a stockpile of weapons-grade fuel. "Iran just walked away from the chess game they had been playing over the program," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a leading Washington think tank on nuclear issues. "It's a different game now. Iran has made a decision to move ahead. Now, it's up to us and our partners to stop them." A group of European countries has been engaged in tense negotiations with Iran for 14 months over its desire to build a nuclear production complex capable of enriching uranium. Iran has insisted the program is for peaceful purposes, but the Europeans, backed by the United States, have said there is evidence Iran is trying build nuclear bombs and have offered Iran incentives for shutting down the complex permanently. The Bush administration has insisted it will not permit Tehran, which supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, to become nuclear-armed because of the threat it would pose to the United States and its allies in the Middle East, particularly Israel. "What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy chief of Iran's nuclear agency, said at a news conference in Tehran. "We make a distinction between research on nuclear fuel technology and production of nuclear fuel. Production of nuclear fuel remains suspended." The Iranian government agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities in November 2004, while it negotiated with the Europeans, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, applied seals on the buildings and equipment to ensure they went unused. But that confidence-building gesture has now been abandoned in what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act, supported by a statement from Tehran to the IAEA that it intends to push forward with its enrichment research. "Iran has decided to move toward a confrontation without regard for the consequences," said William Potter, head of the nonproliferation program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "This changes the time frame. It compresses everything, and time is not on our side." Iran's actions created a sense of alarm throughout the international community, and Tehran's move was denounced by European leaders and the White House. Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, called the steps "a serious escalation of the nuclear issue by Tehran." He said there seemed little choice but for the international community to seek sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council. That is a grave step that Iran has said it would fight and consider a hostile act. The United States has long pushed for tough sanctions against Iran, but the Europeans -- in particular Russia, which has been building a power reactor in Iran -- have resisted, urging negotiations instead. With Iran's actions on Tuesday, it might have galvanized the Europeans behind the U.S. approach. French President Jacques Chirac issued a warning to Iran to stop its activities, while the new German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said Iran was sending "worrying signals." Experts agreed that the cutting of the seals made the prospect of a serious international confrontation far more likely, adding a new element of volatility in the already dangerously inflamed Middle East and Persian Gulf region. The concern has been that not only would a stockpile of nuclear weapons give Iran and its hard-line government far more influence in the region, but Iran might provide the weapons to terrorists or other countries hostile to the United States, Europe and their allies. In addition, there has been deep concern that some other countries in the region might move quickly to develop their own nuclear arsenals in response, in an effort to counter Iranian power. Potter of the Monterey Institute said there was particular concern that this could push Egypt, which already has a nascent nuclear research program, and Saudi Arabia, with its vast oil wealth, to boost their nuclear programs and launch a nuclear arms race. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has governed international nuclear activities since 1970, countries are permitted to conduct nuclear research and even to develop the ability to enrich uranium, but their programs must be for peaceful purposes and under IAEA safeguards and monitoring. The IAEA determined earlier that Iran had violated the treaty by developing a secret nuclear program and purchasing equipment and technology for enrichment on the black market from A.Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist. But the Iranian government has insisted it plans to pursue its rights under the treaty, and under its conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office in August, it has taken several steps to restart the program. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said that Iran had a pilot enrichment facility at the site opened up Tuesday in Natanz. Using the Pakistani technology, uranium ore is turned into a gaseous form called uranium hexafluoride and then fed into a series of high speed centrifuges. Each centrifuge separates out small amounts of uranium 235, the isotope used to fuel nuclear reactors and, in higher concentrations, bombs. The gas must pass through hundreds or thousands of such centrifuges, a process called a cascade, before it is enriched enough for reactors or, in the most concentrated form, bombs. Albright said that it was a highly challenging process to produce a successful cascade and that it appeared Iran would need several years under the best of circumstances to develop the capability to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for warheads. But that was little comfort to most experts. "They are still quite some time away from enriching uranium to weapons grade and then assembling it into a weapon, but the political test is now," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. "This forces the U.S. and the Europeans to come up with a tough response now. It could be the first step on a new, quickly escalating process." E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: EU talks only if Iran pledges no atomic work-Germany Wed 11 Jan 2006 5:27 AM ET BERLIN, Jan 11 (Reuters) - France, Britain and Germany cannot continue talks with Iran unless it promises not to begin enriching uranium, German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler said on Wednesday. He said Iran's removal of U.N. seals and its announcement that it would resume research on uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for atomic energy or weapons, violated a 2004 agreement in which Tehran pledged to freeze all enrichment-related work to ease fears it wants the bomb. "There can be no further negotiations without a guarantee from Iran that it will not conduct any activities related to (uranium) enrichment," Erler told German radio. The foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the escalating crisis over Iran's atomic fuel programme, which Tehran says is intended to fuel power plants and not atomic weapons. © Reuters 2006. All Rights ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Feels 'Dismay' Over Iran Nuke Move From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 1:02 PM AP Photo LON103 BY ED JOHNSON Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that Iran's decision to resume nuclear activities caused ``real and serious alarm'' across the world and it was time to reconsider whether Tehran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council. Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility Tuesday, prompting alarm from the United States and other Western countries who fear Iran is intent on developing a nuclear bomb. Iran's decision to restart its nuclear program, coupled with hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent inflammatory comments about Israel, ``cause real and serious alarm right across the world,'' Blair said. Ahmadinejad recently called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' and said the Holocaust was a ``myth.'' ``The decision by Iran is very serious indeed,'' Blair told the House of Commons. ``I do not think there is any point in people, or us, hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do.'' Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany, who have spent two years trying to persuade Iran to halt its uranium conversion and enrichment activities, are scheduled to meet in Berlin on Thursday to consider what steps to take. Blair suggested it was important to consider whether Tehran should be referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. He pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency had previously suggested a referral, but backed away because Iran had agreed to halt its nuclear activities. ``This is why it is extremely important therefore we take a fresh look at this now,'' he added. Gernot Erler, a German deputy foreign minister, cautioned Wednesday against referring the dispute to the Security Council, saying it could further destabilize the Middle East. He said Iran must offer fresh guarantees on its nuclear program for talks with European negotiators to continue. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: EU-3 foreign ministers to meet in Berlin over Iran nuclear crisis Wed Jan 11, 7:07 AM ET BERLIN (AFP) - The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain will gather in Berlin Thursday to determine how to move forward in the escalating crisis over Iran" /> Iran's nuclear program, Germany's chief diplomat Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. Steinmeier told reporters Wednesday that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana would also take part in the meeting, after which the participants would consult with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceby telephone. He said the purpose of the meeting, which will include Britain's Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy of France, was to determine whether there was still "political room to manoever" between the so-called EU-3 and Tehran over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Iran on Tuesday removed seals placed by the UN atomic energy watchdog from its Natanz nuclear plant, which will allow it to resume sensitive nuclear research. Tehran argues its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only but many countries fear it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Straw first mentioned the possibility of a EU-3 foreign ministers' meeting this week on Tuesday and said referring Iran to the UN Security Council -- a potential prelude to sanctions -- would be "top of the agenda". "We'll make a decision then ... but I think it's clear the direction in which we're thinking," he told reporters in London. Straw said Tehran's move amounted to "yet another breach" of resolutions of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyand a November 2004 agreement that the Islamic republic signed with London, Paris and Berlin. Steinmeier said Tuesday that Germany had asked the IAEA to review Iran's nuclear activities and would determine with its European partners whether "the EU-3's negotiations still have a foundation". Meanwhile the United States called Iran's move to resume atomic research a "serious escalation" of their nuclear row and said it was in intensive discussions with allies on a response. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Iran nuclear moves 'alarming' - Russian defense minister Wed Jan 11, 8:00 AM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Iran" /> 's decision to resume sensitive nuclear research is "cause for alarm," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said. The decision to resume the nuclear research "personally disappoints me and gives some cause for alarm," Russian news agencies quoted Ivanov as saying. The powerful Russian minister declined to speculate on whether the growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear program would lead to action by the UN Security Council, but said things were not moving in a positive direction for anyone. "As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia reserves the right to act according to the situation. But whatever the case may be, the situation is not developing in the most favorable way," the agencies quoted him as saying Wednesday. Ivanov, who also holds the post of deputy prime minister, spoke as foreign ministers from the three main European Union" /> countries leading negotiations with Iran -- Britain, France and Germany -- prepared to meet Thursday in Berlin to discuss how to proceed on the crisis. Iran on Tuesday announced the end of a two-year suspension of nuclear fuel research, escalating the long-running standoff with the West over its nuclear program. The move drew condemnation from the United States and the European Union and other countries around the world amid concerns that Iran could be seeking to build an atomic bomb. Tehran says that suspicion is unfounded and insists its nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy. Iran's influential former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said earlier Wednesday that Iran would not give up its nuclear program despite international condemnation of its decision to resume sensitive research that could pave the way to development of means to make nuclear bombs. "This is a sensitive issue. We can not give up our rights, No Iranian will be ready to give up our rights, and they should know that we will remain firm," Iran's former influential president said in Tehran. Also on Wednesday, the Russian foreign ministry published a statement saying that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> had discussed the Iran nuclear crisis during a telephone conversation late Tuesday. The statement gave no other details. Lavrov said Tuesday that Russia, which is helping the Islamic republic construct its first civilian nuclear reactor, was worried about Iran's decision to resume the nuclear research at a facility at Natanz. Russia has proposed that Iran agree to create a joint venture for the enrichment of uranium at a controlled site on Russian territory -- a plan generally supported by the West -- and says it is still awaiting a clear response from Tehran to that offer. Lavrov said Russia would work to convince Iran to return to a moratorium on sensitive nuclear research until negotiations with Tehran, which Moscow says are still in progress, are completed. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: Blair, Merkel discuss Iran Wed Jan 11, 3:49 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairand German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed Iran" /> Iran's nuclear activities on the phone, a Downing Street spokesman said. The two leaders also reviewed a wide range of international topics and agreed to have regular telephone conversations. "During the telephone conversation Chancellor Merkel invited the Prime Minister to visit Berlin as soon as he is able and the Prime Minister accepted," the spokesman added. On Tuesday, Tehran announced it had resumed sensitive nuclear research related to uranium enrichment, prompting international outrage and increasing the chances that Iran will be brought before the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity Council for possible sanctions. On Thursday, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany are due to meet in Berlin to discuss the crisis sparked by Iran's decision. An EU spokesman in Brussels said Europe intended to send a "clear message of the union's position, which is that we don't want more nuclear proliferation in the region." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Blair said Iran referal to UN 'seems likely' Wed Jan 11, 7:22 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairsaid it "seems likely" that Iran" /> Iranwill be referred to the UN Security Council for resuming its nuclear fuel enrichement programme. Speaking in parliament, Blair recalled that Iran's feared pursuit of nuclear weapons -- denied by the Islamic Republic -- would be discussed by the British, French and German foreign ministers in Berlin on Thursday. "The first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, if that is indeed what the allies jointly decide, as I think seems likely," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Blair Says West Likely to Sanction Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 4:32 PM AP Photo VAH106 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that Western countries were likely to seek economic sanctions against Iran after Tehran restarted its nuclear program but Iranian leaders said they would not curtail the research even in the face of sanctions. Iran on Tuesday broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant and said it was resuming nuclear research after a two-year freeze. Enriched uranium can be used as a fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. ``I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, if that is indeed what the allies jointly decide, as I think seems likely,'' Blair told the House of Commons, adding that he was in close contact with Washington on the issue. ``We obviously don't rule out any measures at all,'' Blair said when asked about possible sanctions. ``It's important Iran recognizes how seriously the international community treats it.'' In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had discussed the issue with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and both sides shared ``a deep disappointment'' over Iran's move. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that if Iran continued on its present course, ``there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council,'' which could impose sanctions. Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to press ahead with the country's nuclear program, dismissing the international outcry. ``I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy. The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise,'' Ahmadinejad told a crowd during a visit to the port city of Bandar Abbas. His speech was broadcast live on state-run television. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said earlier on Wednesday he was ``astonished'' by the West's attempt to ``bully'' Iran. ``If they cause any disturbance, they will ultimately regret it,'' he warned in a speech for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha broadcast live on state television. ``Even if (the Westerners) destroy our scientists, their successors would continue the job,'' he said. ``It would not be easy for them to solve the (nuclear) case by imposing sanctions or anything like that.'' Rafsanjani, who was president of Iran in the 1990s, lost to Ahmadinejad in the run-off elections last June. In the election, he ran as a moderate, compared with the ultraconservative Ahmadinejad. But the policy of pursuing the nuclear program has become a point of national pride for many Iranians, a rare issue that crosses the country's reformist-conservative divide. Rafsanjani currently serves as head of the Expediency Council, a powerful body that mediates between the elected parliament and Iran's unelected Islamic clerical leadership, which holds ultimate say in the country. Iran insists its research is for peaceful energy production only. But the United States suspects Tehran has ambitions to produce nuclear weapons. ``In the near future, (nuclear) energy will be completely carried out by the Iranian nation,'' Ahmadinejad said. He accused the West of using fears of nuclear weapons as an excuse to prevent Iran's technological development and to control the country by forcing it to buy nuclear fuel abroad. ``They falsely say that they oppose nuclear weapons. They want to have nuclear monopoly to sell it drop by drop at an expensive price and use it as an instrument for domination over nations,'' he said. Rafsanjani also accused the West of trying to hold back Iran's development. ``Keeping the Third World and the Islamic world several steps behind has been the West's traditional colonial policy,'' he said. Blair said Iran's decision to restart its nuclear program, coupled with Ahmadinejad's recent inflammatory comments about Israel, ``cause real and serious alarm right across the world.'' Ahmadinejad recently called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' and said the Holocaust was a ``myth.'' Blair recalled that the International Atomic Energy Agency had previously suggested Iran be referred to the Council over its nuclear program but the international nuclear watchdog agency later backed away because Iran agreed to halt its nuclear activities. ``This is why it is extremely important therefore we take a fresh look at this now,'' Blair said. ``The decision by Iran is very serious indeed,'' Blair told the House of Commons. ``I do not think there is any point in people, or us, hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do.'' Iran said Tuesday that it had broken IAEA seals at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant and resumed research. While Iranian officials stressed the work would not involve enrichment, the IAEA said Iran planned to carry out small-scale enrichment. The West has long opposed uranium enrichment by Iran. Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany, who have spent two years trying to persuade Iran to halt its uranium conversion and enrichment activities, are scheduled to meet in Berlin on Thursday to consider what to do. Gernot Erler, a German deputy foreign minister, cautioned Wednesday against referring the dispute to the Security Council, saying it could further destabilize the Middle East. He said Iran must offer fresh guarantees on its nuclear program for talks with European negotiators to continue. In Rome, Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said Wednesday the world had entered a ``new phase'' in relations with Iran and would find the most effective ways to deal with it. ``Iran's determination to continue its nuclear program outside existing agreements is a cause for constant, deep concern,'' Fini said in a statement. --- Associated Press Writer Ed Johnson contributed to this story from London. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: US goes back to Plan A in Iran nuclear row Wed Jan 11, 2:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - With European efforts to persuade Iran" /> Iranto renounce any nuclear weapons ambitions in collapse, the United States thinks it has garnered enough world support for its original plan to seek UN action. For 10 months, Washington has backed the bid by Britain, France and Germany to use a package of economic and other incentives to wean Tehran off suspected plans to develop a nuclear bomb. But the patience of US officials with the initiative had clearly worn thin after the Islamic republic announced Tuesday it was resuming sensitive nuclear fuel research suspended for two years. Washington branded the move a "serious escalation" of the dispute with Iran and said it had begun an intensive round of consultations with its allies and others on the next step. "If the regime in Iran continues on the current course ... there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the (UN) Security Council," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. US officials had privately made no secret of their skepticism over the "EU-3's" negotiating efforts begun in late 2004 which Washington embraced in March after a European swing by President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush. One senior official, who asked not to be named, acknowledged the support was more of a matter of shoring up trans-Atlantic unity ruptured by the war in Iraq" /> Iraqthan a realistic hope the Europeans would succeed. But the Americans now appear convinced their strategy of letting the talks run their course has borne fruit in highlighting Tehran's intransigence and winning support among countries previously reluctant to act. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said if Tehran had "a lot of diplomatic running room" a year ago, the situation had changed dramatically through "careful diplomacy" by the United States and European Union" /> European Union. Along with hardline talk from Tehran on the nuclear question and Israel" /> Israelthat alarmed many nations, "the end result of all that has been that the Iranians are now isolated on this issue," McCormack said Tuesday. "As for whether the EU-3 process is the right means at this point, I think that that is a question that the EU-3 is looking at right now," he added. "I'm not going to make any pronouncements." US officials took heart in the recent move by the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, China Russia, Britain and France, to demand Iran maintain its suspension of uranium enrichment activities. "You now have Iran defying a request from Security Council members. You didn't have that before," said one senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The United States and its allies seemed to be orchestrating a diplomatic ballet on Iran, with the EU-3 to meet Thursday and reports of a possible emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) in two weeks. The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog said in September Iran had violated its international obligations. The Americans say they have a majority on the IAEA's 35-member board to haul Tehran before the UN Security Council. But the question remained whether countries such as China and Russia, which hold a veto on the council, would agree to sanctions on an Iranian regime that insists its nuclear program is strictly peaceful. Beyond that, the options seemed limited for Washington, which has little bilateral leverage with Iran after cutting diplomatic and economic ties because of the 1979 seizure of US hostages in Tehran. US officials have floated the prospect that members of the European Union and other countries could impose their own bilateral sanctions on Iran but the idea has found little traction among allies. The White House reiterated Tuesday that while it favored diplomacy with Iran and had no plans to attack the Islamic Republic, the possibility of using force remained on the table. But even staunch US partners have little stomach for such an operation. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday that "military action is not on our agenda, and I don't believe it's on anyone else's agenda." Ray Takeyh, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, said the failure of the European negotiations left Washington seeking to craft as large an IAEA consensus as possible for referral to the United Nations" /> United Nations. "I don't think alternatives are being seriously contemplated," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Iran nuclear row coming to a head" US Wed Jan 11, 4:36 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said the row over Iran" /> Iran's suspected nuclear arms program was quickly coming to a head and was increasingly likely to end up before the UN Security Council. Vice President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheneysaid referral to the council would be the probable next step after Iran announced resumption of nuclear research it had suspended for two years amid fears it was working on a bomb. "What would be probably the number one item on the agenda would be the resolution that could be enforced by sanctions, were they (the Iranians) to fail to comply with it," Cheney told Fox News radio. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack echoed the sense of urgency, saying, "The international community is, I think, coming up very soon on a decision point on what the diplomatic next steps are." "It is more likely than ever that we are headed to the (UN) Security Council on this question," McCormack told reporters at the department's daily briefing. US officials have said they were in intense consultations with their allies and others as negotiations stalled on European efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions with economic and other incentives. McCormack said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceconferred Wednesday by phone with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and also spoke with Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. Rice spoke Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whose country has offered to house Iranian uranium-enrichment activities on its own soil as a control and confidence-building measure. McCormack said an emergency meeting of the board of governors of the Vienna-based IAEA, which could refer Iran to the United Nations" /> United Nationsfor possible sanctions, was "certainly an option that is under discussion." Chief diplomats of Britain, France and Germany, which had been negotiating in vain with the Iranians, were to meet Thursday with the prospect of seeking UN action against Iran topping their agenda, officials said. US officials have all but written off the "EU-3" negotiations with Iran launched at the end of 2004. Washington first spurned the talks but embraced them in March in a gesture of solidarity with the Europeans. US officials say even the Europeans have little hope of making headway with Tehran. "We're on the verge of a different diplomatic phase concerning this issue," said one senior official who asked not to be named. The Americans insist they have a majority of votes on the 35-member IAEA board to haul Iran before the UN Security Council but it was not clear whether there was enough support for punitive action. China and Russia, two of the five permanent council members with veto power, have shown little inclination to impose sanctions on Iran. McCormack said the United States had been in contact with "a wide variety of members" of the IAEA board, including Russia. But he had nothing to report on consultations with the Chinese. US officials were not clear about what they hoped to accomplish if the matter went to the Security Council, saying only they were working closely with the EU-3 on a strategy. They also did not rule a two-track approach of seeking sanctions while remaining open to negotiations with the Islamic republic. "If you do end up in the Security Council, that absolutely does not preclude using available diplomatic avenues or new diplomatic avenues to achieve what we all want to achieve," said a senior official. But he would not say whether any such talks would be carried on by the EU-3 or other parties. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: US tells Iran this time it may have gone too far Wed Jan 11, 7:03 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has warned Iran" /> Iranthat it will not escape being referred to the UN Security Council if it proceeds with its plan to conduct sensitive nuclear work. The administration of President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsaid Tuesday it was "in close contact" with its partners, including Britain, Germany and France, discussing a response to Iran's removal of UN seals from equipment that is being used to enrich uranium. "If the regime in Iran continues on the current course ... there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. At present, he added, the United States is "in close contacts with the Europeans and others about how to move forward" at the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). McClellan said Bush for now has no intention of launching an attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, adding that, however, the military option remained on the table. McClellan also reminded reporters of numerous statements issued on the subject by Bush. For the time being, the spokesman pointed out, the Bush administration is working with the international community to resolve the issue by peaceful and diplomatic means and intends to continue doing so. The US administration did not say if the talks focused on convening an emergency meeting of the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog group. Nor did it say if the US will throw all its weight behind attempts to persuade the Security Council to take up the measure after two fruitless years of European-led negotiations to persuade Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. "I think we are entering a period of intense diplomatic activity on this question," said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There are intense discussions at the political director level, and I will expect we will see more and more discussions at the minister level." By removing seals on equipment inside the Natanz nuclear plant located in central Iran, Tehran showed its determination to at least partly resume its uranium enrichment activities. However, the West may now believe Iran has crossed the line. That is how Westerners who for months have been pressing Iran to end its enrichment activities were interpreting the decision to remove the seals. Gregory Schulte, the US ambassador to the IAEA, said earlier that Iran was "taking another deliberate step towards uranium enrichment, the process for creating nuclear bomb material. "By cutting the seals, the Iranian leadership shows its disdain for international concern and its rejection of international diplomacy," Schulte said in a statement. Both White House and State Department spokesmen mentioned "a serious escalation" on the part of Iran on the nuclear issue. The United States, which has repeatedly made clear it has no doubt Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons, has been a long and active advocate of referring the matter to the UN Security Council. Since 2003, Washington has reluctantly allowed the European Union" /> European Union's bid to persuade Iran to provide guarantees that its nuclear program is of a purely civilian nature . The question now is whether Washington has really concluded that Tehran has gone too far and whether it will be able to convince Moscow and Beijing to support it in the Security Council. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Defiant As Sanctions From West Likely From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 9:17 PM AP Photo VAH104 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The U.S. and Britain said Wednesday that Western countries will likely seek Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council after it restarted nuclear activity. Iran's president said his country would not be bullied and would push ahead with the program. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he could not rule out the possibility that Iran will face economic sanctions. International impatience with Iran was growing after it broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Tuesday and said it was resuming nuclear research after a two-year freeze. Enriched uranium can be used as a fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. ``I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, if that is indeed what the allies jointly decide, as I think seems likely,'' Blair told the House of Commons in London, adding that he was in close contact with Washington on the issue. ``We obviously don't rule out any measures at all,'' Blair said when asked about possible sanctions. ``It's important Iran recognizes how seriously the international community treats it.'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said ``it is more likely than ever'' that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will refer Iran to the Security Council. The council could then impose sanctions. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday if Iran continued on its present course, ``there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council.'' McCormack said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had discussed the situation by telephone with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran, expressed anger as well. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked with Rice, and both sides shared ``a deep disappointment'' over Iran's move, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off the international outcry. ``Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights,'' Ahmadinejad told a crowd during a visit to the port city of Bandar Abbas. His speech was broadcast live on state-run television. ``The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise.'' Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani took a sharper tone, denouncing the West's ``colonial policy.'' ``If they cause any disturbance, they will ultimately regret it,'' the cleric warned in a speech for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha aired on state TV. ``Even if (the Westerners) destroy our scientists, their successors would continue the job,'' he said. ``It would not be easy for them to solve the (nuclear) case by imposing sanctions or anything like that.'' Rafsanjani, who was Iran's president in the 1990s, lost to Ahmadinejad in a runoff election in June. The policy of pursuing the nuclear program has become a point of national pride for many Iranians, a rare issue that crosses the reformist-conservative divide. Rafsanjani now serves as head of the Expediency Council, a powerful body that mediates between the elected parliament and Iran's unelected Islamic clerical leadership, which holds ultimate say in the country. Iran insists its research is for peaceful energy production only. But the United States suspects Tehran has ambitions to produce nuclear weapons. ``I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``In the near future, (nuclear) energy will be completely carried out by the Iranian nation.'' The president accused the West of seeking to prevent Iran's technological development and control the country by forcing it to buy nuclear fuel abroad. ``They falsely say that they oppose nuclear weapons. They want to have nuclear monopoly to sell it drop by drop at an expensive price and use it as an instrument for domination over nations,'' he said. Blair said Iran's decision to restart its nuclear program, coupled with Ahmadinejad's recent inflammatory comments about Israel, ``cause real and serious alarm right across the world.'' Ahmadinejad recently called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' and said the Holocaust was a ``myth.'' German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler cautioned against referring the dispute to the Security Council, saying it could further destabilize the Middle East. Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany, who have spent two years trying to persuade Iran to halt its uranium conversion and enrichment activities, will meet in Berlin on Thursday to consider their next step. --- Associated Press Writer Ed Johnson contributed to this story from London. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: US warns Iran as nuclear row escalates Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Wednesday January 11, 2006 The Guardian The White House warned Iran yesterday that it risked a "serious escalation" in its nuclear standoff with the UN and the west after Tehran broke the seals on equipment at its uranium enrichment facility. Iran's decision to break the seals, installed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the underground facility at Natanz, in defiance of a European-brokered agreement for a nuclear freeze, risked triggering international sanctions, the White House's press secretary, Scott McClellan said. "Any resumption of enrichment and reprocessing activities would be a further violation of Iran's agreement with the Europeans," Mr McClellan said. "So such steps would be a serious escalation of the nuclear issue by Tehran." The warning came from an administration that has pursued a hard line against Tehran from the early days of George Bush's presidency, when he called Iran part of the "axis of evil". More recently Mr Bush described the conservative Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, as an "odd guy". Yesterday, the White House warned that action by the security council, for which it has pressed for more than a year, could become inevitable. "If the regime in Iran continues on the current course and fails to abide by its international obligations there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the security council," Mr McClellan said. Britain, Germany and France were also considering their response with Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, scheduled to meet his European counterparts tomorrow to discuss whether to call an emergency IAEA meeting. Tehran claimed as the seals were broken yesterday that it was seeking to use the enrichment facility for electricity generation, and not to make a bomb. That met with scepticism yesterday in Europe and the US. Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's chief, told his agency's governing board that Iran intended to begin small scale uranium enrichment, a process which could be used to make a nuclear weapon. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Wants Quick Resumption of Nuke Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 12, 2006 1:17 AM AP Photo SEL119 By KWANG-TAE KIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The United States wants to quickly resume nuclear talks with North Korea, the U.S. envoy to Seoul said Thursday, as the top American negotiator headed to China for discussions on the North's nuclear ambitions. ``The United States is eager to resume negotiations as soon as possible so that we can make rapid progress toward the elimination of North Korea's nuclear programs,'' U.S. ambassador Alexander Vershbow said in a speech in Seoul. ``Our negotiators are packed and ready to go.'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill arrived in South Korea late Wednesday from Tokyo, said he would seek information in Beijing on the latest North Korean thinking from its closest ally. ``We'll have to see what the Chinese have heard most recently from the DPRK side, and perhaps they have some very fresh news,'' Hill said upon arrival in Seoul late Wednesday, referring to the North by the abbreviation of its official name, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Hill's Asia trip comes as six-nation nuclear talks aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs are stalled over Pyongyang's anger at U.S.-imposed sanctions related to alleged counterfeiting and other wrongdoing by the North. His schedule of talks with counterparts in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing is also taking place amid unconfirmed reports that reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is visiting China. The North Korean strongman is widely believed to have gone by train Tuesday to China, his country's closest ally. But the trip has yet to be officially announced by North Korean or Chinese authorities, and his ultimate destination is unknown. China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have been engaged in negotiations with North Korea since 2003 aimed at persuading it to abandon its nuclear programs. The process resulted in a breakthrough in September when the North pledged to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security assurances. But follow-up negotiations have stalled. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeking North Korean Nuke Update From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 5:17 PM By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The top U.S. negotiator for nuclear talks with North Korea said Wednesday he plans to ask Chinese officials about whether Pyongyang has given any signs that it is serious about abandoning its nuclear program. ``We are interested in talks about progress and talks about denuclearization,'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters upon arrival in South Korea for an overnight stop before proceeding to Beijing Thursday. ``We'll have to see what the Chinese have heard most recently,'' Hill said. ``Perhaps they have some very fresh news.'' Hill's trip to the region comes after six-nation nuclear talks stalled over Pyongyang's anger at U.S. accusations of counterfeiting, and sanctions over alleged weapons proliferation. His visit also dovetails with reports that North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il crossed into China, his country's closest ally, by train on Tuesday. His visit has yet to be officially announced by authorities in North Korea or China and his ultimate destination remains unknown. ``I must say the trip that Chairman Kim Jong Il took to China was a surprise to all of us,'' said Hill, who is meeting with counterparts in Japan, South Korea and China. The six-nation group also includes Russia. ``It's a complete coincidence that I'm in the area at the same time,'' said Hill, who did not say if the U.S. has confirmed Kim's China visit. China's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that Kim planned to visit Beijing at some point and that the nuclear issue would be a key topic for discussion, but it did not give the exact timing. China has previously announced Kim's visits only after his return to North Korea. The six-party talks launched in 2003 resulted in North Korea's September pledge to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security assurances. But follow-up negotiations have stalled, largely due to a dispute over U.S. sanctions that Pyongyang calls part of Washington's ``hostile policy'' aimed at toppling its regime. Washington imposed sanctions in October on eight North Korean companies accused of acting as fronts for sales of banned missile, nuclear or biological weapons technology. The United States also accuses North Korea of producing high-quality counterfeit $100 bills known as ``supernotes.'' The North earlier this week indicated that resumption of the six-party talks is unlikely anytime soon, with its Foreign Ministry saying it cannot return to the negotiating table while Washington maintains the sanctions. Hill said the U.S. stance on the sanctions hasn't changed. ``I want to emphasize it's not a six-party talk matter,'' he said. ``It's certainly a law-enforcement issue.'' South Korean nuclear negotiator Song Min-soon, who visited Beijing on Monday and Tuesday, blamed mistrust between the U.S. and the North for the deadlock in the nuclear talks. ``There is an enormous gap in trust,'' he said Wednesday, without providing specifics on his trip to Beijing. ``We're in a situation where patience is needed.'' Song said that details of the next six-party meeting will be determined by the end of this month. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul steps up efforts to push 6-way meeting January 12, 2006 KST 15:54 (GMT+9) January 12, 2006 ¤Ń Seoul's diplomatic pace is being stepped up in efforts to get the stalled six-nation nuclear talks back on track. Journalists learned yesterday that Song Min-soon, Seoul's chief negotiator to the talks, made an unannounced two-day trip to Beijing on Monday to discuss the talks with Chinese officials. Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will be in Washington next week for talks that will include discussions of the nuclear issues, and Christopher Hill, Mr. Song's U.S. counterpart in the six-nation talks, was scheduled to arrive in Seoul late yesterday evening from Tokyo. Mr. Hill plans to leave today for Beijing. Mr. Ban said yesterday that the nations involved in the talks to wean Pyongyang away from its nuclear weapons programs were exploring "creative" ideas about how to solve the biggest issue delaying the talks: U.S. financial sanctions on North Korean entities that Washington says are engaged in counterfeiting, trade in materials for mass weapons and other illicit activities. Pyongyang has demanded repeatedly that the sanctions be lifted before it returns to the talks, but Washington has said equally repeatedly that it will not do so. A senior government official here said yesterday that he was neither hopeful nor pessimistic about the state of play in the nuclear issue. "Quickly resuming the talks is important, but all the nations agree that we also have to move forward from the joint agreement," said the official, referring to a September document issued at the 6-way talks outlining an agreement. This official said there is still some hope for resuming the talks this month, and said China was at the center of those efforts. "We will accept China's thoughts and position," he said, but declined to elaborate on Beijing's course. The mystery-shrouded visit of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, may tie into those efforts, although all those involved have kept a tight lid on information. Kong Quan, the Foreign Ministry spokesman for Beijing, said on Tuesday that China supports Macao's investigations of financial institutions there that Washington says are linked to North Korean illicit financial transactions. Mr. Ban, the foreign minister, will be in New York on Tuesday and in Washington the following day. He will leave for Seoul on Saturday. He and Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state, will conduct the first talks on overarching diplomatic topics that were agreed to by the Korean and U.S. presidents in November. by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 28 Reuters: US envoy to N.Korea nuclear talks starts Asia tour Wed 11 Jan 2006 3:52 AM ET SEOUL/TOKYO, Jan 11 (Reuters) - A key U.S. envoy began a flurry of talks in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing on Wednesday to shore up crumbling negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes, South Korea's foreign minister said. North Korea has threatened to boycott nuclear talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States on its atomic ambitions because of a U.S. crackdown on its finances. Pyongyang wants Washington to end the sanctions. The United States has clamped down on several companies it suspects of aiding North Korea in counterfeiting, money laundering and the drug trade, saying the illicit business has helped fund Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programmes. The chief U.S. negotiator for the talks, Christopher Hill, was scheduled to meet Japan and South Korea's chief negotiators on Wednesday and then meet China's pointman on Thursday, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told a news briefing. The visit comes after North Korea's Kim Jong-il entered China on Tuesday, according to regional media reports. It was not clear where he was on Wednesday. A senior Japanese official said Hill's Asia visit was a sudden one but he did not know if it was linked to Kim's trip. "There are no prospects for the next round of six-party talks at the moment," the official, who declined to be identified, told reporters in Tokyo. He added that he did not expect any new developments during Hill's brief chat with his Japanese counterpart on Wednesday. The Japanese official also said that Washington remained doubtful about Pyongyang's commitment to give up its nuclear programmes and that North Korea should take "substantive action" to remove those doubts. On Wednesday, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing's chief negotiator, Wu Dawei, met Japanese chief negotiator Kenichiro Sasae on Sunday and also recently met South Korea's top envoy, Song Min-soon, on the six-party talks. China said on Tuesday that the six-way nuclear talks faced a "difficult situation" after Pyongyang declared it saw no point in returning to the negotiations because of the U.S. sanctions. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pointman on Nuke Talks Visiting Asia From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 11, 2006 4:02 AM By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The top U.S. negotiator for international nuclear talks with North Korea is visiting Japan, South Korea and China this week for consultations aimed at breaking the impasse in the stalled negotiations, Seoul's foreign minister said Wednesday. Word of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's visit comes amid reports that North Korean strongman Kim Jong Il traveled to China Tuesday, though his visit has yet to be officially announce. Hill was scheduled to arrive in South Korea late Wednesday after holding talks in Japan, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters. Hill is scheduled to leave for China on Thursday morning after consultations in Seoul, Ban said. South Korea's top nuclear negotiator Song Min-soon also made an unannounced trip to China earlier this week, according to Ban. Hill's surprise visit comes as six-party talks aimed at getting the North to abandon its nuclear programs have stalled over the communist state's anger over U.S.-imposed sanctions related to alleged counterfeiting and other wrongdoing. ``It's desirable that this kind of issue should be dealt separately with the nuclear issue,'' Ban said of the sanctions row. ``Assistant Secretary of State Hill's trip is part of this procedure,'' he added, without elaborating... Robert Ogburn, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Seoul, said Hill's visit was ``part of the effort to talk to the various parties in the six-party talks.'' The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo would only say that Hill was due to arrive later Wednesday to meet with a Japanese Foreign Ministry official to discuss the apparent visit by North Korea's Kim to China as well as other matters. Ban said he is not in a position to comment on Kim's reported trip as Beijing hasn't provided Seoul with any information. China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have been engaged in the talks with North Korea since 2003. The process resulted in a breakthrough in September as North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security assurances. But follow-up negotiations have since stalled. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 30 Bellona: Norwegian participation in AMEC could be dissolved This is the first in a series of articles on the future of AMEC In a surprise development, the Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation (AMEC) group—long seen as the environmental conscience of US, Norwegian and Russian nuclear dismantlement efforts in Russia, providing safe temporary storage of spent naval nuclear fuel—may no longer include Norway, AMEC representatives from that country said. A side view of the dilapidated K-60 (front) at mooring at Gremikha. Dockside Charles Digges, 2006-01-11 14:59 The situation is apparently undecided as yet, but discussions within AMEC say Norway “will end the programme” upon the completion of dismantlement of a dilapidated Russian project number 291 November class non-strategic sub, the K-60, ensuring its safe conveyance via a so-called “heavy-transport vessel” from the semi-operational Russian naval base of Gremikha on the eastern Kola Peninsula to the Polyarny Shipyard in the Murmansk inlet. The project is expected to take place over the summer. A submarine being hauled by one of Dockside’s heavy lift vessels. Dockside Within AMEC, Norway is seeking funds for the transportation of the submarine while the UK is funding another task, the development of pontoons. The transportation of the K-60 is estimated at $3.5m. The UK and Norway both intend to share 50-50 on the subsequent submarine dismantlement, which is estimated at $5m. But Norway maintains the technical lead on the project and is, according to the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment Thor Engřy, technically ready to go in accordance with AMEC’s best practice policy. The next task is to prepare a detailed transport plan including a risk and environmental impact assessment before the K-60 is hauled from Gremikha in July. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds purse strings But an apparent squabble between Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), which allocates the funding for the project, and Norway’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) which will receive the funding and which runs AMEC—has apparently surfaced, according to Norwegian AMEC representatives. The delay, said Engřy in an interview with Bellona Web, is threatening the timely execution of the project in the Arctic region. “There is an urgency to start work because we have to hit the right weather conditions for navigation in the [Northwest Russian] region, which come mid summer,” he said. The whys behind the protracted negotiations between Norway’s MOD and MoFA, however, are hard to pin down. Some observers have suggested that MoFA wants to hinder the funding—if not withhold it outright—as MoFA wants to dictate Norway’s nuclear policy in Russia, bringing a political charge to the delay in funding. These observers have also suggested that competition between the MOD and MoFA raise the competitive bar: While AMEC can accomplish highly complicated dismantlement operations, MoFA has so far stuck with easier projects on submarines that are in much better shape. It is therefore a matter of honour for MoFA, which holds the purse strings in any case, to be at the forefront of Norwegian nuclear clean-up efforts in Northwest Russia. But Ingjerd Kroken, AMEC Norway’s co-chairperson, characterised the funding talks between the MOD and MoFA saying: “We have a constructive dialogue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” She further described drawn out discussions as “normal.” Responsible parties at MoFA could not be reached for comment despite several telephone messages left by Bellona Web. As for the broader topic of whether Norway would remain in AMEC, she told Bellona Web that: “The future of AMEC was discussed my AMEC principals in Plymouth last year.” “We are discussing the future of AMEC—no decision has yet been taken.” She added however that such a decision would be “political” and taken at a ministerial level. Kroken also maintained that military to military dismantlement projects were running out and that the blossoming number of civilian government to government nuclear clean up projects have made AMEC something of an anachronism in this new landscape. “We have been involved in AMEC for 10 years and this is a good milestone for us to evaluate what we have accomplished and what we could accomplish in the future,” she said. In the view of the Bellona Foundation and other AMEC watchers, however, Kroken’s words give short-shrift to the number of Russia’s nuclear surface vessels that are also languishing in ports, still loaded with spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that are also in dire need of dismantlement. The respective militaries of Russia and Norway have furthermore developed a culture of trust between one another that cannot be easily supplanted by civilian contract work from the West. Bellona and observers therefor feel that AMEC has far from exhausted military to military co-operation with Russia. What AMEC has done AMEC was, until the 2003 joining of the UK, a three country consortium created by the respective defence agencies of the United States, Russia and Norway in order to address military-related environmental problems, primarily submarine dismantlement, in the fragile Arctic ecosystem. AMEC’s underlying philosophy is that it should be easier to discuss military environmental problems through a military co-operative effort than through civilian channels. The programme also emphasised the need to leave behind an infrastructure for Russia to use after US led Co-operative Threat Reduction (CTR) and Norwegian programmes have come to an end. These containers for the storage and transportation of high level radioactive waste were built with the help of AMEC at the Zvezdochka shipyard. AMEC AMEC’s efforts include a number of specific activities geared toward both nuclear and non-nuclear environmental security concerns in Russia and to complement related projects that are underway in Russia pursuant to the objectives of CTR and Norwegian government policy. The cask, AMEC Project 1.1, is Russia’s first “dual use”—transport and storage cask—while the pad, AMEC Project 1.1-1, reduces the SNF de-fueling from nuclear submarines from 3 months to 3 weeks. The rust eaten stern of the K-159, which is in far better shape than the K-60. KSF/Bellona Recent conversations with AMEC officials indicated that the programme was planning to develop safer pontoon systems for hauling decommissioned submarines to dismantlement points. If approved and implemented, this could go a long way toward helping Russia's poor safety record for transporting dismantled submarines, the most disturbing example of which was the sinking of the K-159 in August, 2003. This was a Russian dismantlement programme, and almost no safety precautions were taken to keep the sub afloat, beyond manning it with a crew to clog holes during towing and fitting it with a set of rusty pontoons. Nine of the 10 sailors aboard the K-159 were killed when it sank. In order to avert similar catastrophes, the Norwegian project for the K-60—which is absolutely un-seaworthy according to AMEC Norway’s Engřy— will employ a heavy lift vessel to convey the sub to its dismantling point. Moving the K-60 The K-60, by all accounts, represents one of the most dilapidated submarines in the Northern Fleet. Rusted throughout, it cannot be transported on its own hull, even with the support of pontoons. Therefore, according to project director Engřy, it will be transported ina heavy transport vessel. The vessel has been secured by Norway for use from the Dutch firm Dockwise. According to Engřy, the heavy transport vessel has the ability to submerge its specially fitted deck beneath the K-60 and then blow its ballast tanks and rise again to the surface with the K-60 secured in special above-water cradles for its fragile hull. The transport vessel will then continue from Gremikha to Polyarny near Murmansk were it will be de-fueled and dismantled. All that remains is a final detailed environmental impact study so that the western contractors and Russia can put the plan of the vessel’s removal together. Time is therefore of the essence as the MOD petitions MoFA for funding the project. But Engřy could not speculate as to when he thought the funding would come through. “This is a political question—I know only that deciding on the funding is of the essence,” he said. NDEP and MNEPR—the obsolesence of AMEC? Kroken said that the Northern Dimensions Environmental Partnership (NDEP)—a fund for environmental renewal in Northwest Russia held by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and burgeoning with more than EUR 160m—as well as the 2003 signing of the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR) accord , have made bilateral nuclear remediation projects with Russia easier. “The number of donor nations now involved and the transfer of responsibility of the nuclear legacy waste from the Russian Navy to Rosatom, may therefore make it harder for some of the AMEC nations to justify expenses, if the nuclear problems can be solved by these means,” said Kroken. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: Major polluters launch controversial global warming talks - Wednesday January 11, 06:20 AM SYDNEY (AFP) - Some of the world's worst polluting nations have launched a controversial conference with international business chiefs here to seek high-tech solutions to global warming. Ministers from the United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia were meeting with executives from major mining and energy companies including Exxon Mobil, Rio Tinto and Peabody Energy. A group of around 80 protesters demonstrated outside the hotel in downtown Sydney where the two-day Advertisement [ src=] conference was taking place, dumping a load of coal on an effigy of the host, Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Police forming part of a tight security operation for the six-nation talks looked on as the environmental activists chanted, "Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, take your oil and go to hell." The talks are controversial partly because two of the major players in the new Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership, the United States and Australia, have refused to ratify the UN Kyoto Protocol on global warming. While the protocol commits developed countries to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases produced from burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal, the new partnership -- known as AP6 -- has ruled out setting any enforceable targets. US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told reporters ahead of the conference that the "world community must seriously consider using nuclear power if it is to make any serious inroads into greenhouse gas emissions". World demand for electricity was set to increase by 50 percent over the next 20 years and there were obvious problems in using only fossil fuels to meet the need, he said. "Nuclear power, it seems to me, is an obvious requirement" for the future, Bodman said. "We're even getting in our country support from the environmental community, whose members are now much more supportive of our efforts to rejuvenate the nuclear industry." The US energy secretary laid the responsibility for reducing greenhouse gases firmly on the private sector, while saying governments should work to make their task as easy as possible. "It's the private sector, the companies that own the assets, that make the potential allocations (towards reducing greenhouse gases) that are ultimately going to be the solvers of the problem," he said. The conference is expected to press the private sector to find billions of dollars to finance programmes to reduce pollution. Bodman said it was not up to governments to coerce industry and he believed top executives would act voluntarily. "The people who run the private sector, who run these companies -- they too have children, they too have grandchildren, they too live and breathe in the world and they would like things dealt with effectively and that's what this is all about," he said. Australia's Industry and Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane said that if all countries adopted "clean" fossil fuel burning technology then greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by three times the level that would be achieved under the Kyoto Protocol. The US accounts for 25 percent of carbon emissions while Australians produce more carbon dioxide per person than any other country, but they say the Kyoto pact is unfair as it does not commit developing nations to reducing emissions. Critics of the conference, including Australia's opposition Labor Party, say it will be nothing more than a talk shop for some of the biggest producers and consumers of fossil fuels. "The national government of Australia and the US are actually trying to get around the Kyoto Protocol," said Bob Debus, the state environment minister in Labor-controlled New South Wales. "They have called this conference today as something of a smokescreen to avoid making a commitment." Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Guardian Unlimited: Tough response may seem inevitable but could play into Tehran's hands Simon Tisdall Wednesday January 11, 2006 Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been spoiling for a fight since he was elected last summer. Now it looks as though he has got one, as the US, Britain and EU allies prepared yesterday to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council for possible punitive sanctions. The escalating dispute confronts the international community with potentially its biggest challenge since the Iraq war. It resurrects a range of divisive issues, such as the true extent of the global WMD threat, the difficulty of pursuing joint action via the UN, the willingness of the new superpower, China, to play by western rules, and perceived double standards over the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Mohamed ElBaradei, the usually cool-headed boss of the UN's nuclear watchdog, said that by resuming nuclear fuel research at its Natanz facility in defiance of previous agreements, Tehran could have crossed a "red line" that made a tough response inevitable. "We are at a stage where what is happening this week could turn into a major crisis," he told the BBC. But the handling of that crisis, should it materialise, could severely test the cohesiveness of the collective international will, as Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, seemed to acknowledge last week. Washington was accused last year of undermining EU negotiating efforts. But that had changed, she said. "The first goal was to get a unified position and that had to do with giving diplomacy a chance. We've lived up to our part of the bargain. The Europeans and we could not be in closer coordination. "The next steps have been to bring others into that consensus: Russia, India, China. So I think you are seeing the consistent and sort of seriatim isolation now of Iran. I don't have any doubt that at a time of our choosing we're going to go to the security council." A Downing Street statement yesterday asserting that the world was "running out of patience" with Iran apparently sought to reinforce the impression of a united front. But chinks were apparent within hours of Iran's move. Looking to cool diplomatic temperatures, China urged the EU not to abandon talks with Tehran (as Germany has suggested it might). Beijing said it still believed the issue could be resolved without recourse to the security council. Russia was similarly circumspect. While expressing concern, a senior official said Moscow's offer to enrich uranium on Russian soil and ship low-grade nuclear fuel back to Iran still stood following "professional and honest" talks in Tehran. Moscow and Beijing have significant commercial ties with Iran that they would not want jeopardised by sanctions. Dr ElBaradei's confirmation that Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapons capability, was acting within its legal rights under the NPT represents another obstacle to a common front. The failure of nuclear-armed states, notably the US, to reduce their arsenals in line with NPT provisions is controversial in developing countries and especially in the Muslim world, where there is sneaking sympathy for Iran. If it comes to a crunch at the UN, Mr Ahmadinejad may be far from dismayed or deterred. Informed Iranian sources say he has deliberately sought confrontation with the west (and particularly Israel) to strengthen his position and advance his "revivalist revolutionary" policies at home and in the region. While any UN sanctions may have limited economic impact, a high-profile political showdown may serve his purposes. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 33 [NukeNet] Japanese NGOs Label Electric Utility Plutonium Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:14:45 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Joint Media Release from Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Green Action and Greenpeace Japan ----"No" to Start-Up of Active Testing at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant---- Japanese NGOs Label Electric Utility Plutonium Utilization Plan "Fiction" Concern Raised that Atomic Energy Commission may Rubber-Stamp Plan Japanese NGOs yesterday released a scathing critique(1) of the Plutonium Utilization Plan issued by the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPCO) on 6 January, dubbing the plan as "fiction" and pointing out that it does not comply with specifications stipulated by the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) in 2003. At this time there is concern JAEC may approve this plan as early as next week in order to start "active testing" at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant(2). Regional and local authorities' opposition to the plan is expected. Rushing to Start "Active Tests" at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant The Plutonium Utilization Plan covers the use of plutonium fuel, known as MOX fuel, in nuclear power plants(3) operated by Japan's electric power companies. However, none of the reactors slated under the plan have received consent from local authorities to consume the material. In February 1997, the government of Japan made a written commitment to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to uphold the "principle of no surplus plutonium". Based on this, JAEC issued a decision on 5 August 2003 stipulating that electric utilities must state the amount, location, starting date, and length of time required to consume MOX fuel before spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. The plan issued by FEPCO falls far short of this requirement. There is concern that JAEC will rubber-stamp it in the rush to start "active testing" at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Active testing is currently scheduled to begin in February. During the active tests the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant will extract plutonium from spent fuel for the first time. According to the plan, 1.6 tons of plutonium will be extracted during fiscal years 2005 and 2006, enough for 200 Nagasaki type nuclear bombs. Plan will Increase Plutonium Stockpile in Japan This plan ignores the plutonium that Japan already possesses. Japan already has a surplus of 43.1 tons of plutonium (37.4 tons held in Europe and 5.7 tons held in Japan). The plutonium surplus continues to grow, despite the 1997 "no surplus plutonium" pledge. An earlier Plutonium Utilization Plan, relating to plutonium held overseas, was submitted to the IAEA in December 1997. The plan, along with the (IR(Bno surplus plutonium(IS(B commitment, was published in IAEA INFCIRC/549/Add.1, 31 March 1998. No MOX fuel has been used in Japan's nuclear power plants in accordance with this 1997 plan because it foundered. NGOs point out that the latest FEPCO plan is simply a copy-and-paste job of the 1997 plan. Under the former plan, utilities were to consume MOX fuel at 16 to 18 reactors. The number of reactors slated this time is identical to the 1997 plan, but the latest plan relates to plutonium separated in Japan at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. No explanation is given regarding the overseas plutonium, so it must be assumed that separating more plutonium now will add to the existing surplus. (Japan's "Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy" issued October 2005 by the JAEC gives priority to the consumption of the plutonium in Europe over any produced at Rokkasho.(4)) Plan Fails to Provide Required Information The plan fails to provide the minimum information required by JAEC's 2003 decision. It effectively says nothing about the time of commencement, or the time required to use the plutonium. It says that the plutonium will be used "in and after 2012". However, this is just a statement of the obvious. Plutonium extracted at Rokkasho is to be fabricated into MOX fuel at the MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant, but this plant has not been built and is only "expected" to commence operation by 2012(5). Apparently the time required to use the plutonium is just calculated on the basis of the number of reactors and their power output. There is no indication of by when all the plutonium will be used. Regarding the location, reactors where the plutonium will be used are identified for only six companies: Kansai Electric, Kyushu Electric, Shikoku Electric, Chugoku Electric, Chubu Electric and Japan Atomic Power Company. The remaining four companies fail to specify which reactors will be used: Tokyo Electric, Hokuriku Electric, Tohoku Electric and Hokkaido Electric. Due to local opposition and past scandals, Kansai Electric and Tokyo Electric were forced to refer to the need to recover public trust before their plans can be implemented. No company has obtained the prior consent of the prefectural or local governments except Kansai Electric and three have not even applied for prior consent. Previously granted consent was withdrawn by Niigata and Fukushima Prefectures (Tokyo Electric). Kansai Electric states it is not in the position to proceed with the Pluthermal (MOX fuel use) program at this time due to the 2004 Mihama nuclear power plant accident. Regarding the amount to be used by each company, some plutonium is to be allocated to companies which will have no spent fuel reprocessed in fiscal 2005 and 2006. This will put pressure on these companies to proceed with Pluthermal plans, even thought they are not ready to do so. Plutonium is also allocated to the non-existent Ohma Nuclear Power Plant. Ohma is still under review for a nuclear reactor installation license. It is still not certain Ohma will be built. Not surprisingly, no date is specified for plutonium use at Ohma. Japan's Atomic Energy Commission Must Not Accept Plan Clearly FEPCO's latest Plutonium Utilization Plan is not based on reality. The purpose of the plan is simply to enable the Rokkasho reprocessing plant to start (IR(Bactive tests(IS(B in February. JAEC should uphold its own 2003 decision and state clearly that the plan is inappropriate. It should declare that "active tests" cannot begin at Rokkasho. English translation of FEPCO's Plutonium Utilization Plan chart issued 6 January 2006 is available at: http://cnic.jp/english/topics/cycle/MOX/pluplanFEPCO6Jan06.html See also previous press release and petition sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency on 5 January 2006: http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/rokplutherm5Jan06.html CONTACT: Aileen Mioko Smith, Green Action (Director) +81 75 701 7223 or 090-3620-9251 (Cell) Philip White, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (International Liaison) +81 3-5330-9520 Atsuko Nogawa, Greenpeace Japan (Nuclear Campaigner) +81 3 5338 9800 FOOTNOTES: 1. On 10 January, twenty-five NGOs from Fukushima, Niigata, Fukui prefectures, Tokyo and Kansai metropolitan areas, and Kyushu issued a critique on FEPCO's Plutonium Utilization Plan. Available in Japanese at: http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/nuclear/documents/doc060110.pdf 2. The Rokkasho Reprocessing plant located in Aomori Prefecture, Japan is under construction and currently undergoing uranium commissioning. The plant has the capacity to reprocess 800 tons/HM of spent nuclear fuel a year. At full capacity, Rokkasho is capable of separating approximately 8 tons of plutonium annually. 3. The use of plutonium fuel in light water reactors ('thermal' reactors as opposed to 'fast' reactors) is called 'pluthermal'. The fuel is made from a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium, commonly referred to as MOX. 4. Japan Atomic Energy Commission, "Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy", 14 October 2005, p.11. 5. Ibid., p. 34. Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 34 Brattleboro Reformer: Town balks at nuclear question Brattleboro, VT Article Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - By CATE LECUYER Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- The Selectboard on Tuesday denied Nuclear Free Vermont's attempt to get a referendum placed on the town meeting ballot. So far, Brattleboro is the only town in Vermont Yankee's 10-mile emergency planning zone to deny the article, which encourages selectboards to push legislators for more emergency preparedness funding from Vermont Yankee. The group wants the extra money to be used for a wider range of emergency assistance, a phone warning system and more evacuation drills. The Selectboard voted down the article, 4-1, because it was unclear what it would mean in light of Brattleboro's representative town meeting form of government. "There was a lot of confusion about what the motion was going to accomplish," said Selectboard Chairman Steve Steidle. Nuclear Free Vermont had asked the board to make a motion to put the article on the March 7 Australian ballot. Town Attorney Bob Fisher said that according to the town charter, the Selectboard does not have the authority to bring the referendum directly to voters through Australian ballot. Instead, the board could only present the referendum to town meeting representatives, Fisher said. "You have a unique form of government here in Brattleboro," Fisher said. Brattleboro is the only town in the state to have a representative town meeting. Scott Ainslie, of Nuclear Free Vermont, said the point of the article is to find out what the residents in town think of the proposal. There was debate on how accurately this could be determined if it was voted on only by town meeting representatives. Had the Selectboard approved putting the measure on the March 7 Australian ballot, it would have set a precedent, Fisher said, since previously the board has sent binding articles to town meeting representatives, and not non-binding articles. There was also confusion on whether or not it would remain non-binding if town meeting representatives voted on it. After it was denied, Ainslie said Nuclear Free Vermont will get a petition in order to bring the article to an Australian ballot. The group needs 250 signatures. "We have 40 percent of the signatures now," Ainslie said. In the past, Nuclear Free Vermont has filed a petition for articles, and only recently discovered it could ask the Selectboard to make a motion to accomplish the same thing, without the extra work. The towns of Guilford, Halifax, Marlboro and Dummerston all agreed to place the referendum on the ballot. Vernon is still considering the measure. Cate Lecuyer can be reached at clecuyer@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 271. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 35 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC advisory panel: Approve Vermont Yankee power boost Brattleboro, VT Article Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - By The Associated Press BRATTLEBORO (AP) -- The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's request to increase its power output by 20 percent should be granted, an advisory committee to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a group of nuclear experts from around the country, also has told the NRC that a special independent safety assessment before the nearly 34-year-old reactor is allowed to boost power is not warranted. The committee voted 9-0 to support the findings described in a letter made public Monday. "The Entergy application for the extended power uprate at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station should be approved," the letter said. Entergy asked more than two years ago for permission to increase its power output by 110 megawatts, or about 20 percent. The plan won conditional approval from the state Public Service Board in March of 2004, and the NRC is expected to give its final approval in late February. In its letter, the advisory committee rejected a contention by the state Department of Public Service saying the plant's operating safety margins could be compromised by Entergy's new operating plan. The department had said emergency core cooling pumps might not function properly under the conditions created by the plant operating at a higher power level. But the advisory committee said that the "overall risk associated with the extended power uprate is small and the change in risk resulting from allowing the requested containment overpressure credit is also small," the committee wrote. Entergy spokesman Robert Williams declined any detailed comment about the letter's impact on the uprate, repeating earlier comments that Entergy had high confidence in the plant and the NRC review. "Our uprate team is still reviewing and discussing the letter," he said. "As we have said, our uprate application is grounded in NRC regulations and it has received very thorough scrutiny in a very open process." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 36 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear question looms large at climate change talks - - smh.com.au Protesters heap coal on an effigy of Prime Minister John Howard to symbolise what they say is his commitment to industry profits over climate change solutions. A crowd of more than 100 gathered yesterday opposite the Four Seasons Hotel to protest against the exclusion of environmental representatives at the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Photo: AAP By Stephanie Peatling January 12, 2006 NUCLEAR power will be examined as part of the solution to global warming when ministers from six countries meet this morning in Sydney for talks on climate change. The United States called on China yesterday to agree to safeguards that would enable Australia to begin exporting some of its vast uranium resources to one of the most power-hungry countries on the planet. The US Energy Secretary, Sam Bodman, said the main impediment to an expanded nuclear power industry was the threat of terrorists targeting plants. "The potential after 9/11 in our country, the threat of terrorists, is something we are taking very seriously and there is concern over the potential access of terrorists to nuclear material," he said. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, said nuclear power generation "obviously" had to be considered. But the export of uranium to China depended on the country agreeing to a number of safeguards concerning disposal and weapons proliferation. China, one of the six countries to be represented at the meeting, is a potentially huge market for Australia's uranium. Australia is the only country involved in the talks that does not use nuclear power. It has no plans to develop nuclear power although several senior ministers believe it should be considered. The Federal Government commissioned a study on the possibility late last year, the first step towards having a national debate about using nuclear energy. Mr Downer confirmed yesterday that ministers would discuss expanding the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Change. Canada, New Zealand and members of the European Union had already expressed interest in joining. The Prime Minister, John Howard, will take a break from his holiday to address the meeting this morning. The Opposition called for participants at the meeting to agree on greenhouse gas emission targets for each country as well as a timetable to meet those targets. "It's extremely important that Australia sign the Kyoto Protocol [and] that this conference that's happening at the moment in Sydney is not seen as an alternative," the acting Opposition Leader, Jenny Macklin, said yesterday. "The importance of the Kyoto Protocol is that it commits so many countries around the world to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and Australia should be part of that." | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 37 edmontonsun.com: Energy scientists to work with Idahoans Alberta - [edmontonsun.com] www.edmontonsun.com mailbag@edmsun.com Wed, January 11, 2006 Energy scientists to work with Idahoans By DARCY HENTON, LEGISLATURE BUREAU Alberta is set to assemble a team of local scientists to work with their American counterparts on cutting-edge energy projects, says the province's energy minister. Greg Melchin says the idea emerged out of a one-day visit to the National Laboratories Power Research Centre in the Idaho desert last week. He told the Sun the Americans are working on a number of projects that are also Alberta priorities, and it makes sense to share information and resources. "It's pretty exciting, some of the things they are doing," he said. "I like the idea of trying to do more with the Department of Energy in the United States." While the Americans see new, smaller-scale nuclear power plants as the energy source of the future, Melchin said it is their work in making hydrocarbons more environmentally friendly that piqued his interest. Some of the 2,000 scientists in the giant lab are also working on turning coal into gas, and using carbon dioxide to aid in the extraction of oil and natural gases from the ground. Alberta is sitting on an estimated 400-year supply of coal that scientists say could be a source of power long into the future if methods can be found to make it cleaner burning. Robert Mansell is managing director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary. He says that even with all its wealth, Alberta couldn't afford to do the research the Americans are doing in Idaho. "They've put a huge amount of money into those labs. It's something we could never duplicate in Canada," said Mansell, who was also part of the 13-member Alberta delegation that toured the high-security facility last Wednesday. CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2005, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear power agency head to visit Ukraine soon - source 11/ 01/ 2006 MOSCOW, January 11 (RIA Novosti) - The head of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, Sergei Kiriyenko, will soon pay a visit to Ukraine, a source in the Russian government said Wednesday. The source added that acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov would visit Moscow in the near future on a presidential invitation. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that during a meeting held with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in Kazakhstan on Wednesday, Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy was discussed. "This cooperation has strong potential since Russia and Ukraine have huge capabilities in science and production," Putin said. Putin also said that he expected the acting Ukrainian prime minister, Yuriy Yekhanurov, in Moscow soon. The Ukrainian parliament dismissed Yekhanurov's government Tuesday. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 39 Platts: Michigan report does not recommend adoption of a nuclear plant Washington (Platts)--10Jan2006 New nuclear capacity should not be built in Michigan unless certain conditions are met, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) said in a report released last week. In its report on the state's Capacity Need Forum, an "electric energy planning effort" that included some 60 organizations, MPSC staff said it "does not recommend adoption of a nuclear plant until the NRC permitting process has been used to site one or two new plants and the spent fuel disposal issue is resolved." The report's state energy model recommends adding coal-fired baseload capacity when available. The model assumes a nuclear construction cost of $2,180 per kilowatt, which is considerably higher than most recent industry estimates. The two-volume MPSC report is at 133381--,00.html. For more information, take a trial to Nuclear News Flashes at Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 40 ISN Security Watch: Lithuania delaying nuclear closure [International Relations and Security Network] ISN SECURITY WATCH (Wednesday, 11 January: 11.02 CET) – Lithuania officials are seeking to re-negotiate the scheduled closure of its main Soviet-era nuclear power station, Ignalina, until the country can find another energy source, news agencies reported. The closure is scheduled for 2009, but Lithuanian officials on Tuesday said they would seek to delay the process until they could secure another energy source to make up for the loss. However, the closure of Ignalina was a pre-condition for the Baltic country’s membership in the EU in 2004. Half of the plant is already closed. Lithuanian Economy Minister Kestutis Dauksys said the country needed to decide whether to build another nuclear plant to replace Ignalina, saying a new plant could be finished in 2013. » Earlier news ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force; Request for FR Doc E6-156 [Federal Register: January 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 7)] [Notices] [Page 1776-1780] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ja06-60] Public Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has established an interagency task force to evaluate and make recommendations on the protection and security of radiation sources. The Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force (Task Force) is required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As part of the Task Force's considerations, it is seeking public input on the major issues before the Task Force. To aid in that process, the NRC is requesting comments on the issues discussed in this notice. [[Page 1777]] DATES: The comment period expires February 10, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Task Force is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RSPS-TF) in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety. Personal information will not be removed from your comments. Mail comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: . Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-7163). Fax comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Publicly available documents related to this activity may be examined and copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-8126, e-mail, . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background New section 170H.f. of the Atomic Energy Act, added by section 651(d) by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), requires the establishment of an inter-agency task force on radiation source protection and security. The Task Force was established to evaluate and provide recommendations relating to the security of radiation sources in the United States from potential criminal or terrorist threats, including acts of sabotage, theft, or use of a radiation source in a radiological dispersal device. The Task Force is comprised of representatives of the NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of State (DOS), Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration (HHS/FDA). The Committee is chaired by NRC. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations for possible regulatory and legislative changes on several specific topics related to the protection and security of sources. For the purposes of the Task Force, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 defines a radiation source as a Category 1 Source or a Category 2 Source as defined in the Code of Conduct \1\ and any other material that the Commission, by regulation, defines as a radiation source for the purposes of section 170H. Spent nuclear fuel and special nuclear materials (plutonium and uranium isotopes) are excluded. The Task Force is required to submit its report to Congress and the President. The first report is to be submitted no later than August 8, 2006, with subsequent reports to be submitted not less than once every 4 years. The topics being considered by the Task Force in the first report are discussed in section III. ---------- \1\ ``Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources,'' approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and dated September 8, 2003. ---------- This document provides the public with the opportunity to comment on the topics to be considered by the Task Force. II. Request for Written and Electronic Comments The Task Force is soliciting comments on the topics presented in section III of this document. Comments may be submitted either in writing or electronically as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. This paper provides some background on the major topics that the Task Force will be considering. Based on the comments received in both written or electronic form, the Task Force will be in a better position to evaluate the issues and make appropriate recommendations for regulatory or legislative action. III. Topics for Discussion The following format is used in the presentation of the topics that follow. Each topic is assigned a number with a short title, and includes a topic description paragraph and for some topics, a listing of factors for consideration. The topics being addressed in this document are those topics which the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifies that the Task Force must address in its report. Other topics may be considered in future reports. The public and industry are invited to (1) Address any inconsistencies that may be a cause for concern or are perceived to present problems in implementation of the program; (2) address any perceived gaps or overlaps in the programs; (3) provide suggestions for modifications to the current programs mentioned in each topic; and (4) propose regulatory or legislative changes for each topic as appropriate. The public feedback will be considered during the Task Force's review of each topic. Commenters may also provide topic suggestions for Task Force consideration in future reports. Topic No. 1 The list of radiation sources requiring security based on potential attractiveness of the source to terrorists and the extent of the threat to public health and safety. Discussion: The Task Force will evaluate which radiation sources are required to be secured based on potential attractiveness of the source to criminals and terrorists and the extent of the threat to public health and safety. The evaluation is to identify any inconsistencies in the radiation source lists used by various agencies and determine whether additional sources should be added to the lists. Some examples of the source lists used by various agencies follow. The NRC has issued Orders that impose additional security and control measures upon a certain subset of NRC and Agreement State licensees. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis of the Orders was the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 and Category 2, except radium (Ra)-226, plus several additional isotopes not listed in the Code of Conduct [actinium (Ac)-227, polonium (Po)-210, plutonium (Pu)-236, Pu-239, Pu- 240, thorium (Th)-228, and Th-229]. In addition, the NRC has issued Orders, and the Agreement States have issued legally-binding requirements, to a larger subset of their respective licensees, requiring implementation of additional security and control measures. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis was the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 and Category 2, except Ra-226. The NRC has also issued Orders to licensees related to transportation of radioactive material in quantities of concern. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis for the transportation Orders was the IAEA Code of Conduct [[Page 1778]] Category 1 threshold, except Ra-226. NRC has also issued a final rule on the import and export of radioactive material (70 FR 37985; July 1, 2005). The list of isotopes and thresholds used as the basis of the final rule was the Category 1 and Category 2 thresholds as defined by the Code of Conduct, except Ra-226. The NRC plans to issue a final rule to add Ra-226 to the import and export radioactive material listing. The NRC has also issued a proposed rule on National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (70 FR 43646; July 28, 2005). The isotopes and thresholds for the tracking system are any source equal to or greater than the Category 2 threshold for the isotopes in the Code of Conduct, plus several additional isotopes (Ac-227, Po-210, Th-228, and Th-229). Commenters are invited to provide input on whether any inconsistencies in the radiation source lists used for different purposes are a cause for concern, what additional sources should be added to the list(s), and why they should be added to the list(s). Factors to be considered include: Radiation source activity levels; radioactive half-life; dispersability; chemical and material form; the availability of the source to physicians and patients for medical use; consistency with the IAEA Code of Conduct; consequence and risk of malevolent use, and any other factors determined to be appropriate. If other factors are suggested for consideration, the commenter should explain the basis for including the factor. Commenters are invited to provide input on which factors are more important and should be emphasized. Topic 2 The national system for recovery of lost or stolen radiation sources. Discussion: There are several activities that make up the system for the recovery of lost or stolen sources. One of the key aspects is to prevent radiation sources from being lost or stolen in the first place. NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure use of radioactive material. NRC regulations require licensees to secure licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas from unauthorized removal or access. NRC regulations also require licensees to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in a controlled or unrestricted area and that is not in storage. Agreement States have similar requirements. Programs intended to foster better control of sources include the NRC's General License Tracking System (GLTS), the planned National Source Tracking System, and the NRC's lost source enforcement policy (December 18, 2000; 65 FR 79139). The enforcement policy involves a civil penalty that is 3 times the cost of disposal for a source. This policy is intended to discourage licensees from improperly disposing of a source by lessening the possible financial attractiveness of abandoning the source rather than disposing of it properly. There is also a program for orphan and unwanted sources. Emergency source recoveries are handled under a NRC/DOE Memorandum of Understanding (65 FR 1184; January 7, 2000). Unwanted sources are handled under DOE's Off-Site Source Recovery Program (OSRP). The Conference on Radiation Control Program Directors has a national orphan radioactive material disposition program that tries to match unwanted sources that do not have disposal options (or are not readily available or affordable) with licensees that could use the source. Another aspect of the national system for recovery of lost or stolen radiation sources is the requirement to report lost or stolen material to the appropriate regulatory agency. For the radioactive sources being considered by the Task Force, the regulations in 10 CFR 20.2201 require NRC licensees to immediately upon discovery, report lost, stolen, or missing material to the NRC Operations Center. Agreement States have similar requirements. NRC and the Agreement States have procedures for handling the reports of lost, stolen or missing material and for coordinating with local, state, and Federal agencies to seek prompt recovery of such material. There is also a Trilateral Initiative between the United States, Mexico, and Canada on the reporting of lost or stolen sources. In addition, the U.S. Government is cooperating with the IAEA and other nations in tracking and combating illicit trafficking of radioactive material. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies or perceived gaps or overlaps in the source recovery system. If commenters provide recommendations for improvement of the source recovery program, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 3 Storage of radiation sources that are not used in a safe and secure manner. Discussion: NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure storage of radiation sources, whether in temporary or long-term storage. NRC regulations require licensees to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. NRC's radiation protection standards are located in 10 CFR part 20. Requirements on use of radiation sources are located in 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, and 70 for the various types and quantities of material. Agreement States have similar requirements. DOE's radiation protection standards are located in 10 CFR Part 810. Commenters should address inconsistencies in storage requirements, whether changes to existing requirements for storage of sources are warranted, and explain the basis for any recommended changes. Topic 4 The national source tracking system for radiation sources. Discussion: The requirements for the National Source Tracking System (NSTS) were addressed by an Interagency Coordinating Committee on source tracking. The Committee developed the high-level requirements for the tracking system. NRC is using these high-level requirements to inform the development of the system and the development of a rule. The NRC published the proposed rule on National Source Tracking for public comment (70 FR 43646; July 28, 2005). The final rule is scheduled to be published no later than August 8, 2006. The final rule could likely require transaction reporting for Category 1 and Category 2 sources, plus Ac-227, Po-210, Th-228, and Th-229. These additional radionuclides were added because they are used in the DOE lab system, although they are rarely, if ever, used in these quantities in the civilian sector. The transactions to be reported include manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly, and disposal. The final rule also could require that a licensee's initial inventory of Category 1 and Category 2 sources be reported. In addition, import/export notifications will be recorded in the system, as well as reports of lost, stolen, or missing Category 1 and Category 2 sources. The system is intended to capture the domestic life cycle history of each tracked source and will begin operation in mid 2007. The system will contain information on sources possessed by NRC licensees, Agreement State licensees, and DOE facilities. Factors to be considered include whether additional sources should be added to the tracking system, whether different thresholds should be considered (particularly Category 3 quantities of the IAEA Code of Conduct radionuclides of concern), and whether additional transaction reporting should be required. Commenters are invited to [[Page 1779]] make suggestions for future modifications to the system and explain the basis for any recommended changes. Topic 5 A national system to provide for the proper disposal of radiation sources. Discussion: NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements concerning decommissioning and proper disposal of radiation sources. Many licensees return radiation sources to the manufacturer at the end of the useful source life. If sources are disposed of, it must be at an authorized facility. Some of the radiation sources would be considered Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste if they were to be disposed. Disposal options are limited for GTCC waste. (GTCC waste means low-level radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste in 10 CFR 61.55.) NRC regulations on radiological criteria for license termination are in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E and requirements for disposal of material are located in 10 CFR part 20, Subpart K. Agreement States have similar requirements. NRC and Agreement States also have requirements concerning decommissioning funding. NRC's decommissioning financial assurance requirements are located at 10 CFR 30.35. Part 30.35 establishes thresholds for sealed sources containing byproduct material below which financial assurance is not required. For the most commonly used radionuclides, these thresholds are above the threshold for a Category 1 or Category 2 source. However, the threshold is based on total authorized possession limits and not on individual sources. NRC's lost source enforcement policy (December 18, 2000; 65 FR 79139) provides a civil penalty of 3 times the disposal cost for improperly disposed sources. Commenters are invited to address available disposal options and the adequacy of decommissioning funding requirements. Commenters are also invited to address the need for user fees to provide for the proper disposal of radiation sources. The basis for any recommendations should be included as part of the comments. Topic 6 Import and export controls on radiation sources to ensure that recipients of radiation sources are able and willing to adequately control radiation sources. Discussion: NRC and DOE have programs controlling the import and export of radiation sources. The DOE program applies to DOE facilities and the NRC program applies to all other entities. Entities must have a NRC export license to export radiation sources to other countries or an NRC import license to import radiation sources from other countries. NRC's regulations governing import and export of radiation sources are located in 10 CFR part 110. The final rule on import/export of Category 1 and Category 2 levels of radioactive material was published on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 37985), and became effective on December 28, 2005. The rule requires a specific license for import or export of Category 1 and Category 2 radiation sources, except Ra-226. An amendment will soon be promulgated to add Ra-226 to the regulations as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The principal criterion for approving exports is a finding that the export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. This finding is relevant to both the nuclear proliferation significance of exports and the related security concerns about radioactive material falling into the hands of non- country organizations, including terrorist groups. In making its inimicality determination, the Commission will, in consultation with the Executive Branch, consider whether the importing country has the technical and administrative capability, and the resources and regulatory structure to manage radioactive material in a safe and secure manner. Commenters are invited to address any perceived gaps in the requirements for import and export controls and whether additional controls are necessary and why. Topic 7 Procedures for improving the security and control for use and storage of radiation sources. Discussion: NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure use of radiation sources. DOE requirements for radiation protection are located in 10 CFR Part 810. NRC regulations for the safe and secure use of radiation sources can be found in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, and 70. The requirements include a requirement for conducting physical inventories. Agreement States have similar requirements. In addition, both NRC and Agreement States have imposed additional controls on licensees via Orders or other legally binding requirements. Some of the Orders contain sensitive information that is not available to the public. These additional security and control measures address access control; monitoring, detecting, assessing, and responding to intrusions; liaison with local law enforcement agencies; background investigations; protecting against unauthorized disclosure of sensitive unclassified information; license verification; shipments and transfers (domestic); and imports and exports. Both NRC and Agreement States have inspection programs to evaluate whether licensees are meeting the requirements and can take enforcement actions against licensees to ensure compliance. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 8 Procedures for improving the security of transportation of radiation sources. Discussion: NRC, DHS, and DOT have requirements and procedures related to transportation of radiation sources. Regulations governing transportation of radiation sources can be found in 10 CFR part 49 (DOT) and 10 CFR part 71 (NRC). Transportation security issues includes domestic shipments, import/export shipments, in-bond shipments, and transhipments. NRC has also issued Orders to licensees to enhance the security of transportation of radioactive material in quantities of concern (above Category 1 threshold in the IAEA Code of Conduct). These Orders contain sensitive information that is not available to the public. However, they generally address preplanning and coordination, advance notification of shipments, control and monitoring of underway shipments, trustworthiness and reliability, and information security. Transportation security for IAEA Category 2 quantities was included in the additional controls discussed in Topic 7 above. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the transportation requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 9 Background checks for individuals with access to radiation sources. Discussion: NRC, DOE, and DOT have requirements for background checks for individuals that have access to radiation sources during use, storage, or [[Page 1780]] transportation. DOT requires a security threat assessment including fingerprinting and an intelligence and immigration check for the drivers of trucks hauling certain radioactive sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amends section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act to require fingerprinting, for criminal history check purposes, for individuals or entities that are: (1) Licensed or certified to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission; (2) have filed an application for a license or certificate to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission; or (3) have notified the Commission in writing of an intent to file an application for licensing, certification, permitting, or approval of a product or activity subject to regulation by the Commission. The key employees of these entities would be required to be fingerprinted if they have, among other things: (1) Unescorted access to radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Commission that the NRC determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks; or (2) access to Safeguards Information. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and any additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the background check requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 10 Alternative technologies. Discussion: EPA and NRC have conducted and/or sponsored research in the area of alternative technologies. Some of the projects are ongoing. As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, NRC has recently entered into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis of alternative technologies. The effort will not be concluded until 2007. Alternative technologies may be available that could perform some or all of the functions performed by devices or processes that employ radiation sources. Use of these alternative technologies could result in the reduction in the number of radiation sources or in the replacement of radiation sources with sources that would pose a lower risk to the public health and safety in the event of an accident or attack involving the radiation source. Commenters are invited to provide information on potential impacts of the use of alternative technologies and information on potential alternative technologies for consideration by the Task Force. Commenters are also invited to suggest regulatory approaches and possible incentives that could encourage the use of alternative technologies. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-156 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear FR Doc E6-159 [Federal Register: January 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 7)] [Notices] [Page 1774-1776] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ja06-59] Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) located in Windham County, Vermont. The proposed amendment would change the VYNPS operating license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt. This change represents an increase of approximately 20 percent above the current maximum authorized power level. The proposed extended power uprate (EPU) amendment would also change the VYNPS Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide for implementing uprated power operation. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff's analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: First Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As discussed in the licensee's application dated September 10, 2003, the VYNPS EPU analyses, which were performed at or above EPU conditions, included a review and evaluation of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that could be affected by the proposed change. The licensee reviewed plant modifications and revised operating parameters, including operator actions, to confirm acceptable performance of plant SSCs under EPU conditions. On this basis, the licensee concluded that there is no increase in the probability of accidents previously evaluated. Further, as also discussed in the licensee's application, while not being submitted as a risk-informed licensing action, the proposed amendment was evaluated by the licensee from a risk perspective. Using the NRC guidelines established in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, and the calculated results from [[Page 1775]] the VYNPS Level 1 and 2 probabilistic safety analyses, the best estimate for the core damage frequency (CDF) increase due to the proposed EPU is 3.3 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.2 percent over the pre-EPU CDF of 7.77 E-6 per year). The best estimate for the large early release frequency (LERF) increase due to the proposed EPU is 1.1 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.9 percent over the pre-EPU LERF of 2.23 E-6 per year). The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the licensee's risk evaluation and the acceptance guidelines in RG 1.174, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The NRC staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the SSCs important to safety will continue to meet their intended design basis functions under EPU conditions. Therefore, the staff concludes that there is no significant change in the ability of these SSCs to preclude or mitigate the consequences of accidents. The NRC staff's evaluation also reviewed the impact of the proposed EPU on the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents for VYNPS. The staff's review concluded that dose criteria in 10 CFR 50.67, as well as the applicable acceptance criteria in Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1, would continue to be met at EPU conditions. The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed amendment and review of the radiological consequences, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Second Standard Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. As stated above, the NRC staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not introduce any significantly new or different plant equipment, would not significantly impact the manner in which the plant is operated, and would not have any significant impact on the design function or operation of the SCCs involved. The staff's review did not identify any credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the VYNPS design and licensing bases. Consequently, the staff concludes that the proposed change would not introduce any failure mode not previously analyzed. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Third Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. As discussed in the licensee's application, continuing improvements in analytical techniques based on several decades of boiling-water reactor safety technology, plant performance feedback, operating experience, and improved fuel and core designs, have resulted in a significant increase in the design and operating margin between the calculated safety analyses results and the current plant licensing limits. The NRC staff's review found that the proposed EPU will reduce some of the existing design and operational margins. However, safety margins are considered to not be significantly reduced if: (1) Applicable regulatory requirements, codes and standards or their alternatives approved for use by the NRC, are met, and (2) if safety analysis acceptance criteria in the licensing basis are met, or if proposed revisions to the licensing basis provide sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB), and containment) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the fission product barriers as discussed below. The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU to assure that acceptable fuel damage limits are not exceeded. This included consideration of the VYNPS fuel system design, nuclear system design, thermal and hydraulic design, accident and transient analyses, and fuel design limits. The evaluation included an assessment of the margin in the associated safety analyses supporting the proposed EPU. The staff's evaluation found that the licensee's analysis was acceptable based on use of approved analytical methods and that the licensee had included sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. In addition, the licensee will continue to perform cycle-specific analysis to confirm that fuel design limits will not be exceeded during each cycle. The staff's evaluation concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft General Design Criteria (GDC) 6, 7, and 8; and 10 CFR 50.46). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that fuel cladding integrity would be maintained within acceptable limits under the proposed EPU conditions. The NRC staff further evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the RCPB. The evaluation included an assessment of overpressure protection; structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports; and structural integrity of the reactor vessel. With respect to overpressure protection, the staff found that the licensee had used an NRC-approved evaluation method, had used the most limiting pressurization event, and had determined that the peak calculated pressure would remain below the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) allowable peak pressure. With respect to structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports, the staff found that the licensee had performed its evaluation using the process and methodology defined in NRC-approved topical reports. The staff's evaluation concluded that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained at EPU conditions. With respect to structural integrity of the reactor vessel, the staff found that the licensee had implemented an acceptable reactor vessel materials surveillance program in a previously approved amendment that was based on neutron fluence values acceptable for VYNPS at EPU conditions. In addition, the staff found that the existing pressure- temperature limit curves contained in the TSs would remain [[Page 1776]] bounding for EPU conditions. The staff also found that the methodology used by the licensee to evaluate the loads on the reactor vessel was consistent with an NRC-approved methodology and that the maximum stresses and fatigue usage factors for EPU conditions would be within ASME Code allowable limits. The staff's evaluation regarding the RCPB concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 9, 33, 34, and 35; 10 CFR 50.60; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendices G and H). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions. Finally, the NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the containment. The staff found that the licensee's analysis used acceptable calculational methods and conservative assumptions and that the containment pressure and temperature under EPU conditions would remain below existing design limits. The staff also evaluated the licensee's proposed change to the licensing basis to credit containment accident pressure to meet the net positive suction head (NPSH) requirements for the emergency core cooling system pumps. The staff found that the licensee's analysis was performed using conservative assumptions and that the credited pressure remains below the containment accident pressure that would be available under EPU conditions. The staff's evaluation regarding the containment concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 10, 41, 49, and 52; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that containment structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions. In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the structural integrity of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, RCPB and containment) would be maintained under EPU conditions. As such, the proposed amendment would not degrade confidence in the ability of the barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Conclusion Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making a final determination. The Commission previously published a ``Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing'' for the proposed VYNPS EPU amendment in the Federal Register on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 39976). This Notice provided 60 days for the public to request a hearing. On August 30, 2004, the Vermont Department of Public Service and the New England Coalition filed requests for hearing in connection with the proposed amendment. By Order dated November 22, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted those hearing requests and by Order dated December 16, 2004, the ASLB issued its decision to conduct a hearing using the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications.'' No additional opportunity for hearing is provided in connection with this notice. In accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.91, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding submission of adverse comments or a request for hearing. In that event, any required hearing would be completed after issuance of the amendment; however, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, the amendment would not be issued prior to completion of the hearing. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated September 10, 2003, as supplemented on October 1, and October 28 (2 letters), 2003, January 31 (2 letters), March 4, May 19, July 2, July 27, July 30, August 12, August 25, September 14, September 15, September 23, September 30 (2 letters), October 5, October 7 (2 letters), December 8, and December 9, 2004, and February 24, March 10, March 24, March 31, April 5, April 22, June 2, August 1, August 4, September 10, September 14, September 18, September 28, October 17, October 21, 2005 (2 letters), October 26, October 29, November 2, November 22, and December 2, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-159 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 43 CTK: International law expert believes Austria can deal with Temelin 13:42 - 11.01.2006 BRUSSELS/LUXEMBOURG/PRAGUE- Miguel Poiares Maduro, professor of European and international law and the European Court of Justice general lawyer, believes that Austrian courts can deal with the environmental impacts of the Czech Temelin nuclear power plant situated 80 km from Austrian border. According to his analysis submitted to the European Court of Justice, Austrian courts can consider whether property was damaged on Austrian territory by emissions from the Czech Republic and whether certain provisions in the Austrian civilian code can be applied to these cases. Maduro arrived at this conclusion that it is possible while analysing the current dispute between Upper Austria and the CEZ power utility that operates Temelin. In his view, Austrian courts should act on the basis of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements. It is an independent expert view that the European Court can comply with, but need not while formulating its own verdict on the matter that it expected within three months. Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar said that CEZ was prepared to fully respect the verdict. "However, we are prepared to prove at any independent court that Temelin is a safe plant," he said. Upper Austria filed a lawsuit against CEZ in June 2001 with the Linz Land Court for allegedly neglecting its duties. The Austrian Supreme court ruled in August 2003 that Austrian courts can deal with such matters, but a complaint was later filed against its ruling with the European Court of Justice. Upper Austria and environmentalists have been insisting for years that Temelin is not safe and that any possible radiation leak from a reactor would affect Austria. These groups then filed suits with Austrian courts. Upper Austria has filed its suit against CEZ in order to make sure that the plant did not contaminate properties in Upper Austria with radioactivity and that it would be responsible for any possible damages. Temelin, situated in south Bohemia, 60 kilometres from the borders of Austria and Bavaria, is sharply criticised by activists in Austria, Bavaria as well as the Czech Republic who say it is not safe because it combines Soviet design and western fuel and safety technology. These doubts have been repeatedly dismissed by the Czech Republic. | copyright 2005 CTK ***************************************************************** 44 MyWestTexas.com: Support for Andrews reactor comes from Midland, Odessa - Local News - 01/11/2006 - Ruth Campbell Staff Writer Midland Reporter-Telegram "É it makes more sense to me to locate it there rather than Midland County, or certainly within the city itself." Midland Mayor Mike Canon As the site of Waste Control Specialists, a low-level radioactive storage site, Andrews County has a history in dealing with issues nuclear. This makes it the right place for a proposed high-temperature teaching and test reactor, Midland Chamber of Commerce President John Breier said. Breier was one of many officials and residents attending Tuesday's forum on the reactor at the Center for Energy and Economic Diversification (CEED) Building. The gathering, which featured presentations from General Atomics, University of Texas of the Permian Basin and Kirk Edwards, was hosted by the Midland and Odessa chambers of commerce. Edwards and Grant Billingsley, manager of public affairs for Wagner & Brown Ltd., are raising funds for a preconceptual design for the reactor project, which will include a business plan and other details. "The whole reason this became possible for this area is all Andrews has been doing to go through the process to become familiar with the nuclear industry," Breier said. Andrews first started doing community due diligence on Waste Control more than 10 years ago so the community understands nuclear energy, he said. Waste Control sits next to Louisiana Energy Services' proposed uranium enrichment facility in Lea County, N.M. "It's not at all about not wanting it in our backyard," he said. Odessa Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Mike George said this is an Andrews project. "We support Andrews as a regional project. This wasn't our project to start with," he said. George said the reactor could bring the region many benefits. It would have an operating budget of more than $60 million annually and "the ongoing long-term economic benefit would continue to grow and grow." "The spin-off businesses that could develop from this could make that growth multiply by many times," George said. Midland Mayor Mike Canon said he was in "listening mode" Tuesday, but found the presentation "interesting" and "intriguing." "It seems to offer a potential alternative to energy production that West Texas could be involved in. That merits consideration by our communities," Canon said. "I think the fact that we've already got some nuclear projects under way along the Texas-New Mexico border makes it a natural location for something like this." "In that context, it makes more sense to me to locate it there rather than Midland County, or certainly within the city itself," he added. U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland, attended the forum on the spur of the moment. He said he may be able to help once Andrews decides it wants the project. "They're a lot further along than last time I had a briefing with them," Conaway said. He said he has encouraged the fundraisers to keep pushing. In this second of two forums, there has been little opposition but there were questions Tuesday about waste from the reactor. Ector County Commissioner Barbara Graff asked where the waste would be stored and what would happen to it. General Atomics Vice President Mike Campbell of San Diego, Calif., said the amount of waste would depend on the size of the reactor and how long it runs, items that would be part of the preconceptual design. For example, if you ran it for a year on 100 pounds of uranium, it would produce 100 pounds of waste. Campbell said the half-life of the waste would range from fractions of a year to "many, many years." Mark Haynes, vice president for energy development from the Washington office, said the waste would be stored on-site initially then shipped to a federal storage location, which could be Yucca Mountain, Nev. The proposal will be taken to the UT Board of Regents in February or March, UT general counsel Barry Burgdorf said. ©MyWestTexas.com 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuclear safety record mixed - Business News - 01/11/2006 Stephanie Waite, Times Business Editor SHIPPINGPORT - As executives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. spoke Tuesday about how they're improving performance at the company's three nuclear power plants, a question occurred to Marc L. Dapas, deputy regional administrator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Do the people at the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport ever resent getting suggestions for improvement from the people at the Davis-Besse plant, near Toledo, Ohio, and the Perry plant, near Cleveland? "I'd be lying if I didn't tell you some of that was going on," said Jim Lash, vice president at Beaver Valley. The NRC came to Shippingport on Tuesday to get an update on FirstEnergy's fleet of three nuclear plants, plants with histories about as different as the Ohio River is from Toledo's Maumee River. While Beaver Valley has operated safely and quietly for years, Davis-Besse was the center of what Dapas described as a "watershed" event for both the NRC and FirstEnergy. Last year, the NRC fined FirstEnergy $5.45 million, the agency's largest-ever single fine, for violations that led to reactor vessel head damage at Davis-Besse and for misleading the NRC about the cleaning and inspection of the reactor head in 2000. Davis-Besse was shut down for two years as the reactor vessel head was replaced and other safety improvements were made. Then, just last week, four former Davis-Besse employees were banned from involvement in any NRC-regulated activity, three of them for five years and one for one year. Does the Davis-Besse incident reflect at all on Shippingport, and should it concern the people who live near Beaver Valley Power Station? It's a valid question, Dapas said. But not one with a simple answer. One thing he knows, Dapas said, is that FirstEnergy does not want another costly incident like that at Davis-Besse. FirstEnergy "is leveraging all its resources ... so that it doesn't go down a similar path with another part of the organization," he said. In examining the problems at Davis-Besse, the NRC would have questioned whether any of the issues were "generic" - for example, if a procedure that contributed to the problem was also in use at Beaver Valley. FirstEnergy has been held accountable, and all three plants are currently operating safely, Dapas said. One who's happy with Beaver Valley's performance is Beaver County Commissioner Joe Spanik, who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting and noted that FirstEnergy is now training people for new jobs at not only the nuclear plant but the nearby Bruce Mansfield coal-fired plant. With coal and nuclear energy expected to see growth in the coming years, Spanik told the FirstEnergy executives that "we would entertain any addition to the fleet in Beaver County." Stephanie Waite can be reached online at swaite@timesonline.com. ©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2006 ***************************************************************** 46 MyWestTexas.com: Test reactor could be finished by end of 2012 Local News - 01/11/2006 - By Ruth Campbell Staff Writer If all goes well, University of Texas of the Permian Basin will have a proposed high-temperature teaching and test reactor complete by the end of 2012, Project Manager James Wright said. Prospective site for the reactor is Andrews County, site of Waste Control Specialists, a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, near the proposed site of a Louisiana Energy Services uranium enrichment facility in Lea County, N.M. UTPB is working with General Atomics of San Diego, Calif., the city and county of Andrews, UT Dallas, UT Arlington and UT El Paso. The UT system is in partnership with Lockheed Martin to manage Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. Sandia Labs has agreed to consult as well, UT General Counsel Barry Burgdorf said. By June of this year, university officials hope to finish preconceptual design, which will include a business plan and show the feasibility of the project, UTPB President David Watts said. Additionally, Watts said the school hopes to have an initial investment by the federal government by October, mainly for design and engineering. Officials currently are trying to raise $3 million for a preconceptual design for the project. "Once the design and engineering is complete, we would go for licensure with the (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission," he said. The permitting process would take one to two years, according to estimates Watts has heard. "Once licensure and permitting is complete at all levels, we would go to construction. The reason why we're trying to complete preconceptual design is so we can seek support for this project by the Department of Energy and possibly the Department of Defense for funding in fiscal year '07, which begins Oct. 1, 2006," he said. Another reason UT officials are moving quickly on the project is another group affiliated with the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C. "It is a competitive proposal from a competitive group of higher education institutions. Until the preconceptual design is complete, we can't really say what the potential impact would be. We're working hard to obtain funding for the preconceptual design and completing it as soon as possible. We believe it would provide the UTPB reactor project a substantial advantage," Watts said. The federal government wants to see substantial progress and concrete plans before funding a project like this. "We believe in this case funding is possible because it's in the interest of the nation's security," Watts said. More than 60 percent of oil is imported. In the United States, nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the electricity. Thirty-five (35) percent of Europe's electricity comes from nuclear power. "We are absolutely dependent on the rest of the world for the energy that runs our economy. It would help us move toward energy independence," he said. According to UTPB, benefits of the very-high temperature technology include: -- Economic diversification -- The addition of 344 permanent, full-time jobs. -- Skills of Permian Basin oil and gas professionals can be used in the nuclear research industry. -- The Permian Basin will become the site of world class nuclear science, physics, nuclear chemistry and nuclear engineering programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. -- Hydrogen fuel production, high-temperature and uranium usage research. -- Higher technologies and new industries brought to the area. -- The high temperatures of the test reactor can convert water directly to hydrogen without a catalyst, so no waste product will result. A concern with water-cooled nuclear reactors is the possibility of meltdown, but according to UTPB, the very-high temperature test reactor is gas-cooled and shuts itself down automatically when it reaches 1,500 degrees Celsius. The reactor would use plutonium and uranium for fuel. Also, thorium, a more abundant material than uranium, would be used in experiments. The reactor would not be used in weapons production and be fully underground in order to counteract any theft attempts. The powder-like spent fuel is encased in three layers of ceramic to be safe for up to 500 years. The pellets can withstand temperatures of 2,000 centigrade. This would also deter proliferation as it would cost billions to remove the uranium from the pinhead-size pellets. Construction cost could be $300 million to $400 million, impacting Andrews, Midland and Odessa. Tax-deductible donations to finance the preconceptual design can be made to: UTPB Test Reactor Project. Mail it to: Office of the President, UT Permian Basin, 4901 E. University Blvd., Odessa, 79762. On the Net: http://ht3r.utpb.edu or http://www.utpb.edu/ht3r/. ©MyWestTexas.com 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 Odessa American Online: Officials stress reactors safety General Atomics expert says core cant melt down Serving the Permian Basin of West Texas Wednesday, January 11, 2006 By David J. Lee MIDLAND COUNTY Following a Monday night meeting about a possible test nuclear reactor in Andrews, General Atomics and Permian Basin officials were well prepared to roll through an informational meeting Tuesday night. About 150 people gathered at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin's Center for Energy and Economic Diversification to listen to an hourlong presentation from University of Texas system officials and people from General Atomics talk about the idea of building a Very High Temperature Test Nuclear Reactor in Andrews County. University of Texas of the Permian Basin President David Watts again opened the meeting with a few remarks about his progression from skepticism to becoming a proponent of the reactor. "When we say those two words `nuclear reactor,' we mean something totally different than what you're thinking," he said. "One word I've come to associate with this project is safety. This reactor can't melt down. It can't be another Chernobyl." Following the presentation, which was very similar to one Monday night in Andrews, Grant Billingsley of Midland read questions taken from the audience to a panel of experts including Mark Haynes and Mike Campbell of General Atomics, UT System General Counsel Barry Burgdorf and Watts. Answering questions about safety, Campbell said the reactor is designed so that it cannot fail. "This reactor can never get to a temperature where the fuel melts like at Three Mile Island," he said. "It's designed so it cannot fail. It doesn't wait for anything from outside to come cool it down, it inherently cools itself." Like in Andrews, some people asked technical questions about the nuclear process and some asked about opportunities for local businesses. One woman, who didn't give her name, angrily asked out loud where waste from the plant would be stored. Haynes said the majority of nuclear plants in the country store their waste onsite. "They're in dry cast storage, and they're pretty darn safe," he said. Campbell said hypothetically, if this projected plant were to run all out for a year, it may create 100 pounds of waste. Haynes followed that the proposed test nuclear reactor in Andrews would be a small plant. "We would store waste on site with the eventual goal of having it permanently stored elsewhere," he said. "There's a long and very safe record of waste storage around the world." The proposed facility in Andrews would include three components - a high-temperature, gas-cooled teaching and test reactor; a high-temperature process laboratory to develop and test other methods of the economical production of synthetic fuels and hydrogen; and a Brayton Cycle Laboratory for development of new methods to develop electricity with increased efficiencies. UTPB has said if the residents of Andrews agree, the university would proceed with developing a non-federally funded $3 million pre-conceptual design. That design would be used to try to raise about $400 million to engineer, license and construct the facility beginning as soon as spring of 2007. That design would also determine what the reactor would look like, where it would be located, how large it would be, and what it would end up costing. Campbell said General Atomics is looking forward to working with UTPB in putting together the research facility and test reactor. "It's good to see people who look to the future and aren't afraid to take a little risk," Campbell said. American Online: c /o Odessa American 222 E. 4th Street P.O. Box 2952 Odessa, TX 79760 Copyright © 1999-2006 Odessa American. All rights reserved. Refer comments to Webmaster. ***************************************************************** 48 Daily Utah Chronicle: 'Primetime' exposes U's nuclear reactor security - By: Jed Layton Issue date: 1/11/06 Section: In October, an ABC News broadcast described security measures at the Merrill Engineering Building to be inadequate for housing a nuclear reactor. The "Primetime" report was part of a nationwide investigation to test security at 25 university reactors by 10 ABC interns. It accused the U's reactor of being vulnerable to terrorists. The report was strongly disputed by university officials, who described it as inaccurate and appalling. The investigative team, comprising two student interns, Traci Curry and Michelle Rabinowitz, claimed they found no guards, no metal detectors, no background check, no ID check and open tours at the reactor. According to the report, the interns scheduled a tour giving them access to the reactor pool and control room. They were able to bring cameras on the tour. The interns also came back on a return visit at 12:30 a.m. to find a basement entrance to the building unlocked. They were then able to videotape in the hallway at night unchallenged. The report quoted Ronald E. Timm, a veteran in security consulting, as saying that security for the reactor was "very poor risk management." U professors and students were surprised by the report, especially by the claim that the reactor could be used as a bomb. They asserted that since the reactor was specifically built for student use, it was physically impossible for anyone to make a bomb out of it. U officials said that although the interns were able to enter the Merrill Engineering Building, they were unable to get through four locked doors to reach the actual reactor. U officials also maintained that security checks were run, that they were aware of the two interns filming at 12:30 a.m. and that the security plan worked. ABC has continued to stand by its story and has refused to retract any part of it. j.layton@chronicle.utah.edu The Daily Utah Chronicle 200 S Central Campus Dr #236 Salt Lake City UT 84112 801-581-NEWS Send letters to the editor to: letters@chronicle.utah.edu Send press releases to: press@chronicle.utah.edu ***************************************************************** 49 UPI: Europe debates nuclear energy United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 1/11/2006 3:34:00 PM -0500 By BRANDON THURNER UPI Correspondent WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- European Union countries are starting to rethink their opposition to nuclear energy amid a dispute between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas supplies, but energy analysts say a switch still lacks a green light. The debate is between proponents of nuclear energy as a clean alternative to gas and coal and those who point to the dangers of radiation and radioactive waste. But Russia's decision - now reversed -- on Jan. 1 to stop gas shipments to Ukraine, a move that reduced the flow to Italy by 25 percent and France by 30 percent, spurred debate on how to prepare for supply disruptions. "People are saying, 'Let's take a second look' at nuclear power," William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency, told the Christian Science Monitor. "Rising oil prices means nuclear is becoming more economically attractive, and gas prices are a second kick in the pants." Talk of higher oil prices and supply shocks has spurred both new nuclear development plans and the restarting of long-dormant units. In Europe, five nations have either begun construction on new nuclear facilities, have given approval for updated plants or are expecting to award contracts to build new units. Finland began constructing a third-generation pressurized water reactor last year to come on-line in 2009 while France has approved a similar plant and another pilot plant by 2020; Bulgaria is expected to award a contract later this month for construction of two plants; Romania has restarted work on a plant abandoned 15 years ago while the Czech Republic predicts the construction of two more by the end of the decade. Similar moves are being considered in Britain, and in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to reconsider plans to cap or phase out nuclear energy by 2020 amid pressure from her Social Democrat coalition allies. Many Europeans still disapprove of nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power. According to a Euro-barometer poll in June 2005 for the European Commission, 38 percent of Germans backed nuclear power; 55 percent opposed nuclear power across the EU. But environmental concerns, which used to be nuclear power's biggest problem, is now seen as less of a problem thanks to fears of global warming. Nuclear power emits almost no carbon dioxide emissions and with 10 of 25 EU nations set to miss their Kyoto Protocol commitments on greenhouse gases, nuclear power gets a boost. "Nuclear is the only game in town if you are serious about cutting greenhouse gases," Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the World Nuclear Association, told the Christian Science Monitor. But nuclear power brings its own problems beyond the fears of accidents like the Chernobyl disaster. "Nuclear power produces tons of radioactive waste that costs billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," Norman Baker, the environment spokesman for Britain's Liberal-Democrat party, told BBC News. Still, political considerations caused by Russia's decision earlier this month has given room to pause. The dispute between Moscow and Kiev is still not over. A negotiated deal between the two governments was thrown into confusion Tuesday when Ukraine's parliament passed a vote of no confidence in the prime minister who handled the negotiations. Sergey Kupriyanov, a spokesman for Gazprom's chief executive officer, also announced Monday that each 1,000 cu. meters of gas exported to Europe will now cost an average of $250. This price increase has nations worried over how to pay for energy costs, which in many cases are doubling. Gazprom, for example, is now insisting Moldova buy Russian gas supplies for $160, double what the poorest nation in Europe now pays. That "is not a market price for Moldova where the joint Moldovan-Russian venture, Moldovagaz, operates and where the joint gas business enjoys a number of privileges," Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin argued in Russia's Kommersant newspaper. These moves highlight the need for a diversified energy plan across Europe, which would include multiple suppliers of energy and alternative sources. "This serves to illustrate the importance of a diverse energy portfolio to a nation's energy security," Steve Kerekes, a spokesman from the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, told United Press International. The 1986 Chernobyl accident, which took place in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union, frightened Europe into rejecting nuclear power. Two of the four nuclear power plants at Chernobyl have been out of action since the disaster, 20 years ago in March. But Ukraine electricity supplies still depend on the two that are still in operation, despite efforts by the EU to persuade Ukraine to scrap the plants, built with controversial Soviet-era technology. No new nuclear power station was built after Chernobyl and in Germany and Sweden governments pledged to close down their existing nuclear plants. These promises are now being reviewed as energy costs hit $60 a barrel for oil, and as fears of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels make "clean" nuclear energy seem more attractive. Thrust into the energy wars brought by uncertain markets and supply shocks, a healthy debate must ensue across Europe as to the best way to prepare for future disruptions, experts say. "I think folks have to realize there is a byproduct from nuclear generation," Kerekes told UPI. "It is very compact though from the amount of power it provides." Kerekes went on to frame how he feels the debate over nuclear power, and a diverse energy supply in particular, should proceed. "The political and business leaders in those countries must advocate diverse energy so folks are not beholden to foreign sources of energy and the volatility of energy markets," he said. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 50 PE.com: Feinstein demands military perform studies on perchlorate DISPUTE: The Pentagon says there is no need for more research on the rocket-fuel chemical. 11:29 PM PST on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise A California senator demanded Tuesday that the military make good on a congressional directive to conduct a major health study on a rocket-fuel chemical found in water and food consumed by millions of Americans. Congress, in a 2003 defense authorization bill, required an independent study on how perchlorate contamination has affected large numbers of people. The study has not been done. Defense officials say the study is no longer needed because others have completed or are pursuing similar research. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, disagrees. "By shirking responsibility for performing thorough and exhaustive studies on the impact of perchlorate, the Defense Department is putting the health of thousands of Americans at risk," Feinstein wrote Tuesday in letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A Defense Department spokeswoman said she had no immediate comment because Rumsfeld had not reviewed the letter. Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket fuel and munitions. Industrial spills and leaks have contaminated water supplies across the nation, including the Colorado River and several Inland groundwater basins. It also has been found in lettuce, milk and other produce. In sufficient amounts, it can disrupt the thyroid gland's ability to make hormones that fetuses and infants need for brain and nerve development. In September, Kenneth Krieg, an undersecretary of defense, argued in letters to Senate and House armed services committees that Congress' intent had been satisfied. Since the 2003 authorization bill, which gave the Defense Department directives for the 2004 fiscal year, perchlorate science has been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. The academy's review included two large, population-based studies in California, Krieg wrote. One focused on Redlands-area residents, and the other compared health information statewide. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is pursuing additional research, Krieg wrote. Lockheed Martin Corp., sponsored the studies in California. The company is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by several Redlands-area residents who contend that perchlorate from a former Lockheed rocket factory in Mentone contributed to their illnesses. The research found no link between perchlorate and the residents' ailments. Gary Praglin, an attorney for the residents, said the studies cannot be seen as independent because of the company's financial stake in the lawsuit's outcome. In her letter, Feinstein noted that the National Academy of Sciences committee called for more research to determine how perchlorate affects the most vulnerable groups, such as low-birth-weight babies. "The Department of Defense still must fulfill its obligations and complete thorough and exhaustive studies on the true health impact of perchlorate," she wrote. Reach David Danelski at (951) 368-9471 or ddanelski@pe.comMore headlines... 2006, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 51 Las Vegas SUN: American Indian tribe in Nevada says railroads stole its land Today: January 11, 2006 at 10:11:41 PST ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - An American Indian tribe is suing the Union Pacific Railroad and seven other landholders, claiming the companies stole land in vast stretches of the west in violation of an 1860s treaty with the U.S. government. The civil lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Western Shoshone National Council, chief Raymond Yowell and six national council members, seeks a declaration that the Western Shoshone nation holds title to land, minerals and water in so-called "checkerboard" lands the government granted to the railroad in the 19th century. It was filed late Tuesday in a U.S. District Court in Reno by lawyer Robert Hager. The action seeks "past and future damages for waste and trespass" and calls for the companies to "disgorge all monies and things of value" obtained as a result of controlling the lands. The defendants, in addition to Union Pacific Railroad, are BNSF Railroad Co., Newmont Gold Co., Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., Glamis Gold Inc., Nevada Land Resource Co., Sierra Pacific Power Co. and Idaho Power Co. The lawsuit would void the transfer by the United States from 1862 to 1869 of millions of acres of land to the Union Pacific Railroad Co., and attempt to recover profits from the sale, exchange, lease, development and other uses of those lands, Hager said in a statement. The United States was not named as a defendant, although Hager, on behalf of the Western Shoshones, has sued to stop the government from developing a planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Hager said the tribe has asked a U.S. District judge in Las Vegas to reconsider his dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to block the Yucca project based on the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. Judge Philip Pro ruled last year the federal court in Las Vegas lacked jurisdiction. Hager said the two actions were related because the Western Shoshone have never relinquished title to the lands. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 52 Sydney Morning Herald: Canadians bid $19.7m for uranium debutante - - smh.com.au By Barry FitzGerald January 12, 2006 URANIUM exploration stocks continue to generate fast bucks for investors, with the recently listed Hindmarsh Resources becoming the subject of a generous $19.7 million scrip-only takeover bid from Canada's Mega Uranium. The agreed offer also heralds the re-entry into the Australian uranium industry of Tony Grey, the Sydney-based Canadian lawyer who founded Pancontinental Mining in the early 1970s. Pancon was the group that discovered the rich Jabiluka deposit in the Northern Territory. The deposit, now owned by Rio Tinto, has yet to be developed after being blocked by the Hawke Labor government's ban on new uranium mines and, more recently, a power of veto on its development held by traditional landowners. Mr Grey is a director of Mega, which is headed by Canadian venture capitalist Sheldon Inwentash. Through a series of rapid-fire deals under Mr Inwentash, Mega recently secured ownership of two undeveloped uranium deposits in Queensland: Ben Lomond near Townsville and Maureen near Georgetown, Queensland. While uranium mining is banned at present in Queensland, no such problem exists in South Australia where Hindmarsh's uranium exploration is focused. Hindmarsh joined the ASX on July 11 after raising $560,000 from an issue of shares at 28c each. The raising was part of the group's conversion from a cash-box on the Newcastle Stock Exchange to a focused SA uranium explorer backed by most of the main players in the Adelaide mining market. Under the Mega offer, Hindmarsh shareholders will be offered 100 Mega shares for every 694 Hindmarsh shares. Option holders will also participate. The offer values the group's shares at 78c each based on Mega's closing price on Monday. Hindmarsh shares yesterday surged 13c to 68c in response to the offer. Hindmarsh directors said they would recommend shareholders accept the bid. Ownership of Hindmarsh will deliver tenements covering 13,600 square kilometres of SA. Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 53 SLO Trib: Supervisors will send letter urging state to study nuclear waste San Luis Obispo Tribune | 01/11/2006 | They say a study is necessary because long-term storage for high-level radioactive waste is unresolved By David Sneed The Tribune County supervisors Tuesday unanimously approved sending a letter encouraging the state Energy Commission to study the implications for California of the federal government's failure so far to open a central storage facility for high-level radioactive waste. The letter tells state energy regulators that the county is ready to work with state and federal agencies and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. "to plan for our state's energy needs and decreas(e) our county's risks from a radioactive release due to an act of terrorism, malice or insanity or to earthquake or age-related accidents." Supervisor Shirley Bianchi proposed sending the letter at the behest of San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. It's also an offshoot of a two-day Energy Commission workshop held last summer in Sacramento to study the future of nuclear power in the state. Rochelle Becker, executive director of the alliance group, said the state will need about $400,000 to complete the study. She is working to line up funding for the study among legislators statewide. The state needs to do the study, the supervisors concluded, because a proposed federal underground storage facility at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert will not open in the foreseeable future, if ever. As a result, PG&E is building a dry cask storage facility behind Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that has the capacity to hold all of the used fuel the plant will generate through 2025. "Clearly, our problem is not going away anytime soon; our options are few," said David Weisman, president of the alliance group. Eight public speakers endorsed sending the letter, and the topic generated scant discussion among the supervisors. The only area of disagreement was whether the letter should contain four quotes from U.S. senators and Yucca Mountain consultants intended to demonstrate that the future of the Yucca Mountain is questionable. PG&E asked that the quotes be taken out because two of them were from opponents of Yucca Mountain, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and served to politicize the letter. Bianchi agreed to have the quotes removed, and the letter will be sent without them. David Sneed covers environmental issues for The Tribune. ***************************************************************** 54 Salt Lake City Weekly: Whose Mine Is It? City Week - January 12, 2006 Whose Mine Is It? A new uranium boom may threaten Navajos in the Four Corners region. There isn’t any more gold in them thar Utah hills, but there is still plenty of uranium. A recent run-up in uranium prices has prospectors gearing up to mine while those still suffering ill effects of the earlier uranium booms in the Four Corners region try to stop them. The Utah office of the federal Bureau of Land Management currently lists 18,000 active mining claims on its books. That’s nearly double the 9,200 listed in October 2004. Filers don’t tell the bureau what mineral they hope to find, but BLM spokesman Don Banks said it’s a near certainty most of the today’s prospectors are looking for uranium. Uranium-ore prices rose sharply last year on reports that demand for nuclear-power-plant fuel is outstripping supply and predictions the imbalance will grow with 60 new reactors planned or under construction. Frank Bain, geologist with the BLM’s Moab field office, said uranium exploration has been nonexistent since the mid-1980s, when Utah mining petered out and prices hit $7 per pound. In the past four months, with uranium reaching $36 per pound, six exploration applications have been approved or are in progress. Officials predict a jump in those numbers if International Uranium Corporation, as rumored, reopens its White Mesa mill to process ore near Blanding. All the activity has the Navajo at the Four Corners thinking it’s only a matter of months before someone begins mucking about on Navajo land. Leaders are going all out to stop it. In April, the Navajo Nation Council banned uranium mining on Indian land, citing illness caused by earlier mining booms. The Navajo insist the ban applies to all Indian country, including portions outside the 1880 reservation boundaries where land owned by the federal government is intermixed with Navajo communities. The mining ban hasn’t stopped some large uranium companies from nosing about inside Navajo Nation. “They are acting like the Navajo Nation has taken no action that affects them,” said activist Chris Shuey, who monitors uranium for the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, N.M. Canadian company Strathmore Minerals and Michigan’s Quincy Energy have acquired mineral leases in the Eastern Agency, land east of reservation boundaries where ownership of both land and mineral rights skips in a checkerboard pattern from state to Indian to federal to private. Some of the land is within Navajo communities where residents fear mines will contaminate groundwater. Shuey said another company, Hydro Resources, is trying to bolster its claim to mining privileges using an antiquated agreement executed between the tribe and a defunct railroad dating back to a period when railroads were given mineral rights on either side of the tracks. George Hardeen, communications director for Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr., fears companies will get around the ban by lobbying the federal Interior Department for permission to mine in Indian country. He noted that the federal government has spent millions cleaning up after old uranium mills on Navajo land, and the tribal government is still working to close abandoned mines. “The Navajo people are just scratching their heads wondering how in the world can these guys come back and continue mining when the old guys never cleaned up what they left,” he said. To preempt the miners, President Shirley has lobbied Congress, hoping it will back up the Navajo Nation in an expected attempt by mining companies to assert the federal government, and not the tribe, should decide who gets to mine where. Hardeen said the tribe received favorable receptions from Utah’s delegation, particularly Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who has previously campaigned for compensation of radiation-exposure victims. A spokeswoman for Matheson would not comment. If Congress won’t support the Navajo, the issue will likely play out in court. If courts won’t uphold the ban, Hardeen isn’t sure how it will be enforced. “When the Navajo signed the Treaty of 1868 with the federal government, they agreed to lay down their arms, so it’s not as if the Navajo Nation can pick up rifles and defend its own land.” Salt Lake City Weekly and slweekly.com ©1996-2006 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All rights reserved. offices: 248 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801-575-7003 ***************************************************************** 55 Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: Nuke classes January 11, 2006 In the past few months, Nye County has conducted four classes on nuclear waste. Three were held in Pahrump at the Pahrump Valley Fire-Rescue station. The last of the classes was held in Beatty on Nov. 16. These are the first classes for Nye County residents to help them understand the subject of nuclear waste, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and waste management. I have a B.S. degree in Radiological Technology Nuclear Medicine from UNLV and work at the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office. I taught the class. The course presented information on the types of nuclear waste, the burial process of each of them and where the waste comes from. Yucca Mountain was discussed during the presentation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These discussions were lively at times and participants asked many questions about the Yucca Mountain facility and transportation. Some participants wanted reassurance that the facility would be safely operated. Most participants wanted to be informed and to stay informed on what activity is going on at Yucca Mountain before, during and after closure. The first responders in each class were concerned about safety issues, training needs and communications. The final concern expressed was if a transportation accident occurs, what would the government's response be and how quickly would they respond? Class participants indicated that the class was very informative and given at a layperson's level for all to understand. The NWRPO is considering expanding the material to Nye County residents from all backgrounds. SUSAN MOORE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL COORDINATOR For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 56 Pahrump Valley Times: Tri Cities contain tough Yucca lessons January 11, 2006 COLUMBIA VALLEY, Wash. - One section of this valley, where Lewis and Clark camped in October 1805, is called the Tri Cities. The cities so designated are Kennewick, which is the most charming and interesting; Pasco, whose heritage includes a storied early airmail route that ran from here to Elko(see, for instance, the Christopher Reeve movie "The Aviator"); and Richland, the least interesting of the three. Truth to tell, there are four cities in the Tri Cities - West Richland gave up the names of Enterprise and Heminger City to adopt a name that made it sound like an adjunct. Anyway, news from this area would seldom intrude on the nation's consciousness if it were not for another local place name - Hanford. The Hanford federal reservation on the bank of the Columbia River takes up almost 600 square miles of land. It has been used for a variety of nuclear purposes. In the 1940s a reactor here produced the nuclear material for the first and third atomic bombs exploded during the war, in New Mexico and Nagasaki. For forty years after the war a lineup of reactors cranked out plutonium for nuclear weapons exploded in Nevada and the Pacific. Wastes were kept on site. The reservation also operated a dump for low-level wastes, one of only three in the nation. The other two were at Barnwell, South Carolina and Beatty. All three dumps are closed now - though U.S. Ecology still operates a low-level dump 11 miles south of Beatty - and all three states are exempt under federal law from having to accept any more low-level wastes. In 1986 three sites were designated as candidate sites for a high-level nuclear waste dump. They were Deaf Smith, Texas, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and Hanford. The three sites were supposed to be studied for their scientific suitability for the dump. Hanford's very presence on the list was a strong tip-off that science had little to do with the search for a site. It existed on the list as a straw man. While Hanford had been used for many nuclear purposes, it was never suitable for them, and by 1986 that was widely recognized. In fact, the next year, its sole remaining mission of producing plutonium was halted and its new mission became cleanup. In the early days of atomic research, Hanford and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission enjoyed considerable political protection under the guise of national security. Accountability was subverted and the AEC abused the situation. It was once described by Washington journalist I.F. Stone as the most deceptive agency in Washington. By the time plutonium production ended in Hanford, the place was a mess. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the past two decades to try to clean it up. On top of those problems was the area itself. Although technically described as a desert valley, in fact the place is drenched in water. A system of canals and wells, along with the Columbia, Yakima and Snake rivers, crisscross the area. It's as though the place were designed to be a poor location for a nuclear waste dump. Hanover was obviously on the list of three solely in order to be eliminated. As it turned out, no such thing was needed. The state of Washington had Tom Foley in the House of Representative, the state of Texas had Jim Wright in the House of Representatives and the Elder George Bush in the vice presidency, and soon Congress had taken the two states off the list altogether with enactment of an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that became known as the Screw Nevada Bill. Meanwhile, little has changed in the behavior of the Atomic Energy Commission, which eventually evolved into other agencies that became part of today's Department of Energy. The performance ethic of the AEC is still present in DOE. The Hanford cleanup, which is costing billions of dollars, has been plagued with engineering problems, broken promises, and deception, with no end in sight. There's a private organization, Hanford Watch, which monitors and publicizes the grotesquerie. It's a great lesson for Nevadans who think they can trust DOE. Myers is a veteran capital reporter. His column, "Against the Grain," appears here on Wednesdays. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 57 Pahrump Valley Times: DOE shuts down Yucca Mountain January 11, 2006 WEIRD SCIENCE PARTIAL WORK STOPPAGE AT NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY REFLECTS SAFETY CONCERNS By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - The Department of Energy has suspended work on key segments of Yucca Mountain after whistleblowers reported more problems with nuclear waste repository design and engineering, officials confirmed. The work stoppage is the latest illustration of persistent weaknesses in how blueprints and complex analyses are compiled, documented and woven together, potentially affecting licensing and safety at the Nye County nuclear waste site. It also suggests new lengths that the Energy Department is undertaking in trying to get its arms around shortcomings, while providing critics with more bullets to fire at the proposed repository that they contend will be unsafe. DOE issued an order on Dec. 19 telling management contractor Bechtel SAIC (BSC) not to move forward on safety-related aspects of the repository until a newly formed review team could assess whether the work meets current requirements. Department spokesman Allen Benson said Thursday the order covers most key facets, including technical work on new designs for an above-ground industrial complex where nuclear waste-bearing canisters would be handled at the site 50 miles northwest of Pahrump and 20 miles east and north of Beatty and Amargosa Valley, respectively. Benson said the work suspension could take weeks or longer. The Yucca project has missed self-set deadlines in recent years and DOE has not identified a new schedule for when a repository might be opened. Outside experts have said a repository may not be completed until 2015 to 2020. In a Dec. 14 e-mail to employees, Yucca Mountain deputy director John Arthur said DOE was "suspending BSC's authority to approve design and engineering-related technical products subject to our QARD (Quality Assurance Requirements and Description) document." Critics noted DOE has been criticized repeatedly for shortcomings in work documentation and quality controls that are important elements of nuclear projects. They maintained the latest development is more of the same. "This is a stop work order, plain and simple," said Steve Frishman, a full-time technical consultant for the state of Nevada. "It's back to a problem they have had for years and years, which is design control. This is a chronic screw-up in this program." DOE officials defended their action, saying the work suspension was a tougher response than to problems in the past. They maintained it reflected a drive by new managers installed by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to fix problems once and for all on the embattled project. "This is a tough response, when you tell a contractor they no longer have the authority to submit work they are contractually required to submit because they are not following procedure," Benson said. Bechtel SAIC spokesman Jason Bohne said there was shared responsibility between the government and the contractor. "The feds direct us through the contract as to what the requirements are," Bohne said. "This is more of a 'Let's hold on and collect where we are, complete our review and move forward on the right path.'" On another front, the Energy Department and Bechtel SAIC are talking about extending the company's Yucca Mountain contract that expires in March, representatives of both parties confirmed this week although they would not discuss the negotiations. According to federal documents and government and nuclear industry officials, the problem was that Yucca requirements management guidelines and databases were allowed to become outdated. The guidelines, which are a staple in nuclear projects, are the root-level rules that lay out in detail how scientists, engineers and analysts need to document their activities in meticulous detail so they can be traced back at later times for safety, effectiveness and consistency with federal regulations and industry practices. Several repository workers who have not been identified filed internal complaints with the Yucca Mountain employee concerns program starting in August 2004. Complaints also were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A follow up DOE investigation substantiated the claims, according to John Arthur. The investigation "revealed that our project has not maintained and properly implemented its requirements management system, resulting in inadequacies in the design control process," Arthur told workers by e-mail. DOE issued 14 corrective actions in November on the topic, Benson said. Arthur reported on the matter at a Dec. 7 meeting in Las Vegas that was attended by DOE managers and staffers from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC officials expressed concern. "It appears to be a significant issue," said Elmo Collins, an NRC licensing and inspection official. The NRC is poised to evaluate a repository application whenever the Energy Department finalizes one. "We believe strong actions are required to address the current situation," Arthur said. "It just didn't get the proper management attention." For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 58 RMN: Rocky Flats grand jurors seek permission to reveal alleged misconduct Rocky Mountain News: Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News January 11, 2006 Grand jurors who have begged for nearly a decade to be allowed to disclose what they believe was prosecutorial misconduct during an investigation of environmental crimes at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant should be permitted to do so even though deadlines have passed for any criminal prosecution of wrongdoers, their lawyer told three federal appeals judges today. "We have knowledge, and are witnesses to, misconduct," said Jonathan Turley, the Washington, D.C. lawyer representing all but one of the grand jurors who served from 1989 to 1992. Turley said some deadlines for criminal prosecution may not have passed. Colorado attorney Kenneth Peck, who also served on the grand jury, argued separately that, as a lawyer, he is required by attorney ethics rules to report any lawyer misconduct he knows about to state disciplinary authorities. He said part of the alleged misconduct he observed as a grand juror involved fraud. Discussion during the oral arguments today was limited because most of the case is sealed. Judge David Ebel of Colorado, presiding over the arguments, said the three judges had decided not to close the courtroom because they believed the lawyers and judges could discuss legal issues without revealing factual allegations in the case. Government lawyer Jerry Jones argued that the grand jury secrecy rule prohibits any disclosures by grand jurors of anything that occurred before them — even if they never disclose details of what they were investigating when the alleged misconduct took place. "Grand jury secrecy has been recognized for hundreds of years as imperative to our system of criminal justice," Jones said. Colorado U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch refused in 2004 to let the grand jurors disclose what they believe was misconduct, saying Congress would have to change the grand jury secrecy rule in order for them to do so. The grand jurors then appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ***************************************************************** 59 KIFI: Confusion Over Lay Offs at INL www.localnews8.com January 10, 2006 A bit of confusion involving the INL. Despite what some of the media has posted, the INL is not laying off any employees. Rather, they are conducting a voluntary incentive separation plan. This means employees can volunteer to leave the company and receive $25,000 to do so. On top of that, each employee can get up to 26 weeks of pay based on years of service. “When we got in and saw the population, saw the work force and the various skills, we had to make adjustments. Instead of going through an involuntary layoff where we have people getting pink slips, this is a different way of doing it,” said Bill Dalton with INL. As of January 6, the INL received 338 volunteers willing to leave the company. ***************************************************************** 60 DOE: Secretary Bodman Begins Australia Visit January 11, 2006 Two day trip highlighted by Asia-Pacific Partnership inaugural meeting SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman on Wednesday began a two day visit to Australia where he will lead the United States delegation to the inaugural meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (APP). The APP brings together governments and private sector entities from Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States to encourage the deployment of clean energy technologies and international cooperation in eight areas: cleaner fossil energy; renewable and distributed generation; power generation and transmission; aluminum; steel; cement; buildings and appliances; and mining. The governments and private sectors of the APP countries have the historic opportunity to leverage the ingenuity of the private sector, the power of markets and the strength of the public sector to achieve a more secure energy future, a cleaner environment and greater prosperity in our own countries and around the world, Secretary Bodman said. The real strength of the APP is the private sectors participation and the chance for them to show leadership on these critical issues. I look forward to working with the six partner nations and the industry representatives to help the private sector succeed. Secretary Bodman joined Australian Minister of Industry, Resources and Tourism, Ian MacFarlane to host a dialogue between the government ministers and CEOs from the six APP countries. During the meeting, participants discussed new technology development and deployment and opportunities for representatives from the different nations to work together. They also discussed ways that government can create an environment where collaborations can succeed and investments can be made with confidence. In addition to leading the Business Dialogue, Secretary Bodman held bilateral meetings with Minister MacFarlane of Australia and Secretary General of the State Council, Peoples Republic of China, Hua Jianmin. Secretary Bodman will continue his visit on Thursday by leading the U.S. delegation at the APP Ministerial Conference which will formally launch the Partnership. The Secretary will also visit the University of New South Wales Center of Excellence for Advanced Silicon Photovoltaics and Photonics. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, 202/586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 61 Hanford News: Wash state, DOE settle lawsuit challenging Hanford waste shipments This story was published Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state and the U.S. Department of Energy have agreed to settle a lawsuit challenging out-of-state shipments of radioactive and hazardous waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation, the two sides announced Monday. The agreement appears to end a two-year court battle between the state and federal government over proposed waste shipments to the south-central Washington site. As part of the agreement, the Energy Department will prepare a new environmental impact statement that evaluates the potential effects of storing, treating and disposing of certain types of waste at Hanford. In exchange, the state agreed to drop its lawsuit challenging the current environmental impact statement and will play a greater role in developing the new document. The new impact statement is to be completed by 2008. The Energy Department will not ship waste to the site until the document is completed, with the exception of some waste the state had already agreed to accept at Hanford. "With this agreement, both parties will be able to shift their focus and resources away from litigation and toward partnership and our shared cleanup goals," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement. "The settlement of this lawsuit signals a new day in our cleanup efforts, where both the federal government and the state jointly address Hanford's cleanup challenges and seek common ground and quality solutions." The Energy Department manages cleanup at the 586-square-mile Hanford reservation, which is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site following 40 years of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion. "Although I'm disappointed we had to file a lawsuit to get this result, this is a great outcome for a long and contentious case," state Attorney General Rob McKenna said in a statement. "I'm very pleased the Department of Energy has agreed to re-examine the impacts of waste disposal at Hanford so we have greater confidence that future waste disposal will not increase the threat to the Columbia River." Washington sued the Energy Department in 2003 to bar shipments of offsite waste to the Hanford site on the banks of the Columbia River. The state expanded its lawsuit in 2004, challenging the adequacy of the current environmental impact statement, released that year. A judge issued a preliminary injunction barring waste shipments to the site. Then, as part of the discovery phase in that lawsuit last year, the Energy Department discovered that the current document was based on inconsistent data about the impact of waste disposal on groundwater. At the time, the department did not immediately withdraw the document but delayed any plans for shipping waste to Hanford. Under the agreement, the Energy Department will prepare a new, expanded document that includes updated, site-wide groundwater analysis. Until it is completed, no low-level, mixed low-level, transuranic or mixed transuranic waste will be shipped to the site. Low-level waste is considered mildly radioactive, and mixed waste is radioactive waste laced with hazardous chemicals. Transuranic waste, which is highly radioactive, is typically debris, such as clothing, equipment or pipes left over from nuclear weapons production. The Energy Department had planned to ship to Hanford the equivalent of about 410,000 55-gallons drums of low level and mixed low-level waste, and at least 185 drums of transuranic and mixed transuranic waste. The agreement is unrelated to another lawsuit the federal government has filed to challenge the constitutionality of Initiative 297, a voter-approved initiative barring out-of-state waste shipments to Hanford. That lawsuit remains in U.S. District Court in Eastern Washington. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 Hanford News: Review finds problems in Hanford study This story was published Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer More problems were found with data in an environmental study of solid waste disposal at the Hanford nuclear reservation in a review released Monday. The review recommended more Department of Energy oversight and improvements in Battelle's quality assurance management. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Battelle, was paid $9.6 million to work on the Hanford solid waste environmental impact statement. That study led to a DOE decision to send enough low-level and mixed low-level radioactive wastes to fill 410,000 drums to Hanford for burial. However, PNNL discovered inconsistencies in the report last year as it was preparing information to address Washington state arguments in a federal lawsuit that the study's ground water analysis was inadequate. On Monday the state and DOE agreed to a settlement in the case that stops DOE from sending most radioactive waste to the site until a new and expanded environmental study is prepared. DOE reviewed the PNNL study, sampling a fraction of the total information in the study. It found eight ground water data quality issues, in addition to the three identified by the national lab last year. It also identified 50 transportation data quality issues and five human health and safety data issues. Because some of the problems were repeated in several areas of the report, the number of unique problems is less than the 66 reported. Among the ground water errors, some would have led to the overprediction of contaminant concentrations in the water and some would have led to underpredictions, the review found. The transportation analysis of the review looked at 1,190 entries and found mislabeled electronic files, potential errors in references, inconsistencies between appendixes and data transcription or editorial errors. The review said the Richland DOE office should have provided more quality assurance oversight on the project. And it found Battelle failed to implement an appropriate quality assurance program for the project. The national lab has hired an outside organization to conduct a separate analysis to identify ways it can enhance quality assurance, project risk assessment and work acceptance processes and procedures, said lab spokesman Greg Koller. DOE did not provide a statement of work for the project, so the lab had prepared its own. As the expanded environmental study is being prepared, the state will play a larger role. There will be a clear process that allows more transparency in generating the data, working with a computer model to predict effects of waste and interpreting the data that results, said Colleen French, spokeswoman for DOE's Richland office. The new study will be done by Science Applications International Corp., or SAIC, and should be completed in 2008. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 Hanford News: DOE agrees to stop shipments of most wastes to Hanford This story was published Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy has agreed to stop shipping most types of radioactive waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation at least until a new environmental study is prepared. The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the state in federal court in 2003 to stop the shipments. DOE had proposed shipping low-level radioactive waste that would fill up to 410,000 drums holding 55 gallons each, plus some additional waste contaminated with plutonium. "Although I'm disappointed we had to file a lawsuit to get this result, this is a great outcome for a long and contentious case," said Rob McKenna, state attorney general, in a prepared statement. The agreement is intended not only to end the lawsuit, but also to move toward more cooperation and collaboration between DOE and the state. "With this agreement, both parties will be able to shift their focus and resources away from litigation and toward partnership and our shared cleanup goals," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a prepared statement. DOE has agreed not to ship transuranic waste or transuranic waste mixed with hazardous chemicals to Hanford, which was the original focus of the 2003 lawsuit. Transuranic waste is typically plutonium-contaminated debris such as laboratory equipment. The federal government planned to ship transuranic waste from other DOE sites to Hanford to be characterized and packaged for shipping to a federal repository in New Mexico. But the state feared the waste might become stranded at Hanford. DOE also has agreed to stop shipments of low-level radioactive waste and low-level waste mixed with hazardous chemicals to Hanford. In 2004 the state expanded its suit to bar DOE from sending low-level and mixed low-level waste to Hanford. The state said an environmental study prepared by DOE on importing waste was inadequate. The waste would have been permanently buried at Hanford. The agreement allows the Navy to continue sending naval reactor compartments and related equipment that may contain radioactive waste from the Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor shipyards to Hanford for disposal. It also would allow waste shipped from Hanford for testing or treatment to be returned to Hanford. U.S. Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima appeared close to ruling on the state's lawsuit last spring. He agreed DOE could ship some transuranic waste from Ohio to Hanford, but extended a ban on low-level radioactive waste shipments for 90 days to give the state more time to make arguments about potential ground water contamination. DOE was days from resuming transuranic waste shipments to Hanford when Pacific Northwest National Laboratory discovered discrepancies in its environmental study related to the effects of waste disposal on Hanford's ground water. The lab, operated by Battelle, had received $9.6 million to prepare the study. DOE stopped the planned shipments from Ohio to Hanford and began settlement discussions with the state. "Had we not filed this suit, the Department of Energy would have gone ahead and disposed of radioactive and hazardous waste based on an environmental analysis that all sides now agree is not trustworthy," McKenna said. DOE plans to expand an environmental study being prepared now on closing the oldest of Hanford's 177 underground tanks, which hold 53 million gallons of radioactive waste, to look at importing waste. It will incorporate much of the information from the earlier study on solid waste with updated information and the problems corrected. The study on tank closure would have been completed about a year earlier had the scope not been expanded to include solid waste issues. With the studies combined, the document will provide a comprehensive look at potential effects on ground water of leaving or burying radioactive and hazardous wastes at Hanford. Jay Manning, director of the Washington state Department of Ecology, said, "I'm very pleased the Department of Energy has agreed to re-examine the impacts of waste disposal at Hanford so we have greater confidence that future waste disposal will not increase the threat to the Columbia River." DOE and the state plan public meetings to determine the scope of the study, expected to be completed in 2008. Science Applications International Corp., or SAIC, will prepare the study - Battelle will not be involved, according to DOE. After that document is completed, DOE will use it for making decisions on solid waste and could again decide to send some waste to Hanford. By then, though, a second federal lawsuit on imported waste could be resolved. The agreement between the federal government and the state announced Monday does not affect a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit filed against the state asking that the Hanford waste initiative voters passed in late 2004 be declared invalid. The initiative was intended to stop the federal government from sending more waste to Hanford until waste already there is cleaned up. The site is massively contaminated from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The state will serve as a cooperating agency on the new study, providing advice and assistance to DOE. "This settlement agreement ensures that the state will have meaningful input into developing the (environmental study), which will enhance our ability to protect Hanford ground water and make better waste management decisions," Manning said. DOE and the state are expected to file court documents asking the suit be dismissed within 10 days. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. 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: *****************************************************************