***************************************************************** 02/12/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.36 ***************************************************************** 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 The stolen laptop scam 2 [NYTr] Bush ignored CIA advice on Iraq, says former spy 3 [progchat_action] US prepares military blitz against Iran's 4 Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran 5 [du-list] Iran: the next war - Pilger 6 WHY IS WASHINGTON TAKING AIM AT IRAN? 7 IRNA: Iran nuclear issue may not disrupt trade with China - daily - 8 IRNA: Iran nuclear activities has not been diverted: South African o 9 IRNA: Iran to resume nuclear research Sunday or Monday - Haddad-Adel 10 IRNA: Marchers sign parchment indicating support for Iran's nuclear 11 IRNA: President: enemies try to hinder Iran's access to nuclear ener 12 IRNA: Iranian diplomat: Iranians call for access to nuclear technolo 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Threatens New Nuclear Policy 14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Call to Freeze Nuke Program 15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reaffirms Commitment to Nuclear Pact 16 IRNA: French politician stresses on Iran's right to nuclear energy - 17 IRNA: FM: Talks to continue to resolve nuclear issue 18 IRNA: Iran merely defends its right to access peaceful nuclear energ 19 WorldNetDaily: Sanction the IAEA Board, not Iran 20 IRNA: President lambasts Western attitude towards Iran's peaceful nu 21 AFP: Iran raises the stakes in nuclear dispute 22 AFP: Khatami warns of higher oil prices if UN sanctions Iran - 23 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Iran could revise its nuclear strategy 24 AFP: Iran says committed to NPT - for now 25 AFP: US drawing up plans for Iran attack 26 IRNA: Iranian diplomat: Iranians call for access to nuclear technolo 27 IRNA: Venezuela strongly supports Iran's nuclear program 28 Korea Times: NK Sending Positive Signals to Outside World 29 AFP: NKorea warns Seoul of "nuclear war" over US-led WMD drill - 30 asahi.com: Ex-diplomat confirms secret Okinawa deal 31 US: SF Chronicle: Bush pushes to increase defense spending / Jump of 32 US: Tri-Valley Herald - Op-Ed: Will U.S. sustain commitment to alter 33 US: Public Citizen: Public Citizen Unveils the “Ethics Hall of Shame 34 France secretly upgrades capacity of nuclear arsenal 35 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Skeptical of Democracy in Russia 36 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Leaders Reach Out to Rogue Regimes 37 Times of India: India's atomic establishment a hurdle - US expert- 38 HindustanTimes.com: 'India has to compromise for N-deal' 39 HindustanTimes.com: Nuke deal: Be cautious with the US 40 Xinhua: Ukrainian ambassador: China's development poses no threat 41 Xinhua: G8 finance ministers grapple with global economy, energy 42 ITAR-TASS: Russia observes strictly non-proliferation regime – DM 43 US: Op Ed News: Whistleblowers Are Not Protected, Mr. Goss 44 Telegraph: Bomb that ticks on N-deal NUCLEAR REACTORS 45 US: Wall Street Journal: Nuclear industry plans ad push for plants 46 US: Arizona Republic: Palo Verde's costly slump 47 US: The State: Fairfield County proposed as site 4 2 nuclear power p 48 US: The State: Plants economic impact uncertain 49 US: Charlotte Observer: Nuclear plants, NRC ready to grow 50 US: AP Wire: Nuclear power plant officials contest critics' claims 51 US: Fredericksburg.com: Reactor plan changes delay decision 52 US: Deseret News: Trust thermal nuclear energy 53 BBC: ON THIS DAY | 12 | 1954: New authority for atomic energy 54 US: newsobserver.com: Risks at nuclear plant 55 US: Las Vegas SUN: Letter: First, let's study nuclear plants already 56 US: Rutland Herald: Self-made electricity program may grow 57 US: SF Chronicle: Nuclear power plans surge ahead / 14 new plants se 58 US: SF Chronicle: Nuclear moves to front burner / Bush push for ener 59 US: IndyStar.com: Energy sector unsure how to tackle woes 60 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek: Vessel won't collapse | 61 US: APP.COM: Human error hurts plant's safety record | 62 US: Inside Bay Area: New nukes are an unnecessary evil 63 US: Wisconsin State Journal: Utility workers' donations to Doyle sta 64 US: Public Citizen: SCE, Santee Cooper Should Not Receive Taxpayer NUCLEAR SECURITY 65 US: Las Vegas SUN: Terror threat not weighed in assessing nuke wast NUCLEAR SAFETY 66 [du-list] Irish govt. will plead ignorance in future USUK DU 67 US: www.azstarnet.com: New therapy points to better life | 68 US: APP.COM: Near-miss prompts safety wake-up call NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 69 US: Deseret News: Utah's latest wilds area not just about scenery 70 ForUm: Ukraine to produce nuclear fuel 71 US: The State: Industry critics worry about nuclear waste from addit 72 US: Deseret News: BLM seeking comment on nuclear-waste plan 73 US: Deseret News: Huntsman threatens vetoes 74 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca in need of repair after nine years 75 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department seeks control of land near Yucca 76 Las Vegas SUN: Brian Greenspun wonders how Bush's 'state' 77 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Report is no endorsement 78 US: All Headline News: Safely Transporting Radioactive Spent Fuel St 79 US: Hanford News: Report supports safe shipments of nuclear waste 80 US: globeandmail.com: The atom may be the future -- again 81 US: Post and Courier: S.C. utilities settle lawsuit over waste 82 US: Herald Journal: Hatch heart-to-heart (Skull Valley buried) 83 US: Earth & Sky: Nuclear waste recycling pros and cons PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 84 Contra Costa Times: Livermore fallout shelters are relics of a bygon 85 Hanford News: Science panel concludes nuclear waste transport genera 86 Hanford News: Cantwell questions proposals for cuts 87 lamonitor.com: Nuclear energy revival gains steam in U.S. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 The stolen laptop scam Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:31:04 -0600 (CST) THANKS CR: =========== In November the NYT published an article by BROAD and SANGER indicating U$ reliance on the contents of a stolen laptop for a claim that Iran has designed a nuclear warhead ... The text of that article is provided below. Within days of that publication David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, wrote to the NYT his critique of the Broad & Sanger piece - there followed correspondence between Albright and the NYT, [See ] of which Albright's letter is one item, but in aany even the NYT did not publish his letter, and it seems reliance on the stolen laptop for "evidence" of IRAN's nuclear stance continues to this day. Except that German TV has now live-interviewed David Albright on the laptop scam - Albright repeats what he noted to the NYT -- that the laptop report did not mention nukes, but was about conventional missiles, in accord with the official Iranian line. On TV David Albright also explained the usual U$ strategy -- as before the Iraq invasion - the U$ warlords doesn't claim to have direct intelligence of Iranian nuclear intentions, but they have leaked the "stolen laptop content" to the press, which then leaves it to the NYT to exagerrate as to what is alleged. WMD's in Iraq, nukes in Iran the U$ warlords can quote the press about the big threats... in spite of the facts. It's called "fake advertising" . Michael =============== http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/lettertonyt.html Following is a copy of a Letter to the Editor sent to the New York Times: [ extracted from file at .] To Whom it May Concern, The November 13, 2005 New York Times article "Relying on Computer, US Seeks to Prove Irans Nuclear Aims" has a deep and misleading flaw. William J. Broad and David E. Sanger repeatedly characterize the contents of computer files as containing information about a nuclear warhead design when the information actually describes a reentry vehicle for a missile. This distinction is not minor, and Broad should understand the difference between the two objects, particularly when the information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead. The "black box" carried by the re-entry vehicle may appear to be a nuclear warhead, but the documents do not state what the warhead is. In addition, much of what Broad and Sanger report has been reported elsewhere, including the important information about "a sphere of detonators meant to ignite conventional explosives"(see Agence France Press article by Michael Adler on October 9, 2005). These earlier and more accurate articles did not confuse a nuclear warhead with a reentry vehicle. By replacing warhead with re-entry vehicle throughout the article, the reasons for a healthy skepticism would also become more understandable. For example, a key question becomes much more clear, namely whether this work was initiated by an Iranian missile team on its own, or whether this work was ordered by Irans political leadership as part of a concerted nuclear weapons effort? Another important question that is sidestepped by the misleading use of warhead in the article is whether Iran can build the relatively small nuclear warhead able to fit into the triconic re-entry vehicle apparent in photos of a 2004 flight test. Based on publicly available photos of the 2004 test launch, the nuclear warhead would require a diameter of about 600 millimeters. Achieving such a diameter would be challenging for Iran. For example, the diameter of the warhead in the design provided to Libya (and perhaps to Iran) by A.Q. Khan was about 900 millimeters. A legitimate question is whether Iran could successfully build such a small nuclear warhead without outside help. Sincerely, David Albright President of the Institute for Science and International Security ################ http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1157 11/18/2005 Former weapons inspector questions New York Times Iran intelligence story Former UN weapons inspector David Albright has raised questions about the accuracy of a November 13 New York Times story on US intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program and what the Bush administration say is evidence that Iran may be attempting to develop nuclear warheads for a ballistic missile capable of striking Israel and other Middle East countries. Albright, who worked with the team evaluating Iraq's nuclear weapons program during the post-Gulf War I 1990's, said in an unpublished letter to the Times' editors that the story, "Relying on Computer, US Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims," has what he characterizes as "a deep and misleading flaw." William J. Broad and David E. Sanger repeatedly characterize the contents of computer files as containing information about a nuclear warhead design when the information actually describes a reentry vehicle for a missile. This distinction is not minor, and Broad should understand the difference between the two objects, particularly when the information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead. The "black box" carried by the re-entry vehicle may appear to be a nuclear warhead, but the documents do not state what the warhead is. In addition, much of what Broad and Sanger report has been reported elsewhere, including the important information about "a sphere of detonators meant to ignite conventional explosives" (see Agence France Press article by Michael Adler on October 9, 2005). These earlier and more accurate articles did not confuse a nuclear warhead with a reentry vehicle. By replacing warhead with re-entry vehicle throughout the article, the reasons for a healthy skepticism would also become more understandable. For example, a key question becomes much more clear, namely whether this work was initiated by an Iranian missile team on its own, or whether this work was ordered by Iran's political leadership as part of a concerted nuclear weapons effort? Another important question that is sidestepped by the misleading use of warhead in the article is whether Iran can build the relatively small nuclear warhead able to fit into the triconic re-entry vehicle apparent in photos of a 2004 flight test. Based on publicly available photos of the 2004 test launch, the nuclear warhead would require a diameter of about 600 millimeters. Achieving such a diameter would be challenging for Iran. For example, the diameter of the warhead in the design provided to Libya (and perhaps to Iran) by A.Q. Khan was about 900 millimeters. A legitimate question i s whether Iran could successfully build such a small nuclear warhead without outside help. Albright also spoke and corresponded with Broad, the newspaper's science witer, and with Broad's and Sanger's editor on the story, Matthew Purdy. Broad responded at some length to Albright's criticisms Q and expressed unhappiness that Albright hadn't returned Broad's calls before going public with his criticisms Q although not to Albright's satisfaction, while Purdy simply said the reporters had gotten the story right. The full correspondence between Albright and Broad and Purdy is here (Adobe Acrobat document) . Albright's concerns about the accuracy of the story may have something to do with the way intelligence was used by the US government and reported by the press during the marketing of the Iraq war. The Times, of course, has already apologized for their editorial missteps and, after a fashion, for the unambiguously terrible reporting by Times superstar Judith Miller. Miller's reporting is now notorious for overstating the case that Iraq had active nuclear and chemical weapons programs and for understating the evidence against those claims; Albright presumably thinks the national interest would be well served by not repeating those sorts of errors, deliberately or not, with respect to Iran. Deliberately or not, Broad and co-author David Sanger imply early on in their story that International Atomic Energy Association head Mohammed ElBaradei either agrees with or doesn't dispute the administration's assessment of the intelligence in question, and they use language that, probably unintentionally, evokes the specter of another false-advertising campaign by the Bush administration. In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer. [I] The briefing for officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, including its director Mohamed ElBaradei, was a secret part of an American campaign to increase international pressure on Iran. But while the intelligence has sold well among countries like Britain, France and Germany, which reviewed the documents as long as a year ago, it has been a tougher sell with countries outside the inner circle. Any sentence that includes the words and phrases "intelligence," "sold well" and "inner circle" in conjunction with one another is cause for alarm. The clear implication in the early portions of the story is that ElBaradei and the IAEA signed on to the US assessment of the intelligence. The mention of ElBaradei, an outspoken critic of the administration's claims regarding Iraq's nuclear program before the invasion, seems to signal that the situation now is different. In some respects, it is Q there is no question that whatever the purpose, Iran has a well-developed nuclear program. But in fact, as we learn some 2800 words into the 3,000-word story, ElBaradei hasn't signed on with the US assessment because the US hasn't declassified parts of the intelligence the IAEA needs. The Iranians have taken steps to forestall any penalties. After months of delays, they have allowed inspectors into a secret military site, shared more information about the history of their program, and signaled a willingness to reopen negotiations, even while vowing to continue turning raw uranium into a gas that can be enriched. Those steps may convince some atomic agency board members. And at least two countries rotating onto the board for the next meeting - Cuba and Syria - are almost certain to defy Washington. (In September, only Venezuela voted with Tehran.) Given those politics, the fresh intelligence that the United States says proves Iran's true intentions may not be pivotal in the long confrontation with Tehran. One reason is that the United States has so far refused to declassify the warhead information, making it impossible to seek a detailed explanation from the Iranians. Dr. ElBaradei said his agency was bound to "follow due process, which means I need to establish the veracity, consistency and authenticity of any intelligence, and share it with the country of concern." In this case, he added, "That has not happened." [emphasis ours] The US may have good reason for withholding from ElBaradei and his organization with the intelligence they need to confront Iran. But as Iraq has demonstrated, the US may equally well have bad reasons for doing so, or good reasons for bad purposes. In the wake of what even the Times recognizes was an abysmal job reporting on the runup and immediate aftermath of the war in Iraq, the paper should be aware of the need to be particularly cautious in dealing with subjects such as this one. In this instance, that caution doesn't seem to be in evidence. Maybe it's classified. ######################### Here's what the NYT actually published last Novemeber http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4399 Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims The Laptop By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER NYTimes November 13, 2005 In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer. The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting. The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East. The briefing for officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, including its director Mohamed ElBaradei, was a secret part of an American campaign to increase international pressure on Iran. But while the intelligence has sold well among countries like Britain, France and Germany, which reviewed the documents as long as a year ago, it has been a tougher sell with countries outside the inner circle. The computer contained studies for crucial features of a nuclear warhead, said European and American officials who had examined the material, including a telltale sphere of detonators to trigger an atomic explosion. The documents specified a blast roughly 2,000 feet above a target - considered a prime altitude for a nuclear detonation. Nonetheless, doubts about the intelligence persist among some foreign analysts. In part, that is because American officials, citing the need to protect their source, have largely refused to provide details of the origins of the laptop computer beyond saying that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a longtime contact in Iran. Moreover, this chapter in the confrontation with Iran is infused with the memory of the faulty intelligence on Iraq's unconventional arms. In this atmosphere, though few countries are willing to believe Iran's denials about nuclear arms, few are willing to accept the United States' weapons intelligence without question. "I can fabricate that data," a senior European diplomat said of the documents. "It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt." Robert G. Joseph, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, who led the July briefing, declined to discuss any classified material from the session but acknowledged the existence of the warhead intelligence. He called it one of many indicators "that together lead to the conclusion Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability." Even if the documents accurately reflect Iran's advances in designing a nuclear warhead, Western arms experts say that Iran is still far away from producing the radioactive bomb fuel that would form the warhead's heart. American intelligence agencies recently estimated that Iran would have a working nuclear weapon no sooner than the early years of the next decade. Still, nuclear analysts at the international atomic agency studied the laptop documents and found them to be credible evidence of Iranian strides, European diplomats said. A dozen officials and nuclear weapons experts in Europe and the United States with detailed knowledge of the intelligence said in interviews that they believed it reflected a concerted effort to develop a warhead. "They've worked problems that you don't do unless you're very serious," said a European arms official. "This stuff is deadly serious." In fact, some nations that were skeptical of the intelligence on Iraq - including France and Germany - are deeply concerned about what the warhead discovery could portend, according to several officials. But the Bush administration, seeming to understand the depth of its credibility problem, is only talking about the laptop computer and its contents in secret briefings, more than a dozen so far. And even while President Bush is defending his pronouncements before the war about Iraq's unconventional weapons, he has never publicly referred to the Iran documents. R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who has coordinated the Iran issue with the Europeans, also declined to discuss the intelligence, but insisted that the Bush administration's approach was one of "careful, quiet diplomacy designed to increase international pressure on Iran to do one thing: abandon its nuclear weapons designs and return to negotiations with European countries." Until now, there has been only one official reference to them: a year ago in a conversation with reporters, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, briefly referred to new, missile-related intelligence on Iran. Since then, reports in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and other publications have revealed some details of the intelligence, including that the United States has obtained thousands of pages of Iranian documents on warhead development. In interviews in recent weeks, analysts and officials from six countries in Europe and Asia revealed a more extensive picture of the intelligence briefings. In turn, several American officials confirmed the intelligence. All who spoke did so on the condition of anonymity, saying they had pledged to keep the intelligence secret, though it is being discussed by an array of senior government officials and International Atomic Energy Agency board members. Officials said scientists at the American weapons labs, as well as foreign analysts, had examined the documents for signs of fraud. It was a particular concern given the fake documents that emerged several years ago purporting to show that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Officials said they found the warhead documents, written in Persian, convincing because of their consistency and technical accuracy and because they showed a progression of developmental work from 2001 to early 2004. Within the United States government, "the nature and the history of the source has left everyone pretty confident that this is the real thing," said a former senior American intelligence official who was briefed on the laptop. But one nongovernment expert cautioned that the intelligence could simply represent the work of a faction in Iran. "What we don't know is whether this is the uncoordinated effort of a particularly ambitious sector of the rocket program or is it, as some allege, a step-by-step effort to field a nuclear weapon within this decade," said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said he had not seen the secret documents. The Iranians themselves deny any knowledge of the warhead plans. "We are sure that there are no such documents in Iran," Ali A. Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and the country's chief nuclear negotiator, said in an interview in Tehran. "I have no idea what they have or what they claim to have. We just hear the claims." As a measure of the skepticism the Bush administration faces, officials said the American ambassador to the international atomic agency, Gregory L. Schulte, was urging other countries to consult with his French counterpart. "On Iraq we disagreed, and on Iran we completely agree," a senior State Department official said. "That gets attention." INSPECTORS AND SECRET SITES For years, American intelligence agencies argued that Iran was hiding a range of nuclear facilities. Then, in February 2003, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency went to Iran and confirmed reports of two secret sites under construction that could make concentrated uranium and plutonium, standard fuels for nuclear arms. At Natanz, in central Iran, they found preparations for more than 50,000 whirling centrifuges meant to purify uranium. At Arak, to the west, they found construction of a heavy-water plant and reactor meant to make plutonium. Iran insisted the sites were for conducting peaceful research and making fuel for nuclear power, and were kept secret to evade American-led penalties on sales of atomic technology to Iran. Over time, a string of revelations challenged that explanation, even as inspectors eventually uncovered at least seven secret nuclear sites. In August 2003, agency inspectors discovered traces of uranium concentrated to the high levels necessary for a bomb, rather than the low levels for a power-producing reactor. Some of the uranium was shown to have arrived in Iran on nuclear equipment purchased from Pakistan, but a European diplomat disclosed that the origin of the rest was still a mystery. Then there were questions about what Iran had obtained from the atomic black market run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani rogue nuclear engineer. Iran has acknowledged buying from Dr. Khan, but the extent of those dealings is still under investigation. By late 2003, many government and nongovernment experts agreed that Iran was rapidly progressing. "Most people," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington, "believed that they had mastered the essential capabilities and had the potential to develop what they needed to make a bomb." Diplomacy aimed at defusing Iran moved haltingly. Tehran agreed to suspend the enrichment of uranium as it negotiated with the West over the fate of its atom program, but months later began making uranium hexafluoride, the raw material for enrichment. If Iran hid parts of its atomic program, it boldly displayed its missiles. And in August 2004, it conducted a test that deepened suspicions that it was at work on a nuclear warhead. Tehran test-fired an upgraded version of the Shahab - shooting star in Persian - in a flight that featured the first appearance of an advanced nose cone made up of three distinct shapes. Missile experts noted that such triconic nose cones have great range, accuracy and stability in flight, but less payload space. Therefore, experts say, they have typically been used to carry nuclear arms. Iran insists it is pursuing only peaceful energy, and notes that nations like Japan, South Korea and Brazil have advanced civilian nuclear programs and sophisticated missiles, but have been aided by the West in building their programs rather than being accused of trying to make atomic warheads. "Second-class countries are allowed to produce only tomato paste," said Mr. Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator. "The problem is that Iran has come out of its shell and is trying to have advanced technology." A LAPTOP'S CONTENTS American officials have said little in their briefings about the origins of the laptop, other than that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a source in Iran who they said had received it from a second person, now believed to be dead. Foreign officials who have reviewed the intelligence speculate that the laptop was used by someone who worked in the Iranian nuclear program or stole information from it. One senior arms expert said the material was so voluminous that it appeared to be the work of a team of engineers. Without revealing the source of the computer, American intelligence officials insisted that it had not come from any Iranian resistance groups, whose claims about Iran's nuclear program have had a mixed record for accuracy. In July, as the Bush administration began stepping up the pressure on the United Nations to take punitive action against Tehran, it decided to brief Dr. ElBaradei on the contents of the laptop. The session on July 18 on the top floor of the American mission in Vienna was a meeting of former rivals. Before the Iraq war, Dr. ElBaradei had attracted the wrath of the Bush administration by declaring that his agency had found no evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program. And the administration had tried to oust Dr. ElBaradei, an Egyptian, from his post, partly because they found him insufficiently tough on Iran. The briefing primarily revealed computer simulations and studies of various warhead configurations rather than laboratory work or reports on test flights, according to officials in Europe and the United States. But one American official said notations indicated that the Iranians had performed experiments. "This wasn't just some theoretical exercise," he said. In an interview, Dr. ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in October, declined to discuss the secret briefing. Assessing just how far the Iranians have gone from plan to product is difficult. "It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that beautiful pictures represent reality," a senior intelligence official said. "But that may not be the case." One major revelation was work done on a sphere of detonators meant to ignite conventional explosives that, in turn, compress the radioactive fuel to start the nuclear chain reaction. The documents also wrestled with how to position a heavy ball - presumably of nuclear fuel - inside the warhead to ensure stability and accuracy during the fiery plunge toward a target. And a bomb exploding at a height of about 2,000 feet, as envisioned by the documents, suggests a nuclear weapon, analysts said, since that altitude is unsuitable for conventional, chemical or biological arms. After more than a year of analysis, questions remain about the trove's authenticity. "Even with the best intelligence, you always ask yourself, 'Was this prepared for my eyes?' " one American official said. Several intelligence experts said that a sophisticated Western spy agency could, in theory, have produced the contents of the laptop. But American officials insisted there was no evidence of such fraud. Gary Samore, the head of nonproliferation at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, who recently directed a report on Iran that drew on interviews with government officials in many nations, said, "The most convincing evidence that the material is genuine is that the technical work is so detailed that it would be difficult to fabricate." AN UNCLASSIFIED BRIEFING In August and September, as the United States was preparing for a showdown vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency on whether to recommend action by the United Nations Security Council against Iran, the Bush administration stepped up its campaign. The United States rarely shares raw intelligence outside a small circle of close allies. But it decided to disseminate a shortened version of the secret warhead briefing. Mr. Joseph and his colleagues presented it to the president of Ghana and to officials from Argentina, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Nigeria, among other nations. But the administration felt uncomfortable sharing any classified intelligence with another ring of countries. For them, it developed the equivalent of the white paper on Iraq that Britain and the United States published before the Iraq war. The 43-page unclassified briefing includes no reference to the warhead documents, but uses commercial satellite photos and economic analysis to argue that Iran has no need for nuclear power and has long hidden its true ambitions. Analysts from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory wrote the briefing paper for the State Department, which distributed it widely. In graphic detail, the paper offers a tour of the previously hidden sites, saying, for instance, that a "dummy" building at the centrifuge plant in Natanz hides a secret entrance ramp to an underground factory. The briefing asserted that Iran did not have enough proven uranium reserves to fuel its nuclear power program beyond 2010. But it does have enough uranium, the report added, "to give Iran a significant number of nuclear weapons." The briefing landed with something of a thud. Some officials found its arguments superficial and inconclusive. "Yeah, so what?" said one European expert who heard the briefing. "How do you know what you're shown on a slide is true given past experience?" Even so, the American campaign helped produce a consensus among International Atomic Energy Agency board members, although a fragile one. On Sept. 24, the board passed the resolution against Iran by a vote of 22 to 1, with 12 countries abstaining, including China and Russia. It cited Iran for "a long history of concealment and deception" and repeated failure to live up to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it signed in 1970. The resolution said Iran's failings had set it up for consideration by the Security Council for possible punishment with economic penalties, though it left the timing of the referral to a future meeting. Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, denounced the resolution as "illegal and illogical" and the result of a "planned scenario determined by the United States." DEBATING THE NEXT STEP On Thanksgiving, Nov. 24, the board of the international atomic agency plans to meet again to confront the Iranian nuclear question - and decide whether to take the next step and send the issue to the Security Council. The Bush administration is confident in its evidence. "There is not a single country we deal with that does not believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon," said Mr. Burns, the under secretary of state. The Iranians have taken steps to forestall any penalties. After months of delays, they have allowed inspectors into a secret military site, shared more information about the history of their program, and signaled a willingness to reopen negotiations, even while vowing to continue turning raw uranium into a gas that can be enriched. Those steps may convince some atomic agency board members. And at least two countries rotating onto the board for the next meeting - Cuba and Syria - are almost certain to defy Washington. (In September, only Venezuela voted with Tehran.) Given those politics, the fresh intelligence that the United States says proves Iran's true intentions may not be pivotal in the long confrontation with Tehran. One reason is that the United States has so far refused to declassify the warhead information, making it impossible to seek a detailed explanation from the Iranians. Dr. ElBaradei said his agency was bound to "follow due process, which means I need to establish the veracity, consistency and authenticity of any intelligence, and share it with the country of concern." In this case, he added, "That has not happened." European nations and the international atomic agency are now working out details of a new proposal that offers Tehran the chance to conduct very limited nuclear activities in Iran, but move any enrichment of uranium to Russia - part of the effort to keep the country from obtaining the nuclear fuel that could go atop the Shahab missile. Some European diplomats are concerned that confronting the Iranians with strong evidence of the warhead studies could cause Tehran to abandon negotiations with the West, expel international inspectors and move forward with its plans, whatever they may be. "It's a card that will explode the system in place, so the question becomes when and how you play it," a senior European diplomat said. "If there is information that can serve to make progress with the Iranians, without blowing up the system, that's better." ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Bush ignored CIA advice on Iraq, says former spy Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:21:57 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Guardian via Info Clearing House - Feb 11, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article11862.htm Bush ignored CIA advice on Iraq, says former spy By Julian Borger in Washington 02/11/06 "The Guardian"--The CIA official in charge of intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of ignoring assessments that sanctions and weapons inspections were the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that an invasion would have a "messy aftermath". In an article in the next edition of the bimonthly journal, Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, has become the highest-ranking CIA official from the prewar period to accuse the White House of manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. The allegations contradict the findings of two official inquiries into the intelligence debacle, which have largely blamed the CIA and absolved the administration. They also emerged on the day it was reported that Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told a grand jury that he had been "ordered" by "his superiors" to leak classified WMD information to the press to bolster the case for going to war. The White House made no direct response to Mr Pillar's claims. Mr Pillar said the White House had simply ignored intelligence that did not conform with its intention to invade. "It went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." The "broadly held" intelligence assessment, he said, was that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections programme to supplement the sanctions already in place. "If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war - or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath." Mr Pillar said a CIA assessment of the implications of a US-led occupation had "presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition", including guerrilla attacks and sectarian conflict. ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [progchat_action] US prepares military blitz against Iran's Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:53:50 -0600 (CST) US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites By Philip Sherwell in Washington (Filed: 12/02/2006) Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb. Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt. They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months." The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling. The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack. Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme. Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices. The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated". Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran." Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years. By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic. In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He was defiant over possible economic sanctions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml& sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ***************************************************************** 4 Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:46:28 -0600 (CST) In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. MOSCOW: Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said on Thursday that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks. "We concluded a contract for the supply of air-defence systems to Iran and there is no reason not to fulfil it," Mikhail Dmitriyev, the head of Russia's military-technical cooperation agency, said. Worth an estimated $700 million, the deal for up to 30 Tor M-1 surface-to-air missiles is the largest since Russia in 2000 withdrew from an agreement with the US restricting the supply of military hardware to Iran. Dmitriyev rejected media reports that talks were underway for the additional supply of heavier S-300 air-defence missiles. Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has stressed that the Tor is a defensive system and that the sale does not violate Russia's international obligations. The weapon is effective against aircraft, cruise missiles and guided bombs. There was no indication when the systems would be shipped to Iran. The missiles are expected to be deployed at the nuclear research centre at Isfahan and the reactor that Russia is completing for Iran at the southern port of Bushehr. According to Dmitriyev, Russia's overall exports of arms in 2005 were worth a record $6.1 billion. The sales target for 2006 is $7 billion, he added. The main customers for Russian military hardware are China and India. ***************************************************************** 5 [du-list] Iran: the next war - Pilger Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:19:15 -0800 http://www.newstatesman.com/nscoverstory.htm THE NEXT WAR Iran: the next war Bush and Blair are gearing up for it, and they are preparing us, too - just as they did before attacking Iraq. But where is the threat? By John Pilger Has Tony Blair, the minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilised world and brought carnage to a defenceless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of a hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes? Perhaps he is seriously unstable now, as some have suggested. Power does bring a certain madness to its prodigious abusers, especially those of shallow disposition. In The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam, the great American historian Barbara Tuchman described Lyndon B Johnson, the president whose insane policies took him across his Rubicon in Vietnam. "He lacked [John] Kennedy's ambivalence, born of a certain historical sense and at least some capacity for reflective thinking," she wrote. "Forceful and domineering, a man infatuated with himself, Johnson was affected in his conduct of Vietnam policy by three elements in his character: an ego that was insatiable and never secure; a bottomless capacity to use and impose the powers of his office without inhibition; a profound aversion, once fixed upon a course of action, to any contradictions." That, demonstrably, is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the cabal that has seized power in Washington. But there is a logic to their idiocy - the goal of dominance. It also describes Blair, for whom the only logic is vainglorious. And now he is threatening to take Britain into the nightmare on offer in Iran. His Washington mentors are unlikely to ask for British troops, not yet. At first, they will prefer to bomb from a safe height, as Bill Clinton did in his destruction of Yugoslavia. They are aware that, like the Serbs, the Iranians are a serious people with a history of defending themselves and who are not stricken by the effects of a long siege, as the Iraqis were in 2003. When the Iranian defence minister promises "a crushing response", you sense he means it. Listen to Blair in the House of Commons: "It's important we send a signa] of strength" against a regime that has "forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its international obligations". Coming from one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbour, scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words. However, they begin to make sense when you read Blair's Commons speeches on Iraq of 25 February and 18 March 2003. In both crucial debates - the latter leading to the disastrous vote on the invasion - he used the same or similar expressions to lie that he remained committed to a peaceful resolution. "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament..." he said. From the revelations in Philippe Sands's book Lawless World, the scale of his deception is clear. On 31 January 2003, Bush and Blair confirmed their earlier secret decision to attack Iraq. Like the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has a secret agenda that has nothing to do with the Tehran regime's imaginary weapons of mass destruction. That Washington has managed to coerce enough members of the International Atomic Energy Agency into participating in a diplomatic charade is no more than reminiscent of the way it intimidated and bribed the "international community" into attacking Iraq in 1991. Iran offers no "nuclear threat". There is not the slightest evidence that it has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Iran has done nothing illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation of a foreign country - unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to allow inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything" - unlike the US and Israel. The latter has refused to recognise the NPT, and has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states. Those who flout the rules of the NPT are America's and Britain's anointed friends. Both India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear weapons secretly and in defiance of the treaty. The Pakistani military dictatorship has openly exported its nuclear technology. In Iran's case, the excuse that the Bush regime has seized upon is the suspension of purely voluntary "confidence-building" measures that Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany in order to placate the US and show that it was "above suspicion". Seals were placed on nuclear equipment following a concession given, some say foolishly, by Iranian negotiators and which had nothing to do with Iran?s obligations under the NPT. Iran has since claimed back its "inalienable right" under the terms of the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. There is no doubt this decision reflects the ferment of political life in Tehran and the tension between radical and conciliatory forces, of which the bellicose new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is but one voice. As European governments seemed to grasp for a while, this demands true diplomacy, especially given the history. For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Muhammed Mossadeq, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran. They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called Savak, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world - in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain. At the same time, Iran has lived with the real threat of an Israeli attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, about which the "international community" has remained silent. Recently, one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, wrote: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and I don't know if they?re developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy." It is hardly surprising that the Tehran regime has drawn the "lesson" of how North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, has successfully seen off the American predator without firing a shot. During the cold war, British "nuclear deterrent" strategists argued the same justification for arming the nation with nuclear weapons; the Russians were coming, they said. As we are aware from declassified files, this was fiction, unlike the prospect of an American attack on Iran, which is very real and probably imminent. Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro- based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding 8 trillion dollars and a trade deficit of more than 600 billion dollars. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be 2 trillion dollars. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked. While the Pentagon has no plans to occupy all of Iran, it has in its sights a strip of land that runs along the border with Iraq. This is Khuzestan, home to 90 per cent of Iran's oil. "The first step taken by an invading force," reported Beirut's Daily Star, "would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply." On 28 January the Iranian government said that it had evidence of British undercover attacks in Khuzestan, including bombings, over the past year. Will the newly emboldened Labour MPs pursue this? Will they ask what the British army based in nearby Basra - notably the SAS - will do if or when Bush begins bombing Iran? With control of the oil of Khuzestan and Iraq and, by proxy, Saudi Arabia, the US will have what Richard Nixon called "the greatest prize of all". But what of Iran's promise of "a crushing response"? Last year, the Pentagon delivered 500 "bunker-busting" bombs to Israel. Will the Israelis use them against a desperate Iran? Bush's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review cites "pre-emptive" attack with so-called low-yield nuclear weapons as an option. Will the militarists in Washington use them, if only to demonstrate to the rest of us that, regardless of their problems with Iraq, they are able to "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major-theatre wars", as they have boasted? That a British prime minister should collude with even a modicum of this insanity is cause for urgent action on this side of the Atlantic. With thanks to Mike Whitney. John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, will be published by Bantam Press in June. First published in the New Statesman - www.newstatesman.co.uk - ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/06 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 6 WHY IS WASHINGTON TAKING AIM AT IRAN? Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:52:32 -0600 (CST) http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/575/575_12_Iran.shtml A step closer to military action By Lee Sustar | Socialist Worker -- February 10, 2006 | Page 12 THE U.S. government's escalating threats against Iran over its nuclear program are really aimed at breaking Washington's impasse in Iraq -- even at the risk of plunging the Middle East into a wider war. The decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for review is intended not only to ratchet up pressure on the Iranian government to abandon its efforts to enrich nuclear fuel, but to pressure Iran to abandon its influence over the Shiite Muslim-dominated government in Iraq. Iran's plans to enrich uranium don't, in fact, violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, European Union negotiators rejected Iran's offer for a two-year moratorium on nuclear enrichment, deliberately heightening tensions. Meanwhile, the IAEA leaked a confidential report that alleges it discovered a "military-nuclear dimension " to Iran's program. In response, Iran has withdrawn from the NPT inspection process, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that there would be no more diplomacy over the issue. With leading Democrats pressuring Bush from the right for a tougher line on Iran, the possibility of a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear installations looms behind the latest maneuvering. "A military confrontation is a sobering prospect, " a Chicago Tribune editorial declared. "But once Iran has nuclear weapons, a military confrontation becomes far, far more dangerous. " Moreover, with Israeli politics in turmoil following the illness of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian Authority elections, the chances are greater that the next Israeli government will make good on Sharon's threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared last month that "Israel will not accept Iran's nuclear armament, " adding that Israel would take military action to prevent the development of such weapons. Iran's Ahmadinejad recently gave speeches in which he said Israel should be "wiped off the map " -- and vowed to hit back at the U.S. and Israel in the event of an attack, implying that the response could come from Iran's allies in Iraq, Syria and the Shiite Muslim Hezbollah party in Lebanon. The political stage is therefore set for a replay of the 2002 buildup to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- complete with unsubstantiated allegations of weapons programs pumped up by the New York Times. The Times' David Sanger -- assuming the role Judith Miller played in hyping the threat of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction " -- last November cited anonymous U.S. intelligence sources who claimed to have found evidence of a nuclear weapons program on a laptop computer smuggled out of Iran. This time around, however, all the main European powers are supporting Washington's tough line. Where former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder opposed the Iraq war, his conservative successor, Angela Merkel, compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler in a speech at which U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was present. France and Russia -- which also opposed the Iraq war -- have likewise squeezed Iran, with the Russian government offering to defuse the confrontation with a deal to enrich uranium on Iran's behalf. While the European governments remain extremely wary of military strikes against Iran -- where they have substantial investments -- they share an imperialist consensus with the U.S. that nuclear weapons in Iran would transform the balance of power in the Middle East, and are therefore intolerable. In the U.S., the war drums against Iran are being banged the loudest by some of the leading establishment critics of George Bush's handling of Iraq. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona declared, "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran. " Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called for an "economic stranglehold " on Iran -- and the Democrats' new star, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, used his 2004 election campaign to call for missile strikes in the event that Iran developed a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has maneuvered to contain Iran since the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah, a pro-Washington strongman. In the 1980s, the U.S. pursued a policy of "dual containment " -- in other words, keeping the Iran-Iraq War going as long as possible by secretly supporting both sides -- until finally tilting towards Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Since then, Iran has since successfully pursued investment from European and East Asian companies, becoming economically the most important country in the Gulf region -- and it now has close ties with the ruling parties in Iraq. The Bush administration, which envisioned Iraq as an easy win and a launching pad to attack Iran, is now scrambling to keep its grip and stop Iran's influence from growing further. If that means unleashing more horrors in the Middle East, Washington is prepared to do so -- unless resistance abroad and the antiwar movement at home can stop it. ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: Iran nuclear issue may not disrupt trade with China - daily - Tehran, Feb 12, IRNA Iran-China-Nuclear Iran's nuclear dossier may not impede trade relations with China and those involved in the nation's economy should hold off their activities while a sound diplomacy could seek ways and means to untie any worriedly concern, the English-language daily 'Tehran Times' wrote Sunday, quoting an economist. "Sending the report to the Security Council does not necessarily project economic sanctions against the country and any unmitigated or rumor-like extrapolation over this matter is of no use and disruption in private sector's activities is unwarranted," the daily quoted the economist as saying at Iran-China Joint Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, Iran and China both have extensive trade relations and the nuclear issue could set a halt on economic cooperation between the two countries, according to the economist. National interests have the first saying on any matter. The private sector may assist the government for favorable trade relations with other countries by having the political system to take more coherent approach in assessing the situation, the expert said in conclusion. ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Iran nuclear activities has not been diverted: South African official - Pretoria, Feb 11, IRNA Iran-South Africa-IAEA South African Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna has said that based on investigations and analysis carried out so far by the IAEA, Iran has no deviated from its peaceful nuclear program. Abdulsamad Minti, in an interview with Radio Johannesburg on concerns of some nations over Iran's nuclear activities, said the only Western powers have complained about the issue. He further voiced South Africa's belief that the nuclear row should be resolved within the frameworks of the IAEA regulations. He also warned that any referral of Iran nuclear dossier to UN Security Council will dramatically politicize the issue. "Such a step will mitigate the IAEA's ability to resolve the issue and will tarnish the credibility of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA." If a decision is made unilaterally or by a small group of countries outside the framework of IAEA provisions, the NPT will be discredited, he added. He also refereed to the September session of Governing Board of IAEA. The timing and contents of final report on Iran should be determined by members of the IAEA Board of Governors. He also criticized the IAEA's February resolution to report Iran to the UN Security Council saying that it would have been much wiser for the Board of Governors to wait for the IAEA chief Mohamed Elbaradei's report in March to make a decision. He said Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA has been constructive in resolving many related issues. He further urged Tehran to continue its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog. "We should decide after looking at documents handed by Tehran to the IAEA and try to remove any possible ambiguities." The South African official also stressed the need for all countries to abide by the NPT. "Those nations which want Iran not to have nuclear weapons should also embark on destroying their own atomic arsenal. The international community should be convinced that all nations respect NPT," he said. An Iranian top nuclear figure said recently that the letter, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei has sent to the UN Security Council through the UN Chief, includes only the file record of Iran's nuclear case. Iran's IAEA envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh told IRNA that as long as the IAEA chief's report has not been presented to the Agency's March meeting and has not been investigated by the Board, the UN Security Council should not adopt anything. The IAEA spokeswoman told IRNA that the documents related to Iran's nuclear program, including all the Board resolutions and all ElBaradei's reports, have been addressed to the UN Security Council. ElBaradei has sent the report on a call by the EU3 after recent Board meeting in Vienna. Asked on the consequences of reporting Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, Soltanieh said that the Council's maximum call from Iran would be requesting the country to continue cooperation with the IAEA to solve the remaining issues. He said majority of states, including China and Russia, had in the course of the recent IAEA Board emergency meeting in Vienna stressed that Iran's nuclear case should remain within the Agency's framework. The NAM group of states had also in their statement raised the condition that the issue should not go beyond the Agency, he added. Soltanieh added that due to the same reason, the most the Security Council can do is to stress Iran's growing cooperation with the Agency because countries such as China and Russia oppose the UN Security Council's engagement in the issue by taking executive measures. ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Iran to resume nuclear research Sunday or Monday - Haddad-Adel - Tehran, Feb 12, IRNA Iran-Speaker-Nuclear Iran would resume nuclear research on Sunday or Monday in the presence of International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel said here Sunday. "Iran is determined to implement its decisions. When we announced our readiness to resume nuclear research, we should wait for the IAEA inspectors to come to Iran and supervise this phase," Haddad-Adel told reporters. Asked about the possibility of resuming nuclear talks, he said, "The atmosphere of talks will undoubtedly be different from what was before the IAEA Board of Governors' decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council." Pointing to Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, he said, "The IAEA article of association set legal methods for countries including Iran to act within the frameworks of international treaties and agreements. "We say what will be the use of IAEA if a country, which has opened doors of its facilities and repeatedly announced it has no intention of building nuclear weapons, are barred from nuclear technology under pretext that it may divert from peaceful nuclear activities. In that case, existence of the IAEA will be meaningless." In response to a question on reasons behind Iran's refusal to adopt more steps to prevent the IAEA Board of Governors' from reporting its nuclear case to the Security Council, the speaker said, "Iran has set a plan which is regarded by experts as its strategies." He added, "Iran will not close doors of negotiations to any country. Russia's nuclear plan can also be discussed. But we insist on our rights." ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Marchers sign parchment indicating support for Iran's nuclear activities - Tehran, Feb 11, IRNA Iran-Anniversary-Nuclear Various groups of people taking part in today's grand march celebrating the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran here Saturday signed a parchment prepared by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization. The signatories, chanting "Nuclear energy is our inalienable right," affixed their signatures to the parchment hung on a wall near Sharif Industrial University. ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: President: enemies try to hinder Iran's access to nuclear energy Tehran, Feb 11, IRNA Iran-Anniversary-Ahmadinejad President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that given the enemies failure to undermine people's determination to support the Islamic Republic of Iran through their 27-year conspiracies against the Islamic Revolution, they are now intent on blowing the ruling system by hindering access to peaceful nuclear technology. Speaking at the rally held at Tehran Azadi Square on Saturday marking the 27th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, he added that the enemies are not frightened of the nuclear weapons rather are concerned over the self-confidence of the Iranian youth. "They believe that by hiding their ugly and abominable face behind the United Nations nuclear watchdog and Security Council, their ugliness will be demolished," he added. The chief executive called upon the West, in particular the US, and said, "You do not respect the international bodies and have even defamed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by your approach." In another part of his remarks, he pointed to the proposal on enrichment outside Iran and said that there is no guarantee that they will comply with their commitments. "They have even deprived us of the aircraft spare parts over the past 27 years and despite having paid for them, they have avoided delivering them. Therefore, what is the guarantee that we will be supplied with the nuclear fuel in future?," added Ahmadinejad. In response to the threats by western countries to impose economic sanctions against Iran and hampering import of any product to the country, he said that Iran does not actually need the consumer goods which are being sold to it. "A nation, which has managed to access nuclear energy with an empty hand, can supply its demands in a different way," said the president. Ahmadinejad referred to the Islamic Revolution as a continuation of the mission of prophets. Meanwhile, the president underlined the ideals of the Islamic Revolution including promotion of kindness among human being and respecting all humanity. Stressing that the Islamic Revolution and the relevant movement in Iran is not limited to a specific time and geographical point, he said that the Iranian nation should attempt ot establish an exemplary community and Islamic model in the region and the world. He thanked the Lord that 27 years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution the spirit of resistance and forbearance is still observed among people. ***************************************************************** 12 IRNA: Iranian diplomat: Iranians call for access to nuclear technology Kuala Lumpur, Feb 11, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Malaysia Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Philippines Jalal Kalantari said that access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is the will of Iranian people. Speaking to reporters in Manila on the occasion of the 27th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution on February 10, he elaborated on the history and achievements of the Islamic Revolution in the past 27 years in areas such as politics, culture, economy and trade. Briefing the media on the achievements of the Islamic Revolution he said, "February 11 named as our National Day is a sweet reminiscent of rejecting internal dictatorship and foreign dominance and achieving the goals set for the Islamic revolution as Freedom, Independence, and Islamic Republic." Turning to peaceful nuclear activities of Iran, he said, "During the past two and a half years Iran has fully cooperated with IAEA, granting unrestricted access during more than 1400 man-day inspection since 2003, which is unprecedented in the history of IAEA. "Voluntary and non-legally binding suspension of nuclear activities and enrichment of uranium pursued during this period aimed at confidence building. Despite Western propaganda, Iran's nuclear program is not ambitious and is by no means a threat against the world peace and security, nor against the regional peace. All Iran wants to enjoy its right under the NPT and in line with the IAEA stature, the right which has been denied to it for more than two decades," he added. Replying to a question about Iran's reaction to the recent resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors, the ambassador said,"Our government had to implement the bill ratified by the Parliament of Iran, stating that in case of reporting Iran's dossier to the UN Security Council the government shall stop all voluntary and non legally binding cooperation with IAEA." Responding to the question that what would be the future course of Iranian nuclear dossier as far as the government of Iran is concerned, Kalantari said, "We are of the view that solving differences and coming up with an acceptable solution is only possible through sincere negotiation in an atmosphere free from pressure and intimidation. "Intimidation is counterproductive and will not serve the purpose of those who initiated. Recognizing inalienable rights of our nation to enrichment and possession of nuclear fuel cycle should be taken into account in any future negotiation with all the concerned parties within a definite frame, goal and time. In response to another question about the reaction of Iran to any Israeli attack on the country's nuclear facilities similar to what they did in Iraq in the past, the ambassador elaborated on the major distinction between Iran and Iraq, adding that, "our nation is fully determined to defend the country and I hope that the opponents of our people would think twice about the consequences of their actions against Iran." Responding to another question about the stance of Iran on the cartoons controversy, Kalantari said that freedom of speech should not be mixed with insult to divine values and beliefs of the people. "The act of Danish newspaper and some others is blatant insult to the beliefs of over one billion Muslim population on the Earth. Islam calls on Muslims to respect the divine values and you will find no single case in the Muslim world insulting the divine prophets. "Protests of Muslims throughout the world indicate their sincere sentiments vis-a-vis the acts of those newspapers," he added. Concerning his evaluation of the rallies of Filipino Muslims against the cartoon controversy, the ambassador said, "Similar to other Muslims worldwide, the Filipino Muslims are expressing their sentiments and anger toward the insult against their sacred values and beliefs." ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Threatens New Nuclear Policy From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday February 11, 2006 11:16 PM AP Photo VAH104 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president threatened to revise his policy of working within international atomic frameworks, as diplomats in Europe said the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency had stripped most of its surveillance equipment from Iranian nuclear sites. The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential developments, said the move was part of retaliatory measures announced by Iran that have left the International Atomic Energy Agency with only the most basic means to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. In Iran, thousands rallied across the nation Saturday to celebrate the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution and show support for Iran's nuclear rights. State-run television called the nationwide demonstrations ``a nuclear referendum'' and showed footage of rallies in Iran's major cities. In Tehran's Azadi Square, some young men wore white shrouds symbolizing their readiness to die for the country's nuclear ambitions. In a speech before tens of thousands massed in Azadi Square to mark the 27th anniversary of the revolution that brought a Muslim theocracy to power, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad focused on the building crisis surrounding Iran's disputed nuclear program. ``The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful. Until now, we have worked inside the agency (IAEA) and the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) regulations,'' he said. ``If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies.'' The crowd in the square chanted: ``We would fight, we would die but we will not accept lowliness!'' - referring to Iran's refusal to give in to outside pressure. Ahmadinejad's comments were believed to be a threat to withdraw from the IAEA and NPT. The Iranian leader appeared in part to be responding to Thursday's call by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for Iran to restore a freeze on its nuclear activities and pursue talks to shift its uranium enrichment program to Russia. Britain, Germany and France have led months of futile talks on behalf of the 25-nation European Union amid U.S.-backed suspicions that Iran's civilian nuclear program is aimed at producing nuclear weapons - not electricity as Tehran insists. Ahmadinejad - who has declared the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews during World War II a ``myth'' and that Israel should be ``wiped off the map'' - said the true Holocaust was happening now in the Palestinian territories and Iraq. Ahmadinejad has not relented in attacking Israel and recently a Tehran newspaper announced it was holding a contest for caricatures of the Holocaust. That contest is in response to the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by European newspapers, which has triggered a series of deadly global demonstrations by angry Muslims and attacks on Western embassies. Ahmadinejad has said ``Zionists'' were behind the publication of caricatures. Islam widely holds that representations of the prophet are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry. Tensions between Iran and the international community escalated last month after Iran removed U.N. seals and began nuclear research, including small-scale uranium enrichment. On Feb. 11, the IAEA's board voted to send Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the nuclear arms control treaty. Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities. With most surveillance equipment and seals from Iran's nascent uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz now removed - and Iran recently ending the agency's rights to inspections on short notice - the IAEA has few means to monitor the progress of Tehran's enrichment efforts. It also is crippled in its attempts to look for secret sites and experiments that could be linked to nuclear arms. The agency still has some seals and equipment at Natanz and Isfahan, where Iran is converting raw uranium into the feedstock gas for enrichment under basic agreements linked to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That monitoring is considered inadequate in the agency's ongoing efforts to establish whether the country has tried to develop a nuclear weapons program at undeclared facilities. Despite the recent developments, the Islamic republic has left the door open for further negotiations over its nuclear program, saying it was willing to discuss Moscow's proposal to shift large-scale enrichment operations to Russian territory in an effort to allay suspicions. High-level talks on the proposal are scheduled to begin in Moscow on Thursday, but Russia says it still awaits word from Tehran. The proposal is backed by the United States and the European Union as a way to provide additional oversight of Iran's use of atomic fuel. --- Associated Press writer George Jahn contributed to this report from Vienna, Austria. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Call to Freeze Nuke Program From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday February 11, 2006 11:16 AM AP Photo VAH102 NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president on Saturday rejected U.S. and European pressure to freeze the country's nuclear program and hinted that Iran may withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The remarks came in a speech to tens of thousands of Iranians massed in Tehran's Azadi Square to mark the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that brought a Muslim theocracy to power. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said that the true Holocaust was happening now in the Palestinian territories and Iraq. The Iranian leader has caused worldwide outrage by questioning the Jewish genocide and arguing Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' Ahmadinejad appeared in part to be responding to a call on Thursday by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for Iran to restore a freeze on its nuclear activities and pursue talks to shift its uranium enrichment program to Russia. ``The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful. Until now, we have worked inside the agency (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) regulations. ``If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies,'' he said. He did not specify what changes Tehran envisioned, but it was believed to be a threat to withdraw from the NPT and the IAEA. ``The West is hiding its ugly face behind international bodies, but these bodies have no reputation among nations. You have destroyed the reputation of the NPT,'' the Iranian president said. Ahmadinejad has not relented in attacking Israel and recently a Tehran newspaper announced it was holding a contest for caricatures of the Holocaust. ``If you want to find the real Holocaust, you will find it in Palestine where Zionists kill Palestinians everyday. You will find it in Iraq,'' he said. He also charged that ``Zionists'' were behind the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have set off global demonstrations by angry Muslims and attacks on Western embassies. ``Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime,'' he said. ``We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists,'' he declared. While Iran's nuclear program has been formally reported to the U.N. Security Council, Annan urged Iran to continue negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, which are trying to resolve the nuclear dispute. ``And I hope Iran will continue to freeze its activities, the way they are now, to allow talks to go forward, to allow them to pursue the Russian offer, and to allow negotiations with the European three and the Russians to come back to the table,'' Annan said. The three European nations have led months of futile talks on behalf of the 25-nation European Union amid suspicions that Iran's civilian nuclear program is aimed at producing nuclear weapons - not electricity as Tehran insists. Tensions escalated last month after Iran removed U.N. seals and began nuclear research, including small-scale uranium enrichment. On Feb. 11, the International Atomic Energy Agency's board voted to send Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities. But the Islamic republic left the door open for further negotiations over its nuclear program, saying it was willing to discuss Moscow's proposal to shift large-scale enrichment operations to Russian territory in an effort to allay suspicions. High-level talks on the proposal begin in Moscow on Feb. 16, but Russia says it still awaits word from Tehran. The proposal is backed by the United States and the European Union as a way to provide additional oversight of Iran's use of atomic fuel. After years of opposition, Russia and China backed sending the Iran nuclear file to the Security Council. But in return, Moscow and Beijing demanded that the United States, France and Britain agree to let the Iran issue rest until March when the IAEA board meets to review the agency's investigation of Iran's nuclear program and compliance with board demands that it renounce uranium enrichment. Annan said the IAEA report was expected at the end of the month. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Reaffirms Commitment to Nuclear Pact From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 12, 2006 7:46 PM AP Photo VAH104 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran reaffirmed its commitment to a nuclear arms control treaty Sunday and urged a peaceful solution to the international crisis over concerns it is seeking to develop atomic weapons, a day after its hard-line president issued a veiled threat to withdraw from the pact. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, meanwhile, began a mission to Iran to learn just what controls remain on nuclear sites and equipment after Tehran ended all but minimum cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. In Vienna, Austria, a diplomat told The Associated Press Saturday that some International Atomic Energy Agency seals and cameras had been removed from Iranian nuclear sites within the last few days, suggesting that happened without IAEA supervision. But others familiar with the probe said they doubted the Iranians would make such a move before the arrival of the inspectors, which occurred over the weekend. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran would cooperate with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the safeguards it provides. ``We are still committed to the provisions of the NPT. But we can't accept its use as a (political) instrument,'' Asefi said at a weekly news conference. On Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected U.S. and European pressure to resume a freeze the country's nuclear program and hinted that Iran might withdraw from the treaty. ``The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful. Until now, we have worked inside the agency (IAEA) and the NPT regulations,'' he said in a speech before tens of thousands of Iranians marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. ``If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies,'' he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that such a move by Iran ``would only deepen their own isolation,'' citing a recent IAEA decision to report the country to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, after months of failed talks between the Iranians and European negotiators. ``The really remarkable thing over the last several months is that there's really now a tremendous coalition of countries that are saying exactly the same thing to Iran,'' she said Sunday on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``And so, the Iranians now need to step back, look at where they are, see that they're isolated on this issue, and return to a state in which they would ... get back into good graces with the IAEA, and get back into negotiations with those who are prepared to offer them a course for civil nuclear power,'' she said. Tehran repeatedly has stressed the nuclear arms control treaty allows it to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes and it has said it will never give up the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. The U.S. and its European allies believe Iran is seeking to develop atomic weapons. Uranium enriched to a low degree can be used for nuclear reactors, while highly enriched uranium is suitable for warheads. North Korea - the world's other major proliferation concern - quit the NPT in January 2003, just a few months before U.S. officials announced that Pyongyang had told them it had nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman urged the IAEA and the Europeans to keep open diplomatic channels. ``The agency and other parties should not block roads to Islamic Republic of Iran and should solve the case in the framework of the regulations,'' Asefi said. He rejected comments by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who said last week that there was no proof but ``very high level of suspicion'' that Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon. ``How do you apply a policy of non-trust toward Iran when there is no proof that Iran is trying to divert its nuclear program toward a weapon?'' Asefi asked. Tensions escalated last month after Iran removed U.N. seals and began nuclear research, including small-scale uranium enrichment at its plant in Natanz, central Iran. Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said the agency still has some seals and equipment at Natanz and Isfahan, where Iran is converting raw uranium into the feedstock gas for enrichment. The seals and cameras were allowed under basic agreements linked to the nuclear arms control treaty, which Iran has signed. Still, with those agreements only meant to monitor Iran's declared and existing nuclear stocks, they are considered inadequate in the agency's ongoing efforts to establish whether the country has tried to develop a nuclear weapons program at undeclared facilities. Iran also recently lifted the agency's rights to inspections on short notice. --- Associated Press writer George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 IRNA: French politician stresses on Iran's right to nuclear energy - Paris, Feb 10, IRNA France-Iran-Nuclear Leader of French Muslim Party ( Parti Musulman de France) Mohammad Ennacer Latreche said Iran's enjoyment of peaceful nuclear energy is its natural right adding, "Why should Iran not use its natural right". Talking to IRNA here Friday, he said, " What law bans nations, of course except powerful ones, to enjoy peaceful nuclear energy?" The leader of PMF said taking a look at the composition of the countries negotiating with Iran, it becomes clear that all of them have had a dark record of using military armaments in the world. The French politician said, "Why should Iran interact with countries that enjoy nuclear energy themselves, but do not allow Iran to use it." He went on to say Iran's nuclear negotiations with the West is essentially unjust and unjustifiable and only the United Nations can conduct such negotiations with Iran. Latreche said Iran has always been a peaceful country and history is a witness to this claim. On the contrary, Iran has been under world cruelty and the eight-year war which was imposed on Iran is a clear indication. The party official stressed fossil energy (oil and gas) will end someday, so Iran has the right to think for its next generation. ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: FM: Talks to continue to resolve nuclear issue , Feb 11, IRNA -- Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here on Saturday referred to the enthusiastic participation of the people in the Bahman 22 (February 11) rallies, and said that talks on the country's nuclear rights will continue relying on the support of nation. On the sidelines of today's massive rallies, he told IRNA that the unanimous defense of the people of their country's nuclear rights gives state officials the will to continue insisting on this right. Stressing that Iran will never give up one step toward realizing its right to peaceful nuclear energy, the foreign minister maintained that "Iran will resist all attempts by the West to prevent it from enforcing its nuclear rights." Concerning the upcoming final report on Iran's nuclear program that is to be submitted by the UN nuclear watchdog to the United Nations Security Council, he said: "The report will not change Iran's policies on its nuclear programs and these programs will continue." Turning to the confidence-building measures taken by Iran with regard to its nuclear activities, Mottaki said that its programs have always been completely transparent and there have been no ambiguities regarding their precise nature. ***************************************************************** 18 IRNA: Iran merely defends its right to access peaceful nuclear energy Dushanbe, Feb 11, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Tajikistan Iran's Ambassador to Tajikistan Nasser Sarmad-Parsa here Friday said that Iran is not a warmonger and merely defends the rights of nation against those intending to deprive it of access to peaceful nuclear technology. Speaking to domestic and foreign reporters, he added that though today use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is on the agenda of all world countries, it seems that the West thinks that all states are entitled to access to such a technology except Iran. He noted that the ongoing hue and cry about Iran's nuclear program is rooted in the political discord of the West with Iran. "Although the West headed by the US claims Iran's deviation towards production of nuclear weapon, we believe that this technology was developed in the country by the efforts and determination of the youth, scholars and experts and that it should be used for peaceful programs. "Our logic for use of nuclear technology is that given through time we will run out of fossil energies such as oil and gas, it is reasonable to seek substitutes just like other advanced countries," he added. Stressing that all men and governments are entitled to use substitute technologies to meet their demands, Sarmad-Parsa said that wind, solar and nuclear energies are some of the options available in the nature either directly or indirectly which have been availed through man's scientific achievements. "Iran has been making efforts in development of nuclear and solar energies over the past years and the first solar power station is expected to be implemented in Shiraz in two years. "Besides, several wind power stations constructed in Manjil and Roudbar in northern Iran are being expanded. In the nuclear field, a power station is under construction in cooperation with Russia in Bushehr," he added. The diplomat said that research on several other similar projects, which have been approved by the government, are currently underway. "Today, nuclear technology is used in various fields including agriculture, medicine and sciences and Iran is willing to proceed with such application in all sectors which would be to the interest of the Iranian nation and the regional people. "The hegemonic powers tend to deprive Iran even of its right to study and research, despite the fact that the nation stood against arrogance 27 years ago by launching the Islamic Revolution and gave thousands of martyrs to avoid being subject to ruthless decisions," he added. Turning to Iran's alleged offense as its belief that access to nuclear technology is the right of all world countries, he said that Iran is denied of such a right and is threatened by hue and cry, political pressure and propaganda. "In the nuclear issue, distinction should be made between the psychological war and propaganda through media, in particular those of the West, and the issue of the world governments which is pursued through diplomacy. "The issue of clash in Iran's nuclear case, is a presumption mostly developed by the Western media and press and we have not yet reached the point that the governments officially talk about war with Iran, which I hope will never happen," he added. ***************************************************************** 19 WorldNetDaily: Sanction the IAEA Board, not Iran [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: February 11, 2006 © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com You probably heard that – as a result of extreme pressure brought by the Bush-Cheney administration – a "special" meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors was convened last week to discuss what to do about the "gravest" threat to develop to "our" national security since the end of the Cold War. The "threat"? The announced resumption of certain IAEA Safeguarded programs, voluntarily and temporarily suspended by Iran more than two years ago. What did the Board decide to do? Well, you may have heard misleading reports that the Board – unable to satisfy itself that Bush-Cheney allegations that Iran had a nuclear weapons program that IAEA inspectors had been unable to find any trace of, despite almost three years of intrusive inspections were without merit – did "refer" the matter to the Security Council. The Associated Press even reported – falsely – that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had "ordered" the end of voluntary cooperation with the IAEA "in response to the U.N. agency decision to refer Iran to the Security Council over fears the country is trying to develop a nuclear bomb." But there was no referral. Far from turning over the alleged "Iranian nuclear crisis" to the Security Council, the IAEA Board specifically "remains seized with the matter." The AP did correctly report that "Iran will resume uranium enrichment and will no longer allow snap IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities – voluntary measures it had allowed in recent years in a gesture to build trust." But, the AP didn't tell you that Iran's Parliament had passed a law last year that required – in the event the IAEA Board reported Iran to the Security Council – the cessation of all voluntary cooperation with the IAEA above and beyond that required by Iran's Safeguards Agreement. And, a resumption of all Iranian Safeguarded nuclear programs that had been voluntarily suspended. Now, certain members of the IAEA Board claim to have been unable to "satisfy" themselves of "the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's program." Hence : + re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency; + reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water; + ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol; + pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on Dec. 18, 2003; and + implement transparency measures, as requested by the director general, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations. But then the Board went on to: Request[s] the director general to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these steps are required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue. No referral? Just a "request" that Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei "report" to the Security Council the absolutely outrageous discriminatory demands that his Board of Governors has made of Iran – an IAEA member in undisputed compliance with its Safeguards Agreement and the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Well, if the Board is lucky, ElBaradei won't make such a report. And if he does, the Board better hope the Security Council will just ignore it. Because, in anticipation of a such a report, the Iranian delegate made these points in a Feb. 2, 2006: + The mere fact that some members of the Board – who have no privilege over the others – pre-impose certain decisions on the Board, goes against the legal stance and authority of the Board. + Furthermore, these developments have revealed the political pressures over the Board and will jeopardize the credibility of its decisions. + The resumption of R activities after two and a half years of suspension cannot provide the ground for taking harsh decisions by the Board and reporting the issue to the Security Council. Those activities are exclusively peaceful and completely within the IAEA legal framework, and their suspension was decided by Iran, voluntarily and provisionally. + The Board decision to report the issue to the Security Council has no legal and technical basis. Iran's right; it's the IAEA Board the Security Council should sanction, not Iran. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. ***************************************************************** 20 IRNA: President lambasts Western attitude towards Iran's peaceful nuclear activities , Feb 11, IRNA -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Saturday took a swipe at a number of countries who are not signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but sit as judges to the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy by the Iranian nation. Turning to the West's arming of the Zionist regime on the pretext it is vulnerable to attack because it is not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said: "It seems that countries which are non-members of the UN nuclear watchdog are enjoying more rights." The president maintained that Iran had given the highest degree of cooperation to the IAEA in recent years. Turning to Iran's talks with the EU troika in the past three years, he said that after all these years of talks it has become apparent that they do not want the Iranian nation to become a nuclear energy producer or have access to the technology. "After almost three years, we are certain that they (EU) are against the progress and development of the Iranian nation." Comparing the nuclear issue with the Iranian government's decision to nationalize the country's oil industry, he said: "They want precious nuclear energy to be always at their disposal and to decide to sell to nations of their choice and thereby impose their will on nations." Referring to the various articles of the NPT on the rights of member states to have access to peaceful nuclear technology, he called on Western countries to listen to the voice of the Iranian nation, which emphatically demands its "inalienable right to nuclear energy." ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Iran raises the stakes in nuclear dispute TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's hardline regime has again raised the stakes in a standoff over its disputed atomic drive by warning it could follow the path of North Korea and quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Islamic republic's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also unleashed a fresh verbal assault against Israel -- repeating his view that the Holocaust is a "myth" and predicting that "Zionists" would soon be destroyed. "Iran has continued its nuclear drive within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT, but if we see that you want to deprive us of our right using these regulations, know that the people will revise their policy in this regard," Ahmadinejad said in a thinly-veiled warning on Saturday. The NPT is the cornerstone of the global battle against the spread of nuclear weapons, prohibiting the development of the bomb and subjecting its signatories to IAEA inspections. Iran is under intense pressure to agree to a moratorium on nuclear fuel work that can be extended to make weapons, but insists it only wants to generate electricity and argues that its nuclear ambitions are therefore entirely legal. Although foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday that Iran was "still committed" to the treaty, he nevertheless repeated the warning that this position could soon change. "We will decide depending on the position they have towards the Islamic republic," Asefi said when asked if Iran would abandon the NPT if fully referred to the UN Security Council on March 6, when the IAEA board next meets. The IAEA on February 4 voted to report Iran to the Security Council, but left a one-month window for diplomacy, for Iran to return to a full suspension of enrichment-related work and cooperate more with IAEA inspectors. So far Iran has reacted by doing the opposite, setting the scene for a major showdown. "The resumption of nuclear research, which had already been announced, will take place today (Sunday) or tomorrow," Iran's parliament speaker Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel said, adding that an IAEA team was in Iran to supervise this process. Hadad-Adel, however, made no apparent mention of full-scale enrichment nor measures to reduce IAEA supervision -- even though officials had previously said an IAEA team would be in Iran to oversee these measures. In a further sign that Iran no longer sees any value in providing the "confidence-building" steps demanded by the West, Ahmadinejad has also resumed his rhetorical attacks against Israel. Speaking to huge crowds marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, the presidennt repeated his view that Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews was a "myth" and that Palestinians and Iraqis were suffering a "real Holocaust". "The Zionists are on on the verge of being destroyed; the time of occupation is coming to an end, so put an end to your slavery of Zionism," he said of the West. Asefi went on to argue that "what is happening on occupied Palestinian land is far more painful than the Holocaust." For the moment Iran is running the risk of punitive Security Council action -- possibly sanctions -- and the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in London reported that US military strategists are drawing up plans for an attack as a last resort. In a front-page dispatch from Washington, it said Central Command and Strategic Command planners were "identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation". The planners are reporting to the office of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a view to having a military option if diplomatic efforts fail. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," the Sunday Telegraph quoted a senior Pentagon adviser as saying. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months." Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service- Help ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Khatami warns of higher oil prices if UN sanctions Iran - Sat Feb 11, 3:48 AM ET KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami" /> Mohammad Khatamihas warned of a rise in world oil prices if the United Nations" /> United Nationsimposes sanctions on Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme. "Currently the price of each barrel of oil is 70 dollars and this high price has created many difficulties for the industrialised world," Khatami told reporters on the sidelines of an international conference on Islam and the West. "The first effect of a sanction against Iran" /> Iranwill be that this high price will even increase higher." The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, earlier this month voted to report Tehran to the UN Security Council, paving the way for possible sanctions. Khatami said the current Iranian government headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was merely maintaining previous nuclear policies implemented by the Islamic republic. "From the outset we have said that peaceful nuclear technology is our right. And we have said that under no circumstances will we go towards making nuclear weapons," Khatami said. Khatami, who believes that the UN Security Council will find it difficult to reach a consensus on sanctioning Iran, said he hopes efforts will be made to continue to resolve the matter through negotiations and diplomacy. Iran will continue to cooperate with the IAEA, he added. "We will not do anything illegal. Even our (uranium) enrichment for fuel for our nuclear power stations has been conducted under supervision of the IAEA. Thus I don't think there is a possibility of sanctions for doing something that is legal," he said. Khatami also said that Iran was being unfairly targetted by the United States and that the international community should focus instead on achieving a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The former Iranian president was among the participants at a two-day international conference entitled "Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West?". On Friday, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi warned the conference of a "huge chasm" between the West and Islam, slamming what he called the widespread "demonisation of Islam" in Western society. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 IRNA: Ahmadinejad: Iran could revise its nuclear strategy Tehran, Feb 11, IRNA President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned here Saturday that Iran could revise its nuclear strategy in case Western countries insist on blocking its efforts to access peaceful nuclear technology in accordance with NPT rules and regulations. The president was speaking before millions of people gathered at Azadi Square in western Tehran marking the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Addressing Western countries, he said, "If we see that by relying on the regulations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty the Iranian nation's right to have access to peaceful nuclear technology would be denied, the Iranian nation will revise its strategies." "Up until now, Iran's policy has been to make use of this peaceful technology in specialized fields within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the NPT." Stressing that Western countries have damaged the authority of the NPT, he reiterated that the Iranian nation "will not give up its right and your threats and intimidations will not bear any fruit." "This nation is not afraid of any power," he added, and urged the whole world to take note of this. Addressing Western countries, he said, "The Iranian nation relies on God and its potentials." "The Iranian nation is telling you now that although you have Mammon, you do not have God. But God is with us. "The Iranian nation has treated you with decency. We are a tolerant people, but do not make us lose our patience. "Do not do something that can make us change our policies," the president warned. ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: Iran says committed to NPT - for now Sun Feb 12, 5:22 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> is committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but could review its position depending on the outcome of the next meeting of the UN atomic energy agency, the foreign ministry has said. "We are still committed to the NPT. We have always been committed to this international agreement, but we cannot accept it being used for political ends," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had warned Saturday that the Islamic republic could quit the NPT -- the cornerstone of the global battle against the spread of nuclear weapons -- if forced by the West to limit its disputed nuclear programme. Iran argues it only wants to generate nuclear energy. "We will decide depending on the position they have towards the Islamic republic," Asefi said when asked if Iran would abandon the NPT if fully referred to the UN Security Council on March 6. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> 's board will next discuss Iran's disputed nuclear programme on that date. The IAEA had on February 4 voted to report Iran to the Security Council, but has left a one month window for diplomacy before New York will actually take up the matter. The NPT prohibits the development of the bomb and subjects its signatories to IAEA inspections. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: US drawing up plans for Iran attack Sat Feb 11, 7:37 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - US military strategists are reportedly drawing up plans for an attack on Iran" /> Iranas a last resort to stop the Islamic republic from developing nuclear weapons. In a front-page dispatch from Washington, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in London said Central Command and Strategic Command planners were "identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation." The planners are reporting to the office of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a view to having a military option if diplomatic efforts fail to put the brakes on Iran's suspected quest for nuclear weaponry. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," the Sunday Telegraph quoted a senior Pentagon adviser as saying. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Saturday that Tehran could quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty if it is forced by the West to limit its disputed nuclear program, which it insists is for civilian purposes. Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyreferred Iran to the UN Security Council after the oil-rich nation resumed its uranium enrichment program. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 IRNA: Iranian diplomat: Iranians call for access to nuclear technology , Feb 12, IRNA Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Philippines Jalal Kalantari said that access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is the will of Iranian people. Speaking to reporters in Manila on the occasion of the 27th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution on February 10, he elaborated on the history and achievements of the Islamic Revolution in the past 27 years in areas such as politics, culture, economy and trade. Briefing the media on the achievements of the Islamic Revolution he said, "February 11 named as our National Day is a sweet reminiscent of rejecting internal dictatorship and foreign dominance and achieving the goals set for the Islamic revolution as Freedom, Independence, and Islamic Republic." Turning to peaceful nuclear activities of Iran, he said, "During the past two and a half years Iran has fully cooperated with IAEA, granting unrestricted access during more than 1400 man-day inspection since 2003, which is unprecedented in the history of IAEA. "Voluntary and non-legally binding suspension of nuclear activities and enrichment of uranium pursued during this period aimed at confidence building. Despite Western propaganda, Iran's nuclear program is not ambitious and is by no means a threat against the world peace and security, nor against the regional peace. All Iran wants to enjoy its right under the NPT and in line with the IAEA stature, the right which has been denied to it for more than two decades," he added. Replying to a question about Iran's reaction to the recent resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors, the ambassador said,"Our government had to implement the bill ratified by the Parliament of Iran, stating that in case of reporting Iran's dossier to the UN Security Council the government shall stop all voluntary and non legally binding cooperation with IAEA." Responding to the question that what would be the future course of Iranian nuclear dossier as far as the government of Iran is concerned, Kalantari said, "We are of the view that solving differences and coming up with an acceptable solution is only possible through sincere negotiation in an atmosphere free from pressure and intimidation. "Intimidation is counterproductive and will not serve the purpose of those who initiated. Recognizing inalienable rights of our nation to enrichment and possession of nuclear fuel cycle should be taken into account in any future negotiation with all the concerned parties within a definite frame, goal and time. In response to another question about the reaction of Iran to any Israeli attack on the country's nuclear facilities similar to what they did in Iraq in the past, the ambassador elaborated on the major distinction between Iran and Iraq, adding that, "our nation is fully determined to defend the country and I hope that the opponents of our people would think twice about the consequences of their actions against Iran." Responding to another question about the stance of Iran on the cartoons controversy, Kalantari said that freedom of speech should not be mixed with insult to divine values and beliefs of the people. "The act of Danish newspaper and some others is blatant insult to the beliefs of over one billion Muslim population on the Earth. Islam calls on Muslims to respect the divine values and you will find no single case in the Muslim world insulting the divine prophets. "Protests of Muslims throughout the world indicate their sincere sentiments vis-a-vis the acts of those newspapers," he added. Concerning his evaluation of the rallies of Filipino Muslims against the cartoon controversy, the ambassador said, "Similar to other Muslims worldwide, the Filipino Muslims are expressing their sentiments and anger toward the insult against their sacred values and beliefs." ***************************************************************** 27 IRNA: Venezuela strongly supports Iran's nuclear program , Feb 12, IRNA -- Venezuela on Saturday strongly reaffirmed its support for Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The Venezuelan government, in a statement, said its support for Iran's nuclear activities does not mean support for a particular country, stressing such a stance originated from a principled view on the nations' right to have access to progress and development including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The statement reiterated Venezuela's commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and said certain powers which claim to implement the NPT, possess nuclear and and other weapons of mass destruction, and violate disarmament treaties. Caracas always defends promotion of peace in the world and calls on all governments to remain committed to nuclear disarmament treaties, it added. It said inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) proved no deviation from Iran's peaceful nuclear activities towards military purposes, adding any decision against Iran would set an ominous precedence which would allow big powers to prevent efforts of other countries to attain technological independence. It stressed that any verification measure on Iran's nuclear program should be adopted just based on documents of the IAEA echnical experts and the Iranian officials (and not hypothetical information). The statement also pointed to Iran's voluntary suspension of nuclear activities and the West's opposition to the country's decision to resume nuclear work and said voluntary measures of governments should not be regarded as their duties. The Venezuelan government criticized recent resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors, saying the IAEA should not forget that its main duty is to promote and accelerate access of all countries to development and scientific use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA Board of Governors on Feb 4 approved a resolution proposed by the European Union troika (Germany, France and Britain) on Iran. The resolution was passed with 27 votes in favor and three against while five members abstained. Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against the draft resolution while Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa gave a vote of abstention. Venezuela is the only country that has always voted against any resolution against Iran's peaceful nuclear plan. ***************************************************************** 28 Korea Times: NK Sending Positive Signals to Outside World Hankooki.com > The Korea Times NK Sending Positive Signals to Outside World Pyongyang Likely to Come Out to Address Financial Troubles With US By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter North Korea has been sending some positive signals to the outside world, which some experts view as a possible policy shift that might lead to a breakthrough in its standoff with the United States. With no date set this month for the six-party talks on the isolated Stalinist state's nuclear program, largely due to its financial disputes with the U.S. in recent months, North Korea has shown several forward-looking signs in its relations with neighbors. Besides its agreement on general-level military talks with the South next month and its consent to the Hyundai Asan CEO's entry, which it had previously rejected, North Korea even resumed negotiations to normalize ties with Japan after a three-year hiatus. Officials and experts in Seoul are now paying keen attention to the latest developments to decide if they reflect any intent of the North Korean leadership for a policy shift, as they came on the heels of its top leader Kim Jong-il's visit to China Jan. 10-18. As on his former overseas travels, Kim made a previously unannounced visit to China, most of which was dedicated to on-the-spot studies of several flourishing cities, in addition to a summit in Beijing with President Hu Jintao, according to news media. Most news reports said Kim tried hard in his talks with Hu to find ways to revive his country's spoiled economy. But a Japanese news agency's latest news article indicates how much fear Kim has had about the effects of U.S. financial sanctions. When Hu suggested North Korea stop using the sanctions as an excuse to boycott the six-way nuclear talks, the Kyodo news agency reported on Saturday, Kim replied: ``If we do such a thing, our government would collapse.'' North Korea has refused to return to nuclear negotiations unless the U.S. lifts the financial sanctions it imposed after alleging the North's involvement in counterfeiting and money laundering. But, Rep. Lim Chae-jung of South Korea's ruling Uri Party, who just returned from his North Korean visit last week, said Saturday that Pyongyang seemed to want to address the financial problem soon in an earnest manner. Some experts presented a theory that Kim Jong-il might have decided to push for a set of reform measures after the Chinese trip, which can hardly materialize without an improvement in its relationship with the U.S. North Korea's trade with China grew 14.8 percent from a year ago to $1.58 billion (1.52 trillion won) in 2005 owing to improved political and economic ties, according to the Korea International Trade Association (KITA) last week. Trade between South and North Korea also jumped 51.5 percent year-on-year to $1.06 billion last year largely thanks to the cross-border tourism business in the Mt. Kumgang area and the construction of the Kaesong industrial complex. In contrast, the trade between the Stalinist country and Japan, one of the key U.S. allies in Asia, fell to $139 million, down 22.9 percent from the previous year and the lowest in nearly 30 years. North Korea specialists in Seoul expected North Korea's economic dependence on China and South Korea would deepen more and more unless its unpleasant relations with the U.S. and Japan are not improved in the future. Government officials in South Korea, however, remained cautious not knowing for sure whether the recent positive signs from the North came as a result of its new policy orientation or just superficial gestures. Confronted with outside powers, including its main antagonist across the Pacific, the North has often tried to find a breakthrough by leaning toward its traditional ally, China and, more recently, its blood-related neighbor in the South. Each time, the conservative hardliners in the U.S., Japan and South Korea warned that policymakers should not be confused by Pyongyang's strategy of driving a wedge between the allied powers. No one knows for sure what is in the mind of Kim Jong-il, who celebrates his 64th birthday on Thursday, concerning the future of his troubled regime. But an expert says he may try to find another breakthrough in a second inter-Korean summit this year. ``Chances are high that the second inter-Korean summit could be realized within the year as both sides feel the necessity,'' Prof. Yoo Ho-yeol of Korea University said. He added it could come around June 15, an anniversary of the first inter-Korean summit in 2000 between former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Kim Dae-jung plans to make a visit to Pyongyang in the spring. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 02-12-2006 18:24 ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: NKorea warns Seoul of "nuclear war" over US-led WMD drill - Sun Feb 12, 3:36 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - Stalinist North Korea" /> North Koreahas warned South Korea" /> South Koreaagainst sparking "nuclear war" by joining a US-led international drill aimed at intercepting weapons of mass destruction, state media said. Rodong Sinmun, the official communist party mouthpiece said late Saturday Seoul's participation in the drill would be "conspiring with the US in its moves for a war of aggression." "It is also a dangerous act of bringing the disaster of a nuclear war to the Korean Peninsula," Rodong said in a dispatch carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. South Korea said last month it would send a team to "observe" a US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) drill off Australia in April and that it would get briefed regularly on the initiative. But Seoul says it has yet to join the politically-sensitive initiative, which Pyongyang believes aims largely to blockade North Korea, at a time of burgeoning inter-Korean rapprochement. North Korea is locked in a standoff with the United States and its allies over Pyongyang's nuclear programme. The PSI -- a US-led drive to improve global efforts to intercept nuclear, chemical and biological weapons shipments by rogue states and terrorist groups -- was launched in May 2003. It has since held joint manoeuvres involving ships and maritime patrol aircraft with over 60 nations signing up for the initiative. The key signatories include the United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia and Singapore. China, a North Korean ally, and South Korea, which has sought closer ties with the North since a peace summit in 2000, have yet to join the initiative. Minju Joson, the North's government-published newspaper, also warned Saturday that Seoul's joining the drill would "bar the inter-Korean relations from favorably developing and entail ... a nuclear war to the Korean Peninsula." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 30 asahi.com: Ex-diplomat confirms secret Okinawa deal 02/11/2006 The Asahi Shimbun Despite repeated government denials and a bitter legal battle, a former Foreign Ministry negotiator acknowledged that Japan indeed promised secret payments to the United States concerning the 1972 return of Okinawa. The payments of $4 million covered the costs of returning Okinawa land used by the U.S. military to its original owners, although the U.S. side was supposed to have shouldered those expenses, according to Bunroku Yoshino, 87, who was then director-general of the American Affairs Bureau at the Foreign Ministry. In an interview Thursday with The Asahi Shimbun, Yoshino said the $4 million was secretly included in the $320 million that Japan had paid under the bilateral pact on reversion. Yoshino, who was in charge of negotiations with U.S. officials over the 1972 reversion of Okinawa, is the first former government official to acknowledge that a secret deal existed. Under the pact on the reversion, the United States was to have "voluntarily" shouldered the $4 million needed to convert the military-used land back to fields and other original purposes. The pact signed in 1971 also said Japan would pay the U.S. side $320 million for the removal of nuclear weapons supposedly kept in Okinawa, the purchase of power and water supply systems built by the U.S. military, and other items. In the end, the $4 million was included in the $320 million, according to Yoshino, who headed the ministry's American Affairs Bureau from January 1971 through May 1972, when Okinawa, which had been under U.S. control since the end of World War II, was handed back to Japan. Yoshino negotiated with Richard Sneider, then minister at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo. "It was the decision of then Prime Minister Eisaku Sato that Japan would pay (the $4 million) as long as Okinawa would be returned," Yoshino said. He also mentioned the financial difficulties the United States was facing at that time as a result of the Vietnam War. "There was a possibility that the negotiations would come to a deadlock if Japan did not pay," Yoshino said. Suspicions over the secret deal have lingered for decades, starting with the leak in 1971 of a Foreign Ministry document to a Mainichi Shimbun journalist, Takichi Nishiyama, who reported its contents in the nationally circulated daily. It was later found that a ministry clerk had handed the official document over to Nishiyama. The two were convicted under a law regulating central government employees--the woman for leaking ministry secrets and Nishiyama as her conspirator. A copy of the classified document was presented to the Diet by the Japan Socialist Party in the spring of 1972. It showed that Japan had agreed to cover the $4 million. U.S. government documents disclosed in 2000 and 2002 also showed that a secret deal had existed over the funds. But in July 2002, then Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi told the Upper House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, "It has already been confirmed by Yohei Kono, foreign minister in 2000 who talked in person to Yoshino in charge of the negotiations for Japan, that there was no secret promise." When the contents of Yoshino's interview were raised during a news conference Thursday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said, "I have received word that there was no such secret promise." Nishiyama was handed a four-month sentence suspended for a year, and his appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected in 1978. He said Yoshino's acknowledgement of the secret deal shows the government has been long overdue to stop lying about the issue. "It is epochal that a former official who was actually involved in the negotiations admitted to the fact, even though it has already been proved by the Foreign Ministry's official documents and U.S. official records that the ministry had lied in saying there was no secret promise." Nishiyama also called the secret agreement the starting point of "the unchanging way Okinawa is forced to carry an excessive burden in hosting U.S. forces in Japan."(IHT/Asahi: February 11,2006) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 31 SF Chronicle: Bush pushes to increase defense spending / Jump of 7% would top rest of world's military budgets [San Francisco Chronicle] Eric Rosenberg, Hearst Newspapers Sunday, February 12, 2006 Washington -- It isn't cheap being the world's only superpower. President Bush last week said he wants to spend $439 billion next year on national defense, a 7 percent increase above current spending. Adding the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, the United States will spend a whopping $513 billion for defense for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, assuming Congress approves Bush's spending plan. That sum dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike. Put another way, the U.S. defense budget is at least equal to, and by some estimates greater than, defense spending for the rest of the world. "The United States spends several times more on its military than any conceivable adversary, and together with its allies accounts for more than two-thirds of total worldwide defense spending," said a report by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress. U.S. defense spending has surged since the late 1990s. U.S. defense budgets increased by more than 41 percent between 1999 and 2004, with most of the increase coming after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The only other epochs when the United States spent as much on national defense in constant 2006 dollars was during World War II and the Korean War. Adjusted for inflation, defense spending now is far above the annual average of $366 billion spent during the Cold War-era when the United States faced the threat of nuclear annihilation or a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. That amount of money pays for, among other things: -- The world's 12 largest aircraft carriers; -- The only stealth aircraft fleet in the world; -- Long-range bombers and precision missiles capable of striking anywhere on the globe; -- A massive air cargo force that can carry crack troops worldwide on short notice; -- Prepositioned weaponry around the globe in storage for U.S. forces when needed; -- And a deadly arsenal of nuclear bombs. At the same time, the number of men and women in uniform has drastically declined. "For the Korean War, we fielded a force of about half a million. For World War II, we deployed about 18 million troops," said Winslow Wheeler, a former defense specialist with the Senate Budget Committee's Republican staff. "Our gigantic defense budget is supporting a fairly minor war of about 138,000 troops fighting 20,000 bad guys." Part of the surge in defense spending can be attributed to pricey new weapons systems. Some examples: -- The Air Force's fleet of 179 new F-22 fighters will cost more than $300 million each. -- The Navy's 12 new destroyers cost about $3 billion each. -- The Navy wants to build 30 new submarines costing $2.6 billion apiece. -- The Army wants $161 billion for a fleet of manned and robot-controlled weapons systems. -- The Joint Strike Fighter that will be flown by Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force pilots will cost $256 billion for the planned 2,400-plane fleet. "We have a declining number of forces for an ever-increasing amount of money," said Wheeler, currently a budget analyst at the Center for Defense Information, an organization that tracks defense spending. "We are getting to the giggle stage of this trend" when a single fighter jet costs $300 million. The Bush administration argues that the huge U.S. defense budget isn't just for fighting insurgents in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld urged Americans to look upon the Pentagon's spending request as a down payment for "the long war" against terrorism, which he likened to the decades-long struggle against communism. Rumsfeld, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, used the term "long war" nine times in their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. That didn't mollify Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a committee member. "This is a mind-boggling sum of money for defense. The American taxpayers deserve to know whether this is in fact money well spent," he told the defense officials. Chris Edwards, a budget analyst with the conservative Cato Institute, is aghast at what he sees as runaway defense spending. "It seems that any sort of fiscal restraint has been pushed aside" for the sake of defense spending, he said. Analysts believe the surge in spending is designed in large part to counter China, whose defense budgets have grown at double-digit rates in recent years. "Much of the spending has little to do with fighting the war on terrorism," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent research group that tracks trends in worldwide militaries. Rather, argues Pike, the spending for new ships, jets, missiles and other armaments is "aimed at the threat that dare not speak its name: China." The United States is careful not to label China a "threat," saying that Washington wants to encourage Beijing toward further transparency and reform while also maintaining the capability to dissuade China from a military challenge. Page A - 17 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 32 Tri-Valley Herald - Op-Ed: Will U.S. sustain commitment to alternate energy? Inside Bay Area - Article Last Updated: 02/12/2006 06:31:12 AM THE freshest and, for some, most encouraging part of President Bushs lackluster State of the Union address and budget was the proposal to increase federal spending on alternative energy research by 22 percent. Our nation, Bush posited, is addicted to oil — an admission that cant come easily for an administration whose top two officeholders are beneficiaries of the industry. The fund increase is part of Bushs avowed goal of cutting our dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum imports by 75 percent over the next 20 years. Particularly favored are the development of solar energy and biofuels, as well as taking a new look at reviving the use of nuclear power plants. But increased funds for coal-powered plants, wind energy, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries for hybrid cars also are part of the proposal. The money isnt intended to be an end-all, but a catalyst for increased investments in alternative energy by private industry. Hopefully theyll take the bait. Such an investment is long overdue, but must be sustained over time. The tipping point of peak world oil production is expected to occur within the next 20 years. Some say its already happened. Meanwhile, international competition for oil and natural gas has increased dramatically with China and India at the forefront. Demand is expected to jump 50 percent within the next 20 years, and our nation no longer enjoys the relative monopoly it did for more than a century. Its a finite resource and some experts contend we could deplete supplies of easy-to-retrieve, relatively cheap oil within 40 years. All of which could seriously erode our fossil-fueled quality of life, economic base, production of modern conveniences and easy mobility. At worst, we could be headed for a period of generalized and chronic (economic, political and social) contraction, James Howard Kunstler says in his compelling, but somber, book The Long Emergency. We currently have no good alternatives to oil and natural gas. Its vital that we invest in developing some. Our future depends on it. So, has the Bush administration finally gotten religion on alternative energy, or is it playing politics with an issue that is key to the worlds future? The proof will be seen in the length and depth of our commitment. UC-Berkeley Nobel laureate Steve Chu and Stanford biologist Cliff Summerville indicate that our dedication needs to be sustained for 15 years or more. Its comparable to the space race. To start such an undertaking and then say no a few years later would be farcical. Now that its made this commitment to alternative energy, the Bush administration — and its successors — must sustain the effort to fuel such options. We cant afford to dabble in alternative fuels and then abort the venture — as we did in the 1970s. This time, that could be disastrous. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 33 Public Citizen: Public Citizen Unveils the “Ethics Hall of Shame” Identifying the Worst Ethics Offenders on Capitol Hill Feb. 9, 2006 Group Says Failure of Congressional Ethics Committees to Investigate Abramoff Scandal Shows Need for Obamas Bill to Create an Independent Ethics Commission WASHINGTON, D.C.  Public Citizen today unveiled the , which profiles six current and former members of Congress who have admitted to or been tarnished by allegations of ethical misconduct, many in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal and other special interests. Another two members of Congress were given dishonorable mention status. The Ethics Hall of Shame includes Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is under indictment for money laundering in Texas and is likely the focus of a Justice Department investigation for his ties to admitted felon and former super-lobbyist Abramoff. Also inducted are: + Former Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), who pleaded guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. + Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who resigned as chairman of the House Administration Committee because of allegations that he used his office to help Abramoff and his clients. + Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), who went to bat for an Abramoff client and also short-circuited an investigation into the owner of a failed savings and loan, and whose aides attempted to scuttle an environmental regulation that could have hurt the Pombo familys business. + Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), a major recipient of Abramoffs largess, who went to extraordinary lengths to help an Abramoff client. + Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who is involved in an investigation of alleged extortion in a business investment scheme, and who was found to have stashed large amounts of cash in his freezer. The inductees to our Ethics Hall of Shame are those members of Congress who have abused the public trust either through outright illegal activities or the type of influence-peddling or sleazy behavior that has made this the most corrupt Congress in decades, said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. The ethics committees have most of these members, except Rep. Pombo, on their dockets but have done nothing to investigate these cases. Public Citizen gave dishonorable mention status to two current members of Congress: + Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider stock trading, and who went to extraordinary lengths to do an end run around legislative procedure to insert a provision into a new law that will insulate drug companies from some defective products lawsuits. + House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who slipped a favor for a major tobacco company into legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security but withdrew it after being caught. The Ethics Hall of Shame also includes a detailed profile of Abramoff, the man at the center of the lobbying scandal that has affected numerous members of Congress. To be included in Public Citizens Ethics Hall of Shame, a member of Congress must have committed illegal acts or engaged in conduct that is highly abusive of the public trust in the service of special interests. Those in the dishonorable mention category have been involved in activity that is ethically questionable or offensive to the public trust but which does not rise to the same level of wrongdoing as the inductees into the Hall of Shame.  The Ethics Hall of Shame is available at Public Citizens Clean Up Washington Web site at . Many of the scandals sweeping over Capitol Hill are the product of loose ethics enforcement in Congress, said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizens Congress Watch. No one is watching because the ethics committees too often act like lap dogs rather than watchdogs. Currently, the ethics watchdogs on Capitol Hill are nothing more than congressional ethics committees composed of and directed by members of Congress. Neither ethics committee has much of a track record for ethics enforcement. The committees were entirely unaware, or have even chosen to ignore, the current wave of ethics scandals surrounding Abramoff. The House ethics committee did not even bother meeting last year. Given this deplorable situation, Public Citizen applauds Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation that would establish a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, made up of people outside Congress but appointed by House and Senate leaders. The commission would be a much-needed independent and non-partisan watchdog charged with monitoring and enforcing compliance to the nations ethics and lobbying laws. ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 34 France secretly upgrades capacity of nuclear arsenal Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:43:51 -0600 (CST) France secretly upgrades capacity of nuclear arsenal 7 Modification increases range of missiles 7 Altitude bomb to knock out electronic systems Kim Willsher in Paris Friday February 10, 2006 The Guardian France has secretly modified its nuclear arsenal to increase the strike range and accuracy of its weapons. The move comes weeks after President Jacques Chirac warned that states which threatened the country could face the "ultimate warning" of a nuclear retaliation. A military source quoted yesterday by the Libiration newspaper claimed France had tinkered with its nuclear weapons to improve their strike capability and make this threat more credible. The source said there had been two major changes: the bombs can now be fired at high altitude to create an "electromagnetic impulsion" to destroy the enemy's computer and communications systems; and the number of nuclear warheads has been reduced to increase the missiles' range and precision.During his surprise speech, which was made in January, President Chirac said: "The number of nuclear warheads has been reduced in certain of the missiles in our submarines". Military experts said this was not a step towards disarmament, but a move to improve the performance of the weapons. Until now each submarine carried 16 French-made M45 missiles, each fitted with six nuclear warheads. After being fired, each warhead would separate to hit a different target, in effect giving each submarine 96 nuclear bombs. In reducing the number of warheads, down to one per missile in some cases, the weapon is lighter and has a longer range. It can also be targeted more accurately. Libiration speculates that while potential targets are "secret", it is clear they include the Middle East or Asia, and that its military contacts suggest the changes are aimed at adding "flexibility" to France's nuclear deterrent. "These evolutions are aimed at better taking into account the psychology of the enemy," defence minister Michhle Alliot-Marie said after President Chirac's warning in January. In a speech to MPs, she added: "A potential enemy may think that France, given its principles, might hesitate to use the entire force of its nuclear arsenal against civilian populations. "Our country has modified its capacity for action and from now on has the possibility to target the control centres of an eventual enemy." French government sources said the president's speech, given at a nuclear submarine base in Brittany, was not targeted specifically at Iran - despite Tehran's decision to continue its nuclear programme - or at individual terrorist organisations, but at countries that posed a direct threat to France itself. It is also seen as an attempt to justify the more than ?3.5bn (#2.4bn) a year France spends to maintain its estimated 300-350 nuclear weapons more than a decade after the end of the cold war. "The ultimate warning restores the principle of dissuasion," the military source told Libiration. The president is not talking about a choice between an apocalypse or nothing at all." The paper says according to its information "ultimate warning" could take two new forms. The most demonstrative would be to fire a relatively weak warhead into a deserted zone far from centres of power and habitation. The more radical option would be to explode a bomb at an extremely high altitude with the aim of creating a brief but enormously strong electromagnetic field which would disable or destroy all non-protected electronic systems in the area. During the cold war France's "ultimate threat" involved firing nuclear bombs into Soviet military divisions and large cities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1706776,00.html ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Skeptical of Democracy in Russia From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday February 12, 2006 6:16 PM AP Photo MOSB120 By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing troubling behavior by the Kremlin, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed skepticism on Sunday about the future of democracy in Russia. ``We are very concerned, particularly about some of the elements of democratization that seem to be going in the wrong direction,'' Rice said. Russian President Vladimir Putin, while on good terms personally with President Bush, has been criticized for centralizing political power and rolling back democratic gains. Rice, appearing on CBS' ``Face the Nation,'' pointed to severe limits on nongovernmental organizations begun this year and Russia's use of energy as a weapon in a dispute with Ukraine this winter. ``I think the question is open as to where Russia's future development is going,'' Rice said. Nothing can be gained by isolating Russia from institutions that demand democratic values from its members, she said. Rice said the U.S. and Russia cooperate in fighting terrorism, opposing Iran's efforts to restart its nuclear programs and on other areas. ``In general, I think that we have very good relations with Russia, probably the best relations that have been there for quite some time,'' she said. Rice added that, in spite of concerns about democracy in Russia, ``This is not the Soviet Union. Let's not overstate the case.'' Rice said she believes that Putin supports a more open Russia than existed at the center of the former Soviet Union. Putin, as the leader of the Group of Eight nations, hosts a summit for heads of state in St. Petersburg in July. Some critics have questioned whether he should lead the organization because of the rollback of freedoms in Russia. Other nations and human-rights groups have expressed concern as the Putin-guided Kremlin has established control of parliament, ended popular elections for regional governors, placed new rules on political parties, and cut back on the independence of national media. Russia and Ukraine feuded over natural gas prices, a battle that grew more bitter when Russia briefly turned off its gas supply to Ukraine and other parts of Europe. That heightened concerns that energy supplies were not secure for the continent. An agreement reached earlier this month resolved the differences. Putin upset Israel by inviting members of the militant group Hamas to talks in Moscow. Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. but not Russia, has refused to moderate its anti-Israel stance since winning Palestinian elections. Rice said she has been assured that the Russians would continue to abide by the positions of the Mideast peace negotiators - Russia, the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations. They support a road map to peace as well as Israel's right to exist and the end to violence by Hamas. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Leaders Reach Out to Rogue Regimes From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday February 11, 2006 12:31 PM By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - By inviting Hamas leaders to Moscow, President Vladimir Putin is reaffirming Russia's desire to act as a top mediator between the West and its adversaries - a role that has given the Kremlin a lot of limelight even if it is unlikely to lead to any diplomatic breakthroughs. Moscow's active involvement in the Iranian nuclear crisis and its attempt to win leverage with Hamas reflect Russia's growing ambitions, buoyed by an oil-driven economic boom. Russia, which is hosting this year's summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations, relishes its newfound role of global power broker, enjoying the growing international prestige it has sought since the 1991 Soviet collapse. ``Russia wants to win global clout by acting as a mediator amid growing tensions between the West and the Islamic world,'' said Alexei Arbatov, a top researcher with the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow office. He and many other observers warned, however, that Russia's own instability undermines its aspirations to play go-between and it is unlikely to resolve any international crisis. ``Without the Soviet Union's material base, Russia now is playing the part of a global power comparable to the United States,'' said Viktor Mizin, a senior researcher with the Russian Institute for World Economy and International Relations. ``The current Russian elite shares a Soviet vision of the world ... and it's trying to imitate Soviet diplomatic efforts.'' Russia's overture to Hamas angered Israel, as did Putin's statement that Russia did not consider the militant group to be a terrorist organization. In an interview with The Associated Press, Israeli Cabinet Minister Meir Sheetrit called Putin's remarks an ``international scandal'' that amounted to ``stabbing Israel in the back.'' In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday to send a clear, strong message in any meetings with Hamas officials that the militant group must stop terror attacks on Israel. Putin made his debut as a broker with rogue regimes several months after his March 2000 election. Stopping in Pyongyang en route to a Group of Eight summit in Japan, the Russian leader attempted to work out a breakthrough in the international dispute over North Korea's nuclear program. The mediation flopped. Putin won a lot of publicity saying he had won North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's promise to abandon the communist country's missile program in exchange for other nations' help in launching North Korean satellites. But Kim later disavowed his pledge, saying he was joking when he spoke to Putin about the deal. And while Moscow has taken part in six-nation talks intended to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis, it hasn't advanced a settlement. In the Iranian nuclear standoff, Moscow has sought to counter the U.S. push for international sanctions against its Middle Eastern ally by calling for more talks. Russia backed the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to refer the Iran to the U.N. Security Council only on the condition that it doesn't take up the issue until March. Russia has also offered to enrich uranium for Iran to ease Western concerns that Tehran is trying to build atomic weapons. The United States and the European Union have backed the idea, but suspicions are growing that Iran is using the proposal to stall for time and divert international sanctions. ``The Russian proposal has become a lifesaver for the Iranians, offering them some freedom of maneuver and an opportunity to drag out talks,'' Mizin said. An Iranian delegation is set to visit Moscow on Thursday for talks on the proposal, but observers are skeptical about prospects for a breakthrough. Iran humiliated Russia last fall when Putin's Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov rushed to Tehran in apparent hopes of striking the deal - only to hear its refusal. Tehran then agreed to consider the Russian offer, but talks dragged on for months without any visible progress. Even a senior Kremlin-connected lawmaker admitted recently that Moscow doesn't have much leverage with the Iranians and that talks are unlikely to bring fruit. ``We have practically no levers to put pressure on Iran,'' said Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee. Arbatov, of the Carnegie Endowment, warned that Russia's flirtation with Iran and Hamas could further damage its relations with the West. ``The Soviet Union was engaged in Mideast games for decades and got nothing in return,'' Arbatov said. ``It's useless to get involved in that again. It may bring some tactical benefits, but incur big strategic damage.'' Arbatov said Russia's instability is weakening its mediation efforts. The country remains bogged down in the Chechen conflict, and there are broad fears that instability could spread to other mostly Muslim provinces. ``Russia wants to play mediator between the West and Islamic world,'' Arbatov said. ``But that won't bring any good because Russia is more vulnerable to Islam than the West.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 37 Times of India: India's atomic establishment a hurdle - US expert- [ Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:03:32 pmIANS ] NEW DELHI: A top US expert has termed the Indian nuclear establishment's 'set way of doing things' as a 'major obstacle' to reaching a civil nuclear energy agreement between the two countries before US President George W. Bush's visit here early March. "The Indian nuclear establishment is not comfortable with the civil nuclear energy deal because it changes things for them," said Dennis Kux, a former US diplomat and an expert on India-US relations. "The separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities poses a big problem for them. They are worried and nervous because it asks them to change their set pattern of working, which they have been used to for the last three decades," Kux said. He also sought to allay anxieties about the impact the deal will have on India's strategic programme. "The US is not trying to cap India's strategic programme or affect its minimum credible deterrence. Let's be clear about that." Kux was reacting to Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar's contention that New Delhi was not ready to place its fast breeder reactor programme in the civilian list as it would impinge on its strategic programme. Kux, a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, worked as South Asia specialist with the State Department for over three decades and his views are considered influential in formulating the US policy towards the region. His acclaimed "India and the US, 1941-91: Estranged Democracies " chronicles the nature of relations between the world's largest democracy and the most powerful during the Cold War period. Alluding to difficult negotiations between the two sides on New Delhi's separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities, Kux stressed on the `seriousness' of the Bush administration in pushing the deal through Congress and the "extra political capital" it was willing to invest to make the deal real. "The administration will push very hard to get the deal through the US Congress. This is the last psychological barrier that is waiting to be dismantled," Kux said. He also took potshots at the Left's criticism of nuclear deal agreed to in principle in July 2005 but still to be negotiated in detail, saying their reservations stem more from their dislike of the US than objective facts. Kux struck an optimistic note on Bush's India visit, which, he said, will give a big push to the transformation of relations between the hitherto estranged democracies. "Even if the nuclear agreement doesn't work out by that time, the very fact of Bush coming here despite all the other big issues on his agenda like Iraq will make a big difference to India-US relations. "The US is trying to help India, and in the big picture this does help India. The US is trying to reach a reasonable agreement. It's trying to accommodate India's civil nuclear energy aspirations," he said while underlining the point that there was broad bipartisan support for the nuclear deal. "The deal, above all, gives India nuclear power status by finding a way to bring India into the international nuclear system," said the veteran South Asia specialist. "Economic reforms brought India firmly into the international economic system. The nuclear deal will bring India into the global civil nuclear energy market," he said. Copyright Β© 2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 HindustanTimes.com: 'India has to compromise for N-deal' : France Pres Trust of India New Delhi, February 11, 2006 France has said that India will have to make "some compromises" on the issue of separation of its civil and military facilities as lack of consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) could put any such arrangement on nuclear cooperation "on hold". Though French Ambassador Dominique Girard said that some kind of documents on civil nuclear cooperation might be signed during the visit of President Jacques Chirac later this month, he noted that "clearly, India has to make some proposals, some efforts acceptable to us, to the Americans and all the other Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) countries". While France did not have the "same constraints" as the Americans with regard to public opinion or policy, he said "there are some compromises which have to be made by India". "Clearly, from the overall political point of view, we have pre-occupations which are similar to that of the US," he said. "The issue of separation of India's civil and military nuclear facilities was the "most important hurdle" in civilian nuclear cooperation, he added. He candidly responded to a range of issues covering civilian nuclear energy cooperation, the Clemenceau ship controversy, defence and economic cooperation and the expectations from Chirac's visit from February 19 to 21. Girard's remarks come close on the heels of the comments by US Ambassador David Mulford that India would have to put "great majority" of its nuclear facilities in the civilian side failing which the American Congress would think that New Delhi has an agenda different from that of developing civilian nuclear industry. ***************************************************************** 39 HindustanTimes.com: Nuke deal: Be cautious with the US New Delhi, February 10, 2006 We carried an article which had a US expert on Indo-US relations stating that India's atomic research fraternity was being cagey over the India-US nuke deal. He was reacting to the comments made by Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar's contention that New Delhi was not ready to place its fast breeder reactor programme in the civilian list as it would impinge on its strategic programme. As it seems most of our surfers weren't dying to woo the US on the said topic. They seem to suggest: don't get swept away by euphoria, keep your interests at heart. None of them wanted to believe the US at face value and added that India must consult her atomic scientists' fraternity before inking any deal. Atul Saxena from Tarrytown, USA had this to say. "This decision should not be taken in haste. Haste makes waste. Our citizens are wise enough to know what should be put under IAEA supervision. It is better for our Government, to meet all top nuclear scientists and take their opinion. This decision should not be taken from heart." He added that Hindustan Times could play host to any Government-scientists convention that should comprise software giants as well as nuclear scientists. Rajive Acharya, Helsinki, Finland too took a nationalist line of thinking. He felt all this talk of "US helping India..." was nonsense. US views India as a force to reckon with in the near future, that's it. "It's really disturbing to know that Indian media and politicians are playing into the hands of the US. I fail to understand this 'US helping India....' line of thought. The fact is, whether US helps or not, Indian economy is set to grow, which is the greatest factor that is of interest and attraction, which will continue for another few years. This tamasha of US helping is a big farce. They are trying to use India for thwarting China in the short term and India in the long term." Cirus had a rather stern message for the US and urged Indians to be more cautious. He said, "We don't need your deal. No one can rely on you because of your condition-imposing syndrome and changing conditions. You double speak and we can't compromise on our security concerns." PTK from Coimbatore in fact took a rather radical stand. He called to fresh polls to install a new government which didn't compromise on India's security concerns. He said, "It is high time that the people of India ask for emergency re-election if the Government is so haphazard in dealing with sensitive issues like this." Looks like Bush's forthcoming India trip is set for rough weather! ***************************************************************** 40 Xinhua: Ukrainian ambassador: China's development poses no threat www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-12 11:22:32 BEIJING, Feb. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Ukrainian Ambassador in China Sergei Alekseevich Kamyshev said recently that China is taking a path of peaceful development, which will pose no threat to the world, and he hopes the two countries to strengthen technological cooperation. Making the remarks in an exclusive interview with Xinhua, Kamyshev said China and Ukraine enjoy smooth cooperation in such areas as politics, economy, culture and technology in recent years. The two countries maintain close contacts of high level and develop a stable political relationship. The government change of Ukraine didn't retard but promote the development of bilateral relations, and bilateral trade last year registered a record-high volume of 3 billion U.S. dollars. The Ukrainian government believes that the two countries will score new development in political, economic and cultural areas inthe new year, as well as new growth in bilateral trade, Kamyshev noted. China is paying more and more attention to the role of high andnew technology in its development, and the Chinese leaders put forward the concept of scientific development, he said, adding that Ukraine, with some advantages in science and technology, has a great potential in cooperation with China in science and technology, especially in aerospace and peaceful utilization of atomic energy. Kamyshev said Ukraine is helping the Ukrainian companies participate in the construction of Chinese nuclear power plants. The two countries can strengthen cooperation in this regard since Ukraine has abundant experience in nuclear power plants building and world-level nuclear power technology including the technology to build turbines. A seminar on China-Ukraine nuclear power cooperation will be held in the Ukrainian embassy in April this year, according to theambassador, which will attract scientists and businessmen of both countries. The embassy also plans to hold four to five seminars onhow to strengthen China-Ukraine cooperation in such areas as metallurgy, oil and gas exploration, investment and infrastructure construction. Kamyshev hopes China to invest more in Ukraine, and invites Chinese companies to join the oil and gas exploration in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and to participate in the bid of oil and gas exploration programs in these areas. Kamyshev also hopes China and Ukraine to cooperate in educationand tourism. There are more than ten thousand overseas Chinese students in Ukraine. He said Ukraine welcomes more Chinese to study in Ukraine, and hopes to sign the agreement promoting Chinese group traveling in Ukraine as early as possible. As for the so-called "China threat", Kamyshev said he thought the name of "peaceful development" is more suitable. China is not developing its economy at any costs, but focusing more on the quality of growth with highly attention on the protection of environment and social security. China is taking a right way and a peaceful path, whose development will impose no threat to the world, Kamyshev stressed.Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Xinhua: G8 finance ministers grapple with global economy, energy security www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-11 16:56:55 Finance Ministers Karl-Heinz Grasser of Austria (L), Peer Steinbrueck of Germany (C) and Giulio Tremonti of Italy laugh during a photo call at a G8 Finance Ministers' meeting in Moscow February 11, 2006. (Xinhua/Reuters) MOSCOW, Feb. 11 (Xinhuanet) -- Finance ministers of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrialized nations began their main session of discussion focused on the global economy and energy security Saturday morning at their Moscow meeting. The finance ministers from the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia held a breakfast meeting with high-level finance officials from China, India, Brazil and South Africa to mainly discuss international trade before heading off to closed-door talks at a heavily guarded hotel in downtown Moscow within walking distance from the Kremlin. The global economy and energy security will take center stage at the meeting, but the ministers will also discuss the fight against infectious diseases, curbing financing of terrorism and money laundering. The G8 finance ministers are expected to issue a communique at the end of their meeting. Finance Ministers Thierry Breton of France (L), Alexei Kudrin of Russia (C) and Karl-Heinz Grasser of Austria pose during a G8 Finance Ministers' meeting in Moscow February 11, 2006. (Xinhua/Reuters) Russia has declared energy security a priority during its G8 presidentcy, which it took over at the start of the new year. President Vladimir Putin will host a summit meeting of the group in summer in St. Petersburg. Russia said earlier that it would make energy security a priority of its first annual term. With price twice as high as two years ago, world oil supply were further imperiled by the recent deterioration of Iranian nuclear issue. Analysts saw no price decline soon and expected little concrete development from the Moscow talks. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 ITAR-TASS: Russia observes strictly non-proliferation regime – DM 12.02.2006, 01.41 ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT –CARRIER GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI, Messina (Sicily, Italy), February 12 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian observes strictly the mass destruction weapons non-proliferation regime, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov told a news conference after the talks with his Italian counterpart Antonio Martino on Saturday. “No one ever registered the violation of the non-proliferation regime by Russia, as there are no such violations. If such hints are given, this is just the foreign political struggle and propaganda,” Ivanov emphasised. The Russian defence minister recalled that Russia is building a nuclear power plant in the Iranian city of Bushehr. “It is impossible to use the spent fuel from this nuclear power plant for uranium enrichment,” he pointed out. Ivanov told Western journalists that gas centrifuges were supplied to an Iranian nuclear center in Natanze from Pakistan, and a European concern supplied them to Pakistan. “Draw conclusions what service record they (different countries) have in the non-proliferation regime,” the defence minister told Italian journalists. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 43 Op Ed News: Whistleblowers Are Not Protected, Mr. Goss www.opednews.com February 11, 2006 Porter Goss’ Op-ed: ‘Ignoturn per Ignotius’! by Sibel Edmonds Dear Mr. Goss, the timing of your recent op-ed in the New York Times interestingly coincides with the upcoming congressional hearing by the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats &International Relations on National Security Whistleblowers. Your comments are predictably consistent with the pattern of “preemptive strikes” you and the administration have been keen on maintaining. I do not blame you for your opposition to legislation to protect courageous whistleblowers, which will enable the United States Congress to reclaim some of its authority and oversight that it has given up for the past five years. No sir, you have all the right and reason to be nervous. However, I must take issue with your attempt to mislead the American public - another habit of your heart - by presenting them with false information and misleading statements. Sir, as you must very well know after your years in congress as a representative and as a member of the intelligence committee, there are no meaningful legal protections for whistleblowers. What is troubling is that while you are well aware of the fact that there are no meaningful or enforceable laws that provide protection to national security whistleblowers, you nevertheless state that such workers are covered by existing laws. That is simply false. You state that “the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act was enacted to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.” The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which appears to be the legal channel provided to national security employees, turns out on closer inspection to be toothless. Please refer to the recent independent report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on National Security Whistleblowers on December 30, 2005. The report concludes that there currently are no protections for national security whistleblowers - period. Let me provide you with a recent example illustrating the fallacy of your claim: In December 2005, Mr. Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, sent letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and requested meetings to brief them on probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the NSA and DIA. In his letter Mr. Tice, as a law abiding and responsible intelligence officer, stated “Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or congressional members to participate retain the proper security clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities available for these discussion.” On January 9, 2006, the NSA sent an official letter to Mr. Tice stating “neither the staff nor the members of the House or Senate Intelligence committees are cleared to receive the information.” Now, Mr. Goss, please explain this to the American public: What happened to your so-called appropriate congressional channels and protections available to national security whistleblowers? Mr. Goss, what “protected disclosure to congress”? According to the NSA no one in the United States Congress is “cleared enough” to hear reports from national security whistleblowers. Please name one whistleblower to date who has been protected after disclosing information to the United States Congress; can you name even a single case? Or, is that information considered classified? How do we expect the United States Congress to conduct its oversight responsibility and maintain the necessary checks on the Executive Branch, when agencies such as yours declare the members of congress “not cleared enough” to receive reports regarding conduct by these agencies? Where do you suggest employees like Mr. Tice go to report waste, fraud, abuse, and/or illegal conduct by their agencies? Based on your administration’s self-declared claim of inherent power and authority of the executive branch overriding courts and the United States Congress, what other channels are left to pursue? Okay, now let’s move to this notion you and the administration seem to be so very keen on: Classified &Sensitive Information. Let’s start by asking how we define “classified &sensitive information,” and who decides what is classified and sensitive? According to the statement by Thomas S. Benton, National Security Archive, on March 2, 2005, during the congressional hearing on “Emerging Threats: Overclassification &Pseudo-Classification,” the deputy undersecretary of defense for counterintelligence and security declared that 50% of the Pentagon's information was over-classified, and the head of the Information Security Oversight Office said it was even worse, "even beyond 50%." Don’t you find the percentage of falsely classified information appalling? Well, you should; it is your responsibility, because the executive branch, under the office of the United States President, is solely responsible for classification or pseudo-classification of information. Now, based on this knowledge, what should happen when you tell the public, when you tell the United States Congress and the media “Oh, you are not allowed to have this information; this information is highly sensitive and classified”? This is what should happen: we, the people, the Congress, and the media, should first ask you for the merits of the classification; have you prove to us that the information in question should in fact be classified; and you, the executive branch, have the obligation to truthfully respond. On the issue of classification in your op-ed you go further and cite the cost of unauthorized disclosure to the American taxpayer, “unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars.” Since you brought up the issue, let’s explore it fully and give the American people the real facts, shall we? The Office of Management and Budget report on classification costs to U.S. agencies (the CIA's are still classified; but of course!), gave us a benchmark number and some sense of comparative expense to the taxpayer - the reported dollar figure was over $6.5 billion in fiscal 2003. Now, since the percentage of falsely classified data has been determined to be in the range of 50%, the cost of our agencies’ pseudo classification to the American taxpayer amounts to over $3 billion. Mr. Goss, you do the math; do you really want to attempt to twist and misuse the cost of classification to try to strike a chord with the taxpayers? It is not going to stick; wouldn’t you agree? Let’s try your security angle on the subject of classification, where you state “disclosure of classified intelligence inhibits our ability to carry out our mission and protect the nation.” The entire 9/11 Commission report includes only one finding that the attacks might have been prevented (Page 247 &376). They quote the interrogation of the hijackers' paymaster, Ramzi Binalshibh, who commented that if the organizers, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had known that the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, had been arrested at his Minnesota flight school on immigration charges, then Bin Laden and KSM would have called off the 9/11 attacks, because news of that arrest would have alerted the FBI agent in Phoenix who warned of Islamic militants in flight schools in a July 2001 memo; a memo that vanished into the FBI's vaults in Washington. The Commission's wording is important here: only "publicity" could have derailed the attacks. Classification is indeed a very important mechanism, if it is applied diligently and wisely; however, as illustrated above, in certain circumstances, even with respect to national security information, classification can run counter to our national interests. Mr. Steven Aftergood, the Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, so very eloquently stated “the information blackout may serve the short-term interests of the present administration, which is allergic to criticism or even to probing questions. But it is a disservice to the country. Worst of all, the Bush administration's information policies are conditioning Americans to lower their expectations of government accountability and to doubt their own ability to challenge their political leaders. Information is the oxygen of democracy. Day by day, the Bush administration is cutting off the supply.” Mr. Goss, since you proudly quoted from the Rob-Silberman Report released in March 2005, let me do the same and present you with another quote from the same report: “In just the past 20 years the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NRO, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have all been penetrated. Secrets stolen include nuclear weapons data, U.S. cryptographic codes and procedures, identification of U.S. intelligence sources and methods (human and technical), and war plans. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the damage that foreign intelligence penetrations have caused.” It appears that the only ones not privy to our so-called sensitive government and intelligence information are the American citizens, since our enemies and allies have been successfully penetrating all our intelligence agencies (including yours sir) and nuclear labs and facilities. Sir, with all due respect, you have not even succeeded in protecting your own agencies, offices and facilities against foreign penetration; you seem to be incapable of conducting appropriate background checks on your own employees; you failed to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; and you have failed in gathering intelligence and reporting it accurately on the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. With this kind of record how can you go on lecturing the Congress and the American people on your superiority and inherent authority to do whatever you wish, however you wish, and without having to provide any report or any answer to anybody, including the United States Congress? Last year, the CIA, your agency, classified the entire findings of the Inspector General’s investigation into the failures of CIA managers prior to 9/11. Sir, I believe you made the case for this classification based on your intention to protect the wrongdoers within the CIA bureaucracy from being “stigmatized.” Is this what your op-ed intended to say? Did you mean to say that these national security whistleblowers may end up stigmatizing the wrongdoers and incompetents within the rank and file of the CIA by divulging information that you decided to classify to prevent exposure of embarrassing and criminal activity? Was that a Freudian slip, since nowadays the lines get blurry between classification for national security purposes and classification to protect the agency’s bureaucrats? Mr. Goss, I cannot attribute this misleading op-ed to your ignorance, since you were a member of Congress until recently and are surely aware of the lack of meaningful protection for national security whistleblowers; so I won't. I will not attribute it to your stupidity, since obviously our Congress confirmed your position and I do not intend to insult their wisdom and intelligence. Thus, it must be your arrogance, nurtured and fed by your boss on your purported inherent and limitless authority and power, leading you to treat us, the American Public, as stupid. Sincerely, Sibel Edmonds A Proud National Security Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers. Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” by Attorney General Ashcroft; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. www.nswbc.org Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, was terminated from the bureau after reporting security breaches, cover-up, and blocking of intelligence with national security implications. Since that time, court proceedings in her whistleblower case have been blocked by the imposition of “State Secret Privilege,” and Congress has been prevented from discussion of her case through retroactive reclassification by the Department of Justice. Edmonds, fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; holds an MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006 ***************************************************************** 44 Telegraph: Bomb that ticks on N-deal - Real issue: production of weapons-grade material Calcutta : Frontpage | Sunday, February 12, 2006 | K.P. NAYAR Bush and Singh: What next? Washington, Feb. 11: The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the country’s nuclear establishment are shadow-boxing over the separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities as part of the deal with the US. The real issue on which the July 18 agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush may come unstuck is continued production of fissile material by India for use in nuclear weapons. The White House agreement commits India to “working with the US for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty” (FMCT). But the Bush administration did not envisage in July that a mere commitment by the two countries to work towards an eventual FMCT would be inadequate to satisfy America’s powerful non-proliferation lobby and countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which are sceptical of the Indo-US nuclear deal. When the 45-member NSG, which controls global transfers of nuclear material, met in Washington in October, Canada, Austria, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland criticised the US for pushing India’s case within the nuclear club without obtaining more guarantees from New Delhi on non-proliferation. According to sources familiar with the proceedings at the NSG meeting, the Canadians held the Americans accountable for not seeking an iron-clad guarantee from the Manmohan Singh government that it would cease producing more fissile material for nuclear weapons, pending the multilateral negotiations on an FMCT. The Bush administration was in a quandary because it has already stopped producing new fissile material. Among the five nuclear powers recognised under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Russia, France and the UK have also agreed to cap fissile material production. Only China, defying international calls to stop fissile material output, has failed to do so. Since the government of P.V. Narasimha Rao was asked by the US administration headed by the present President Bush’s father to sign on a moratorium on such production, India has consistently rejected pressure on this account. India’s consistent view has been that it will not cease producing material for its credible nuclear deterrent until the international community agrees on an FMCT, and at any rate, as long as China continues such production and co-operates with Pakistan’s nuclear establishment. India’s worries on this account have been enhanced by the latest report of the US state department on “Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Non-proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments”. The report says the US “remains concerned about the effectiveness of Chinese nuclear export controls and China’s compliance with its... nuclear non-proliferation commitments”. Adding to the problems of those negotiating a firm bilateral nuclear agreement ahead of Bush’s visit to India, the US has reasserted, between July and now, its determination to seek a worldwide cap on fissile material production. Paula A DeSutter, the state department’s pointperson on disarmament, told a conference here in November that “pending the conclusion of...an FMCT, the US has and continues to call on all nuclear weapon states and states not party to the NPT to make a public commitment to not produce fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”. She pointed out that “four of the five nuclear weapons states, including of course, the US, already have made such a commitment”. The leaders of India’s nuclear establishment, such as Anil Kakodkar, secretary of the department of atomic energy, see it coming: a demand that India should cap its fissile material production before the NSG does anything for its civilian nuclear programme. If they have not discussed it yet in public, it is only because the Indians do not want to be the ones to bring the issue into the public domain. The nuclear establishment is, however, unanimous that any cap on fissile material production will amount to an end to fine-tuning India’s nuclear arsenal and further weapons development. What they oppose is a deal with the US, which they view as a phased emasculation of India's nuclear programme, first by putting a large number of nuclear facilities under international safeguards, followed by a ban on material for new or advanced weapons. Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 Wall Street Journal: Nuclear industry plans ad push for plants [azcentral.com] Support sought for future sites John J. Fialka Feb. 12, 2006 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - The nation's nuclear-power industry is set to roll out a multiyear advertising campaign to build public support for a generation of new plants and federal policies needed to help them succeed. The campaign, based around a theme of "nuclear renaissance," is timed to support President Bush's nuclear-energy initiative. The plan would sponsor research in technology to safely reprocess spent nuclear fuel so that long-term storage space for waste might be reduced. "We want to build a broader base of bipartisan support, both in Washington and across the country," said Scott Peterson, a vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The trade group represents owners of the 103 nuclear-power plants that provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The main goal of the ad campaign is to bolster public support for as many as four proposals for nuclear plants that are expected to enter the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year. No nuclear plant has been proposed in the United States since the 1970s. In Washington, the industry will push Bush-administration proposals to move nuclear waste from storage near power plants to Yucca Mountain in Nevada or to alternative sites on government land. Companies wanting to build plants will have to show there is adequate storage space for the waste they will generate. Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Arizona Republic: Palo Verde's costly slump February 12, 2006 Customers may pay for nuke plant's struggles At the heart of a $9.3 billion deal to build the nation's largest nuclear power plant in the Arizona desert was a promise. In exchange for the public's support, Arizona Public Service Co. guaranteed that the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station would provide the Valley with cheap, safe and reliable electricity for decades. But public and private reports paint a picture of a model nuclear power plant that has struggled over the past two years to meet its owners' lofty goals. Arizona Public Service has had to shut down a reactor 18 times since February 2004, primarily because of worn equipment, design problems or delayed maintenance. The outages have cost utilities from El Paso to Los Angeles tens of millions of dollars, and ratepayers will be asked to pick up the bill in Arizona and perhaps elsewhere. No one says the problems have compromised the immediate safety of the plant, 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix. Palo Verde has been the most vital piece of the Valley's energy pyramid since it opened in 1986, a triple-reactor monster that generates three times as much power as Hoover Dam. Nuclear-generated electricity is much cheaper to produce than energy from coal or natural gas. So when Palo Verde generators are shut down, APS must turn to other, more expensive, energy sources to provide electricity for its customers. Among the problems: • Arizona regulators are reviewing the causes of the numerous outages to decide whether APS or its customers should pay $57 million to cover the cost of purchasing or producing power from other sources during the downtime. • Palo Verde has a lower performance rating than all but two of 65 nuclear plants nationwide, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal oversight agency. The agency grades nuclear plants on safety and overall performance. Palo Verde is the only U.S. nuclear plant cited last year for a "yellow" safety violation. Yellow is the second-most serious level of violation based on a single problem; no plant was cited last year for a "red" violation. Because of this violation, the NRC has established a much tougher inspection schedule to make sure APS fixes the problems. • A key industry group, the Atlanta-based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, knocked down Palo Verde's overall rating last summer from a one to a three (on a five-point scale) during its biannual review. The group cited repeated problems with the plant's equipment, maintenance and other procedures contributing to lower productivity. The group is considered the industry's foremost expert on nuclear plant performance. APS acknowledges the challenges. The company has reorganized top management at Palo Verde and formed a plant-improvement team to examine everything from equipment problems to a backlog of maintenance, engineering and other work. Still, the company insists that Palo Verde remains among the best-run nuclear plants in the nation and that changes will ensure that the recent problems are just a bump in the road. The plant has traditionally scored above industry averages by most measures, and its position as an electrical lifeline for the fast-growing Southwest is unquestioned. "We've done a lot of internal self-assessment," said Jim Levine, APS executive vice president of generation, who oversees Palo Verde. "We had a long period of time when performance was very good. For the last couple of years, that hasn't been the case. We want to get back there." Among the top plants Arizona Public Service opened Palo Verde's first two reactors in 1986 and followed with a third reactor in 1988. APS, an investor-owned utility with more than 1 million customers, owns the largest share of Palo Verde and operates the plant on behalf of six other owners. Each reactor operates under a 40-year license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and APS executives have said they likely will seek a 20-year extension when the licenses expire. Palo Verde has consistently been among the nation's most efficient, top-performing nuclear-energy producers. It churns out more electricity than any other nuclear plant, serving 20 percent of the homes in the Valley and up to 4 million homes in the Southwest. It is a cornerstone of the Valley's power supply. Nuclear electricity is cheaper to produce than electricity from other sources, so APS tries to fully utilize its nuclear-generated power before turning to other, more expensive sources such as coal or natural gas. That helps keep electricity costs lower for APS and its customers. That's why APS tries to ensure that all three Palo Verde reactors operate at full capacity as often as possible. Palo Verde's best year was 2002, when its generating capacity peaked at more than 94 percent, above the industry's average of about 90 percent. But 2005 was its worst year in more than a decade. The slump consisted of 10 unplanned shutdowns because of equipment, design and regulatory problems. Because Palo Verde was down so often last year, it created electricity at only 77 percent of capacity. Last year, reactors were out of service three times as often as at other nuclear plants in the Western United States. The problems increase the amount of money it costs APS to produce electricity. Palo Verde's production costs per kilowatt-hour of electricity last year rose to their highest average since 1995. Palo Verde's woes continue this year. Unit 1 has operated at about 25 percent of capacity since mid-January due to a vibrating pipe. APS is still trying to fix the problem. Costly repairs Reasons for Palo Verde's slump are as varied as the thousands of nuts, bolts and tubes that make up the plant. Some outages were anticipated, the result of long-standing equipment issues that afflict similar nuclear plants across the nation. The most costly repairs, totaling more than $600 million, have been replacing twin 800-ton steam generators. Steam generators were replaced in Unit 1 in 2005 and Unit 2 in 2003; generators in Unit 3 will be replaced next year. These generators, which convert superheated water to steam that spins turbines and makes electricity, deteriorated more quickly than expected and take weeks to install and test. APS could not have anticipated other problems that triggered shutdowns. Bird droppings knocked out a transmission line in summer 2004, taking down all three reactors and plunging the Valley into a power crunch. All outages will be reviewed by the Arizona Corporation Commission, the agency that must approve any request by APS to recover money from ratepayers. The agency has hired an expert to review outages, maintenance practices and replacement-power purchases. State regulators want a detailed report because APS is asking to bill customers for $57 million to cover extra fuel costs created by the reactor outages. To recover the money, APS most prove that the costs were prudently incurred. The goal of the state's investigation is to answer one question: Could APS have done anything differently to prevent those outages? "We're just concerned about the number of outages and length of outages," Arizona Corporation Commissioner Bill Mundell said. "We want to know what's going on. We need those kilowatts." Federal concerns One reason for the higher-than-normal number of shutdowns at Palo Verde in 2005 was stricter federal oversight of the plant's safety. Regulators instituted a more rigorous inspection schedule after they found a significant safety violation in August 2004. At that time, Palo Verde alerted Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors about a "dry pipe" leading to the plant's emergency core-cooling system. It was the federal agency's most significant safety violation at any U.S. nuclear plant that year, and it landed Palo Verde a $50,000 fine and a series of follow-up inspections. Inspectors believed that air found in the pipe had the potential to disrupt the flow of water to the core's emergency core-cooling system. The cooling system is perhaps the most vital safety backstop a nuclear plant has, because it is designed to inject thousands of gallons of water to quench an overheated reactor's core. That would prevent Palo Verde's worst-case scenario: a nuclear-core meltdown. "That was a real significant finding," said Bruce Mallett, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region IV in Arlington, Texas. "It's an early indicator that, if you don't turn it around, could be the difference between operating safely" and unsafely. For APS, the dry-pipe violation proved far more costly than a simple fine. Federal regulators knocked Palo Verde's safety rating down a notch to "degraded cornerstone," a lower performance measure than all but two plants in the nation, the Perry nuclear plant near Cleveland and Point Beach I &II in Wisconsin. Forced shutdown Palo Verde remains subject to a more rigorous inspection schedule. After an inspection in October, APS was forced to completely shut down the plant. The reason: APS couldn't guarantee that the emergency cooling system would work properly if a pipe ruptured or other accident occurred. With Unit 1 closed for refueling, APS shut down Units 2 and 3 from Oct. 11-20 while it answered regulators' questions. The closing rippled throughout Southwestern power markets, with utilities in El Paso and Los Angeles discussing the need to raise rates to cover the costs of buying power from other sources. It proved to be APS' most costly shutdown of the year. The estimated price tag: $14 million. What's more, the shutdown would not have happened if APS had caught the dry-pipe problem earlier and not been subject to increased inspections. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry group formed to self-police nuclear plants after the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, also noted APS' problems in detecting the dry-pipe problem. The group's goal is to improve nuclear power plant performance. It examines maintenance management and other practices to suggest ways plants can improve safety and be more productive. In its unedited draft report on Palo Verde issued last summer, the group said APS didn't catch the problem even though all nuclear power plants were notified in the mid-1990s about the potential for such a problem. APS also could have recognized the problem in 1992 when it changed testing procedures on the pipe. It was a missed opportunity, Levine said. The report noted that "day-to-day and emergent workload demands" on the employees responsible for monitoring the safety-injection systems "detracted from the integrated approach required to address maintenance, operational and testing practices." Levine acknowledged that the problem should have been caught much earlier, and he could not say why it wasn't. "It's hard to look back that far and determine whether somebody had too much on their plate," he said. Still, Levine said the cooling system would have worked properly during an emergency. "I have no qualms telling people these pipes would work," Levine said. Faulty oil seals Safety concerns and regulatory oversight aren't the only factors that have sapped Palo Verde's productivity. APS has shut down the plant several times over the past two years to repair or replace worn or malfunctioning parts. Emergency diesel generators, pressurizer heaters and oil seals all have triggered plant outages. "Nothing runs perfectly forever," said Gary Hedrick, chief executive officer of El Paso Electric, one of seven Palo Verde owners. "It's like driving a 20-year-old car in some respects. You will have to replace some of the older parts over time." Leaking oil seals are a persistent, potentially dangerous problem. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations said faulty seals are a "long-standing equipment issue" that requires an "abnormally high rate of replacement." The leaking reactor coolant-pump seals forced the shutdown of Unit 3 twice last year and contributed to a third. Levine expressed frustration. APS has not pinpointed the cause of the leaks. Crews have adjusted the seals, a temporary fix that appears to have slowed the leaks. New seals will be installed during the reactor's next refueling later this year. "It's going to get fixed," Levine said. Nuclear scientists warn that a leaking oil seal combined with a plant power outage could have disastrous implications. During a power outage, a leaking reactor coolant pump would lose water faster than it could replace it. That would create an imbalance that, if undetected, could lead to a meltdown, according to David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Washington-based watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists. Levine said, however, that leaking oil seals by themselves do not pose a safety concern. Backup-system failure Emergency diesel generators also have affected the plant's productivity. The generators are a source of backup power that would allow the plant to shut down safely during a power outage. The generators failed numerous times during routine tests and once after all three units were cut off from outside power in summer 2004. Generator failures in March and August 2005 prompted reactor shutdowns. APS and federal inspectors say worn parts are common in aging nuclear plants. The deterioration requires that APS institute rigorous screening procedures to detect potential equipment problems before they trigger outages. Although the plant's age may be a contributing factor to the condition of some parts, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations also cited Palo Verde's maintenance practices. A more rigorous preventive-maintenance program could have detected many minor equipment failures, such as a malfunctioning circulating pump in December 2004 and a ventilation motor in January 2005, the report said. The report also said that maintenance crews did not perform required air-quality monitoring in more than a year and a half. Levine acknowledged that not all maintenance jobs have been completed in a timely manner. Repair jobs that directly affect the plant's safety are completed first, he said. "Remember, we're talking about thousands of preventative-maintenance tasks that get done on an annual basis," Levine said. "Sometimes some of those get deferred because of a scheduling conflict. . . . You have preventative-maintenance programs, and you should make sure they are implemented." Industry rating dips Other groups have noted APS' struggle with productivity during the past two years. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations pointed out several productivity-related issues during the group's Palo Verde inspection last summer. APS has fared well during past audits, receiving the No. 1 rating for a decade straight. But in the most recent review, conducted last summer, the nuclear power group cut Palo Verde's rating to No. 3, which costs the plant in prestige and, potentially, money because of higher insurance costs. The industry group, funded by operators of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors, does not share its findings with the public. It informs plant managers and allows each plant's Nuclear Regulatory Commission-assigned resident inspector to review the findings. The Arizona Republic obtained a copy of last summer's report. APS officials and the industry group acknowledged the report but declined to discuss it. The agency promises confidentiality to its operators, saying to do otherwise risks blocking the open exchange of ideas and information needed to improve plants. Implementing changes APS acknowledged that Palo Verde has been through a rough stretch, and the company has responded with widespread changes. APS Chairman Bill Post said his company should not be judged on whether there are problems at Palo Verde. What matters, he said, is how the company handles those problems. "We are very serious about returning our nuclear units to their exceptional operating record," Post said. "I am convinced that the issues we are facing at Palo Verde are being fully addressed and we will be successful in reducing unplanned outages in the future." Gregg Overbeck, who was the plant's highest-ranking executive, retired in September, and Levine, who ran the plant in the late 1990s, resumed day-to-day oversight. APS also hired Cliff Eubanks, formerly a plant manager at Entergy's Arkansas Nuclear One plant, to assume the long-vacant position of vice president of plant operations. Other changes include a new plant-improvement group charged with correcting problems and improving operations. APS is reviewing how it spends Palo Verde's $386 million operations and maintenance budget to ensure that neglected areas get sufficient resources. The nuclear power institute noted that Palo Verde lacks the extensive system of measurements that can detect whether performance is improving or slipping. And the backlog of maintenance and other work orders has increased during the plant's frequent outages. Levine said one of the aims of the plant-improvement group is to address shortcomings, particularly the corrective actions, which APS requires be done within 180 days of identifying a problem. "With the number of outages we had, people got behind. That was the thing that contributed to the backlog," Levine said. "Our backlog was getting a little larger." Nuclear experts say Palo Verde's numerous problems during the past two years show that changes are sorely needed. "It would have been better if they reacted sooner," said Lochbaum, of the Union for Concerned Scientists. "They (APS) seem to have gotten the message and are heading in the right direction. You don't get in and out of that box overnight." Tallying the cost Palo Verde's troubles come at a critical time for APS. The plant's outages have cost $57 million from April 2005 through January, and those costs increase every day Unit 1 operates at reduced power. Yet the outages are only one part of APS' challenge. APS cited the rising cost of natural gas, higher operational expenses and lower returns from its energy trades for the company's recent 37 percent drop in fourth-quarter profits. Wall Street ratings agencies have threatened to knock down the company's bonds to junk, which would cost the company $10 million or more a year in higher borrowing costs. The company said those costs would be passed along to consumers. The company wants to recover the Palo Verde outage costs and hundreds of millions more through a trio of bill-increase requests. The Arizona Corporation Commission could allow APS to pass along all or part of that to customers. APS isn't the only utility facing tougher financial times as a result of the plant's difficulties. Utilities across the Southwest are adding up the costs of frequent outages at Palo Verde. Because the outages force utilities to purchase more-expensive electricity, customers could see higher bills. While APS operates Palo Verde and owns the largest share, 29.1 percent, the plant provides electricity for six other utilities that hold an ownership stake, including the Valley's other major power provider, Salt River Project. SRP estimates that it costs an extra $900,000 per day when all three Palo Verde reactors are out of service. Albuquerque-based PNM Resources said the outages cost the utility $6.9 million in 2005, and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Sterba told investors that Unit 1's troubles this year could mean "another year of performance like last year, on the downside." El Paso Electric is especially vulnerable to Palo Verde's fluctuations because it gets about half of its power from the plant. El Paso estimates that it costs $250,000 per day to buy power on the open market when Palo Verde is shut down. El Paso CEO Hedrick said the company will need to recover these additional costs from its customers. It has not determined an amount. Los Angeles ratepayers, too, may feel the pinch. Nuclear power provides about 10 percent of the power for the city, and a Palo Verde outage costs Los Angeles $300,000 to $400,000 each day. Despite concerns about Palo Verde's problems, El Paso and the plant's other owners remain confident in APS. "I am a little distressed to see some of the (Arizona Corporation) commissioners calling for somebody's head," Hedrick said, referring to comments made in the wake of Palo Verde shutdowns. "I hadn't heard of anybody giving APS huge rewards over the last 20 years for being among the industry leaders." Reach the reporter at ken .alltucker@arizonarepublic.comor (602) 444-8284. Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 The State: Fairfield County proposed as site 4 2 nuclear power plants 02/11/2 SCE, Santee Cooper will seek approval to build 2 facilities but would only build 1 now By BEN WERNER Staff Writer The states two largest electric utilities plan to seek federal approval for two new nuclear power plants in Fairfield County. On Friday, SCE and Santee Cooper announced they have chosen their co-owned V.C. Summer nuclear power station near Jenkinsville as the site for future nuclear plants. The utilities plan is designed to increase their ability to meet South Carolinas future power needs. However, approval and construction are expected to take about a decade, with 2015 as the earliest date for bringing a new plant online. Both SCE, a subsidiary of Columbia-based SCANA Corp., and Santee Cooper, a state-owned utility, are banking on demand for day-to-day power to grow tremendously over the next decade as South Carolina attracts more industry and residents. Even with modest load growth projections, both companies will need to add new base load electrical generation within the next 10 years, Neville Lorick, president of SCE, said in a statement. The utilities plan to ask federal regulators for permission to build two plants because the cost is only slightly more to ask for both. For now, though, company officials say they only plan to build one, at a cost of a little less than $2 billion. With the ability to generate 1,100 megawatts  enough to power between 500,000 and 700,000 average homes  the new plant would double V.C. Summers generation capabilities. SCE currently provides electricity to more than 259,000 customers in 24 counties in the state. Santee Cooper provides power to 146,000 customers in three coastal counties and 650,000 other customers through power provided to 20 electric cooperatives in the state. It has been nearly 30 years since construction began on a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States. Now, SCE and Santee Cooper are hardly alone. Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Southern Co. also are considering new nuclear power plants. The reasons include: • A revamped energy policy that streamlines the licensing process • Skyrocketing costs of other fuels • Ballooning demand for more power When the utilities looked at the cost of meeting clean air regulations, mercury rules and what is expected regarding carbon, generating nuclear power becomes relatively cheap, said Stephen Byrne, SCANAs senior vice president of generation and chief nuclear officer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses new plants, a process the utilities expect will take until 2010. The utilities final decision to build will not be made until after that. Construction would take five years. However, the time to apply is now, utility officials said. What option will be available for us and how soon, is how Lonnie Carter, chief executive of Santee Cooper explained the situation. SCE and Santee Cooper spent 12.5 years bringing V.C. Summer online in 1984. There were several reasons the utilities selected to build the new nuclear plant next to their existing V.C. Summer plant, which they co-own and SCE operates: • The utilities already own the land and only need to tweak their security and safety plans to accommodate the new structures. • Byrne said V.C. Summer has a trained work force and a training facility. The need for adding more security personnel, for instance, will be minimal. The plant would add about 450 more jobs. These cost-related reasons ruled out Savannah River Site, which had been considered before. Officials with the companies stressed the decision to add nuclear is not final, but the option has been talked about openly for nearly a year, and privately for longer. We have to build something, Carter said. TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 48 The State: Plants economic impact uncertain 02/11/2 Some Jenkinsville residents wonder if they would get fair shot a new jobs By JIM DuPLESSIS Staff Writer JENKINSVILLE  Some residents of this rural, mostly black community by the V.C. Summer nuclear plant worry they might be bypassed for high-paying jobs if SCE builds a second nuclear plant here. SCE expects it would need 2,000 people to help build the plant after construction begins in 2010 and 450 operators if the Columbia-based utility decides to build it and completes it on time in 2015. Glenns 6-10 convenience store faces the entrance to the nuclear plant. Besides snacks and drinks, the store sells bait and tackle for people fishing on Lake Monticello and has a grill where Fridays special was fried chicken gizzards. This is the town right here  your local restaurant, your grocery store  right here, cashier Jana Mills said Friday. Mills, 38, said most jobs at V.C. Summer are filled by people older than 40 commuting from outside the area, and the jobs the few locals get tend to be janitorial. They need to hire more young people in the community and give them an opportunity to have a job, Mills said. Everybodys whos out there to work doesnt have a college education, so they cant blame it on that. You never know what a person can do until you give them a chance. In response, Eric Boomhower, an SCE spokesman contacted Friday afternoon, said the company paid Fairfield County $19 million in property taxes last year, and its site vice president, Jeff Archie, was born and raised in Fairfield County. Boomhower said he was unable to immediately provide numbers on employment by residence. Tommy Richardson, Fairfield Countys economic development coordinator, also said he expects the plant would help the areas economy. Once they start construction, that will be an awful lot of activity, if it comes to fruition, Richardson said. The county lost 1,800 jobs from 2000 to 2004, leaving it with only 5,800 workers. It was one of the steepest drops among the states 46 counties, forcing many residents to commute to nearby counties. One of them is Teresa Kennedy, a 29-year-old resident who attended Benedict College for three years. Kennedy travels 45 minutes to get to her job at Netflixs DVD distribution center in Columbia. Getting to work and back in her early 1980s Buick Riviera costs her at least $10 per day. Kennedy said she has applied twice for security jobs at the plant. Her two brothers have moved to Columbia to work. Her two sisters remain in Jenkinsville. One works in Lexington County, the other in Winnsboro. The plant employed 688 people in July, and residents said hourly wages are around $15. About 600 others work for contractors providing services such as security, operating the plants cafeteria and cleaning the building and grounds. Janitorial workers make about $8 per hour. Otis Watts, a 56-year-old house painter who lives a few miles from the plant on the Newberry County side of Lake Monticello, said he remembers when the plants construction in the 1960s brought hundreds of workers to Jenkinsville. But they were gone after a few years, and he said he expects little impact from a second plant. I dont see why we need a plant just for the economy, Watts said. Reach DuPlessis at (803) 771-8305 or jduplessis@thestate.com. TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 49 Charlotte Observer: Nuclear plants, NRC ready to grow | 02/11/2006 | Commissioner says once-declining industry is seen as solution to coming energy crunch STAN CHOE schoe@charlotteobserver.com Jeffery Merrifield's job is so much different today than when he first became a federal nuclear regulator in 1998. Then, the government was thinking 40 percent of the country's nuclear plants would be shut down by 2010. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, based in suburban Maryland, was cutting its work force to keep even with the declining industry it was regulating. Today, though, the nuclear industry appears on the cusp of a resurgence in the country. Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp., for example, says it's considering building a nuclear plant in the Carolinas. Nuclear plants didn't close, and many operators applied for extensions to their licenses to keep their plants alive another 20 years. More nuclear plants appear to be on the horizon: Utilities say they'll need big power plants in the coming decade to make up an anticipated power shortfall. And incentives included in the recently enacted Energy Bill make nuclear even more attractive. Merrifield, a commissioner with the NRC, was in Charlotte this week to talk with Duke officials about their McGuire plant on Lake Norman. He answered questions from the Observer Friday. Questions and answers have been edited for content and clarity: Q. With this anticipated boom in license applications for nuclear plants, what's the biggest challenge for the NRC in the near future? The biggest challenge is human resources. The NRC had about 2,900 people when I came on board, bottoming out in 1999 with a little more than 2,700. Now, it's at 3,250. And we expect to hire 300 new people in the next 12 months: engineers, geologists, vulcanologists to do the technical reviews of applications coming in. Six years ago, we used to have six times as many people over 60 as under 30. And for the utilities, they also need craft workers: electricians, welders, pipe fitters. That work force also has an aging profile. It's going to be incumbent on utilities to get out to the high schools and trade schools around their plants. That's where the challenge may be bigger. Q. Where are potential bottlenecks in the run-up to nuclear plant construction? I think we can get the work force we need to evaluate the applications we receive. When they get approved, there are few firms available for architecture and engineering. That's going to be one where great changes will be necessary. The current group of folks will have to increase their work forces: Bechtel, Shaw, Fluor. Q. How do you view Charlotte-based Duke Power as a nuclear operator? Duke is a solid company with a very good track record of operating its plants. Q. What about Oconee, Duke's nuclear plant in Seneca, S.C.? It's had seven enforcement actions by the NRC in the past five years. Oconee has had a few more issues recently, some aging issues that have been challenging to them. We got our three resident inspectors out there. Q. Do you think utilities really need to build all these nuclear plants they're talking about? Predictions of power shortfalls in the past have been wrong. I have had any number of utilities who have talked to me about concern of 2015, 2017. They see major gaps in availability for utilities to deliver baseload power going forward. Virtually every utility executive tells me the same thing, which leads me to believe they're not lying. Q. So, how many new nuclear plants do you see being constructed? I would say at least a dozen (by 2020). Q. Do you think companies would be considering nuclear if not for all the incentives in the Energy Bill? I think the incentives were icing on the cake -- maybe the tipping point to get people to move faster to take advantage of those incentives. Q. Why does the South seem to be more welcoming of nuclear plants than other areas of the country? (The heaviest concentration of the country's nuclear plants is south of the Mason-Dixon line). The areas in which we generally find the greatest concern are New York, New England and California. New England is different. (Merrifield is a New England native and a graduate of Tufts University in Massachusetts.) People up there, there's a greater likelihood of challenge. People are politically active, politically aware. They have the tendency of being a bit more liberal. But I think public support across the board is much higher than it was 10 to 20 years ago. Q. Can anything trip up this seeming resurgence for nuclear in the country? We're one accident away from turning all this around. My hope is to avoid that problem. The most important thing is not to be overconfident of what we've accomplished so far. ***************************************************************** 50 AP Wire: Nuclear power plant officials contest critics' claims | 02/11/2006 | Associated Press LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. - Officials at Oyster Creek are contesting critics' claims that the nuclear power plant's airtight steel vessel, meant to prevent radiation leaks during an accident, is in danger of buckling. Stop The Renewal of Oyster Creek, a coalition fighting the proposed 20-year renewal of Oyster Creek's operating license, hired a corrosion expert who claimed that rusting on the vessel, called the drywell liner, was bad enough that it could buckle. But plant officials told the Asbury Park Press for Saturday newspapers that their analysis of the liner and other parts of the radiation containment system shows they are still able to do the job for which they were designed. "The work that's being done at the plant indicated to us that containment, even if it's pressurized during an accident, will not collapse," said Fred Polaski, license renewal manager for Chicago-based Exelon, owner of plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. Shaped like an inverted light bulb, the drywell contains the reactor vessel, a container in which atoms split to make heat. The drywell liner is meant to help contain radioactive steam and gas in the event of an accident. Even if the liner was fully functional, a radioactive release would still happen 74 percent of the time if a reactor core melts or if fuel is seriously damaged in an accident, according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and an AmerGen risk analysis. NRC renewal of Oyster Creek's license would allow it to operate until 2029. Without a renewal, the plant would close in three years. The 630-megawatt plant in Lacey Township is the oldest commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. ***************************************************************** 51 Fredericksburg.com: Reactor plan changes delay decision Free Lance-Star!] Sun, Feb. 12, 2006 Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants time to consider Dominion's revised application for an additional reactor at North Anna plant in Louisa County. By RUSTY DENNEN Federal regulators want more information about Dominion power's plan for a possible new reactor at its North Anna Power Station. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced yesterday that it has asked the utility for additional details about its reactor cooling plan and its request to boost the unit's power output. Dominion in January revised its 2003 application for an early site permit to include the two major changes. The first would incorporate a closed cooling system, instead of using millions of gallons of lake water to cool a new reactor. And the company asked to boost the power output from 4,300 megawatts to 4,500 megawatts. Dominion made the change in the cooling system after lake residents expressed concerns about low lake levels and excessive summer water temperatures. The two existing units at the plant on the Louisa County shore are cooled by lake water. Millions of gallons a minute are drawn from the lake, and the heated water is discharged in cooling lagoons before it flows back into the main lake. "Our initial review of Dominion's revisions pointed out several areas that require additional detail," said William Beckner, deputy director of the Division of New Reactor Licensing, said in a press release. The NRC yesterday sent a letter to David A. Christian, Dominion's senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, outlining the request. It says Dominion failed to adequately describe the operation of the new cooling system, its potential environmental effects, and whether its water use would affect stream levels and the environment on the North Anna River downstream of the dam. After Dominion responds, the NRC will take up to nine months reviewing the new information. Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle had not seen the letter as of yesterday afternoon, but said the utility is not concerned. "We had a conversation with them, and we don't anticipate anything difficult to answer." Norvelle said that the human and environmental impact of the revised cooling system "should be less than what we were planning, so we don't anticipate that taking a lot of time." This is the NRC's second request in recent months for more information. In July 2005, the agency inquired about the status of Virginia regulatory agency reviews of aspects of the reactor plan. An early site permit resolves site, safety and environmental issues prior to a utility making a decision to build. Dominion would be able to bank the site for up to 20 years. Utilities in Mississippi and Illinois are also seeking early site permits, and Dominion had been ahead of them in the process. But with the NRC's announcement, it moves to the back of the line. The agency had been expected to rule on Dominion's application later this year, but that will be pushed back into 2007. If that's approved, Dominion will also need a combined operation and license permit to actually build a new reactor. That process would take approximately 10 years, company officials have said. To reach RUSTY DENNEN: + 540/374-5431 + Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com Date published: 2/11/2006 Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To contact other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone for fredericksburg.com: 540-368-5055 Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va. ***************************************************************** 52 Deseret News: Trust thermal nuclear energy [deseretnews.com] Sunday, February 12, 2006 Your editorial page recently published two items favoring impractical extremes about nuclear energy. One favors building new nukes but switching to a different kind of fast reactor, rather than slow (or thermal) reactors (Readers' Forum, Jan. 23). The other said that nuclear energy is an immature technology that should be discontinued (My View, Feb. 7). Neither of these extremes is realistic. Building new nuclear plants is difficult without adding new difficulties posed by fast reactors, among which are: Does it really pay to breed fuel? Can destructive fast nuclear power reactions be ruled out in licensing? Is fuel processing a business any electric utility wants to be in at its power plants? Fast reactor fuel falling into wrong hands can be processed for WMDs. The other extreme is way out in left field. Practical wind farms require unique sites having steady high winds and a power grid with fuel or storage sources of backup power for when the wind is not blowing (a similar point can be made about the sun as a power source). Wind farms are not practical for making fuel for automobiles, replacing oil and gas, making hydrogen, or reducing global warming. nuclear plants of the conventional thermal reactor kind are. Clinton P. Ashworth nuclear Engineer Orem © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 53 BBC: ON THIS DAY | 12 | 1954: New authority for atomic energy 1954: New authority for atomic energy A new body has been established to control the production and development of atomic energy in the UK. The Atomic Energy Authority Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Minister of Work Sir David Eccles yesterday and has been published today to update legislation passed in 1946, when the first facilities were established. Former Chief Planning Officer to the Treasury Sir Edwin Plowden, 47, will chair the new authority. He will be joined on the Authority by between six and 10 members, who have so far been identified as: + Sir John Cockcroft, 47, Director of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment since 1946; + Sir Christopher Hinton, 53, Deputy Controller of Atomic Energy since 1946; + and Sir William Penney, 44, who designed Britain's first atomic bomb. The Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) will be responsible for producing and disposing of atomic energy and radioactive waste and with government approval it may allocate grants and loans for developing research and production. The government will retain close links and strict control over atomic weapons. The Waverley Report The re-organisation is in line with the findings of the committee set up by the government last April under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley. The Waverley Report - which is not publicly available for security reasons - formed the basis of a White Paper presented to parliament last November. It described the growing importance of atomic energy and the variety of commercial applications for it which suggested it would be better run as a large industrial facility than by a government department. Changes began at the beginning of the year when responsibility for atomic energy was moved from the Minister of Supply to the Lord President of the Council, Lord Salisbury, a non-departmental post. His role is to decide government policy for the industry and to distribute large sums of money voted for it by parliament. Watch/Listen [Atomic power station under construction] The government will retain strict control over atomic weapons BBC newsreel about atomic energy in the UK: "There was a bit of a scare about radioactivity." In Context The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has continued to pioneer the development of nuclear energy. It is responsible for six sites at Dounreay in Caithness, Risley in Cheshire, Sellafield in Cumbria, Winfrith in Dorset and Culham and Harwell in Oxfordshire,. Much of its current work is concerned with safely decommissioning old nuclear sites for conventional or other use. It remains a non-departmental public body, under the direction of the Department of Trade and Industry. The UKAEA provides the UK's input into the European fusion research project and expert advice on nuclear installations round the world. Web Links Atomic Energy Authority The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites ***************************************************************** 54 newsobserver.com: Risks at nuclear plant | Letters February 10, 2006 Regarding the Jan. 24 article "NRC: Harris plant meets standards": According to our longtime technical expert, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "performance" report is only a snapshot. And it excludes fire safety, security problems and risks from loss of off-site power. Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear plant ranks among the nation's worst in those categories and failures in the cooling system. Fire is the leading risk factor. Harris ranks lowest in at least two major fire safety categories. The NRC report also ignores uncorrected design flaws (as with Harris' backup cooling system), siren failures and the risk from storing radioactive fuel rods -- and Harris has one of the nation's largest waste stockpiles. The latest set of security failures is Harris' third in recent years, and newly discovered federal documents bolster guards' reports that some security equipment has malfunctioned for years. News coverage of the plant's problems has been sporadic, and therefore many people assume it's safe enough to build more reactors. Harris workers are diligent, but nuclear technology is complex, and cost-cutting pressures great. Good journalism requires scrutiny of nuclear spinmasters (and watchdogs), particularly unsupported claims that nuclear energy is safe, economical and "emissions-free." If Progress' case is valid, it should answer all questions, openly, about its record and plans, instead of trash-talking its critics. Also, Progress must openly justify why North Carolina should gamble billions on new plants instead of transitioning to safe, economical, job-producing, climate-protecting electricity. Jim Warren Executive Director NC WARN: Waste Awareness &Reduction Network Durham All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 55 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: First, let's study nuclear plants already in use February 11, 2006 ο»Ώο»ΏThe Bush administration's salesmen are trying to convince us that reprocessing, or recycling, spent-fuel rods will cut down on nuclear waste. To get Americans to agree to construction of new nuclear power plants, the administration knows it has to present a plan to reduce radioactive waste. The Bush plan calls for extraction of the usable 10 percent in each fuel rod. England recycles and has been doing it for 40 years at its THORP facility at Sellafield. Here's a quote from Sellafield working paper 5:2001: "The volume of radioactive waste is 189 times greater when reprocessed at THORP than it would be if the spent fuel is stored as waste on shore." France has been reprocessing since the 1960s at its Cap de la Hague facility in Normandy. An official publication just issued from its high-level nuclear waste site at Bure, 100 miles east of Paris, says 5,000 acres are needed to bury its waste. The country has about half the number of U.S. reactors but needs five times the space designed for burial at Yucca Mountain. The French have 58 reactors, while America has had 106. The best way to determine if reprocessing indeed reduces the volume of nuclear waste is to investigate the records of the two facilities that have been doing it for nearly half a century, not listening to the administration's sales force. Ron Bourgoin, Rocky Mount, N.C. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 56 Rutland Herald: Self-made electricity program may grow Rutland Vermont News & Information February 11, 2006 By Vermont Press Bureau MONTPELIER — A House committee is proposing a major expansion of a state program that allows homeowners and farmers to produce their own power and sell it back to utilities to reduce their own electric bills. The idea is to encourage more small-scale solar, hydro and wind power generation by municipalities, property owners and businesses, partially replacing the state's current energy supplies over the coming years. The change in the state's so-called "net metering" program is part of a large and complex energy bill that could have far-reaching impact on the state's power future, the second such bill crafted by the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee in two years. Those bills, supporters said, are part of planning for a decade from now when contracts with Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and Hydro-Quebec begin to expire. Those two sources provide two-thirds of the state's energy. This year's bill is still in the early stages — it will clear the first hurdle if it is approved by the committee by early next week. The most controversial part of the proposal will likely be the expansion of net metering. Under current law, homeowners can install solar panels or other energy-generating systems and feed any extra power they produce back into the power grid, effectively running their electricity meters backward. But such net-metered systems are limited to 15 kilowatts or less, a little more than enough power to cover a typical house's energy use. Farms can operate similar systems, for instance generators powered by methane from cow manure, of up to 150 megawatts. Under the proposed bill, the size of both types of systems could be greatly expanded — up to 250 megawatts. The expansion would allow groups of power customers, such as residents of an apartment building or condominium complex, to join and build such a system together. Expanding the size of such projects will allow them to be more efficient, supporters said. "We want net metering to be more economical," said Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, chairman of the committee. Power utilities worry that such systems could become, in essence, tiny sub-utilities inside their service area. And, since the sale of electricity covers the cost of infrastructure and management, if a large number of people opted for such systems, the cost of the utility infrastructure could be shifted onto other ratepayers. Kerrick Johnson, director of governmental affairs for Central Vermont Public Service, the state's largest utility, said that could be a concern. "You could have our customers subsidizing the net-metering people," he said. That could happen because net metering projects benefit from the poles, wires and other assets of the utility, but don't pay for them through their power bills. Avram Patt, general manager of Washington Electric Cooperative, agreed it could be a problem. "At what point is this really a commercial operation?" he said of the net-metered systems. WEC has supported net metering projects in its service territory under the current rules, and 18 of its customers have such systems, about twice what is typical for the state. But such large-scale projects may be better suited to operate under the energy program created in the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee last year, Patt said. That program was designed to encourage utilities to buy locally produced power. "That could have an impact on the utilities," said James Volz, chairman of the Public Service Board. "The cost is going to have to be absorbed by the other customers." Volz said he is not opposed to the bill, but it should be written so his board will have a large amount of leeway in determining how the goals of the legislation should best be met, he said. The expanded net metering projects will still be built the right size to cover — but not greatly exceed — a customer or group of customers' power needs, said supporters of the bill. That is because the owners of a net metered project sell excess electricity to their utilities at below the market price of power, said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier. That removes the financial incentive to overbuild such projects. "It is important to keep our utilities financially sound," he said. "I am not going to do anything to harm the utilities." The committee has heard from towns that want to do such projects and industry experts who say there is a market for them, Klein said. Net-metering projects cannot produce more than 1 percent of the utility's total power production now, although the committee members are considering expanding that to 2 percent. Some members of the committee, such as Rep. Joseph Krawczyk, R-Bennington, wondered whether some portions of the bill are needed before the results of the sweeping energy bill of the last lawmaking session are known. Much of what is proposed in this bill might be able to be done already, said Krawczyk, an important supporter of last year's measure. A second potentially controversial portion of the proposal does not deal with electricity at all. It would authorize a study to see if a program to promote conservation of gasoline, fuel oil and other nonregulated energy sources would pay off for the state. Currently, the state's "efficiency utility" Efficiency Vermont, which is supported by a surcharge on electricity paid by customers, promotes and supports energy efficiency programs. The proposed study would look at whether a similar system for other sources of energy would work. The committee is also considering whether the state should implement commercial building codes for energy efficiency. Although such codes are mandated by federal law Vermont has yet to implement them as a requirement, although the state recently updated its commercial building guidelines. The bill is really an attempt to "continue to move us toward greater energy independence and energy security," said Dostis. "We all realize we can't do business as we have been doing it." ***************************************************************** 57 SF Chronicle: Nuclear power plans surge ahead / 14 new plants set to go online in 10 states over next 20 years [San Francisco Chronicle] Stewart M. Powell, Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers Sunday, February 12, 2006 Washington -- The nation's nuclear power industry, buoyed by support from President Bush and the Republican-led Congress, says it is charging ahead with plans to build the largest number of new generating plants in 20 years. Despite a streamlined licensing process and new federal financial incentives, the first new plant won't produce electricity until 2014 at the earliest. A total of 14 new plants are planned in as many as 10 states. There are already 103 plants at 64 sites in 34 states. "We just have to be patient," says Mitch Singer, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the trade association for the nuclear power industry. "Companies are gearing up a decade in advance so that the additional electricity production we need will come on line by the time it's needed." Industry estimates suggest as many as 10 nuclear power plants could be under construction by 2012, thanks to streamlined regulations, tolerance for the environmental impact of new plants and financial support on Wall Street. The last time that many plants were under way was in the 1980s, according to Adrian Heymer, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior director of new plant deployment. Bush reiterated support for nuclear power in his State of the Union address last week, saying that nuclear energy should meet 50 percent of the nation's electricity requirements by 2025. Nuclear power currently accounts for 20 percent of the nation's electricity requirement, second only to coal-fired plants. Bush added in remarks in Minnesota on Feb. 2: "If you're worried about the environment, which I am, it seems like to make sense that we use nuclear power. It's renewable and it's clean." Bush's support, coupled with growing public concern over greenhouse emissions, fluctuating prices for natural gas and oil and unreliable access to energy supplies in the Persian Gulf and Russia, have changed the political calculus for nuclear power. Nine companies, many taking advantage of financial incentives provided by White House-backed energy legislation enacted by Congress in August, have launched preliminary efforts to win Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to build and operate nuclear power plants. The licensing process could cost companies $50 million per application to the NRC, which finances much of its operations from fees paid by applicants. The last new nuclear power plant, located at Watts Barr, Tenn., started producing electricity in 1996. Singer says the industry expects the NRC to approve the first wave of licenses for new plants by 2010 with the first plants producing electricity by 2014. The five members on the NRC were nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate -- including three commissioners who served during the Clinton administration and were nominated for additional terms by Bush. New financial incentives adopted by Congress and signed into law by Bush are "going a long way to encouraging the industry, the electric utilities and Wall Street to take a good look at moving ahead with new plants," Singer says. The incentives include 20-year renewal of the Price-Anderson Act providing immediate, no-fault insurance coverage for victims of any nuclear reactor accident; federal loan guarantees of up to 80 percent of the estimated $1.5 billion construction cost of each plant; eight years' worth of tax credits for the first 6,000 megawatts of electricity generation capacity from new plants; and up to $500 million in standby coverage to help cover the costs of any delays for construction or start up that are beyond the owners' control. The nuclear power industry also is moving ahead because it sees the federal government making progress with plans to dispose of radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants. The government has designed a specially built underground storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., for radioactive waste generated by electricity production. The material is currently stored at the 64 sites across the country where nuclear power plants are operating. "The industry sees progress on disposal -- otherwise companies would not be taking the steps they are taking right now to build new plants," Singer said. The nine companies -- Dominion, NuStart, Entergy, Southern Co., Progress Energy, Duke, South Carolina Electric &Gas, Exelon and UniStar -- have started the process to locate 14 nuclear power plants at sites in as many as 10 states. The potential locations include: North Anna, Va.; Bellefonte, Ala.; Grand Gulf, Miss.; River Bend, La.; Vogtle, Ga.; Harris, N.C., sites to be determined in Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina; Clinton, Ill.; and either Calvert Cliffs, Md., or Nine Mile Point, N.Y. Many of the new plants would be located adjacent to existing plants. The Bush administration also is supporting the nuclear industry's drive to win 20-year license renewals for many of the 103 plants. Plants routinely receive an initial operating license for 40 years, followed by at least one 20-year renewal. Additional renewals are theoretically possible, subject to safety regulations. Thirty-nine of the nation's plants have already filed for 20-year license renewals or are expected to file license renewal applications in the next six years. Thirty-nine other plants already have obtained 20-year extensions to their initial 40-year licenses. Page A - 21 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 58 SF Chronicle: Nuclear moves to front burner / Bush push for energy reactors may not get much heat from former foes of atomic power [San Francisco Chronicle] David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, February 12, 2006 Nuclear power, long shunned by the public, stands poised for a comeback. Credit a strange mix of politics and environmental desperation. President Bush wants nuclear power to feed America's growing hunger for energy. He has promised tax incentives to companies that build atomic plants, promoted the technology abroad and pushed research into recycling nuclear fuel. His State of the Union address cited nuclear energy in the same breath as wind farms and solar arrays -- saying all three will change the way the country powers its homes and offices. At the same time, the nuclear industry has found allies among its most determined former foes -- environmentalists. Increasingly alarmed by global warming, some environmentalists have embraced the technology they once fought, seeing it as a way to provide large amounts of energy without spewing greenhouse gases into the air. "There's no way that solar panels or windmills can do it themselves," said Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace who now runs an energy consulting firm and works with nuclear industry groups. For the companies that build and operate nuclear plants, the change could hardly be more dramatic. The partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979 hardened American public opinion against nuclear power. After the 1986 explosion at Ukraine's Chernobyl plant, the industry's future looked bleak. Now, prompted by renewed government interest, energy companies are planning new reactors and plants for the first time in three decades. Three companies have submitted applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and eight other projects are under development. But a nuclear renaissance is far from certain. Without federal subsidies, skeptics contend, nuclear plants will remain more expensive than conventional plants burning coal and natural gas. The threat of a terrorist attack -- not a factor during the industry's last building boom -- now makes atomic plants look like targets. Finally, despite years of wrangling, the nation has yet to open its long-planned, long-term nuclear waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In other words, one of the main issues that killed the country's enthusiasm for nuclear power decades ago -- the question of what to do with radioactive waste -- is still unsolved. Existing plants, such as Diablo Canyon on California's Central Coast, store their spent fuel on the premises, to the dismay of neighbors. "We have to accept that there's a permanent repository 16 miles from my house," said Morgan Rafferty of Arroyo Grande (San Luis Obispo County) and a member of the Mothers for Peace activist group. Then again, Rafferty doesn't much like the idea of transporting nuclear waste, either. "Can you imaging trains going through the San Fernando Valley or L.A.?" she said. "There's nobody we dislike enough to send it through their neighborhood." Without a long-term storage site, any revival in the nuclear industry probably won't reach California. State law forbids new atomic plants until the waste question has been answered. The utilities that run California's two existing nuclear plants don't expect that to change. They are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into refurbishing their plants and may try to renew their operating licenses. But they don't anticipate building. "You'd have to first have a legislative initiative to change the rules," said Ray Golden, spokesman for Southern California Edison at the company's San Onofre nuclear plant, in San Diego County. "Right now, it would be a very, very tough thing to put forth." Despite decades out of the public eye, nuclear power never disappeared. America's 103 operating reactors provide roughly 20 percent of our electricity. The proportion in other countries is even higher. In France, it tops 78 percent. The industry's supporters cite two big advantages nuclear power holds over other sources of energy. Unlike electrical plants running on coal, natural gas or oil, nuclear facilities don't churn out carbon dioxide, considered the main culprit behind global warming. And unlike solar arrays or wind farms, they can run at any time, in any weather. With global energy demand expected to double in the next 50 years, supporters say, the world needs nuclear plants. "Anyone that fairly looks at this question, whether you're from the energy side of the debate or the environmental side of the debate, concludes that nuclear power must play a significant role in meeting this dramatic growth in energy demand," said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell, in a news conference last week. The administration has initiated an effort to create a new generation of nuclear plants here and abroad. Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, announced last week, would research ways to recycle nuclear fuel and cut waste. It also would provide fuel to other countries that agree not to build their own uranium enrichment facilities. In addition, last year's federal energy legislation included tax credits and loan guarantees designed to kick-start nuclear plant construction. Each owner of the next five or six plants built, for example, can receive up to $125 million per year in tax credits. Some companies are already in line. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing applications from three companies -- Dominion, Exelon and Entergy -- to build new reactors. All three projects would be built next to existing plants, one in Clinton, Ill., one in Grand Gulf, Miss., and one in North Anna, Va. Dominion's project in Virginia could win approval later this year, while decisions on the other two proposals are expected next year. Other businesses are mulling sites scattered throughout the South and the East, from Louisiana to New York. No projects have been proposed west of the Rocky Mountains, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute trade group. Critics, however, doubt any construction boom will last. Without government incentives, they say, nuclear power remains too expensive. A 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, estimated that electricity from a new nuclear plant would cost roughly 60 percent more than power from a coal plant and 20 percent more than energy from a natural gas plant. The study, which argued in favor of nuclear power, cited cost as one of the technology's biggest obstacles. "It's largely been because of economics that there haven't been any successful orders in the last 30 years," said Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Companies will take advantage of the new tax incentives, he said, but will probably balk at building once those incentives disappear. "Instead of 103 (reactors), we may have 109," Cochran said. "These decisions are made in boardrooms, and they're based on the bottom line." Most analysts, however, expect the companies that own the nation's existing reactors to keep them running as long as possible. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. will spend $706 million over the next three years to replace steam generators at Diablo Canyon. The project, fiercely opposed by some residents, has been approved by state energy regulators but still needs permission from San Luis Obispo County officials. The San Francisco company has not yet decided whether to seek an extension of the plant's operating license, which will expire in 2025. But PG has proposed spending $19 million in ratepayer money on a relicensing feasibility study. State energy regulators must approve the request. "We're taking that step to try to determine whether it makes sense to seek relicensing," said PG spokesman Jeff Lewis. Despite the federal government incentives, PG has no plans for another California reactor, Lewis said, citing state law. "It's not really an option," he said. Potential site and company: 1. Clinton, Ill.: Exelon 2. Nine Mile Point, N.Y.: UniStar 3. Calvert Cliffs, Md.: UniStar 4. North Anna, Va.: Dominion 5. Harris, N.C.: Progress Energy 6. Summer, N.C.: South Carolina Electric &Gas 7. Savannah River site, S.C.: South Carolina Electric &Gas 8. Vogtle, Ga.: Southern Co. 9. Crystal River, Fla.: Progress Energy 10. Bellefonte Ala.: NuStart 11. Grand Gulf, Miss.: NuStart (Entergy) 12. River Bend, La.: Entergy 13. Either in North Carolina or South Carolina: Duke Gus D'Angelo / The Chronicle E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com. Page J - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 59 IndyStar.com: Energy sector unsure how to tackle woes Natural gas prices are high, power grid is old and emissions troubles continue By Lynn J. Cook Houston Chronicle HOUSTON -- Americans use electricity for everything from computers to can openers, and the country's voracious appetite for energy shows no signs of being sated. Yet the American power industry is plagued with a trifecta of problems -- from high natural gas prices to a balkanized transmission grid and those problematic carbon dioxide emissions. No clear-cut, easy answers are at hand, according to industry experts attending an energy conference this week in Houston. "Today is as foggy as it's ever been in our industry," James E. Rogers, Cinergy Corp.'s chairman and chief executive, told attendees at the Cambridge Energy Research Associates' conference. The one solution echoed again and again by executives and CERA analysts was investment in infrastructure, from poles and wires to new nuclear power plants. "We've got to get the investment climate right, now," said Lawrence Makovich, managing director of CERA's Global Power Group. CERA released a study on Thursday warning that the power sector's level of investment to meet future demand is dangerously low. "The electric power industry's preoccupation with passing through its biggest single-year fuel increases in history is creating a strong chance that U.S. power markets will not be able to successfully address resource adequacy, resulting in power shortages in some areas of the country within the next five years," said Makovich. Costs for the fuels for power plant generation, such as coal and natural gas, now account for one-third of the cost of producing electricity. Fuel costs increased from $68 billion in 2004 to $90 billion in 2005, according to CERA. Makovich pushed the concept of "hybrid companies" that diversify the kinds of fuels they use to generate power. "Unfortunately, we do not see a large number of companies following this sort of sound strategic process," he said. In fact, a recent CERA survey of top power company executives says a significant number of them misinterpret or just ignore information they should be carefully considering when planning for expansion. So what power generation fix will be financed in the future? Alex Urquhart, president and CEO of GE Energy Financial Services, sees billions being spent on mostly coal-fired plants, with natural gas, nuclear power and renewables thrown in. Dynegy's power plant portfolio, for example, includes many coal-fired generators -- a point of which CEO Bruce Williamson is proud. Williamson said he's not interested in Dynegy owning nuclear power plants, but Makovich insists the public perception surrounding them is changing for the better. Walter Higgins, chairman and CEO of Sierra Pacific Resources, the fastest-growing utility in the country thanks to Nevada's swelling population and economy, said no nuclear plant will ever be built in his state. But he also said consumers -- both individuals and small businesses -- repeatedly ask him why new nuclear power isn't being built in the face of such high natural gas prices. "People seem to think it's 'safe enough' even if they don't like it," he said, adding that before any new construction could go forward, spent fuel disposal at Yucca Mountain would have to be addressed. Cinergy's Rogers is more skeptical. "Policy-makers and companies are embracing it, but there are still so many questions, and Yucca Mountain is just one," he said. "Public opinion turned on a dime after Three Mile Island. When you start actually permitting . . . and turning dirt in a specific neighborhood on one of these things, then we'll find out if public opinion has changed." Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 60 APP.COM: Oyster Creek: Vessel won't collapse | Asbury Park Press Online February 11, 2006 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER LACEY — An airtight steel vessel meant to keep radiation from leaking during an accident at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is not in danger of collapsing, plant officials said Friday, rebutting an allegation by plant critics. A corrosion expert hired by Stop The Renewal of Oyster Creek, a new coalition opposed to a proposed 20-year renewal of the plant's operating license, said that rusting of the vessel, called the drywell liner, could cause it to buckle. With a renewal from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the plant could operate until 2029. Without one, it would close three years from now. Plant officials said Friday they've analyzed the liner and other parts of the radiation containment system and have confidence that the structures and components can continue to do the job for which they were designed. "The work that's been done at the plant indicated to us that contain-ment, even if it's pressurized during an accident, will not collapse," said Fred Polaski, license renewal manager for Exelon, which owns the plant operator, AmerGen Energy Co. The drywell is shaped like an inverted light bulb and contains the reactor vessel, a container in which atoms are split to make heat. In the event of an accident, the drywell liner would help contain highly radioactive steam and gas. Even if the liner is fit for duty, it might not matter. There's a 74 percent chance of a radioactive release if the reactor core melts or if fuel is seriously damaged in an accident, according to NRC staff and a risk analysis by AmerGen. Still, there are serious questions suggested by the coalition's expert, Rudolf H. Hansler of Kaufman, Texas, surrounding a drywell collapse. In a memo to coalition leaders explaining how such a collapse might occur, Hansler couched the doomsday scenario as a hypothesis and called it a "subject of much needed verification." Hansler on Friday said that he has a doctorate in chemical engineering and is an expert in corrosion, but has no experience in structural engineering. However, he said the possibility of a severely damaged liner exists, which is why the coalition has called for additional measurements of the vessel. "Verification is the whole objective of the entire movement that is going on," he said. "We really don't know that the structure is in dire need of repair." Plant officials also said Friday they will measure the vessel's thickness every 10 years if the NRC renews Oyster Creek's license. AmerGen officials agreed to perform the measurements after regulators last month doubted whether a one-time measurement before 2009 would provide enough assurance, Polaski said. Coalition members want to raise questions about the liner during a hearing before three administrative law judges on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board — an arm of the NRC that reviews licensing decisions. On Thursday, the coalition submitted to the board a motion containing evidence of NRC staff calling for the need to improve how corrosion is detected and monitored in steel General Electric Mark I containments, such as the one at Oyster Creek. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 APP.COM: Human error hurts plant's safety record | Asbury Park Press Online Sunday, February 12, 2006 BY KIRK MOORE, TODD B. BATES AND NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITERS LACEY — Government oversight and backup safety systems. When general issues of nuclear plant safety are raised, industry officials commonly point to those two reasons to explain why the immense amount of energy inside a nuclear reactor can be controlled. But recent problems at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant have been traced to another variable: human mistakes. Here and at other plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed a focus on what it calls a "safety culture," defined by the NRC as a work environment in which management and employees are dedicated to putting safety first. The NRC's campaign has focused on the human factor in reactor operations, and highlighted the safety implications of cutting costs in the commercial nuclear industry to make reactors such as Oyster Creek's more profitable. Errors by employees have caused grief for Oyster Creek, its owner, Exelon, and its operating subsidiary, AmerGen Energy Co., since AmerGen purchased the plant for $10 million in 2000. The mistakes — which last year placed Oyster Creek among the poorest reactors in the country in terms of safety performance — have alarmed nuclear critics who oppose AmerGen's bid to obtain a 20-year extension of the plant's operating license. "We would not support an extension of the license for 20 years under any conditions," said state Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, who's represented the district around the power plant for 24 years. "We're fearful that the plant is liable to be doing exactly what it's been doing . . . having problems with the operation of the plant." Connors said he and other local legislators would agree to only a five-year license extension, after an independent audit of plant operations: "I think the public should have the right to question them in five years." Errors at Oyster Creek include: Ignoring environmental regulations. In his whistle-blower lawsuit, Paul E. Schwartz, a former plant environmental scientist, claimed a manager overruled control room operators — they're responsible for running the reactor safely — and shut off two key pumps for maintenance. The September 2002 shutdown caused a spike in the water temperature in the plant's cooling canal, which led to a major fish kill. The state took legal action against AmerGen, and the company settled for $1 million. Yet Schwartz, who said he also warned his supervisor, Steve Bailey, not to turn the pumps off, claimed he was fired for questioning the shutdown. AmerGen officials denied all of Schwartz's allegations, and said Schwartz was fired for lying to company lawyers. The case was settled out of court, and the terms were not disclosed. Plant officials declined to discuss the case, but lawyers for Oyster Creek stated in court records that several plant employees were disciplined, including Bailey and Schwartz. Failing to declare a warning to emergency management officials. On Aug. 6, plant operators failed to issue an "alert" — an advisory required by federal regulators so local and state officials can prepare for the possibility of a radiation release, regardless of how unlikely it would be. The advisory should have been issued after large mats of sea grass from Barnegat Bay clogged an intake used to pump cooling water into the plant, forcing operators to reduce power. The safety error prompted the NRC to downgrade the plant's overall safety performance ranking last year. Compounding the problem, the plant issued an erroneous public statement that it had declared an alert, but had done so 30 minutes late. A shift manager's misunderstanding of how to apply the emergency plan caused the error, according to an AmerGen letter to the NRC. Company officials didn't take the miscue lightly. They removed the manager from shift duty and assigned another one full time to look at human performance in operations. Those remedial actions and others ensure that there's no mistake of understanding "what's required at the time that it's required," said Wayne Romberg, a company project manager and 37-year veteran of the industry. Aside from the alert failure, reactor operators did their job properly that night, say plant officials and workers. "Basically, for the health and safety of the public, we did all the right things to the plant," Romberg said. Poor safety planning. The NRC cited the plant in 2004 for failing to have the proper procedures in place that would determine when a "general emergency" would be declared, the highest of four alert levels. The plant's guidelines stated that the water level over the reactor core would come too close to a meltdown before the top-level emergency — a public warning that radiation will likely be released to the environment — was declared. The plant has since updated its procedures. Critics fault cost-cutting Behind the technology, the safety engineering and formalized procedures of nuclear power, the human element and corporate culture are other critical legs supporting safe reactor operations, according to government regulators and experts. "It's extremely important. . . . The equipment has to be reliable, and the people have to be trained to use the equipment properly," said Jill Lipoti, director of the Division of Environmental Safety and Health in the state Department of Environmental Protection. Nuclear industry critics contend plant safety is being jeopardized by too much pressure to increase profits, as the industry adjusts to compete in a deregulated energy market. Faced with cheaper competition in the late 1990s, particularly from coal and natural gas plants, nuclear operators scrambled to find efficiencies and reduce costs. At 475 employees, Oyster Creek employs little more than half of its once 900-strong work force. AmerGen said the plant is operating safely and efficiently. "There is a conflict when you look to contain costs. That's been one of the biggest changes that we've seen," said Paul Gunter, who runs the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Washington, D.C.-based nuclear industry watchdog group. "This is playing out not just in the aging nuclear industry, but in the new designs," Gunter said. He contends that "it's a lot easier to "pencil-whip' these problems in analysis" by using math to tweak them in ways that reduce costs but give the appearance of maintaining safety standards. Throughout the industry and increasingly on the regulatory side, Gunter said, there has been a shift away from "prescriptive measures" — safety edicts that came frequently in the years following the Three Mile Island reactor accident in 1979 — and toward "probabilistic risk assessment," calculations that seek to gauge the chances of a particular accident scenario. The NRC says the risk of such an accident is remote — about a one in a million chance of a deadly radiation release to the environment. There is a case to be made that some of those earlier safety prescriptions were not cost-effective, said Michael A. Crew, a professor of finance and economics at Rutgers University. "They became much more rigorous on the maintenance after (TMI). But maybe it all wasn't needed — maybe some of it was money spent badly," said Crew, who directs the Center for Research in Regulated Industries at Rutgers. "The industry has gotten much smarter." The deregulation of electricity generation drove mergers and acquisitions, with companies such as Oyster Creek-owner Exelon buying up older power plants, a trend that helped realize efficiencies, Crew said. "A lot of these utilities were not big enough to operate them (nuclear plants) efficiently," he said. "It is a complicated business, and you need more than one or two to get good at it." Nuclear proponents say the industry met and surpassed its competitive challenge. By 2001, nuclear reactors had boosted their annual output to 768 billion kilowatt-hours, up from 557 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990. Meanwhile, refueling shutdowns that routinely took plants off-line for months at a time became so efficient that some were concluded in as little as 18 days, Texas A University nuclear engineering professor John Poston wrote in 2002. The drive for efficiency at Oyster Creek is no different. In terms of the cost of generating electricity, in 2002 it cost 2.35 cents per kilowatt-hour, less than half the price of a natural gas generator. Oyster Creek's generation cost was down to 1.72 cents per kWh last year — a 27 percent drop in three years, according to plant documents and officials. Speaking freely on safety During an October tour of the plant, union officials said any worker is allowed to speak his or her mind to flag safety problems. "Anybody who wants to can go to a regulator at any time and speak freely and confidentially. We haven't had any problems in any of those areas," said Edward Stroup, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1289, who worked at the plant for about 24 years as a mechanic and in building maintenance. "You can bring it up to your supervisor or all the way up the chain, or you can always . . . go right to the NRC," said Jeff Munyan, the local's chief shop steward and a radiation protection technician with 20 years at the plant. The DEP's nuclear bureau engineers accompany the NRC as observers during plant examinations, and they give good marks to the Oyster Creek work force. The plant's maintenance crews "have done very well under Exelon," said Kent Tosch, manager of the DEP's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering. "They do have nuclear experts do this, and they do this on a routine basis so their expertise stays very high, and their effectiveness and efficiencies are very high. We've witnessed that." However, former DEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell said the agency is worried about the size of the work force, now hundreds fewer than when AmerGen took over in 2000. "It's been an ongoing concern, and one we have raised to the NRC," Campbell said. "Our principal concern is that the reductions in staffing may have adversely affected the safety culture of the plant and the effort to promptly identify any emerging operational or equipment issues." He and other DEP officials credit AmerGen for making a number of improvements in recent years, including strengthening site security and building an operations facility in the event of an emergency. Peter C. Resler, an Exelon spokesman, said employees are given the tools to "minimize human error." "The fact is that humans do make mistakes, and our job is to minimize those," he said. "The fact is that we did make errors at various times. . . . The issue with the fish kill had obvious consequences." Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 Inside Bay Area: New nukes are an unnecessary evil Article Last Updated: 02/11/2006 08:29:49 AM SCIENTISTS are cooking up an old favorite — the H-bomb — for the first time in 20 years, and we can't help wondering why. This isn't just theoretical work — the plan, if it gets approval by the president and Congress, is to completely revamp the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The bomb-makers say the new weapons will be easier to maintain and can be remotely defused if they should fall into the wrong hands. At least, that's what they're supposed to do. Since the weapons are only in the design stage and are untested, there's no telling how they would perform. According to officials, the plans, being worked on at the Lawrence Livermore Labs and at Los Alamos in New Mexico include a factory that could produce more nuclear weapons as needed. But what does "as needed" mean? The United States has thousands of warheads, and it's hard to understand why we need more. Building the new bombs would mean diverting resources from other areas at a time when the United States is already facing a huge deficit. During the Cold War, our nation's officially stated policy was that nuclear weapons were to act as a deterrent. If that's true, the thousands of warheads we now possess should be more than enough to satisfy that need. We're not suggesting abandoning research, but nuclear weapons are part of the Cold War paradigm. The United States finds itself in a new century, fighting a new kind of war: one in which nuclear warheads aren't effective weapons against the enemies we face. That doesn't mean no one's thinking about it. But if the research being done is any indication, the attitude that nuclear weapons are only a deterrent may be shifting. The government is asking scientists to explore "bunker buster" nukes that could penetrate deep underground to target buried facilities, as well as high-radiation bombs and a number of other variants. With the mounting frustration in trying to fight unconventional wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, the desire to unleash the ultimate vehicle of American military might is a predictable result. However, using a nuclear device would come with a price far higher than anything that could be gained. Not only would it ally the world community against America, but it would set a dangerous precedent. Pursing this program is pure folly and undermines American credibility at a time when the country is accusing other nations of developing weapons of mass destruction. Producing more nukes makes no sense. Our country already has 5,700 nuclear warheads — isn't that enough to get the job done? We fail to see how more nuclear weapons will make America safer. InsideBayArea.com home © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 63 Wisconsin State Journal: Utility workers' donations to Doyle stand out FEB 10, 2006 - 11:31 PM JASON STEIN jstein@madison.com A utility executive's fundraiser for Gov. Jim Doyle one day before state regulators made their initial decision on the sale of the company's nuclear power plant brought in twice as much money as any other single day's giving by utility workers to a candidate in more than a decade, a State Journal analysis has found. Investigators are probing connections between the donations and the final decision by regulators last year to allow the $191.5 million sale of the Kewaunee plant. The State Journal analysis looked at 13 years of candidate contributions by energy company workers, some spouses and political action committees in a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign watchdog group database spanning from 1993 to June 2005. Many of the largest one-day donations to candidates, which typically come in a single fundraiser, were made the 12 months leading up to a gubernatorial election, the analysis found. Also, most key actions on utility issues by lawmakers and regulators over the last decade were not accompanied by obvious run-ups in donations. But contributions around the time of the Kewaunee case were an exception to that pattern: Two sets of donations to Doyle by employees of the parent company of Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay - a part owner in the Kewaunee plant - amounted to the two largest single-day contributions by utility employees to any candidate for a state office in the last 13 years. Employees were recorded as giving $25,750 on a single day following a fundraiser on Nov. 18, 2004, the day before the state Public Service Commission made its initial decision on whether to allow the sale of the Kewaunee plant, which was then jointly owned by WPS and Alliant Energy Corp. of Madison. WPS employees also gave $12,670 a week before a November 2003 announcement by the utilities that they wanted to sell the plant to an out-of-state company. Employees at Alliant, which owned a smaller share of the Kewaunee plant, gave smaller but substantial amounts around the dates when the Kewaunee sale was first denied by the PSC, then later reopened and approved after WPS, Alliant and the buyer, Dominion Resources of Richmond, Va., revised the proposal. While energy interests made large single-day donations before - notably $9,600 contributed in June 2004 to Doyle by employees of WE Energies of Milwaukee and $8,175 donated by that company's workers in February 1994 to former Gov. Tommy Thompson - those either came in an election year or didn't have any obvious bearing on a list of major utility decisions compiled by the State Journal. For instance, two big sets of donations came in the months surrounding a major May 2001 Legislative budget committee vote that created a new financing mechanism for large power plants. But the money went to then-Gov. Scott McCallum, not legislators on the committee. The Kewaunee donations have drawn criticism from ethics hawks such as Sen. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah. "I have to say that it's pretty unseemly that while you are trying to get the Public Service Commission to approve the sale of the Kewaunee power plant, you're (fundraising for) the governor," Ellis said. "It's impossible to expect the public to buy that it's all a coincidence. It's too much to ask people to swallow," added Mike McCabe, head of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. But spokesmen for the utilities and Doyle campaign spokeswoman Melanie Fonder flatly denied any undue influence by the companies or the governor in the Kewaunee case and said the public ought to have confidence in the sale decision. "There is no connection," Fonder said. "The PSC is an independent agency." An open records request by the State Journal produced no communications between PSC regulators and the governor's office or his campaign about the Kewaunee case. PSC officials have said campaign donations to Doyle simply don't influence rulings by the three-member commission, which is controlled by two Doyle appointees but is officially independent. With some 800 contested cases before the PSC every year, the commission probably has three or four such cases from every utility at any given time, spokeswoman Linda Barth said. "The commission is an independent decision-making body and there are strong rules that govern how they conduct their business," Barth said. Ellis questioned whether PSC Chairman Dan Ebert should attend Doyle administration Cabinet meetings - a practice that also went on with previous agency heads under the McCallum and Thompson administrations. "What are they doing in Cabinet meetings, regardless of who the governor is? It dilutes the appearance of (the PSC's) independence." Barth acknowledged the PSC offered its expertise to Doyle as well as lawmakers on energy matters, but said that didn't affect the commission's core independence. The Kewaunee case is not the only investigation into Doyle's fundraising. U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic in Milwaukee and Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager are also investigating a decision by the Department of Administration to award a travel contract worth up to $750,000 to a company whose CEO and a board member each contributed $10,000 to Doyle's campaign. Last month, a federal grand jury in Milwaukee indicted a state employee on fraud charges for allegedly steering the contract to Adelman Travel Group of Milwaukee for political considerations. The State Journal first reported in December that investigators were also examining campaign contributions by WPS and Alliant workers and utility regulators' approval of the Kewaunee sale. Authorities won't comment on the probe. PSC general counsel David Gilles has said his agency has not been contacted by investigators since they made an initial request for documents last year. Spees said to his knowledge, no WPS officials had been contacted by investigators. Doyle, a Democrat, is hardly the only candidate to pull in big campaign cash from utilities. Former Republican Govs. McCallum and Thompson also pulled in single-day contributions of up to $10,000, often in the 12 months before an election. The State Journal analysis also doesn't include donations to political action committees or parties, which can then use that "soft money" to influence legislation or elections. For instance, a criminal complaint against former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala alleged that three utilities contributed $150,000 in soft money to a campaign fund controlled by Chvala over six days in June 2001 - near the time the Legislature was making key decisions on the way utilities finance new plants. But clear trends in the analysis still emerged. Between 1996 and 2004, annual donations by utility and other energy employees grew by 193 percent to nearly $227,000, far outpacing both the rate of inflation and overall giving to Wisconsin candidates, which grew by 60 percent. The donation increases came at a critical time in which state regulators and lawmakers were being asked to clear the way for billions of dollars in new plants and infrastructure needed to ensure reliable service in Wisconsin, but which are also adding to already skyrocketing power bills for customers. Wisconsin Public Service is among the companies whose employees have made a major increase in giving since 2000. "We made a conscious decision to become more involved politically," said WPS spokesman Kerry Spees, who denied anything improper about the donations. "It's kind of been an evolution of the process in which we recognized that not necessarily to get a seat at the table but to get someone's ear, to be able to be an influencer, if you would, to support candidates that support our objectives for our customers, that we were going to have to be more involved." WPS chairman and chief executive Larry Weyers got involved by co-hosting a fundraiser for Doyle in Green Bay on November 18, 2004, one day before the PSC met to decide on the Kewaunee plant sale. Weyers was also a host for another significant fundraiser for Doyle in October 2005. Then-Alliant chairman Erroll Davis also held a fundraiser for Doyle in early 2005. Between November 2004 and April 2005 - the key months around the Kewaunee sale - Alliant and WPS employees gave more than $41,000 to Doyle. At its Nov. 19, 2004, meeting, the Public Service Commission actually rejected the Kewaunee sale. But after WPS, Alliant and Dominion revised their proposal, the commission's two Democratic appointees, Burnie Bridge and Mark Meyer, reversed their decision and approved the sale in March 2005. Ratepayer groups opposed the sale, saying it would reduce state control over the aging reactor, but utilities said the sale would lower the financial risk to ratepayers. Bridge, who was appointed by Doyle to another state agency shortly after that final approval, has denied any impropriety in the case. For his part, Spees of WPS said, "The attempts by people to try to tie support for candidates to a particular issue mystifies me. We have something before the PSC practically every day of the year." Both Spees and Alliant spokesman Scott Smith said the timing of the Weyers and Davis fundraisers is a coincidence because they were set up months in advance. Neither could provide exact details on when the events were scheduled, saying they were held too long ago for that. A spokesman for the Resch Center in Green Bay, where the November 2004 WPS fundraiser was held, wouldn't comment on individual clients but did say that political fundraisers at the arena typically aren't booked months in advance. "That would not be common practice," Terry Charles said. Donations probed Investigators are probing connections between donations by energy company employees to Gov. Jim Doyle and the controversial decision by regulators last year to allow the $191.5 million sale of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant. THE ISSUE: THE ANALYSIS: A State Journal analysis found that the $25,750 donation in November 2004 was twice as much as any single day's donation by utility workers in the last 13 years. THE RESPONSE: Doyle has flatly denied any connection between the donation and the Public Service Commission's decision, saying the PSC is an independent agency. COMING SUNDAY: The State Journal examines the subtle game between donors, lobbyists and political campaigns.- State Journal reporter Phil Brinkman contributed to this story. Copyright © 2005 Wisconsin State Journal For comments about this site, contact Anju Ali, interactive editor, aali@madison.com ***************************************************************** 64 Public Citizen: SCE, Santee Cooper Should Not Receive Taxpayer Subsidies to Build New Nuclear Reactor; Nuclear Power Should Be Abandoned Feb. 10, 2006 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and Santee Coopers plan to build a new nuclear reactor at the Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, S.C., should not be permitted to come to fruition. Not only should the government refuse the companies likely request for taxpayer subsidies to defray the costs of licensing and building a plant, but the government shouldnt issue a license for this nuclear reactor at all. No new reactors have been ordered in the United States for 30 years  and for good reason. Nuclear power is extremely expensive; in fact, no nuclear power plant has operated without taxpayer money since the nuclear power industry was born. Nuclear power poses a public safety and national security threat and creates dangerous highly radioactive waste, for which no country in the world has a solution. If the companies are permitted to proceed with its proposal, taxpayers could be on the hook for cradle-to-grave subsidies, including: + half the cost of applying for the license, estimated at as much as $45 million per application for pre-approved reactor designs; + risk insurance to pay the industry for delays in licensing, which could be up to $500 million for a single reactor; + taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a project, potentially costing taxpayers more than $2 billion for one reactor; and + production tax credits of 1.8 cents for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, estimated at a total of $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Public Citizen therefore calls on the government to deny these two companies federal dollars to subsidize the exorbitant costs of building a new nuclear facility and ultimately to deny the companies a license. For more information about the five fatal flaws of nuclear power, click here. ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 65 Las Vegas SUN: Terror threat not weighed in assessing nuke waste shipments Today: February 12, 2006 at 7:36:37 PST By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - The National Academy of Sciences did not thoroughly consider the threat of terrorism as it studied the risks involved in shipping nuclear waste from around the U.S. to Yucca Mountain. The study, partially funded by an affiliate of the nuclear power industry, concluded that the shipments would be safe. But the 292-page report noted that terrorism risks had not been fully considered because some researchers on the 16-member study panel did not have the security clearances required for access to classified government briefings. Yucca critics have long said that the threat of terrorist attack made a massive waste-shipping campaign dangerous. Nevada officials said the new report does nothing to ease those concerns because the panel did not explore the risk of terrorism, even though the state has been asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the issue since 1999. "It's certainly needed," Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director Bob Loux said. "And it's something we've been asking for for a long time." The study was paid for by federal agencies and, in part, by an affiliate of the nuclear power industry. The Academy of Sciences panel recommended that a separate committee, free of government or industry connections, now conduct a separate study of terrorism risks. The new study should examine potential threats, the ability of waste containers to hold up to "malevolent acts," and security measures to protect shipments, the panel said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week celebrated a milestone: the 50th anniversary of its public documents room, feted for providing the public with "fast and accurate responses" to inquiries as part of its mission as an "open and transparent" regulator. The documents room "has given the American public a window" into the agency, an NRC press release trumpeted. But on the special birthday, it was hard to miss an irony: four days earlier the NRC had denied Nevada's plea to obtain a Yucca Mountain document the state has long fought to make public. The Energy Department's Yucca license application is the mother of all Yucca documents - essentially a request for NRC permission to begin construction on the repository, which is opposed by most Nevadans. Department officials have had a draft completed for several years, but they say Nevada can't see it until the final version is submitted months - even years - from now. The document is, in effect, a detailed justification of the department's long-held assertion that waste would safely be stored at Yucca. So the public has a right to see it, Nevada officials argue. A unit of the NRC, the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Board, had granted Nevada's request. But NRC and DOE staffers objected on technical grounds, appealing to the five-member commission. Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@ lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 66 [du-list] Irish govt. will plead ignorance in future USUK DU Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:19:17 -0800 http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=69907&pt=n WEDNESDAY 01/02/2006 08:46:48 Government denies depleted uranium ammunition claims The Government has denied claims that depleted Uranium ammunition is being transported through Shannon Airport on U.S. military cargo planes destined for Iraq. The allegation was made by a Former U.S. Marine who claims he used the ammunition when serving in Iraq as a Platoon Sergeant. Jim Massey says the Irish Government is aware that the cargo is carried through Shannon. "You would have to be a fool. Any person that has ever spent time within the military whether it`s British, Irish or American forces knows that Shannon airport is a main hub for military activity as far as deploying troops, as well as ammunition. It`s a known fact that all of the cargo supplies, munition goes through Shannon and then re-routes toward Iraq." However, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs says there`s no basis for this allegation. He says the Department has never received a request from the U.S Government to transport depleted Uranium ammunition and if such a request was made, it would be denied. The spokesperson says the Department of Foreign Affairs has been given specific assurances that all cargo going through Shannon Airport is in accordance with nternational law. ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 2/10/06 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 67 www.azstarnet.com: New therapy points to better life | First nuclear fallout, then liver cancer hit Arizonan now trying high-tech treatment By Carla McClain Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.11.2006 A "downwinder" - an Arizona man exposed to nuclear test fallout more than 40 years ago - has become one of the first patients to try a new, high-tech treatment against aggressive liver cancer at University Medical Center. The therapy involves injecting millions of extremely tiny glass beads full of high-dose radiation directly into the liver tumor through a major artery. Attempted so far at only 20 medical centers in the United States, including UMC, the therapy aims to prolong a higher quality of life for these struggling patients. "From the way I am feeling now, they must have gotten quite a bit of the cancer," said John Jenkins, whose large liver tumor was discovered a little more than a year ago. He underwent the new "microspheres" therapy in October. "I don't think I'd be gaining weight and feeling so good if this wasn't having quite an effect. It's quite a change." Jenkins, 54, an active man who ran a firewood business and worked on ranches, has lived in Ash Fork, in Northern Arizona, since he was 7 years old. During his childhood in the 1960s, nuclear bombs were detonated in nearby Nevada during above-ground testing done by the U.S. government. After finally admitting that thousands of people living "downwind" of the testing were exposed to significant radioactive fallout, Congress in 1990 ordered partial compensation paid to victims such as Jenkins. Unlike most of the 14,000 Americans who yearly develop the most common form of liver cancer, known as hepatocellular cancer, Jenkins did not have cirrhosis or hepatitis, leading doctors to conclude the radiation exposure led to his cancer. Unfortunately, this liver cancer usually develops for years without symptoms, and often is detected after it has grown too large to be surgically removed, as happened with Jenkins. For those patients, the most common treatment has been chemotherapy followed by various attempts to block the blood vessels feeding the tumor, along with external radiation - all of it typically giving the patient six to 18 months of life after diagnosis. Because this has been a very toxic regimen for a patient's limited time, researchers long have tried to develop more effective and less sickening therapies for those with liver cancer. That led to the newest, and possibly the most promising: the microspheres therapy. Millions of glass beads, each only half as wide as a human hair, are injected into a catheter inserted in the patient's upper leg and threaded up through a major blood vessel to the hepatic artery to the liver. The whole process takes less than an hour, while the patient remains conscious, then is released to go home. Radiation from the beads continues to bombard the tumor internally - doing very little damage to surrounding tissue - during the next one to two weeks. "The goal is to extend life and to improve the quality of that life," said Dr. Lisa S. Gobar, the University of Arizona nuclear medicine specialist who works with an interventional radiologist to inject the microspheres. "That is extremely important. If we put a patient through six months of hell to get two more months of life, what good have we done? So we really try to improve on that - to give someone a decent life, not one of pain and wasting." Unlike chemotherapy and external radiation, which involves daily sessions for weeks, the microsphere therapy involves only one short visit to the hospital, then months of life at home before a possible second round of treatment. Also, the procedure itself is painless, and the recovery from radiation effects is fairly brief. For the first few weeks after the process, Jenkins felt flu-ish and weak, with an upset stomach. But since that passed, he says, he has steadily gained strength, energy and weight. During the chemotherapy before the microsphere radiation, he was intensely fatigued and nauseated, losing 70 pounds off his 6-foot frame. However, because the microsphere therapy is so new - brought into U.S. medical centers only in the last three years - doctors are unsure just how much extended life it will mean for patients, Gobar said. Early studies, conducted at the University of Pittsburgh, showed survival time more than doubled - from eight months to nearly two years in some patients. "I know this is not a cure, but it sets the cancer back, and I'm feeling the best I have in many months," said Jenkins, who rejoiced in the birth of his granddaughter last week. "It's a prolong-your-life-as-long-as-you-can deal. No one ever promised me more, and I have finally accepted that." Saying he is "optimistic" that he'll make it another year, Jenkins said, "I don't think most people really understand what it means to gain a year of life. "But I can tell you hands down . . . without this, I would never have seen my new granddaughter. Just to be able to hold her has been worth the whole ride, and I'm pretty darn grateful for that." ? Contact reporter Carla McClain at 806-7754 or at cmcclain@azstarnet.com. reporter Carla McClain at 806-7754 or at cmcclain@azstarnet.com. ***************************************************************** 68 APP.COM: Near-miss prompts safety wake-up call | Asbury Park Press Online February 12, 2006 Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/12/06 BY KIRK MOORE STAFF WRITER The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's focus on a culture of safety at U.S. nuclear plants was inspired by an unnerving close call just 30 miles outside a city of 300,000, when a nuclear reactor vessel came within a fraction of an inch of bursting. This didn't happen in 1979, when a Three Mile Island reactor suffered a partial meltdown. It happened in 2002, when the cap of the reactor at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio, was nearly rusted through before it was discovered during an inspection. Government inspectors later concluded that the near disaster was exacerbated by a corporate culture that put profits ahead of safety inspections. Even though the cap showed signs of possible weakness, managers opted not to shut down the reactor early to inspect it. The incident served as a cautionary tale for all nuclear plant operators, and a wake-up call for regulators to be more vigilant about safety. The safety culture at Davis-Besse was found to have a built-in disincentive: An engineer who found a problem would then have to fix it, according to a federal report. The cap's rusted-out cavity — nearly big enough to stuff a football inside — could have caused a catastrophic loss-of-coolant accident, one of the most serious disasters possible for a nuclear plant. It likely would have led to a core meltdown and radioactive releases in the Oak Harbor area, located east of Toledo. The chance of a meltdown came precariously close, according to the NRC. The odds were 1 in 167, or about the same as winning a boxed Pick Three lottery bet. Source of corrosion The corrosion was traced to cooling water nozzles that enter the vessel head; water leaking from tiny cracks left residue, including borate solution used to help control the nuclear reaction. Boric acid had eaten through more than 6 inches of carbon steel — down to a 3/8-inch stainless steel lining that was the only barrier between the cavity and reactor pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch, according to NRC documents. There were no gauges or alarms to warn plant operators that the steel was dangerously thin. But it had been known in the nuclear industry for years that pressurized water reactors of similar design could be prone to vessel head damage. Oyster Creek is a boiling water reactor, a different design that is not prone to cap corrosion. Davis-Besse owners FirstEnergy Corp. and its operators didn't understand how bad such corrosion could be. Some plant workers believed that the heat of normal operating temperatures inside the vessel meant that only dry acid crystals would accumulate harmlessly — not the highly corrosive acid solution, according to a July 2005 report by the U.S. Department of Energy. Previous inspection reports and traces of rust-colored escaped borate solution offered warning signs in 2000, but plant management reckoned it was safe to continue running the plant up to its scheduled February 2002 refueling outage. When the reactor was shut down and inspectors checked the vessel head, they found between 20 and 30 square inches of metal had been eaten away. NRC bans 4 officials Last year, the NRC fined FirstEnergy $5.4 million. This year, the NRC also banned four senior Davis-Besse plant officials from involvement in any licensed nuclear activity for five years — essentially throwing them out of the industry. The company this year agreed to pay $28 million for restitution, penalties and public service projects to defer U.S. Justice Department prosecution. The NRC blamed the plant's manager of design engineering, its compliance supervisor, the technical services director and senior engineer for providing incomplete and inaccurate information to the NRC. Those punishments followed an earlier five-year suspension levied against a plant engineer for providing inaccurate information about efforts to remove the boric acid deposits. The Davis-Besse incident was a warning flag for what can happen when managers try to maximize profitability and minimize downtime. The DOE report points out that, "Budget and schedule pressures must not override safety considerations to prevent unsound program decisions." "At Davis-Besse, corporate incentive programs were aligned toward short-term production," the DOE report stated. "In combination with other incentives, such as rewards for meeting or exceeding outage goals, emergent work and repairs that did not affect generation were often deferred." That report considered lessons to be learned from catastrophic failure — the loss of space shuttle Columbia in 2003 — and the potential disaster at Davis-Besse. Among its findings, the report warned of the risks in cost-cutting and staff reductions. Previous operating budget cuts at Davis-Besse had reduced the plant's engineering staff by 40 percent, and the report noted that, "System engineers were consolidated — giving them more systems to monitor than they could effectively handle. All plant problems were not reported because typically the one reporting the problem was tasked with its resolution." Another lesson was the need to listen to employee concerns and "differing professional opinions" on safety issues, the DOE found. A threefold increase In a July 2003 report, a panel of experts organized through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report, "The Future of Nuclear Energy," which looked at economic pressures and other challenges to the civilian nuclear industry. In the report, the MIT group projected a threefold increase in nuclear electricity generation worldwide by 2050 — a worthy goal, in the panel's view, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while supplying power for social and economic advances in the developing nations. "This was not an anti-nuclear organization. They were reaching for a future for nuclear power," said Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nuclear power watchdog group. The 2002 discovery of corrosion at Davis-Besse "raises questions about whether nuclear reactor safety goals are compatible with the transition to competitive energy markets," the MIT experts wrote. Although critics argued that competitive pressures would compel plant owners to avoid safety inspection-related shutdowns, plant owners argued they had an economic interest in safety, as well as constant NRC oversight. In an understatement, the MIT group noted that "nuclear plant accident costs are not financially attractive for plant owners." Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 Deseret News: Utah's latest wilds area not just about scenery [deseretnews.com] Sunday, February 12, 2006 Move will keep nuclear waste out of Skull Valley By Paul Foy Associated Press SKULL VALLEY — The dry, rounded ridges of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area stretch north-south for about 55 miles, framing this barren valley with its sagebrush and parched grass. ['Image'] Douglas C. Pizac, Associated PressWild horses run along the base of the rugged Cedar Mountains in Skull Valley. The 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area was created last month. The Cedar range opens to the west on desolate salt flats, where the Air Force has sprayed nerve gas and drops ordnance on a Rhode Island-sized bombing range, and where much of the nation's industrial waste gets entombed for disposal. Of all the spectacular and wild places in Utah worthy of protection as wilderness, the Cedars never ranked high on anyone's list. Yet, after rejecting wilderness proposals for more than two decades, Utah's congressional delegation united behind this site. "Whether it's the most pristine or spectacular wilderness — well, it doesn't rank up there," admitted U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the prime sponsor of the wilderness measure signed by President Bush on Jan. 6. But more than scenery was on the mind of Utah's congressional delegation. The restrictions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, intended to forever preserve virgin wilderness in a natural state, will make it impractical for a tribe of 121 Goshute Indians to accept nuclear waste for storage on their tiny patch of Skull Valley. The Wilderness Act forbids development, and the new wilderness cuts off the only practical route for a rail spur delivering heavy steel casks of spent fuel rods to the Goshute reservation. ['Image'] Douglas C. Pizac, Associated PressRay Bloxham of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance looks over the Cedar Mountains. Preservationists got even more than they wanted. "We're just a small Indian tribe that makes Utah cringe," said tribal Chief Leon Bear, who professed no opinion about the state's new wilderness area. Bear in 1996 signed a multimillion-dollar contract with Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear-powered utilities looking to unload 40,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods with a half-life of 10,000 years on his reservation. Now, Bear shrugs off the wilderness as the consortium's problem, not his. If the designation wasn't strictly about wilderness preservation, advocates don't care, said Kevin Mueller, executive director of the Utah Wilderness Congress. While it was not the top priority of preservationists, it was on their wish list — and they didn't even have to fight for it. In fact, they got more than they wanted — a 100,000-acre wilderness instead of 62,100 acres in their original proposal for the Cedar mountain range. "Obscurity doesn't discredit the place. It's wild," Ray Bloxham, a field inventory specialist for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said on a tour of the Cedar Mountains, just an hour's drive west of Salt Lake City. The alliance has spent decades trying to protect millions of acres of redrock canyons in southern Utah that fall outside wilderness areas, but that doesn't mean it will overlook a desert range closer to Salt Lake City where some 200 wild horses roam. ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic Wilderness activists are applauding Bishop, a second-term congressman, and say they look forward to forging more wilderness bills with the state's delegation, which has de facto veto power over any effort in Congress to establish more wilderness in Utah. Bishop also praised the collaborative effort but said it was "premature to conclude" Utah would welcome more wilderness designations, traditionally a hated symbol here of federal control. Utah has the fewest acres of wilderness of any Western state, and the last purely Utah wilderness bill passed in 1984. But if there's one thing Utah politicians like less than wilderness, it's an open-air nuclear-waste dump in a state that has no nuclear power plants of its own. "It's quite interesting they would go that far — to make a wilderness area just to keep out a few spent fuel rods and snub the poor old Goshutes," said Claude Parkinson, 76, who leads tours at the nearby Donner-Reed Pioneer Museum. The utility partners say the Skull Valley storage is temporary until the federal government can open a national repository for spent fuel at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, but try telling that to state leaders. "The Goliaths were supposed to roll right over us and win," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said in an address last month to the Legislature, celebrating a wilderness bill that "not only makes it extremely difficult for anyone to bring spent nuclear fuel into Skull Valley, it also preserves the integrity of the Utah Test and Training Range." ['Image'] Douglas C. Pizac, Associated PressA marker sits at the base of the Cedar Mountains. The Goshutes had hoped to store nuclear waste on their Skull Valley reservation. The Air Force uses Skull Valley as a flight path to the bombing range, and Utah earlier tried to argue that the odds of a jet crashing into a stainless steel cask and releasing radiation made the project too risky. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected that argument and authorized a license for Private Fuel Storage last September. Utah is asking a federal appeals court to overturn the decision, but Bishop said Utah's biggest ace is the wilderness area and its barrier to rail transport. Private Fuel Storage chief John Parkyn has said he might be able to off-load the canisters from a main Union-Pacific line for trucking, but that option is fraught with problems. Glenn Carpenter, a field manager for the Bureau of Land Management, said his agency was unlikely to yield more land. And Utah is even less likely to widen the shoulderless, two-lane state road to accommodate flatbed trucks and their oversized loads. The BLM has opened public comment on whether to grant Private Fuel Storage a right of way into Skull Valley. A decision isn't expected for months. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 70 ForUm: Ukraine to produce nuclear fuel 13 February, 2006,06:38 Ukraine plans to start producing nuclear fuel in the next few years, Prime Minister Yuriy Yehanurov said cited by AFP, Focus News English informed. “We need 12 years to develop the production of nuclear fuel”, he stated. The production of nuclear fuel is part of the strategy of the pro-Western government, which aims to become less dependent on Russia, which supplies Ukraine with oil, natural gas and nuclear fuel. All rights are reserved by © LTD. Inter-Media, ForUm 2001-2006 ***************************************************************** 71 The State: Industry critics worry about nuclear waste from additional plant By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer 02/11/2 The amount of highly radioactive waste created by the V.C. Summer nuclear plant could triple if two power companies build a pair of reactors at the Fairfield County site. SCE&G and Santee Cooper, which jointly proposed the new plants, would likely store the extra waste in pools or casks at the V.C. Summer facility well away from the public, company officials said. But atomic power critics said Friday that creating waste is a key drawback of the nuclear industry. The waste generated by nuclear power production is lethal enough to kill a person. For years, high-level waste has been stored at individual power plants, awaiting the opening of a permanent disposal site in Nevada. That site is behind schedule, and its 2010 opening could be pushed back even further, a senior official with the U.S. Department of Energy said this week. There is nothing in this design they are talking about that will do anything about the waste, said Jim Riccio, who tracks nuclear issues for Greenpeace. We are continuing to go down this path when we have no idea what to do with the end product. SCE&G and Santee Cooper said they intend to apply for licenses for two additional nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer site to complement the existing reactor. The companies announced Friday that they would use the latest technology to operate reactors adjacent to the existing one in Fairfield County. That could triple the amount of waste generated since three reactors would be operating, said Roger Hannah, a spokesman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Atlanta. Hannah said it would take years for the waste to build up since nuclear plants only refuel every 18 months to two years. Spent radioactive fuel is removed from the reactors at that time, when fresh fuel is loaded. The spent fuel rods are then put in the pools or dry casks. The V.C. Summer plant, which began operating in 1984, generates about 26 tons of high-level radioactive waste every 18 months, SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity said. Yanity agreed the amount of high-level waste would jump sharply, but he said the company can safely handle the material. Company officials said that, for now, SCE&G and Santee Cooper plan only one additional reactor, even though it would apply for two. Officials also said the V.C. Summer plant has had a good safety record. We pride ourselves on our track record, SCE&G spokesman Eric Boomhower said. Hannah said the V.C. Summer plant has had more than 30 violations of federal nuclear rules in the past 20 years, but he said that isnt a bad record. It hasnt had a major fine since the 1980s. The plant, however, did find itself under the federal microscope six years ago. Thats when a crack was found in a pipe that carries scalding water from the nuclear reactor to generate steam. Acid leaked through the crack. Company officials said the split never posed a danger to the public. But had SCE&G not spotted the crack, it could have been hazardous, critics said. Cracks in the pipe could have allowed water to escape and cause the radioactive fuel to overheat. SCE&G eventually attributed the crack to a suspect welding technique used to repair a pipe more than 20 years ago. According to SCE&G and Santee Cooper, the new power plants would use the only type of pressurized water reactor certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its a simpler design than the one now used at V.C. Summer, which the company says makes it less costly to operate and maintain. Riccio said hes unconvinced the new design would do anything to make new plants safer. But even if the design is safer, Riccio said that youre increasing the risk to people because youre putting more reactors out there. More things can go wrong. Otis Watts, a 56-year-old house painter who lives in the area near the plant, agreed. What are we going to do with the waste? he asked. How can you take care of wastes that will be around 2,000 years? TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 72 Deseret News: BLM seeking comment on nuclear-waste plan [deseretnews.com] Saturday, February 11, 2006 WASHINGTON — The Bureau of Land Management wants to hear from the public on whether it should grant Private Fuel Storage access to federal land in order to ship nuclear waste to the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation. The bureau posted a four-page notice announcing the 90-day public comment period in the Federal Register on Tuesday, following up on a letter sent to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in December. The Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot sign off on PFS's lease of the Goshute land without the BLM's right-of-way approval. PFS filed the right-of-way applications in 1998, and the environmental impact statement was finished in 2001, according to BLM Deputy Director Jim Hughes. In the Federal Register notice, Hughes also acknowledged President Bush signed a law that declared 100,000 acres of land in Utah as federally protected wilderness. That protects the Utah Test and Training Range but also effectively prevents hauling nuclear waste onto Goshute land via the PFS-preferred rail route. Waste could still be moved via truck, but PFS would need to build a transfer facility that would also require public land use, Hughes said. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 73 Deseret News: Huntsman threatens vetoes [deseretnews.com] Sunday, February 12, 2006 Governor says 'extreme' bills 'weaken' his office Copyright 2006 Deseret Morning News By Bob Bernick Jr. and Lisa Riley Roche Deseret Morning News Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is getting tougher with state legislators — threatening to veto two bills and insisting the sales tax be removed from food at the cash register. Speaking to the Deseret Morning News on a wide range of subjects, Huntsman said that halfway through the 2006 Legislature, he's feeling more comfortable as the state's chief executive and will see to it that his office remains a strong partner in setting state policy. "I know what I want at the end of the day, and I know what will satisfy me," said Huntsman when asked if the much-hated sales tax on food will finally be repealed. "I'm optimistic that we will have that outcome." Huntsman said he will veto HB352 and SB70 should they pass the Legislature. Rarely does a Utah governor promise a veto before a bill has finally passed. And Huntsman made no such threats during the 2005 Legislature, his first in office. Huntsman said both bills harm what he sees as the balance of power between his office and lawmakers. The governor said he's warned the sponsors that he'll veto the bills "because they are too extreme." HB352 would change the budget process so the Legislature could refuse to adopt all or part of the next year's budget and let the current budget for that disputed part just continue until the new one is finally voted into law. Huntsman contends the change "would weaken my ability to negotiate" a compromise budget with legislators. Rep. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, had a veto-proof 52 co-sponsors when she first introduced HB352. But by Friday, Dayton only had 46 co-sponsors listed on the bill. Mike Mower, Huntsman's deputy chief of staff and spokesman, said "six representatives who are co-sponsors have said they will remove their sponsorship" should Huntsman ask for it — and apparently they already have. It takes 50 votes in the House to override a gubernatorial veto, 20 votes in the Senate. HB352 awaits full House debate. The other bill that Huntsman said he'd veto, SB70, would give the Legislature the power to override a gubernatorial veto of nuclear and other hazardous waste-siting permits. Currently, either the governor or Legislature can stop a hazardous waste permit without the consent of the other. SB70 has passed the Senate, 22-6 and is on Monday's agenda of the House Business and Labor Committee. Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, who along with House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, introduced a bill similar to HB352 last year then pulled it back, said he doubts "very seriously" there'd be enough votes to override a veto on HB352. "We've handled the problem," Valentine said, noting lawmakers don't have to worry about ending the session without a state spending plan in place because now, under their own rules, legislators approve a base budget early in each general session. Huntsman said he has reason to hope that neither bill will pass, but if they pass, his vetoes will not be overridden. Valentine, who likes SB70, said it would be "a challenge but probably not impossible" for lawmakers to come up with the necessary votes to override that veto. In the coming week, the much-anticipated new state revenue estimates will come in from a panel of economic experts. Legislators and the governor alike hope for higher estimates. Huntsman predicted they'll come up with "a healthy number," but he declined to predict how high tax revenues will jump. No matter what the revenue numbers are, Huntsman said, he's "very optimistic" that he and legislators can find the money needed to have "true tax reform" via a new flatter-rate personal income tax system and repeal of the sales tax on unprepared food at the cash register. Huntsman confirmed that he's even considering cuts in his recommended $9.6 billion budget to achieve the tax cuts and tax reforms he wants. "We have lots of things we're working on," he said, waving some charts and notes too quickly for reporters to read. The new budget numbers are expected to end the current stalemate over tax cuts, one way or another. The House GOP wants $230 million in tax cuts, including taking the sales tax off food purchases entirely. Senate Republicans say $100 million in cuts is enough, and they want to give only low-income Utahns some type of income tax credit to offset the sales taxes they pay on food. Leaders in both houses favor the so-called "H3" flat-rate income tax proposal — lowering the top state income tax rate from 7 percent to 5 percent — which would give a $60 million tax cut. The governor only included $60 million in tax cuts in his December budget recommendation. But much has changed since then, he now says. In his State of the State address last month, he called for lawmakers to take the sales tax off food this session, suggesting the $166 million price tag at the state level could be covered by revenue growth. Now Huntsman is rethinking the assumption that revenue growth will solve all ills, looking for places to trim back his budget to pay for taking the sales tax off food and the revenue dip incurred in the proposed new income tax system. While Huntsman still backs a "flatter-rate" income tax at 5 percent, lawmakers in both the House and the Senate are looking to take that rate even lower, to 4.9 percent. Their rate reduction isn't cheap at about $60 million, compared to the $23 million that the governor's 5 percent-plan would cost. Valentine, though, said the Senate may be willing to move on both taking the sales tax off food and the size of the income tax reduction. "I really do believe there's room there," the Senate leader said. "I am hopeful we can negotiate some of these broader issues." Balance of power? Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., protective of his executive authority, is already threatening to veto two measures being considered by the Legislature: • HB352, which would allow the Legislature to keep in place the current spending plan for a disputed part of the budget until a new one is enacted. • SB70, which would give the Legislature the power to override a gubernatorial veto of nuclear and other hazardous waste-siting permits. E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; lisa@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 74 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca in need of repair after nine years Today: February 12, 2006 at 7:36:37 PST Critics question facility's viability By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - Yucca Mountain research facilities - from ground supports to railroad tracks - need repairs after just nine years of use, leaving critics wondering how the Energy Department could store nuclear waste there for thousands of years. As part of a $544 million Yucca budget proposal for 2007, Energy Department officials this week asked Congress for money for repairs at Yucca. That included $9 million to restore the 5-mile, nine-year-old, U-shaped exploratory tunnel where researchers have been studying the mountain, department officials said. The work includes planned improvements to a 6-foot wide ventilation shaft that runs the length of the tunnel. The department also wants to buy fire detection and alarm systems, which had never been installed in the tunnel. The $9 million request also includes grouting work on aging ground supports in the tunnel, as well as work to shore up the rail car system that ferries workers and visitors in and out. Rail cars that creep at top speeds of 10 mph have gone off the tracks because the rails are not stable, Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson said. No one has been injured in the derailments, he said. Yucca managers also aim to upgrade the Yucca lighting system and level a south portal ramp. "Everything in there is old," Benson said. "This is a safety issue." Other work plans reflect the department's confidence that Yucca is a permanent government project, despite critics who doubt the repository will ever be licensed, much less constructed. The Yucca budget proposal includes a $21 million request to replace shabby single-wide trailers at Yucca's north portal with permanent structures. The new buildings would include a new operations center, a craft shop, a warehouse, and a fueling station. A separate budget request - Benson could not say how much exactly - has been made for a second year of work on a fire station. The next nearest station is 45 minutes away in Mercury, Benson said. Benson again stressed that the new facilities were needed for the safety of Yucca workers. Yucca critics have long argued that the proposed $60 billion repository could not safely isolate high-level nuclear waste and prevent it from seeping into the environment. Yucca foes question how the government plans to maintain what would be a complex system of tunnels under the mountain. "Yucca Mountain isn't tunnels - it's a mine," longtime Yucca critic Sally Devlin said. "Mines fall apart. It's damp. It's rock. There's nothing they can do to support it forever. And they're going to put this hot stuff in there - are they nuts?" Outspoken Yucca critic Peggy Maze Johnson last visited Yucca two years ago and doesn't plan to return soon. "When you look up and see loose rock being held up by chicken wire - absolutely not did I feel safe in there," she said. The department has been studying Yucca Mountain, roughly 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for years. Officials have said they plan to open it by 2012 as a burial ground for the nation's most radioactive waste, although critics say that is unlikely and predict it may never open. Before construction could start on the repository's underground tunnels, the department must first obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which could take years. Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 75 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department seeks control of land near Yucca Today: February 12, 2006 at 7:36:37 PST By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau The Pentagon wants to take a close look at an Energy Department proposal to take control of land near Yucca Mountain that is currently managed by the Air Force and other federal agencies. Energy officials confirmed last week that legislation they are preparing to send to Congress would grant the agency control of 147,000 acres near Yucca Mountain. Of that land, 24,000 acres are managed by the Air Force, 45,000 acres by the Bureau of Land Management and 78,000 acres (of the Nevada Test Site) by the National Nuclear Security Administration. Pentagon officials in recent years have been increasingly concerned about development encroaching on Nellis Air Force Base training and testing grounds. And Air Force officials in the past have expressed concern about Yucca waste-shipping routes limiting their training - so they are likely to raise an eyebrow at an Energy request to claim 24,000 acres of the Nellis range. Energy Department officials aren't saying precisely which 147,000 acres they want, or whether the proposal would affect Nellis training. They won't even say if they have talked this over with the Air Force. It's premature to talk specifics, Energy spokesman Craig Stevens said. Nellis, with 12,000 square miles of airspace northwest of Las Vegas, is one of the nation's top jet fighter training grounds, home to the Air Warfare Center and Red Flag combat training exercises. A Nellis spokesman referred questions to the Pentagon. Pentagon Air Force spokeswoman Shirley Curry last week said she couldn't find an Air Force official familiar with the land withdrawal proposal. "I think we would have to see something in writing in order to respond," Curry said. Her interest was piqued. "As soon as you get that information, I'd really like to see it." Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 76 Las Vegas SUN: Brian Greenspun wonders how Bush's 'state' coincides with global realities Today: February 12, 2006 at 7:33:36 PST Maybe the State of our Union isn't as good as the man says. I am having some trouble squaring what President Bush told us the other night at the State of the Union address with what he and the generals like to refer to as "the facts on the ground." That's because what is going on all around us - in this country and around the world - is anything but good. Anything but secure. Anything but hopeful. And anything but the economically rosy picture he drew for us last week. I am not saying that the president misled us - there is already a constant chorus of Americans who are making that case - but I am suggesting that maybe the president needs to get out a bit more because if he did, he might learn that whatever the "data" says, the facts tell a different story. Perhaps this is nowhere more true than in the recent incredulous response by Muslims in the Middle East and Europe to editorial cartoons first published weeks ago in a Danish newspaper. The cartoons apparently depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a way that was demeaning and insulting to Islam. Without regard to whether they expressed a valid editorial opinion or a worthy discussion point for well-intentioned adults, the result has been a call to violence that is so entirely out of proportion as to be considered outrageous. At least to the Western mind. I dare say not one person I have talked to can fathom a responsible scenario in which burning buildings and killing innocent people can ever be justified just because some not very professional cartoons were published in a newspaper. And while I have heard that sentiment expressed from some of my Muslim friends, there is an eerie silence among the world's responsible Muslim leaders when now is the time for moral clarity. It is not enough to say that the people rioting in the streets are oppressed and put upon in such a way as to explain why they would destroy and kill. Sure, they are poor and hurting, but that is no reason to act so inhumanely, especially over a cartoon! Or, maybe it is. We grew up in a world that no matter how poor and oppressed we were, the catch phrase "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" controlled our outward behavior toward friend and foe alike. While I don't believe that any media outlet should purposefully demean another person's religious icons, I also don't believe that doing so - for whatever reason - justifies the kind of response that is burning up the international television airwaves. Where is the vast majority of Muslims at this time in our history when civilized society needs them to speak out against this outrageous behavior? Where are the Western clerics who should be speaking around the globe to gullible young Muslims who seem willing to follow anyone, even those who would lead them away from the promise of a long and happy life? Where are the newspapers in this and other countries who now more than ever need to speak out against the kind of reaction that is holding good, decent and honorable people hostage to the kind of fear that hasn't been visited upon this planet for more than 60 years. It may have been in bad taste and even irresponsible to pick on Islam's prophet - just like it would be if Jesus were the subject of such editorial cartoon silliness - but it is the height of folly to think that this response is anywhere within the bounds of decency and human reaction. So, maybe the president is wrong about where we stand in this war on terrorism. Maybe we aren't as far along as he believes or wants us to believe. Maybe we have to rethink the ways and means we are using to convince the world's 1.5 billion Muslims that we in the West are really well-intentioned people who want to live in peace with respect for each others' institutions and religions. For sure, if that has been our plan we aren't doing very well. Not when we can't even get these people to distinguish between the actions of one tiny independent newspaper and those of entire countries and their populations. This was a fight waiting to happen, a bomb ready to explode and a circumstance just itching for the opportunity to spill over into polite society. That, it has done, and by the looks of things it may be some time before emotions are cooled down enough to bring some sanity back to this issue. I think that there are many people in this country - none of whom are as whacked out as the folks we see in the streets gone crazy over a cartoon - who are also near their wit's end and unable to see any hope from a life filled with hopelessness and despair. Those folks probably didn't watch Bush last week, so they didn't hear him talk about how good the state of our union is. Had they heard him, they wouldn't have believed a word. None of us can believe how people in this world react to something as meaningless as a cartoon that offends them. It doesn't make any sense. There are Americans left without homes by natural disasters, uncaring banks, mortgage companies and overzealous credit card companies. There are Americans left without jobs by downsizing businesses and those looking for cheaper labor overseas. And there are Americans left without hope because of a lack of health care and no way to get it from a cash-strapped government seemingly more concerned for the big guy than the little guy. If Americans find themselves in this situation - and they are - how should they react? Not by rioting and burning, we hope. How then? Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 77 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Report is no endorsement February 11, 2006 Troubling questions about a science panel's findings on nuclear waste transportation This week a panel of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that asserted high-level nuclear waste can be shipped safely. While the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's lobbying arm, jumped on the report's conclusion, not everything in it was favorable to the industry. The National Academy of Sciences panel noted that significant amounts of radiation could be released if a shipment were to be engulfed in a sustained and intense fire. That should hardly be comforting to the tens of millions of people who live along rail routes or highways where nuclear waste would be shipped if Nevada's Yucca Mountain ever were approved to permanently store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. It certainly won't be of comfort to those who remember the fiery derailment of a 60-car freight train in Baltimore in 2001. One of the cars that ruptured was carrying thousands of gallons of hydrochloric acid. The fire, which sometimes reached temperatures as high as 1,500 degrees, lasted for six days. Imagine if that had been high-level nuclear waste. The National Academy of Sciences panel found that there should be more real-world testing of the containers under extreme conditions. But the panel added that there was no need to test the containers to the point of destruction. In light of just how lethal this cargo would be, it makes absolutely no sense not to put these containers through the most severe tests possible. In addition, it was alarming that the National Academy of Sciences panel said it was unable to gauge the risks that terrorist attacks would pose to these shipments because it could not gain access to classified information. In a post-9/11 world, there is no way to come to a final conclusion about the safety of nuclear waste shipments without factoring in terrorism. We are glad that the panel did recommend an independent investigation of the risks that terrorism poses - an investigation that doesn't have industry or government conflicts. In our view, this report's conclusions aren't comforting at all. If anything, it reinforces our belief that nuclear waste should be left safely on site, where it is produced, until scientists figure out a way to render it safely. Why take needless risks with man's deadliest waste? All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 78 All Headline News: Safely Transporting Radioactive Spent Fuel Still Problematic - www.allheadlinenews.com February 11, 2006 12:00 p.m. EST Andrea Moore - All Headline News Staff Reporter Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Questions about safety remain about methods planned for transporting radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power reactors, including the possible event of a sustained, hot fire, a review panel of the US National Academy of Sciences has concluded. Such fires have occurred in at least two cases where trains of petroleum-filled tanker cars burned for days before being controlled. The only way to minimize that risk for now, the panel concludes, is to make sure petroleum-carrying trains never get close to nuclear waste trains, but more research should be done on the effects of such fires on the nuclear casks. The report released in Washington, D.C., found there are "no fundamental technical barriers" to safe transportation, but that a number of "serious challenges" remain. Assuming no new plants are built, disposing of fuel from the US's 112 operating plants will require a two-decade-long program of daily shipments, and more planning needs to be done for managing this massive operation, the report says. The report assessed the adequacy of planning for every kind of accident scenario, but not the potential for deliberate acts such as terrorist attacks. To evaluate that aspect, it says, would require creation of a new committee with full access to classified materials. Copyright © All Headline News - All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Hanford News: Report supports safe shipments of nuclear waste This story was published Friday, February 10th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer High-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel can be shipped safely to Yucca Mountain, Nev., according to a National Academies of Science report released Thursday. Risks of radiation from shipping the waste are well understood and generally low, the report said. The Hanford nuclear reservation is preparing to turn its high-level radioactive waste into glass logs for shipment to a national repository planned at Yucca Mountain. Spent nuclear fuel from the site, including 2,300 tons from the K Basins, and from the Energy Northwest power reactor also would go there. Spent fuel has been shipped worldwide for more than four decades without a significant release of radioactive materials during an accident, concluded the committee of the National Academies' National Research Council. However, it did recommend that more study is needed on security issues and social effects of shipping the waste. Committee members who had security clearance to review some classified material saw no large threat from terrorists, said Neal Lane, chairman of the committee and a professor at Rice University in Houston. But a more thorough study should be carried out before large quantities of waste or fuel are shipped, the committee concluded. More attention also needs to be paid to understanding and managing social risks. That could range from fearful people who live along routes to a decrease in property values along the route, the report said. The committee preferred shipment by dedicated trains to shipment by truck, even though that would require a 319-mile new rail line in Nevada. Trains would carry more waste, meaning fewer shipments and less opportunity for radiation exposure or accidents. The large and heavy rail containers also would be more difficult to steal and easier to guard en route, Lane said. The report found that the most extreme scenario for a person living near a rail line would be an annual increase in radiation exposure equal to about 6 percent of the amount of radiation received in the X-ray of a hand or foot. Releases of radiation during accidents would be unlikely because of the tough packaging of the materials and strict regulations, the report said. However, more analysis could be done of a very small number of extreme accident conditions involving fires that could burn around the packages for several days, the committee said. "The likelihood of such a fire is low, but not zero," Lane said. For instance, a fire in a tunnel near Manchester, England, burned for four days in 1984 because firefighters had difficulty putting it out, Lane said. The fire did not involve radioactive material. Problems likely could be avoided by regulations, such as prohibiting trains carrying nuclear waste or fuel from being stopped on a siding near a train carrying large quantities of highly flammable material. Yucca Mountain is not expected to be ready to start accepting shipments until possibly 2015 and still needs to win a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As scientists prepared the report, the federal government raised the possibility of developing a facility to store and recycle commercial spent nuclear fuels. The report's findings also would apply to shipping that fuel, the report said. On the Net: www.nationalacademies.org. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 globeandmail.com: The atom may be the future -- again POSTED ON 11/02/06 COVER STORY/CAMECO CEO Jerry Grandey and his colleagues at Cameco Corp. told investors and anyone else who would listen that the price of uranium was going to climb, but it stubbornly refused to comply. That has changed, JOHN PARTRIDGE reports JOHN PARTRIDGE SASKATOON -- The way Jerry Grandey tells it, there was a time not so long ago when running the world's largest uranium company required one thing more than any other: faith. No matter how often he and his colleagues at Cameco Corp. told investors and anyone else who would listen that the price of the raw material for nuclear fuel was going to climb, it stubbornly refused to comply. "All through the nineties -- and I was as guilty as anybody -- we were preaching that [uranium] inventories were finite and that at some point in time, when inventories were strained . . . a price response would begin," Mr. Grandey, Cameco's chief executive officer since 2003, said during an interview at the company's head office in Saskatoon. "We thought an equilibrium price of uranium would be between $15 and $20 [a pound] but every time we made that prediction, the price . . . would go down. "We even began to doubt whether we were still sane," Mr. Grandey, an affable expatriate Californian, added later with a chuckle. No wonder. For much of that decade and into the new century, prices for uranium oxide or "yellowcake" remained in a deep freeze that had set in when the Western world went cold on fission after the notorious partial meltdown of the No. 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979. Smacked hard again by the vastly more serious Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine in 1986, the price had plunged to less than $9 (U.S.) a pound by early 1990 from its 1979 high of $43, as the United States and other nations abandoned plans to expand their fleets of atomic power plants, driven off by multibillion-dollar price tags and public opposition, leaving too much mining capacity in operation for too few customers. Compounding Western uranium miners' woes, the collapse of the Soviet Union put large quantities of cheap uranium into the market, and the landmark 1993 START II agreement in which Russia and the United States agreed to dismantle thousands of nuclear missile warheads and convert the fissile metal they contained into power plant fuel threatened to damage prices still further. Mr. Grandey and his colleagues are, however, no longer questioning their sanity. Since bottoming out at just over $7 a pound in December, 2001, uranium has redeemed itself and them by rocketing skyward, recently hitting $37.50 on the spot market. The rise has been fuelled by a variety of developments, including a growing interest in atomic power in electricity-starved China and India, both of which are planning to double their reactor fleets over the next 15 years, and by a renewed interest in the West, where, in the age of global warming, there is a growing push to reduce fossil fuel emissions. In all, the International Atomic Energy Agency is now forecasting 60 additional plants will be added by 2020 to the approximately 440 currently producing power in 31 countries around the world. All of this, proponents such as Mr. Grandey say, adds up to a "nuclear renaissance." The icing on the yellowcake has been the entry of hedge funds and other speculators into the spot market, buying up millions of pounds of uranium, betting the value will continue to rise. The new speculative interest has had a significant impact in an industry that currently mines only about 108 million pounds of uranium a year, but where demand is running at 180 million pounds. Cameco, whose rich mines in northern Saskatchewan's famed Athabasca Basin and elsewhere have given it control of a startling 20 per cent of world uranium production -- and a nickname as the Saudi Arabia of the business -- is, of course, a key beneficiary. In 1993, the year Mr. Grandey joined the company as senior vice-president of marketing and corporate development, its key product was fetching about $10 a pound, and Cameco turned in a profit of $73-million (Canadian) on revenue of $305.8-million. Just last week, it reported a profit for 2005 of $218-million on revenue of $1.3-billion. The shares have risen sixfold since 2002 when uranium began its run, taking Cameco's stock market capitalization to more than $14-billion, nearly double the figure a year ago. Jerry Grandey was almost genetically predisposed to end up connected with the nuclear business in one way or another. In the waning days of the Second World War, his parents moved to Los Alamos, N.M., where his father had been posted by the U.S. Army Signal Corps to help with the Manhattan Project, the ultrasecret program to build the world's first atomic bomb. "I was conceived at Los Alamos -- at least that's what I'm told," Mr. Grandey, 59, said with a laugh. However, his parents moved to Long Beach, Calif., where he was born in 1946. At the other end of the scale, Cameco's CEO was also an anti-nuclear activist for a time. After graduating from the Colorado School of Mines in 1968 and two years of military service, Mr. Grandey enrolled in law school in Chicago. While there, he worked part time for a public interest law firm. "Like any young person I was interested in saving the Earth," he recalled. Once Mr. Grandey received his law degree in 1973, he moved to Colorado, where he joined a firm and specialized in mining, mineral financing and litigation and environmental law. He completed his transformation from anti- to pro-nuke by signing on with Robert Adams, a U.S. uranium pioneer, whose Energy Fuels Ltd. subsequently became the metal's largest producer in the United States, with Mr. Grandey as its president. One of the key benefits Mr. Grandey brought to Cameco when he joined it at the beginning of 1993 was a network of high-level contacts in the atomic establishment in Russia that he had developed while at Energy Fuels. He put it to use almost immediately. When START II was announced, it became clear that the 500 tons of uranium covered by the 20-year agreement between the U.S. and Russia would crush the already depressed prices if it was allowed to flood the civilian market. "So I immediately bought a ticket and flew to Moscow and met with the Minister of Atomic Energy and tried to then educate him," he recalled. "And we did the same thing with the Canadian government and the U.S. government." Eventually a quota system was instituted that regulated the amount of weapons-derived uranium from Russia that could be sold into the marketplace. "In that way, the industry could adjust to it," Mr. Grandey said. Back at head office in Saskatoon, meanwhile, Cameco was being run by just its second CEO, Bernard Michel. Mr. Michel, an expatriate French mining executive, had signed on in 1988, the year the company was created as Canadian Mining & Energy Corp. through the merger of two Crown corporations, federally owned Eldorado Nuclear Inc. and Saskatchewan's Saskatchewan Mining Development Corp. Faithful to its own sales pitch that uranium prices would eventually recover, Cameco pursued a number of avenues during the 1990s and early 2000s to further its strategy of becoming the world's "dominant nuclear energy company," as Mr. Grandey puts it. This included well over $600-million in mining acquisitions, as the firm picked off the assets of other players, which, blessed with less faith, decided to exit. The largest of these was its $483-million purchase in 1998 of German-owned Uranerz Exploration & Mining Ltd., a deal that solidified Cameco's control over what was to become its massive flagship mine at McArthur River in the Athabasca Basin. That mine, 70 per cent of which is held by Cameco, sits on the largest body of high-grade uranium yet discovered anywhere. It now accounts for about 18 per cent of world production all on its own. Cameco solidified its hold on another key property in northern Saskatchewan, Cigar Lake, which is scheduled to go into production next year, and continued to invest in uranium refining and conversion plants it maintained in Ontario. Abroad, the company accumulated a large land position in Australia for exploration and acquired a number of U.S. properties. And it landed a deal in 2004 to build a large mine at Inkai in Kazakhstan, also set to start commercial production next year. Then, in 2001, in a key step in a strategy of vertical integration, Cameco moved into electricity generation by picking up a 15-per-cent interest in Ontario's massive Bruce nuclear plant, bumping it up to 31.6 per cent the next year, and taking its bargain-basement investment to just $311-million. "It was just positioning the company . . . making sure we had a very broad production base, and making sure we were the low-cost provider of uranium conversion and refining and [electricity] generation," Mr. Grandey said. "Then when nuclear was rediscovered and uranium prices began to go up . . . Cameco was well positioned to receive the attention of the investment community." For all the kudos and stock market gains Cameco has won, the company's strategy has not been an unalloyed triumph. In 2003, for instance, it backed away from joining a partnership to build a $1.1-billion uranium enrichment operation in the United States. Mr. Grandey said the firm is staying clear of this part of the business because ithas not yet figured out a way to make money at it. As well, its plan to expand in the power generation business appears to be stymied, at least for the time being. In Ontario, for instance, then-premier Ernie Eves' 2002 decision to re-regulate half of the province's electricity market has made further major investments in the Bruce operations unattractive. Increasingly aggressive competition from electric utilities for nuclear plants on the market in the U.S. have hurt its efforts to grow there. Mr. Grandey insisted, however, that Cameco has not abandoned the idea of expanding in the electricity market. "We're watching, because at some point, having access to uranium and conversion may be valued enough by a utility to allow us to meet our financial goals and have the utility meet its [goals]." If electricity generation is a dead end for now, Mr. Grandey sees plenty of potential in the new wave of uranium exploration sparked by the soaring prices, because Cameco has acquired the skills and experience to deal with all the technical and regulatory hurdles in going from discovery to functioning mill. "We ought to be, then, a partner of choice: joint venture partner, acquisition partner, merger partner," he said. Cameco already has taken a 21.8-per-cent stake in one junior, UEX Corp. of Vancouver, whose share price has soared over the past two years on strong drilling results in the Athabasca Basin. By contrast, the company also has taken the first steps toward exiting the gold mining business, where it also has extensive interests. It spun out its holdings there as a separate company, Centerra Inc., in 2004, and has retained a 53-per-cent stake in the business. More vertical integration is also on Cameco's menu. Early last week, the company filled another gap in its arsenal by closing a previously announced $108-million deal to buy Zircatec Precision Industries Inc. of Port Hope, Ont., which fabricates nuclear fuel bundles for use in Candu reactors. As for the future, Mr. Grandey said he still tends to think of Cameco as "a small entrepreneurial company trying to grow." And now the nuclear industry finally seems to be living up to the hopes of a decade ago, he's in no hurry to depart. "Knowing how difficult it was to keep the faith through the lean years . . . now that it's coming back and once again people are talking about nuclear energy, I just want to be a part of it," he said. With a density 18.7 times greater than water, uranium (U) is the heaviest naturally occurring element, and while the metal is usually thought of only in a nuclear context, its weight also makes it ideal for such non-nuclear applications as keels for sailboats and counterweights for aircraft rudder and elevator controls. It is mined underground or in open pits but can also be extracted by a method known as in-situ leaching, which uses a system of wells to inject and then recover a solution that strips uranium from the host rock. It can be more dangerous than other mining processes because its ores often emit radon gas and contain radioactive products. HOW DO WE USE IT? The first step in making uranium fuel for power plants is to produce yellowcake or uranium oxide (U{-3}O{-8}) by treating crushed uranium ore with sulphuric acid. The yellowcake is converted into a gas, uranium hexafluoride (UF{-6}), a necessary prelude to "enriching" the material so that the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope is boosted to 3.5 per cent from the natural level of 0.7 per cent. The gas is then converted to uranium dioxide (UO{-2}), which is made into fuel pellets that are inserted in metal tubes. The tubes are bundled together and inserted into the reactor's core. International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are employed to keep uranium from being used for weapons. SUPPLY AND DEMAND About 17 per cent of global electricity is generated from uranium in nuclear reactors, which number about 440 in 31 different countries. Another 31 are under construction and an estimated 60 to 70 are on the drawing board. Demand is outpacing supply coming out of the ground, and the gap has been made up by recycled uranium from nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. But when that imbalance is removed, analysts are anticipating new mine production will still fall short of demand by about 22 million pounds in 2010. The current production shortfall is 25 million pounds. WHO'S SHIPPING IT? Canada is the largest producer in the world, producing 11 million to 12 million tonnes of uranium oxide a year. The McArthur River mine in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin sits in the largest high-grade deposit in the world, with its uranium grading at 23 per cent, about 100 times higher than the world average. POLITICAL FACTORS Iran has the West up in arms because it is insisting on the right to enrich uranium within its borders. The issue is that enrichment is a key step in the process of converting yellowcake to the basic material for nuclear weapons as well as fuel, although for this use it must be enriched to 90 per cent U-235. WASTE STORAGE Spent fuel from nuclear reactors poses a major health and security risk because it remains highly toxic and radioactive for thousands of years. In Europe it is mostly reprocessed back into fuel, but in the United States and Canada it is considered waste. It is currently stored in canisters at reactor sites but both countries are looking for possible centralized storage sites, deep underground. WHAT ABOUT PRICE? Analyst John Redstone at Desjardins Securities, a uranium bear, sees new supply creating a surplus by 2009. As a result, he said in a recent report that he expects prices to be capped at about $35 (U.S.) a pound. That is one of the reasons he also figures that Cameco's shares are overpriced and poised to finish the year about 25 per cent below today's price. By contrast, Greg Coules, managing director and head of research for Metropolitan Capital Advisors Inc., a New York-based hedge fund that has invested in the sector, is betting that $50 (U.S.) uranium is "very likely" over the next 12 to 18 months and that it has the potential to climb to the $70 range "over the next couple of years." Uranium reserves by country Canada: 12% Australia: 28% Kazakhstan: 18% Niger: 6% South Africa: 8% Namibia: 6% Other: 22% World U{-3}O{-8} production, 2004 (tonnes) Canada: 11,597 Australia: 8,982 Kazakhstan: 3,719 Niger: 3,282 Russia (est.): 3,200 Namibia: 3,038 Uzbekistan: 2,016 U.S.: 846 + © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 81 Post and Courier: S.C. utilities settle lawsuit over waste Charleston.net | News | Charleston, SC Saturday, February 11, 2006 - Last Updated: 7:11 AM Nuclear waste storage deal gives them $9M BY KYLE STOCK Scana Corp. and Santee Cooper, the electric utilities that serve the bulk of South Carolina, have settled a lawsuit with the federal government over nuclear waste disposal and are moving forward on a plan to build two new nuclear power plants next to a similar facility that the utilities co-own in Jenkinsville. In January 2004, the utilities sued the U.S. Department of Energy over its failure to cart off the companies' nuclear waste per a 1983 agreement. The power companies have paid the government close to $8 million a year since the early 1980s under the stipulation that the government would accept their spent radioactive fuel rods in 1998. But the DOE's plan to store the fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has been tied up in lawsuits and the radioactive waste is still stored at the utilities' Jenksinville plant. At the end of December, the government agreed to pay the utilities $9 million to compensate them for the cost of storing the fuel. It is the second such settlement, although about 50 other utilities filed similar suits, collectively seeking $56 billion from the government. To date, utilities have paid the Energy Department $26.6 billion to clean up their waste, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry-funded lobbying group. Four S.C. nuclear plants ran out of storage space for waste by 1990. Scana and Santee Cooper built facilities big enough to handle their waste until 2018. "I don't know if I would look at it in terms of good or bad," said Steve Byrne, Scana's chief nuclear officer. "I'm pleased we got a settlement. ... I'm pleased that we were able to avoid going to court." The settlement closes an ugly debate just in time for Scana and Santee Cooper to move forward on plans to build a new nuclear power plant. The utilities said Friday that they will seek federal approval to put two new radioactive towers near the V.C. Summer plant that they opened in Jenkinsville in 1983. The Midlands site is a feasible spot for a nuclear generator because it already has a skilled work force, a training center and a transmission network. The Savannah River Site near Aiken was high on the list of possibilities, but it would not have offered as much "synergy," said SCE&G President Neville Lorick. "We would save both time and money, and that would mean a lower overall cost for our customers versus other locations," Lorick said. Utility executives said they won't commit to build the plant for a few years, but right now nuclear power is "an extremely competitive" option compared to coal- and natural-gas-fired turbines. A federal license would also allow the utilities to build a second nuclear plant at any time in the 20 years after it is issued. The announcement was met with criticism by Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer watchdog. The nonprofit group said a nuclear power plant ultimately would be a drain on taxpayers because of the government incentives it would draw. Public Citizen also said a nuclear facility would be a threat to public health and security. Utilities and the Bush administration, however, have pushed to build nuclear power plants, because they do not run on expensive and volatile fossil fuels and they produce less airborne pollution. Scana and Santee Cooper also said Friday that they favor a reactor by Westinghouse, one of three companies designing new nuclear hardware that is billed as much safer than the equipment available when the industry was poisoned by meltdowns in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The new-generation reactors are easier to operate and maintain, because they have fewer valves, pumps and pipes. Santee Cooper and Scana filed a letter of intent with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Dec. 6. A few weeks ago they started preparations to win a federal permit for a nuclear plant, a process that takes at least three years. The utilities have hired a contractor to help prepare their application. If all goes as planned, Scana and Santee Cooper will submit their application in the third quarter of 2007, win approval and start construction in 2010 and throw the switch on a new plant by 2015. Both companies said they will need the plant to meet surging demand. Santee Cooper will crank up new coal turbines in 2007 and 2009, but it will have to buy power from other utilities in 2011 if growth continues at the current rate. Scana, which boosted its generating capacity 17 percent with a new plant in May 2004, has a little more cushion. It does not need a sizable chunk of new electricity until 2015, according to Byrne. The new plant would cost close to $2 billion and generate about 1,100 megawatts of electricity per hour, enough to power some 715,000 homes. The seven nuclear towers in South Carolina provide about 56 percent of the power generated in the state, a share second only to Vermont. Reach Kyle Stock at 937-5763 or kstock@postandcourier.com. ***************************************************************** 82 Herald Journal: Hatch heart-to-heart (Skull Valley buried) Sunday, February 12, 2006 By Adam Benson Senator brings ideas, hopes to Cache Valley Orrin Hatchs ties to Cache Valley run deep. His wife, Elaine, was born and raised in Newton and his brother-in-law earned an engineering degree from Utah State University. He also calls USU mens basketball coach Stew Morrill the best basketball coach in the whole state outside of Jerry Sloan. But the Republican U.S. Senator from Utah returned to the region with a clear message for boosters Friday night as the keynote speaker at the Cache County Republicans annual Lincoln Day Dinner: President Bush is steering the country in the right direction. Our president has had the guts to take on terrorists all over the world, said Hatch, who called Bushs nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court two of the most important things of his administration. The five-term veteran lawmaker also went on the offensive, slamming his Democratic colleagues for their vicious partisan politics and praising Bush as a man who hasnt forgotten about God. In the roughly half hour he spent addressing the hundreds of people in attendance  including Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Cache Valleys company of state lawmakers  Hatch earned six rounds of applause and two standing ovations. This is a state thats just beginning to shine, said Hatch. Were going to keep making sure that our light helps our country to remain free. The 71-year-old Hatch sat down with The Herald Journal for a wide-ranging interview before taking the dais. Q: What is it like for you to be back in Cache Valley? You have a lot of ties here. A: I love Cache Valley. Its a beautiful place. We just have so many friends, its just a beautiful place and we love being here. When I go to Newton, I usually walk up to the Newton Dam every time. Thats a long walk. Q: Theres a lot of legislation moving through the state Legislature, but Utah is lucky enough to have a $1 billion surplus right now. How economically healthy is Utah compared to the deficits that are occurring on nearly every level of government? A: Our unemployment rate is down, and weve got a lot of businesses coming in. Weve worked very hard to help do that and of course, Utah is really, really going well. Our GDP here is very good. Its a well-run state, weve got a lot going for us, and its just the beginning. If we can develop our resources like the tar sands and oil shale in Eastern Utah thats going to make Utah pretty wealthy. We just have so many natural resources and we found tremendous oil reserves down there in Sanpete and Sevier counties, maybe as much as four billion barrels. Who knows? But its very sweet crude and its good stuff. Then you add the educational base down through the Wasatch Front from Utah State to Weber State to the University of Utah and BYU and all the state schools in between. Were providing a software valley that is equivalent to San Jose and Massachusetts and elsewhere. Weve got brilliant people working in these areas. We dont want to take it for granted. Q: People in Cache Valley sometimes feel a little bit forgotten by their state legislators who arent from here. I know people in Utah kind of feel that way about their presence in Washington. A: I dont think so. I think most people realize theyre pretty well represented in Washington. We have a good delegation and we work well together. We dont let many Utah issues go unaddressed. Q: I know a big one for you has been Skull Valley down on the Utah-Nevada border with your friend, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev). How do you see that playing out? A: We were able in the final negotiations between Congressman Bishop, myself and (GOP Sen. John) Ensign from Nevada to get the wilderness language that closed off the rail spur (Cedar Mountain) in the north part. Now what weve got to do is get people to write into the Bureau of Land Management. The rest of the delegation has gone with Harry Reid on being against Yucca Mountain, but Ive made it very clear that somebody has to stick with the administration. Had I not stuck with the administration, we probably wouldnt have solved what weve solved up to now. But now, weve got to work to try and pull the companies out of PFS (Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C  the company hoping to build a high level nuclear waste storage facility on the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Reservation). Ive got three or maybe four who are rethinking it. They want to work with me because Im going to be chairman of the (Senate) Finance Committee. I believe in the end were going to be able to win on that. If we dont win, youre talking about 40 years of having that stuff transported in and out of Utah, and were just not going to put up with that. Q: President Bush on Friday again defended his warrantless eavesdropping program conducted by the National Security Agency. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently spoke with the Senate Intelligence Committee about it, and some people from your party have come out and questioned the programs legality. What are your thoughts? A: I cant talk about the program, but I know a lot about it. What theyre doing is one of the most highly classified matters in the country today. Lets be honest about it: Most people in this country want the president to do what he can to protect us, and I think if you look at whats going on, most people would support this type of research. All of us in Congress are concerned that there ought to be some way of checking the power of the executive branch, just like the other two branches have to be checked. Were working on how we might do that. The administration has come a long way & they appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and gave them a lot of knowledge about whats going on. The way the president did this, it isnt near as inconsiderate as some people thought. Not only did they decide they had to do this, but they put 45-day limits so they would have to re-up the program every time. They disclosed to the FISA Courts chief judge, they kept the eight top leaders in Congress aware of it. In addition, they came up to the House and Senate Intelligence Committee and have given us tremendous background information on this as of this week. Q: Are you going to be hearing more testimony from senior administration officials on the program? A: Yes. They will continue to inform us about whats going on, but lets be clear. The leaks of this information have resulted in severe damage in our countrys ability to collect intelligence from terrorists. It has alerted them, and some estimate that intelligence gathering has dropped off a dramatic percentage after these leaks. Whoever has done this ought to be prosecuted. Q: Youre with the president then in that this information shouldnt have been disclosed to the media and the public? A: Thats absolutely correct. The people who did that did our intelligence gathering a tremendous disservice, and all I can say is that the president did what he could under the circumstances. The argument is this: The Congress passed an authorized use of military force. The president has to do what it takes to protect our country from terrorists, and he got that authority directly from Congress. Its a much more broad authority than just a war powers resolution, which is usually one sentence. On top of that, the president has what at least five Circuit Court of Appeals have called an inherent power to protect our homeland. He has acted within the law as the law sits today. He has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance so long as that surveillance is reasonable. Theres a stand-off between the Congress and the executive branch about just how far his powers go. Many of us believe that he is not out of line to have used his inherent powers. However, we are concerned that the Intelligence Committee should be informed, and that there should be some checks on this type of power. We cant protect the American people without the warrantless surveillance thats been done. Q: You mentioned the Supreme Court. Between Judge Samuel Alito and John Roberts, where is the Supreme Court going to be headed in the next decade or so? A: Nobody knows. We dont know how people are going to react once they get on the court. Q: Are they both the right people for the job? A: Oh, you bet. They are tremendous people. You will no longer have people just off the top of their heads deciding to make laws from the bench. Thats why liberals want liberal justices on there, because they will make laws from the bench that the legislators could never get through. Thats not the role of judges. Judges are to interpret the laws made by those elected to make them. I dont think youll see either of those justices making the laws. There will be some disappointed conservatives who are just as bad as the disappointed liberals who want the judges now to make laws that are conservative. I dont think youre going to find these two justices are going to do that, because they know the role of judging. If judges dont have parameters, the Constitution doesnt mean anything. Q: In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal and the allegations against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Im wondering your thoughts on the mid-term elections on 2006, and if you think the Republicans have taken a public relations hit. A: The Jack Abramoff situation is a scandal. Nobody can justify the activities he was doing, but to blame all lobbyists in Washington for what he did would be absolutely wrong. Many of the lobbyists in town are people with great skill and great ability who are honest. Theres been so much bad publicity about that  as there should be  that Congress now is re-looking at all the ethics rules. In all honesty, individuals from both parties got a lot of money from Jack Abramoff and his affiliates. To blame one party over another is just ridiculous. Abramoff broke existing law and admits it. Q: What about the ethics allegations against Rep. DeLay? A: Rep. DeLay is innocent until proven guilty, and that prosecutor (Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronald Earle) is one of the sleaziest in the history of this country. He did this to (Republican U.S. Senator) Kay Bailey Hutchison, and put her through hell trying to get her to lose her Senate seat and then the minute she won he dismissed the charges. In the case of DeLay, I cant judge all that. All I can say is that they hate DeLay because hes a hard-charging Republican. But I wouldnt trust that prosecutor as far as you could throw him. Q: Hillary Clintons name keeps coming up from the Democrats about the 2008 presidential election. What are your thoughts on Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his chances of securing the Republican nomination or at least being a a force for Republicans to at least think about? A: Right now, Hillary Clinton is probably their number one choice, but I dont think in the end shell be their choice. Theyve got some other potentially very good nominees like (former Virginia Gov. John) Warner, who ran the state pretty well. Youve got (Iowa Gov. Tom) Vilsack and (New Mexico Gov. Bill) Richardson. Kerry wants to run again, and so does Edwards. Theyve got a plethora on their side and on our side, we do too. If (current Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice came up, I think shed blow people away. (Senate Majority Leader) Bill Frist, George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, George Pataki. Ill just say this as a matter of fact: Mitt Romney has more management ability than any potential candidate on either side. He is one of the best managers in the country. He took over Massachusetts, which is an extremely liberal state with a totally dominant Democratic Legislature and turned a $3 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus in just the few years hes been in there. The day I announced for president, I was on Larry King Live and he said senator, how are you going to do it? Eighteen percent of the American people will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances. I found that to be true, but I think I helped break down some of those barriers. Mitt, I think, can overcome that. I believe that if it came down to Mitt showing that he can do the job better than anybody else, I think he can make it. Q: Youre seeking another term in office. Why? A: The reason is there are so many things I can do that Im not sure anyone else can, and Im on the right committees to do them. Within the next few years, Ill be chairman or ranking on the Senate Finance Committee, which is the most powerful committee in the country. We couldnt have a senator in the next three years whod be able to do what Ill be in a position to. At the same time I become chairman of the Finance Committee, (Utah Republican Sen.) Bob Bennett will become chairman of the Banking Committee, so Utah will have two chairmen on the two most powerful money committees in Congress. Q: Do you think well be seeing some kind of concrete exit strategy regarding the war in Iraq coming out of the White House or Washington? A: I said when we went into this war that we needed to take this fight to them overseas, not on our land and so far, thats worked very well. In the case of Iraq, I said it would take at least 10 years. I was hoping I was wrong, and I personally think I very well might be wrong. But as you can see, its a completely different culture from ours. We need to finish that job, but we are winning. The insurgency seems to be running into a lot of difficulty. First of all, they are not as well trained as they used to be. Weve killed or captured a lot of them. Weve put a big scare into Syria, from which a lot of these insurgents are coming, and weve put a lot of pressure on Iran, which is the biggest financier of terrorists in the world. The problem is, we have weak nations in the U.N. who wont stand up the way they should. It took us 10 years to formulate and do our Constitution. Theyve got theirs in a much shorter period of time. The question is, will they be able to follow through with a representative form of government? The answer to that is, we hope. Its an uphill battle, and it always has been. We cant lose our nerve. Copyright © 2006 The Herald Journal. Logan, Utah ***************************************************************** 83 Earth & Sky: Nuclear waste recycling pros and cons Radio Shows + February 12, 2006 [Home Button] Program #4,789 of the Earth & Sky Radio Series Hosts Deborah Byrd and Joel Block Researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory are testing a technique to recycle or "reprocess" nuclear fuel. For more on this process, read the full text of Earth & Sky's interview with Phillip Finck.For the views of two scientists who are opposed, read our interviews with Frank von Hippeland Edwin Lyman.(Argonne National Laboratory)DB: This is Earth &Sky. The Bush administration wants a multi-million-dollar initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. It appears to be part of a plan to jump start a nuclear energy renaissance. JB: Phillip Finck and his colleagues at the Argonne National Labin Illinois are working toward the reprocessing technology, which is called UREX. Phillip Finck : And what we have shown, in many tests over the last 20 or 30 years is that you're likely to be able to reduce the toxicity of the nuclear waste by a factor of up to 100. DB: Finck said the experimental method takes spent nuclear fuel and makes most of it reusable as fuel again. Finck and others believe in this process as a way to make nuclear energy a viable source of energy for the world. JB: But there's a lot of opposition, just as there was 30 years ago, when construction of the last nuclear plant to be built in the U.S. began. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists asked Earth &Sky to be sure to mention concerns associated with recycling nuclear fuel - risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and environmental and economic impacts. DB: For more about the pros and cons of recycling nuclear fuel, come to earthsky.org. We're Block and Byrd for Earth &Sky. Author(s): Jorge Salazar More Information Interview: Phillip Finckis helping to develop the nuclear recycling process. He gave Earth &Sky details of the process and said why he thinks the "nuclear option is really necessary to ensure our energy security for the long term." Interview: Frank von Hippeltold us why he thinks "the best thing would be to just store the spent fuel." Interview: Edwin Lymanof the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "The idea sounds good. But the technology isn't there yet." Bush seeks to jump-start nuclear power, from The Wall Street Journal Bush nuclear policy requires massive funding, new technology, from the Scripps Howard News Service Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: setting back the clock on plutonium reprocessing, from the Federation of American Scientists Here in the U.S., Yucca Mountainin Nevada is being considered for an underground repository for nuclear waste, despite public and political resistance. ©2006 Byrd & Block Communications, Inc. Copyright ©1996-2006 Byrd and Block Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 84 Contra Costa Times: Livermore fallout shelters are relics of a bygone era Posted on Sun, Feb. 12, 2006 DO YOU REMEMBER: BARRY SCHRADER DICK ANGEL BROUGHT TO MIND ANOTHER ERA and another mind-set when he recently mentioned the fallout shelter buried in the front yard of his Neal Street home in Pleasanton. It had been installed by the house's original owner, John Long, during those scary Cold War days around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dick just sold the house, so the new owners will have to decide what to do with it. He shared an anecdote that, one day, his 16-year-old daughter disappeared and they called Pleasanton police to look for her overnight. The next day they discovered she had gone down to the fallout shelter and fallen asleep there. This topic is so big that it will take two weeks to tell the best stories about this valley's obsession with shelters back in the 1960s, so this is Part One. The difference between types of shelters needs to be defined. A "bomb shelter" is a reinforced concrete bunker underground where people go if given enough warning of an impending nuclear attack. A "fallout shelter" (which most are in this valley) is an underground chamber to which people flee to avoid the radiation spread by a nuclear explosion some distance away (like San Francisco, for example). Reading some old Civil Defense pamphlets, there seems to be some difference of opinion about how long you were expected to stay in these shelters, hence how much food and water should you store and when you could recirculate the air from above ground if the radioactivity is still out there. These are dilemmas each family faced as they struggled with whether to build a shelter, how long they might have to stay in it and whether to go into a joint shelter venture with neighbors or co-workers. The granddaddy of all local shelters was a massive project built in a hillside out North Livermore Avenue by 30 families, most of them affiliated with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at the time. They included high-level lab officials, so other residents must have taken the nuclear threat seriously when they learned knowledgeable lab scientists felt the need for such protection. It was a six-acre parcel, with 33 rooms inside. Each family supplied the beds, food and other basics needed to survive for a certain period of time. Generators and air circulation systems were included, and I imagine radiation monitoring equipment was also a part of the complex. Without their permission, I won't mention the names of all the families. But three participants did talk with me about the experiences. Henri Fankhauser remembers spending two weekends underground in a drill so they would know what it was like to live there. Dorothy Hudgins, whose late husband, Art, and his boss Duane Sewell were two principals in the project, recalls the big steel door, then the steps leading to the tunnel off which the rooms were located. She said there was a common cooking area and the labyrinth was divided into three sections, so in case one was breached the other two could remain inhabitable. They also had toilet facilities for each of the sections. Joan Boer, who was a young mother with three children at the time, vividly remembers going inside the shelter for a drill under the blaze of lights from TV cameras and other press covering their weekend excursion underground. Exiting at the end of the exercise, she was photographed in a newspaper carrying her then-8-month-old son Nicholas in her arms. So much for secrecy and anonymity in building a hide-out! Over 20 years ago, the families finally found a buyer for the six-acre parcel and abandoned their costly and long unused shelter project. It is not known if the new owner just sealed up the entrance or uses it for a gigantic wine cellar. Looking around for other private family shelters, I ran into former Livermore Mayor John Shirley, who teamed up with three other families, the Jim Bells, the Bert Dukes and the Van Ormers. The fallout shelter was buried behind John's veterinary building on Railroad Avenue. The entry hatch and steel ladder to the underground chamber were acquired from an old merchant marine vessel and cost $2,400 to build; much of the work was done by the families themselves. It included a 300-gallon water tank and food supplies for up to two weeks. John said once they realized it was not going to be needed, he housed some of his summer veterinary interns down there. But then one wet winter the chamber was flooded when the sump pump didn't evacuate the water fast enough, so they abandoned the place altogether and haven't opened the hatch since. One shelter still in good condition is on Chateau in Livermore, built by the original owners back in the early 1960s. A young couple that just bought the home allowed me to tour the spacious 22-by-24-foot room, with two entrances, one a trap door and steel ladder through a bedroom closet and the other one a set of cement steps hidden inside the pool house. The enclosure has a two-foot-thick reinforced concrete ceiling, running water, an air circulation system with a hand crank in case the power fails, electricity and is still waterproof and comfortable inside. Being amateur winemakers, they anticipate turning this into the perfect wine cellar and plan to make some champagne from their chardonnay grapes. But most underground shelters have turned into watery, uninhabitable albatrosses. Carolyn Ramsey told me about the one her late husband, Bill, built back in 1962 in their Livermore back yard, complete with running water, electricity and ventilation system. She said they stocked it with canned good, dried foods "and a little booze." She recalled that Bill used to go down there to cool off when it was 100 degrees outside and either read or listen to the radio. But after his death it was no longer used, and now she won't even go down there. Next week's column will cover public and government shelters plus city Civil Defense plans. LAST WEEK'S HISTORY MYSTERY LOCATION turned out to be a surprise to everyone, but Sandians were up to the challenge. I listed GPS coordinates for a geodetic survey marker that was supposedly at Sandia, according to the old records that were last updated in 1957. It seems that, at the time, Sandia occupied two buildings north of East Avenue while awaiting the construction of new facilities across the street, so the marker was registered on Sandia property. In fact, the benchmark disk had first been placed there in 1944 when the Livermore Naval Air Station occupied the site, then rediscovered and recorded on the cement slab around a manhole cover in 1957. But Sandians Joanne Lombardi and Steve Bunn took up the hunt this past week and found the exact marker -- just inside the parking lot fence by the LLNL South Gate, where the South Cafeteria parking lot exists today. (FYI, the cafeteria that served Sandia and Lab employees in that area for nearly 40 years just closed down.) By pushing back some ground cover you can spot it -- still in good condition. Joanne is a member of the international Geocaching.com adventure group that hunts for landmarks and GPS points all over the world. But that's another story. Rich Larson from Sandia also hunted for the benchmark but confined his search to the south side of the street where I erroneously reported it might be. E-mail Barry Schrader at: historian2@sbcglobal.netor via mail at Box 446, Livermore, CA 94551. ***************************************************************** 85 Hanford News: Science panel concludes nuclear waste transport generally safe This story was published Friday, February 10th, 2006 By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of shipments of highly radioactive nuclear waste can be handled safely, a panel of scientists has concluded, although the panel warned that significant radiation might be released if a shipment becomes engulfed in a lengthy and intense fire. The report by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences is expected to carry considerable weight as the government moves toward developing a central repository in Nevada for used commercial reactor fuel and defense waste now kept in 39 states. The group examined the risk from possible accidents as nuclear shipments crisscross the country, but said it did not assess security risks to such shipments because it could not gain access to classified information. It called for a further examination of security issues, including a shipment's potential vulnerability to terrorist attacks. It also said that the group doing the investigation should be independent of any governmental or industry conflicts. Such information should be made public to the extent possible, the scientists said Thursday. The Energy Department is preparing a transportation plan to ship some 70,000 tons of nuclear waste from around the country to a proposed central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, if the facility gets a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The department said that would require 4,300 shipments — about three-fourths by rail and the rest over highways — over 24 years. Nevada officials, who strongly oppose the Yucca project, have said there could be as many as 50,000 shipments with wastes going through at least 43 states. The study by a special panel of the Academy's National Research Council concludes there are "no fundamental technical barriers to the safe transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the United States." "The radiological risks ... are well understood and are generally low," the report continued, noting that during 40 years of making such shipments there has never been a significant release of radioactive material. But the scientists warned of "social and institutional challenges" — from possible property value decline and loss of tourist business along transport routes to public anxiety over such shipments — that would have to be overcome as the number of shipments increase. The panel concluded the robust canisters in which the waste will be kept have been shown to withstand virtually all conceivable transport accidents. But it warned that a significant radiation release could occur "in extreme accidents involving very-long duration, fully engulfing fires." "While the likelihood of such extreme accidents appears to be very small, their occurrence cannot be ruled out," said the scientists. They called on the NRC to further analyze the impact of such an event on various waste package designs and said any transportation plan should try to minimize the likelihood of such an accident. The panel also urged the government to ship as much of the waste by rail on dedicated trains, as opposed to trucks. The Energy Department has said that it prefers rail over highway transport. While some sensitive information such as the times or routes of a specific shipment may have to be kept secret, the panel urged the government to share with the public as much information as possible including general information on possible routes, what material is being shipped and the broad timeframe of shipments. The 16-member Research Council panel was chaired by Neal Lane, a professor of physics at Rice University, and included representatives from academia and various consulting organizations. The government's plan for opening the proposed Yucca Mountain facility has been delayed and the facility now may not open until 2015, or even later. The Energy Department has yet to send an application for a license to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has said the administration remains committed to building the Nevada facility and last week asked Congress for $544 million for the project for the next fiscal year, including money to develop a transportation plan. But some in Congress, including Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate's Democratic leader from Nevada, has argued that the waste should remain in aboveground storage at current reactor sites to avoid transportation concerns. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 86 Hanford News: Cantwell questions proposals for cuts This story was published Friday, February 10th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford's old tanks holding radioactive waste need to be emptied promptly because of the risk of an earthquake, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash, said Thursday. She questioned a Department of Energy proposal to reduce spending at Hanford's tank farms by $52 million in fiscal year 2007 during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. The Department of Energy reduced spending for emptying single-shell tanks in its proposed fiscal year 2007 because of delays in building Hanford's vitrification plant, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The aging tanks, some of them built during World War II, were designed as temporary storage and many have leaked radioactive waste. DOE is emptying radioactive waste from them into newer double-shell tanks until they can be treated for disposal. Much of the 53 million gallons of waste would be turned into glass logs at the vitrification plant under construction. "I need to get the vitrification plant operating as a place to put the waste," Bodman said. The double-shell tanks cannot hold all of the waste, but are not yet full. Washington state officials have estimated they could be at capacity in 2008. Because liquids have been removed from all the single-shell tanks - leaving sludge and salts that are more difficult to retrieve - Bodman said he believed the tanks are stable. Part of the reason work on the vitrification plant has been slowed is because of concerns that the design needs to be more robust in critical parts of the plant to withstand a severe earthquake. Cantwell said the Army Corps of Engineers has called getting waste out of the tanks "imperative" because of the possibility of an earthquake. The tanks are seven to 10 miles from the Columbia River, she said. Bodman agreed to give Cantwell a written analysis covering moving waste from single-shell tanks into double-shell tanks. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 87 lamonitor.com: Nuclear energy revival gains steam in U.S. The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor If all goes well, a leading national authority on nuclear energy said a renaissance in nuclear energy production is within reach. Richard Meserve, president of the Carnegie Institute and former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he supported the effort but was mindful of potential challenges ahead. He spoke at a Director's Colloquium in the Physics Auditorium at Los Alamos National Laboratory on Thursday. "The barriers are being and can be overcome," he said. Nuclear power has managed to contribute about 20 percent of the nation's growing electricity supply, despite the fact that no new nuclear power plants have been built since 1973, according to the Energy Information Agency. The reason is that existing plants have become more efficient while lowering operating costs and generating electricity at increasingly higher levels of capacity. But the 103 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. won't last forever, Meserve said. Over the next three decades, as plants age and permits expire and as electricity needs grow, the cheapest source of power on the grid was doomed to fade out. Meserve co-chaired a Department of Energy task force that recommended government assistance to help industry revive the nuclear energy program, particularly in sharing the start-up costs for new designs and streamlining the application process. Many of those recommendations were codified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed into law in August. The incentives and simplified permits have already stimulated a number of new prospects. None of them has filed yet, Meserve said, but assuming that they do, and if NRC can process them adequately, and nothing else bad happens, the country could see another dozen nuclear plants within a decade. Mounting concerns over greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel generating plants along with a growing awareness of the nation's vulnerability in energy security have overtaken the safety fears that dominated the issue in the wake of the Three-Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania in March 1979, followed by the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union in April 1986. Meserve said polls now find 60-75 percent of Americans generally support nuclear power, but that support may not be held firmly enough that it could survive a Chernobyl-like disaster. "If there is an Achilles heel in all this," he said, it is the risk of an international incident that would once again block pursuit of the nuclear option. Promoting international systems for nuclear safety, he said, is one of his personal priorities and why he is serving as the chairman of the international nuclear safety group for the International Atomic Energy Agency. New power plants are most likely to be sited on or near existing sites, where familiarity, established trust and economic self-interest will help overcome resistance from the anti-nuclear resistance, he said. He emphasized, "The NRC must be seen as a competent and open regulator, that is, not in the pocket of the nuclear energy industry." Meserve discussed the delays in building the high-level nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, but considers the problem of storing the spent fuel from nuclear power plants to be solvable, aided by the next generation fast reactors and reprocessing options that will lower proliferation risks. "We ought to proceed anyway," Meserve said, adding it is another one of those technical issues that is not beyond the human capacity to solve. "We don't have a crisis. We don't need an answer tomorrow," he said. A report by the National Academies of Sciences issued Thursday concluded, "There are no fundamental barriers to the safe transport of nuclear fuel and high-level waste in the United States." Meserve, the indispensable expert, chaired the nuclear and radiation studies board on that review committee as well. The committee's conclusion on a piece of the picture, reflected his own assessment of the whole - that there are no insurmountable obstacles. He was asked a question from the audience about whether the short-term persistence of fossil fuel emissions in the atmosphere, should outweigh the very long term - millennial -presence of radioactive waste in the environment, The effort to return to nuclear power is essential, he said, because we know what to do. "The climate change problem, we don't even know how to deal with yet," he said. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************