*****************************************************************
03/13/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.61
*****************************************************************
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 "Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: Four Approaches, Christian
2 Iranian Lies Re: More from Iranian Embassy in Canberra
3 IRNA: Russian offer to be considered in light of new situation - Ent
4 IRNA: Brussels think-tank to discuss Iran's nuclear programme
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran to Talk Further This Week
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Security Council Deadlocked on Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Open to New Iran-Russia Nuclear Talks
8 Guardian Unlimited: Straw: Iran nuclear negotiations still open
9 BBC: Iran deserves better, says Straw
10 AFP: Britain warns that Iran is on wrong track with confrontation -
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Minister defends Iran nuclear right
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Majlis soon to take on nuclear issue
13 AFP: Britain says not too late to resolve nuclear standoff with Iran
14 AFP: Bush ties Iran to deadly Iraq bombs
15 IRNA: Nuclear energy, national resolve of Iranians - political activ
16 IRNA: Iranian nuclear strategy in conformity with NPT, IAEA Safeguar
17 IRNA: Russia's nuclear offer to Iran still holds: Russian official -
18 IRNA: First Iranian indigenous nuclear power plant to be built soon
19 [NYTr] N.Korea Denounces US Double Standard at Talks
20 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Blames U.S. for Stalled Nuke Talks
21 J Cirincione: Canada & USA- Mother Of India's Bomb
22 UPI: Outside View: Emasculating Nuclear India
23 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear boss to start China visit March 17
24 BBC: New deterrent 'being considered'
25 UPI: Blair may give Britain new nuke weapons
NUCLEAR REACTORS
26 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Perry Nuclea
27 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear monopoly mulls NPP construction in Far
28 US: PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Review will aid Indian Point
29 Independent: Chernobyl: A poisonous legacy
30 Daily Times: Two more nuclear plants for Karachi
31 US: NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Endorsement of Nuclear Ener
32 Kommersant: Rosenergoatom to Master the Baltic Bottom
33 NewsRoom Finland: Russian energy divides opinions in Finland
34 canada.com: Nuclear industry buffing its image
35 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
NUCLEAR SECURITY
36 IRNA: India tightens rules for nuclear export
37 AFP: Rice says US-Indian nuclear deal will strengthen security -
NUCLEAR SAFETY
38 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast health survey to begin
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
39 Las Vegas SUN: Bodman in a bind over 'broken' Yucca project
40 US: thedesertsun.com: Government must take responsibility for ordnan
41 St. Petersburg Times: "Critical" Levels of Nuclear Waste Need Storag
42 Granite Falls Advocate Tribune: Senator Kubly tours Yucca Mountain s
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
43 DOE: Deputy Secretary Highlights Economic Benefits of Energy Efficie
44 DOE: Under Secretary Joins Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-15th) to
45 DOE: Secretary Bodman Highlights Economic Benefits of President Bush
46 DOE: DOE Office of Science Director Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Visits
47 DOE: Acting Assistant Secretary Discusses Oak Ridges
48 DOE: DOE Assistant Secretary Touts Northwest Arkansas
49 DOE: Secretary Bodman Travels to Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Russia and
50 DOE: Secretary Bodman and Pakistan Officials Hold High-Level Energy
51 DOE: U.S. - Pakistan Joint Press Statement
52 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 "Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: Four Approaches, Christian Scienc Monitor
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:31:57 EST
Christian Science Monitor
from the March 13, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0313/p09s01-coop.html
Dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions: four approaches
Nuclear probation
LOS ANGELES - The International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to report
Iran to the Security Council places Washington and its allies on a collision
course with Tehran. Unless the disputants come up with a new strategy that
overcomes serious international suspicions about the clerics' nuclear intentions
while preserving Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), current
diplomacy offers little wiggle room. As the parties dig in their heels, this
leaves sanctions and the specter of military action with all the attendant risks
to regional stability and global oil markets.
Resolution of differences will require some adept diplomatic footwork. The
seeds may come from Iran's persistent declaration that its nuclear objectives
remain peaceful. However, a yet untried approach, "nuclear probation," could
meet the needs of all concerned parties.
Probation would concede Iran's NPT right to develop a nuclear fuel cycle in
exchange for placing resident international inspectors at all of Tehran's
atomic sites indefinitely. Access to personnel and procurement documentation,
dual-use equipment and military workshops, and research and development locations
would also be available to the IAEA on demand.
If violated, a probation agreement would lay out the stark consequences
"endorsed" by the Security Council on a "rapid time table," involving economic
isolation, military blockade, and armed action to destroy suspicious nuclear
facilities.
The proposal recognizes the reality that Iran remains determined to get
nuclear fuel facilities allegedly to preserve nuclear energy independence.
Probation allows it to do so by tethering it to the IAEA while providing teeth to
enforce Tehran's nonproliferation vows. Iran's rejection of a plan that would meet
its nuclear-energy objectives would remove any doubts that Tehran is bent on
a nuclear weapons program. Successful application of probation will provide
the IAEA with a new enforcement mechanism to ensure that "inalienable" rights to
nuclear technology go hand-in-hand with nonproliferation responsibilities.
Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the George H. W. Bush administration.
Focus on actions, not Iran's intent
WASHINGTON - To build a successful strategy for stopping Iran's nuclear
programs, the United States and its allies have three options.
The first is to try and convince the world that Iran actually has an active
nuclear-weapons program. But with no "smoking gun" confirming an official
weaponization effort, skepticism over the pieces of evidence remains.
The second option is for the US to argue that whether intended or not, an
enrichment program gives Iran the ability to produce nuclear weapons, something
that should not be tolerated given Iran's support for terrorist groups and
opposition to peace in the region. However, Iran counters that America is trying
to prevent Iran's economic development and notes the fact that the US and a
half a dozen other states possess their own uranium enrichment programs.
The final option is to argue that Iran's violations of international treaties
and solemn legal commitments require that it make restitution to the
international community.
In September 2005, the IAEA determined Iran was in "noncompliance" with its
obligations, and catalogued an 18-year record of deception. In short, Iran was
found guilty of breaking "nuclear law" and should be required to face the
consequences.
This legalistic argument provides the UN Security Council with a firm basis
to impose new restrictions and obligations on Iran. Ideally, and with some
effort, the US might gain agreement that the Security Council compel Iran to
forfeit all of the equipment and materials it illegally acquired and operated.
It is unlikely that the most ambitious arguments put forward by Washington
will gain broad international support. On the other hand, arguing that all
states - including Iran - must meet legal obligations has a firm basis in national
and international law.
Allowing Iran to deflect incomplete or ineffective arguments about its weapon
intentions, thereby distracting the world from its illegal activities, only
plays into Tehran's hands and hastens the day when Iran will be able to produce
nuclear weapons.
Jon B. Wolfsthal is a fellow with the International Security Progrram at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Continued pressure could backfire
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration can applaud itself for finally managing
to convince nations as varied as France and Russia that it is time to get
tough with Iran. However, reinvigorated international pressure on Iran will play
right into President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hands and his strategy of invoking
external threats as a means of consolidating his power and justifying an
Iranian nuclear arsenal.
What complicates the world's handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions is that its
hard-line president welcomes his country's deepening isolation. Mr.
Ahmadinejad's election was a rebuke to a ruling establishment whom he accused of
corruption and complacency. These populist appeals, along with his incendiary
speeches, have irritated the elders of the revolution and spawned subtle attempts to
curb his influence. To fend off his rivals and buttress his power,
Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than a clash with the "Great Satan" that would
rally nationalist passions and discredit his more moderate foes.
Viewed through the Iranian prism, US and European pressure on Iran to
relinquish irrevocably the prerogative to pursue the full range of nuclear research
and activities that are permitted of all other signatories of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a reasonable response to the regime's two decades
of deception about the extent of its nuclear program; rather it smacks of the
capitulation treaties historically imposed on their hapless country. As the
country's leading dissident, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, acknowledged,
"People have complaints about the government, but when confronted with external
enemies we are united."
However, there is still a way out of Iran's nuclear impasse. The focus of US
diplomacy should not be Ahmadinejad. Rather, Washington and its European
allies should craft a creative package of security assurances and meaningful
sanctions relief in exchange for Tehran's suspension of the critical components of
its nuclear infrastructure. While such incentives would never tempt Iran's
intemperate president, they may succeed in peeling away important elements of the
regime as well as the Iranian population from the cause of nuclear arms.
A negotiated resolution of this impasse would also diminish Ahmadinejad's
populist appeal by preventing him from exploiting these tensions to deflect
attention from his failure to deliver on his promise of a better life for ordinary
Iranians.
As the Bush administration wrestles with Iran's nuclear challenge, it would
be wise to appreciate that a more imaginative diplomacy can not only undermine
Iran's demagogic president but also restrain the Islamic Republic's impetuous
impulses.
Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Aim for a middle ground
LONDON - The US hard line with Tehran, built on the premise that diplomatic
isolation coupled with economic and political sanctions backed up by the threat
of military action will force Tehran's ruling clerics to back down from their
quest for nuclear weapons, has so far produced exactly zero results.
Allowing Iran's clerics to possess nuclear weapons may also be unacceptable,
especially when their front man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calls for wiping Israel
from the face of the earth while he sanctions the harboring of Al Qaeda. But
Washington has no plan that addresses the wide middle ground in between these
extremes.
Tehran's primary contention, on grounds of national sovereignty, has been
that any enrichment activity must take place on its soil. But if Iran's theocrats
are to be held to their word that their enrichment goals are civilian, one
way to hold them accountable would be to bring an acceptable group of nations
together to watch over and even conduct enrichment and nuclear fuel processing
at Iran's nuclear plants.
For example, Britain, France, and Germany (the EU-3), together with China
(supplier of current nuclear materials), India (an ally), and Pakistan (provider
of much of Iran's older technology in use today), could form a consortium
under the guidance of the IAEA to run Iran's nuclear power plants, as was recently
suggested by John Thomson, former chairman of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
The consortium could legally enter into lease agreements, have responsibility
over all aspects of Iran's enrichment facilities, and serve as watchdog for
those concerned about the implications of Iranian enrichment.
Over time, such a framework could add as incentives the induction of modern
technologies into Iran's civilian nuclear power industry, similar to those
announced by President Bush in New Delhi last week, as well as requiring Tehran to
agree to limits on the number of centrifuges it could have in any one
facility.
The world does not need mad nuclear mullahs on the loose. But neither can it
afford Washington's rigid thinking that leaves confrontation as the only
visible solution.
Mansoor Ijaz is chief executive of Crescent Technology Ventures, aa London
company developing antiterrorist and national security technologies.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and
related links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright Β© 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All
rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright
*****************************************************************
2 Iranian Lies Re: More from Iranian Embassy in Canberra
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:14:12 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
The Iranian government led by reactionary
fundamentalists is and has been clearly lying
through their teeth. OF COURSE their intentions
are to have nuclear weapons. Anyone that believes
otherwise I'd love to sell a bridge to. Iran, sans
nuclear power, has all the energy they could ever
want. Their clearly demented head of state has
called for the annihalation of Israel which
clearly feeds into what the US Neocons love, it's
another Al Qaeda for them to attack and distract
US public attention from the scandals, trouble and
terrible ratings that George Bush is deeply
inmeshed in.
Those people that stand to be terrorized and
murdered here aren't Israelis or Americans but
Iranians- average Iranians going about their lives
subjected to the psychopathology of their
President and much of their government and mullahs
as well as the hawks in Washington and Tel
Aviv.Let there be no pretentions or naivity about
the nature of Iran's nuclear program. By the way,
Iran is not an Arab state as mentioned earlier.
About 85% of it's human population is non Arab.
As we prepare to observe the 20th anniversary
of Chernobyl on April 26th let's remember that
while people may have legal rights to nuclear
power no one has any moral right to nuclear power-
it's a horrificably dangerous technology which
"bleeds" low-level, lethal radiation and can be
easily attacked or melt down. There's also the
possibility of boil offs of their spent fuel
[which in many cases would be vastly worse than
Chernobyl] and the slight problem of what to do
with nuclear waste- DU, nuclear weapons, dumping
in some poor, unsuspecting community[s]? So Iran,
like the USA, Israel, Japan, France, Canada,
Ukraine, Russia, UK etc. have NO, Zero, Nada
rights to any nuclear power. If the NPT Treaty
isn't destroyed it's Article IV allowing for
commercial nuclear technology must be completely
altered. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro,
conservation and efficiancy are the rights we must
fight to promote for the viability of our
collective home.
-Bill Smirnow
----- Original Message -----
From: "FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 11:26 PM
Subject: More from Iranian Embassy in Canberra
This time they are sending direct to me.
This is as it came. I've left the header in place.
John Hallam
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:31:57 -0800 (PST)
From: iran embassy
Reply-To: cultural@embassyiran.org.au
Subject: An Unnecessary Crisis Setting the record
straight about
Iran's nuclear program
To: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign
An Unnecessary Crisis Setting the record straight
about Iran's nuclear program:
In a region already suffering from upheaval and
uncertainty, a crisis is being manufactured in
which
there will be no winners. Worse yet, the hysteria
about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear
weapon
program rest solely and intentionally on
misperceptions and outright lies. In the avalanche
of
anti-Iran media commentaries, conspicuously absent
is
any reference to important facts, coupled with a
twisted representation of the developments over
the
past 25 years. Before the international community
is
lead to another "crisis of choice", it is
imperative
that the public knows all the facts and is
empowered
to make an informed and sober decision about an
impending catastrophe.
1- Systematic Pattern of Denial of Iran's Rights
and
Its Impact on Transparency
Since early 1980s, Iran's peaceful nuclear program
and
its inalienable right to nuclear technology have
been
the subject of the most extensive and intensive
campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention and
misinformation.
. Valid and binding contracts to build nuclear
power
plants were unilaterally abrogated;
. Nuclear material rightfully purchased and owned
by
Iran was illegally withheld;
. Exercise of Iran's right as a shareholder in
several
national and multinational nuclear power
corporations
was obstructed;
. Unjustified and coercive interventions were
routinely made in order to undermine, impede and
delay
the implementation of Iran's nuclear agreements
with
third parties; and Unfounded accusations against
Iran's exclusively peaceful nuclear program were
systematically publicized.
As a result, and merely in order to prevent
further
illegal and illegitimate restrictions on its
ability
to procure its needed materials and equipments,
Iran
had been left with no option but to be discrete in
its
perfectly legal and exclusively peaceful
activities.
In doing so, Iran broke no laws nor diverted its
peaceful program to military activities. It only
refrained from disclosing the details of its
programs.
In nearly all cases, it was not even obliged to
disclose these programs under its safeguards
agreement
with the IAEA.
Therefore, while Iran's rights under the NPT
continued
to be grossly and systematically violated, and
while
major state parties to the Treaty persisted in
their
non-compliance with many of their obligations
under
Articles I, IV and VI of the Treaty in general,
and
under paragraph 2 of Article IV vis-ΰ-vis Iran in
particular, Iran nevertheless continued to
diligently
comply with all its obligations under the Treaty.
2. Nuclear Technology OR Nuclear Weapons?
A vicious cycle of restrictions on Iran's nuclear
program and attempts by Iran to circumvent them
through concealment and black market acquisitions
have
fueled mutual suspicions. In this
self-perpetuating
atmosphere, the conclusion is already drawn that
Iran's declared peaceful nuclear program is just a
cover for developing atomic weapons. But this
conclusion is based on two erroneous assumptions,
which have been repeated often enough to become
conventional wisdom.
2.1- Iran Needs Nuclear Energy
2.1.1. Nuclear Energy for an Oil-Rich Country
The first is that Iran has vast oil and gas
resources
and therefore does not need nuclear energy.
Although
it is true that Iran is rich in oil and gas, these
resources are finite and, given the pace of Iran's
economic development, they will be depleted within
two
to five decades. With a territory of 1,648,000 km2
and
a population of about 70 million, projected to be
more
than 105 million in 2050, Iran has no choice but
to
seek access to more diversified and secure sources
of
energy. Availability of electricity to 46,000
villages
now, compared to 4400 twenty five years ago, just
as
an example, demonstrates the fast growing demand
for
more energy. And the youthfulness of the Iranian
population, with around 70% under 30, doesn't
allow
complacency when it comes to energy policy. To
satisfy
such growing demands, Iran can't rely exclusively
on
fossil energy. Since Iranian national economy is
still
dependant on oil revenue, it can't allow the ever
increasing domestic demand affect the oil revenues
from the oil export.
2.1.2. US Support for Iranian Nuclear Program
Iran's quest for nuclear energy picked momentum
following a study in 1974 carried out by the
prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute,
which predicted Iran's need for nuclear energy and
recommended the building of nuclear plants capable
of
generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity before
1994. Now, 30 years later, Iran aims at reaching
that
level by 2020, which may save Iran 190 million
barrels
of crude oil or $10 billion per year in today's
prices.
Therefore, Iran's nuclear program is neither
ambitious
nor economically unjustifiable. Diversification -
including the development of nuclear energy - is
the
only sound and responsible energy strategy for
Iran.
Even the US State Department was convinced of this
in
1978 when it stated in a memo that the U.S. was
encouraged by Iran's efforts to expand its non-oil
energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran
Nuclear
Energy Agreement would be concluded soon and that
U.S.
companies would be able to play a role in Iran's
nuclear energy projects.
2.1.3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Producing fuel for its nuclear power plants is an
integral part of Iran's nuclear energy policy.
While
domestic production of fuel for this number of
nuclear
power plants makes perfect economic sense, Iran's
decision should not be judged solely on economic
grounds. Having been a victim of a pattern of
deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and
technology, Iran cannot solely rely on procurement
of
fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would
in
effect hold Iran's multi-billion dollar investment
in
power plants hostage to the political whims of
suppliers in a tightly controlled market.
Furthermore,
it is self evident that the time-consuming efforts
to
gain the necessary technology and develop the
capability for fuel production must proceed
simultaneously with the acquisition and
construction
of nuclear power plants. Otherwise constructed
plans
may become obsolete in case of denial of fuel
without
a contingency capacity to produce it domestically.
2.2. Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons for Its
Security
The second false assumption is that because Iran
is
surrounded by nuclear weapons in all directions -
the
U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Israel - any sound
Iranian
strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear
deterrent capability for Iran as well.
It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant
nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran
must
follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among
Iranian decision-makers is that development,
acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would
only undermine Iranian security. Viable security
for
Iran can be attained only through inclusion and
regional and global engagement. Iran's history is
the
perfect illustration of its geo-strategic outlook.
Over the past 250 years, Iran has not waged a
single
war of aggression against its neighbors, nor has
it
initiated any hostilities.
Iran today is the strongest country in its
immediate
neighborhood. It does not need nuclear weapons to
protect its regional interests. In fact, to
augment
Iranian influence in the region, it has been
necessary
for Iran to win the confidence of its neighbors,
who
have historically been concerned with size and
power
disparities.
On the other hand, Iran, with its current state of
technological development and military capability,
cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence
against
its adversaries in the international arena or in
the
wider region of the Middle East. Moreover, such an
unrealistic option would be prohibitively
expensive,
draining the limited economic resources of the
country. In sum, a costly nuclear-weapon option
would
reduce Iran's regional influence and increase its
global vulnerabilities without providing any
credible
deterrence.
There is also a fundamental ideological objection
to
weapons of mass destruction, including a religious
decree issued by the leader of the Islamic
Republic of
Iran prohibiting the development, stockpiling or
use
of nuclear weapons.
3. Negotiations with UK, France and Germany (EU3)
3.1. Iran's Transparency and Confidence-Building
Measures
in October 2003, Iran entered into an
understanding
with France, Germany and the United Kingdom with
the
explicit expectation to open a new chapter of full
transparency, cooperation and access to nuclear
and
other advanced technologies. Iran agreed to a
number
of important transparency and voluntary confidence
building measures and immediately and fully
implemented them.
. It signed and immediately began full
implementation
of the Additional Protocol;
. It opened its doors to one of the most expansive
and
intrusive IAEA inspections;
. It provided a detailed account of its peaceful
nuclear activities, all of which had been carried
out
in full conformity with its rights and obligations
under the NPT; It began and has continuously
maintained for the past 2 years a voluntarily
suspension of its rightful enrichment of Uranium
as a
confidence building measure;
. It further expanded its voluntary suspension in
February and November 2004, following agreements
with
EU3 in Brussels and Paris respectively, to
incorporate
activities which go well beyond the original
IAEA's
definition of "enrichment" and even
"enrichment-related" activities.
3.1.1. Resolution of Outstanding Issues
Iran has worked closely with the IAEA, during the
course of the last two years, to deal with the
issues
and questions raised about its peaceful nuclear
program. All significant issues, particularly
those
related to the sources of HEU (Highly Enriched
Uranium) have now been resolved. Indeed, except
for
few mostly speculative questions, nothing more
remains
to close this Chapter
3.1.2. No Indication of Non-Peaceful Activity
The Agency's thorough inspections of Iran have
repeatedly confirmed Iran's assertion that no
amount
of inspection and scrutiny will ever show the
slightest diversion into military activity. The
Director-General confirmed in Paragraph 52 of his
November 2003 report that "to date, there is no
evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear
material and activities referred to above were
related
to a nuclear weapons program." After one more year
and
over a thousand person-days of the most rigorous
inspections, the Director-General again confirmed
in
Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that
"all
the declared nuclear material in Iran has been
accounted for, and therefore such material is not
diverted to prohibited activities." This
conclusion
has been repeatedly reaffirmed in every statement
by
responsible authorities of the IAEA.
3.2. Broken Promises and Expanded Demands by the
EU3
Regrettably, Iran received very little, if
anything,
in return for its transparency, cooperation and
voluntary suspension of the exercise of its
legitimate
and inalienable right. The European negotiating
partners, pressured by the US, instead of carrying
out
their promises of cooperation and open access,
have
repeatedly called for expansion of Iran's
voluntary
confidence building measures only to be
reciprocated
by more broken promises and expanded requests:
. The October 2003 promises of the EU3 on nuclear
cooperation and regional security and
non-proliferation was never even addressed.
. The February 2004 written and signed commitment
by
the EU3 to "work actively to gain recognition at
the
June 2004 Board of the efforts made by Iran, so
that
the Board works thereafter on the basis of
Director-General reporting if and when he deems it
necessary, in accordance with the normal practice
pertaining to the implementation of Safeguards
Agreements and the Additional Protocol" was
violated,
even though Iran had in fact carried out its part
of
the deal by expanding its suspension to include
assembly and component manufacturing. Instead, the
EU3
proposed a harsh resolution with further
unjustifiable
demands in June 2004;
. The EU3 never honored its recognition, in the
Paris
Agreement of November 2004, of "Iran's rights
under
the NPT exercised in conformity with its
obligations
under the Treaty, without discrimination."
In spite of its repeated and publicized claims,
the
EU3 never offered, throughout the negotiations
process, any meaningful incentives to Iran, other
than
empty and demeaning "promises" of "consideration"
of
"possible future cooperation".
4. The Paris Agreement
in November 2004, following extensive
negotiations,
Iran and EU3 agreed on a package that has become
known
as the Paris Agreement. The objective of the Paris
Agreement was to "to move forward" in
"negotiations,
with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable
agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement
will provide objective guarantees that Iran's
nuclear
program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It
will
equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear,
technological and economic cooperation and firm
commitments on security issues."
The Paris Agreement envisaged that "while
negotiations
proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on
long-term arrangements," and "to build further
confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis
, to
continue and extend its suspension to include all
enrichment related and reprocessing activities."
At the same time, the EU3 recognized "that this
suspension is a voluntary confidence building
measure
and not a legal obligation" as well as "Iran's
rights
under the NPT exercised in conformity with its
obligations under the Treaty, without
discrimination."
The Paris Agreement rested on the premise that the
purpose of the Agreement was reaching mutually
acceptable long term arrangements and that
suspension
was a temporary measure for as long as
negotiations
were making progress. The Agreement further
envisaged
specific mechanisms to monitor and assess
progress.
4.1. March Report: Lack of Progress
In March 2005, in accordance with the Paris
Agreement,
senior officials from Iran and the three European
countries were mandated to make an assessment of
the
progress that had been achieved. The reports of
over
three months of negotiations by the working
groups,
created by the Paris Agreement, made it evident
that
while there was every prospect for reaching a
negotiated solution based on the Paris Agreement,
and
while Iran had made many significant and
far-reaching
proposals benefiting both sides, the EU3, faced
with
extraneous pressure, were simply trying to prolong
fruitless negotiations. This policy, in addition
to
its devastating impact on mutual trust, was
detrimental to Iran's interests and rights as it
attempted to superficially prolong Iran's
voluntary
suspension by dragging the negotiations.
It also became evident that despite repeated
requests
by Iran from EU3 representatives to present their
proposals and ideas on the implementation of
various
provisions of the Paris Agreement to the working
groups, the European three did not have the
intention
or the ability to present its proposals on
"objective
guarantees that Iran's nuclear program is
exclusively
for peaceful purposes [and] equally . firm
guarantees
on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation
and
firm commitments on security issues" as called for
in
that Agreement.
In short, it became evident that after massive
pressure from the United States in the winter of
2005,
the EU3 had conceded to unilaterally altering the
Paris Agreement into solely an instrument of
de-facto
cessation of Iranian peaceful enrichment program,
in
violation of the letter and spirit of that
Agreement.
4.2. Iran's Proposals
In February 2005, Iran suggested to the EU3 to ask
the
IAEA to develop technical, legal and monitoring
modalities for Iran's enrichment program as
objective
guarantees to ensure that Iran's nuclear program
would
remain exclusively for peaceful purposes. While
one
member of EU3 accepted the suggestion,
unfortunately
the lack of consensus among the EU3 prevented
resort
to the IAEA as an authoritative and impartial
framework for solving the impasse.
On March 23, 2005, in a clearly stated desire to
salvage the Paris Agreement, Iran offered a
collection
of solutions for objective guarantees suggested by
various independent scientist and observers from
the
United States and Europe. The package included:
1. Strong and mutually beneficial relations
between
Iran and the EU/EU3, which would provide the best
guarantee for respect for the concerns of each
side;
2. Confinement of Iran's enrichment program, in
order
to preclude through objective technical guarantees
any
proliferation concern:
a.
b. Open fuel cycle, to remove any concern about
reprocessing and production of plutonium;
c. Ceiling of enrichment at LEU level;
d. Limitation of the extent of the enrichment
program
to solely meet the contingency fuel requirements
of
Iran's power reactors;
e. Immediate conversion of all enriched Uranium to
fuel rods to preclude even the technical
possibility
of further enrichment; Incremental and phased
approach
to implementation in order to begin with the least
sensitive aspects of the enrichment program and to
gradually move to enrichment as confidence in the
program would be enhanced;
3. Legislative and regulatory measures
a.
b. Additional Protocol;
c. Permanent ban on the development, stockpiling
and
use of nuclear weapons through binding national
legislation;
d. Enhancement of Iran's export control
regulations;
4. Enhanced monitoring
a. Continued implementation of the Additional
Protocol; and
b. Continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors
at
the conversion and enrichment facilities to
provide
unprecedented added guarantees.
4.2.1. EU3 Inability to React
Extraneous pressure had resulted in the absence of
any
desire or ability by EU3 to even consider any
"objective guarantee" as called for in the Paris
Agreement and instead to maneuver to achieve a
de-facto cessation of Iran's lawful activities.
This
extraneous political element precluded even a
serious
review by EU3 of these independently worked out
proposals, which continue to have the most
credible
potential of providing a basis for allaying all
reasonable concerns.
Even Iran's further good-faith effort on April 29,
2005 to salvage the process by suggesting the
negotiated resumption of the work of the UCF-
which
had never had any past alleged failures, and is
virtually proliferation free - at low capacity and
with additional confidence building and
surveillance
and monitoring measures was rejected outright by
EU3
officials without even consideration at political
level.
4.2.2. Prelude to Breakdown in Nuclear Talks
Iran replied to such intransigence with
self-restraint
to ensure that no opportunity was spared for an
agreed
settlement. In a ministerial meeting in Geneva in
May
2005, Iran agreed to extend the period of full
suspension for another two months, in response to
a
commitment made by the EU3 ministers to finally
present their comprehensive package for the
implementation of the Paris Agreement by the end
of
July or early August 2005, that is nearly nine
months
after the Agreement.
Iran made it clear in Geneva that any proposal by
the
EU3 must incorporate EU3's perception of objective
guarantees for the gradual resumption of the
Iranian
enrichment program, and that any attempt to turn
objective guarantees into cessation or long-term
suspension were incompatible with the letter and
spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore
unacceptable to Iran.
4.2.3. A Further Compromise Suggested by Iran
Eager to salvage the negotiations, in a further
message to the Ministers, Iran offered the most
flexible solution to the EU3 as they were
finalizing
their package:
Commencement of the work of Esfahan plant (UCF)
o At low capacity,
o Under full scope monitoring,
o Agreed arrangements for import of the feed
material
and export of the product;
. Initial limited operation at Natanz following
o Further negotiations on a mutually acceptable
arrangement, or
o Allowing the IAEA to develop an optimized
arrangement on numbers, monitoring mechanism and
other
specifics;
Full scale operation of Natanz:
o Based on a negotiated agreement;
o Synchronized with the fuel requirements of
future
light water reactors.
4.3. EU's Package: Too Many Demands, No Incentives
Against all its sincere efforts and maximum
flexibility, on 5 August 2005 Iran received a
disappointing proposal. It not only failed to
address
Iran's rights for peaceful development of nuclear
technology, but did not offer anything to Iran in
return. It even fell far short of correcting the
illegal and unjustified restrictions placed on
Iran's
economic and technological development, let alone
providing firm guarantees for economic,
technological
and nuclear cooperation and firm commitments on
security issues. While Iran had made it crystal
clear
that no incentive would be sufficient to
compromise
Iran's inalienable right to all aspects of
peaceful
nuclear technology, the offers of incentives
incorporated in the proposal were in and of
themselves
demeaning and totally incommensurate with Iran and
its
vast capabilities, potentials and requirements.
4.3.1. Extra-Legal Demands of Binding Commitments
from
Iran
The proposal self-righteously assumed rights and
licenses for the EU3 which clearly went beyond or
even
contravened international law and assumed
obligations
for Iran which have no place in law or practice.
It
incorporated a series of one-sided and self
serving
extra-legal demands from Iran, ranging from
accepting
infringements on its sovereignty to relinquishing
its
inalienable rights.
It sought to intimidate Iran to accept intrusive
and
illegal inspections well beyond the Safeguards
Agreement or the Additional Protocol. It asked
Iran to
abandon most of its peaceful nuclear program. It
further sought to establish a subjective,
discriminatory and arbitrary set of criteria for
the
Iranian nuclear program, which would have
effectively
dismantled most of Iran's peaceful nuclear
infrastructure, criteria that if applied globally
would only monopolize the nuclear industry for the
Nuclear-Weapon States.
4.3.2. Vague, Conditional and Demeaning Offers to
Iran
The proposal had absolutely no firm guarantees or
commitments and did not even incorporate
meaningful or
serious offers of cooperation to Iran. It amounted
to
an elongated but substantively shortened and
self-servingly revised version of an offer that
had
been proposed by EU3 and rejected by Iran in
October
2004 even prior to the Paris Agreement. This
indicated
that there was no attempt on the part of EU3 to
even
take into consideration the letter and spirit of
the
Paris Agreement in their proposal.
This point is further illustrated by the fact that
the
proposal never even mentioned the terms "objective
guarantees", "firm guarantees" or "firm
commitments",
which were the foundations of the Paris Agreement.
Instead it tried to replace "objective guarantees"
with termination of Iran's hard gained peaceful
nuclear program, and replace "firm guarantees and
firm
commitments" with vague, conditional and partial
restatements of existing obligations.
In the area of security, the proposal did not go
beyond repeating UN Charter principles or
previously-made general commitments. Worse yet,
the
proposal even attempted to make EU3's commitment
to
these general principles of international law
optional, partial, and conditional by prefacing
the
segment with the following statement: "The EU3
propose
that, within the context of an overall agreement,
this
section could include, inter alia, the following
mutual commitments in conformity with the Charter
of
the United Nations."
Another example is the negative security
assurances
provided in the proposal by the nuclear-weapons
states
of the EU3. The proposal offered the mere
repetition -
only by UK and France -- of a universal commitment
already made by all nuclear weapon states in 1995
to
all NPT members. It even made the application of
that
commitment to Iran contingent on an overall
agreement
by stating "Within the context of an overall
agreement
and Iran's fulfillment of its obligations under
the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT), the United Kingdom and France would be
prepared
to reaffirm to Iran the unilateral security
assurances
given on 6 April 1995, and referred to in United
Nations Security Council Resolution 984 (1995)."
In the area of technology cooperation, it failed
to
include even an indication - let alone
guarantees --
of the EU3 readiness to abandon or ease its
violations
of international law and the NPT with regard to
Iran's
access to technology. For instance, while under
the
NPT, the EU3 is obliged to facilitate Iran's
access to
nuclear technology, the proposal makes a
conditional
and ambiguous offer "not to impede participation
in
open competitive tendering." And far from the
generally advertised offer of EU cooperation with
Iran
in construction of new nuclear power plants, the
proposal generously offered to "fully support
long-term co-operation in the civil nuclear field
between Iran and Russia."
In the area of economic cooperation, the proposal
only
included a conditional recital of already existing
commitments and arrangements. While most of the
document amounted to general promises of future
considerations, even specific offers went no
further
than conditional expressions of "readiness to
discuss." Two examples may be sufficient in this
regard: "The EU3 would continue to promote the
sale of
aircraft parts to Iran and be willing to enter
into
discussion about open procurement of the sale of
civil
passenger aircraft to Iran." Or, "the EU3 and
Iran, as
well as the Commission, would discuss possible
future
oil and gas pipeline projects."
This proposal made it self-evident that
negotiations
were not "proceeding" as called for in the Paris
Agreement, due to EU3 policy of disregarding the
requirements of that Agreement, reverting to their
pre-Agreement positions, and prolonging a
semblance of
negotiations without the slightest attempt to move
forward in fulfilling their commitments under the
Tehran or Paris Agreements. This protracted
continuation was solely designed to keep the
suspension in place for as long as it takes to
make
"cessation" a fait accompli. This was contrary to
the
letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and was
not
in line with principles of good faith
negotiations.
In short, the proposal, read objectively in the
context of the negotiating history of the Paris
Agreement as well as its letter and spirit,
clearly
illustrates the total abandonment of that
Agreement by
the EU3, who have conveniently accused Iran of the
same.
4.3.3. Minimal Reaction from Iran
After such a long period of negotiations and all
that
Iran had done and continues to do in order to
restore
confidence as well as the flexibility that Iran
has
shown, there was no pretext for any further delay
in
the implementation of the first phase of Iran's
proposal, by limited resumption of UCF at Isfahan,
which has been free from any past alleged
failures,
and is virtually proliferation free. In this
context,
Iran informed the Agency of its decision to resume
the
uranium conversion activities at the UCF in
Isfahan
and asked the Agency to be prepared for the
implementation of the Safeguards related
activities in
a timely manner prior to the resumption of the UCF
activities.
4.4. Who Violated the Paris Agreement?
According to the Paris Agreement, "the suspension
will
be sustained while negotiations proceed on a
mutually
acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements."
It
also envisaged a mechanism for assessment of
progress
within three months. In the meeting of 23 March
2005,
it was clear that there had been no progress over
the
preceding three months. As a clearly-stated
attempt to
salvage the agreement, Iran made its March 23rd
proposal in terms of a package of objective
guarantees.
The refusal of the EU3 to even consider that
package
coupled with their behavior in the course of the
negotiations, their August 2005 proposal and their
repeated statements during the time of the
presentation of that proposal and since then made
in
abundantly clear that under pressure from the US
following the Paris Agreement, the EU3 had decided
to
unilaterally change the nature of the Paris
Agreement.
This amounted to a breach of the letter and spirit
of
the Paris Agreement as well as the principle of
good-faith negotiations.
The EU3 negotiating posture and the empirical
evidence
of lack of progress had in fact removed any onus
from
Iran to continue the suspension. However, Iran
decided
to maintain the suspension of all enrichment
related
activities and resume only the UCF process, which
is
by definition a pre-enrichment process. Therefore,
the
assertion that Iran broke the Paris Agreement is a
self-serving and factually false proposition. In
fact,
the reverse is the case.
5. Iran Goes the Extra Mile for a Negotiated
Solution
The Islamic Republic of Iran has always wanted to
ensure that no effort is spared in order to reach
a
negotiated resumption of its enrichment
activities.
It, therefore, engaged in good faith and intensive
negotiations with the EU3 and other interested
delegations during the Summit of the United
Nations in
September 2005 in order to remove obstacles to the
resumption of good-faith and result-oriented
negotiations in accordance with established rights
and
obligations under the NPT. In this context, Iran
responded positively to a proposal which would
have
removed any concern about the continued operation
of
the UCF in Isfahan at lower capacity for a
specific
period to allow negotiations to reach results.
Iran
also agreed to resume negotiations with the EU3
and to
consider all proposals that had been presented.
Furthermore, the President of the Islamic Republic
of
Iran, in his address to the General Assembly on
September 17, 2005, made yet another far reaching
offer of added guarantee by inviting international
partnership in Iran's enrichment activities.
While the President reiterated that Iran's right
to
have fuel cycle technology was not negotiable, he
presented the following confidence-building
positions
and proposals in his statement:
. Readiness for constructive interaction and a
just
dialogue in good faith;
. Prohibition of pursuit of nuclear weapons in
accordance with religious principles;
. Necessity to revitalize the NPT;
. Cooperation with the IAEA as the centerpiece of
Iran's nuclear policy;
. Readiness to continue negotiations with the EU3;
. Readiness to consider various proposals that
have
been presented;
Welcome the proposal of South Africa to move the
process forward;
. Acceptance of partnership with private and
public
sectors of other countries in the implementation
of
uranium enrichment program in Iran which engages
other
countries directly and removes any concerns.
6. Abuse of IAEA Machinery
Regrettably, the EU3, pressed by the United
States,
adopted a path of confrontation in the September
2005
IAEA Board of Governors meeting. In clear
violation of
their October 2003 and November 2004 commitments,
the
EU3moved a politically motivated and factually and
legally flawed resolution in the IAEA Board of
Governors, and together with the United States and
using all their combined diplomatic and economic
leverages imposed it on the Board through an
unprecedented resort to voting rather than the
previously unbroken practice of consensus.
6.1. No Legal or Factual Grounds for IAEA
"Findings"
The imposed resolution makes a mockery of the
proceedings of the Board of Governors by rehashing
alleged failures that had already been dealt with
in
the November 2003 Board. At that time, despite the
existence of ambiguities and serious questions on
important issues such as the source of HEU
contamination, "findings" of "non-compliance" or
"absence of confidence" in the exclusively
peaceful
nature of Iran's program were impossible.
The Board refrained from making such findings in
2003
not because of a now-claimed "voluntary restraint"
by
EU3, but because such were factually and legally
impossible due to the nature of failures - which
were
solely of technical reporting character -- and
also
because of the fact that the Director-General had
specifically stated in his November 2003 report
that
"to date, there is no evidence that the previously
undeclared nuclear material and activities
referred to
above were related to a nuclear weapons program."
It
is ironic that after two years of cooperation,
over
1200 person/days of intrusive inspections,
resolution
of nearly all outstanding issues particularly the
foreign source of contamination, and after
repeated
reiteration of the finding of non-diversion
including
the conclusion in the IAEA November 2004 report
that
"all the declared nuclear material in Iran has
been
accounted for, and therefore such material is not
diverted to prohibited activities," the imposed
resolution discovered ex post facto that the
failures
"detailed in Gov/2003/75 [the aforementioned
report of
November 2003] constitutes non-compliance."
6.2. The Real Story: Pressure to Deny Iran's
Inalienable Rights
While the resolution attempted to create a
convenient
- albeit false - pretext of these alleged and old
reporting failures for its so-called "findings",
it is
abundantly clear that the reason for production of
this resolution was by no means those alleged
failures, but instead the resumption of Iran's
perfectly legal and safeguarded activities in
Isfahan.
In this context, it must be underlined that all
States
party to the NPT, without discrimination, have an
inalienable right to produce nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes. As this right is "inalienable",
it
cannot be undermined or curtailed under any
pretext.
Any attempt to do so, would be an attempt to
undermine
a pillar of the Treaty and indeed the Treaty
itself.
Iran, like any other Non-Nuclear-Weapon State, had
no
obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the
exercise of its "inalienable" right, nor could it
be
obligated to suspend it. Suspension of Uranium
enrichment, or any derivative of such suspension,
is a
voluntary and temporary confidence-building
measure,
effectuated by Iran in order to enhance
cooperation
and close the chapter of denials of access to
technology imposed by the west on Iran. It is not
an
end in itself, nor can it be construed or turned
into
a permanent abandonment of a perfectly lawful
activity, thereby perpetuating, rather than
easing,
the pattern of denial of access to technology.
The suspension of Uranium enrichment has been in
place
for nearly two years, with all its economic and
social
ramifications affecting thousands of families. The
EU3
failed to remove any of the multifaceted
restrictions
on Iran's access to advanced and nuclear
technology.
In a twist of logic, it even attempted to prolong
the
suspension, thereby trying to effectively widen
its
restrictions instead of fulfilling its commitments
of
October 2003 and November 2004 to remove them.
As the IAEA Board of Governors had underlined in
its
past and current resolution, suspension "is a
voluntary, non-legal binding confidence building
measure". When the Board itself explicitly
recognizes
that suspension is "not a legally-binding
obligation",
no wording by the Board can turn this voluntary
measure into an essential element for anything. In
fact the Board of Governors has no factual or
legal
ground, nor any statutory power, to make or
enforce
such a demand, or impose ramifications as a
consequence of it.
7. The Way Forward: No Coercion, Good-Faith
Negotiations
The recently imposed resolution on the IAEA Board
of
Governors is devoid of any legal authority, and
any
attempt to implement it will be counter-productive
and
will leave Iran with no option but to suspend its
voluntary confidence building measures. The threat
of
referral to the Security Council will only further
complicate the issue and will not alter Iran's
resolve
to exercise its legitimate and inalienable rights
under the NPT. At the same time, Iran is
determined to
pursue good-faith interaction and negotiations,
based
on equal footing, as the centerpiece of its
approach
to the nuclear issue. A diplomatic and negotiated
framework is the desired approach for a successful
outcome and Iran is ready to consider all
constructive
and effective proposals.Iran welcomes
consultations
and negotiations with other countries in order to
facilitate the work of the Agency and calls on the
EU3
to replace the course of confrontation with
interaction and negotiation to reach understanding
and
agreement.
. The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to
non-proliferation and the elimination of nuclear
weapons, and considers nuclear weapons and
capability
to produce or acquire them as detrimental to its
security. Iran will continue to abide by its
obligations under the NPT and will continue to
work
actively for the establishment of a zone free from
weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
__________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
3 IRNA: Russian offer to be considered in light of new situation - Entezami -
March 13, IRNA
--
Moscow's plan to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran should be
reconsidered by Iranian officials in light of the new
developments, spokesman of Supreme National Security Council
(SNSC) Hossein Entezami said on Monday.
Speaking to IRNA, Entezami said Tehran had repeatedly declared
that it would welcome any solution which helps remove the
dispute on Iranian nuclear program.
"Only those talks which will observe rights of all parties will
be seen reasonable by Iran," Entezami stressed.
As for some domestic political groups which believed that
Tehran had to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) after its
nuclear case was reported to the United Nations Security
Council, the spokesman said, "We believe that the NPT is a good
international agreement." He expressed hope that the UN nuclear
watchdog, its member states and other parties dealing with
Iran's nuclear issue, "Will be able to safeguard international
security by acting within the framework of the agreement (NPT)."
Referring to the NPT's essential principles, Entezami stressed
that the treaty was based on two significant elements of
disarmament and helping NPT member states use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes.
"Unfortunately, the two valuable principles are being ignored
by certain countries," the spokesman regretted.
He added that the best way to guarantee continued commitment of
the NPT member states' to its terms "is to help them (members)
benefit from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
Entezami reiterated that Tehran has continuously given priority
to hold talks and use diplomacy under any condition.
However, he said: "The way that the Iranians will appear in any
future possible talks will totally depend on how those dealing
with the Iranian peaceful nuclear program at this stage, play
their role in resolving the current standoff."
Russia's new offer for holding a meeting in Vienna by the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council,
Germany and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, (5+2), has proved that Moscow is
trying to maintain its role at this juncture, he said.
Given the current lack of consensus among the permanent members
of the UNSC, if they all agree with Moscow's offer, it can be
said that Russia is still playing an effective role in the
international scene.
Russia is trying to maintain its international status in any
possible way for returning Tehran's nuclear case from New York
(Security Council) to Vienna (the IAEA).
Iran has repeatedly said that it is ready to accept new plans
and proposals on solving its nuclear standoff, in case that they
would respect Tehran's indisputable right to produce nuclear
energy for civilian use.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters Sunday on
the sidelines of an international conference on energy and
security that Tehran believed that there is still chance for
continuing talks on Iran's nuclear case.
News sent: 16:10 Monday March 13, 2006 Print
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Brussels think-tank to discuss Iran's nuclear programme
Brussels, March 13, IRNA
Belgium-Iran-think tank
"Iran's nuclear programme- a transatlantic Assessment" is The
topic of a policy briefing organised by the European Policy
Centre (EPC) due to be held in Brussels on March 22.
"In the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
recent decision to report Iranian nuclear dossier to the United
Nations Security Council, the EPC has assembled American and
European specialists to provide their assessment of Iran's
nuclear programme, transatlantic cooperation on this issue, and
prospects for a peaceful resolution, said the EPC in a statement.
Speakers include Gregory Schulte, US Ambassador to the IAEA
Gareth Evans, President of the think tank International Crisis
Group and an EU official, it said.
The Brussels-based EPC is a prestigious think tank supported by
the European Commission.
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran to Talk Further This Week
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday March 13, 2006 4:46 PM
AP Photo LKW102
By JUDITH INGRAM
Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will hold another round of nuclear
consultations shortly with Iran, which has rejected Moscow's
demand to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday.
The Interfax news agency, citing an unidentified source in
Russia's embassy in Tehran, said that the talks could take place
in Moscow on Tuesday and Wednesday, and would be at the level of
the deputy head of Iran's powerful National Security Council.
``Iran in the last day or two appealed to us again to hold
consultations,'' Lavrov said at a briefing. ``They will take
place in the nearest future.''
Earlier talks on Russia's offer to host the Iranian uranium
enrichment program produced no results.
``We are very disappointed with the way Iran has been conducting
itself in these negotiations, absolutely not helping those who
want to provide for finding peaceful ways to resolve the whole
situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program,'' Lavrov
said.
Before the U.N. Security Council takes up the issue this week, a
Western diplomat, who insisted on anonymity in detailing the
confidential discussions, said a new meeting among the permanent
council members - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and
China - was planned Monday to look at a revised draft statement.
The text was aimed at pressuring Tehran to resolve questions
about its nuclear program, including demands that it abandon
uranium enrichment.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iran's leaders are
taking the country in the ``wrong direction,'' repressing their
own people and pursuing confrontation abroad.
But Straw also said Britain wants the Security Council to go one
step at a time, leaving the door open to restart negotiations
with Tehran if it reverses course and expresses a willingness to
suspend its uranium enrichment program.
``If the Iranian regime chooses not to heed the concerns of the
international community, it's going to damage the interests of
the Iranian people,'' he said in a speech.
Western governments and organizations should try to reach out to
Iranians to emphasize that the international community does not
oppose Iran's civilian nuclear power program, only its alleged
efforts to build a nuclear bomb, Straw said.
Earlier Monday, Moscow's atomic energy chief, Sergei Kiriyenko,
said a Kremlin proposal to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian
territory remains open. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid
Reza Asefi had said Sunday that Tehran would no longer consider
the Russian proposal.
``Russia believes that Iran, like any other state, has the right
to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but the global
community has the right to demand guarantees of
nonproliferation. Russia has made its offer to combine these two
positions,'' Kiriyenko said.
``The Russian proposal has and will remain, and it's not going
to change. Attempts to extract just certain fragments of it
won't work.''
Russia has made its enrichment offer contingent on Tehran
suspending its own enrichment effort, but Iranian officials have
rejected the link.
The text was aimed at pressuring Tehran to resolve questions
about its nuclear program, including demands that it abandon
uranium enrichment.
Tehran, which only has an experimental nuclear research program,
repeatedly has warned it will begin large-scale uranium
enrichment if referred it the Security Council, which occurred
last week.
Iran has insisted it will never give up its right under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce
nuclear fuel. It restarted research-scale uranium enrichment
last month, two years after voluntarily freezing the program
during talks with Germany, Britain and France.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday reiterated
a veiled warning that Iran may consider withdrawing from the NPT
if its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel is not
respected.
``If we reach a point that the existing rules don't meet the
right of the Iranian nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran may
reconsider policies,'' he said.
A report last week by International Atomic Energy Agency head
Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran was testing centrifuges, which spin
uranium gas into enriched uranium, and had plans to begin
installation of the first 3,000 centrifuges late this year. Iran
will need to install about 60,000 centrifuges for a large-scale
enrichment of uranium.
Iran insists its program is designed only to generate
electricity, but the U.S. claims Tehran has been working to
build a bomb for more than a decade. Britain and France are also
skeptical of the Iranians, and the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, says it has serious questions about Iran's program.
In an interview with the daily Vremya Novostei, Lavrov also
criticized the U.S. stance toward Tehran, accusing Washington of
using the nuclear crisis ``to solve some political tasks in
their relations with the (current) regime.''
Lavrov called again for the main players in the crisis - Russia,
the United States, France, Germany, Britain and China - to meet
with ElBaradei in Vienna and he insisted that the IAEA remain
central to solving the crisis.
``But sometimes our Western partners propose acting according to
this logic: since there's not clarity (in Iran's nuclear
program) then let's put on pressure more quickly and impose
sanctions,'' Lavrov said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Security Council Deadlocked on Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday March 13, 2006 4:46 PM
AP Photo XHS102
By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The five veto-wielding members of the U.N.
Security Council are deadlocked over the best way to pressure
Iran into clearing up questions about its nuclear program, U.N.
diplomats said Monday.
The divide between Russia and China on one side and Britain,
France and the United States on the other makes it less likely
the council will take a tough stance against Iran when it
convenes later this week to discuss the issue for the first
time, the diplomats said.
Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding council members met
early Monday for the third time to debate language for a council
statement on the issue.
Britain and France, backed by the United States, have proposed
that the council demand Iran abandon uranium enrichment - a
process that can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile
material for an atomic bomb - and adhere to its obligations
under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Russia and China fear that going that far in a statement - which
Iran is not legally bound to obey - would make negotiations more
difficult.
``I think that we want a constructive statement,'' China's
Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press as he left the
meeting. ``I think they want to be too tough.''
The United States believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear
weapon and says a strong Security Council statement will put new
pressure on Tehran to abide by its obligations under the
nonproliferation treaty. Russia and China, allies of Iran, say
that council involvement will lead Iran to expel nuclear
inspectors and leave the treaty entirely.
The council has the power to impose economic and political
sanctions on Iran.
A U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
Russians and Chinese showed little indication they would change
their position or accept the proposals for wording a statement
from the British, French and Americans.
The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the
secrecy of the discussions, said Russia and China want the
council only to underscore the primary role of the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in handling
the Iran issue.
The disagreement means the United States and its allies could
elect to bypass the Security Council entirely in confronting
Iran. Last week, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns
said a coalition might consider targeted sanctions if council
action was not firm enough.
Despite the deadlock, Britain and France plan to circulate a
draft text to the entire council Tuesday, the diplomat said.
That is partly because other nations on the 15-member council
have become increasingly angry about being excluded from the
negotiations between the five veto-wielding members, the U.N.
diplomat said.
Russia will hold another round of nuclear consultations shortly
with Iran, which has rejected Moscow's demand to suspend its
uranium enrichment activities, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
said Monday.
The Interfax news agency, citing an official in Russia's embassy
in Tehran it did not identify, said the talks could take place
in Moscow on Tuesday and Wednesday, and would be at the level of
the deputy head of Iran's powerful National Security Council.
Underscoring just how cautiously Russia and China want to
proceed, diplomats said there was even disagreement about how
the council ought to ask the IAEA to report on Iran's compliance
with its nuclear obligations.
Britain, France and the United States want the council to ask
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report back to it in a short
timeframe - possibly as little as two weeks - on whether Iran
has taken steps to answer questions about its nuclear
intentions.
Russia and China believe Elbaradei should not deliver that
report to the council but to the IAEA's 35-nation Board of
Governors, which could then inform the council of its findings,
Russia's Ambassador Andrey Denisov said.
That seemingly minor distinction could actually be heavy with
meaning. By reporting to the IAEA board, Elbaradei would
implicitly return the issue of Iran to that body and take it out
of the hands of the council. In turn, that move could make
future council action even less likely.
``We have common objectives, but as far as messages are
concerned, we are in the process of discussing,'' Denisov said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Open to New Iran-Russia Nuclear Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday March 13, 2006 8:16 PM
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Monday it is open
to a resumption of Russian talks with Iran over its nuclear
program, but has no indication Tehran is ready to give up its
uranium enrichment efforts.
Another round of talks between the two countries could be held
even while the U.N. Security Council considers how to constrain
an Iranian program that the United States and its European
allies say is geared to developing nuclear weapons, a State
Department spokesman said.
Russia has offered to enrich uranium for civilian purposes for
Iran, thereby keeping the process out of Iran's control as a
safeguard to weapons production.
Iran has delayed and resisted, spokesman Tom Casey said. ``If
they would like to change their minds, if they would like to
come around, if they would like to end their two years of
defiance of requirements and requests from the international
community, we would certainly like to see it.''
But, Casey added, ``Unfortunately, we have no indication that
that's going to occur.''
The dispute has been referred to the U.N. Security Council,
where Casey said the Bush administration seeks, as an initial
step, a statement by the Council presidency that calls on Iran
to fulfill its international obligations.
``Iran knows what it needs to do and what we're waiting to see
is whether the Iranians will finally make the decision that has
been asked of them and been required of them by the
international community for some time,'' Casey said.
He said he did not know when a draft of a statement would be
submitted or by which country. ``I can't tell you whether that
is going to be in the next two days, next four days, next six
days,'' Casey said. ``I don't want to pin it down on specific
timing.''
While action in the Security Council is where the Bush
administration places its focus, further talks between Russia
and Iran are not inconsistent with U.S. efforts at the United
Nations, he said.
And ``if Iran stands up today and does a complete 180, turns
around and says we would agree to abide by all the international
community's requirements ... if it wants to return to the
negotiating table and work out a real deal with the Russians, as
opposed to some of the delaying tactics that we've seen with
them, that would be wonderful,'' Casey said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: Straw: Iran nuclear negotiations still open
Staff and agencies
Monday March 13, 2006
Any action which the UN security council takes against Iran over
the nuclear dispute must be "incremental and reversible", the
foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said today.
Speaking as the security council began to discuss its response to
the long-running row, Mr Straw said the west was "right to be
worried" about Iran getting an atomic bomb.
He said the UN should seek a "full verifiable suspension" of
nuclear enrichment and reprocessing research in Iran, while at
the same time keeping the door to negotiations open.
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, referred Iran to the security council last Wednesday
after efforts to break the impasse failed.
Mr Straw said comments from Iranian leaders were increasingly
provocative. However, he added: "Security council involvement
does not mean an end to our efforts to find a negotiated
solution. It marks a new phase in diplomatic efforts."
In a wide-ranging speech on Iran at the International Institute
for Strategic Studies in London, he said that Iranians "deserved
better" than a regime which was taking the country "in the wrong
direction".
The region would be seriously destabilised if Iran gained atomic
weapons and other states would be encouraged to get nuclear
bombs, he said.
Iran should be supported in getting civilian-use nuclear power
but it should not be allowed to do its own enrichment work, Mr
Straw said.
Addressing Iran's complaint that there was no consistency in
western diplomacy because Israel had nuclear weapons, he said
the UK wanted Israel to join the non-proliferation treaty.
The UK had also signed a proposal in 1995 calling for the whole
of the Middle East to be nuclear-weapon free. Iran getting the
bomb would be a "serious" obstacle towards this goal, he said.
Mr Straw also noted that Israel had not recently called for Iran
to be "annihilated", in contrast to the call by the Iranian
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped off the
map".
Tehran denies US and western claims that it plans to develop a
nuclear weapon and has refused to resume suspension of its
experimental enrichment activities.
But Mr Straw cast doubt on these claims. He said Russia had
offered to help Iran run for the next 10 years the one nuclear
power plant it is building, and would do so indefinitely if
asked. He said it was unusual for a country with one nuclear
power station to want to do its own nuclear enrichment work.
He added that military personnel were involved in Iran's nuclear
programme and the regime had a record of misleading the
international community on its true intentions.
He said it was not just Europe and the US who had concerns about
Tehran's nuclear ambitions and there were anxieties around the
world.
Iran had a young, educated population but prolonged dispute with
the international community would damage the country's economy,
the foreign secretary said. Many bright young Iranians were
already "voting with their feet" and leaving the country.
"Our message is that we want the Iranian people to enjoy the
benefits of civil nuclear power and we support their aspirations
for a freer, more democratic and prosperous Iran."
Iran was not making the most of changes in the region, he said.
"The chances that Iran has to capitalise on the fact that they
no longer have a belligerent dictator on their doorstep in Iraq
nor an aggressive Taliban in Afghanistan are being squandered."
He said Iranians must wonder why Shia Muslims in Iraq could vote
for who they wanted, while Iran's parliamentary elections in
2004 and last year's presidential elections were restricted.
Freedom of the press had been seriously curtailed and Mr Straw
called on international media groups to help inform Iranians,
for example, by publishing news online in Persian.
His comments follow a move by the US secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, to request funds from Congress for a huge
cultural outreach programme targeting Iranians.
Mr Straw said: "We will not take sides in Iran's internal
political debates, those are for the Iranians to resolve. But
this does not mean that we should stop standing up for the
principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms which we
hold dear to ourselves and which so many Iranians aspire to."
Earlier, Mr Straw said Tehran had repeatedly miscalculated by
thinking it could split the UN and renewed his insistence that
military action against Iran was inconceivable.
He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is not Iraq for a
moment.... This is an issue that has to be resolved, yes by
pressure, but by peaceful and by democratic means. Although no
American president is ever going to theoretically rule out any
option, in practice military action is not on the Americans'
agenda."
He said Mr Ahmadinejad was a "difficult individual to deal with"
but ultimate decisions rested with the country's ruling
theocracy.
The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Michael Moore,
said: "The foreign secretary's direct appeal to the Iranian
people recognises the complexity of Iranian politics and the
range of opinions within the country. That recognition needs to
be shared by the US so that the UN's diplomatic process does not
inevitably slide down a route towards conflict."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 BBC: Iran deserves better, says Straw
Last Updated: Monday, 13 March 2006
[Foreign Secretary Jack Straw]
Mr Straw's speech may mark a shift in Britain's approach to Iran
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has appealed to the Iranian people -
saying he wants to help them have a freer and more prosperous
future.
In a speech in London Mr Straw said the Iranian people "deserved
better" than their current government.
International agencies should publish more reports in Farsi on
the internet to help reach the Iranians, he said.
The UN Security Council is to discuss Iran's nuclear programme
but Mr Straw says military action is inconceivable.
If Iran is developing a nucle weapons capability it would very
seriously destabilise the Middle East Jack Straw Analysis: New US
cold war
He refused to comment directly when asked by the BBC's Frank
Gardner about contingency plans being drawn up by US military
chiefs about possible strikes on Iranian targets.
Mr Straw told the International Institute for Strategic Studies
Iran policies risked damaging its reputation and relations with
the rest of the world.
"Iran and the Iranian people deserve better," he declared.
Mr Straw said foreign investors were already looking elsewhere
and bright young Iranians were leaving the country.
Such problems were likely to be made worse if there was a
protracted situation between Iran and the UN, he said.
The foreign secretary said he was not in favour of "regime
change" in Iran, and any change in government had to "come from
within".
'Not too late'
z UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency last
week referred Iran to the UN Security Council after months of
growing tension over the country's nuclear programme.
The security council starts talks this week and has the power to
impose sanctions.
Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Iran was "very, very
sensitive" to the prospect of referral to the Security Council.
Tehran had repeatedly miscalculated by thinking it could split
the UN, he said.
But the involvement of the Security Council did not mean efforts
to find a negotiated solution were over, he said.
Destabilisation fears
Mr Straw renewed his claim that military action against Iran was
inconceivable.
"This is not Iraq for a moment ... This is an issue that has to
be resolved, yes by pressure, but by peaceful and democratic
means," he said.
"Although no American president is ever going to theoretically
rule out any option, in practice military action is not on the
Americans' agenda."
He said Iran was a voluntary signatory to the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and if could seriously destabilise the
Middle East if it developed nuclear weapons.
Absent minister
US President George W Bush on Monday added to pressure on Iran,
saying some of the most powerful homemade bombs used against
American troops in Iraq included parts from Iran.
Iran has vowed to resist international pressure, insisting it has
the right to civilian nuclear technology. It denies US and EU
accusations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
On Sunday, Iran said Moscow's compromise proposal on its nuclear
programme was "off the agenda" after the security council
referral.
But ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said his country was
still open to negotiations with Russia, as long as Iran's right
to conduct nuclear fuel research on its own soil was recognised.
Russia had sought to persuade Iran to move its enrichment
programme to Russian territory, which would allow closer
international monitoring.
During his BBC interview Mr Straw also defended fellow Cabinet
minister, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, after it emerged she
had chosen not to attend Cabinet talks on Iran since 2003 due to
her husband's business dealings.
The foreign secretary said occasionally ministers had to absent
themselves from discussions because of a potential conflict of
interest which may arise from their spouse's activities.
"That is provided for by the ministerial code. Tessa, to my
absolutely certain knowledge, acted promptly and properly," he
said.
The prime minister's official spokesman added that the culture
secretary had "absented herself voluntarily".
*****************************************************************
10 AFP: Britain warns that Iran is on wrong track with confrontation -
[Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw]
LONDON (AFP) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the
Iranian people wanted peace and stability, warning Tehran that
it was on the wrong track by confronting the West over its
nuclear program.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardline government, however,
vowed to press on with its nuclear activities and played down
the threat of economic sanctions ahead of a UN Security Council
meeting on the country's atomic program.
Straw, whose country is a key European Union negotiator on the
nuclear issue, said London had pursued a dialogue with
Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami because of
the long-term political outlook.
"We judged that Iranians, in general but not least the young,
shared our desire to see Iran as a fully integrated and widely
respected member of the international community," Straw said.
"And I think most Iranians still want that," he added.
However, with growing repression at home and confrontation
abroad under the new leadership, "sadly, Iran is now moving in
the wrong direction," Straw said in a speech in London.
"Iran and the Iranian people deserve better," Straw said.
Straw told BBC radio earlier that he was not appealing to the
Iranian people over the president's head so much as pointing out
that Iran was actually run by unelected religious authorities
who he said need to heed the popular mood.
"And these (authorities) who need to have a care for the fact
that they do not govern with proper consent of the Iranian
people need to think very carefully about where they are taking
their country," Straw said.
Straw also said the United Nations should continue to pressure
Iran into abandoning its nuclear program while also allowing for
talks to resume "at any stage."
Ahmadinejad was as defiant as ever.
"We will not bend to a few countries' threats as their demands
for giving up our nation's rights are unfair and cruel," the
president was quoted as saying on state television.
The UN Security Council is to convene soon to call on Iran to
comply with the demand of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to suspend all its sensitive uranium enrichment related
activities.
The world body has the power to impose economic sanctions if
Tehran refuses to budge.
But Iran's economy minister Davoud Danesh-Jaafari told a press
conference: "it is unlikely that the Europeans decide on
sanctions against us, but even if that is the case, it would
rather harm them".
He added that Iran had set aside 19.4 billion dollars in its
foreign exchange reserve fund on January 20 to cope with meet
any possible economic sanctions.
Iran, which denies allegations by the United States that its
nuclear program is a cover for weapons production, also vowed to
press on with the construction of a second nuclear power station.
Iran is building its first civilian nuclear power station near
the southern city of Bushehr with Russian help but the project
has been hit by a string of delays.
It is to start work in the next six months on a second plant,
press reports quoted the Energy Minister Parviz Fattah as saying.
Iran kicked off the recent standoff by refusing to comply with
an IAEA demand to suspend the research activities on enrichment
it had resumed on January 10.
Enriched uranium is used in nuclear fuel cycle but it can also
make the core of an atomic bomb.
In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the US
government still expected the UN Security Council to take up
Iran's nuclear program this week and denied any rifts on how to
keep Tehran from getting atomic weapons.
In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said talks
with Iran over its nuclear program would continue and issued
thinly-veiled criticism of Washington's policy towards Tehran.
"We do not agree with those who, as we see it, are trying
through their actions to use the situation around Iran in order
to achieve some political ends in their relations with the
regime currently in power in Tehran," Lavrov told the liberal
daily Vremya Novostei.
In New York, US ambassador John Bolton said the Security
Council's five veto-wielding members -- the United States,
Britain, France, China, and Russia -- met Monday to discuss the
nuclear issue and plan to meet again Tuesday.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP
*****************************************************************
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Minister defends Iran nuclear right
2006/03/13
Tehran, March 13 - Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs
Davoud Danesh Jaafari said on Sunday that Iranian national
resolve is determined to achieve legitimate right of producing
nuclear energy.
He told reporters after taking part in the first meeting of
high council of expatriates at Institute for Political and
International Studies (IPIS), that Iran is seeking its rights as
enshrined in the international treaty.
He said that certain states have decided to deprive Iran of its
legitimate rights adding that normally the international
community would display appropriate response to arbitrary action
of those states.
He said that it is impossible for certain states to dictate a
trend to the international community. "They are going to deprive
a nation of its legitimate right on the presumption that it may
be diverting from civilian use.
"They intensified the propaganda campaign against Iranian
nuclear program to report Iran to the Security Council, but,
Iranian national resolve is pursuing its rights in the context
of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," he said.
Asked about precautionary measures to thwart impacts of
possible economic sanctions on Iran, he said that he would
explain them tomorrow.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News
*****************************************************************
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Majlis soon to take on nuclear issue
2006/03/13
Tehran, March 13 - Majlis First Deputy Speaker, Mohammad Reza
Bahonar told a parliament open sesssion Monday that the body
will soon invite the secretary of Supreme National Security
Council and even the President for a review of the latest
developments in the national nuclear program.
Bahonar said as soon as the next year's budget bill debates are
over, Majlis would start reviewing the nuclear issue.
Bahonar said that deputies are striving to finalize the budget
bill discussions tonight. He said time to receive a Guardian
Council's idea over the bill will be alloted to talks about the
nuclear question.
According to Bahonar, Ali Larijani and President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad will be called to the parliament.
Copyright 2004,
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: Britain says not too late to resolve nuclear standoff with Iran
Mon Mar 13, 5:49 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britain said that there was still time to resolve
the standoff over Iran" /> Iran's disputed nuclear program,
adding that Tehran's unelected religious authorities were key to
a solution.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected last year, is "a
difficult person to deal with" but he is not the "critical
decision maker," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told BBC radio
ahead of speech on Iran.
"You have an elected government, but alongside that you have
parallel non-elected authorities which actually are more
powerful," such as the supreme leader Ali Khameini and the
guardianship council, Straw said.
The disqualification last year of "better qualified, more
representative candidates" for the presidency than Ahmadinejad
was "a symptom of a shift in power by the theocracy which
actually in the end runs this country," he said.
"And these people who need to have a care for the fact that they
do not govern with proper consent of the Iranian people need to
think very carefully about where they are taking their country,"
Straw said.
Straw said Iran was already suffering "serious damage to
investor confidence," noting that the Tehran stock exchange has
declined, capital has fled the country, and the "best and
brightest" were leaving in large numbers.
"That cannot be what the regime wants and it's certainly not
what we want for Iran," he said.
"We want, and I've been working on this for three years, to see
a normalization of relations with this country and it's still
not too late for the Iranians to get back into negotiations with
us."
During a speech later at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London, Straw was to say that any action by
the United Nations" /> United Nationsto end the Iranian nuclear
dispute must be "incremental and reversible".
He will attack the regime for taking the country "in the wrong
direction" and demand it respects human rights, according to
excerpts provided by Britain's domestic Press Association news
agency.
The UN Security Council, which could decide on economic
sanctions, is expected to meet next week to call on Tehran to
comply with an International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) request to suspend its
nuclear program.
Iran on Sunday threatened to walk out of an international atomic
treaty, as it continued to insist on its right to conduct
sensitive nuclear activities ahead of the key meeting of the UN
Security Council.
Iran says the program is for peaceful energy but is alleged by
the United States to be a cover for weapons production.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Bush ties Iran to deadly Iraq bombs
Mon Mar 13, 5:42 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> , stepping up
a war of words with Iran" /> , accused Tehran of contributing to
ever-deadlier roadside bombs used against US-led forces and
civilians in Iraq" /> .
"Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the
increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia
militia with the capability to build improvised explosive
devices in Iraq," said the US president.
Bush said that support for terrorism and international
suspicions that the Islamic republic seeks nuclear weapons were
"increasingly isolating" Tehran and promised "America will
continue to rally the world to confront these threats."
Asked about the linkage to Shiite forces, two US officials who
declined to be named pointed to previously reported ties between
the government of Iran and radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada
Sadr.
Bush's charge came as he launched a public relations campaign to
revive support for the war he launched three years ago, with
polls showing the US public sour on his handling of the conflict
and seeking a quick US withdrawal.
Some 2,300 US troops have been killed, thousands more wounded or
maimed, and the conflict has cost hundreds of billions of
dollars.
Even some of the most prominent conservative backers of the
March 2003 invasion have questioned whether the United States
can achieve victory amid deepening fears that sectarian violence
in Iraq will flare up into civil war.
"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that
the road ahead will be smooth. It will not," he said. "We will
see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to
come."
At the same time, as he has in the past, Bush rejected calls to
set a timetable for bringing home the roughly 130,000 US troops
in Iraq and pleaded for patience from the skeptical US public.
"We will not lose our nerve," said the president. "The battle
lines in Iraq are clearly drawn for the world to see, and there
is no middle ground. The enemy will emerge from Iraq one of two
ways: Emboldened or defeated."
Bush also declared that the United States has a strategy for
dealing with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) like roadside
bombs, a weapon of choice for the insurgents targeting US and
Iraqi forces.
US military intelligence sources have said that increasingly
powerful IEDs, with greater armor-piercing power and
sophisticated triggers, have been traced to Iran's Revolutionary
Guard, or to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon.
Bush said that there was evidence that some components in the
most powerful IEDs came from Iran, and that coalition forces had
"seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran."
Last week, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld directly accused
the Islamic government in Tehran for the first time of sending
Iranian Revolutionary Guard into Iraq to make trouble.
On Monday, at least 14 Iraqis were killed in attacks around the
country, including a journalist and a young girl, as police
discovered 21 executed bodies, security sources said.
That came a day after six car bombs ripped through four market
places in Baghdad's Shiite district of Sadr City, killing at
least 46 people and wounding over 200 in Iraq's worst
blood-letting so far this year.
Bush acknowledged the violence but pointed to Iraqi elections
and efforts to form a government as critical victories and
saying that US troops can only go home when fledgling Iraqi
security forces can replace them.
Although he has rejected "artificial timetables" for a US
withdrawal, Bush said Monday he wanted "the Iraqis (to) control
more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006."
Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 IRNA: Nuclear energy, national resolve of Iranians - political activist -
[Aryasahm]
Damascus, March 13, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear Energy-Habibi
Secretary-General of Iran's Islamic Coalition Party
Mohammad-Nabi Habibi said on Monday that producing nuclear
energy is the government's strategy and a national resolve.
Habibi, who is currently on a visit to Syria at the head of a
team from his party, told IRNA: "Although the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors decided to report
Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, it is not the
matter of referral to body." "The Iranian government and nation,
however, are ready to confront with possible backlash of
reporting Iran's peaceful nuclear program to the United
Nations," he said.
He added, "We did not get permission from any country for our
economic development and independence in the past and will not
do so in the future. We will never get permission from any
country for national planning.
"The Iranian nation is severely against overlooking its rights
enshrined by Non-Proliferation Treaty and believes it should
defend its inalienable right to produce nuclear energy."
*****************************************************************
16 IRNA: Iranian nuclear strategy in conformity with NPT, IAEA Safeguards
Tehran, March 12, IRNA
Iran-NPT-Roudaki
Deputy head of Majlis Commission for National Security and
Foreign Affairs Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said on Sunday that Iran
has drawn up its strategy on nuclear program in conformity with
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and national interest.
He told IRNA that discriminatory approach of certain states to
Iranian nuclear program is not acceptable and it is being
dictated by the US.
Roudaki said that the international community is aware that
reporting Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council has
been dictated by the United States.
"Members of the UN Security Council well know that Iran has not
exceeded the boundaries of NPT and Safeguards Agreement of
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that's why there
is dispute about US arbitrary behavior within the Security
Council." He said that according to note three of NPT and note 4
of Charter of IAEA, member states of the UN nuclear agency are
entitled to have 1,000 centrifuge-related Research and
Development (R) studies.
"Uranium enrichment at industrial level has been permitted at
the scale of above 60,000 centrifuges by NPT, but, Iran has
declared a moratorium on uranium enrichment at industrial level
as a confidence building measure with the IAEA," Roudaki said.
He said that the US has transgressed the domains of law
consistent with nuclear energy and Iran has no way but to lodge
a complaint with International Court of Justice against
violation of Iranian rights enshrined by NPT.
He said that Majlis had approved the suspension of the
moratorium on uranium enrichment if Iran (were) reported to UN
Security Council and currently, the Iranian nation prefer to
wait and see how the debate of the Security Council will go.
"If the Security Council continued the same discriminatory
approach as that of the US, the nation will not compromise its
rights," Roudaki said.
He objected to IAEA for the ambiguous report it provided about
Iranian nuclear program which always honored Safeguards
Agreement of the UN nuclear agency and said its ambivalent
report has put national interests of the member states at risk.
Roudaki said that the 'Western nuclear club' led by US and
European states wants to have monopoly over nuclear energy by
fabricating baseless charges against Iran.
1416/2322/1412
*****************************************************************
17 IRNA: Russia's nuclear offer to Iran still holds: Russian official -
Moscow, March 13, IRNA
Russia-Iran-Nuclear
Moscow's proposal to Iran for joint uranium enrichment still
holds, Russia's nuclear top official Sergei Kiriyenko said
Monday.
The proposal is still on the table and it seeks to get Iran and
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to come to a deal,
the head of the Rosatom Federal Agency for Atomic Energy said in
today's inaugural ceremony of an international conference here
on energy security.
"Iran has full authority to decide on the nuclear proposal of
Russia."
Some 400 representatives from Russia and other countries are
taking part in the two-day international conference on energy
security which began in Moscow today.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in the conference, said
that all countries are entitled to develop peaceful nuclear
energy to meet their demands with due respect to their rights
and obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Russia has placed "energy security" at the top of its list of
priorities for discussion by the Group of Eight (G8), which is
scheduled to hold its annual summit in Saint Petersburg in July,
Lavrov added.
Russia currently holds the presidency of the G8.
*****************************************************************
18 IRNA: First Iranian indigenous nuclear power plant to be built soon -
Tehran, March 13, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear Power Plant
The construction of the first Iranian indigenous nuclear power
plant will start in six months, Energy minister said here Monday.
Parviz Fattah told reporters the country electricity
consumption will be twice in the next 10 years and our fuel
resources would not be enough in that time, so it is necessary
to turn toward nuclear power to generate electricity.
The minister added, "We are not talking about a political
issue, but it is a technical one and that is why we declared the
ministry is ready to build indigenous power plants on the basis
of domestic capacities."
Fattah said, "According to our feasibility study it is possible
to do so and even we have recieved the necessary permission and
we will start building such power plants soon."
He added the operation will start in 3 to 6 months and the
director of the project would be former energy minister
Habibollah Bitaraf and a contract has been signed with the
country's Nuclear Energy Organization to provide fuel for the
power plant.
*****************************************************************
19 [NYTr] N.Korea Denounces US Double Standard at Talks
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:32:16 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
N. Korea Denounces US Double Standard at Talks
Pyongyang, Mar 13 (Prensa Latina) The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Monday denounced Washington's double
standard at the talks on the nuclear issue in the Peninsula, and said
that it will pull out from the negotiations if the US maintains its
stance.
If Washington's hostility continues, Pyongyang will withdraw
from the six-party talks being held in Beijing, says an editorial
published in "Rodong Sinmung", the official newspaper of the Workers
Party of Korea.
The editorial, reproduced by the news agency KCNA, states that
there will be no hope on the resumption of nuclear talks unless the
United States changes its hostile policy.
Pyongyang also noted that conditions for the resumption of the
negotiations will exist after Washington lifts sanctions on several
North Korean companies for alleged dollar forgery and money laundering.
The multiparty talks, in which China, Russia, Japan and South
Korea are participating, have been stagnant since November 2005, when
the last round was held.
mh/jg/
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Blames U.S. for Stalled Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday March 13, 2006 10:46 AM
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Monday accused the
United States of obstructing nuclear disarmament talks by
alleging that the communist regime was involved in
counterfeiting and drug trafficking.
The North has refused to resume the six-nation talks on ending
its nuclear ambitions since November, demanding that Washington
lift financial restrictions imposed on a Macau bank and North
Korean companies for alleged complicity in counterfeiting and
money laundering.
``The basic stumbling block to resumption of the six-party talks
and resolution of the nuclear issue is the United States'
hostile policy toward North Korea,'' the North's communist party
newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in a commentary carried by the
official Korean Central News Agency.
``Every time there are signs of progress at the six-party talks,
the U.S. has created obstacles ... with fabricated problems of
human rights, currency counterfeiting and drug trafficking,''
the newspaper said.
``It is clear that while the U.S. talks about resuming six-party
talks on the surface, in reality, it has no interest'' in
resolving the nuclear issue, it said.
U.S. and North Korean officials met in New York last week over
the U.S. restrictions, but failed to produce any breakthrough.
Washington says the financial actions are separate from the
nuclear talks.
South Korea, meanwhile, dispatched its top nuclear envoy, Chun
Young-woo, to Japan on Monday for talks on how to jump-start the
stalled nuclear negotiations.
Also Monday, Russia's top diplomat in South Korea called for the
U.S. and North Korea to seek a compromise to resolve the issue.
``Both sides may need more flexibility in approach,'' Ambassador
Gleb Ivashentsov told foreign correspondents in Seoul.
In September, the North pledged to give up its nuclear program
in exchange for aid and security guarantees, but no progress has
since been made since then on implementing the agreement. The
nuclear talks involve the two Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and
the United States.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 J Cirincione: Canada & USA- Mother Of India's Bomb
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:48:53 -0500
I.
Carnegie Issue Brief __13 March 2006
Vol. 9, No. 4
Oh Canada!
By Joseph Cirincione
U.S. President George Bush last week struck a deal
with India that directly violates the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, as well as
several major U.S. laws, setting off waves of
criticism in the states and around the world.
Canadian officials have not been part of that
criticism. Instead, the nation that helped India
build its first nuclear weapon may now help India
build dozens more.
The Bush deal would directly encourage and assist
India's nuclear bomb program, in contradiction to
Article 1 of the NPT that prohibits any signatory
nation from helping another nation develop nuclear
weapons. Fortunately, before President Bush can
sell one gram of uranium to India, the U.S.
Congress will have to approve changes to U.S.
laws. Congress could block or amend the agreement.
Senior members of both parties have indicated
their deep concerns about the deal and the
precedent it sets for other nations, including
Iran. The reaction has been so negative that the
Indian ambassador to the United States complained,
"the nonproliferation ideologues have high jacked
the debate."
Still, other nations, including France, Russia and
Canada, are tempted by the profits to be made in
nuclear sales to the world's second most populous
nation. The nuclear industries in these countries
are salivating at the prospect of billions of
dollars in trade and hoping that the construction
of dozens of new reactors in India and China could
restart their long-stalled industry, launching a
new wave of nuclear power around the world.
So-called "realists" in the foreign policy
establishments dismiss proliferation concerns,
focusing instead on the need to forge strong ties
with India. Neoconservatives are eager to forge a
grand alliance against China. For them, as one
architect of the deal told my colleague, the
problem is not that India has nuclear weapons; it
is that it does not have enough nuclear weapons.
Canada will play a key role in determining whether
this deal lives or dies. Canada has a special
responsibility in this matter. More than any
Indian scientist, Canada can be called the true
mother of the Indian nuclear bomb.
Canada began its nuclear cooperation with India
fifty years ago. In 1955, Canada agreed to build a
40MW research reactor for India, known as the
CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor, US) reactor. India
promised that both the reactor and the related
fissile materials would only be used for peaceful
purposes. Canada supplied half the initial uranium
fuel for the reactor and the United States
supplied the other half, plus heavy water to
moderate the nuclear reactions. Canada signed two
cooperation agreements that provided India with
designs for the CANDU-type reactor. Many of India'
s nuclear reactors, both operational and planned,
are based on CANDU technology and designs received
from Canada.
All were supposed to be exclusively for peaceful
use. But in 1974, India cheated on its
commitments. It took out fuel rods from the CIRUS
reactor, extracted the plutonium from those rods
and detonated its first nuclear test. India called
it a "peaceful" nuclear explosion, but the country
now admits it was a test of a weapon design. In
response, Canada ceased all nuclear cooperation
with India.
Now, following the US lead, Canada has begun to
revive that cooperation. In September 2005,
Canadian Foreign Minister Pettigrew met with
Indian External Affairs Minister Singh and agreed
to forget this history and let bygones be bygones.
Significantly, they agreed to develop a broad
bilateral cooperation framework, possibly by
mid-2006. Canada agreed to open the supply of
nuclear technology to any Indian civilian nuclear
facility. This means that Canada, too, will
violate the NPT. It will break Canadian laws that
now require that a nuclear cooperation agreement
only be concluded with a state that has signed the
NPT (which India refuses to do) or has accepted
full-scope safeguards (which India has not).
Full-scope safeguards means that a country agrees
that all its nuclear facilities will be open to
thorough inspection by the International Atomic
Energy Agency. These inspectors will make sure
that no nuclear fuel is diverted to weapons
purposes. But the Bush India deal exempts fully
one-third of India's reactors from any
inspections. It does not matter that inspectors
will be allowed in to the others. If the deal
stands, India will use foreign fuel for its power
reactors, freeing up Indian uranium for its
military reactors. India will be able to double or
triple the number of weapons it can make annually.
They could go from the 6-10 they could currently
produce to 30 a year.
The consequences could be severe. Regionally, it
could ignite a new nuclear arms race. Pakistan
will not stand idly by, nor will China. What will
Japan do, a country that signed the NPT, but now
sees India reaping the benefits of standing
outside the treaty?
Globally, the deal cripples the main diplomatic
and legal barrier to the spread of nuclear
weapons. The United States is now trying to
restrain the Iranian program by relying on the
very treaty it has just weakened with the India
deal.
There are ways to fix this deal to minimize the
damage, including getting India to promise to
cease all further production of nuclear bomb
material (the way all other nuclear weapon states
have, save Pakistan). Canadian officials can help.
But they must now decide if they want to. A bit of
reflection on their past history with India wouldn
't hurt.
II.
http://nobmdeh.blogspot.com/2006/03/canada-true-mother-of-indian-bomb.html
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Canada: 'True Mother of the Indian Bomb'
A couple of days ago, I took a poke at the Globe &
Mail for not devoting enough attention to the
Canadian angle on the story about George Bush's
plan to increase nuclear cooperation with non-NPT
signatory India.
To give credit where it's due, I thought I'd point
out that the Globe today published a strong op-ed
by Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for
Peace entitled 'Let's not help India build more
nuclear weapons.'
Cirincione's 'more' of course, refers to Canada's
own history of contributing to India's nuclear
weapons program. As he points out,
[Canada] has a special responsibility in this
matter -- more than any Indian scientist, this
country can be called the true mother of the
Indian nuclear bomb. In 1955, Canada agreed to
build a 40MW research reactor for India, known as
the CIRUS (Canada-India-Reactor-United-States).
India promised that both the reactor and
related fissile materials would only be used for
peaceful purposes. Canada supplied half the
initial uranium fuel for the reactor; the U.S.
supplied the other half, plus heavy water to
moderate the nuclear reactions. Canada signed two
co-operation agreements with India: Many of its
nuclear reactors, both operational and planned,
are based on CANDU technology and designs.
All were supposed to be exclusively for
peaceful use. But in 1974, India cheated on its
commitments. It took fuel rods from the CIRUS
reactor, extracted the plutonium and detonated its
first nuclear test. India called it a "peaceful"
nuclear explosion, but the country now admits it
was a test of a weapon design. In response, Canada
ceased all nuclear co-operation with India.
Former foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew
announced Canada's about-face on the policy last
fall, as some of this blog's readers may recall.
Cirincione puts it this way:
In September, then-foreign affairs minister
Pierre Pettigrew met with his Indian counterpart,
Natwar Singh, and agreed to let bygones be
bygones. Significantly, they agreed to develop a
broad bilateral co-operation framework, possibly
by mid-2006. Canada agreed to open the supply of
nuclear technology to any Indian civilian nuclear
facility.
In other words, Canada, too, will violate the
NPT. It will break Canadian laws that now require
that a nuclear co-operation agreement only be
concluded with a state that has signed the NPT
(which India refuses to do) or has accepted full-s
cope safeguards (which India has not).
As I pointed out in my recent post, Pettigrew also
made highly misleading comments when he announced
our government's policy change, claiming last
September that an Indian policy firmly separating
military from civilian nuclear activity was
already effectively in place, even though that
claim was at odds with the facts then, as it is
today.
Like other critics of the recent shifts in nuclear
cooperation policy by the US, Canada and France,
Cirincione asks us to look beyond short-term
political and economic gains and think about the
bigger nuclear non-proliferation picture.
It amounts to this: how can we be holding Iran to
every jot and tittle of the Nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while carving out
exceptions for India that effectively ignore our
own obligations under that same treaty?
(Not that ignoring obligations is limited to this
Indian deal, of course: in my view, all of the
nuclear powers ought to be doing a lot more to
fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the
NPT to eliminate their nuclear weapons.)
Taking a similar approach to Cirincione is Daryl
Kimball of the Arms Control Association, who has
recently offered a number of salient criticisms of
the proposed deal on Indian nuclear cooperation.
Here's one:
The import of nuclear fuel from foreign
suppliers also would free up India to use its
limited domestic reserves of uranium for the sole
purpose of building weapons. India previously had
to choose between using this material for energy
or bombs.
So, will Canada's planned increase in nuclear
cooperation with India come into play here? It
seems likely, given that we're a major uranium
exporter, and are now re-thinking our policy on
nuclear cooperation with India.
Kimball also points out that deals weakening the
NPT by creating exceptions for India could set a
dangerous precedent. Suppose China decides in a
couple of years that it wants to establish an
India-style deal with Pakistan, Kimball asks?
The U.S.-India deal would create a precedent
that other countries might attempt to exploit. The
United States may not advocate a similar
initiative for Pakistan, but China might. China
and Pakistan have a history of nuclear cooperation
and have reportedly discussed ways to expand this
relationship. China is a member of the 45-member
NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group], which operates by
consensus, and could tie its consent to the
U.S.-India deal to a similar exception for
Pakistan.
Even though Pakistan is a known proliferator, it's
not impossible that China, countering American
efforts in the region, might decide to create its
own 'nuclear side deal' with India's nuclear
rival, Pakistan.
The prospect is not comforting, to say the least.
Now, Cirincione concludes his op-ed by saying that
Canadian 'officials' face a crucial choice: will
they help strengthen the international
non-proliferation regime, or will they help weaken
it by going along with Bush's policy on nuclear
cooperation with India?
*****************************************************************
22 UPI: Outside View: Emasculating Nuclear India
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
3/13/2006 11:38:00 AM -0500
By M D NALAPAT
Oustside View Commentator
NEW DELHI, March 13 (UPI) -- There is zero doubt that India and
the U.S. are natural partners. Steady migration to the U.S., the
ever-denser interlinking of the hi-tech industry in both
countries, and common threats from religious fundamentalism and
political authoritarianism mandate that Washington and New Delhi
forge an alliance that is as close as that between the U.S. and
the UK.
However, the caveat to this is that such a partnership can only
be on terms that are the same as what the U.S. accords to the
U.K. In brief, the U.S. has first to accept India as a nuclear
weapons state that deserves permanent membership in the U.N.
Security Council. Unfortunately, almost all the formulae trotted
out by the "South Asia" brigade in U.S. think tanks and other
centers of influence such as the State Department implicitly or
otherwise seek to "engage" India on terms that would, if
accepted, result in an emasculation of the world's most populous
democracy.
The proposed Nuclear Deal falls squarely in this category, and
will, if sought to be implemented, push official U.S.-India
relations back to the frost of the Cold War period.
Indians love flattery, and often surrender substance in exchange
for a verbal pat on the head. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, by
education as well as by his experience in international
institutions, is predisposed to uncritical acceptance of the
standard Western worldview, which implicitly sees India as a
juvenile power needing mother-henning, and definitely not mature
enough to be trusted with grown-up implements such as nuclear
weapons and their associated delivery systems. This mistrust of
the country's maturity -- despite New Delhi's impeccable
non-proliferation record to date -- infuses the terms of the
deal that has been agreed to by the Sonia Gandhi-led coalition
government, hungry as always for formal acknowledgment of its
improving status. Were the agreement to be implemented, India
would almost immediately lose its chance to switch to the
thorium cycle, and within 12 years would find its tiny arsenal
of nuclear weapons depleted to irrelevance.
This would place India not in the category of Germany and Japan,
both of whom have a muscular nuclear power capability, but that
inhabited by the likes of Burundi and Laos, a supplicant state
dependent on technology handouts from "advanced" states. That
Manmohan Singh has in effect written his political epitaph by
agreeing to this deal speaks for the capacity of the Bush team
to bully and cajole enough to get their way, even when -- as in
Iraq -- such immediate "victories" lay the seeds for future
disaster.
The Indian prime minister's obsessive eagerness to conclude a
deal -- almost any deal -- with President Bush is not born out
of circumstances. Granted, India faces a shortage of uranium,
caused partly by the tardiness of successive governments in
overcoming "environmentalist" resistance to the opening of new
mines. However, India depends on nuclear power for less than 3
percent of its total electricity generation, and given the costs
of nuclear power sourced from expensive Western reactors, it
would be more prudent to (a) raise funds by selling
India-developed technologies for nuclear power generation, to
buyers in Southeast Asia and South America (b) use such funds
and other grants for fast-tracking the indigenous nuclear energy
program, especially the conversion to thorium in place of
uranium as the feedstock, as India has ,at over 500,000 tons,
more than half the world's proven reserves of this radioactive
material and (c) intensify efforts to exploit India's own
uranium reserves. In order to meet a temporary shortfall of
uranium, the Sonia Gandhi-led coalition government at New Delhi
has agreed to effectively destroy India's robust nuclear
program.
Now, the basics. India has at present only 15 operational
reactors, of which 12 are in the list of 14 that has been
offered to be placed under international safeguards. Thus, while
Manmohan Singh has claimed that only 65 percent of India's
nuclear capacity will enter the safeguards regime, in fact
around 85 percent of present operational capacity would go under
safeguards.
The Bush administration has repeatedly made it explicit that
India would not be treated as a Nuclear Weapons State as a
consequence of the nuclear deal. This means that the safeguards
applied on the "civilian" nuclear capability of India would be
of the intrusive kind applied to non-nuclear weapons states.
This goes against the Government of India's oft-stated stand
that it would not accept any outcome that does not, de facto if
not de jure, accept India as a Nuclear Weapons State
Such a safeguards regime would effectively cripple India's
indigenous nuclear program. The scientists of the Department of
Atomic Energy would need IAEA permission even to shift lab
equipment from one location to the other. Even more deadly,
under "pursuit" clauses, IAEA inspectors can adopt the same
harsh measures on entities that they subjectively believe have
collaborated in any conceivable way with the "civilian"
entities. An email from a scientist working in an unsafeguarded
military facility to a friend working in a "civilian" location
can be used as the basis for such inspections. Worryingly, any
company that is, or is to the subjective satisfaction of the
international inspectors, "guilty" of supplying services or
products to both a civilian as well as a military facility would
be open to inspections that could -- for the benefit of
competitors located in countries such as the U.S., France and
China, known to access privileged information from the IAEA --
leak to other entities, thus destroying the ability to compete
in the marketplace. In effect, these restrictions would ensure
that few Indian companies would take the risk of supplying
services and materiel to the country's nuclear sector, thus
ensuring dependence on outside sources as well as a drastic
slowing-down of the military program.
This program would already have been hit by the removal from
production of the CIRUS reactor located at Mumbai, which has
been estimated to produce 35 percent of the highly-enriched
uranium and plutonium needed for the cores of India's nuclear
weapons. This is on top of the removal of over 80 percent of
capacity by the transfer of 14 reactors to the "civilian" list.
Initial estimates are that India would need to spend US$ 16
billion over the next five years simply to compensate for this
disruption in fuel supply for the military program. This figure
would, at a conservative estimate, rise to US$ 40 billion over
the next 10 years. Given the huge outlays that would be needed
to purchase foreign reactors and fuel, as well as the billions
of dollars that would need to be spent on U.S. armaments to keep
friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in good humor, this
would mean that the Indian military program would get capped,
rolled back and finally eliminated over the next 12 years, as
the weapon cores degrade and fail to get replaced. Not
coincidentally, Prime Minister Singh has stopped talking of a
"Credible Minimum Deterrent."
It is now a "Minimum Credible Deterrent." Unfortunately, the
nuclear deal will ensure that this "minimum" soon ceases to be
"credible." This is in a context where China would be free to
continue its assistance to Pakistan, North Korea and now
Bangladesh, so as to checkmate regional rivals India and Japan.
Not merely has the "India-friendly" George W. Bush effectively
capped the Indian military program, he has managed to get the
Indians to agree to the unprecedented condition of safeguards in
perpetuity. Thus, Manmohan Singh has bound all his successor
regimes into accepting this emasculating nuclear deal, or facing
the risk of sanctions. Under the deal, India would not have the
right to move safeguarded entities from the civilian to the
military sector even in the case of a military emergency such as
a nuclear attack.
Of course, the capping and rollback of India's supply of nuclear
weapons would make such an attack more rather than less likely.
Unlike those vociferous critics of Nuclear India, the
Scandinavians, the world's most populous democracy has threats
other than otters and seals to contend with. India abuts China,
a country whose ruling structure is authoritarian and
unpredictable. There are the failing states of Pakistan and
Nepal on other borders, as well as the Wahabbizing nation of
Bangladesh and the splintered island of Sri Lanka. Close by is
Central Asia, where rival kleptocracies joust and a well-funded
Wahabbi movement spreads its influence. Next door is Indonesia,
not the most stable of republics, and a little away are Iran and
the Middle East, not to mention the African coast.
Clearly, those who say that India's 1.1 billion people do not
need a nuclear umbrella have yet to look at an accurate map.
Volleys of opinions generated by the well-funded international
non-proliferation lobby (which since the 1970s has ignored
China, North Korea and Pakistan in its obsession with India)
have painted a picture of economic desolation were the nuclear
deal not to be signed. The reality is that the worst-case
scenario -- should the Nuclar Suppliers Group continue its
blockade of India -- would be the shutdown of one of the Tarapur
nuclear power plants in 18 months.
For at least the same cost of buying reactors from France, the
U.S. and other countries, and high-priced uranium from
Australia, India's own thorium-based Fast Breeder Reactor
program can be fast-tracked so as to become operational within
eight to nine years, ie: the same length of time it would take
to make operational imported reactors.
Decades ago, India's scientists began work on a three-stage
program of nuclear self-sufficiency. First would come the
development of pressurized heavy water reactors. Next, the Fast
Breeder reactors. Finally, thorium would replace uranium as
reactor fuel. Scientists at atomic research establishments in
India privately claim that the country is at the cusp of
proceeding to Stage II of this three-stage program for
generation of adequate volumes of nuclear power. The
significance of this is that, once this milestone gets crossed,
additional uranium will no longer be needed, as the new
processes would "breed" more fuel than it takes in. According to
a top scientist, "even at present, India has more than enough
known deposits of natural uranium to meet the planned Stage I
level of 10,000MW of nuclear power." He and other scientists
smell not simply a rat but a giant bandicoot in the tearing
hurry of the Bush administration to lock India into a regime of
safeguards that would gut the indigenous program and make the
country reliant on outside fuel and technology. In his recent
Asia Society U.S. President Bush has made it clear that his
administration classes India with the 130-plus countries that
would be denied the indigenous capability of processing fuel.
These would have to depend on "advanced nuclear powers such as
"Germany and Japan" to meet their needs. Unlike India, neither
of the two is a nuclear weapons power. Clearly, Bush would like
to travel the road taken by South Africa and Brazil, who have
folded up their indigenous capabilities in exchange for (largely
unfulfilled) promises of technological assistance. It must be
said to the credit of the Bush administration that they have
been transparent about their intention to convert India into a
non-nuclear power. It is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has
repeatedly obscured the truth from his own people, by pretending
that the twin elephants of perpetuity and intrusive inspections
do not exist.
And once India's nukes are dealt with, can there be any doubt
that its rockets will follow? Already there are essays on how
India's ICBM program "is targeted at the U.S.", something that
has thus far remained a secret to the entire Indian military
establishment, which is focusing on a Great Power much closer to
home. Like the nuclear weapons program, which has piggybacked on
the civilian nuclear energy program, the Indian missile program
has been powered by the development of rockets designed to
launch satellites into space. Although Bush began to make noises
about participating in the Indian space program three years ago,
as yet there has been zero contribution from the U.S. side. Once
the anti-nuclear lobby has its way, can the anti-rocket
enthusiasts be far behind? Manmohan Singh can be relied on to
somberly inform Parliament that India "desperately needs foreign
assistance" in launching an adequate number of satellites, and
so he has decided to scrap the Indian program in favor of
exclusive reliance on foreign-built launch vehicles. As a sop,
perhaps an Indian national would join the team aboard a future
space shuttle, taking a call from President Bush and Prime
Minister Singh as he surveys the end of the Indian space
program.
If, despite the one-sided nature of the deal, the
non-proliferation lobbies in the U.S., China and Europe are
vociferating against the July 18, 2005 Singh-Bush nuclear
agreement, the reason lies in their desire to force the Indians
to publicly eat crow rather than, as now, pretend that the
country's indigenous nuclear ( and subsequently missile) program
has not been terminally affected
Like China, India is a country with a high degree of immunity to
international sanctions. Once the nuclear deal begins to be
implemented, the effects it will have on India's nuclear
establishment will generate a political firestorm that will kill
the deal and -- almost certainly -- the political career of
Manmohan Singh. Ties between India and the U.S. are multiplying
exponentially, but this is despite rather than because of the
two governments. People-to-people, business-to-business and
university-to-university contact is growing at an accelerating
clip. The nuclear deal, far from giving a boost to this process,
has the potential for igniting within India the same suspicion
of U.S. intentions that resulted in a mud wall being built
within India against U.S. contacts during the 1970s and well
into the 80s, a development that harmed the interests of both
countries. By seeking to force through a nuclear deal that is
scientifically and politically unimplementable on the Indian
side, George W. Bush may do for U.S.-India official relations
what Nixon and Kissinger succeeded in doing in 1971, when they
ordered the nuke-armed USS Enterprise to enter the Bay of Bengal
in an effort at blackmailing New Delhi from preventing the
slaughter of Bengalis by the Pakistan army. As Iraq has shown,
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
--
Professor M D Nalapat is Director of the School of Geopolitics
at the Manipal Academy of Higher education, India
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of United Press International. In the interests of
creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
23 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear boss to start China visit March 17
13/ 03/ 2006
MOSCOW, March 13 (RIA Novosti) - The head of Russia's nuclear
agency will start a three-day visit to China Friday, the agency
said Monday.
Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters ahead of his visit that he
would meet Chinese officials March 17-20 for a "wide spectrum of
negotiations" on cooperation.
Kiriyenko is scheduled to hold talks with China's Committee for
Defense, Science, Technology and Industries and with the
country's Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNIC).
On the final day of his trip, he is scheduled to visit the
Tianwang nuclear power plant, in Lianyungang, and to meet with
the top management of CNIC and Atomstroiexport, the Russian
company involved in building the plant.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
24 BBC: New deterrent 'being considered'
Last Updated: Monday, 13 March 2006
[Trident nuclear submarine]
Trident will be decommissioned in about 20 years' time
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has failed to confirm or deny a
report that a new UK nuclear weapons system is already being
secretly developed.
Asked about the report in the Sunday Times about Trident's
replacement, he said: "We are giving consideration to the
development of a new system."
Plans to replace Trident, which some estimate will cost £20bn,
are expected to be drawn up by the next election.
Mr Blair has promised MPs the "fullest possible" debate before
any decision.
Research underway?
The Sunday Times reported that an anonymous senior British source
has said that work on the weapon has been underway since Mr Blair
was re-elected last May.
According to the paper, the research is being carried out at the
Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire.
The report says scientists wanted to produce a warhead using
proven components to avoid breaching a ban on nuclear testing.
Mr Straw said the UK was "entitled to have a nuclear weapons
system", and had reduced the numbers of systems it had from three
to one.
'Fullest possible" debate
Asked if a successor to Trident was already being developed, Mr
Straw said: "There is a discussion about whether we do."
The prime minister's official spokesman later said: "We are in a
process of thinking about thinking about it," but added, "not
this month and not next month".
Last month Mr Blair told a committee of senior MPs there would be
the "fullest possible" debate on any decision to develop a new
nuclear warhead.
But, he added: "I'm not committing myself to a vote... not ruling
it out either."
He said Parliament tended to find a way to have a vote on big
issues, and said a decision such as this was "not going to just
pop out one day".
But he did say that by the end of the year "we should have a
clear idea of the timeline" for a debate on replacing Trident.
No defence
Defence Secretary John Reid said last year that no decision on
replacing Trident had been taken.
But he said Labour was committed to keeping Britain's nuclear
deterrent.
Trident is expected to be decommissioned in about 20 years' time.
The nuclear deterrent system was last updated in 1980.
Last year, a group of writers, led by Nobel Prize winner Harold
Pinter, wrote an open letter to MPs saying there was "no
legitimate political, military or moral reason" for replacing
Trident.
*****************************************************************
25 UPI: Blair may give Britain new nuke weapons
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
3/13/2006 6:58:00 PM -0500
LONDON, March 13 (UPI) -- The British government is considering
developing a new nuclear deterrent and may even have started to
deploy it.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has failed to confirm or deny a
report that a new British nuclear weapons system is already
being secretly developed.
Asked about the report in this week's Sunday Times newspaper
about a replacement for the Trident submarine-launched nuclear
missile system, Straw said: "We are giving consideration to the
development of a new system."
Plans to replace Trident, which some estimate will cost £20
billion, are expected to be drawn up by the next British general
election. And Blair has promised MPs the "fullest possible"
debate before any decision, the British Broadcasting Corporation
reported Monday.
The Sunday Times said an anonymous senior British source had
told it work on the weapon has already been underway since Blair
was re-elected to a thrid consecutive term of office in May
2005. According to the paper, the research is being carried out
at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire.
The Sunday Times said British government scientists wanted to
produce a warhead using proven components to avoid breaching a
ban on nuclear testing.
Straw said Britain was "entitled to have a nuclear weapons
system," and had reduced the numbers of systems it had from
three to one.
Blair's official spokesman later said: "We are in a process of
thinking about thinking about it," but he added, "not this month
and not next month," the BBC said.
Last month Blair told a committee of senior MPs there would be
the "fullest possible" debate on any decision to develop a new
nuclear warhead. But he said his Labor Party was committed to
keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Perry Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region III - 2006-00
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-06-008 March 10, 2006
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
Painesville, Ohio, on Tuesday, March 14, with representatives of
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company to discuss the agency's
assessment of safety performance for the year 2005 at the Perry
Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Perry, Ohio.
The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to
begin at 3 p.m. in the Barberry Room at the Renaissance Quail
Hollow Resort, 11080 Concord-Hambden Road, Painesville.
In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will
also discuss the results of recent inspections which reviewed
the actions taken by FirstEnergy to address past performance
issues at the plant. Before the meeting is adjourned, the NRC
staff will be available to answer questions from the public on
the safety performance of the Perry plant, as well as the role
of the NRC in ensuring safe plant operation.
"The Perry plant continues to operate safely," said James
Caldwell, NRC Region III Administrator. He added that the plant
remains under heightened NRC scrutiny as a result of equipment
problems which occurred over a two-year period from 2002 through
2004.
"This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss our annual
assessment of safety performance with the company and with local
officials and residents who live near the plant," Mr. Caldwell
continued. "Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and
make as much information as possible available to the public
regarding our regulation of these facilities."
A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/perr_2005q4.pdf.
Because of past performance problems, the NRC conducted a
broad-based team inspection at the Perry plant from January
through May 2005. This inspection, as well as others during the
year, identified issues with the plant's corrective action
program and with staff performance.
Perrys performance issues are being addressed by a revised
Performance Improvement Initiative, developed by FirstEnergy,
but NRC inspectors concluded that these issues continue to
occur. NRC and FirstEnergy will discuss the companys response to
these continuing issues during the March 14 meeting.
Routine inspections at the Perry plant are performed by two NRC
Resident Inspectors and by inspection specialists from the
Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency's headquarters
in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be
inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency
preparedness, maintenance, fire protection, and radiation
protection as well as continuing to evaluate the utility's
efforts to address corrective action and human performance
issues.
Current performance information for Perry is available on the
NRC's web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PERR1/perr1_chart.html.
Last revised Monday, March 13, 2006
*****************************************************************
27 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear monopoly mulls NPP construction in Far East
13/ 03/ 2006
MOSCOW, March 13 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's state-owned nuclear
power generator, Rosenergoatom, is mulling a proposal from
electricity monopoly Unified Energy Systems to build two nuclear
power plants in the country's Far East, Rosenergoatom head said
Monday.
Stanislav Antipov told journalists that UES subsidiary Federal
Grid Company had made the proposal to Rosenergoatom. He added
the move was motivated by China's desire to buy up to 30 billion
kilowatt hours of power from Russia annually.
Antipov said the possibility was being discussed as an idea,
not yet as a business offer.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
28 PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Review will aid Indian Point
Monday, March 13, 2006
The news from Indian Point on the safety front remains
disturbing. Earlier in the month, the plant operators reported
radioactive elements were detected near an ongoing leak, as well
as in water moving toward the Hudson River. This week, the
notification system failed again in a test. Such unsettling
situations support the positive response by the Nuclear
Regulation Commission that will finally conduct an independent
safety review of the facility. This action has been called for
by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and representatives Maurice
Hinchey, D-Hurley; Nita Lowey, D-Westchester; Eliot Engel,
D-Bronx; and Sue Kelly, R-Katonah.
The specifics of the review have yet to be determined, but given
recent problems, the action must be completed quickly. It is
slated to include assessment of the design, construction,
maintenance and safety performance.
For the first time since a leak was detected in August,
Strontium 90, a powerful radioactive element that enters and
magnifies in the food chain, was discovered in a testing well
near a 400,000-gallon spent-fuel pool.
Additional test results from a well drilled in February revealed
tritium, in levels above acceptable standards for drinking water,
within 150 feet of the river. This is particularly upsetting
because of its proximity to the river and also it indicates
contaminated water from Indian Point is flowing east to west,
toward the river, rather than the hydrologically-typical
north-south that has always been monitored. Officials believe
this radioactive material may have traveled through hairline
cracks in the property's bedrock caused by construction blasting
decades ago. More monitoring must be conducted along the river's
edge and a commitment made to determine the source of the leaking
tritium.
Last week, the siren system, which has been plagued with
problems, was down yet again for almost four hours when a test
run failed. It's obvious a back-up system is needed. Following
problems with the sirens last summer, Entergy agreed to overhaul
the notification system. A vendor was named last month, and
officials expect to have the new program in place by the end of
2006. Although it needs approval from numerous agencies,
including the state and FEMA, the process should be expedited.
An effective warning system is critical for safety issues. The
NRC has tentatively scheduled a public hearing later in the month
to discuss Indian Point and a full report will be made public in
April. In the meantime, the independent safety review must
proceed. This is no time for the NRC to get bogged down in
bureaucracy. The public needs to know what impact Indian Point
has on the quality of life in the Hudson Valley. Entergy, which
owns Indian Point, has pledged to be cooperative with the
independent reviewers.
Representatives in Washington are right to insist on a
far-reaching independent review. That comprehensive approach
should serve the public, and Entergy, well. Problems have been
occurring too long, and recently, too often, at Indian Point.
Copyright © PoughkeepsieJournal.com
*****************************************************************
29 Independent: Chernobyl: A poisonous legacy
Twenty years after a blast in the nuclear plant at Chernobyl
spread radioactive debris across Europe, it has been revealed
that 375 farms in Britain, with 200,000 sheep, are still
contaminated by fallout
By Andy McSmith
Published: 14 March 2006
After two decades, the legacy of the Chernobyl disaster is still
casting its poisonous shadow over Britain's countryside. The
Department of Health has admitted that more than 200,000 sheep
are grazing on land contaminated by fallout from the explosion
at the Ukrainian nuclear plant 1,500 miles away. Emergency
orders still apply to 355 Welsh farms, 11 in Scotland and nine
in England as a result of the catastrophe in April 1986.
The revelation - in a Commons written answer to the Labour MP
Gordon Prentice - comes as Mr Blair prepares to make the case
for nuclear power in a forthcoming government Energy Review. The
Prime Minister argues that nuclear energy would allow the UK to
achieve twin objectives of cutting C02 emissions and reducing
dependency on imported natural gas supplies.
But, just last week a damning report from the Government's own
advisory board on sustainable development identified five major
disadvantages to any planned renewal of Britain's nuclear power
programme, including the threat of terrorist attack and the
danger of radiation exposure. The longevity of the "Chernobyl
effect" in a region generation of nuclear power stations, and
going through a consultation exercise to try to convince the
public that this is a safe form of electricity generation, we
shouldn't overlook the terrible consequences if something does
go wrong,
"No one would now build a reactor as unsafe as those at
Chernobyl, which were jerry built. Even so, I think a lot of
people will be shocked to know that, as we approach the 20th
anniversary of Chernobyl, hundreds of farming families are still
living with the fallout."
Jean McSorley, Greenpeace's senior adviser on nuclear energy
said: "Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident the world has
ever seen but it is by no means the worst that could happen. In
Cumbria, where I come from, people who are old enough to
remember still talk about it. It's quite moving to hear the
stress that farming families were put through. I think the
British public that all this distance from Chernobyl, 20 years
later, so many families are still living with its impact day to
day."
The Chernobyl disaster turned public opinion in Britain against
civil nuclear power overnight. The land still poisoned by
Chernobyl's radioactivity lies all along the Welsh hills between
Bangor and Bala, much of it in the Snowdonia National park.
There is also a large triangle of contaminated land in Cumbria,
south of Buttermere - though the number of farms affected is
smaller than in Wales.
Some of the Scottish hills are also still affected. No sheep can
be moved out of any of these areas without a special licence,
under Emergency Orders imposed in 1986. Sheep that have higher
than the permitted level of radiation have to be marked with a
special dye that does not wash off in the rain, and have to
spend months grazing on uncontaminated grass before they are
passed as fit to go into the food chain.
A National Farmers' Union spokesman said: "The paramount concern
has to be the safety of the consumer, and consumer confidence in
the meat supply, so exceptional care has to be taken to make
sure no contaminated meat goes into the food chain."
Most of Britain's nuclear power stations have either ceased to
produce electricity, or are nearing the end of their active
life. The last is due for closure in 2035. The Government is now
conducting an energy review, to be published in June, which is
expected to announce a new nuclear programme.
Tony Blair signalled his support for the industry in a speech to
Labour's conference last autumn, when he warned Britain is too
reliant on "unstable" regimes for its energy supplies, and
singled out nuclear power as an alternative.
But resistance to the idea has been growing, particularly with
the publication last week of the report by the government's
Sustainable Development Commission. The Commons Environmental
Audit Committee will also report later this month. According to
a committee member, their findings are expected to be "measured"
but "certainly won't put a strong case for nuclear power".
On 23 March, leading specialists will hold a conference in
London on the long term impact of Chernobyl. At the end of the
month, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will issue a
revised figure for the cost of cleaning up the sites of disused
publicly owned nuclear plants.
Their figure is expected to be substantially higher than their
original estimate which was published last year, of £56bn.
David Ellwood, 49, farmer: 'Nobody can tell us when the
radiation will pass'
By Geneviιve Roberts
David Ellwood has 700 sheep on his farm in Ulpha, near
Broughton-in-Furness. His wife, Heather, 50, helps out on
Baskell Farm, and they have four children.
"I remember the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago. We were lambing
in April and it was raining like hell. We got a letter from the
ministry suggesting it would last about three weeks, but they
were only guessing - it could go on for another 20 years.
"Every time we take sheep to auction, we must phone Defra, who
check they are clear from contamination [from radioactive
caesium]. They give us £1.30 for every sheep they monitor. We
take them off the fell and put them in the fields for a couple
of weeks before selling them, so readings are usually low. But
the odd one gets a high reading if it comes straight in off the
fell, and has to be slaughtered.
"Defra are here four or five times a year which is a hassle. At
shearing time in July they monitor everything. If we are taking
Cheviots to auction, we have to get them into a pen to take
readings, which makes them mucky and bad for selling. Now we try
to get them monitored three or four days before," said Mr
Ellwood, 49. "We have been on this farm for 16 years, and owned
the ground surrounding it before that, so have always been
affected by Chernobyl. There is a lot of contaminated peat on
our fell, so when the grass comes up in the summer that gets
contaminated too. If our fell were rocky, I don't think it would
be such a problem.
"I could get angry, but it is pointless, there is not a damn
thing we can do and nobody seems to know when it will pass. I
would be worried if more power stations were built. We were
1,500 miles from Chernobyl and still feel the effects."
Edwin Noble, 45, sheep farmer: 'I had no idea it could affect us
so far away'
Edwin Noble and his family, who run a 2,500- acre farm close to
Mount Snowden, live under emergency restrictions that they were
told would apply for 30 days, but which are likely to continue
for years.
Mr Noble, 45, was in his early twenties when he took charge of
the family farm. On the night of 2 May 1986, he was disturbed by
torrential rain and feared the river would burst its banks. What
he did not know was that the radiation cloud from Chernobyl was
passing invisibly overhead. The rain left huge deposits of
radioceasium in the peaty soil, which is no direct threat to
humans but works itself into the grass, contaminating his sheep.
"I had heard about Chernobyl on the news, but had no idea at all
that [it] could affect us so far away," he said. "It's something
we have had to live with ever since.
"Every time we move a sheep or lamb off our land it has got to
be scanned. If it fails the monitoring, it ... cannot be sold.
If you can get the sheep or lamb off the contaminated land, then
the radiation comes out of them fairly quickly, but the whole of
our farm is affected, so we rent grazing land 20 miles away. It
means you constantly have to think ahead. If the lamb is
fattened and ready to go to market, you can't have it sitting in
a pen waiting to be monitored because it loses weight, so you've
got to get the monitoring done ahead of time. When the market is
volatile, it has cost us a sale.
"The experience has made me very opposed to nuclear power. It's
not so much the inconvenience for farmers like us - but what if
the explosion had been at the plant near here, at Trawfynydd? It
doesn't seem worth the risk," he said.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
30 Daily Times: Two more nuclear plants for Karachi
March 14, 2006
KARACHI: Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Chairman
Parvez Butt has said that two more nuclear power plants will be
set up in Karachi to cater to the citys growing energy
requirements. These nuclear power plants will be of 600 MW each
and will be set up near KANUPP. He was speaking as the chief
guest at the concluding session of the First National Conference
on Engineering Education 2006, at the Karachi Expo Centre.
Butt said PAEC has been assigned by the government to produce
8,000 MW nuclear electricity for the enhanced needs of
accelerated economic development. He said that the PAEC is
successfully operating two nuclear plants while a third one,
CHASHNUPP-2 is under construction.
We have 35 years of safe operating experience at our credit and
we plan to build more nuclear power plants in the coming years
to contribute to the energy requirements of the country, he
added. He said, PAEC is assisting the industry in its growth
and competitive capability by providing technical services.
PAECs activities span an extremely wide spectrum: from nuclear
power generation to minerals development, from developing high
yield disease resistant crops to the treatment of cancer, design
and fabrication of industrial plans and equipment to human
resource development. Earlier, KANUPP GM Waqar Butt, speaking on
the University Industry Interaction, Meeting The Needs of the
Future. APP
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
31 NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Endorsement of Nuclear Energy
FR Doc 06-2386
[Federal Register: March 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 12716-12717] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13mr06-77]
Institute Guidance ``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness
Programs for Hostile Action'' AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is proposing to issue a regulatory issue summary
(RIS) to endorse the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance
entitled ``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs for
Hostile Action'' (revised in November 2005) as an acceptable
implementation methodology that licensees may use when adopting
the program enhancements discussed in NRC Bulletin 2005-02,
``Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based
Events.'' The NEI document attached to this RIS may be found in
the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML053290326. This document may also be
found on the NRC's generic communications Web page at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/docs4comme
nt.html .
This Federal Register notice (FRN) is available through the NRC's
ADAMS Accession No. ML060610032.
DATES: Comment period expires May 12, 2006. Comments submitted
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so,
but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date
and page number of this FRN. Written comments may also be
delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike (Room
T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on
Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Michael B.
Norris at 301-415-4098 or by e-mail mbn@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-XX
Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance ``Enhancements
to Emergency Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action''
Addressees All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power
reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and
have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the
reactor vessel.
Intent The NRC is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) to
endorse the NEI guidance entitled ``Enhancements to Emergency
Preparedness Programs for Hostile Action'' (revised in November
2005) as an acceptable implementation methodology that licensees
may use when adopting the program enhancements discussed in NRC
Bulletin 2005-02, ``Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions
for Security-Based Events.'' This RIS requires no action or
written response by addressees.
Background Information Nuclear power plant emergency preparedness
(EP) programs are designed to address a wide range of event
scenarios. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, NRC
evaluated the EP planning basis to ensure it continued to protect
the public health and safety in the current threat environment.
In 2002, NRC issued orders requiring compensatory measures for
nuclear security and EP. The NRC staff has reviewed all of the
responses to the 2002 orders. The NRC staff has observed licensee
performance during security-event-based EP drills and exercises
and security force-on-force exercises. The NRC staff has
discussed security-related EP issues with Federal, State and
local government officials and with licensees. The NRC staff
determined that the EP planning basis continues to protect public
health and safety, however, the NRC staff recognizes that
enhancements are necessary to ensure effective plan
implementation during security-related events. Examples of such
enhancements include more timely NRC notification, improvement to
onsite protective actions and revision of emergency action levels
to identify security-related emergencies more succinctly.
The NRC staff issued NRC Bulletin 2005-02 on July 18, 2005, to
obtain information from licensees on progress in implementing
security- event-related
[[Page 12717]] EP program enhancements. The NRC staff's
evaluation of licensee responses to the bulletin indicate that
all licensees are considering or have implemented enhancements to
their programs. NEI developed the attached guidance to clarify
the various options available to licensees to implement these
enhancements, and requested NRC endorsement in a letter dated
November 22, 2005.
Summary of Issue The NRC staff endorses the NEI guidance entitled
``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs Hostile
Action'' (May 2005, Revised November 18, 2005). The NEI guidance
clarifies issues, enhances emergency action levels and provides
implementation methods in support of Bulletin 2005-02. The NEI
guidance remains consistent with the intent of the bulletin and
is appropriate for licensee use.
The NRC staff recognizes the need for U.S. Department of Homeland
Security involvement in drill and exercise program enhancements
to ensure appropriate evaluation of security-event-based
exercises.
It may be appropriate to revise the current Exercise Evaluation
Methodology and extent-of-play agreements to ensure the necessary
objectives are demonstrated.
Licensees using the NEI guidance to change its emergency plan
should ensure that plan changes are coordinated with offsite
response organizations. Although the NEI guidance provides an
acceptable method for implementing enhancements, a licensee may
select other methods. If licensees adopt changes as written in
the NEI guidance and Bulletin 2005-02, the NRC staff believes
that those changes, on their own, would probably not pose a
decrease in effectiveness and could be performed under Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sec. 50.54(q) without
prior NRC approval. However, licensees have the responsibility to
ensure that changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the
emergency plans and that the plans, as changed, continue to meet
the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix
E to 10 CFR Part 50. Other methods for implementing the
enhancements may also be acceptable, but should be evaluated by
licensees to ensure they do not decrease effectiveness. Proposed
changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency
plans may not be implemented without application to, and approval
by the NRC.
Backfit Discussion This RIS endorses NEI guidance entitled
``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs Hostile
Action'', November 2005, as an adequate methodology to implement
the enhancements discussed in Bulletin 2005. Any action on the
part of addressees to use the guidance endorsed by this RIS is
strictly voluntary. This RIS does not impose new or modified NRC
staff requirements, or prescribe a unique way to comply with the
regulations, nor does it require any action or written response.
Therefore, this RIS is not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 and the
NRC staff did not perform a backfit analysis.
Congressional Review Act This RIS is a rule as designated by the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) and, therefore, is
subject to the Act. Federal Register Notification A notice of
opportunity for public comment on this RIS was published in the
Federal Register on XX XX XX. Comments were received from the
public and comment resolution can be found in the Adams with
accession No. YYYYYYY. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This RIS
does not contain information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Existing collection requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval
number 3150-0011. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, an information collection
unless the requested document displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Contact Please direct any questions about this matter to the
technical contact listed below.
Christopher I. Grimes, Director, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Technical Contact: Michael B. Norris, NSIR/DPR/EPD, (301)
415-4098. E-mail: mbn@nrc.gov. Enclosure: NEI Guidance,
``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Programs Hostile
Action'', May 2005, Revised November 18, 2005.
Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading
Room/Document Collections.
End of Draft Regulatory Issue Summary Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be 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/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the
documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher I. Grimes, Director, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 06-2386 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
32 Kommersant: Rosenergoatom to Master the Baltic Bottom
Today is Mar. 14, 2006 07:51 AM (GMT +0300) Moscow
Rosenergoatom said it will seal a contract concerning
construction of a power transmission bridge via the bottom of the
Baltic Sea to export to Finland up to 8.7 billion kWh from
Leningrad Nuclear Plant. The project will be funded by
Rosenergoatom, which is the principal holder at Baltenergo, the
forecasted operator of the project, and Outokumpu-led consortium
of Finnish firms. The opponents of the energy bridge are RAO UES
of Russia, and a number of investors counting on using the
Leningrad Plants energy for their own puposes.
Backed up by the RF Industry and Energy Ministry,
Rosenergoatomstarted developing project for electric energy
export via the Baltic bottom to Finnish Kotka in 2005. The
contract is expected to be sealed in three or four months, press
service of Leningrad Nuclear Plant announced Friday quoting
Rosenergoatom GD Stanislav Antipov as saying.
The project sets forth construction of 150km power transmission
bridge, which value is estimated at 2.5 billion (the first stage
will cost 300 million), running from the Leningrad Regionto
Finlands Kotka. The aggregate capacity of the bridge will be
secured by the 1,000-MW power transmission line. The forecasted
export is up to 8.7 billion kWh a year. Baltenergo is tipped as
the project operator. Its principal holder is Rosenergoatom,
which is expected to invest the raised money in constructing new
power units at Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant.
The project will have no governments guarantees.
by www.kommersant.com
Mar. 13, 2006
© 1991-2006 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 NewsRoom Finland: Russian energy divides opinions in Finland
13.3.2006 at 9:03
Finnish industrial giants Outokumpu, Stora Enso and M-real have
written jointly to the ministry of trade and industry to speed
up the construction of an energy cable from Russia, the
Helsingin Sanomat newspaper reports in its Saturday issue.
The planned project involves an energy cable running at the
bottom of the Gulf of Finland from Kernovo in Russia to Mussalo,
near Kotka, in Finland. It would facilitate the transport of
around 1,000 megawatts, which amounts approximately to the
output of a largish nuclear power station.
According to Helsingin Sanomat, Finnish industrial companies are
supported by large sectors of Swedish heavy industry represented
by Basindustrins Elektricitetes Aktiebolag, a company owned by a
number of electricity-hungry manufacturers.
However, Finland's electric transmission system operator Fingrid
strongly opposes the project, saying it would increase Finland's
reliance on imports from Russia.
Fingrid's worries were echoed by Tarja Cronberg, Green League
chair, in the Lauantaiseura programme aired on the Finnish
Broadcasting Company's TV1 on Saturday. Ms Cronberg said that
Finland should draft an energy security strategy in which the
implications of Finland's significant energy dependence on
Russia would be studied. Mr Cronberg reminded that all the
natural gas used by Finland originates in Russia. Some 80 per
cent of oil and the majority of uranium are also imported from
Russia.
Ms Cronberg added that Russia's energy needs would rise in the
future and that there were no guarantees that energy would
always be available from Russia. Ms Cronberg also referred to
opinions that the development of democracy in Russia might be
unpredictable.
/STT/
© Copyright STT 2006
News from Finnish News Agency STT
© 1995 2005, Virtual Finland
*****************************************************************
34 canada.com: Nuclear industry buffing its image
TV ad blitz Quebec's Gentilly II on its last legs
MICHELLE LALONDE, The Gazette
Published: Monday, March 13, 2006
The television ads are striking. A cloudy sky gradually clearing
to blue, the word "unclear" unscrambling to "nuclear" then
"clean" and "breathe" and "please."
A woman's voice tells you nuclear power is reliable, affordable
and "best of all, keeps the air clean, so you can breathe
easier."
The Canadian nuclear industry is working hard to change the
public image of nuclear power. They want Canadians to stop
thinking of Homer Simpson at the controls of a scary, expensive
and outdated technology that brought us the Three Mile Island
and Chernobyl disasters.
Instead, they want us to think of nuclear energy as a proven
technology that is environmentally friendly, homegrown,
affordable and safe.
They want us to push our governments to refurbish existing
nuclear plants on the brink of expiry and commit to building new
ones in the near future to deliver the nation from a looming
energy crisis.
In Quebec, where hydroelectric prices are shooting up, the
Gentilly 2 nuclear plant near Trois Rivieres is on its last
legs. Hydro-Quebec will decide within the next few months
whether to shut it down or rebuild it at an estimated cost of
$1.2 billion.
"Going ahead with a refurbishment has major implications and so
does shutting it down," Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Sylvain
Theberge said.
"The government, as our primary shareholder, will have a say, of
course, and can block any action on it, but Hydro-Quebec first
must decide what it wants to do. "
While Gentilly 2 provides only two per cent of this province's
power, proponents argue Quebec is headed for an energy shortage
in a few years and needs diversified power sources. Nuclear,
they claim, is the most reliable source and doesn't require
cutting trees or damming rivers.
Both sides of the nuclear debate speak passionately about their
concern for the environment and the public purse.
The debate is raging particularly in Ontario, where nuclear
plants provide 50 per cent of the province's electricity and a
serious energy crisis is just over the horizon.
Ontario's 18 aging nuclear plants are scheduled to go off-line
between 2010 and 2020. The government has promised to close that
province's four remaining coal-fired power plants, a major
source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, by 2009.
This, combined with demand growth, means Ontario will have to
replace about 80 per cent of its current generating capacity
over the next 20 years.
In New Brunswick, the government has decided to invest $1.4
billion to refurbish the nuclear plant at Point Lepreau, which
supplies 30 per cent of that province's power.
Virtually every province will have to build some new energy
infrastructure over the next decade, and the nuclear industry is
hoping to get a piece of the action.
Proponents say nuclear technology, specifically the
Canadian-made CANDU reactors, are an important part of a
"made-in-Canada" solution to the problems of climate change,
energy security, smog and rising gas and oil prices. Nuclear
power emits no greenhouse gases and use uranium mined in Canada
as fuel.
Instead of Homer Simpson-like buffoons at the controls, Canada's
20 nuclear plants are staffed by highly trained professionals,
and the plants' operations are rigorously monitored and
regulated, they argue.
They brush off concerns about accidents, terrorist attacks or
what to do with spent radioactive fuel stored at these nuclear
sites. Engineers will solve these problems, they say.
At a recent conference hosted by the Canadian Nuclear Association
in Ottawa, the mood was upbeat. Industry leaders gushed about
opinion polls in Ontario showing that public acceptance of
nuclear power is on the rise. The message from most speakers was
that the nuclear industry needs to take advantage of the new
climate to get out there and sell nuclear power.
In his opening address to the conference, Robert Van Adel,
president and chief executive officer of Atomic Energy Canada
Ltd., called Canada "CANDU country" and credited the CNA's
advertising campaign with boosting public confidence in nuclear
power.
The CNA's television ad campaign has been running since July 2005
and is continuing, said Claudia Lemieux, the CNA's director of
communications. She would not say how much the campaign has cost,
but acknowledged that "the cost of television advertising is
unreal." She said the ads have been very effective and will
continue. "We track our advertising and the public wants to know
more information ... so it's an investment in keeping the public
informed about what's going on."
Van Adel quoted a recent Ipsos Reid poll that concluded "61 per
cent of Ontario adults support nuclear energy."
Later in the conference, however, Ontario Power Authority CEO Jan
Carr put those poll results into context.
"The same poll also shows that support for nuclear power is at
the lowest level of any power source other than coal," Carr said.
"Solar and wind had a 95 per cent approval rating, hydro was at
92 per cent and natural gas was at 79 per cent - all compared to
nuclear at 60 per cent. Polling professionals might describe this
level of support as 'soft.' "
Those quotes may make Carr and the OPA sound anti-nuclear. In
fact, the OPA recommended in December that Ontario spend about
$40 billion refurbishing old reactors and building new ones so
that nuclear plants can continue to supply half the province's
energy until at least 2025.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has already said his government
is prepared to go ahead with new nuclear plants if that's what
the OPA recommends.
Carr had many good things to say about nuclear power, but he
stressed that the industry has a long way to go in its efforts to
sell its product to a skeptical public.
"Given the fragile state of public support for the role of
nuclear in future electricity supply, I believe that those who
advocate its use should nurture this growing acceptance
thoughtfully and with great care. What is needed is positive,
factual information about society's need for safe, reliable and
affordable solutions for tomorrow's electricity challenges."
Perhaps the greatest weapon in the pro-nuclear camp's arsenal is
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, a former environmental
activist who works as a consultant and paid spokesperson for the
nuclear industry.
At a luncheon talk at the CNA conference, Moore told a very
receptive audience that they must work harder to counter the
anti-nuclear message of the environmental movement.
After flashing old photos of himself as a long-haired Greenpeace
activist saving seals and whales aboard the Rainbow Warrior,
Moore told the audience he grew sick of being "against
everything" and is now firmly on their side.
"Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy
source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy
global demand," he told about 600 nuclear enthusiasts at the CNA
luncheon.
He said industry employees - an estimated 30,000 people across
the country - need to get that message out to the public.
"I tell them they have to foster a grassroots awareness campaign
among their workers," Moore said in an interview. "They have to
start telling people the real story, as ambassadors for the
industry."
Moore said the environmental movement is poisoning people's minds
against nuclear energy.
"The anti-nuclear campaign is a campaign of misinformation, and
they have become the main obstacle to emissions reductions
because they are against all the strategies that make sense."
Both the environmental movement and the nuclear industry are
looking to the federal government for a signal on whether nuclear
power will play a part in this country's energy future.
Proponents of nuclear energy speak of a "global nuclear
renaissance."
Governments in the United States, Britain and China are singing
the praises of nuclear power as a safe, emissions-free solution
to the problems of climate change, rising gas and oil prices, and
dependence on hostile foreign governments for fuel.
But other countries, including Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
and Austria, have decided to close down existing nuclear plants
or phase them out because of concerns about the environment and
human safety.
CNA president Murray Elston, a former Ontario health minister,
said the industry is anxiously awaiting some kind of signal from
Ottawa so that those interested in investing in new nuclear
plants can apply for approval without fear the regulatory
environment will suddenly turn against nuclear energy.
He points to the new U.S. energy plan, which includes new nuclear
plants.
"They moved with a little more dispatch in the U.S. They've set
themselves goals to put in plan new nuclear stations. We think
that is good evidence that nuclear technology is worth investing
in here in Canada and particularly in Ontario."
But a signal from the feds does not seem to be coming any time
soon.
The new Conservative natural resources minister, Gary Lunn,
turned down a CNA invitation to speak at its conference. Asked
about the future of nuclear energy in an interview on CBC radio,
Lunn would say only that Canadians have an insatiable appetite
for energy and conservation needs to be part of the picture.
He promised to talk about the issue at an energy ministers'
conference planned for August in the Yukon, but was careful to
stress that the Harper government will not intrude on provincial
jurisdiction the way the Trudeau government did with its National
Energy Program in 1980.
"I am willing to consider a kind of national energy strategy with
the provinces, but if people are thinking about some sort of
national energy program, that is nowhere on the radar screen."
For more information on nuclear power and the energy debate,
visit the Canadian Nuclear Association at www.cna.ca, the Atomic
Energy of Canada Ltd. at www.aecl.ca, and the Pembina Institute
at www.pembina.org
Facts About the Controversial Energy Source
Nuclear energy results from splitting the nucleus of an atom
Canada produces about one-third of the world's uranium, most of
it from two new mines in northern Saskatchewan
About 15 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from nuclear
power, using Canadian-made technology.
Canada has 20 nuclear power plants; 18 in Ontario, one in Quebec
and one in New Brunswick. The oldest opened in 1971. The newest
opened in 1993.
All of the spent high-level radioactive waste in Canada could
fill two NHL hockey rinks stacked to the height of the boards.
Anti-nuclear activists say the waste remains radioactive, and
deadly, for tens of thousands of years. Nuclear proponents say
the radioactivity diminishes over a few hundred years and becomes
no more radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore.
A typical Canadian nuclear power plant produces a 10-foot cube of
solid used fuel annually.
A nuclear fuel bundle weighs about 23 kilograms, is about the
size of a fire log, and can provide all the electricity
requirements for the average Canadian home for 100 years.
The current proposal for dealing with used nuclear fuel involves
sealing it in copper or titanium containers and burying it 500 to
1,000 metres deep in the rock of the Canadian Shield.
No one died as a result of a partial meltdown of a nuclear
installation at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979.
Twenty years later, a class action suit against the owners of the
reactor failed when the court ruled that no illnesses could be
attributed to the accident.
50 people died in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
No one in North America has died or become ill from a
radiation-related accident at a nuclear power plant.
Minister backs James Bay, Page A8
mlalonde@thegazette.canwest.com
c The Gazette (Montreal) 2006
Β© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
FR Doc 06-2426
[Federal Register: March 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 12715-12716] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13mr06-76]
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dates: Weeks of March 13, 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and Closed.
Matters to be Considered: Week of March 13, 2006 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.
Week of March 27, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of March 27, 2006.
Week of April 3, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of April 3, 2006.
Week of April 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of April 10, 2006.
Week of April 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of April 17, 2006.
* * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to
change on short
[[Page 12716]] notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
* * * * * Additional Information: By a vote of 5-0 on March 3,
2006, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and
Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Affirmation of
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)'' be held March 3,
2006, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
An Affirmation Session tentatively planned for Thursday, March 9,
2006, has been cancelled.
* * * * * 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: March 8, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2426 Filed 3-9-06; 12:06 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
36 IRNA: India tightens rules for nuclear export
New Delhi, March 13, IRNA
India-Nuclear export
India has tightened the screw on export of nuclear equipment and
technology in a move that seems to be a fallout of its recent
deal with the United States.
Under new guidelines, their export can be authorized only when
"the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard
arrangements are made or assured by the recipient country."
Furthermore, "the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) should be
satisfied that the transfers would not contribute to the
development of nuclear weapons or be diverted to acts of nuclear
terrorism," a PTI report said here today.
Each and every application for export shall be scrutinized on
case-by-case basis by the licensing authority (DAE). Licenses
are subject to recipient states having relevant IAEA safeguards
agreement and agreeing to onsite verifications (by Indian
inspectors).
India also reserves the right to apply additional conditions of
supply as a matter of national policy. In addition, the consent
of the government of India should be required for any retransfer
of exported items or related technology.
The guidelines prohibit export of certain "prescribed"
substances or technologies "when there is an unacceptable risk
of their diversion to the development of a nuclear device."
Otherwise, virtually the entire range of nuclear technologies
developed by DAE in the last 40 years, including enrichment
technology, can be exported if IAEA safeguards are applied to
them by recipient nations.
The exportable items, listed under the guidelines, include
"nuclear reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication
plants, uranium enrichment plants, uranium and plutonium
conversion facilities, heavy water production plants, tritium
recovery plants" and so on.
In any case, according to the guidelines, "The government of
India shall exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive
facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices."
For instance, although enrichment facilities, equipment and
technology are included in the list, there are "special
controls" on their export.
According to the guidelines, "The recipient nation should agree
that neither the transferred facility, nor any facility based on
such technology, will be designed or operated for the production
of greater than 20 percent enriched uranium without the consent
of the government of India."
Enrichment is a process by which the content of energy
producing uranium-235 is increased from natural ore stage 0.7
percent.
A low enrichment of three percent is enough for operating
reactors to produce electricity. A bomb needs 90 percent
enrichment or more.
The DAE has been operating an enrichment facility near Mysore
for several years.
*****************************************************************
37 AFP: Rice says US-Indian nuclear deal will strengthen security -
Mon Mar 13, 1:11 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rica has
urged Congress to amend atomic energy law in order to implement
a nuclear agreement which President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Bushsigned with India during his recent visit there.
The deal, signed earlier this month, gives India access to
long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing
most of its nuclear reactors under international inspection. It
must be cleared by the US Congress before it can be implemented.
The Bush administration has proposed to Congress that an
India-specific amendment be made to the US Atomic Energy Act,
which currently prohibits nuclear sales to states which are not
signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India has refused to sign the NPT and has developed nuclear
weapons.
The deal, however, was met with sharp criticism in Congress.
Democratic Representative Edward Markey (news, bio, voting
record), co-chairman of the Bipartisan Task Force on
Nonproliferation, said the agreement undercuts the very
foundation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
But Rice, writing in The Washington Post newspaper, called the
agreement "historic."
"This agreement is a strategic achievement," she said. "It will
strengthen international security. It will enhance energy
security and environmental protection. It will foster economic
and technological development."
The secretary of state insisted the deal will also "help
transform the partnership between the world's oldest and the
world's largest democracy."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
38 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast health survey to begin
03/13/2006 |
DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - A health survey of Tallevast community residents,
past residents and former employees of the Loral American
Beryllium Co. and their family members begins Tuesday.
Participants will be asked to complete a confidential survey. No
names or identifying information will be required. The survey is
the cooperative effort of Florida A&M Institute of Public
Health, FOCUS, Manatee Rural Health and WildLaw Inc., a
non-profit legal organization helping communities impacted by
industrial pollution.
The survey will take place at Mr. Tabor Missionary Baptist
church, 1703 Tallevast Road from 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Tuesday
through Friday with one hour off for lunch between 1-2 p.m.
Saturday hours are 9 a.m.-3 p.m.
Appointments are suggested but not mandatory.
For more information, call Laura Ward, 355-9216 or 742-0810 or
Wanda Washington, 351-2969 or 807-5640.
*****************************************************************
39 Las Vegas SUN: Bodman in a bind over 'broken' Yucca project
Today: March 13, 2006 at 7:44:2 PST
By Benjamin Grove Las Vegas Sun
WASHINGTON - Watching Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, just 13
months into his job, observers might get the feeling he is
already sick of dealing with Yucca Mountain, one of his
department's toughest and longest-running challenges.
Bodman last week got in trouble with his own staffers after he
told reporters the department had no intention of pursuing a
temporary nuclear waste storage site while Yucca is being
developed. (It turns out the department may pursue that.)
Then in appearances before congressional panels last week,
Bodman had to search for new and different ways to say the
troubled proposed nuclear waste repository program had been
poorly managed.
He told lawmakers that Yucca was "broken."
He pleaded for more patience from Congress. He said he was
trying to implement better management. He said "doubt" had been
cast on Yucca's quality assurance program, which is designed to
maintain its scientific integrity.
"It has been severely compromised because our contractor didn't
do as good a job as a contractor should," Bodman said of Yucca.
He put some blame on the U.S. Geological Services for
compromising quality assurance. "And perhaps mostly it has been
compromised because we in the Energy Department didn't manage it
very well."
Lawmakers on two House committees grilled Bodman on Yucca,
including Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., who drew a few chuckles
from the audience when he asked Bodman the painfully simple
question that Yucca observers have been asking for years: "When
do you think Yucca Mountain will be open?"
Bodman said, "That's kind of the $64 question."
Visclosky shot back: "It's about $500 million," a reference to
Bodman's Yucca budget request for next year.
Last year more than 6,000 bills were introduced in Congress and
only a tiny fraction ever were made law. But those odds don't
stop lawmakers, including Nevada's own, from trying to live up
to the job title.
Recently introduced: two provisions inserted by Rep. Jon Porter,
R-Nev., into a child safety and crime bill approved last week by
the House. One provision allows school districts to submit
fingerprints of job candidates to a national database, with the
goal of avoiding the hire of criminals.
The other requires stricter penalties - at least 30 years in
prison, or life, or even death - for anyone who kills a
federally paid public safety officer.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., last week introduced a bill that
would allow veterans to hire a lawyer earlier in disputes with
the Veterans Affairs Department over benefits. Current law
prohibits veterans from seeking counsel until after a sometimes
lengthy administrative appeals process.
And Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced a bill that would
entitle wounded veterans to a pro-rated share of their
retirement benefits
Currently, military service members have to work 20 years for
the benefits.
"Some of these veterans have served 10 or 15 years, and had
planned to keep serving until retirement," Reid said. "It's not
their fault they got injured."
Democratic members of the House Education and Workforce
Committee released new numbers last week they say show Bush
budget proposals would trim $107 million in federal money from
Nevada education programs in the next five years.
In that time, the state stands to lose $53 million for
vocational and adult education programs; $31.3 million for
special education; and nearly $23 million for school improvement
programs under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Lawmakers routinely pepper reporters with press releases, which
rarely contain much news. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., set a new
standard last week for newslessness when his office issued an
alert to the media to announce that he had been praised by
someone named Pete Sepp, vice president for communications of
the National Taxpayers Union. Sepp thanked Ensign for opposing
an asbestos litigation reform bill.
Stop the presses ... "Senator Ensign deserves praise for having
the courage to resist pressure from many of his colleagues, and
to side instead with taxpayers in this debate," Sepp said.
During his weekly "stakeout" with reporters, Reid last week
praised a Washington Post column by Norman Ornstein, who had
chronicled how Congress over the years has spent less and less
time in session, and typically meeting only Tuesday through
Thursday.
Reid agreed: "Thursday now is where Friday used to be. Mondays
are out of the picture. We don't do anything on Mondays."
Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
grove@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
40 thedesertsun.com: Government must take responsibility for ordnance
Navy left at Salton Sea
Editorials
[The Navy completed its last cleanup of the Salton Sea Test Base
five years ago, but it was inadequate to allow construction.]
Desert Sun File Photo The Navy completed its last cleanup of the
Salton Sea Test Base five years ago, but it was inadequate to
allow construction.
SALTON SEA TEST BASE
+ Established during 1940s as Navy test base.
+ Bureau of Land Management and other agencies took over land
from Navy in 2000.
+ Dummy warheads containing lead or depleted uranium and
conventional ordnance still could be buried on the site.
+ Past cleanups only made the site suitable for open space or
habitat.
Read about plans to revitalize and develop land around the sea:
www.thedesertsun.com/saltonsea
THE ISSUE The U.S. government will conduct a follow-up removal
of ordnance from the Salton Sea Test Base this summer.
WE SUGGEST A more thorough assessment and cleanup is needed as
development begins to encircle the sea.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Is the government or the new landowner
responsible for the test base's cleanup? Send comments via the
Web: www.thedesertsun.com/letters
The Desert Sun
March 13, 2006
Cleanup of test base is not new landowners charge Apparently
U.S. government officials didn't learn a key kindergarten
lesson: If you make a mess, you've got to clean it up.
That doesn't mean some of the toys, but all of them.
While a Navy subcontractor plans to search the defunct Salton
Sea Test Base for ordnance and other hazardous material this
summer, workers won't look deep enough underground to clear the
land for homes. The work is a follow-up sweep to a past cleaning
of the site, which was once used for training and high-altitude
drop tests of inert bombs.
When established during the 1940s, the several thousand acres at
the Salton Sea's southwest edge marked a logical place for a
test range. Among the site's redeeming values was its distance
from civilization. Since the Second World War, urbanization has
crept outward and is about to surround the sea, however. The La
Quinta-based Salton Sea Authority now is eyeing the property,
owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, as a centerpiece
in its proposal to revive the troubled sea. The land would host
thousands of homes, with tax revenue from them supporting the
plan to shrink the smelly sea into a cleaner lake. The Navy
hasn't used the range in a decade and has no plans to reopen it.
Responsibility of the government If the U.S. government is going
to sell the site, it has an obligation to clean up the mess.
Conducting a partial cleanup during the past decade and warning
off people from entering the area has been adequate enough while
the site remained remote. But those days are rapidly coming to
an end. Even if homes aren't built on the test base, erecting
anything nearby places at risk young children and Salton Sea
visitors who might accidentally wander into the area.
Copyright © 2006 The Desert Sun
*****************************************************************
41 St. Petersburg Times: "Critical" Levels of Nuclear Waste Need Storage Facilities
Overview
Issue #1152(18), Tuesday, March 14, 2006
By Yekaterina Dranitsyna
Staff Writer
The construction of new nuclear storage facilities in Leningrad
Olbast is unavoidable, experts have said, citing the critical
level of radioactive waste in the region.
"Russia has accumulated about 500 million cubic meters of
radioactive waste, the total activity of which is 1.5 billion
curie - 30 times more than the fallout from Chernobyl," head of
nuclear safety at Rosatom Igor Diakov said at a seminar in St.
Petersburg last week, Interfax reported.
The Northwest region is faced with the most serious problem,
since all existing storage has been filled, he said.
At the seminar, organized by the International Projecting and
Scientific Institute for Complex Power Technology and Rosatom,
the Swedish company SKB IC demonstrated projects for ground and
underground waste storage.
The 340,000 cubic meter underground storage is akin to a metro
system and should be located 100 meters below the surface in
Cambrian clay. It would consist of five storage chambers and one
chamber for control purposes. The project would cost $7,500 per
cubic meter, according to SKB IC estimations. The storage could
be based near the Sosnovy Bor district.
If construction starts now, the storage will be operating by
2020, experts said. By then between 200,000 and 250,000 cubic
meters of radioactive waste will have accumulated in Leningrad
Oblast.
SCB IC president Klaes Lindberg said that "the advantages of
overland storage are its convenient location and the fact that it
is relatively cheap to build." However, he did not give precise
figures.
"Both projects would satisfy safety concerns. Rather, the choice
should be based more on both projects' cost," Interfax cited
Alexander Nikitin, chairman of ecologic center Belluna as saying.
Nikitin considered overland storage to be more easily replicable
in other regions.
Igor Luchkov, head of assessment and analysis at Becar real
estate agency, said that the cost of the project will depend on
the mass of concrete necessary to build the facility and the
technical requirements of construction.
Since no such project has yet been realized in the city, Luchkov
suggested that the tender could be used to choose a constructor
who meets all the technical requirements but at the least
expense.
"The only alternative to radioactive waste storage would be not
to produce such waste at all, i.e. to renounce nuclear power
completely," said Gianguido Piani, an independent expert on the
power industry.
"Most people are afraid of radioactivity, but do not care about
the harmful effects of other types of waste. A coal power plant
produces at least 1000 times more solid waste than a NPP," Piani
said.
"There are methods in which radioactive waste can be encapsulated
in glass, which is particularly stable. From the point of view of
safety, it makes more sense to store them far from urban
centers," the expert added.
According to a Rosbalt report released earlier this month, Oleg
Sergeyev, chairman of the commission for sanitarian and epidemic
control and ecologic protection at City Hall, said that federal
programs for radioactive storage and usage are under-funded by up
to 70 percent to 80 percent, while storage facilities in the city
are completely exhausted.
Under-funding causes some serious risks. For example, the
territory of the Ikofolk company, based in the city, is home to
about 12,000 sources of radiation, Sergeyev said.
The special use and storage plant Radon, which processes waste
from all over the region, has started using emergency facilities
because of a lack of storage. At the moment it stores over 80,000
cubic meters of waste, and the remaining space will be filled
within the next three years to four years, Interfax reported
citing Radon director Alexander Ivanov. Construction of new
production facilities is under discussion, with about $5.35
million of funding to be provided by the federal program for
radioactive waste treatment, following government approval,
Interfax reported.
-->
© Copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993 - 2005
*****************************************************************
42 Granite Falls Advocate Tribune: Senator Kubly tours Yucca Mountain site
By Dave Smiglewski Publisher
State Senator Gary Kubly recently returned from a fact-finding
trip to the Yucca Mountain area in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is the
proposed site for the federal government's nuclear waste
depository. It is literally a tunnel being burrowed into a very
large and remote mountain approximately two hours north of Las
Vegas on U.S. government property.
Kubly traveled with other members of the Minnesota joint house
and senate Legislative Electric Energy Task Force. The group's
interest stems from the fact that Minnesota has two nuclear power
generating stations currently on line. The stations, located at
Monticello and at Prairie Island, near Red Wing, are currently
producing and storing spent nuclear fuel rods which are highly
radioactive. Both plants are owned by Excel Energy.
The task force and some staff traveled to the site, which is 12
miles from the nearest settlement, where they observed
preliminary construction which is taking place at the
highly-secured area.
The group also met with several Nevada officials and discussed
the plan for Yucca Mountain. That plan has not been
well-received in Nevada, Kubly said. He mentioned that only two
members of the Nevada legislature voted to approve the plan in
the first place and they were both defeated in the next
election. The Nevada Attorney General has gone on record as
saying that the site will not be opened as long as he is in
office, Kubly stated.
It will be three years, according to Kubly, before Yucca
Mountain is officially licensed and another four years after
that before it will partially open. One hundred and three
different sites around the country will provide the 77,000 tons
of high-level radioactive nuclear waste to be stored there. It
will take between 24 and 38 years to fill the site. Yucca
Mountain will then have to be sealed and continuously guarded
for over 1,000 years. Over $8 billion has been spent on the plan
at Yucca Mountain so far and the finished product is projected
to cost $60 billion. Minnesota's share of that is $538 million.
Aside from concerns about security and safety at the site, the
other major worry is the transportation of the nuclear waste. It
is highly radioactive and will travel mostly by rail via various
routes through several large cities, many smaller communities
and over dozens of rivers, many of which provide drinking water
supplies for the surrounding areas. One of the rail routes
proposed for the movement of the waste is through Willmar,
Granite Falls, Marshall and on to Sioux City, Iowa. From there,
it will go into Nebraska and across Wyoming into Utah and then
south to Nevada to a yet-to-be constructed, several-mile-long
rail spur to Yucca Mountain. Transporting the waste by rail,
while offering the safest means for moving the dangerous cargo,
is still a source of concern for many in the various communities
and states in which the trains will travel.
Excel's nuclear power plant in Monticello recently filed for a
certificate of need for on- site dry cask storage of spent
radioactive nuclear fuel rods. That is the same storage method
which is being used already at Prairie Island. The legislature
will likely be asked to approve the Monticello storage during
the legislative session in 2007. Kubly said he thinks that
lawmakers may be inclined to examine the idea of re-establishing
a Renewable Development Fund which could be used to again
jumpstart renewable fuel energy production efforts similar to
the wind and biomass mandates that the legislature demanded in
return for the license to store fuel at Prairie Island several
years ago. That led to the development of hundreds of
high-capacity wind generators along the Buffalo Ridge in far
southwestern Minnesota, as well as efforts to build a biomass
electrical energy facility in Minnesota. The former proposed
MnVAP alfalfa gasification facility that had been planned in
Granite Falls was a response to that biomass mandate. The turkey
litter-to-electricity power plant under construction in Benson
is the result of that mandate.
"In some ways, it is difficult to be opposed to Yucca Mountain,
because it will take our waste," Kubly said. Nevertheless, it is
probably not the answer and will need to be studied further, he
said, adding that the radioactive fuel and waste is a very large
problem with nuclear energy and there are no easy answers.
Kubly went on to say that he favors the establishment of a
Renewable Energy Standard that would provide a reliable and
sustainable source for up to 25 percent of Minnesota's energy
needs. This could relieve Minnesota of more of its dependence on
nuclear and fossil fuels.
The task force will continue to work toward energy
recommendations to be acted on by the legislature.
Copyright © 2006 Granite Falls Advocate Tribune. All rights
*****************************************************************
43 DOE: Deputy Secretary Highlights Economic Benefits of Energy Efficiency
in Flower Mound, Texas
March 10, 2006
FLOWER MOUND, TX Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell today
highlighted Americas robust economy and the role the energy
sector plays to ensure its continued growth, while co-hosting an
event at Home Depot in Flower Mound, Texas, with Congressman
Michael Burgess (R-26 th).
Deputy Secretary Sell gave a brief demonstration on easy ways
consumers can save energy and discussed the economic benefits of
energy efficiency, particularly in relation to the American
Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives, announced by
President Bush in the State of the Union address.
There are many simple and inexpensive ways we can all help
contribute to the nations strong economy while also curbing our
energy demand, Deputy Secretary Sell said.
Im confident President Bushs new energy initiatives will help
strengthen Americas energy security and maintain our economic
leadership in the world.
During todays remarks at the Home Depot, Deputy Secretary Sell
discussed how President Bushs pro-growth policies have helped
keep the economy strong and how President Bushs new energy
initiatives will encourage economic growth in the years to come.
The American Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives will
promote Americas continued economic vitality through the
development and use of alternative energy sources and will
provide our next generation of scientists, teachers, and
engineers with the strong educational foundation necessary to
compete in the global economy.
The American Competitiveness Initiative increases federal
investment in critical research that will ensure the U.S.
continues to lead the world in opportunity and innovation, and
provide American children with a first-rate mathematics and
science education. The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce
Americas dependence on foreign oil and increase production of
domestically grown fuel, which will in turn, promote U.S. job
growth.
Deputy Secretary Sell also touched on the overall health of the
U.S. economy, underscored by new employment figures released
today.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure. America has experienced five straight years
of growth in productivity, and per capita personal income
continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as well.
The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest point since
2001 and is lower than the average rate for the 1970s, the 1980s
and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being created for American
workers. The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has
created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and
almost 5 million since August 2003.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman toured DOEs Kansas City
Plant to view their new technology activities and then delivered
remarks to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in Kansas
City, Missouri, to promote Americas strong economy, specifically
related to energy security. Under Secretary David Garman joined
Ohio Representative Deborah Pryce (R-15 th) at American Electric
Power in Columbus, Ohio, to make remarks on the strong economy
and to discuss the presidents new energy initiatives. Office of
Science Director, Dr. Ray Orbach is touring Brown University in
Providence, Rhode Island, to promote the importance of investing
in and maintaining Americas stronghold in science and education.
Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert participated in a roundtable
discussion at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville, to discuss
northwest Arkansass bio-based economics with some of the
countrys largest employers. Acting Assistant Secretary Doug
Faulkner is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to highlight the ways that
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory can participate in the success
of the American Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
44 DOE: Under Secretary Joins Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-15th) to
Underscore Importance of Energy Technology Investments to U.S.
Economy
March 10, 2006
COLUMBUS , OH The U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Under
Secretary David Garman today joined Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-15 th)
at Columbuss American Electric Power (AEP) to highlight
Americas economic strength and the need for increased
investment in the development of new energy technologies in
order to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
By continuing to invest in new sources of energy and new ways to
deliver that energy, we are investing in our economy and our
future, which will lead us to the great discoveries of tomorrow,
Under Secretary Garman said.
Under Secretary Garman visited AEPs Dolan Technology Center,
near Columbus, this morning to tour their advanced
superconductivity research project, which was partially funded
through DOE research grants. Following his tour of the technology
center, the under secretary joined Rep. Pryce to talk to AEP
employees about their important contribution to Americas economy
though the development of reliable and affordable energy. Under
Secretary Garman also discussed President Bushs American
Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives.
These initiatives promote Americas continued economic vitality
through the development and use of alternative energy sources and
aim to provide our next generation of scientists, teachers, and
engineers with the strong educational foundation necessary to
compete in the global economy.
During todays remarks Under Secretary Garman discussed how
President Bushs pro-growth economic policies have helped keep
the economy strong and how the new energy initiatives encourage
economic growth in the years to come.
The American Competitiveness Initiative increases federal
investment in critical research that will ensure the U.S.
continues to lead the world in opportunity and innovation, and
provide American children with a first-rate mathematics and
science education. The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce
Americas dependence on foreign oil and increase production of
domestically grown fuel, which will in turn, promote U.S. job
growth.
Under Secretary Garman also touched on the overall health of the
U.S. economy, underscored by new employment figures released
today. These figures indicate that the American economy is
strong by almost any measure. America has experienced five
straight years of growth in productivity, and per capita personal
income continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as
well.
The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest point since
2001 and is lower than the average rate for the 1970s, the 1980s
and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being created for American
workers. The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has
created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and
almost 5 million since August 2003.
As part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to promote
Americas strong economy and pro-growth energy policies,
Administration and DOE officials are traveling the country today
to discuss the importance of maintaining economic leadership and
a scientific edge in the world through increased science and math
education and additional funding for research and development of
alternative energy sources.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman toured DOEs Kansas City
Plant to view their new technology activities and then delivered
remarks to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in Kansas
City, Missouri, to promote Americas strong economy, specifically
related to energy security.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell joined Texas
Representative Michael Burgess (R-26 th) to host an event at
Home Depot promoting the economic benefits of energy efficiency
in Flower Mound, Texas.
Office of Science Director, Dr. Ray Orbach is touring Brown
University in Providence, Rhode Island, to promote the importance
of investing in and maintaining Americas stronghold in science
and education. Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert participated in
a roundtable discussion at the University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, to discuss northwest Arkansass bio-based economics
with some of the countrys largest employers. Acting Assistant
Secretary Doug Faulkner is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to highlight
the ways that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory can participate
in the success of the American Competitiveness and Advanced
Energy Initiatives.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, 202.586.4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
45 DOE: Secretary Bodman Highlights Economic Benefits of President Bushs
Energy Initiatives in Kansas City
March 10, 2006
KANSAS CITY , MO Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel
W. Bodman today highlighted Americas robust economy and the
role the energy sector plays to ensure its continued growth,
while speaking to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce.
During his remarks, Secretary Bodman discussed the American
Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives, announced by
President Bush in the State of the Union address. These
initiatives promote Americas continued economic vitality
through the development and use of alternative energy sources
and aim to provide our next generation of scientists, teachers,
and engineers with the strong educational foundation necessary
to compete in the global economy.
Secure, affordable supplies of energy are critical to the
continued growth of our economy, Secretary Bodman said.
The Presidents initiatives will help America maintain its
economic leadership by diversifying our energy mix, making basic
scientific research and education a priority for Americas 21
st-century workforce.
During todays remarks at the Greater Kansas City Chamber of
Commerce, Secretary Bodman discussed how President Bushs
pro-growth policies have helped keep the economy strong and how
the new initiatives will encourage economic growth in the years
to come. The American Competitiveness Initiative increases
federal investment in critical research that will ensure the U.S.
continues to lead the world in opportunity and innovation, and
provide American children with a first-rate mathematics and
science education. The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce
Americas dependence on foreign oil and increase production of
domestically grown fuel, which will in turn, promote U.S. job
growth.
Secretary Bodman also touched on the overall health of the U.S.
economy, underscored by new employment figures released today.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure. America has experienced five straight years
of growth in productivity, and per capita personal income
continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as well.
The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest point since
2001 and is lower than the average rate for the 1970s, the 1980s
and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being created for American
workers. The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has
created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and
almost 5 million since August 2003.
As part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to promote
Americas strong economy and pro-growth energy policies,
Administration and DOE officials are traveling the country today
to discuss the importance of maintaining economic leadership and
a scientific edge in the world through increased science and math
education and additional funding for research and development of
alternative energy sources.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell joined Texas Representative
Michael Burgess (R-26 th) to host an event at Home Depot
promoting the economic benefits of energy efficiency in Flower
Mound, Texas. Under Secretary David Garman joined Ohio
Representative Deborah Pryce (R-15 th) at American Electric Power
in Columbus, Ohio, to make remarks on the strong economy and to
discuss the presidents new energy initiatives.
Office of Science Director, Dr. Ray Orbach is touring Brown
University in Providence, Rhode Island, to promote the importance
of investing in and maintaining Americas stronghold in science
and education. Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert participated in
a roundtable discussion at the University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, to discuss northwest Arkansass bio-based economics
with some of the countrys largest employers. Acting Assistant
Secretary Doug Faulkner is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to highlight
the ways that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory can participate
in the success of the American Competitiveness and Advanced
Energy Initiatives.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
46 DOE: DOE Office of Science Director Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Visits
Brown University to Discuss Americas Economic Competitiveness
March 10, 2006
Highlights importance of scientific innovation and advancing
energy security
PROVIDENCE , RI Director of the Department of Energys (DOE)
Office of Science Dr. Raymond L. Orbach today joined Governor
Donald L. Carcieri at Brown University in Providence, Rhode
Island, to promote the role of scientific research and
advancement in strengthening Americas economy. Dr. Orbach
discussed with members of the academic and research communities
the Advanced Energy and American Competitiveness Initiatives
recently announced by President Bush.
These initiatives promote Americas economic vitality through
further development of alternative energy sources and ensure that
our next generation of scientists and researchers are equipped
with the educational foundation necessary to compete in the
global economy. Increased investments in research and
development as well as science and math education are key
components to Americas continued economic strength and
leadership, Dr. Orbach said.
America will maintain its competitive edge for generations to
come, by doubling funding for critical basic research programs in
physical sciences over the next 10 years and improving the
quality of education for our children.
During todays visit, Dr. Orbach and Governor Carcieri observed
scientific demonstrations of two of the universitys foremost
technologies.
They witnessed a demonstration of immersive virtual reality for
scientific visualization, and a demonstration of the development
of ultrafast x-ray sources for the observation of atom motions
during chemical reactions. The American Competitiveness
Initiative, announced by the President in his State of the Union
address, focuses on new investments in the physical sciences and
engineering that will develop the workforce to carry on this
important work in future decades.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the President
will double the budget for DOEs Office of Science over the next
ten years, beginning with a 14 percent increase in Fiscal Year
2007. This will allow the DOEs world-class national laboratory
system to continue to lead the way in innovations including
high-end computing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy
sources, and other material science research. These investments
encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, while strengthening
our nations ability to compete globally.
Dr. Orbach also touched on the overall health of the U.S.
economy, underscored by new employment figures released today.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure. America has experienced five straight years
of growth in productivity, and per capita personal income
continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as well.
The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest point since
2001 and is lower than the average rate for the 1970s, the 1980s
and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being created for American
workers. The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has
created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and
almost 5 million since August 2003.
As part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to promote
Americas strong economy and pro-growth energy policies,
Administration and DOE officials are traveling the country today
to discuss the importance of maintaining economic leadership and
a scientific edge in the world through increased science and math
education and additional funding for research and development of
alternative energy sources.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman toured DOEs Kansas City
Plant to view their new technology activities and then delivered
remarks to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in Kansas
City, Missouri, to promote Americas strong economy, specifically
related to energy security. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell
joined Texas Representative Michael Burgess (R-26 th) to host an
event at Home Depot promoting the economic benefits of energy
efficiency in Flower Mound, Texas.
Under Secretary David Garman joined Ohio Representative Deborah
Pryce (R-15 th) at American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, to
make remarks on the strong economy and to discuss the presidents
new energy initiatives. Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert
participated in a roundtable discussion at the University of
Arkansas Fayetteville, to discuss northwest Arkansass bio-based
economics with some of the countrys largest employers. Acting
Assistant Secretary Doug Faulkner is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to
highlight the ways that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory can
participate in the success of the American Competitiveness and
Advanced Energy Initiatives.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
47 DOE: Acting Assistant Secretary Discusses Oak Ridges
Contribution to Americas Strong Economy
March 10, 2006
Touts importance of labs R&D activities to ensure economic and
energy security
OAK RIDGE, TN Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Doug Faulkner today visited the
Department of Energys (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to highlight Americas strong economy and
the role the energy sector plays to ensure its continued growth.
Mr. Faulkner discussed with employees the Advanced Energy and
American Competitiveness Initiatives recently announced by
President Bush, which will continue to promote Americas
economic vitality through the development of alternative energy
sources and will provide our next generation of scientists and
researchers with the educational foundation necessary to compete
in the global economy. The research in physical sciences
performed at Oak Ridge has had a profound economic impact on the
state of Tennessee and around the country, Mr. Faulkner said.
The work that is done here benefits Americans through the
development of new technologies that can be deployed to the
marketplace. As the economy continues to grow, our goal is to
best prepare and educate the next generation of scientists and
researchers who will carry on with these important scientific
contributions for years to come.
During todays visit, Mr. Faulkner highlighted ways that Oak
Ridge can participate in the success of the Advanced Energy and
American Competitiveness Initiatives, both announced by the
President in his State of the Union address. As the home to the
broadest materials science program in the country, the labs
advanced research and development of new technologies like
supercomputers and neutron science can help provide abundant
energy sources while maintaining a clean and safe environment.
The American Competitiveness Initiative increases federal
investment in critical research that will ensure the U.S.
continues to lead the world in opportunity and innovation, and
provide American children with a first-rate mathematics and
science education. The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce
Americas dependence on foreign oil and increase production of
domestically grown fuel, which will in turn, promote U.S. job
growth.
Mr. Faulkner also touched on the overall health of the U.S.
economy, underscored by new employment figures released today.
These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by
almost any measure. America has experienced five straight years
of growth in productivity, and per capita personal income
continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as well.
The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest point since
2001 and is lower than the average rate for the 1970s, the 1980s
and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being created for American
workers. The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has
created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and
almost 5 million since August 2003.
As part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to promote
Americas strong economy and pro-growth energy policies,
Administration and DOE officials are traveling the country today
to discuss the importance of maintaining economic leadership and
a scientific edge in the world through increased science and math
education and additional funding for research and development of
alternative energy sources.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman toured DOEs Kansas City
Plant to view their new technology activities and then delivered
remarks to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in Kansas
City, Missouri, to promote Americas strong economy, specifically
related to energy security. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell
joined Texas Representative Michael Burgess (R-26 th) to host an
event at Home Depot promoting the economic benefits of energy
efficiency in Flower Mound, Texas. Under Secretary David Garman
joined Ohio Representative Deborah Pryce (R-15 th) at American
Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, to make remarks on the strong
economy and to discuss the presidents new energy initiatives.
Office of Science Director, Dr. Ray Orbach is touring Brown
University in Providence, Rhode Island, to promote the importance
of investing in and maintaining Americas stronghold in science
and education. Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert participated in
a roundtable discussion at the University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, to discuss northwest Arkansass bio-based economics
with some of the countrys largest employers.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
48 DOE: DOE Assistant Secretary Touts Northwest Arkansas
Contributions to a Strong America
March 10, 2006
FAYETTEVILLE, AR Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Karen Harbert
today highlighted how Arkansass bio-based energy industry
contributes to Americas strong economy and the role that the
energy sector plays to ensure continued economic growth.
Assistant Secretary Harbert also touted President Bushs
American Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives while
participating in the Advanced Energy Initiative Economic
Symposium at the University of Arkansas Engineering Research
Center in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
With research, entrepreneurship and hard work, Northwest
Arkansas is uniquely positioned to continually strengthen
Americas economy and provide consumers and businesses with clean
and affordable bio-based fuels, Assistant Secretary Harbert
said.
We must continue to strengthen our nations energy and economic
security by working together and diversifying our nations energy
supply.
The Advanced Energy Initiative symposium participants Assistant
Secretary Harbert, University officials, and representatives from
Northwest Arkansas corporations devoted much discussion on
President Bushs American Competitiveness and Advanced Energy
Initiatives, announced in his State of the Union address. These
initiatives promote Americas continued economic vitality through
the development and use of alternative energy sources and will
provide our next generation of scientists, teachers, and
engineers with the strong educational foundation necessary to
compete in the global economy.
During Assistant Secretary Harberts visit to the University of
Arkansas, she also participated in a demonstration of bio-based
polyurethane foam technology that expands to 100 times its size
and is commonly used for insulation. As a result of the research
and innovation at the University of Arkansas, biobased insulation
promises to improve energy efficiency and foster healthier indoor
environments.
The American Competitiveness Initiative increases federal
investment in critical research that will ensure the U.S.
continues to lead the world in opportunity and innovation, and
provide American children with a first-rate mathematics and
science education. The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce
Americas dependence on foreign oil and increase production of
domestically grown fuel, which will in turn, promote U.S. job
growth.
Assistant Secretary Harbert also touched on the overall health of
the U.S. economy, underscored by new employment figures released
today. These figures indicate that the American economy is
strong by almost any measure. America has experienced five
straight years of growth in productivity, and per capita personal
income continues to rise. Job growth continues to be strong as
well. The unemployment rate of 4.8 percent is at its lowest
point since 2001 and is lower than the average rate for the
1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Moreover, new jobs are being
created for American workers.
The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has created
about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and almost 5
million since August 2003.
As part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to promote
Americas strong economy and pro-growth energy policies,
Administration and DOE officials are traveling the country today
to discuss the importance of maintaining economic leadership and
a scientific edge in the world through increased science and math
education and additional funding for research and development of
alternative energy sources.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman toured DOEs Kansas City
Plant to view their new technology activities and then delivered
remarks to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce in Kansas
City, Missouri, to promote Americas strong economy, specifically
related to security. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell joined
Texas Representative Michael Burgess (R-26 th) to host an event
at Home Depot promoting the economic benefits of energy
efficiency in Flower Mound, Texas.
Under Secretary David Garman joined Ohio Representative Deborah
Pryce (R-15 th) at American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, to
make remarks on the strong economy and to discuss the presidents
new energy initiatives. Office of Science Director, Dr. Ray
Orbach is touring Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island,
to promote the importance of investing in and maintaining
Americas stronghold in science and education.
Acting Assistant Secretary Doug Faulkner is in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, to highlight the ways that the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory can participate in the success of the American
Competitiveness and Advanced Energy Initiatives.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
49 DOE: Secretary Bodman Travels to Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Russia and
Hungary
March 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman will
travel during the week of March 13 to Russia, Pakistan,
Kazakhstan, and Hungary to promote global energy security and
greater international cooperation on energy issues in
discussions with senior government officials and American
business leaders.
During his four-nation visit, Secretary Bodman will promote the
use of technology to enhance energy resource development in the
most efficient and environmentally responsible manner, expanded
energy infrastructure, the benefits of transparent markets, and
stable international investment climates.
This trip is a historic opportunity to achieve a more secure
energy future, a cleaner environment and greater prosperity in
Central Asia and Eastern Europe and in our world, Secretary
Bodman said. Russia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Hungary are
important international partners of the United States.
I look forward to discussing the importance of affordable,
reliable, and environmentally sound energy supplies while
continuing to grow our economy and meet increasing global
demand. On March 16, 2006, Secretary Bodman will represent
the United States at the G-8 Energy Ministerial meetings in
Moscow, Russia. While there, the Secretary will promote a
market-oriented investment approach, discuss strategies to
mitigate energy supply disruptions, and reaffirm the importance
of protection and strengthening of energy infrastructure.
Secretary Bodman will encourage the development and deployment
of clean energy technologies including renewable sources and
emissions free nuclear power and facilitate energy efficiency
and conservation by advancing the 2005 G8 Gleneagles agenda.
In Moscow, Secretary Bodman will meet with American business
leaders and Russian government officials including Minister of
Industry and Energy Viktor Khristenko and First Deputy Prime
Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. The
Secretary will also meet with new RosAtom Director Sergey
Kiryenko to strengthen United States and Russian cooperation on
nuclear security.
Secretary Bodman will deliver remarks at the Carnegie Moscow
Center on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which was
launched earlier this year.
Secretary Bodman will visit Pakistan following President Bushs
visit to Islamabad earlier this month where the President signed
a Joint Statement to launch the United States-Pakistan Strategic
Partnership. Secretary Bodman will hold high-level meetings with
various Pakistani government officials to explore ways to meet
Pakistans growing energy needs and strengthen its energy
security by utilizing clean energy technologies such as clean
coal and renewable sources.
The Secretary will meet with Foreign Minister Kurshid Mahmud
Kasuri, Petroleum and Natural Resources Secretary Ahmed Waqar,
Atomic Energy Chairman Engr. Parvez Butt, Water and Power
Secretary Ashfaq Mehmood, and Alternative Energy Development
Board Chairman Air Marshal (Retd) Shahid Hamid.
Secretary Bodman will also travel to Astana, Kazakhstan, to meet
with President Nazarbayev, senior government officials, and
American business leaders to discuss opportunities for long-term,
stable development of its energy sector, and political stability
in the region. He will also encourage Kazakhstan leadership as a
strong proponent of nonproliferation and address the importance
of regional energy supplies, developing and expanding energy
infrastructure, and encouraging foreign investment.
In Budapest, Hungary, Secretary Bodman will participate in a
regional energy security meeting with ministers from Hungary,
Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia as well as Austria and
Croatia. Secretary Bodman will encourage energy security through
greater energy efficiency, regional integration, renewable energy
and new technologies, electricity and gas market reform.
Secretary Bodman will also promote regional and global
cooperation on expanded energy infrastructure.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
50 DOE: Secretary Bodman and Pakistan Officials Hold High-Level Energy Meeting
March 13, 2006
Discuss Pakistans energy opportunities; Follows United
States-Pakistan Strategic Partnership launched by President Bush
earlier this month
WASHINGTON, DC Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today visited
Pakistan, the first stop in his four-nation swing where he will
discuss ways that the U.S. and Pakistan can increase cooperation
on energy-related issues.
The Secretarys visit follows President Bushs pledge earlier
this month to hold a high-level meeting between U.S. and
Pakistani officials to collaborate on solutions to Pakistans
energy sources.
The U.S. and Pakistan are strong allies and America supports the
people of Pakistan as they take further steps to create
prosperity through innovation, energy, resource development, and
global trade, Secretary Bodman said.
"The U.S. recognizes the growing energy needs of Pakistan and
today's constructive meetings have highlighted areas where we may
further enhance collaboration as part of our strategic
partnership.
In meetings with senior Pakistani officials, Secretary Bodman
discussed how the U.S. can further support Pakistans efforts to
utilize new energy technologies including clean coal, and
renewables and increase energy efficiency.
They also discussed ways that Pakistan can attract investment to
help meet their energy objectives including expanding the energy
infrastructure to meet growing demand. Secretary Bodman
encouraged Pakistan to develop its role as a gateway to South
Asia through improved trade and energy linkages and through
continuing cooperation with international financial institutions
and with regional neighbors.
During his visit to Islamabad, Secretary Bodman held high-level
meetings with Foreign Minister Kurshid Mahmud Kasuri and various
Pakistani government officials including Petroleum and Natural
Resources Secretary Ahmed Waqar, Atomic Energy Chairman Engr.
Parvez Butt, Water and Power Secretary Ashfaq Mehmood, and
Alternative Energy Development Board Chairman Air Marshal (Retd)
Shahid Hamid.
The Secretary highlighted U.S. and Pakistans ongoing cooperative
efforts which include renewable energy resource assessments by
the National Renewable Energy Lab. These assessments, which are
funded by the USAIDs South Asia Regional Initiative-Energy, have
encouraged the development of high resolution wind and solar
resource maps which are developing Pakistans renewable energy
resources, increasing access to clean energy in Pakistan, and
increasing regional energy cooperation.
President Bush traveled to Islamabad in early March where he
signed a Joint Statement to launch the United States-Pakistan
Strategic Partnership. The U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership
is based on the shared interests of the two countries in building
a stable and sustainable democracy and in promoting peace,
security, stability, prosperity, and democracy in South Asia and
across the globe. Later this week Secretary Bodman will travel
to Kazakhstan, Moscow where he will lead the U.S delegation to
the G8 Energy Ministerial and on to Hungary.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
51 DOE: U.S. - Pakistan Joint Press Statement
March 13, 2006
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN As agreed during President Bushs visit to
Pakistan on 3-4 March 2006, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel
Bodman visited Islamabad today to discuss a wide range of issues
related to Pakistans growing energy needs. Secretary Bodmans
visit symbolizes the strengthened and expanded relationship
between the United States and Pakistan over the last five years.
Closer U.S.-Pakistan ties and cooperation have helped to
bolster Pakistans economy, which registered the second fastest
growth in Asia last year. To continue this solid economic growth,
Pakistan must have sufficient energy through a broad range of
energy sources to ensure its energy security. Pakistan has
prepared an Energy Security Plan (2005-2030), which forecasts a
seven-fold increase in total primary consumption and an over
eight-fold increase in the requirement of power over the next
twenty-five years.
As President Bush underscored during his recent visit, the United
States recognizes the urgency of Pakistans energy needs and
stands ready to assist Pakistan in developing sustainable options
that meet both countries requirements and concerns. Secretary
Bodman called on Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and held an expanded
delegation-level meeting with Foreign Minister Khurshid M.
Kasuri, who later hosted a working lunch.
The talks provided Secretary Bodman and his delegation an
opportunity to meet with key Pakistani officials working on a
variety of energy issues. Secretary Bodman and Foreign Minister
Kasuri discussed key issues and the next steps for collaboration
in the energy sector. The Pakistan side briefed the U.S.
delegation on the countrys energy needs and possible alternative
sources, including hydel, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables. The
U.S. private sector will be important to helping Pakistan achieve
its energy objectives, and the United States will consult with
its energy sector on Pakistans energy needs.
As part of the Strategic Partnership announced by President Bush
and President Musharraf last week, the U.S. and Pakistan agreed
to explore ways to meet Pakistans growing energy needs to
strengthen its energy security, and affirmed their commitment to
establish an energy working group.
In furtherance of this aim, Secretary Bodman invited Pakistan to
send a team to Washington to discuss how the two countries can
work together in energy cooperation and the steps that can be
taken to attract more U.S. investment. The United States will
also discuss with Pakistan the importance of an investment
climate that will accelerate new energy investments and encourage
further exploration of energy development opportunities for
Pakistan.
The U.S. and Pakistans ongoing cooperative efforts include
renewable energy resource assessments by the National Renewable
Energy Lab and funded by the USAID South Asia Regional Initiative
Energy. Secretary Bodman appreciated the Government of
Pakistans gracious hospitality.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
52 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
FR Doc 06-2324
[Federal Register: March 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 48)]
[Notices] [Page 12692] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13mr06-47]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International
Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on March 21, 2006, at the
headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France, in connection with a
meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant
General Counsel for International and National Security Programs,
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, 202-586- 6738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section
252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting
is provided: A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to
the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the
headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration,
Paris, France, on March 21, 2006, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The
purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives
of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's
Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled
to be held at the IEA on March 21 beginning at 10:30 a.m.,
including a preparatory encounter among company representatives
from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. The agenda for the
preparatory encounter is a review of the agenda for the SEQ
meeting.
The agenda for the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ.
It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda: 1.
Adoption of the Agenda. 2. Approval of the Summary Record of the
115th Meeting. 3. The IEA Collective Action Agreed on September
2, 2005, in Response to Disrupted Oil Supplies.
--Summary of the IEA Collective Action of 2005.
--Evaluation of the IEA Collective Action of 2005.
4. Status of Compliance with IEP Stockholding Commitments.
--Status of Replenishment Plans.
--Reports by Non-Complying Member Countries.
5. Program of Work. --The SEQ's Responses to the Governing Board
Brainstorming Process.
--Evaluation of Program of Work 2005.
--SEQ Activities Planned for 2006.
--First Steps in the SEQ Program of Work for 2007-2008.
6. Emergency Response Review Program. --Emergency Response Review
of Hungary.
--Emergency Response Review of Spain.
--Questionnaire Response of Turkey.
--Updated Emergency Response Review Schedule.
--Plans for a Questionnaire on Oil Storage Capacity.
7. Report on Current Activities of the IAB. 8. Policy and Other
Developments in Member Countries. --Belgium.
9. Other Emergency Response Activities. --Plans for First Meeting
of SEQ Working Group on IEA Emergency Reserve Calculation
Methodology.
10. Activities with Non-Member Countries and International
Organizations.
--NMC Activities Related to Emergency Preparedness.
--Chinese Translation of ``Oil Supply Security'' Book.
--Draft Emergency Response Questionnaire for Non-Member
Countries.
11. Documents for Information. --Emergency Reserve Situation of
IEA Member Countries on January 1, 2006.
--Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on
January 1, 2006.
--Base Period Final Consumption: 1Q2005-4Q2005.
--Monthly Oil Statistics: December 2005.
--Update of Emergency Contacts List.
12. Other Business. --Dates of Next SEQ Meetings (tentative):
June 20-21, 2006.
November 16-17, 2006.
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of
the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and
their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing
Group on Emergency Questions; representatives of the Departments
of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the
General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and
the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the
IEA.
Issued in Washington, DC, March 6, 2006.
Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International
and National Security Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-2324 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************