***************************************************************** 02/14/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.38 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Iran Restarts Nuclear Plant 2 [NYTr] Iran Denies Plan for Atomic Weapons 3 Hands off Iran! - Green Left Weekly #656, February 15, 2006 4 Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis 5 Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran? 6 Americans think Iran may use nukes 7 IRAN - THE MEDIA FALL INTO LINE 8 Pentagon prepares for military strikes against Iran 9 [progchat_action] Plame was working on Iran 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Resumes Enrichment of Uranium 11 Guardian Unlimited: A Defiant Iran Makes Atomic Boast 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Resumes Small-Scale Uranium Program 13 RIA Novosti: Iran delegation to arrive in Moscow Feb. 20 for nuclear 14 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear chief to visit Iran as planned 15 IRNA: Iran's envoy in Uruguay says pressure on Iran will have opposi 16 Xinhua: China calls for sober-mindedness on Iran nuclear issue - FM 17 AFP: US still backs Russian deal on Iran nukes 18 IRNA: Iranian nuclear delegation to Visit Moscow 19 AFP: US, Turkey to hold talks on Iran nuclear row 20 Guardian Unlimited: Official: N. Korea Should Give Up Nukes 21 US: The Ledger: Oh, Never Mind 22 US: Oakland Tribune: Energy funding quickly fizzles 23 US: Guardian Unlimited: Panel Weighs Whistleblower Law Changes 24 RIA Novosti: The missile that does not care NUCLEAR REACTORS 25 RIA Novosti: Repeat: Winner of Chernobyl tender to be announced in L 26 BBC: Tackling the UK's nuclear legacy 27 BBC NEWS: France sticks to nuclear option 28 Platts: Energy geopolitics make nuclear option sensible for UK: mini 29 Platts: World's nuclear performance in 2005 close to 2004's 30 US: Platts: Detailed applications will ease new COL process - NRC of 31 US: APP.COM: In nuclear emergency, students would go to reception ce 32 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice 33 US: APP.COM: Evacuation zone excludes southern LBI | 34 US: APP.COM: Evacuation plan depends on many who lack key training | 35 US: News Tribune: Oyster Creek operator admits radiation risk 36 US: APP.COM: Fired scientist says boss overruled reactor operators | 37 US: APP.COM: Escaping could take 9 1/2 hours | 38 US: APP.COM: Mass chaos feared if too many leave | 39 AGI: ENERGY: SCAJOLA, NUCLEAR COMMITMENT 40 TheStar.com: Nuclear power proposal slammed 41 US: NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation; Order Approving 42 globeandmail.com: Ontario utility eyes two sites for nuclear reactor 43 US: Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuke plant powers down 44 US: Middletown Press: Low radiation levels found at Yankee plant 45 US: OrlandoSentinel.com: FPL provides details of merging nuclear uni 46 US: NRC: Speech - 002 - “New Plant Design, Certification and Licensi 47 US: SFSS: FPL and Constellation may combine nuclear units during pla 48 CBC Toronto: Consultation too short, nuclear critics say 49 barrow in furness: Clean-up to take 70 years NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 US: [DU List] Gulf war veteran anounces Candidacy for San Jose 51 US: APP.COM: KI pills protect thyroid from radiation | 52 US: New West Network: Did Utah Kill John Wayne? Part III: Folks Star NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 53 US: NRC: NRC Terminates ACHP Consultation, Prepares to Issue License 54 US: Guardian Unlimited: Feds License Nuke Dump on Utah Reservation 55 US: Bradenton Herald: FOCUS, Lockheed to partner on Tallevast survey 56 US: Deseret News: House panel approves nuclear waste override bill 57 US: Platts: NEI wants nuclear waste fee to remain at current level 58 US: Platts: US NRC issues draft license for nuke waste storage site 59 US: APP.COM: Spent fuel pool is vulnerable, critics say | 60 US: Salt Lake Tribune: PFS gets desert N-dump license 61 US: Daily Herald: Legislature makes move to allow it to override a v 62 Scotsman.com News: Landowner bans experts from beach 63 US: Newsday.com: Nuclear waste 'fear factor' -- 64 US: Columbia Missourian: Plutonium ban hurts efficiency, speaker say 65 US: Deseret News: Private Fuel Storage gets a draft license PEACE 66 US: [du-list] "Stopping Dangerous Weapons Proliferation Highest US DEPT. OF ENERGY 67 Charlotte Observer: Hydrogen research lab opens 68 Rocky Mountain News: Residents win $352 million in Flats suit ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Iran Restarts Nuclear Plant Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:36:49 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Restarts Natanz Nuclear Plant Tehran, Feb 14 (Prensa Latina) Iranian National Security Superior Council Secretary for Foreign Affairs Yavad Valdi announced on Tuesday resumption of the activities in Natanz nuclear plant, in the center of the country, the IRNA official news agency reported. Valdi, who spoke in Tehran on Tuesday, in a seminar called "Nuclear Science, a measure for today, necessity for tomorrow," revealed that the government president gave the order to restart the activities in that nuclear complex. However, the second man in charge of the negotiations about the nuclear program did not report if the key process of introducing uranium hexafluoride in the centrifuge had restarted, the source said. "Those are technical specific details," said Valdi when asked if the centrifuges of the underground installation were working. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of Iranian National Security and the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, told the state television Iran restarted the enrichment of uranium in Natanz with peaceful objectives, under supervision of International Atomic Energy Organization inspectors. This decision increased tension among Iran, the United States, and the European Union about Tehran's nuclear program. The United States and Israel condemned the Iranian Peaceful project again, and were in favor of discussing the issue before the UN Security Council. mh/iom/lms/mf * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran Denies Plan for Atomic Weapons Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:15:02 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Denies Plans for Atomic Weapons Caracas, Feb 14 (Prensa Latina) Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel denied that his country has any intention to build atomic bombs, as he said it would be against the roots of Iran's ideology. During a speech before the Venezuelan Parliament on Tuesday, Adel stressed that "those who accuse us of failing to comply with international agreements have thousands of nuclear bombs and threaten other countries." The parliament leader said that, using several pretexts, powerful nations do not want southern states to access new technologies. The time of colonialism is over, either in its new or its old version. The peoples of the south woke up. Cold war is over. Unipolar order cannot be imposed on today's world," he said. Previously, Adel thanked his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro for the South American country's support against a draft resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In an official document issued over the weekend, Venezuela considered a principled stand his view regarding Iran's nuclear program that every country has the right to develop any technology they consider suitable for their economic, social well-being, including nuclear. Adel is leading a high level delegation made up of Iranian lawmakers and ministers on a visit to Venezuela to strengthen bilateral relations and sign agreements on technology and culture, among others. hr/rma/wap * ================================================================ .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 Hands off Iran! - Green Left Weekly #656, February 15, 2006 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:49:29 -0600 (CST) Green Left Weekly RSS feed Green Left Weekly #656, February 15, 2006 Hands off Iran! Following two years of intense lobbying by the US government, an emergency meeting of the governing board of the UN's Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a resolution on February 4 requesting IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei to report on Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council after the next regular IAEA board meeting, scheduled for March 6. [Full article] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Racist cartoons: Why Muslims have a right to be angry The Danish government's defence of the publication by a right-wing newspaper of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, including one with the leader wearing a turban with a bomb attached to it, has provoked widespread protests by justifiably angry Muslims around the world. [Full article] ****************************************************************************** John Pilger: 'Support GLW!' We can't do it on our own! Green Left Weekly Fighting Fund 2006: $250,000! Enjoy reading Green Left Weekly? Want to help support our work? Why not make an online donation . **************************************************************************** International News # IRAN: US war drive makes diplomatic advance # IRAQ: How the corporate media promotes war # VENEZUELA: 'Another television is possible' # Lawyer claims US special forces infiltrating Venezuela # VENEZUELA: US aggression against revolution grows # SOUTH AFRICA: The real state of the nation # SOUTH AFRICA: Left candidate targeted # SOUTH AFRICA: Staff and students strike # CUBA: Chavez wins Jose Marti award # PALESTINE: Hamas leader offers Israelis long-term truce # NEPAL: Elections 'deepen crisis for king' # SOUTH KOREA: Court awards US$62m to Agent Orange victims # IRAN: Bus drivers demand union rights # VIETNAM: Workers fight foreign bosses and win ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Click here to join the GLW discussion list Visit the Socialist Alliance website Resistance Books for all your radical literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Brief # BRITAIN: Victory for Palestine solidarity activists # PERU: BHP Billiton forced out # WESTERN SAHARA: Australian oil company withdraws # CZECH REPUBLIC: Communist Youth Movement banned # UNITED STATES: Amnesty raises concerns over Cuban 5 treatment # UNITED STATES: Katrina victims to march against war # UNITED STATES: New detention camps # WESTERN SAHARA: Calls for urgent refugee aid Regular Features # Loose cannons # Write On: Letters to the Editor *************************************************************** Now available online: Links issue 27 ("Socialism and the market: Chinese and Vietnamese roads") and lead article from issue 28, ``The 1905 revolution and its lesson'' ***************************************************************** Cultural Dissent # War and a tale of two satirists # Pro-Palestinian or pro-Zionist? # Politicising Glasgow's pavements Comment and Analysis # Racist cartoons: Why Muslims have a right to be angry # AWB, the Iraq war and the Howard government # Campaign against art censorship # Howard targets minimum wage and welfare benefits # Venezuela and south-south links # Should Chavez have helped Kirchner pay the IMD? # RU486: women should decide # Macquarie Fields: new year, same problems # Our Common Cause: Reefer madness # Survey reveals racism growing in high schools # Parkin deported for peanut butter sandwiches? # Vale Betty Goldstein, aka Betty Friedan # Controversial desalination plant axed? Australian News # Interest building in Venezuelan MP's tour # PKK terrorist tag criticised # Troops out of Iraq! # Firefighters demand safe uniforms # Union leaders slam racism at public forum # MUA picket in defence of sacked unionist # Women, not politicians, should decide # Another peace activist detained by ASIO # NSW police to trial Taser stun guns # Socialists to contest WA by-election # Who would best represent working class people? # Campaign over Recherche Bay scores win Activist Calendar # Check out the Activist Calendar here . Click here for Green Left Weekly's copyleft details. About Green Left Weekly Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Back issues Distribution details Links to other sites ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 4 Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:00:53 -0600 (CST) http://globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=1877 Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist. By William O Beeman and Thomas Stauffer February 2, 2006 Pacific News Service President Bush declared on June 25 that "we will not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran. His words are empty. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist. Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ("heavy water") facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not. The Bushehr plant is only part of the argument that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program, but it is the part that can readily be analyzed. State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (an alternative to fissile plutonium for bombs) or covert facilities for extracting plutonium. Neither of these claims are especially credible, since the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum. The testable part of the claim -- that the Bushehr reactor is a proliferation threat -- is demonstrably false. There are several reasons, some technical, some institutional. --The Iranian reactor yields the wrong kind of! plutoni ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. To become a Member of Global Research The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com ) Copyright William O Beeman, Pacific News Service, 2006 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=1877 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ) Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ) Copyright 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran? Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:09:38 -0600 (CST) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11909.htm Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran? By Ray McGovern 02/14/06 "ICH" -- -- The question looms large against the backdrop of the hearing on whistle blowing scheduled for the afternoon of Feb. 14 by Christopher Shays, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. Among those testifying are Russell Tice, one of the sources who exposed illegal eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, and Army Sgt. Sam Provance, who told his superiors of the torture he witnessed at Abu Graib, got no satisfaction, and felt it his duty to go public. It will not be your usual hearing. I had the privilege of being present at the creation of the international Truth-Telling Coalition on Sept. 9, 2004 and of working with Daniel Ellsberg in drafting the coalitions Appeal to Current Government Officials [ http://tompaine.com/Archive/others/appeal_for_truth_telling.php to put loyalty to the Constitution above career and to expose dishonesty leading to misadventures like the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Whether or not encouragement from the Coalition played any role in subsequent disclosures, we are grateful for those responsible for the recent hemorrhaging of important informationfrom the Downing Street Minutes showing that by summer 2002 the Bush administration had decided to fix intelligence to justify war on Iraq, to disclosures regarding CIA kidnappings, secret prisons, and state-sponsored torture. As former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who leads the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, keeps reminding us, Information is the oxygen of democracy. And with this administrations fetish for secrecy and our somnolent Fourth Estate, we would likely all suffocate without patriotic truth-tellers (aka whistleblowers). Whistle Blowing and Vietnam There are several times as many potential whistleblowers as there are actual ones. I regret that I never got out of the former category during the early stages of the Vietnam War, when I had a chance to try to stop it. I used to lunch periodically with my colleague Sam Adams, with whom I trained as a CIA analyst and who was given the task of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. Sam proved himself the consummate analyst. Relying largely on captured documents, he concluded that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in the South as the US military there would admit to. Adams learned from Army analysts that Gen. William Westmoreland had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding the prospects for staying the course (sound familiar?). It was a clash of cultures, with Army intelligence analysts following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast. In a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967 Westmorelands deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. The new, higher numbers, he said were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press. Noting that, We have been projecting an image of success over recent months, Abrams cautioned that if the higher figures became public, all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion. When Sams superiors decided to acquiesce in the Armys figures, Sam was livid. He told me the whole story over lunch, and I remember a long silence as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself, someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent newspaper). The only reason for the cables SECRET EYES ONLY classification was to hide the deception. I adduced a slew of reasons why I ought not to: a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; a mortgage; the ethos of secrecy; and, not least, the analytic work (which was important, exciting work, and which Sam and I both thrived on). One can, I suppose, always find reasons for not sticking ones neck out. For the neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso. But if there is nothing for which you would risk your neck, it has become your idol, and necks are not worthy of that. I much regret giving such worship to my own neck. As for Sam, he chose to go through grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in Jan.-Feb. 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct. When the offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a cable saying, It is something of anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged. But he did not think the situation at all funny. Dan Ellsberg Steps In Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened thatunbeknownst to SamDan Ellsberg gave Sams figures on enemy strength to the (then independent) New York Times, which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and up to the Chinese borderperhaps even beyond. Later, it became clear that his timely leaktogether with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troopsprevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, The leaks to the New York Times hurt us...We have no support for the war...I would have given Westy the 206,000 men. Ironically, Sam himself played by the rules; that is, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being charged with endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength. Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! Imagine, said Adams, hanging a man for leaking faked numbers, as he hustled off to testify on Dans behalf. Ellsberg, who copied and gave the Pentagon Papersthe 7,000-page top secret history of US decision making on Vietnamto the New York Times and Washington Post, has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released them in 1964 or 1965, war might have been averted. Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all elseabove loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong. And so was I, it now seems, in not asking Sam for that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. When the war drew down, he was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there, for there would be no names to chisel into such a wall. Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough. In a letter appearing in the (then independent) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harpers magazine: My only regret is that I did not have Sams courage...The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice. It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence. Next Challenge: Iran Anyone who has been near a TV in recent weeks has heard the drumbeat for war on Iran. The best guess for timing is next month. Lets see if we cannot do better this time than we did on Iraq. Patriotic truth tellers, we need you! In an interview last year with US News and World Report, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said that on Iraq, The White House is completely disconnected from reality...Its like theyre just making it up as they go along. Ditto for an adventure against Iran. But the juggernaut has begun to roll; the White House/FOX News/Washington Times spin machine is at full tilt. This is where whistleblowers come in. Some of you will have the equivalent of the Gen. Abrams cable, shedding light on what the Bush administration is up to beneath the spin. Those of you clued into Israeli plans and US intelligence support for them, might clue us in too. Dont bother this time with the once-independent congressional oversight committees; you will have no protection, in any case, if you choose that routeCIA Director Porter Goss recent claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor should you bother with the once-independent New York Times. Find some other way; just be sure you get the truth outinformation that will provide the oxygen for democracy. Better Late Than Never? Dont wait until its too lateas Dan Ellsberg and Sam Adams did on Vietnam. Any number of people would have had a good chance of stopping the Iraq war, had they the courage to disclose publicly what they knew BEFORE it was launched. One of them, Paul Pillar, was National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, and has just published an article in Foreign Affairs titled Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq. It is an insiders account of his tenure and the disturbing developments he witnessed on the job. In substance it tells us little more than what we have long since pieced together ourselves, but it provides welcome confirmation. Sadly, Pillar speaks of the politicization of intelligence as though it were a bothersome headache rather than the debilitating cancer it is. Interviewed on NPR, he conceded without any evident embarrassment that, with respect to Iraq, intelligence was not playing into a decision to be made. It was part of the effort to build support for the operation. So, in the vernacular of Watergate, Pillars article is a modified limited hangout, in which he pulls many punches. Nowhere in Pillars 4,450 words, for example, appears the name of former CIA director George Tenet, whom he now joins at Georgetown University. It should qualify as another disturbing development that Pillar parrots the administrations default explanation for what drove its decision to topple Saddam; namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures in the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region. The word oil appears only once in Pillars article: military bases and Israel not at all. He splits hairs to be overly kind to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. To be fair, writes Pillar, Secretary Powells presentation at the UN never explicitly asserted that there was a cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Pillar seem to have forgotten how Powell used that speech to play up the potentially more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder, and spoke of a Saddam-bin Laden understanding going back to the early and mid-1990s. Truly Disturbing Generally absent is any sense of the enormity of what the Bush administration has done and the urgent imperative to prevent a repeat performance. With no perceptible demurral from inside the government, George W. Bush launched a war of aggression, defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal as the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the wholelike torture, for example. If this doesnt qualify for whistle blowing, what does? Let us hope that administration officials, or analystsor bothwill find the courage to speak out loudly, and early enough to prevent the disconnected-from-reality cabal in the Bush administration from getting us into an unnecessary war with Iran. Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A veteran of 27 years in the analysis division of the CIA, he now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This article appeared first on Truthout.com. ***************************************************************** 6 Americans think Iran may use nukes Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:12:19 -0600 (CST) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11913.htm Americans think Iran may use nukes By United Press International 02/14/06 (UPI) -- A USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll says Americans not only think Iran will develop nuclear weapons but also use them against the United States. The poll done over the last weekend also says Americans fear the Bush administration will be "too quick" to order military action against Iran, USA Today reported Tuesday. The poll said eight out of 10 respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the United States or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the United States. On Prophet Mohammed cartoons, six out of 10 said the European newspapers that published them acted irresponsibly. But, by a 3-to-1 margin, they blamed the resulting furor on Muslims' intolerance of different points of views, the newspaper said. The poll said 55 percent showed lack of confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iran. President Bush's approval rating dipped to 39 percent, showing the State of the Union address and other subsequent speeches did not help lift the president's ratings. The majority of the respondents (55 percent) also said the war in Iraq was a mistake. Only 31 percent, the lowest so far, believed the United States and its allies are winning in Iraq. ) Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc ** NOTICE: 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. ** For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ***************************************************************** 7 IRAN - THE MEDIA FALL INTO LINE Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:26:45 -0600 (CST) http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060209_iran_the_media.php February 9, 2006 IRAN - THE MEDIA FALL INTO LINE Writing in the Guardian last month, Timothy Garton Ash observed: "Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran." Garton Ash thus blithely ignored the fact that every last scrap of evidence coming out of Iraq has pointed to only one conclusion - that Iraq's "big test" was in fact the West's big lie. Iraq was offering a threat to precisely no one outside its own borders. Nevertheless, Garton Ash warned: "we in Europe and the United States have to respond. But how?" (Timothy Garton Ash, 'Let's make sure we do better with Iran than we did with Iraq,' The Guardian, January 12, 2006) The Guardian's Polly Toynbee joined the propaganda chorus demonising Iran: "Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we all doomed?... Do something, someone! But what and who?" (Toynbee, 'No more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs,' The Guardian, February 7, 2006) Gerard Baker provided the answer in the Times: "The unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran". (Baker, 'Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity,' The Times, January 27, 2006) Why might this be? "If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler." Readers will recall near-identical propaganda ahead of the assault on Iraq. Baker continued with some fearsome predictions: "Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists... Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima. " This is the same Gerard Baker who wrote in the Financial Times in February 2003 that "victory [in Iraq] will quickly vindicate US and British claims about the scale of the threat Saddam poses". Baker was positively gleeful: "I cannot wait to hear what the French, Russians and Germans have to say when the conquering troops begin to uncover the death factories Mr Hussein has been hiding from inspectors for 12 years... And do not be shocked if allied liberators discover all kinds of connections between Baghdad and terrorism around the world". (Baker, 'Defeating prejudice with persuasion,' Financial Times, February 20, 2003) A year later, Baker had airbrushed his own justification for war from history: "Saddam Hussein asked for the benefit of the doubt. But that was not something a wise leader could possibly have given him. His actions had shown again and again the threat he represented. This threat lay not in vats of chemicals or nuclear centrifuges but in his ambitions." (Baker, 'Freedom from fear is a worthy goal,' Financial Times, March 18, 2004) In his February 2003 article, Baker had predicted: "it will become clear, even to the most rabid of anti-Americans just how much better off Iraqi people will be without their current president. The lifting of the yoke of Saddam Hussein will be an act of humanity far greater than the unseating of the Taliban." (Baker, op. cit) The New York Times' Paul Krugman describes the current state of Iraq sans "yoke": "In fact, reconstruction has failed. Almost three years after the war began, oil production is well below prewar levels, Baghdad is getting only an average of 3.2 hours of electricity a day, and more than 60 percent of water and sanitation projects have been canceled. So now, having squandered billions in Iraqi oil revenue as well as American taxpayer dollars, we have told the Iraqis that from here on in it is their problem." (Krugman, 'State of delusion,' New York Times, February 3, 2006) According to the Los Angeles Times, America's would-be Marshall Plan in Iraq "is drawing to a close this year" with "much of its promise unmet and no plans to extend its funding". (Cited, ibid) Baker is a signatory to the Statement of Principles posted at the website of The Henry Jackson Society. Patrons include mild-mannered neoconservatives like former US assistant secretary of defence Richard Perle, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. Other signatories include former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, Colonel Tim Collins, Oliver Kamm, Andrew Roberts and Jamie Shea. The Society declares that it: "Supports a 'forward strategy' to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. This would involve the full spectrum of our 'carrot' capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those 'sticks' of the military domain." (http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org) Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq know all about the "'sticks' of the military domain". Four of the Society's eight "Principles" refer to military intervention and military power - another notes that "only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate". Everyone else, we can presume, is fair game. Ten Years From A Bomb When officialdom targets a new 'deadly threat', journalists often embarrass themselves in their rush to be 'on side'. The January 20, 2005, BBC 1 Lunchtime News saw diplomatic correspondent James Robbins declare that US relations with Iran were "looking very murky because of the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005) Four days later, Robbins responded to Media Lens emailers: "I accept that it would have been better to have said 'alleged nuclear threat'. I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could have been." (Email to Media Lens, January 24, 2005) Similarly, in a front-page article this week, the Guardian reported that Iran's foreign minister had threatened immediate retaliation over a move to refer its "nuclear weapons activities" to the United Nations security council. A correction was printed in the paper two days later: "We should have said 'nuclear activities', not 'nuclear weapons activities'." (Corrections and clarifications, The Guardian, February 7, 2006) Although Iran has removed the seals it put in place at its nuclear fuel research sites, experts say it is at least a decade away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Consider the current media hysteria in light of the basic facts below. Atomic weapons can be produced in two ways - either by using highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. Iran is known to have produced reconstituted uranium, "yellow cake", at its conversion facility at Isfahan. However, according to a September 2005 report by The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), this material is contaminated and not currently useable. If Iran were able to overcome the problem of purification, it would then need to enrich the uranium. Whereas uranium used in nuclear reactors requires only a small amount of enrichment, weapons-grade uranium must be highly enriched. This can be done using gas centrifuges, of which Iran has 164 installed at its plant at Natanz. But this constitutes just 20 per cent of the number required to produce a bomb. Frank Barnaby, of UK think tank The Oxford Research Group, comments: "They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more." (Sarah Buckley and Paul Rincon, 'Iran "years from nuclear bomb",' www.bbc.co.uk, January 12, 2006) Given these and other problems, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough high-grade uranium to make a single nuclear weapon. Dr Barnaby agrees: "The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion." Alternatively, Iran could use plutonium to produce a bomb. But the IISS notes that Iran would need to build a reprocessing plant suited to the fuel used in its Bushehr nuclear reactor - an extremely challenging technical task. Iran is also constructing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak. But, again, this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, according to the IISS. The West's hypocrisy and double standards could hardly be clearer but they are off the media agenda. The United States is estimated to be in possession of no less than 10,600 nuclear warheads. Its leading ally in the region, Israel, also has nuclear weapons, as do Russia, Pakistan, India and China. Britain has recently sold nuclear-capable bombers to India, while the United States has sold nuclear-capable bombers to Pakistan. Iran's is indeed a "tough neighbourhood". The media never mention the military coup organised by Britain and the United States to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 to secure the country's oil. No mention is made of the massive military support subsequently sent to the Shah dictatorship before it was overthrown in 1979. Britain and America were thus directly responsible for a country that had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" which was "beyond belief". It was a society in which "the entire population was subjected to a constant, all-pervasive terror", according to Amnesty International. (Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, cited in an Amnesty Publication, Matchbox, Autumn 1976) All of this is waved away as inconsequential by journalists. Objections to military action are usually raised on grounds of possible negative consequences for the West. The likely cost in lives to the Iranian people is rarely even discussed. Last month, the journalist Felicity Arbuthnott described the cataclysm generated by the US-UK 'liberation' of Iraq: "For Iraq watchers, the daily carnage of liberation, the searing, wailing grief of the bereaved, bombed, bereft, haunt. Neighborhoods, evocative ancient homes reduced to rubble by the 'liberators', the surviving, bewildered, standing on shattered bricks, mortar, toys, belongings, liberated even from home's secure warmth. "In the distorted horrors of today's Iraq, many never make it home: disappeared, kidnapped, shot by the occupying forces for driving, walking, and playing, in familiar venues. Iraqi lives are the earth's cheapest. 'Government' or occupying troops kill 'insurgents' (even if baby or toddler 'insurgents') and few questions are asked." (Felicity Arbuthnott, 'Death of Humanity,' PalestineChronicle.com, January 18, 2006) Despite even this, despite everything that has happened, Western journalists are once again falling obediently into line as the British and American governments begin the long, arduous process of demonising another oil-rich target. SUGGESTED ACTION The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to one or more of the journalists and editors below. It is more effective to write in your own words. Write to the Guardian's Timothy Garton Ash Email: tga@timothygartonash.com Write to the Guardian's Polly Toynbee Email: polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk Write to the Times' Gerard Baker Email: gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk Please also send copies of all emails to Media Lens: Email: editor@medialens.org This is a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html ***************************************************************** 8 Pentagon prepares for military strikes against Iran Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:07:08 -0600 (CST) This author refers to "An article in last weekend's edition of the Sunday Telegraph" - which I'll post separately Michael ============ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/iran-f14.shtml By Peter Symonds World Socialist Web Site 14 February 2006 An article in last weekend's edition of the Sunday Telegraph in Britain confirms that the US is drawing up plans for air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Long-distance B2 bombers, each carrying up to 20 tonnes of precision bombs and flying from bases in the US, would "most likely" be involved. "Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learned. 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," the article stated. According to the senior Pentagon adviser, who spoke to the newspaper, the strikes would be "a last resort" to prevent Tehran proceeding with its nuclear programs. But he made clear that the military planning was not simply routine. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment. This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months," he said. The Sunday Telegraph report has not been denied by the White House, indicating that the information was probably leaked deliberately. Questioned about the article on ABC News, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated: "The President never takes any of his options off the table... But there is a diplomatic solution. Now we are in the [UN] Security Council, there are many steps that the Security Council can take... to help enforce IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] requirements on Iran." The IAEA governing council voted on February 4 to report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible punitive measures over its alleged breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, any discussion in the Security Council was delayed until early March to allow for further negotiations with Tehran. The immediate effect of the Pentagon's provocative leak will be to further inflame tensions with Iran and make a negotiated end to the confrontation less likely. The Iranian regime has branded the IAEA decision illegal and declared it will restart uranium enrichment research. Tehran insists that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes and asserts its right under the NPT to develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment. But as Rice's comments indicate, the purpose of the Sunday Times article is as much to put pressure on the other permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, France, Russia and China -- as on Iran. The none-too-subtle message is: if the UN Security Council fails to take tough measures against Tehran, Washington is prepared to attack Iran, unilaterally if necessary. Washington's aggressive stance is not primarily motivated by concerns about Iran's nuclear programs, but is aimed at asserting US predominance in the resource-rich region against its European and Asian rivals. Economic sanctions or a military strike against Tehran would not directly impact on US interests as Washington has maintained an economic blockade since the fall of Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979. But the EU, Russia, China and Japan, which have developed significant economic relations with Iran, would all be seriously affected. Any US military action would not only lead to the slaughter of innocent Iranian lives, but would further destabilise an already volatile Middle East. A study released yesterday by the British-based thinktank, Oxford Research Group, estimated that hundreds of civilians would be killed in the initial bombing wave on Iran's nuclear facilities. It suggested that the Pentagon would deliberately aim "to kill as many of the technically competent staff as possible, therefore doing the greatest damage to longer-term [nuclear] prospects." The report entitled "Iran: Consequences of a War" made the obvious point that any US attack would not be limited to Iran's nuclear facilities, but would have to include air defences, command and control centres and other military targets so as to weaken Iran's ability to retaliate. It predicted that thousands of Iranian military personnel would be killed in the first wave of attacks. Nor would it end there. If Iran sought to rebuild its nuclear facilities, the US would be compelled to attack again leading to "a highly dangerous cycle of violence" that could spread throughout the region. The study, which opposed a US military strike, warned of "a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of the west Gulf states being involved as well." All of these consequences are as evident to Pentagon planners as to the British thinktank. Yet that has not deterred Washington leaking plans for a military attack on Iran that would be just as reckless and criminal as the US-led invasion of neighbouring Iraq in 2003. Of course, such an assault is by no means certain, but there is a certain political logic to events. The theocratic regime in Tehran, which is whipping up nationalist fervour to bolster its own weak position, has shown no signs of backing down. At a large rally in Tehran on Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran may pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether. Tehran has also indefinitely postponed talks in Moscow to discuss a compromise for a joint uranium enrichment plant on Russian soil, effectively scuttling Russian efforts to defuse the issue. As a result, it is likely that Iran will be referred to the UN Security Council at the next meeting of the IAEA governing council on March 6. While military action is not on the agenda, the US is pushing for the UN to impose punitive economic sanctions. China, Russia and other European countries will no doubt attempt to stall, but as in the past are unlikely to risk a confrontation with the US. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has no qualms about threatening, and if need be carrying out, the most reckless actions to achieve its ends. In Washington, news that the Pentagon is preparing plans for military strikes against Iran failed to provoke any critical comment from the Democratic Party, indicating its tacit acceptance of Bush's stated position that all options -- that is including the military one -- are on the table. The only criticism of the Bush administration's stance comes from the extreme rightwing -- the so-called neo-conservatives -- who scathingly dismiss Rice's diplomatic efforts and call for a democratic crusade to bring about "regime change" in Iran -- as in Iraq. In a comment entitled "It's the Regime, Stupid" in the Washington Post on January 30, arch-conservative Robert Kagan dismissed an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as ineffective. Pointing to the danger of Iranian retaliation, he declared: "Unless we were prepared to escalate, ultimately to the point of taking down the regime, we could end up in worse shape than when we began." Kagan's solution was to covertly support opposition to bring down the regime -- an Iranian version of the US-backed so-called colour revolutions in the Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon. But, as he pointedly added: "if this or the next administration decides it is too dangerous to wait for political change, then the answer will have to be an invasion, not merely an air and missile strike, to put an end to Iran's nuclear program as well as to its regime." Despite the quagmire that the American military has created in Iraq, there is clearly support in the US political establishment for another reckless military adventure in neighbouring Iran. The article in the Sunday Telegraph indicates that preparations are already well underway. ***************************************************************** 9 [progchat_action] Plame was working on Iran Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:31:43 -0600 (CST) (If the outing of Valerie Plame resulted in stopping or delaying an attack by the United States on Iran, then surely it was a good thing. SR) Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say Larisa Alexandrovna Published: February 13, 2006 RAW STORY The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned. According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran. Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program. While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran. Plame declined to comment through her husband, Joseph Wilson. Valerie Plame first became a household name when her identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The column came only a week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written an op-ed for the New York Times asserting that White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Her outing was seen as political retaliation for Wilson's criticism of the Administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. Her case has drawn international attention and resulted in the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the probe, is still pursuing Deputy Chief of Staff and Special Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove. His investigation remains open. The damages Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation. Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's network in the course of her work on Iran. While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation, sources say. Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson believes that such an assessment would have had to be done for the CIA to have referred the case to the Justice Department. "An exposure like that required an immediate operational and counter intelligence damage assessment," Johnson said. "That was done. The results were written up but not in a form for submission to anyone outside of CIA." One former counterintelligence official described the CIA's reasons for not seeking Congressional assistance on the matter as follows: "[The CIA Leadership] made a conscious decision not to do a formal inquiry because they knew it might become public," the source said. "They referred it [to the Justice Department] instead because they believed a criminal investigation was needed." The source described the findings of the assessment as showing "significant damage to operational equities." Another counterintelligence official, also wishing to remain anonymous due to the nature of the subject matter, described "operational equities" as including both people and agency operations that involve the "cover mechanism," "front companies," and other CIA officers and assets. Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak. Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity. A.Q. Khan While Plame's work did not specifically focus on the A.Q. Khan ring, named after Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the network and its impact on nuclear proliferation and the region should not be minimized, primarily because the Khan network was the major supplier of WMD technology for Iran. Dr. Khan instituted the proliferation market during the 1980s and supplied many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere with uranium enrichment technology, including Libya, Iran and North Korea. Enriched uranium is used to make weaponized nuclear devices. The United States forced the Pakistan government to dismiss Khan for his proliferation activities in March of 2001, but he remains largely free and acts as an adviser to the Pakistani government. According to intelligence expert John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, U.S. officials were not aware of the extent of the proliferation until around the time of Khan's dismissal. "It slowly dawned on them that the collaboration between Pakistan, North Korea and Iran was an ongoing and serious problem," Pike said. "It was starting to sink in on them that it was one program doing business in three locations and that anything one of these countries had they all had." After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan became the United States' chief regional ally in the war on terror. The revelation that Iran was the focal point of Plame's work raises new questions as to possible other motivating factors in the White House's decision to reveal the identity of a CIA officer working on tracking a WMD supply network to Iran, particularly when the very topic of Iran's possible WMD capability is of such concern to the Administration. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Resumes Enrichment of Uranium From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 11:31 AM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator said Tuesday, showing the country was determined to proceed with its atomic development despite international moves to restrict it. The world has long sought to stop Iran from enriching uranium, fearing that the process would bring it to the threshhold of possessing nuclear bombs. On Feb. 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council and simultaneously called on its government to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Instead, the Iranian government decided to suspend certain aspects of its cooperation with the IAEA and steam ahead with enrichment. The deputy secretary of the Supreme National Council, Javad Vaeidi, told reporters that enrichment of uranium resumed last week at Iran's main enrichment plant in Natanz. Asked if Iran had resumed large-scale enrichment, as required for producing fuel for nuclear reactors, Vaeidi replied: ``No.'' ``We need time to have 60,000 centrifuges,'' he said, referring to the devices used in the enrichment process, which can produce fuel for an atomic bomb. Diplomats in Vienna, Austria, the site of the U.N. nuclear agency, had said Monday that Iran had started small-scale enrichment of uranium, ``According to the presidential order (last week), and to the law passed by the parliament (last year), the order of resumption of uranium enrichment was issued,'' Vaeidi told the news conference. The United States had criticized Iran for restarting enrichment on Monday when White House press secretary Scott McClellan said: ``They're continuing to choose defiance and confrontation over cooperation and diplomacy.'' The same day Iran announced it had postponed indefinitely talks with Moscow on a plan to enrich Tehran's uranium on Russian territory to allay fears that it would build an atomic weapon. Moscow had proposed that Iran ship its uranium to Russia, where it would be enriched to a level suitable for nuclear reactors, rather than weapons. The talks with Russia, which had been slated for Thursday, were postponed because of the ``new situation,'' Iranian presidential spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said, referring to the IAEA's reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council. However a Russian news agency reported Tuesday that Iran asked Russia for only a four-day delay, until Feb. 20. RIA-Novosti quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin as saying that Tehran had requested the delay for ``technical reasons.'' Iran maintains its nuclear program is designed solely to generate electricity. But the United States and some U.S. allies, including Israel, claim the program is a cover for producing a nuclear bomb. China urged the meetings with Russia take place as planned. ``China expresses its concern over the current development of the Iran nuclear issue,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regular briefing. He said, ``China hopes that the talks between Russia and Iran can be held on schedule and achieve positive results.'' Germany expressed disappointment that the Iranian-Russian talks had been postponed as the European powers had seen the Russian plan as a solution to the dispute over Iranian enrichment. Germany, Britain and France have been negotiating with Iran, but have failed to persuade it to abandon enrichment. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: A Defiant Iran Makes Atomic Boast [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 8:16 PM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, a senior nuclear negotiator said Tuesday, showing the country was determined to proceed with its atomic development despite international moves to restrict it. The world has long sought to stop Iran from enriching uranium, fearing that the process would bring it to the threshold of possessing nuclear bombs. Russia and France immediately called on Iran to halt its work and fulfill the demands of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, according to a joint statement posted on the Kremlin's Web site. On Feb. 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council and simultaneously called on its government to suspend all enrichment-related activities. The Security Council has the power to impose political and economic sanctions on Iran. In response, the Iranian government suspended certain aspects of its cooperation with the IAEA and steamed ahead with enrichment. The deputy secretary of the Supreme National Council, Javad Vaeidi, told reporters that enrichment of uranium resumed last week at Iran's main enrichment plant in Natanz. Asked if Iran had resumed large-scale enrichment, as required for producing fuel for nuclear reactors, Vaeidi replied: ``No.'' ``We need time to have 60,000 centrifuges,'' he said, referring to the devices used in the enrichment process, which can produce fuel for generating electricity or for an atomic bomb. Diplomats in Vienna, Austria, the site of the U.N. nuclear agency, said Monday that Iran had started small-scale enrichment of uranium. ``According to the presidential order (last week), and to the law passed by the parliament (last year), the order of resumption of uranium enrichment was issued,'' Vaeidi told the news conference. In their joint statement, Russia and France recognized Iran's legitimate right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program for energy. However, they called on Iran to ``fully comply with the February resolution and the demands of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, including on uranium enrichment.'' The statement was adopted during a visit to Moscow by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. The United States had criticized Iran for restarting enrichment on Monday when White House press secretary Scott McClellan said: ``They're continuing to choose defiance and confrontation over cooperation and diplomacy.'' That same day, Iran announced it had postponed indefinitely talks with Moscow on a plan to enrich Tehran's uranium on Russian territory to allay fears that it would build an atomic weapon. Moscow had proposed that Iran ship its uranium to Russia, where it would be enriched to a level suitable for nuclear reactors, rather than weapons. The talks with Russia, which had been slated for Thursday, were postponed because of the ``new situation,'' Iranian presidential spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said, referring to the IAEA's reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council. However, a Russian news agency reported Tuesday that Iran asked Russia for only a four-day delay, until Feb. 20. RIA-Novosti quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin as saying that Tehran had requested the delay for ``technical reasons.'' The statement by Russia and France on Tuesday said Russia's proposal to enrich uranium on its territory for Iran was supported by the international community and offered an opportunity for a resolution of the problem. Iran maintains its nuclear program is designed solely to generate electricity. But the United States and some U.S. allies, including Israel, claim the program is a cover for producing a nuclear bomb. During a visit to Caracas, Venezuela, Iranian parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Hadad Adel said U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear program was ``only a pretext.'' ``They are worried that we want to be independent,'' Hadad Adel said through an interpreter. China urged that the meetings with Russia take place as planned. ``China expresses its concern over the current development of the Iran nuclear issue,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regular briefing. ``China hopes that the talks between Russia and Iran can be held on schedule and achieve positive results.'' Germany expressed disappointment that the Iranian-Russian talks had been postponed because the European powers considered the Russian plan a viable solution. Germany, Britain and France have been negotiating with Iran but have failed to persuade it to abandon enrichment. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Resumes Small-Scale Uranium Program [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 10:16 PM AP Photo VAH107 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator said Tuesday - a defiant declaration in the face of global opposition to Iran's atomic program. The resumption still leaves Iran a long way from reaching the stage the world fears most: large-scale enrichment of uranium - a process that can produce fuel for an atomic bomb. Javad Vaeidi, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, in announcing the small-scale enrichment, also told reporters that Iran would resume negotiations with Moscow on Feb. 20 over its plan to enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil - a proposal designed to allay fears that Iran will build nuclear weapons. ``The talks with Russia remain valid,'' Vaeidi said, adding that an Iranian delegation would go to Moscow. The negotiations with Russia had been due to resume Thursday, but Iran said Monday they were postponed indefinitely. Vaeidi gave no indication whether Iran was looking more favorably at the plan now that international pressure over its nuclear program was increasing. Iran has repeatedly said the Russian plan can be complementary to Iran's nuclear program but that Tehran would not accept any requirement to scrap uranium enrichment in Natanz. Vaeidi said enrichment of uranium resumed last week at Natanz, the country's main enrichment plant, but that Iran had not resumed large-scale enrichment, as required for producing fuel for nuclear reactors. In Israel, Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset's defense and foreign affairs committee, said Tuesday's announcement from Iran made it clear that ``time is running out.'' ``If the Iranians will not be blocked, in due course they will obtain a nuclear weapon,'' he told The Associated Press. ``This will be a devastating threat not only to Israel and the Middle East but also to Europe and the United States.'' Later Tuesday, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said resumption of uranium enrichment work was very limited. ``It can't be used even at semi-industrial level. It's only at the laboratory stage for analyzing research activities. This sort of enrichment cannot be used (for producing nuclear fuel),'' he said. According to authoritative reports, Iran had 164 centrifuges in Natanz sealed by the IAEA in 2003. The seals were removed last month when Iran resumed nuclear research. And Iranian officials have indicated that Iran may possess up to 2,000 centrifuges. For a large-scale enrichment of uranium, Iran has to build up to 60,000 centrifuges - something Vaeidi said would take time. Top Iranian officials have confirmed in the past that the Iranian military had built nuclear centrifuges for civilian use and that Iran was capable of mass producing them. The world has long sought to stop Iran from enriching uranium, fearing that the process would bring it to the threshold of possessing nuclear bombs. On Feb. 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council and called on its government to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Instead, Iran suspended certain aspects of its co-operation with the IAEA. ``They're continuing to choose defiance and confrontation over cooperation and diplomacy,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday of Iran's decision to resume enrichment. Iran insists that as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which provides for peaceful nuclear development, it is entitled to enrich uranium for nuclear reactors. It has threatened to withdraw from the treaty if it was not allowed to exercise that right. Vaeidi indicated Iran was still open to negotiation. ``We are still prepared to find a formula to clarify the ambiguity in talks with our partners. At the same time, we will pursue our rights,'' he said. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Tuesday that Iran has stopped allowing short notice inspections of its facilities by IAEA inspectors. He said on state television that some IAEA cameras need to be removed from Iranian nuclear facilities and that Iran was ``taking the preparatory measures to do that.'' Iran maintains its nuclear program is designed solely to generate electricity, but the United States and Israel claim the program is a cover for producing an atomic bomb. --- Associated Press writer Aron Heller contributed to this report from Jerusalem. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 RIA Novosti: Iran delegation to arrive in Moscow Feb. 20 for nuclear talks 14/ 02/ 2006 TEHRAN/MOSCOW, February 14 (RIA Novosti) - An Iranian delegation will arrive in Moscow on February 20 for nuclear talks, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian security official, said Tuesday. Tehran had announced Monday that it was postponing talks, which had been scheduled to take place on February 16. Mikhail Kamynin, the Russian Foreign Ministry's official spokesman, confirmed that Iran had asked Russia for the talks to be postponed, due to technical reasons. "The Russian side is currently discussing the acceptability of this date via working channels," he said. Vaeedi also said that having received an order from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, work would now resume at Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. The United States, Israel and members of the European Union have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program. Iran denies this, insisting that its program's only aim is generation of electrical power. In a bid to allay Western nations' concerns that Iran may use enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb, Russia proposed taking Iranian uranium for enrichment on its soil and then returning it for electricity generation at the Russian-built Bushehr power station. The Russian offer has been seen as a compromise in the standoff between the Islamic Republic and the West. It could remove the need for Iran to enrich uranium, which is the process that has aroused international concerns as it can be used to create nuclear weapons. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Russia's offer remained on Iran's agenda. "The Iranian leadership paid serious attention to Russia's proposal to enrich uranium on its territory. Talks with the Russian side remain on the agenda." © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 14 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear chief to visit Iran as planned 14/ 02/ 2006 MOSCOW, February 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's top civilian nuclear energy official said Tuesday he was not intending to postpone a visit to Iran, scheduled for late February or early March. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said: "The trip has been planned, and it must take place in late February or early March." During his visit, the official plans to meet with head of the Russian-Iranian intergovernmental commission and to inspect work on the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. About 3,700 Russian experts are currently helping to build the $800-million plant, originally started in the early 1980s by German specialists, in the port city of Bushehr in southern Iran in accordance with a 1992 agreement between the two countries. On the issue of forming a joint venture to enrich Iran's uranium on Russian territory, Kiriyenko said the offer remained open. "The proposals remain in force; the whole package of proposals has been presented, and our position has not changed," he said. An Iranian delegation is expected to arrive in Moscow to discuss the idea on February 20. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: Iran's envoy in Uruguay says pressure on Iran will have opposite effect - Madrid, Feb 14, IRNA Iran-Uruguay-Nuclear Iranian ambassador to Uruguay said Monday in Montevideo that pressure by the West and US on Iran's peaceful nuclear program won't help the West, but also make Iran more determined to develop its nuclear program. Mohammad Faraj speaking to a local daily El-Obsorvador added that the pressure are aimed at preventing the Iranian nation to achieve its legitimate rights. "They want us to become an isolated country." Threats to impose sanctions while using psychological bravado with the help of the Zionist lobby, are tools to make Iran dependent on the Western countries by purchasing its nuclear fuel needs from them, he stated. "Iran has progressed in its nuclear technology program, regards it as national pride and sees no reason for forgoing its legitimate right." He said Iran peaceful program is within the confines of International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA). "Tehran will try as in the last three years to remove ambiguities and concerns over its nuclear program." He also lambasted those nations and the IAEA which have not abided by their commitments as enshrined in the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT) for assisting in peaceful nuclear technology of Iran as an independent country. Faraji also termed the recent resolution passed by the IAEA Governing Board in reporting Iran to the UN Security Council as a political gimmick." This step only broaches such questions as to why Iran, which has cooperated closely with the nuclear watchdog agency for three years and has not deviated from its nuclear program is under pressure and threats, while, Israel which has attested to having atomic weapons has not been investigated and not faced pressure over signing the NPT, Faraji underlined. He also cautioned that if the West insists on putting hurdles on Iran's peaceful nuclear energy activities, Tehran has tools to counter any measures. Faraji called on the Western nations to opt for logic and prudence in their policies to resolve Iran's nuclear row and to use diplomacy in place of confrontation and tension. "Tehran's principal policy in the nuclear issue is to continue cooperation and to resolve the issue by diplomatic means," he said. If pressure is increased on Iran, the US will fail in the nuclear row as it has in its objectives to prop up anti-Iran governments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, Faraji warned. ***************************************************************** 16 Xinhua: China calls for sober-mindedness on Iran nuclear issue - FM www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-14 19:30:53 Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao is answering questions at a regular news conference in Beijing Tuesday. BEIJING, Feb. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- China has called for the international community to remain sober-minded, patient and flexible when trying to resolve the Iran nuclear issue, said the Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao at a regular news conference here Tuesday. China encourages all parties to do more to increase trust and avoid any actions that may worsen the issue, Liu said. He told reporters that China is concerned with the latest development of the Iran nuclear issue. There are still enough room to resolve the issue under the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the international community should not abandon diplomatic efforts, he said. Regarding the scheduled nuclear talks between Russia and Iran on Feb. 16, Liu said China hopes the talks will be held on time and achieve positive outcome. Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters on Monday that a new round of talks between Iran and Russia, previously scheduled on Thursday in Moscow, has been delayed and that Iran would resume industrial enrichment ahead of the IAEA's meeting on March 6. China is playing its own role in the resolution of the nuclear issue and will work with all relevant parties, including the United States, the European Union and other developing countries to properly resolve the issue, Liu said. Liu also underscored that a solution through dialogue serves the interests of Iran and all parties concerned, and said China's efforts on this issue constitute part of its commitment to establishing world peace. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Iranian National Security and Foreign Relations Committee, told state television Tuesday that Iran had resumed "peaceful" uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant in the presence of inspectors from the IAEA. The resumption was the final step of Iran's reaction to a recent decision by the IAEA to report their nuclear activities to the UN Security Council. (Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis) President Hu's visit to US When answering a journalist's question about Chinese President Hu's visit to the United States, Liu said that both China and the United States are actively preparing for the planned visit in the first half of 2006. Liu said that the two sides would decide the specific date of the visit through diplomatic channels. "China will continue its efforts to ensure the success of the visit and accomplishment of expected goals." Liu said. UN Secretary-General candidate China hopes the Asian countries will reach consensus on a candidate for next UN Secretary-General through friendly consultations, Liu Jianchao said. Liu told the regular news conference that the next UN Secretary-General should come from an Asian country since an Asian has not taken up the post for 34 years. China hopes Asian countries enhance mutual understanding and cooperation to ensure an Asian chief of the UN. The last Asian UN secretary-general was U Thant from Myanmar, who served from 1961 to 1971. The incumbent UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will finish his second term this December. Under the UN Charter, a new secretary-general is nominated by 15 member states of the UN Security Council and confirmed by the 191-nation General Assembly. Six-party talks The financial problem has become a key one affecting the process of the six-party talks, Liu said. Liu told the regular news conference that "the financial problem has exerted a negative impact on the talks". Five rounds of talks aimed at resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula have been held by China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United States, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan. The talks were first held in Beijing on August of 2003, and followed by several rounds in the same venue. The first phase of the fifth round of six-party talks, held from Nov. 9 to 11, was the latest session where the process has stopped up till now. Liu said the Chinese side hopes all parties involved could take a comprehensive view, respect each other, strengthen dialogue and communication in order to seek an early resumption of the talks during which an appropriate approach may be found to deal with the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. According to Liu, a meeting "beneficial to the process of the talks" was held among China, the DPRK and the United States in Beijing on Jan. 18. China has always been active in keeping contact with involved parties and will go on doing so in order to restart the talks as soon as possible, the spokesman said. Cross-border river issuesˇˇ When asked to comment on the cross-border river issue between China and Kazakhstan, Liu said that China will properly solve cross-border river issues with relevant countries through dialogueand continue adopting responsible policies without infringing upon interests of neighbouring countries. China, as a country of vast territory, shares cross-border rivers with its neighboring nations. Liu said China has always attached great importance to the reasonable use of cross-border rivers and the protection of water resources. China is implementing a policy on the simultaneous protection and utilization of water resources of the cross-border rivers, Liu stressed. Japanese firm's nuclear-related export Liu claimed at the news conference that China has no connection with the allegation that a Japanese company has illegally exported nuclear-related machinery to China. Liu said that China's position on nuclear non-proliferation is very clear: China is in resolute opposition to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in any form. As a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Liu said, China will firmly fulfill its responsibility and obligations. According to Japanese media, Tokyo police on Monday raided Japan's Mitutoyo Corporation, a precision instruments maker. The police alleged that the company was illegally exporting machinery that could be used in uranium enrichment, a key processin making a nuclear bomb. "In fact, the Japanese police said the company exported such machines to Japanese companies in China. We have collected some information and we believe this issue has no connection with China judging from the current situation," the spokesman said. Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: US still backs Russian deal on Iran nukes Tue Feb 14, 1:46 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States urged Iran" /> to accept a Russian offer to defuse fears it seeks nuclear arms and warned Tehran not to "defy the demands of the international community." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Iran must suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activity, cooperate fully with the UN nuclear watchdog agency, and return to negotiations with Europe. "If they're going to start restoring confidence with the international community, those are essential steps that the regime must take," McClellan told reporters. "It's very clear what the regime needs to do." "But if they continue to defy the demands of the international community, then they only further isolate Iran and undermine the aspirations of the Iranian people," said the spokesman. McClellan also said that a Russian proposal, under which Moscow would safeguard spent nuclear fuel in an effort to ensure that Iran does not develop atomic weapons, was still viable. "That's an offer that remains on the table. It's one that we have expressed support for. We've expressed support for Iran's right to have civilian nuclear energy and the proposal that Russia has put forward," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 IRNA: Iranian nuclear delegation to Visit Moscow Tehran, Feb 14, IRNA Iran-Russia-Nuclear The deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for International Affairs, Javad Vaeidi said here Tuesday that an Iranian delegation will visit Moscow on February 20 to hold talks with Russian officials on Iran's nuclear activities. Talking to reporters on the sideline of a domestic nuclear seminar dubbed `Nuclear Know-how: Today's Strategy, Tomorrow's Need', he emphasized that talks with the Russians will be remaining in force. The proposed plans, including that of Russia, will be followed up by Iran, he said reiterating that Tehran will propose some special features for making some changes in the plans during the visit. The Iranian delegation will have some proposals and will also give some consideration for the talks, Vaeidi added. Announcing that Iran on Tuesday officially resumed nuclear work at its Natanz facility, he said an order had been issued by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) and the organization has resumed the work at the Natanz facility based on the order. The Islamic Republic of Iran is producing UF6 massively, however, there still remains a long way to reach a stage to produce nuclear fuel, he said. On possibility of resumption of activities suspended by Iran, Vaeidi said according to the Majlis approval, currently, there is no need to return to suspension. As to the hue and cry made by certain countries over Iran's document to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on uranium metal, he said the document was an ordinary one and had nothing to do with production of nuclear fuel. Making hue and cry over the issue aimed to mislead world public opinion, he added. ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: US, Turkey to hold talks on Iran nuclear row Tue Feb 14, 2:57 PM ET ANKARA (AFP) - The senior United States diplomat to the global nuclear watchdog will meet Turkish foreign ministry officials this week to discuss Iran" /> 's nuclear program, the US embassy said. The aim of the visit on February 16-17 by International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA) ambassador Gregory Schulte was "consultations with Turkish officials regarding Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and international diplomatic measures to resolve the issue," the embassy said in a statement. Turkey has so far refrained from criticising neighbouring Iran's hardline stance calling instead on Tehran to collaborate with the IAEA. The IAEA voted on February 4 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 with inspectors. So far Iran has reacted by doing the opposite, setting the scene for a major showdown. ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Official: N. Korea Should Give Up Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 1:46 AM AP Photo SEL102 By KELLY OLSEN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The U.S. ambassador to South Korea urged North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, saying Tuesday that shedding the program would benefit the communist nation and boost global security. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow also said he hopes that six-party negotiations aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program will resume soon, though he did not offer a timeframe. ``It's in the interests of all countries and peoples, but most especially it's in the interests of the North Koreans themselves that the DPRK shed the albatross of its nuclear program and join the international community,'' U.S. Vershbow said in a speech sponsored by an economic institute in Seoul. ``We're committed to the peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue through diplomatic methods, but we will not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea,'' Vershbow said, paraphrasing comments by President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun at their meeting in South Korea in November. A North Korean official said Monday in Pyongyang that it was unlikely that the talks will resume soon because of Washington's refusal to lift financial restrictions on businesses connected to the North. ``I don't think such six-party talks will take place in the near future,'' So Chol, section chief of the European Department of the North's Foreign Ministry, told AP Television News in an interview in the North Korean capital. ``It is because our people cannot find any evidence that the Americans are moving to lift the financial sanctions against our country.'' Last year, Washington slapped restrictions on a Macau-based bank and North Korean companies it said were helping the communist government engage in money laundering, counterfeiting and weapons proliferation. The North has said it will stay away from the six-nation nuclear talks until the sanctions are lifted, but the United States insists they are a matter of law and a separate issue from the arms negotiations. Other participants in the talks are China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 The Ledger: Oh, Never Mind Lakeland, Florida | February 14, 2006 President George W. Bush made a fine pitch two weeks ago for kicking America's oil "addiction" and promoting alternative fuels, including a new generation of nuclear power plants. But the new Bush budget last week reneges on the federal government's decades-old commitment to build a nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Energy Department has for years been collecting a surcharge on some utility bills on the promise to build the repository. But Energy's $18 billion trust fund will only begin to cover the estimated $60 billion cost of the much-litigated repository. That means nuclear power plants will continue to be left to their own devices when it comes to safely storing radioactive spent fuel rods. That poses significant financial and liability problems for companies contemplating new plants. Not to worry, though. The new Bush budget contains more than $12 million for new gas and oil exploration in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. Have to keep feeding the oil addiction, you know. Copyright 2006 The Ledger ***************************************************************** 22 Oakland Tribune: Energy funding quickly fizzles Article Last Updated: 02/14/2006 3:21 AM PST Scientists, at first delighted by Bush's spending boosts for solar, nuclear and biomass, see money will soon run short By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER President Bush's vow to curb U.S. addiction to foreign oil delighted many energy scientists when it was followed days later by a budget requesting large spending boosts in solar, biomass and particularly nuclear energy research. But buyer's remorse is setting in now that researchers are taking a closer look. The president's 2007 budget makes dramatic cuts in energy efficiency and conservation, where the greatest energy gains of the last 20 years have been made. Last week, White House budgeters ran projections showing the new money could be short-lived, with steady declines in alternative energy research after 2007. "The president said something really important in terms of talking about this addiction and how we need these renewables," said physicist and energy expert Daniel Kammen, head of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's easy tosay in a speech. If you don't back up those words with budgets, it's campaign rhetoric." "It's really too bad," Kammen said. "What we're seeing is sort of the backpedaling that undermines these commitments." Science overall is a huge beneficiary of the president's 2007 budget, with large increases in basic, exploratory research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and for studying new space vehicles at NASA. In energy science, Bush continued emphasizing nuclear energy, hydrogen and clean coal but added $250 million for his new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, to harvest more energy out of spent nuclear fuel and design a new "fast-breeder" reactor to burn the reprocessed plutonium, as well as a near doubling of spending on solar energy and biofuels fermented from plants. All told, the president is asking $1.4 billion in energy research spending, an 8 percent increase over 2006 that reverses a downward trend in energy science spending, according to an analysis by Kei Koizumi, head of the research and development budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest scientific society. If approved by Congress at the levels requested by the White House, federal energy science will return to its levels in the late 1990s. Those levels remain well below what Congress approved last year in the Energy Policy Act, and several lawmakers say they will try boosting energy spending further. In doing so, they will struggle with the temptation to tack on projects dear to local constituents. These earmarks have climbed steadily, from $253 million in congressionally ordered energy spending in 2001 to $501 million in 2004 and $716 million in 2006. In energy research alone, nearly one in five dollars comes from congressional earmarks, said AAAS' Koizumi, and if the trend continues in 2007, federal energy research spending could jump almost 30 percent. But environmentalists say the biggest gains in U.S. energy security have come from greater efficiency and conservation, programs that took hefty cuts in the president's budget. The president cut 9 percent from the EPA's Energy Star program that promotes higher-efficiency appliances and cut almost a third from the federal weatherization program for insulating the homes of lower-income families. "Research and development is really important but all by itself it's not going to solve our energy problems, even in the long term," said David M. Goldstein, energy program director for the Natural Resources Defense Fund. "If your nephew was addicted to a drug, you wouldn't say, 'I'll do research so he'll get better in 15 years.' You'd get him into treatment now," Goldstein said. Administration officials are betting on technological advances to realize the president's promised 75 percent reduction in the consumption of Middle East oil. But scientists warn that weaning Americans off foreign oil will take a long, multi-year commitment. Last week, the White House released budget projections showing declines in energy research spending after 2007, totaling nearly 13 percent by 2011. "It's hard to sort of have a new commitment for research on alternative fuels when the resources devoted to these projects shrink year after year," said Richard Kogan, a senior analyst at the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. AAAS' Koizumi said 2007 "looks good" for energy sciences. "But the administration has not put the money in the future years to sustain these increases," he said. White House officials said Monday that the projected declines in new energy research money from 2008 to 2011 are solely an "exercise" to illustrate the kind of across-the-board cuts in discretionary domestic spending needed to meet the president's promise of halving the budget deficit. "Account and agency levels in model runs don't reflect future policy decisions since those are only made on a year-by-year basis," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Yet several discretionary spending programs are not showing cuts for deficit reduction, leading some scientists to question the administration's new energy initiatives. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Panel Weighs Whistleblower Law Changes From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 10:46 PM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Five government whistleblowers said Tuesday they had faced retaliation for calling attention to alleged government wrongs, such as prisoner abuse in Iraq and illegal surveillance at the National Security Agency. They told their stories to the House Government Reform Committee's national security subcommittee, whose chairman, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., indicated an interest in altering the law to better protect national-security whistleblowers. Shays said they are vulnerable to unique forms of retaliation, including suspension or revocation of security clearance, which can have the same ``chilling effect'' as demotion or firing. ``The system is broken,'' Shays said. In written testimony, inspectors general from the Defense, Justice and Energy departments said complaints of reprisals involving security clearances were rare. ``The allegations were either not substantiated or were closed after a preliminary inquiry determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation,'' acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas Gimble said. The five whistleblowers, who have made headlines before, offered their stories at Tuesday's hearing. Many described their inspector general as ineffective or co-opted by the security offices. Army Specialist Samuel Provance laid out what he considers to be a pattern of systemic abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. He said his rank was reduced for disobeying orders not to speak about mistreatment he saw at the prison. Russ Tice, a former NSA analyst, has called attention to possible constitutional abuses and security breaches at NSA. He said he was given psychological evaluations deeming him mentally unstable, and his clearance was revoked. He's now unemployed. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer says the Defense Intelligence Agency has made a series of allegations against him since he disclosed information about a program known as Able Danger. He says the program identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the attack. Government officials have raised doubts about his claims, which are the subject of another hearing Wednesday. Richard Levernier, a retired Energy Department nuclear security specialist, said he lost his security clearance and effectively his job for giving the media an unclassified report about shortfalls in nuclear security. And former FBI special agent Michael German said the Justice Department's inspector general found his claims of a botched terrorism investigation in Florida were substantiated. He says he faced retaliatory actions, some of which the inspector general also found. In the written statements from the inspectors general, many of the whistleblowers' individual claims were not addressed. ``Whistleblowers who raise good-faith allegations of misconduct about activities at their agencies play an important role in ensuring transparency and accountability throughout government,'' Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 RIA Novosti: The missile that does not care Opinion &analysis - 14/ 02/ 2006 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov.) - This year shows little prospect for a much needed Russian-U.S. missile defense treaty. The American ballistic missile defense system, credible though increasingly costly, is going to become operational within years. New Russian missiles could penetrate it now - if it were in place. On January 19, Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III, Missile Defense Agency Director, touted a successful static test firing of the second stage rocket motor for the future Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the antimissile to be commissioned in the early 2010s and a key element in a ballistic missile shield. Late last year, the Boeing-led Airborne Laser team delivered on Boeing's commitment to strengthen the 10-crew Alaska-based interceptor group by announcing the successful completion of a series of tests involving a high energy laser at Edwards Air Force Base, California. A credible capability indeed, but, as Russian President Vladimir Putin told the marathon Kremlin news conference last month, Russia has missiles that don't care. When asked about the new Russian weapon, he said: "These are very strong systems, and they - how shall I put it mildly - are not exactly a response to a ballistic missile defense system. With such missiles, it does not matter whether you face a missile shield or not; they travel at hypersonic speeds and change heading and altitude, while missile defense systems are designed to counter ballistic-trajectory weapons." Experts know the missile Putin was referring to - the formidable Topol-M (SS-25 Sickle) developed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT) - well enough. Below are some facts for the general public. Originally, the Topol-M was a double-headed project launched in the late 1980s in an effort to develop a missile that could be equally successfully fired from a silo and from a mobile launcher. However, while Yuzhnoye Design Bureau in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, was developing the silo and Moscow-based MITT, traditionally stronger in road mobile technology, was preparing its own design, the Soviet Union broke up and the Ukrainian part of the program faded out. In the face of unaffordable research and development costs, MITT decided to upgrade the operational Topol missile, rather than develop a new one. The original silo-based Topol-M (SS-X-27) was commissioned for use in December 1997 - two underground systems were deployed at Tatishchevo military base, Saratov region (central Russia). Since then, five Strategic Missile Force regiments have been rearmed with the Topol-Ms. The road mobile launcher was successfully tested in 2004-2005 and commissioned for use with the Strategic Missile Force this year. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said seven road mobile missile systems would enter service in 2006. A road mobile launcher ensures concealment, maneuverability, utter survivability, and long endurance. The Topol-M itself is more accurate, reliable, robust than the old Topol, and more immune to the action of interception weapons, including nuclear interceptors. While the U.S. is stepping up its effort to deploy early warning radars and interceptors as close to Russia's borders as possible to detect missile launches and kill missiles at the boost stage of flight when they are the most vulnerable - and as long as the body and the warhead are still in one piece - the Topol-M, powered by three solid-propellant boosters, accelerates faster than earlier ICBMs and is accordingly less vulnerable to that kind of attack. The missile also has scores of auxiliary jets and a state-of-the-art flight control system that enables a 3D avoidance maneuver capability from the first seconds of flight. And on top of everything else - in every sense - is the nuclear re-entry vehicle, in fact a ramjet-boosted supersonic cruise missile whose additional sustainer engine accelerates it to between Mach 4 and Mach 5 (Mach is the speed equal to the speed of sound in the air). The United States had its own designs but the program was discarded as too costly, shifting the focus to transonic vehicles. Russia dropped its own hypersonic project in 1992. Or so they said. Back in July 2001, observers animatedly discussed a Topol test launch, in which the warhead demonstrated a clearly non-ballistic performance. Someone suggested the warhead had special engines capable of generating enough thrust for a maneuver at high altitudes and at very high speeds. However, the topic was highlighted again only three years later during the Security 2004 exercise. An RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) carried a new experimental re-entry vehicle that in effect "bounced" between the upper atmosphere and outer space. This maneuver is incredible as a normal re-entry velocity for a warhead is around 5,000mps. The test vehicle, however, defied skeptics and successfully survived all the maneuvers thanks to its effective heat and g-load protection systems. Such maneuverability renders a missile system a crucial surprise advantage, as the adversary cannot launch a fire-and-forget interceptor weapon because no anticipated point of contact is known or can be reliably calculated. Normally, the Topol-M carries one warhead but, unlike other strategic ICBMs, it can be easily upgraded with an advanced warhead carrying up to three independently targetable re-entry vehicles. The warhead fires off the vehicles in midcourse, changing direction twice a minute to fool warning radars as to where the charges are heading. Each vehicle is assigned an individual target at up to 100km (60 miles) from the separation point. As Russian Chief of Staff Colonel General Yuri Baluevsky put it, "The vehicle can successfully avoid monitors and penetrate all missile defense systems, including the ones still under development." "In a huge improvement over conventional ballistic warheads, this re-entry vehicle can either follow a preset flight maneuvering program or be re-targeted when it is already over enemy territory," he said. This means that the re-entry vehicle will effectively penetrate anything the U.S. military is trying to build now. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 25 RIA Novosti: Repeat: Winner of Chernobyl tender to be announced in London 14/ 02/ 2006 LONDON, February 14 (RIA Novosti, Alexander Smotrov) - The winner of a tender to build a new shell that should keep the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster safe for future generations will be announced in London Tuesday. In May 2005, 28 member states of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund Donor Assembly agreed to allocate $200 million for the construction of a new, safe shell for the power plant in Ukraine, which was hit by an accident almost 20 years ago that sent shockwaves throughout the world. The new structure will replace the old "sarcophagus", which was built in 1986 to cover the reactor at the center of a blast that spewed radioactive clouds across the region and beyond. It has since covered Unit 4 at the plant, but emerging cracks have led to fears that high radioactivity may again seep out. The fund, which is managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and includes the elite Group of Eight industrialized nations, the European Union and Ukraine, has already collected more than $1 billion. The construction of the new shell, an arch-shaped structure big enough to house the Statue of Liberty, will begin in 2007 and will be completed in one or two years. It is designed to serve for at least 100 years. EBRD President Jean Lemierre said he was confident that Ukraine would build the reactor shell, which is only about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of the capital Kiev, within the project's timeframes and the country's government would maintain strict control over expenses. Following the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the worst in the history of nuclear power, about 135,000 people from within a 30-kilometer (18-mile) radius were evacuated, which has left the surrounding area looking like a ghost town to this day. After the explosion which happened during testing on the night of April 25-26, 1986, radioactive contamination spread not only across Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union), but also into neighboring Russia and Belarus and even some countries of northern and western Europe. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 26 BBC: Tackling the UK's nuclear legacy Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 February 2006 By Tim Hirsch BBC News environment correspondent [Trawsfynydd reactor] Decommissioning at Trawsfynydd employs over 500 staff As ministers ponder the future of Britain's nuclear power industry, one plant in the mountains of Snowdonia has never been busier. Every day more than 500 staff and contractors turn off the scenic A470 trunk road linking north and south Wales, to pass through the gates of Trawsfynydd power station. The place is a hive of activity, including major construction work to create a new building alongside the two giant cube-shaped 51m high reactor towers, which stand out starkly against the stunningly beautiful landscape. Nothing unusual in this - except that Trawsfynydd has not generated a Watt of electricity in nearly fifteen years. The labour, energy and taxpayers' money (about Ł45m this year) being devoted to this site are all part of the decommissioning process which will continue here for nearly another century. Draft recommendations A visit to the plant vividly illustrates the dilemma facing the government as it squares up to two key decisions in the coming months: whether to approve a new generation of nuclear power stations, and what to do with the legacy of waste bequeathed to us and our descendants by the last generation. Operators w watching a closed-circuit TV image of a metal probe smoothing out the debris in preparation for the next scoop The dilemma is that the two decisions, although separate, are inextricably linked through a basic ethical question: regardless of the merits of nuclear power as a future energy source, is it right to commit the UK to creating more radioactive waste while society has yet to find an acceptable long-term option for handling the material already in existence? The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM), after an exhaustive public consultation exercise, will soon publish draft recommendations on what should be done with some 470,000 cubic metres of waste - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. This is the estimated quantity of waste material from existing nuclear plants, including those like Trawsfynydd which are being dismantled, for which there is still no long-term disposal plan. It excludes a large quantity of mildly radioactive material such as gloves and laboratory equipment, which is disposed of at a special site at Drigg in Cumbria. Reprocessing fuel rods The heavy workload at Trawsfynydd - employing a larger workforce than when it was generating electricity before 1991 - is centred around converting waste material into a form suitable for long-term storage, and starting to return the site to the way it was before the plant was built in the early 1960s. That process is only projected to be completed by the end of this century, as it is not considered safe to start dismantling the highly radioactive core until the 2080s - although this may be brought forward due to technological advances in decommissioning techniques. The nuclear fuel rods themselves which powered the reactors have already been sent to Sellafield in Cumbria for reprocessing. This recycles uranium for use in other plants, but leaves highly irradiated nitric acid which must be cooled and encased in glass, remaining radioactive for thousands of years. We think it is important th there is a full review of the waste implications of any new-build programme Gordon Mackerron, CORWM The bulk of the waste produced at Trawsfynydd is debris of various materials not radioactive in themselves, but which were in prolonged contact with nuclear fuels. So, for example, before the fuel rods could be removed from the site, the steel fins which encased them had to be sheared off, leaving 380 cubic metres of metal shards in temporary vaults at the plant, where they are now being scooped up and transferred to specially-reinforced steel and concrete casings for long-term storage. Although carried out under strict safety procedures, this can appear a curiously low-tech activity. In a control room above these vaults, operators were watching a closed-circuit TV image of a metal probe smoothing out the debris in preparation for the next scoop. I assumed this was being done by remote action until I was told there was actually a man beneath us in protective gear doing it all by hand. Another key component of the Trawsfynydd waste is the sludge and resin extracted from the water ponds adjacent to the reactors, used to cool spent nuclear fuel before it was removed for re-processing. It's all messy stuff, and needs to be solidified before being packed into steel and concrete drums. This is the kind of material, known collectively as Intermediate Level Waste, which forms the biggest part in terms of volume of the waste for which solutions are now being sought - although most of the radioactivity is concentrated in the High Level Waste from Sellafield. Carbon free? While this long-term answer is awaited, foundations are just being completed for a building behind the Trawsfynydd reactors, 90m long and 20m high, which will act as a temporary store for the waste containers, probably for around 30-40 years. The claim of nuclear industry is new reactor designs would produce very much smaller quantities of waste from future stations This building and the reactor towers themselves, whose height will be reduced, will be clad in local Welsh slate designed to make them blend better into the landscape. Watching the heavy trucks depositing great quantities of concrete into this building site, it was impossible to avoid reflecting on the description of nuclear power as "carbon-free electricity". Certainly the process of generating electricity by this method avoids releasing significant quantities of greenhouse gases, but the transport and construction emissions involved here long after the useful life of the station must surely also be taken into account. For the long-term storage of this waste, CORWM is looking at four main options: + keeping it above or just below ground + locking it away forever in deep geological rock layers + burying it in deep vaults but in a way where it can be retrieved in future + splitting the waste between different stores according to how long it remains radioactive Whichever of these solutions is recommended in the final report in July, the committee will not be suggesting a particular site - that unenviable task will be left to ministers. But the chairman of the committee, Professor Gordon Mackerron, has another concern: he does not wish his recommendation for the disposal of existing waste to be interpreted by the government as a green light for building new nuclear stations. "We think it is important that there is a full review of the waste implications of any new-build programme, and not to take our report as somehow having managed the entire problem - because the politics and ethics are different, even if the technology is not," said Prof Mackerron. Waste storage The claim of the nuclear industry is new reactor designs would produce very much smaller quantities of waste from future stations, and therefore this is more a historic problem than one which should influence current energy decisions. [Sellafield ] Fuel rods are taken to Sellafield for reprocessing But Britain is by no means alone in taking many years to grapple with this issue. In Belgium, for example, decades have been spent investigating the possibility of storing waste in underground clay formations, with research centred on the delightfully-named High Activity Disposal Experimental Site (Hades). Regardless of whether it is considered an acceptable cost for the energy produced during the three decades of its useful life, the waste now piling up at Trawsfynydd and other stations is there, and must be dealt with somehow. Eventually, some community or other is going to be asked to have it nearby. Even if ministers do, as widely expected, signal a new era for nuclear power, the political and financial legacy of the last one will be with us for decades to come. ***************************************************************** 27 BBC NEWS: France sticks to nuclear option Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 February 2006, 13:29 GMT [ src=] By Caroline Wyatt BBC Paris correspondent As part of the BBC's Fuelling the Future season, Paris correspondent Caroline Wyatt looks at the issue of nuclear power in France, which relies on nuclear reactors for about 80% of its domestic electricity. [French President Jacques Chirac visits a nuclear submarine] France has military and civilian uses for nuclear power It may be unfair, but I've always thought of Chernobyl whenever someone mentions nuclear power. One of my favourite memories of covering the former Soviet Union was our trip to Chernobyl, many years after the accident, to witness one of its reactors being shut down. The staff there gave us the warmest of welcomes, and invited us to a special picnic lunch in their canteen. "All home grown," beamed the plump dinner-lady with pride, as she ladled bright purple cabbage onto my plate, accompanied by a salad which included an unusually large red tomato. All I could think of was what I'd read about the earth around Chernobyl - and how the radiation is soaked up by everything that grows in it, especially salads and berries. I decided not to think about it, as I ate most of my lunch. Later on, when we left, we drove through eerily deserted villages, where the vegetation had taken over, growing wild - lush and green - over the crumbling buildings. Forbidding I tried to banish all thoughts of Chernobyl from my mind recently as we drove out of Paris to visit the nuclear power station that supplies much of the French capital with electricity. Inside, it feels as though we've arrived in a curiously 1950s vision of the future [ src=] The station at Nogent-sur-Seine is visible from far away. Out of the flat green fields loom two concrete cooling towers, belching out white smoke, which drifts up into the sullen skies. The perimeter fence and gates look equally forbidding, and security is tight as we're taken inside. We have to put our cameras and bags through x-ray machines, and use special numbered cards to go through a series of metal gates. There are no cheery dinner-ladies here, or none that we can see. Inside, it feels as though we've arrived in a curiously 1950s vision of the future. All around us is utility concrete, grey merging again into the grey of the winter day. The place feels utterly deserted. Hundreds of people work here, but the only staff we see - apart from the press officers accompanying us - are two men working on some cabling. Eeriest of all is the silence. The tiny hum of the electricity pylons is the only sign of the immense power harnessed inside this rain-soaked concrete. Somewhere inside, the water is being heated to 300 degrees by the chain reaction of nuclear fission. Misgivings I find my thoughts drifting off though as the press officer tries to explain the exact workings of nuclear fission. I remember the words of the nuclear physicist we'd interviewed a few days before. Now in his 60s, Dr Bernard Laponche is retired, but for many years he worked on the French government's nuclear programme. [French anti-nuclear protesters ] France 'would use nuclear arms' Once a fan of the process, he has turned into a born-again opponent. "Nuclear power," he told me, "is the most dangerous way to boil water that mankind has ever invented." France, though, decided long ago that nuclear power was the path to energy independence, a decision taken by General de Gaulle in the 1950s. Thanks to the scientific knowledge France had acquired in developing its nuclear weapons programme, the nation could convert that know-how into civil use. n 1973, France attached the first civil nuclear reactor to the electricity grid. It must have seemed then like a brave new world - especially when global instability sent oil prices soaring in the 1970s. Any public misgivings about nuclear power were soothed with tax breaks and jobs for the towns the reactors were built near. And the might of the state in France meant there was no agonising planning process to go through. Storage problem Today France has 58 reactors, producing 80% of the country's electricity, with more reactors in the offing. Recently, another French President, Jacques Chirac, proudly announced that work had begun on the fourth generation of nuclear reactors, which should be able to re-use some nuclear waste as a source of energy. How do you know it will still be safe a thousand years from now Bernard Laponche For the most part, the French accept how their energy is produced. An opinion poll showed that 52% were in favour; just 36% against. Many say that if it helps lower greenhouse gas emissions, then the risks and the costs are worth it. Yet according to opponents of nuclear power in France, public misgivings are growing - a shift that could be exacerbated later this year when the French government is to decide how to store the country's nuclear waste in the long-term. A lengthy scientific study has just been completed, suggesting that it should be safe to store much of France's nuclear waste deep in the French earth in a stable layer of rock for thousands of years. Bernard Laponche isn't convinced. "How do you know it will still be safe a thousand years from now?", he asks. And to that there is no real answer, not even from the press officers at Nogent-sur-Seine, which we leave just as a wintry dusk settles over the cooling towers. I was secretly relieved that we hadn't been invited to lunch. I wouldn't have liked to spoil the memory of my picnic at Chernobyl. ***************************************************************** 28 Platts: Energy geopolitics make nuclear option sensible for UK: minister London (Platts)--13Feb2006 The geopolitics of energy suggest the UK should invest in new nuclear power to ensure supplies, the country's energy minister Malcolm Wicks said Monday, signaling his support for possible plans to build new nuclear plants. The government last month launched a long-term review of its energy policy, including the possibility of developing a new generation of nuclear power stations. "We are weighing up the arguments. On the pro side, nuclear energy is a clean form of energy," Wicks told an industry conference in London. "The geopolitics of energy would suggest, other things being equal, that it might make sense for the UK to home-grow more of its energy," he said. "Against that, however, is the crucial issue of nuclear waste. I think the answers are probably there but we need to demonstrate that." The minister said that he was going into the energy review with an open mind on the issue, saying he was "nuclear neutral." By 2020, coal and nuclear power plants currently generating about 30% of the UK's electricity are expected to have closed. Nuclear, which now provides 19% of UK electricity, may provide only 7% by 2020 as ageing plants are decommissioned. The UK became a net gas importer in 2005 and is also set to become a net oil importer on an annual basis by around 2010. Wicks also said that any possible takeover bid for Centrica, the UK's largest gas supplier, by Russia's Gazprom would face intense scrutiny. "The UK has always been open to foreign investment. But clearly, we have objectives about competition. Any takeover needs to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, not least on grounds of competition," he said when asked for his views on a possible Gazprom bid. Gazprom has played down recent speculation that it was studying a bid for Centrica, saying it was only looking at the UK in general. The GMB union, which represents many workers in the UK energy sector, last week urged the country's government to use blocking powers to ensure that the Russian gas giant was not able to buy Centrica. --Alex Lawler, alex_lawler@platts.com For similar news, request a free trial to Power UK at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 29 Platts: World's nuclear performance in 2005 close to 2004's London (Platts)--13Feb2006 The world's nuclear operators appear to have squeezed just a little more out of their plants in 2005 than in 2004, but with final figures nearly in, it's close enough to call it a draw. When British Energy reports its total output for the year later this month, it's expected to run about 60-million megawatt-hours (MWH), which would bring the total output from the world's 443 operating reactors to about 2.75-billion MWH. That figure includes, for the first time, all seven of China's operating units; adjusted for them, the 2004 world output was around 2.74-billion MWH. The world average capacity factor was 79.25% in 2005; it was 78.97% in 2004. U.S. operators came very close to their 2004 record, with gross output around 818-million MWH. The 2005 bottom line was 828-million MWH. Net output was about 786-million MWH; the 2004 mark was 789-million MWH. The Nuclear Energy Institute attributed the difference to more routine refueling outages falling within the calendar year, and said the average variable cost of producing a nuclear kilowatt-hour remained 1.68 cents. The most marked increase in output was in South Korea, where Ulchin-6 began commercial operation in April, but that 1,000-MW unit alone didn't account for the country's 16-million MWH increase in generation. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. (KHNP) was in the process of shifting its units to 18-month refueling cycles. That and "our extremely low scram rate" meant that "last year we didn't have many units shut for refueling and maintenance outages," said Senior Vice President Hong Jang-hee. Those factors allowed the 20 Korean units not only to notch an average 94.97% capacity factor but to take the top five spots on the list of 50 best capacity factors for the year, led by Kori-4 at 104.85%?though those numbers may also reflect some outdated unit ratings (see below). The U.S. unit with the highest capacity factor was Constellation's Calvert Cliffs-1, a Combustion Engineering (CE)-design PWR, at 101.99%. Right behind were Exelon's Limerick-1, a GE BWR; Duke's Catawba-2, Progress Energy's Shearon-Harris-1, and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah-1, all Westinghouse PWRs; Southern California Edison's San Onofre-3, a CE-design PWR; Dominion's North Anna-1, a Westinghouse PWR; Exelon's LaSalle-1, and Constellation's Nine Mile Point-2, both GE BWRs; and Southern Nuclear's Farley-1, a Westinghouse PWR. One new unit made a spectacular debut: Chubu Electric Power's Hamaoka-5 in Japan, which went commercial Jan. 18, 2005 and became the 7th best by capacity factor and second highest power producer in the world in 2005. The 1,380-MW Toshiba BWR broke into the top generator ranks otherwise dominated by the giant German plants. Brokdorf, a 1,440-MW Siemens PWR owned by Vattenfall and E.On, put out just a hair under 12-million MWH to take the top generating spot. Another new face among the top generators was number 10, Lithuania's Ignalina-2, with 10.97-million MWH. The 1,500-MW Soviet-design RBMK is slated to close in 2009 under Lithuania's European Union (EU) accession agreement (see story, page 14). French units continue to show lower overall capacity factors due to load-following, because the grid doesn't need all their power. Canadian operators are slowly returning laid-up nuclear units to service, but Ontario Power Generation dropped plans to restore Pickering-2 and -3 after experiencing substantial overruns restoring unit 4. In mid-year, Germany lost a unit, Obrigheim, to early shutdown due to the country's nuclear phase-out policy, as did Sweden with Barsebaeck-2. Lithuania shut Ignalina-1, under its EU agreement, at the end of 2004. The year was perhaps notable for what could have been, as operators in several countries encountered regulatory and technical problems that kept their production down. For more nuclear news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 30 Platts: Detailed applications will ease new COL process - NRC official Washington (Platts)--13Feb2006 NRC's regulatory process for licensing new reactors will be predictable for companies that submit high-quality applications, NRC Chairman Nils Diaz said Monday. Addressing the nuclear industry's concern that the untested construction permit-operating license (COL) application review might prove to be protracted and unpredictable, Diaz said NRC has gained experience with other areas--design certifications and early site permits--of the new licensing regulations and will incorporate its safety and engineering knowledge from the past 25 years. The last uncanceled US nuclear plant order was placed in 1973, and the industry is gearing up for the next big wave of orders. In a keynote address at the Platts' nuclear conference in Washington, Diaz said that 11 potential COL applications have been announced publicly. He indicated the industry could take comfort from the agency's history of conducting "fair" and "efficient" hearings and asserted that projected schedules could be met if significant issues are resolved up front. But he also stressed that the industry would have to share responsibility in the process by preparing detailed and complete applications. Eventually, NRC might be able to review new plant licensing applications in about 24 months, Diaz said. He added the agency would first have to gain experience from the first few applications, and new applications would have to be standardized. Diaz said the agency is looking at ways to accelerate reviews, such as implementing a "design-centered" review approach, which would require the industry's commitment to standardization so that NRC could apply a single technical evaluation to multiple applications. NRC estimates review times will range from 27 to 60 months, depending on whether an applicant is referencing an early site permit or an approved certified reactor design. For more nucleonics news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 31 APP.COM: In nuclear emergency, students would go to reception centers | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, February 14, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER If there were a nuclear emergency at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, officials wouldn't want parents to pick up their children at schools. But Allison Thomas said she would go anyway. "I know they frown upon it, but I would," said Thomas, 30, who has a daughter in sixth grade at Mill Pond School in Lacey. "I want to make sure that she's OK." "I know they've had evacuation plans for years," said Thomas, a 20-year Lacey resident. "There's always something that's going to go wrong, and I don't want something to happen to my child." Several other area residents interviewed at a playground in Lacey's Gille Park also said they would likely get their children, despite official plans to bus students out of the area during an accident. The evacuation plan for schools also counts on out-of-area districts sending buses to districts within the 10-mile evacuation zone to transport the children to sites away from Oyster Creek. But a union official said some school bus drivers have not had radiological training, which includes learning how to use dosimeters that monitor radiation levels. Normally, a school evacuation would be publicized on the radio-based Emergency Alert System only after the evacuation has begun, the state emergency response plan for Oyster Creek says. "This will preclude parents from going to schools to pick children up, thus causing traffic problems," the plan states. "Parents should always pick up their children at the reception center, as directed by the EAS broadcast." Reception centers include Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in Galloway and Ocean County College in Dover Township, according to state emergency planning information on the Web. Ronald L. Meinders, superintendent of the nearly 2,600-pupil Stafford school district, said, "I don't know that anyone would know" whether the evacuation plan will work. Officials hope parents will follow emergency alert system guidance, said Sgt. Thomas Scardino, assistant head of the State Police Radiological Emergency Response Planning Unit. "If they should show up at the school, there's a good chance their child will not be there," Scardino said. Officials anticipate "closing the schools very early in the process, if it needs to be done at all," he said. Each school district does not have enough buses to evacuate all of its own students, according to the evacuation plan. So districts within and outside the 10-mile evacuation zone are supposed to cooperate. For example, moving all students in Stafford, including those at Southern Regional High School and in private schools, will require 140 buses, the plan says. Stafford is to provide 33 buses; Little Egg Harbor, 22 buses; Greater Egg Harbor Regional in Atlantic County, 33 buses; Southern Regional, 24 buses; Pinelands, 20 buses; Long Beach Island, seven buses; and Beach Haven, one bus. All buses with Stafford children will go to Richard Stockton College, where parents can pick them up. Meanwhile, nursery schools, day care centers and preschools within the 10-mile zone will be evacuated as required by the approximately 300 school buses available within Ocean County school districts, according to the evacuation plan. Districts have 813 buses, of which only 509 are required to evacuate schools within the zone. NJ Transit has 1,700 buses and 2,000 drivers available to support evacuation operations during a nuclear accident at Oyster Creek. Diane Nase of Toms River, a Brick school bus driver for 24 years and vice president of Transport Workers Union Local 225, Branch 4, in Brick, recalled an orientation meeting with about 150 Brick bus drivers probably five to seven years ago during which the evacuation plan was discussed. "I would say a good 20 percent" of the drivers voluntarily signed up to participate in an evacuation, Nase said, adding that she was among them. But she and other Brick drivers haven't had radiological training, she said. Bill Nardiello, transportation coordinator for Brick schools, said radiological training was provided about two or three years ago. Brick has about 150 full-time and part-time bus drivers, and all have been trained, Nardiello said, disputing Nase's statement that she and others have received no training. As part of their contract, all drivers are required to participate in an evacuation during a radiological emergency at Oyster Creek, he said. "We've got dedicated employees, so I have no doubt that they would show up," he said. Nase said participating in an evacuation is not part of the drivers' contract. Meanwhile, Stafford has staffers with bus certification who can be tapped in any emergency, "but I'm confident that our bus drivers" would respond, Superintendent Meinders said. Staff writers Nicholas Clunn and Kirk Moore contributed to this story. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com [E-mail] Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice FR Doc 06-1418 [Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)] [Notices] [Page 7803-7804] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14fe06-104] Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of February 13, 20, 27, March 6, 13, 20, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of February 13, 2006 Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans--Waste (Public Meeting). (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-474; Derek Widmayer, 301-415-6677.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Edward New, 301-415- 5646.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 20, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 20, 2006. Week of February 27, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 27, 2006. Week of March 6, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 6, 2006. Week of March 13, 2006--Tentative Monday, March 13, 2006 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Information Services (OIS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Edward Baker, 301- 415-8700.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Evelyn S. Williams, 301-415-7011.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1 & 3). Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Cynthia Carpenter, 301-415-1275.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 20, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 20, 2006. *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)-- (301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662. * * * * * [[Page 7804]] The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: February 9, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-1418 Filed 2-10-06; 1:17 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 33 APP.COM: Evacuation zone excludes southern LBI | Asbury Park Press Online 02/14/06 BY AND STAFF WRITERS Federal officials say the 10-mile evacuation boundary around the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey is a sufficient benchmark for protecting the public from a radioactive plume during a reactor accident. Anti-nuclear activists argue the line is arbitrary. It can seem especially so on Long Beach Island. The southeast fringe of the 10-mile radius around Oyster Creek is called emergency planning area 17. It includes Barnegat Light, Harvey Cedars, and the Loveladies and North Beach sections of Long Beach Township. The end of that area — and the entire radius — falls in North Beach, a few feet north of the Surf City boundary. According to the state's evacuation plan, if area 17 must be evacuated in winter, an estimated 1,833 residents of northern Long Beach Island would be told to head south for Route 72 and the mainland. In summer, the number of evacuees would be more than 27,000 — or even 43,000 on a busy summer weekend, the plan predicts. The trouble is that residents heading south for the island's only bridge would pass through Surf City and Ship Bottom. Residents in those two towns would be told to stay put because they fall outside area 17, according to parts of the evacuation plan and instructions provided for the public in telephone directories for Ocean County. "As far as that goes, I think it is a little ridiculous," said Alice Roth, who lives in Barnegat Light but owns a jewelry and knickknacks shop in Surf City. "Will there be someone at the end of town checking your driver's license? "How do you convey to them (residents of Surf City) that they are not as important as the people in Barnegat Light?" But State Police officers responsible for Oyster Creek's emergency response plan say Surf City and Ship Bottom could easily be evacuated. Both towns have individualized plans similar to municipalities inside the radius, they said. The plan also is flexible, so alterations and special orders can be made spontaneously, they say. Surf City Mayor Leonard T. Connors Jr. doubts many of his constituents would sit tight while an evacuation rolls through town. "Not very feasible," said Connors, who is also a Republican state senator. He's represented southern Ocean County in Trenton since the early 1980s. "The whole evacuation plan is terrible. When I say terrible, I don't blame the state police. There are only so many streets . . . and they've got to draw a line on it." The problem is not so much the island's own roads — daunting as that congestion can be — but the potential for breakdowns on the Route 72 causeway bridge and lane changes on the state highway through Stafford, Connors said. "Route 72 (west) widens to three lanes by the ShopRite, and goes back to one lane past the hospital," he said. Connors said he and his fellow legislators, Assembly members Christopher J. Connors and Brian Rumpf, both R-Ocean, have asked the state Department of Transportation to widen Route 72 westward to Route 539, a north-south roadway through the Pinelands at the edge of the 10-mile evacuation ring. After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast last summer, the Ocean County legislators sent a Sept. 7 letter to county government officials and state lawmakers in seven coastal counties, urging the formation of a state commission to recommend improvements to coastal evacuation plans — including highway improvement projects to ease bottlenecks at critical intersections, Connors said. "The roads need to be fixed. There are too many people here now. We've gone from 50,000 people in Ocean County in the 1950s to 517,000 now, and the road system hasn't changed that much," he said. Assemblyman Jeffrey Van Drew, D-Cape May, whose county hurricane experts say is one of the most difficult coastal areas to evacuate north of Florida, is working with the Ocean County legislators to establish a task force. "We intend to pursue it," Connors said. Kirk Moore: (732) 557-5728 or Staff writer Nicholas Clunn contributed to this story. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 APP.COM: Evacuation plan depends on many who lack key training | Asbury Park Press Online Posted by the on 02/14/06 BY TODD B. BATES, AND STAFF WRITERS Russell Goyette uses a wheelchair to get around. He's worried that no one would help him if an evacuation were ordered because of an accident at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. The Waretown resident, who lives about four miles south of the Lacey plant, believes that volunteer "first-responders" would evacuate themselves and their families "before ever getting handicapped people." "I cannot drive," the retired advertising executive said. "How would I ever get out? "I feel I'm in constant danger," said Goyette, 63, whose wife works about 40 miles north in Monmouth Beach and might not be able to make it home if there were an emergency at the plant. "The plant may have an accident and (is) a target for terrorists, and the current operator has a dismal operating record." Goyette is far from alone in believing that the state's Oyster Creek evacuation plan, part of the New Jersey Radiological Emergency Response Plan, will not — or may not — work. State legislators, the Ocean County freeholders, several municipalities surrounding the plant, activists and citizens alike have voiced skepticism. An investigation by the Asbury Park Press found that the plan would rely on volunteers, public bus drivers and municipal employees with no radiological training to help law enforcement officials. Several public works employees interviewed said they have not been trained on what to do during a nuclear emergency, or how to protect themselves from possible radiation exposure. An emergency at the plant could play out over days, hours or even minutes, depending on the accident's severity. Plant officials say the likelihood of a deadly radiation release is remote, about a 1 in 1.7 million chance a year. But the state has an evacuation plan that a top proponent said will work only if everyone follows the rules. The NRC will not consider the emergency plan during its review of Oyster Creek's request for a 20-year extension to its operating license beyond 2009, NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan said. Emergency planning is "one of those issues we believe should be dealt with on an ongoing basis," he said. The state's plan obviously can never be tested in a realistic way. But weaknesses in such mass-evacuation plans became evident last year during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Before Rita hit the Gulf Coast, for example, Texas and Louisiana officials ordered more than 3 million residents to evacuate. Thousands were trapped for more than 10 hours in traffic jams afterward, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Clearing a 10-mile radius For the Jersey Shore, this is one way an evacuation could play out: A reactor accident at Oyster Creek forces plant officials to declare a general emergency, the highest-level warning. It signals that radiation releases are likely to drift beyond the plant's perimeter. Emergency sirens within a 10-mile radius of Oyster Creek would sound, and public officials would use radio stations to instruct residents in the areas that must be evacuated. Those told to leave would hit the roads and those told to remain indoors would be expected to do so. Those without vehicles would get rides from neighbors or friends. Those outside the evacuation zones would be told to stay put, but there would be no real way to enforce such a rule other than using roadblocks. In the evacuation zones, NJ Transit buses would be sent in to pick up people without cars. First aid squads, fire and police departments and Ocean County officials would help evacuate the infirm and handicapped people, the state plan says. If the evacuation were called during school hours, parents are not supposed to rush to schools to pick up their children. The pupils would be bused to central locations outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone. Law enforcement officials would control the flow of traffic and limit access into the 10-mile zones. Critics predict that congested roads, human behavior and Ocean County's growing population would lead to gridlock. But many officials say they think the evacuation plan, designed for up to 244,000 people on a peak summer day, would work. FEMA endorses plan In October, the Federal Emergency Management Agency reaffirmed its finding of "reasonable assurance" for Oyster Creek's plan that the health and safety of people around the plant will be protected during a nuclear accident, according to a FEMA letter. The preparedness directorate in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now responsible for reviewing radiological emergency response plans for nuclear power plants, including evacuation plans, said Mike Beeman, a spokesman for FEMA's Region II office in New York City. FEMA is also within the department. Bradley M. Campbell, the state Department of Environmental Protection commissioner until he left office Jan. 17, said DEP officials will closely scrutinize the evacuation plan. "I think there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed there," Campbell said. "I think Hurricane Katrina (which hit the Gulf Coast last summer) has highlighted the practical difficulties with large-scale evacuations, and we will be reviewing the evacuation plan with those issues in mind." In an October letter to an NRC official, Jill Lipoti, who directs the DEP's Division of Environmental Safety and Health, wrote: "Complacency in emergency planning is a very bad thing. "The thought that all emergency plans are just fine the way they are, and that no improvements are needed, simply does not pass the straight face test given governmental response to a recent natural disaster," Lipoti wrote. "Every plan can be improved." In its review of the state radiological emergency response plan, the Press found that: Municipal public works employees in at least three towns within 10 miles of the plant — Lacey, Stafford and Long Beach Township — haven't been trained in how to protect themselves from radiation exposure. Under the evacuation plan, municipal workers would be called upon to set up traffic control barriers and clear roads. County and state officials responsible for training such workers say it's up to each municipality to determine which employees will receive training. Several parents interviewed say they will disregard guidance from officials and go to schools to pick up their children. Parents showing up at schools would cause traffic problems, according to the state plan. The plan does not provide for traffic control outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone, according to Sgt. Thomas Scardino, assistant head of the State Police Radiological Emergency Response Planning Unit. Plan critics say many people outside the 10-mile zone who are not supposed to evacuate will leave anyway, jamming the roadways for the people who do need to evacuate. Scardino said traffic control outside the 10-mile zone could be added during an emergency. Diane Nase, a Brick bus driver who is a union vice president, said she's never received radiological training in 24 years, despite the fact that Brick would be called on to send 108 buses to evacuate schoolchildren in districts within the evacuation zones. Officials maintain that all bus drivers have been trained. Mike Ocskasy, a 36-year-old Passaic firefighter who lives in Lacey, said he thinks an evacuation due to an emergency at Oyster Creek would be "so chaotic." Jennifer Styler, 36, who works in sales and lives in Lacey, said, "I honestly don't think the town (of about 26,000) is prepared for it the way the town has expanded in the past couple of years." During an evacuation of Long Beach Island, people in Surf City and Ship Bottom would be told to stay put while people fleeing from towns north of those two boroughs would be told to drive right through, according to parts of the evacuation plan and instructions printed in telephone directories for Ocean County. "I doubt if you are going to have people who are willing to wait," Surf City resident Frank Cilluffo, 73, said. "I think a lot of people will panic." Will the plan work? Harvey Cedars Mayor Jonathan S. Oldham, who is the borough's emergency management coordinator, said he thinks evacuation as a result of a nuclear plant accident would be difficult in the summertime. The island has one way off — a four-lane bridge. "There isn't a ton of infrastructure to get people out," he said. But Dave Bossi, a Barnegat Light councilman and borough deputy emergency management coordinator, said he has "great faith" in the evacuation plan. "I have more faith in that than trying to convince people to leave" because of a hurricane, Bossi said. In 2004, Barnegat Light officials considered using fishing boats to evacuate people to the mainland. Ocean County Undersheriff Wayne R. Rupert said he believes the state's evacuation plan will work "if people will do what they're supposed to do when they're supposed to do it." "If you're on the upwind side of the plant and you're going to evacuate and get in the way of people (on) the downwind side of the plant, that's not a good idea," Rupert said. "You're only going to screw up the evacuation and not gain anything. "If everybody tried to evacuate the entire 10-mile ring (around the plant) all at the same moment, there would be a problem," he said. For any evacuation to be successful, "you've got to have compliance on the part of the people who are being evacuated" as well as among those not being evacuated so they don't get in the way, Rupert said. 20 evacuation areas Years ago, the NRC drew 10-mile radius circles around Oyster Creek and other nuclear plants to mark out emergency planning areas. The areas are numbered on maps in the blue pages of Ocean County telephone directories, where residents are referred for information about evacuations. With 20 mapped evacuation areas, the plan is for emergency managers to direct people to take cover or evacuate. Who gets told to move would depend on the nature of a plant accident and weather conditions, including wind speed and direction. Radioactive particles would drift with the wind. Suzanne Leta, an advocate with the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, an environmental and consumer activist group, said the NRC is not concerned about whether an evacuation plan might work 10 or 20 years from now. She believes that evacuation is "nearly impossible now." But NRC spokesman Sheehan said if FEMA says the emergency plan can't work in, say, 10 years, Oyster Creek would have to shut down. In 2004, then-Gov. James E. McGreevey sought an independent study of the emergency plan to "ensure plant safety" until 2009, when its current license expires, according to a letter he sent to AmerGen Energy Co., which runs Oyster Creek. Lipoti, of the DEP, said, "I guess when it comes to emergency planning, we think we've done a credible job." "But the idea of having independent reviewers is always a good idea," she said. "You know that we take our plan to the public each year with public hearings and ask for input . . . and we're never satisfied," Lipoti said. Officials feel that "there can constantly be improvements." Staff writer Joe Cacchioli contributed to this story. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or ; Nicholas Clunn: 609-978-4597 or ; Kirk Moore: (732) 557-5728 or (STAFF PHOTO: TIM MC CARTHY) "I cannot drive. How would I ever get out? I feel I'm in constant danger." Russell Goyette, a 63-year-old disabled Waretown resident who fears no one would come for him if an evacuation were ordered. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 News Tribune: Oyster Creek operator admits radiation risk Central Jersey] Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ASSOCIATED PRESS LACEY — A radiation barrier built inside the Oyster Creek nuclear plant has a 74 percent chance of failing should the plant's reactor core melt or its fuel be damaged in an accident, owner AmerGen Energy Co. said in relicensing application. The steel-and-concrete containment system, which surrounds the reactor and its nuclear fuel, is designed to condense steam and cool the reactor in an emergency. AmerGen Energy Co., said in a risk-assessment analysis that the radiation barrier is more likely than not to fail, Gannett New Jersey newspapers reported yesterday. The analysis was part of a 2,400-page license application aimed at keeping the plant open after its current license expires in 2009. That estimate would hold true only "in the highly unlikely event that there is a core-damage event," said Peter C. Resler, manager of nuclear communications for Exelon, which owns AmerGen. AmerGen is seeking permission to keep Oyster Creek open for another 20 years. It is the nation's oldest operating commercial nuclear plant, having opened in 1969. Copyright © 2006 Home News Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 APP.COM: Fired scientist says boss overruled reactor operators | Asbury Park Press Online Posted by the on 02/14/06 BY STAFF WRITER LACEY — Did a mid-level manager at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant overrule reactor operators and shut down two key water pumps? That is one of the allegations made by Paul E. Schwartz, a former Oyster Creek scientist who said he was fired for telling the truth about the events that led up to a major fish kill in September 2002. But AmerGen Energy Co., a subsidiary of Exelon Nuclear, which runs Oyster Creek, said Schwartz was fired for lying. The public may never know who is correct; Schwartz's whistle-blower lawsuit against the plant was settled out of court in October, and neither side will talk about it now. From the court record, this much is known: While off duty at his child's soccer game in 2002, Schwartz said he received a call from Stephen Bailey, his boss at Oyster Creek. Bailey asked Schwartz whether he could shut off two cooling pumps so that workers could prepare for a maintenance project, according to Schwartz's lawsuit. Schwartz said he told Bailey to check if doing so would violate a state environmental permit meant to protect sea life in the plant's cooling canal. In its response to the lawsuit, AmerGen said Schwartz changed his story. He first said he told Bailey the pumps could be shut down, and later, when the state launched a criminal probe, Schwartz said he told Bailey to review the permit first. The end result is not in dispute. The pumps were shut down, and 5,876 fish were cooked to death as the water temperature rose to 101 degrees in 95 minutes. The pumps draw cool water from the South Branch of the Forked River and combine it with heated water being discharged from the plant. This injection of cool water lessens the thermal impact on marine life in the man-made discharge canal. Schwartz's account fits with Exelon's record of putting profits before public safety, said Suzanne Leta, an advocate with the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group. "It's a good example of the Exelon way, which is not really the right way," she said. According to the lawsuit, control-room operators — engineers responsible for running the reactor safely — also warned Bailey against taking the pumps offline. "Before the pumps were shut down, representatives of the (plant) knew that the shutdown would violate the permit because employees in the control room told management," a lawyer for Schwartz claimed. Lawyers for the plant denied the claim that control-room operators and Schwartz had told Bailey to check the environmental permit. Schwartz was fired in March 2003. According to a brief filed by plant lawyers, Schwartz "unequivocally told Mr. Bailey that the plant could shut down the dilution pumps and that he would come in early the next morning to notify the NJDEP and obtain any requisite approvals." But Schwartz recanted that version during a meeting with company lawyers, according to the brief. The meeting was meant to prepare him for an interview with a state investigator looking into criminal sanctions related to the fish kill. In his suit, Schwartz said company managers fired him in retaliation for planning to tell the truth to state investigators about what happened. Schwartz now works for the state Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, where he was hired in August 2003 as a nuclear engineer. He is paid an annual salary of $70,300. Schwartz did not respond to interview requests, and his lawyer declined to discuss the case. AmerGen also declined to talk about it and would not say if Bailey still works at the plant. According to an AmerGen report on the fish kill for the NRC, the pumps were shut down after managers wanted to perform maintenance on the transformer that powered them. The work was meant to increase the level of safety during an upcoming outage. No criminal charges were filed, but the incident cost AmerGen $1 million in a 2004 settlement that included the company and two state agencies. When announcing the deal, then-DEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell called it the state's largest clean-water enforcement settlement involving a reactor. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or [E-mail] E-mail Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 APP.COM: Escaping could take 9 1/2 hours | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, February 14, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER It could take up to 9 1/2 hours to evacuate the entire 10-mile ring around the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, depending on the season, time of day and the weather, according to the state's evacuation plan. Some people may be asked to "shelter in place" — go indoors or stay in a car, according to the State Police's "Community Emergency Planning Information" for Oyster Creek. The 10-mile zone is divided into 20 emergency response planning areas. If an evacuation were necessary, planning areas would be evacuated as units, the state plan says. The State Police expect up to 244,000 people to be in the zone on a peak summer day, based on estimates derived from 2000 U.S. Census data. An outdoor siren system is the primary way of initially alerting the public within 10 miles of Oyster Creek. If a siren fails to go off, teams in vehicles with public address systems or portable equipment will be dispatched, the plan says. After being alerted, the public would listen to local radio stations for further instructions. Staff writers Nicholas Clunn and Kirk Moore contributed to this story. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com [E-mail] ***************************************************************** 38 APP.COM: Mass chaos feared if too many leave | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, February 14, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER When a Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania had a meltdown in 1979, about 3,400 preschool children and pregnant women living within five miles of the plant were advised to leave. But about 144,000 people within 15 miles evacuated, some within 25 miles also left, and even many doctors did not show up for work at hospitals, according to reports and a post-evacuation study. Nearly 27 years later, one can't assume that only those told to evacuate will do so during an emergency, said Brendan Hoffman, campaign organizer with Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. Mass chaos during an evacuation in the Oyster Creek area is "a very real possibility," Hoffman said. "Hopefully, it would never come to that. If there was a need to evacuate, I'm concerned that an evacuation is just untenable." Officials say they're aware of the so-called shadow evacuation, but they believe their plans will deal with it. A shadow evacuation is when people who aren't supposed to evacuate during an emergency leave anyway, potentially jamming roads and preventing those who are being evacuated from exiting harm's way. "Part of our compensation for that shadow is to have rigorous traffic control" in areas being evacuated, said Jon Christiansen, a planner in the State Police Radiological Emergency Response Planning Unit. New Jersey's radiation emergency plan does not provide for traffic control outside the Oyster Creek nuclear plant's 10-mile evacuation zone, said Sgt. Thomas Scardino, assistant unit head. But "that doesn't preclude us" from providing traffic control there, he said. "You have to adapt to the situation," Scardino said. "You can't put every situation in the plan. You have to be flexible and dynamic." "We saw that down in New Orleans" during Hurricane Katrina last year, he said. "The plan had to be modified in the middle of the response." State officials will have a better handle on the shadow effect problem this year, State Police planner Christiansen said. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has commissioned Sandia National Laboratories to study the effectiveness of evacuations for nuclear power plants and other emergency events, both natural or technological, he said. He thinks in "some regard, the shadow effect is exaggerated," he said. Scardino said a big backup on the roads during an emergency at Oyster Creek is possible, but not expected. "We understand there's going to be spontaneous evacuation and shadow evacuations," he said. "We would caution the public, though, to follow the guidance that's given over the emergency alert system and follow the evacuation routes." Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com [E-mail] Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 AGI: ENERGY: SCAJOLA, NUCLEAR COMMITMENT Agenzia Giornalistica Italia - News In English Wednesday February 15, 2006 h.07.50 Italy On Line Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office (AGI) - Genoa, Feb. 13 - "Genoa has a nuclear history, a story that was at the forefront of the world but a disastrous choice, bad historical information and motivation at the time meant that the project was abandoned". With these words the productive Activity Minister, Claudio Scajola proposed a centre of research excellence at the UILM convention on "the role of Genoa's industry in a national economic context". On the energy crisis Scajola repeated his Confindustria assembly discussion back in April when he spoke about the need to safeguard the environment and not invade the atmosphere with gas while at the same time guaranteeing more energy because without energy there is no progress. "The answer is nuclear. Ansaldo Nucleare took off last month, we have accompanied our French, American and Eastern European agencies. It is a journey that we must take". The minister continued, "There is a safe nuclear that can be used and a nuclear future. The energy sector is very committed and we are working on G8 preparation on Energy taking place in Moscow at the end of March where it will be necessary to speak very clearly about the energy just as we will in Brussels with the extraordinary council called at our request and that of the European industry and energy ministers to face the theme of security". (AGI) - 132300 FEB 06 COPYRIGHTS 2002-2005 AGI S.p.A. [Invia questo articolo] ***************************************************************** 40 TheStar.com: Nuclear power proposal slammed Tue. Feb. 14, 2006. | Updated at 10:42 AM Plan proposes $40B in new Ontario stations Consultation process described as a sham PETER GORRIE AND MIKE FUNSTON STAFF REPORTERS A plan that recommends $40 billion worth of new nuclear power for Ontario was slammed at public hearings last night in Toronto and Mississauga. At the Toronto meeting more than 250 people appeared just as angry about what they described as a sham three-day consultation process that continues today and tomorrow across the province. In Mississauga, even before moderator John Crane finished his opening remarks to about 150 people, Greenpeace representative Dave Martin slammed the legitimacy of the process. "We are getting three days of consultation this week on 11 days' notice and we are expected to produce comments off the cuff and we're being told this is good public consultation. I don't think so," said Martin. "The (pro-nuclear) bias of the minister of energy is coming out loud and clear," said Kim Fry, who has started a group called Mothers Against Nuclear. Yesterday's public hearings come on the heels of a report by the Ontario Power Authority that recommended nuclear energy should continue to represent about half of the province's electricity supply up to 2025. Jeff Leal, parliamentary assistant to Energy Minister Donna Cansfield, however, suggested last night that the plan's hostile reception might delay a final decision. Speaker after speaker last night argued nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and dangerous to the environment and human health. But several representatives of the nuclear industry extolled the virtues of nuclear power. Nuclear physicist Nathalie Gagnon demonstrated a model of a nuclear fuel bundle about one metre long powered by eight tiny radioactive pellets. She said it could provide power to a home for 100 years without any air pollution. She urged people not to be afraid of nuclear power, adding people tend to associate it with nuclear weapons and it's the not same thing. The Ontario Power Authority was created by the provincial Liberal government to plan for the province's looming electricity crisis, which includes aging nuclear power plants, a plan to shut down coal-powered generating plans and warnings that downtown Toronto risks rolling blackouts in two years. Other speakers said the government has not only underestimated the potential of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, but has also undermined those efforts with its announcement last Friday of the low price cap on the electricity consumed by industry. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: In the Matter of Duke Energy Corporation; Order Approving FR Doc E6-2022 [Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)] [Notices] [Page 7802-7803] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14fe06-103] Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring and Approving Conforming Amendments ------- (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2).. Docket No. 50-413. Docket No. 50-414. Renewed License No. NPF-35. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2).. Docket No. 50-369. Docket No. 50-370. Renewed License No. NPF-9. Renewed License No. NPF-17. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket No. 50-269. ) and Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Docket No. 50-270. Storage Installation). Docket No. 50-287. Docket No. 72-004. Renewed License No. DPR-38. Renewed License No. DPR-47. Renewed License No. DPR-55. License No. SNM-2503. Renewed License No. NPF-52. I. Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy), the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., are the holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1. Duke Energy, the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1, and the Piedmont Municipal Power Agency are the holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. The Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, is located in York County, South Carolina. Duke Energy is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The McGuire Nuclear Station is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Duke Energy is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, which authorize the possession, use, and operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Materials License No. SNM-2503, which authorizes operation of the Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The Oconee Nuclear Station and the ISFSI are located in Oconee County, South Carolina. II. By application dated August 5, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 28 and December 14, 2005, and February 6, 2006, Duke Energy requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.80 (10 CFR 50.80), consent to the indirect license transfers that would be effected by the indirect transfer of control of Duke Energy's ownership and/or operating interests in Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (the Duke nuclear units) and the Oconee ISFSI. This action is being sought as a result of a corporate restructuring involving the creation of a new holding company which will become the parent of Duke Energy. The new holding company, to be named Duke Energy Corporation (referred to herein as New Duke Energy, to distinguish it from the licensee, Duke Energy), will be created in connection with the merger of Duke Energy with Cinergy Corporation (Cinergy). Duke Energy will convert its corporate form to a limited liability company (LLC) without interruption of its legal existence and be renamed Duke Power Company LLC (Duke Power). The holders of the Catawba Nuclear Station Renewed Facility Operating Licenses other than Duke Energy are not involved in this action. Approval of the indirect transfer of the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the Oconee ISFSI License was requested by Duke Energy pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, respectively. Approval of conforming license amendments was requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and 72.56. Three notices entitled, ``Notice of Consideration of Approval of Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring and Conforming Amendments, and Opportunity for a Hearing,'' were published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2005 (70 FR 77430 (Catawba), 70 FR 77429 (McGuire), and 70 FR 77428 (Oconee)). No comments or hearing requests were received. Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.50, no license shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application by Duke Energy and other information before the Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the subject corporate restructuring will not affect the qualifications of Duke Energy, converted to Duke Power, to hold the licenses to the same extent now held by Duke Energy, and that the indirect [[Page 7803]] transfer of the licenses effected by the restructuring is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of laws, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto. The NRC staff has further found that the applications for the proposed license amendments comply with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; the facilities will operate in conformity with the applications, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendments can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of the proposed license amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and the issuance of the proposed amendments will be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated February 7, 2006. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, It is hereby ordered that the application regarding the proposed corporate restructuring and indirect license transfers is approved, subject to the following condition: Duke Power shall provide the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy of any application, at the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding grants of security interests or liens) from Duke Power to its parent, or to any other affiliated company, facilities for the production, transmission, or distribution of electric energy having a depreciated book value exceeding ten percent (10%) of Duke Power's net utility plant, as recorded on its books of account. It is further ordered that consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), license amendments that make changes, as indicated in Enclosures 2 through 9 to the cover letter forwarding this Order, to reflect the subject restructuring action are approved. The amendments shall be issued and made effective at the time the proposed restructuring action is completed. It is further ordered that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed corporate restructuring and/or merger between Duke Energy and Cinergy Corporation, Duke Energy shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt within 5 business days and of the date of the closing of the restructuring no later than 2 business days prior to the date of closing. Should the proposed restructuring not be completed by February 1, 2007, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated August 5, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated November 28 and December 14, 2005, and February 6, 2006, and the safety evaluation dated February 7, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. E. William Brach, Director, Spent Fuel Project, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-2022 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 globeandmail.com: Ontario utility eyes two sites for nuclear reactors POSTED AT 5:09 AM EST ON 14/02/06 OPG holds early talks with regulators on building new plant east of Toronto MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT From Tuesday's Globe and Mail TORONTO — Ontario Power Generation has held preliminary discussions with federal regulators about building a new nuclear plant, east of Toronto, which, if approved, would be the province's first since construction of the Darlington station began a quarter century ago. OPG senior executives met top officials at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in November and discussed new construction at one of two potential sites, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail. One of the documents, a briefing note about the meeting written by nuclear regulators, says OPG "has two potential sites that may be available for a new build," one at Darlington, about 70 km east of Toronto, where space exists for another station beside the existing nuclear power plant, and the other at Wesleyville, just outside the community of Port Hope. Among those at the meeting were Linda Keen, the CNSC's president and CEO. Pierre Charlebois, OPG's chief nuclear officer, requested the meeting. After the meeting, Ms. Keen sent an e-mail instructing regulatory staff to help OPG, which is owned by the Ontario government, work on the environmental assessment and licensing processes needed to build a new station and refurbish some older reactors. The environmental group Greenpeace obtained the documents through a federal access to information request. The documents are politically sensitive because the province and OPG have steadfastly claimed that no decision to build new reactors has been made. "OPG is not considering anything as a site. We have no mandate for that," utility spokesman John Earl said yesterday. But the mention that actual sites are available is the first formal indication that work on the location for a new station has begun, and that tentative discussions with regulators have started. New nuclear plants are not about to spout on Ontario's landscape any time soon. Regulators have estimated that it would take about a decade from the formal announcement of a new plant until the finished reactors start pumping juice into the electricity grid. Two weeks after the meeting between OPG and federal regulators, the Ontario Power Authority, the agency responsible for the province's electricity planning, issued a report recommending new reactors, among other sources of energy, to help Ontario alleviate a looming electricity shortage. When the report was released, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised the government would hold "a very important conversation" with Ontarians before committing to new nuclear stations. The province is holding meetings this week to canvass public reaction to the OPA report, but the indication that some nuclear planning is already under way has caused anger. "The consultations this week are more or less a sham," contended Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "Our energy plans are being concocted in the back rooms." In the documents, regulators said the Darlington site has the advantage of being "virtually ready for construction to begin" because it was originally designed to accommodate two large nuclear stations. But regulators were worried that "major population areas are beginning to encroach on the site." At Wesleyville, OPG owns a large site where it planned to build an oil-fired station, but cancelled the project around 1976. "The advantage of this site is that it is further removed from major population areas compared to Darlington," the document said. Mr. Stensil said nuclear plants shouldn't be built near population centres because of the accident risk. "It is a legitimate concern. The risk of an accident is small, but Chernobyl did happen," he said. There was no discussion in the documents about the kind of technology that would be used in any plant and whether it would use Canadian-designed CANDU reactors. In her e-mail, sent to Ian Grant, director general of power reactor regulation, Ms. Keen said she believed OPG had a "lack of understanding" about environmental planning, and needed help from regulators to navigate through the process. "I do not wish to imply that CNSC staff should do OPG's job for them, but perhaps some steering at the beginning could get them on the right track so they can produce the right documents later," she wrote. She also said the utility would be helped in its planning for constructing a new nuclear station when the CNSC releases a new reactor licensing procedure, expected to be made public next week. Ontario's nuclear options Ontario has five nuclear generating stations, many of whose reactors will need to be refurbished over the next decade. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has two sites suitable for a new nuclear station, which would be the first for the province in a quarter century. CURRENT NUCLEAR SITES Pickering A and B Pickering A: Construction started in 1965. Four reactors; two operating and two mothballed. Pickering B: Construction started in 1974, and four reactors are in full operation. Bruce A and B: Bruce A: Construction started in 1970. Four reactors; two operating and two being refurbished. Bruce B: Construction started in 1976, and its four reactors are in full operation. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station: Construction started in 1981. Four reactors are in full operation. POTENTIAL SITES FOR NEW PLANTS Wesleyville: An OPG-owned site that regulators say has the advantage of being far from population centres. Darlington Nuclear Generating Station: OPG is discussing refurbishment to extend the plant's life. + © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 43 Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Nuke plant powers down Business News - 02/14/2006 SHIPPINGPORT - Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, began a regularly scheduled outage Monday, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. announced. The plant is expected to return to service in May. The work will include making a temporary opening in the containment building, replacing the reactor head and generators with new and improved components, and resealing and testing the building. In addition, 60 of the plant's 157 fuel assemblies in the reactor core will be replaced. Unit 1 had operated safely and reliably for a unit-record 456 days when it was taken off line, the company said. ©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2006 Copyright © 1995 - 2006 PowerOne Media, Inc.All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Middletown Press: Low radiation levels found at Yankee plant News - 02/14/2006 By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown Press Staff02/14/2006 Commission report confirms that soil, bedrock and concrete taken from the Connecticut Yankee plant in November contains low levels of radiation. "Any contamination that exists is at low levels," said Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman. "It does not pose a threat to the public or workers at the site." The NRC in January said trace amounts of radiation were found in the soil, bedrock and concrete. The material was removed after Connecticut Yankee workers in November discovered radiation in a four-foot by four-foot area of dirt when they were excavating around the spent-fuel pool. Officials initially said radioactive isotopes had seeped through hair-line cracks that were found in the pool’s outer wall. A white substance identified as boron by officials was found on the cracks, indicating there might have been a leak. Boron is a nonmetallic element that was placed in the pool to prevent nuclear fission. According to the NRC report, water did not leak from the pool. The white substance, the report says, was not boron. First Selectman Tony Bondi said he was pleased by the NRC findings, but added more radiation could be found as decommissioning continues. "We should not let our ground down," said Bondi. Connecticut Yankee, which began decommissioning its plant in 1998, had stored spent-fuel rods in the pool. The last of the spent-fuel rods and reactor vessel metal pieces were placed in casks that were brought to a storage pad three-quarters of a mile away from the plant site. Kelley Smith, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman, said the pool has been drained. The water, Smith said, has been processed and released through the discharge canal into the Connecticut River. "It had to comply with state and federal regulations before the discharge," said Smith. As a part of the decommissioning, the pool’s building will be demolished in the spring. The concrete containment dome will be destroyed by the end of 2006. "Decommissioning is progressing well," said Smith. To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or e-mail jmrozinski@middletownpress.com ©The Middletown Press 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 OrlandoSentinel.com: FPL provides details of merging nuclear units - Posted February 14, 2006 The nuclear divisions of FPL Group and Constellation Energy could be combined in the companies' planned merger, the two utility companies said in an SEC filing on Monday. Juno Beach-based FPL Group announced its plan to acquire Baltimore-based Constellation Energy in December. The all-stock deal is worth more than $11 billion. FPL Group, the parent of utility Florida Power & Light, said in its filing that the location of the nuclear division for the merged companies would be "determined during the integration process." FPL's nuclear division is based in Juno Beach while Constellation's is in Baltimore. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Ken Clark said there are normally no major issues when two companies decide to merge nuclear operations. The NRC also must approve the FPL merger. He pointed to Southern Cos., which has nuclear power plants in Georgia and Alabama, and Progress Energy with plants in North Carolina and Florida. Companies that combine nuclear operations have to demonstrate financial wherewithal and the ability to conduct safe operations, he said. Florida Power & Light's nuclear power plants and support personnel employ about 2,750 workers in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa. The nuclear power assets of the combined companies would make it No. 3 in the nation in nuclear power generation, according to FPL. FPL also said fossil and renewable generation would be headquartered in Juno Beach. The retail and wholesale power distribution would remain in Baltimore, the filing says. The utilities would remain headquartered in Miami and Baltimore. FP&L provides service in parts of Central Florida. The combined companies are expected to employ about 21,750 people. There will be "normal attrition," FPL said that will take care of most job redundancies. The merger is expected to result in $200 million to $250 million in annual savings after about three years, FPL says. Those savings will be reached both through growth of the businesses and jobs lost through normal attrition, according to FPL. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel is a Tribune Publishing newspaper. Copyright © 2006, Orlando Sentinel| ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: Speech - 002 - “New Plant Design, Certification and Licensing” Commission Documents > Commission Speeches > 2006 > S-06-002 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site No. S-06-002 PDF Version[PDF Icon] Presentation Slides [PDF Icon] "NEW PLANT DESIGN, CERTIFICATION AND LICENSING" Remarks as Prepared for Delivery Chairman Nils J. Diaz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Platts Conference Washington, D.C. February 13, 2006 Good morning. Thank you for the kind introduction, and thanks to Platts for the opportunity to present my views on Nuclear Energy: Opportunities for Growth and Investment in North America. Indeed, it is a pleasure to be here today, at a time when our nation, and many other nations, have to address national security, energy security, and economic security holistically, and when nuclear energy generation is being seriously considered as one of the solutions. It is always a challenge to speak first at a large meeting dealing with a broad range of dynamic issues, including sociopolitical, financial, economic, energy security, and, yes, regulatory issues, every one of them important to the potential growth and utilization of nuclear energy. However, I noticed, with pleasure, that Secretary Bodman will be speaking right after me. This is a unique opportunity for me to offer short, polite, bland remarks and pass the buck to Secretary Bodman. I would probably get away with it too. But I wont do it. I believe that safe, reliable, and secure nuclear energy has been and can continue to be part of the solution to energy security and environmental stewardship, and thus contribute to the well-being of our people. I also believe that this next time around, nuclear power plant deployment should be carefully planned and key issues and interfaces resolved at the front end, executed on budget and on schedule, with all the safety and engineering know-how developed and learned over the last 25 years. The development, review, and potential deployment of reactors must contain all the safety checks and balances required by the law and demanded by the need to ensure the protection and security of our people. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has new and difficult issues to resolve in a short period of time to discharge well our licensing responsibilities, while not missing a step in our continuing safety oversight of nuclear facilities and materials. We realize the full scope of our responsibilities, are facing them with all our resources, and plan to do them well, and do them openly. Therefore, I must today answer broad questions for a broad audience. First, where does the Commission stand overall? This Commission clearly, deliberately, and openly set the objective that governs our activities. The Commission stated in its Strategic Plan that the NRCs objective is to: Enable the use and management of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels for beneficial civilian purposes in a manner that protects public health and safety and the environment, promotes the security of our nation, and provides for regulatory actions that are open, effective, efficient, realistic, and timely. From my vantage point, I can tell you that the NRC is true to this objective, and the agency will continue to be true to it. To further this objective, we continue to improve the organization, to prioritize, manage, and use resources well, and to revisit and create ways to better implement every major agency function. I believe the agency has achieved and continues to achieve results that leave no doubt of the agency-wide commitment to the objective of enabling the beneficial uses of nuclear energy, within the proven and improving safety framework for which we are responsible, in an effective, efficient, realistic, and timely manner. In fact, we have the record to prove it, and any occasional mistake or deficiency becomes obvious because it is the exception to the rule. And when such a mistake occurs, we take care of it. Therefore, I do get concerned when I hear and read about perceptions of NRC regulatory instability or lack of regulatory predictability. I want to be completely clear on this: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a regulatory agency with a high degree of predictability for a given set of circumstances. But we are not miracle workers; the agency will work well, and better, when we have high quality inputs and, correspondingly, well-defined processes, tasks, and schedules. Obviously, a multitude of circumstances will define the playing field. A lot of the buzz centers around the predictability of outcomes from the use of 10 CFR Part 52, which contains the requirements for Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses (COL) for Nuclear Power Plants. Outcomes depend on many factors, and one of the key factors is the quality of the application submitted. Timely outcomes also depend on the planning and processes that I will discuss today. It is true that the combined license component of Part 52 has not yet been used. Clearly, we now have experience with early site permits and extensive experience with design certifications. The reality is that the staff and the Commission also have extensive experience in performing the critical elements of a COL review. We have learned much from these experiences, which include safety evaluations, environmental impact assessments, ACRS reviews, public interactions, Federal/State/local interactions, and public hearings. The primary purpose for establishing the new Part 52 process for licensing nuclear power facilities was to encourage early resolution of issues to increase regulatory predictability in advance of major financial commitments, while maintaining the requisite safety reviews. Yet, questions are frequently asked about whether the use of Part 52 will provide regulatory predictability at the COL stage. I believe that some are questioning the regulatory predictability for new reactors mainly because of two particular aspects of this new Part 52: the mandatory hearing that must precede a decision to issue a COL and the potential for a second hearing prior to fuel loading. The NRC is established with an adjudicatory Board consisting of legal and technical members, with the capability and legal authority to conduct hearings and rigorous reviews of alleged deficiencies in applications. Although the agency has not processed a COL application and therefore has not been through a hearing for these aspects of the Part 52 process, the Commission and its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have extensive experience with licensing and with adjudications for various types of facilities. Recently, we have been conducting mandatory hearing proceedings, and, for the most part, they have proceeded in an organized and timely fashion. It is noteworthy that Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Commission decisions have consistently been upheld when challenged in courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Moreover, this Commission has a record that stands out in assuring that adjudication is fair and equitable, as well as effective and efficient. In 1998 we issued a Policy Statement on conduct of our hearings that set the stage for efficient conduct of proceedings on license renewals and license transfers. We followed that statement with a revision of our rules of practice to improve the accessibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of the hearing process. The Commission has provided model schedules to guide our Boards and expedite adjudicatory proceedings for both pending and future proceedings. It has also required the participants to comply with NRC procedural rules. Litigating COL adjudicatory proceedings will undoubtedly present new possibilities for promoting both effective and efficient resolution of issues, particularly with respect to common issues. For example, for cases proceeding in parallel, a party may seek, or a Board may convene, separate Licensing Boards to resolve discrete, common issues in a consistent fashion and in parallel with the resolution of other issues. The point here: A final decision on an issue that is common to a number of cases can become precedent setting, potentially reducing the need to revisit it in future cases. Thorough and sound work by all involved when issues are first presented will be key to take advantage of these potential efficiencies. Let me briefly address the potential for a second hearing. The threshold for granting such a hearing is high. If a plant is built in accordance with the license, then the Commission has the capability, and in fact the obligation and the responsibility, to allow the plant to operate. If a hearing is granted, operation may be permitted for an interim period while the hearing is conducted. Part 52 provides criteria and procedures under which the Commission must and will ensure that no frivolous means are used to create a second hearing. However, the responsibility rests squarely on the applicants to maintain a complete and accurate record, showing that the facility is constructed and will be operated in accordance with the license, to allow the NRC to confidently make the necessary findings. A couple of personal comments. I do not mind when the NRC is called demanding on safety, exacting and driven on security and emergency preparedness, intrusive on oversight; or to the contrary not sufficiently demanding in these areas. If I do not know the answer to any of these challenges, I will check and probe to make sure we are where we should be pursuant to the law and Commission policy, but I dont mind being questioned. But unpredictable? No way. When we talk about predictability for licensing new reactors, I believe that we need to talk about overall predictability, not only NRCs. Predictability begins when an applicant starts to consider an application, and extends through licensing, construction, and operation of the facility. With the present projected schedules, and the need to establish the requisite infrastructure to meet those demanding schedules, resolving significant issues at the front end becomes very important. The industry and the NRC can and should do much better than in the 70's and 80's. Having said that, let me just emphasize that predictability in reactor licensing is everybodys business; and the NRC accepts its share of the responsibility. I will now turn to how the NRC is addressing, predictably, the issue of new reactor licensing and our internal and external expectations. The Commission just approved a proposal to revise 10 CFR Part 52 to clarify it and enhance its usability. I know that the proposed changes to Part 52 are extensive, and it has been argued that some of these are marginally beneficial. However, we can benefit from a better and clearer Part 52 that would facilitate the upcoming safety reviews for new plants. I encourage all stakeholders to submit their comments on the proposed rule early so that the staff can finish its work on this rulemaking in October 2006 and the Commission can make its decision. What we need to do at this point is to get this rulemaking done. One of the planned activities for new reactor licensing is in the area of security. The NRC has three important security rulemakings planned or underway to codify security requirements for power reactors. The first is the rulemaking on the design basis threat for radiological sabotage. The proposed rule is currently out for public comment and a final rule will be issued later this year. The second rulemaking will amend the power reactor security regulations in 10 CFR 73.55, 73.56, 73.57, and Part 73 appendices to align them with the series of orders the Commission issued following September 11, 2001, and to ensure safety-security interface issues are properly considered in plant operations. The Commission intends to finalize this rule as early in calendar year 2007 as possible. Finally, the Commissions expectations on security design for new reactor licensing activities are to be codified in a third rulemaking by September 2007. The expectation of the Commission is that the lessons learned by the agency and reactor licensees pre- and post-9/11/2001 should be considered by the vendors at the design stage. We have learned much and I believe improvements can be realized without major design or construction changes. To set the stage for my next set of comments, I would like to discuss where potential applicants are today, in the dynamic front of new reactor applications. To date, 11 potential COL applications have been publicly announced, distributed among the 3 major reactor vendors now competing for the U.S. marketplace. Nine months to a year represents a schedule for completion of any contested proceeding, which begins early in the staff review process, as well as the mandatory hearing, which follows completion of the staffs review. In order to effectively review multiple COL applications in parallel, the staff is now preparing to implement a design-centered approach for NRCs reviews of COL applications, to the extent possible, for as many issues as possible. This approach involves the use, for each issue, of one review and one position for multiple applications. It could also be called the one-for-all approach. It is ready for use now; however, it needs the nuclear industrys commitment. One-for-all is one thorough, comprehensive NRC safety evaluation to be used repeatedly, as appropriate. Although the U.S. nuclear industry has not necessarily been endowed with oneness, the one-for-all approach might not be too bad for those who plan to apply for COLs. Using the design-centered approach, the NRC staff would use a single technical evaluation to support multiple combined license applications for the same technical area of review, as long as the applications standardize the licensing basis to a level that would make this approach viable. For technical review areas amenable to this approach, the staff can complete the evaluation for a reference case, can determine if the design proposed by other applicants is the same as the design reviewed, and proceed to issue the evaluation, without further review. Let me emphasize, again, that standardization is key for this approach to work; in fact, the term oneness comes to mind. Last revised Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 SFSS: FPL and Constellation may combine nuclear units during planned merger South Florida Sun-Sentinel [Sun-Sentinel.com] [Web enhanced by Google] By Marcia Heroux Pounds Posted February 14 2006 The nuclear divisions of FPL Group Inc. and Constellation Energy Group Inc. could be combined in the companies' planned merger, the two utility companies said in a Securities and Exchange filing on Monday. Juno Beach-based FPL Group announced its plan to acquire Baltimore-based Constellation Energy in December. The stock-for-stock deal is worth more than $11 billion. FPL Group, the parent of Miami-based utility Florida Power & Light, said in its filing that the location of the nuclear division for the merged companies would be "determined during the integration process." FPL's nuclear division is based in Juno Beach while Constellation's is in Baltimore. Ken Clark, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where the merger also must be approved, said there are normally no major issues when two companies decide to merge nuclear operations. He pointed to Southern Cos., which has nuclear power plants in Georgia and Alabama, and Progress Energy with plants in North Carolina and Florida. Companies that combine nuclear operations have to demonstrate financial wherewithal and the ability to conduct safe operations, he said. Florida Power & Light's nuclear power plants and support personnel employ about 2,750 workers in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa. The nuclear power assets of the combined companies would make it No. 3 in the nation in nuclear power generation, according to FPL. In an "employee FAQ" filed with the SEC, FPL also said fossil and renewable generation would be headquartered in Juno Beach. The retail and wholesale power distribution would remain in Baltimore, the filing says. The utilities would remain headquartered in Miami and Baltimore. The combined companies are expected to employ about 21,750 people. There will be "normal attrition," FPL said, that will take care of most job redundancies. The merger is expected to result in $200 million to $250 million in annual savings after the combined company has been in operation for three years, FPL said. Those savings will be reached both through growth of the businesses and jobs lost through normal attrition, according to FPL. Arthur Drago, a merger specialist who is chief executive of Strategic Capital Advisors in Fort Lauderdale, said there has to be a "compensating factor" to any merger. "Ultimately, that's what's going to make the acquisition or merger work. The economies of scale have to be there." FPL and Constellation Energy also reported to the SEC that late last week the companies filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeking approval of the merger agreement. The regulatory review process is expected to take between nine and 12 months. Marcia Heroux Pounds can be reached at mpounds@sun-sentinel.com or 561-243-6650. Copyright 2006, Sun-Sentinel Co. & South Florida Interactive Inc. Sun-Sentinel.com, 200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ***************************************************************** 48 CBC Toronto: Consultation too short, nuclear critics say Last updated Feb 14 2006 07:54 AM EST The provincial government heard fierce criticism Monday at a Toronto meeting to get public feedback on its plans for new electricity generation. The meeting was one of 12 scheduled across the province this week. Participants were asked to tell the government what they think about a proposal from the Ontario Power Authority to spend as much as $40 billion on new nuclear power plants. Instead, they told the meeting that the amount of public consultation was woefully inadequate for a decision of this magnitude. "How can you decide on such a big amount in three days of consultation?" asked Jack Alawar. "It's outright ridiculous." "The premier and [Energy Minister Donna] Cansfield owe us a serious process of public consultation with much more time for input and discussion," added Phyllis Creighton. Cansfield's parliamentary assistant, MPP Jeff Leal, was at the Toronto meeting, and said he would pass along criticisms he heard about the "format and process" of the public consultations. Leal also said that, despite skepticism from the audience, an expansion of nuclear power in Ontario is not a done deal. The Ministry of Energy is also accepting feedback on its website. + MINISTRY OF ENERGY: The next public meetings are Wednesday in Thunder Bay, Kingston, Oshawa and St. Catharines. © CBC 2006 ***************************************************************** 49 barrow in furness: Clean-up to take 70 years [North-West Evening Mail] Published on 13/02/2006 NUCLEAR STRONGHOLD: The Sellafield site, where work could continue for another 70 years, according to Sir Anthony Cleaver THERE is enough nuclear clean-up work at Sellafield to last for the next 70 years, Cumbrian business leaders were told. Sir Anthony Cleaver, Chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, said the massive project could be a springboard for local companies to win contracts worldwide. Sir Anthony was speaking at Cumbria CBI’s annual dinner held at the Castle Green Hotel in Kendal. He explained that the NDA will spend Ł5.5bn on the four Sellafield sites over the next five years. “That is guaranteed income for the county which should be something on which we can build for the future,” he added. Sir Anthony said the work would attract international companies to the area and he told local firms: “If you are able to impress them, that gives you a real platform to expand abroad with them. “At a site like Sellafield we have probably 70 years of work ahead. There are very few organisations that can say there is clearly work well into the future.” The NDA, whose headquarters is at Westlakes, near Whitehaven, has 110 of its 180 staff based in Cumbria. It expects to spend Ł56bn altogether on decommissioning the UK’s nuclear sites, with an annual budget of around Ł2bn. Sir Anthony praised Cumbria for making the NDA feel at home, saying: “Everybody that we have had to work with has been enormously helpful. “We have really been very pleased with the way in which we have been received.” ***************************************************************** 50 [DU List] Gulf war veteran anounces Candidacy for San Jose Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:37:07 -0800 Gulf War Veteran Announces Candidacy for San José City Council San Jose, CA – February 13, 2006 -- Disabled combat veteran Dennis Kyne is taking on a new enemy - but this time it’s not on foreign soil and it’s not for the benefit of a few oil companies. This time around it’s to end political indifference, fiscal mismanagement and mayoral scandals that have plagued the city he loves. Dennis hopes to bring his own style of leadership to San José as he has done in service to the country. He’s always been a passionate spokesperson for the truth – even when it’s not popular to speak out. While witnessing thousands of troops die over the past five years, Dennis felt is was his duty to educate young people about the dangers of war and exposure to Depleted Uranium munitions, which remain radioactive for 4.7 billion years. The health effects on U.S. military and Iraqi civilians are devastating. And he should know… In addition to serving fifteen years in the U.S. Army (which included the front lines as a battlefield medic), Dennis also worked on behalf of homeless veterans, trying to help them find a place to live and the medical treatment they deserve. While many who served in 1991 are sick and dying from exposure to DU, the U.S. military currently uses twice the amount on Iraq as they did 12 years ago. That means our sons and daughters (as well as the global environment) are in immanent danger right now. When people say Support the Troops, Dennis says it’s more important to Support the Truth. Dennis also proved his leadership skills when the devastation of Hurricane Katrina swept into New Orleans. As part of a four person team that raised $500,000 and hundreds of tons of food for victims, he also helped open up a functional supply line to southern Louisiana. "We're not counting on the government to take care of us anymore,” Dennis told reporters. “They've already proven they won't." If elected city councilman for District 3 in San José, Dennis wants to achieve the following; - Fiscal Restraint with Social Responsibility: According to Dennis, spending habits are way off mark in San José. “We can’t burn through millions of dollars to fund a better podium to pontificate from when we live in an area with such ethnic diversity,” Kyne told reporters this week. “It is estimated that immigrants from some 16 countries live in this county. There needs to be a lot more attention on the many issues of concern for our newest Americans.” - A Downtown for All: Dennis believes that community centers in San José deserve to be funded well before the salaries of elected officials are negotiated. “Don’t our children deserve a place to play in peace, free from toxins, violence and fear of hunger?” Dennis asks. “As the tenth largest city in America, we have an obligation to do the best we can for others.” - Other Issues: Dennis promises a plan to address the city’s unemployment rate and improving job training as well as water run-off and storm drain management. He also looks forward to teaching peaceful civic responsibility to San José’s youth and improving police relations within the entertainment district. For more info or to donate to his campaign visit DennisKyne.com. Mail checks to: Kyne for Council 305 E Empire Street San Jose, CA 95112 To schedule an interview contact GOOD KARMA PUBLIC RELATIONS PH/FAX 805-653-1588 GoodKarma@GoodKarmaPR.com Dennis Kyne Support the Truth www.denniskyne.com ---------- ***************************************************************** 51 APP.COM: KI pills protect thyroid from radiation | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, February 14, 2006 STAFF REPORT Potassium iodide, or KI, is found in table salt, but it also comes in pill form to reduce the risk of thyroid cancer following a radiation release. If taken when directed during a nuclear emergency, the KI pill can protect the thyroid by filling the gland with safe iodine, blocking the absorption of radioactive iodine. People living or working within 10 miles of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey can pick up KI pills from the Ocean County Health Department. Health officials also can hand out new pills to those who have had doses longer than the five-year shelf life. KI pills are most recommended for children, since developing thyroids are particularly vulnerable to radiation. Meanwhile, people allergic to shellfish and iodine should consult their physician before ingesting a dose. The pills are distributed through the health department by appointment. To make an appointment and for more information, call (800) 342-9738, Ext. 7227. County officials are preparing for a mass distribution of KI pills at several sites, possibly by the end of the year, said Daniel Regenye, a county public health planner. The last mass distribution was in 2002. — Nicholas Clunn Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 New West Network: Did Utah Kill John Wayne? Part III: Folks Start Dying www.newwest.net Part three of a four-part series. By Clint Wardlow, UtahGothic.com Folks Start Dying Pedro Armendariz had been a familiar face to Americans for many years. He had co-starred with John Wayne in the Three Godfathers and Fort Apache. He was also a bone fide star in his native Mexico. Early in June 1963, Armendariz had finished shooting one of his most memorable roles as Karim Bey in the second James Bond movie From Russia With Love. He was guest of honor at a June 9 party given by the film producers. Nine days later, Armendariz shot himself in his bed at the UCLA Medical Center. The actor had committed suicide rather than face a protracted death from lymph cancer. Armendariz had also co-starred with John Wayne in The Conqueror. By Contributing Writer, 2-14-06 | 0 comment(s)| add comment --> ['Big Sky Democrats-Young Dems of Montana' title='Big Sky Democrats-Young Dems of Montana' The following entries are related to Did Utah Kill John Wayne? Part III: Folks Start Dying UTAH GOTHIC Did Utah Kill John Wayne? Part II: Atomic Bombs and Dead Sheep By Clint Wardlow, UtahGothic.com Atomic Bombs and Dead Sheep Local prospectors had been reporting finds on their Geiger counters that indicated large caches of uranium. The problem was that once they began digging, the uranium never turned up. Also, local ranchers had been suffering a spate of mysterious livestock deaths. Many suspected it may be due to the atomic bomb tests a short distance away at Yucca Flats in Nevada. However, the feds assured locals the tests were perfectly safe. Any fallout would be minimal and dissipate quickly. And everyone knows the government would never lie to its own citizens. That would be unethical. [more] By Contributing Writer, 2-09-06 | 0 comment(s)| add comment| UTAH GOTHIC Did Utah Kill John Wayne? By Clint Wardlow, UtahGothic.com The Conqueroris one of those legendary cursed Hollywood movies. The brainchild of eccentric billionaire and aviator Howard Hughes, the historical epic cast John Wayne as Temujin (a.k.a. Genghis Khan). It was a bad idea from the start; destined for failure in the form of bad box office and critical derision. This aside, The Conqueror has a more troubling legacy. Six of its main players kicked the bucket, possibly as a direct result of working on this film. Veteran character actors Pedro Armendariz (suicide) and Lee Van Cleef (natural causes) were causalities. However it was the deaths of the three leads and its actor-turned-director that raised eyebrows. Susan Hayward, Dick Powell, Agnes Moorehead and the duke himself, John Wayne, all died from cancer. [more] By Contributing Writer, 2-06-06 | 3 comment(s)| add comment| © 2006 NewWest, All Rights Reserved Use of this site is subject to New West's Terms of Serviceand ***************************************************************** 53 NRC: NRC Terminates ACHP Consultation, Prepares to Issue License to Private Fuel Storage News Release - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-024 February 13, 2006 consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other agencies regarding the protection of historic sites potentially impacted by a proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, and is preparing to issue a license to Private Fuel Storage, LLC. On Sept. 9, 2005, the Commission concluded the agencys adjudication over the PFS license application and authorized the agency staff to issue a license upon resolution of any outstanding issues. One matter that remained to be resolved was completion of consultations with other federal and state agencies and other parties aimed at concluding a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) concerning the identification and protection of historic sites under the National Historic Preservation Act. On Nov. 22, 2005, the NRC informed the ACHP that, as permitted by the ACHPs regulations, it was terminating the consultation process because of a decision by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer not to sign the MOA at that time. The NRC indicated that it would include the substantive terms of the MOA, which PFS had agreed to undertake, as conditions in the final license. The ACHP provided comments to NRC in a letter dated Jan. 9, 2006, indicating it had no objection to the substantive provisions of the agreement or to the treatment proposed for historic properties, and it agreed with NRCs plan to include those provisions as conditions in the license. In a letter to ACHP Chairman John L. Nau III dated Feb. 10, 2006, NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, on behalf of the Commission, provided the NRCs response to the ACHPs comments and notified the ACHP of the NRCs determination to issue a materials license to PFS. When a license is issued to PFS, the NRCs determination will be published in the Federal Register. Chairman Diaz letter to the ACHP effectively concludes the ACHP consultation process. Accordingly, the agency has provided PFS a draft of the license and has requested comments from PFS within seven days regarding any errors or omissions. After that review is complete, the NRC will issue the final license. PFS, a consortium of utility companies, plans to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in dry casks on land leased from the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, as interim storage before final disposal in an underground repository. The license will not authorize PFS to begin immediate construction of the facility. Rather, it conditions construction authorization on the company first arranging for adequate funding. In addition, PFS must obtain necessary approvals from other agencies, including BLM, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Surface Transportation Board. Last revised Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: Feds License Nuke Dump on Utah Reservation From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 14, 2006 8:31 PM SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Federal regulators have issued a license for a nuclear waste dump on an American Indian reservation in Utah's western desert, but legal obstacles could keep the project tied up for months. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the license Monday for Private Fuel Storage to stockpile 44,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Utah has filed a federal appeal of the license, approved in September but not officially issued until Monday. But no court date has been set, and there was no sign of when the project would move forward. ``This is a Pyrrhic victory for PFS - just a piece of paper,'' Denise Chancellor, an assistant state attorney general, said Tuesday. Officials at PFS, a group of utilities that owns nuclear power plants, said they were confident. ``The license is the culmination of 8 years of a very vigorous licensing process during which the state of Utah has been a full participant,'' PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said Tuesday. ``We had to win every single argument to show this facility could be safely operated, and we won all those arguments.'' PFS also still needs permission from agencies including the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chancellor said. She said PFS could have difficulty showing regulators that it has enough money to because several financiers have dropped out. PFS has said it can recruit other members. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 55 Bradenton Herald: FOCUS, Lockheed to partner on Tallevast survey 02/14/2006 | Company to ask again about residents receiving Loral dirt DONNA WRIGHT HERALD WATCHDOG TALLEVAST - When Lockheed Martin Corp. tried to survey Tallevast residents last week, no one would talk. So Lockheed is going to try again, but this time around the defense giant will involve leaders of the resident advocacy group FOCUS - Family Oriented Community United and Strong. Lockheed's goal is to find out how many residents received fill dirt from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. that may be contaminated from an underground plume of toxic waste from the old plant. Nobody would talk the first time around because Lockheed failed to give residents proper notice that crews would be going door to door asking questions about past use of their land, said Tallevast leaders. FOCUS had less than 24 hours' notice before the survey began at 4 p.m. Thursday. That left no time to notify the community, said Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS. After two lawsuits were filled against Lockheed last fall, FOCUS advised residents not to answer question unless the advocacy group instructed them to do so, said Washington. "Lockheed was bound to get resistance because they did not give us time to inform the community," Washington said. "People were uncomfortable when strangers started knocking on their doors." The breakdown in communication is the latest manifestation of mistrust that has plagued the relationship between Tallevast and Lockheed Martin. Although Lockheed, Manatee County and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection knew about the toxic plume in 2000, they did not tell residents of the poisons in their backyards. Three years passed before residents heard about the contamination in fall of 2003, when they questioned why drilling crews were sinking monitoring wells in their yards. Some Tallevast residents at the time were on private drinking water wells that were later found to be contaminated. Others had received fill dirt from the old beryllium plant that had high levels of hazardous waste. As the owner of the plant when the plume was discovered, Lockheed is responsible for assessing the size of the plume and cleaning up the pollution. Lockheed will do whatever it can to earn the residents' trust, vowed Gail Rymer, company spokeswoman. Rymer is working on a new survey schedule with FOCUS and Tim Varney, Tallevast's independent technical adviser chosen by the community but paid by Lockheed. "We are hoping Dr. Varney and FOCUS will tell residents to answer our questions so we can get a proper assessment of the community," said Rymer. Lockheed had hoped to begin sampling residents yards this week, but until the survey is complete, all of those tests have been put on hold, said Rymer. A copy of the Lockheed soil survey questionnaire is posted on HeraldToday.com. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. HeraldToday.com Go to our Web site for an archive of stories, maps and documents about the Tallevast plume. ***************************************************************** 56 Deseret News: House panel approves nuclear waste override bill Tuesday, February 14, 2006 A bill that would allow the Legislature to override a governor's veto of nuclear waste storage — a bill Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he plans to veto — moved to the House floor Monday. Despite public comment unanimously opposed to SB70 and Huntsman's promise to veto the measure should it pass, the House Business and Labor Committee passed the bill 11-2. Supporters on the committee said the bill would return balance, and their decision was based on simple constitutional principles, not nuclear waste. SB70 would allow the Legislature to override any gubernatorial veto of an approval for nuclear waste storage with a two-thirds majority. Currently, either the Legislature or governor can block any permits. "This is basically 101 civics," said Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton. "The Constitution states that the Legislature should be able to override the governor. . . . However, what was done in the past is unconstitutional. We should be able to exert our power with an override." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 57 Platts: NEI wants nuclear waste fee to remain at current level Washington (Platts)--13Feb2006 The nuclear industry would like Congress to freeze the nuclear waste fee at its current level of 1 mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity sold, Steve Kraft, the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) director of waste management, said yesterday. Kraft's comment came in an address to the staff of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (Naruc) nuclear issues subcommittee as Naruc kicked off its winter meeting in Washington, D.C. The industry has reviewed its policies regarding the management of utility spent reactor fuel, Kraft said, adding that industry doesn't want to ever see the fee increased. Congress put the fee in place in 1983 to bankroll DOE's waste program. Industry also sees a need to develop advanced technologies so the nuclear fuel cycle can be closed when the technologies are mature enough that the economics and environmental benefits from their use can be realized, he said. However, Kraft also stressed that the development of advanced reprocessing technologies does not obviate the need for the repository DOE plans to build at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 58 Platts: US NRC issues draft license for nuke waste storage site in Utah Washington (Platts)--13Feb2006 The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday issued a draft license to a utility consortium that plans to build and operate a spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Utah, an attorney for Private Fuel Storage said. The license was hand-delivered to company officials by William Brach, the director of NRC's Spent Fuel Project Office, the attorney added. The license will allow PFS to construct and operate a spent fuel dry cask storage facility at the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indian reservation in Tooele County, Utah. It would be the first such facility located at a non-reactor site. There is a seven-day comment period for PFS to review the terms of the license. If no revisions are required, a final license will be issued when the review period ends. Once the final license is issued and PFS gets commitments from utilities to store their spent nuclear fuel at the site, it can begin construction of the facility. ---Jenny Weil, jenny_weil@platts.com Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 59 APP.COM: Spent fuel pool is vulnerable, critics say | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, February 14, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER It's 40 feet deep, filled with water and holds about 375 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the shape of long, thin rods. The Oyster Creek nuclear plant's spent fuel storage pool sits nearly 100 feet above ground, next to the reactor in a reinforced concrete building covered by a metal roof. But the spent fuel pool may be an Achilles' heel for Oyster Creek, according to the state of New Jersey and plant critics. In an often-talked-about worst-case scenario at a nuclear plant in the United States, a terrorist-driven jetliner could slam into the reactor building, exposing the radiation from the pool to the outside world. It's a nightmare no one wants to face. "If you were to rank 'em, spent fuel pool would be the highest issue" of concern, said Dennis Zannoni, a state Department of Environmental Protection supervising nuclear engineer, when asked about a possible terrorist attack on Oyster Creek. This story includes material from previous Press stories. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Salt Lake Tribune: PFS gets desert N-dump license Article Last Updated: 02/14/2006 1:30 AM MST But numerous obstacles remain; Hatch calls the action meaningless By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - Private Fuel Storage received the first-ever license for commercial, off-site storage of nuclear waste from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Monday, but a series of obstacles remain before the proposed facility can open its gates in Utah. Specifically, the group of electric utilities seeking to store 44,000 tons of reactor fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation still has to find an acceptable way to deliver the waste to the site 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, and has to sell the storage space to enough reactor operators to make the economics add up. It also must prevail in a legal challenge filed by the state. The commission hand-delivered the license Monday to PFS Chairman John Parkyn, who was heading up a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in Chicago. "It is a very significant step. It's the end of an 8 1/2 -year process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so we're very pleased that it has happened," said Sue Martin, PFS spokeswoman. PFS plans the temporary storage until a permanent repository can be built beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Nuclear regulatory commissioners voted in September to approve the lease, and the commission staff has been working since then to write the formal document. Michael S. Lee, counsel to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., noted the license will not be valid until the company meets several requirements. One such provision is that the 20-ton lids be welded onto the steel and concrete casks after being transported to the site - to a one-sixteenth-inch fit. "This is just another one of the big hurdles that PFS will have to clear," Lee said. The license does not authorize PFS to begin construction immediately. The company still has to show it has adequate finances to build the site, then has to show it has enough waste-storage contracts to fund dismantling and cleaning up the site before it can begin operations. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement Monday that the license is meaningless. Hatch has said that the crumbling PFS coalition, which has lost several members in recent months, will make it impossible to meet the financial terms. "The NRC's making an awful decision, but we can't let it deter us from killing this project once and for all," Hatch said. "This marks the first time the NRC intends to grant a license for a private, off-site storage site for spent nuclear fuel. That's a bad precedent, especially since the PFS is clearly not part of the government's nuclear waste program." Hatch said the NRC's decision to proceed without agreement from the Bureau of Land Management over protection of cultural and historic sites opens another avenue for a legal challenge to the PFS plan. The consortium also has to receive permission from the BLM for a permit to allow waste to be delivered to Skull Valley. The issue of waste delivery became complicated when the Utah congressional delegation pushed through Congress a wilderness area near the Skull Valley reservation that essentially blocked plans to build a rail line to the reservation. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the issuance of a license was not a surprise. "I'm glad our provision to block the most-preferred transportation route for the waste finally passed and was signed into law last month by the president," Bishop said in a statement. "That will ensure that even with a license, PFS is far from making this unwise project a reality." PFS' other transportation option is to build a transfer facility to move the nuclear waste from rail cars to heavy trucks, which would drive the material to the storage site. The BLM is reviewing the proposed transfer facility, and recently opened a 90-day public comment period on the plan. Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said public input on the BLM right-of-way could mean an insurmountable obstacle. "The real question is, will PFS ante up or will they be persuaded to fold?" he said. PFS has until Friday to review the license for technical or typographical errors. Utah attorneys also will receive a copy but cannot recommend changes. --- Reporter Judy Fahys contributed to this story. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 61 Daily Herald: Legislature makes move to allow it to override a veto Tuesday, February 14, 2006 The Legislature wants to be able to veto the governor when it comes to disposing radioactive waste. A bill that would allow lawmakers to do so with a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative bodies passed a house committee Monday. It has already passed the Senate. "We as a Legislature ought to be very jealous about the constitutional balance of power that has been in place for many years," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper. Fifteen years ago, the state Legislature established a process for the governor to have absolute authority on the matter, and Stephenson says it's time to make a change. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he would veto SB 70 if it ended up on his desk. Several people from the public accused Legislators of drafting the bill to cater to Envirocare, a huge player in Utah's storage of nuclear waste. But Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, refuted that claim. "This is basically Civics 101," he said. "We should have the right as a Legislature to exert our power." The bill passed 11-2 and now heads to the House for debate. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5. Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald ***************************************************************** 62 Scotsman.com News: Landowner bans experts from beach Tue 14 Feb 2006 A businessman has banned nuclear scientists from his land after branding a clean-up operation at a beach contaminated with radioactive material a PR stunt. Geoffrey Minter, owner of the Sandside Estate in Caithness, near the Dounreay nuclear plant, says he no longer believes the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) are serious about solving the problem. Scientists from the Dounreay atomic research plant, which adjoins the estate, have been taking samples from the beach since 1999 and have so far detected and removed more than 50 radioactive metal fragments. The fragments are the remains of nuclear fuel rods once used in the plant. But Mr Minter said he has withdrawn legal consent to the use of his land because he believes that the sampling exercise had degenerated into "a public relations stunt" intended "merely to give people the impression that the UKAEA was tackling the underlying hazard". Mr Minter said: "The sand sampling exercise at Sandside has become part of the UKAEA's elaborate spin war in which it spends millions of pounds of public money attempting to persuade people that it has a credible and practical plan to clean up this beautiful part of the Caithness coastline. "It wants to allay public concern by giving the impression it is doing something. However, the detection and removal of only a small fraction of the so-called 'hotspots' on the beach by merely taking specimens does nothing to make the place safe. "Meanwhile, new radioactive particles wash ashore on the twice daily tides from the seabed, where they are present in their thousands." A spokesman for UKAEA said: "The consent to access the beach for monitoring has been withdrawn. "We have stopped monitoring the beach and have informed the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) because it is a requirement from them on us to monitor the beach. "The particles we found at Sandside beach are the least radioactive of the particles we have found in the environment. The independent experts conclusion was that the risk to members of the public from these particles is low so therefore the beach remains open to the public." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=235632006 Last updated: 14-Feb-06 22:20 ***************************************************************** 63 Newsday.com: Nuclear waste 'fear factor' -- Recent report says risks are small February 14, 2006 Those of us who see energy independence as a key national priority should be cheered by a recent report about nuclear waste. A panel of scientists has approved of federal plans to ship tens of thousands of tons of waste from nuclear power plants for disposal in a Nevada mountain. The scientists' thorough review of the Energy Department's plans finds that transportation and disposal of the spent fuel poses "no fundamental technical barriers" and carries low and easily manageable risks. That's heartening news, especially since it comes from an independent panel put together not by the DOE but by the National Research Council, part of the prestigious National Academy of sciences. If the United States is ever going to make progress toward energy independence by severing or diminishing its link to imported oil, we must consider expanding nuclear power production, a viable alternative that to many remains unpalatable and frightening. The biggest obstacle to enlarging the nation's nuclear capacity is still the challenge of where and how to dispose safely of nuclear waste. The Energy Department has designated Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert, 90 miles from Las Vegas, as the site where spent fuel from 70 power plants in 31 states would be stored, entombed in concrete and metal canisters capable of withstanding any conceivable seismic shock or military strike. But the plan has been under attack from environmentalists and anti-nuclear power activists who say the shipments could trigger uncontrollable nuclear accidents or be subject to terrorism. The council's report shows such concerns are unwarranted and the risks minimal. The panel acknowledged, however, that the biggest obstacle to the plans is the "fear factor," a psychological and political barrier that the nation's energy consumers must overcome if we are to strive for energy independence. http://www.newsday.com. Find It Fast Act 2/Retirement . Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 64 Columbia Missourian: Plutonium ban hurts efficiency, speaker says > Missourian News February 14, 2006 An ex-Pentagon official spoke at MU on Monday. By REBECCA TOWNSEND U.S. OIL IMPORTS These are the top foreign suppliers of oil to the United States for November 2005 (by barrels): Canada: 69.5 million Mexico: 53.3 million Saudi Arabia: 41.1 million Nigeria: 37.4 million Venezuela: 37.4 million Angola: 19.8 million Iraq: 17.1 million Algeria: 15 million United Kingdom: 14.2 million Colombia: 9.9 million Source: Energy Information Administration Ex-Pentagon official Hans Mark said because of the United States’ ban on plutonium reprocessing, the country is lagging in energy efficiency. Mark said on Monday afternoon that by not taking advantage of reprocessing technology, the U.S. is limited to using only high-grade uranium and disposing of resulting waste. Reprocessing technology allows users to take the plutonium byproduct produced in the fission process and reuse it, eliminating hazardous waste disposal issues, Hans said. “Everyone except the United States reprocesses,” said Mark, a professor of aerospace and engineering mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin. Mark, who has served as secretary of the Air Force, director of defense research and engineering at the Pentagon and deputy director of NASA, said by embracing reprocessing technology, the U.S. could end its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. In his second visit to the MU campus as an H.O. Croft Distinguished Lecturer, Mark began his remarks with a review of the world’s current energy use, noting “the most easily available known resources, oil and gas, may become unavailable or very inexpensive by the middle of the 21st century.” Mark’s message received a mixed reaction from the MU auditorium audience of about 100 people. “I think he’s absolutely right on target,” said Henry Hungerbeeler, a retired Air Force pilot from Jefferson City who attended the lecture. “I think it’s foolish of us as a nation to not make better use of the resources we have.” He added that the average person’s fear of nuclear power is unfortunate. Mark was questioned by a few audience members who would have liked to hear him demonstrate more faith in wind power and ethanol. Todd Gutschow, 23, an MU graduate student of personal finance, said he would have liked to hear more about the social and political obstacles of adopting plutonium reprocessing. “We always go back and forth about energy policy while we’re out drinking,” Gutschow said of the ongoing debate between him and his friend, Adam Molitor. “It is something I find interesting,” Gutschow said. His remarks tied back to Mark’s sentiment that energy numbers “make great cocktail conversation.” This year’s Croft lecture marked Mark’s second visit to the campus as a guest of the series; his last address dealt with chaos theory. Copyright © 2006 Columbia Missourian ***************************************************************** 65 Deseret News: Private Fuel Storage gets a draft license Tuesday, February 14, 2006 But state vows to 'win this war' against nuclear waste storage site By Suzanne Struglinski and Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — Private Fuel Storage has a draft of its approved license in hand, and if there are no major changes, it could have a final license by the end of the month. "We're disappointed," said Mike Lee, general counsel to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., "not entirely surprised, but disappointed." He vowed the nuclear-waste storage facility would not be built. "We will win this war with PFS," he said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sidestepped what was earlier seen as a roadblock to licensure — the refusal of the Bureau of Land Management and the state historical preservation officer to sign a memorandum of understanding about historic properties. The NRC is issuing the license without those approvals. This does not mean high-level nuclear waste will roll into Utah tomorrow, but it will allow the consortium that wants to store spent nuclear fuel rods on the land of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in Tooele County to move ahead with the next phase of its plan. "The NRC's making an awful decision, but we can't let it deter us from killing this project once and for all," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "This marks the first time the NRC intends to grant a license for a private, off-site storage site for spent nuclear fuel. That's a bad precedent, especially since the PFS is clearly not part of the government's nuclear waste program." The NRC announced Monday that it finished the outstanding issue needed to complete the PFS license. It issued a draft of the license to PFS on Feb. 10 and gave the company seven days to correct any errors or omissions. The commission will issue the license once PFS completes the review, according to the announcement. Private Fuel Storage will study the draft and will respond to the NRC with any comments or corrections, said Sue Martin, spokeswoman in Salt Lake City for the company. "But we're extremely pleased that, after 8 1/2 years, we've gotten this far. I believe this is the first successful licensing of a nuclear facility in this country" in something like two decades. After years of debate, the commission recommended last September that PFS be granted a license to store nuclear waste on the reservation, but the consortium could not officially receive the license until the commission, along with several other federal agencies, finished a review of how PFS would protect recognized historic places. The state's historic preservation officer would not sign an agreement approved by several federal agencies on how PFS would protect eight historic properties on government land where a potential railroad would go to move waste to the site. Also, a federal moratorium on land management planning prohibited the BLM from signing it. Late last year, the commission decided to simply include the agreements as part of the license so it could issue the license without the state or BLM signing off on it. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation told the commission in January it did not object to this so the commission was able to move ahead and issue the license. "The NRC's decision to bypass the BLM opens this license to one of many legal challenges against the PFS proposal," Hatch said. PFS still must get approval from the BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Surface Transportation Board as well as prove it has adequate funding before construction could begin, according to the commission. The BLM is currently taking comments from the public on whether granting a right of way for PFS to build a transportation hub on several acres of public land is in the country's best interest. Several of the company's eight utilities froze their financial support for the project last year, but PFS officials have said other companies can still sign on in the future. "This is a formality that was expected, so not a lot has changed in this discussion. It still doesn't make any sense to have an above-ground nuclear storage facility next to a bombing range," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. "Everyone, including the NRC, should realize this. PFS may have got its license, but the unwise project is far from being viable," President Bush signed Bishop's Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area into law in January, setting aside 100,000 acres, including the area PFS wanted to use to build a spur railroad to the plant. Railroads are not allowed on wilderness areas. According to Martin, the wilderness designation isn't an impassible roadblock for PFS. "It appears to block the railroad, but we had in our license application two proposals for getting the spent fuel from the Union Pacific main line down to the facility," she said. The company would have preferred to build the spur down the west side of Skull Valley because, she said, that option would have caused the least amount of interference with the public in the area. However, the second option was to build an "intermodal transfer facility up near I-80 at the top of Skull Valley Road." There, rail cars would be unloaded of the fuel casks. The casks would be placed on trucks for the last 26 miles of roadway leading to the site. Martin did not think the funding provision would be a problem, either. "This project is market-driven, so it won't be built until the market is ready," she said. As with a planned office building, it would not be built until enough customers are lined up, she said. Lee said the plan to store the highly radioactive fuel under the Air Force's "low-altitude flight path approaching a bombing range represents public policy at its worse. Lee said, "We're still a little bit baffled at the idea that the PFS plan has proceeded as far as it has. Nonetheless, we're going to stop this. This is not an 'if' issue for the governor, it's a 'when.' " That is, sooner or later, "we're going win this war with PFS." "This is one of many battles we've got to fight with them and the NRC." The state is pursuing a multi-pronged attack that also includes the BLM and the BIA, as well as a court challenge and appeals to Congress, he said. In addition, an NRC technical requirement concerning how closely the 20-ton lids must fit the casks will increase the cost and engineering complexity of the project, he said. He believes that alone will create a huge impediment for PFS. PFS is billed as a temporary storage site. But Lee said by the time the government's proposed permanent facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., can be built, it will not have room for all of the country's spent waste — meaning the temporary site in Utah could become permanent. There is a substantial risk "that if it comes here, it will never, ever leave," Lee said. Jason Groenewold, director of the anti-nuclear Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, believes the wilderness designation should trump PFS. "The real question is, will the nuclear industry ante up more money to stay in the game or will they fold?" Groenewold commented by e-mail. "Utahns must keep up the pressure and convince PFS to throw in the towel. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com; bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 66 [du-list] "Stopping Dangerous Weapons Proliferation Highest Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:37:24 -0800 DU ought to get a mention, but - - - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: Stopping Dangerous Weapons Proliferation Highest U.S. Priority > > > Stopping Dangerous Weapons Proliferation Highest U.S. Priority > (State's Joseph says "a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to us") (1060) > > Washington – The State Department’s top arms control official says there > is > no higher national security priority for the United States than stopping > the proliferation of dangerous weapons and addressing “the challenge of > nuclear terrorism.” > > Robert Joseph, under secretary of state for arms control and > international security, says the administration also is looking at ways to > ameliorate threats posed by land mines, unexploded ordnance and small arms > and light weapons, particularly shoulder-fired missiles. > > Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, pose a specific threat to > aviation, Joseph said. He told members of the Senate Foreign Relations > Committee February 9 that the State and Defense departments have been > working together to keep them from reaching the hands of terrorists. “We > have destroyed or disabled over 17,000 at-risk MANPADS and have > commitments > for the destruction of over 7,000 more,” he said. > > In places such as Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the under secretary > said, successful efforts to remove the threat from anti-personnel land > mines has led the way to subsequent successful efforts to eliminate > surplus > weapons, including MANPADS. > > Committee Chairman Senator Richard Lugar provided his own example of how > gaining access to one type of weapon through dismantlement efforts can > lead > to the discovery of other surplus stockpiles that are ripe for > destruction. While visiting Albania to see how nerve gas would be > destroyed as part of the ongoing U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction > program, > he said, Albanians led him to a shed containing 79 MANPADS, which they > later agreed to destroy with U.S. assistance. > > Joseph agreed with Lugar and other senators that the threat from these > surface-to-air missiles needs to be treated as a high priority. The United > States is working with some 17 countries around the world to address the > problem, including Ukraine, he said. > > Eleven nations and the European Union have matched U.S. funding for a > NATO Partnership for Peace program to destroy munitions, small arms, light > weapons and MANPADS in Ukraine. Joseph said partner contributions have > doubled the available funding. He also said the United States is > supporting similar programs in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan and an assessment > team went to Georgia in December 2005. > > “No country that has sought MANPAD-assistance has been refused,” the > under secretary said. “We are making a determined effort” to eliminate the > problem, he added. > > But Senator Joseph Biden suggested that some nations might not actually > ask for U.S. assistance; and he characterized the $8.6 million that the > Bush administration has requested for fiscal year 2007 to destroy small > arms and various other kinds of conventional weapons as “miniscule” > compared to the scope of the problem. Joseph said experts are working hard > to come up with innovative and more effective counterproliferation tools > within the president’s budget. > > He also pointed out that countering weapons of mass destruction and other > dangerous weapons is an international responsibility and noted that the > Group of Eight nations have pledged $7 billion to this effort. > > Joseph said that he traveled to the Middle East, Central Asia and East > Asia in late 2005 to broaden support for the multilateral Proliferation > Security Initiative. Many countries responded positively to his PSI > overture, he said. He also said that the first counterproliferation task > force meeting will be held in the United Arab Emirates later in February. > > More than 70 nations are supporting PSI in one way or another and that > number will continue to grow, Joseph said. “PSI countries are applying > laws already on the books in innovative ways and cooperating as never > before to interdict shipments, to disrupt proliferation networks and to > hold accountable the front companies that support them,” he said in his > prepared statement. > > IRAN > > Regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Joseph said that “a nuclear armed > Iran is unacceptable to us.” The United States is working to deny Iran – > through PSI and other programs -- all the technology it might need to > produce nuclear weapons, he said, while also working on the diplomatic > side > “as hard as we can.” > > The under secretary told the committee that ongoing U.S. diplomatic > efforts on the Iran issue would be difficult as they evolve “over many > months.” In his prepared remarks, Joseph said U.S. officials have “no > illusion that reporting the Iran issue to the [U.N.] Security Council will > produce a quick resolution of the threat that Iran presents.” But the > Security Council, he said, offers “the best next step for diplomacy to > succeed.” (See related article > (http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Feb/08-687695.html).) > > Joseph was the only witness at a hearing examining U.S. policies and > programs related to counterproliferation and conventional weapons > dismantlement. > > LEGISLATION AIMS TO FUND PSI > > Lugar and Senator Barack Obama introduced a new bill in November 2005 > titled the “Cooperative Proliferation Detection and Interdiction > Assistance > and Conventional Threat Reduction Act (S. 1949).” The legislation, modeled > after the 1991 Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, seeks to > destroy surplus conventional weapons and to intercept conventional weapons > and materials used to produce weapons of mass destruction before they > reach > the wrong hands. > > While well aware of PSI’s record of success, Lugar said he and Obama > believe that some nations participating in PSI lack all the equipment and > training needed to carry out their interdiction responsibilities. The bill > would set aside money for innovative foreign military financing assistance > and bolster coordination efforts, according to the senator. > > In addition, both senators said they had witnessed vulnerable weapons > stockpiles in their travels to Iraq, Russia and elsewhere, and they view > their proposed legislation as a mechanism to plug existing security gaps. > Lugar said he and his colleague were prompted to take legislative action > because they have seen firsthand “the detritus of old wars.” > > Lugar said the best way to deal with weapons surpluses -- which > frequently turn up in places such as war-torn Africa -- is to enlist the > help of U.S. allies. The least expensive way to address the matter, he > said, is to control or destroy excess weapons or weapons components “at > the > source.” > > The text (http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/60894.htm) of Joseph’s statement > as prepared for the committee and submitted for the record is available on > the State Department Web site. > > For more information see Arms Control and Non-Proliferation > (http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/arms_control.html). > > (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. > Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) 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 Charlotte Observer: Hydrogen research lab opens | 02/14/2006 | Scientists to study energy alternatives JACOB JORDAN Associated Press AIKEN, S.C. - As the pressure mounts to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, South Carolina has strengthened its foothold on possibly becoming a key player in the nation's future energy needs by opening a new hydrogen research hub. The Center for Hydrogen Research, located near the former nuclear weapons complex the Savannah River Site, held its ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday. Though the labs were still mostly empty, researchers who will soon occupy the $9 million space touted what it could eventually mean to South Carolina and the rest of the country. The center will combine existing efforts from the Savannah River National Lab, private industry and the state's research universities, hoping the discoveries will one day lead to commercial success and economic development in an area hit hard by layoffs at the former nuclear weapons site. "I would argue that the hydrogen footprint in South Carolina, for research and development of a hydrogen economy, is probably as advanced as anywhere in the country," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Change is coming. Those who deny it are the ones who are going to get left behind. South Carolina realizes change is coming." The universities of South Carolina, Clemson and S.C. State recently began studying hydrogen, and the national lab has for more than 50 years been involved in research and development of hydrogen. Since the 1950s, the lab has helped the nearby site maintain tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The lab will lease about half the space and initially relocate about 40 researchers. Some scientists think hydrogen fuel cells could replace electricity as a more cost-effective energy source, and hydrogen has been eyed as a replacement for oil and other fossil fuels. President Bush first detailed a $1.7 billion hydrogen research program in 2003. The government and automakers have been working to develop vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Toyota and General Motors have announced partnerships with the lab to test lighter-weight and more cost-effective storage tanks for hydrogen fuel. Toyota has already leased space at the center, said Ernie Chaput of the Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties. Several obstacles remain before cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells are readily available. That includes reducing production costs and building an infrastructure of fueling stations. "We're committed to it because it's our future. When we think about our over-dependence on foreign sources of oil, the real future, the real vision is getting our transportation sector off of petroleum, and the way that we really do that is with hydrogen fuel cells," said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell. There's an aggressive plan to commercialize the technologies by 2015, but significant investments need to be made in research and development, "and we're going to do a lot of that here in Aiken," Sell said. The center will help address costs, reliability and safety associated with using hydrogen as an energy source, said Savannah River lab director Todd Wright. Republican Gov. Mark Sanford praised the collaborative effort, including the Commerce Department's recent announcement of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance, a statewide coalition to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology. ***************************************************************** 68 Rocky Mountain News: Residents win $352 million in Flats suit Brennan, Rocky Mountain News February 14, 2006 A federal court jury today gave thousands of property owners a Valentine's Day present in the form of a $352 million verdict for damage to their property from operations of the Rocky Flats nuclear bomb plant. Seven of the plant's neighbors filed the class-action lawsuit in 1990 on behalf of themselves and other owners of 12,000 to 15,000 parcels of land in about 25 square miles east of Rocky Flats. The plaintiffs claim that mishandled toxic substances at the plant ate away both their property values and their rights under the law to use and enjoy what they owned. The plaintiffs sought $500 million — $250 million in compensatory damages plus $250 million in punitive damages from Rockwell International Corp., which operated Rocky Flat at the time of the FBI raid, and its predecessor, Dow Chemical Co. But the plant is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, which actually will pay any damages. The jury found both companies responsible for putting residents at increased risk to health problems due to exposure to plutonium. The defendants contended that all hazardous materials at the plant were handled as safely as possible, and that only miniscule amounts — far too small to harm anyone — ever escaped from the plant grounds. Environmentalists and some government officials had cautioned for years that the nuclear bomb factory 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver might not be as safe as its operators had insisted since it opened during the heart of the Cold War in the early 1950s. Many people had dismissed those cautions as exaggerated, but when FBI agents raided the plant early one summer morning in 1989, setting off alarm among the plant’s neighbors. Within days, Broomfield began digging a ditch to divert a stream that flowed through the plant away from the city's water supply. In Westminster, more than 100 angry residents showed up at a city council meeting to denounce their government for not being more careful about allowing development near the plant. Within months, the neighboring property owners filed the class-action lawsuit. Rockwell pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes — five felonies and five misdemeanors — and paid an $18.5 million fine. But it was 15 years before the class-action lawsuit came to trial. The lawyers began presenting their case to the jury on Oct. 11, 2005. The weapons plant has been shut down. Its 6,500-acre site has undergone environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge. Most of the thousands of neighbors in the class-action lawsuit have moved elsewhere. © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************