*****************************************************************
03/14/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.62
*****************************************************************
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 Bush official admits WMD was a hoax
2 [NYTr] Frmr CIA Official: Iraq may still seek WMDs
3 AFP: US misinterpreted Iraqi compliance with UN inspectors -
4 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: Peace is more important than
5 F. William Engdahl: Pricing the Risk of War in Iran
6 AFP: US, Russia to cooperate on Iran - official
7 AFP: Iran resumes nuclear talks with Russia but still defiant -
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader: Nuclear Path 'Irreversible'
9 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Reject Iran Nuke Statement
10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Confident of Support to Pressure Iran
11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Supreme Leader: No Retreat on Nukes
12 Guardian Unlimited: Security Council Still at Odds Over Iran
13 [NukeNet] J Cirincione: Canada & USA- Mother Of India's Bomb
14 AFP: US opposes India getting nuclear fuel until NPT standards met -
15 US: Channel 4 KRNV.com: United Nations hands symbolic victory to Wes
16 London Times: Nuclear arms will keep Union Jack
17 BBC: MPs review UK's nuclear weapons
18 AFP: Britain launches nuclear missile debate
NUCLEAR REACTORS
19 [NukeNet] Nuclear energy set to dominate G8 summit
20 Chernobyl Media Distortions As We Approach Chernobyl's 20th Annivers
21 RIA Novosti: Putin urges increase in nuclear power output
22 Xinhua: China, Australia positive about cooperating in peaceful use
23 ITAR-TASS: Building new power generating sets in Far East considered
24 ITAR-TASS: Putin convenes conference on nuclear power engineering
25 Mos News: Putin Calls for Increase in Russias Nuclear Power Output
26 US: Journal Star: Nuclear plant reassessment means less tax money
27 US: NRC: Speech: New Plant Design, Certification and Licensing
28 US: PRN: Tritium Suit Filed By Property Owners Living Miles Away
29 AFP: US Congress may attach conditions to nuclear deal with India -
30 UPI: Scientist proposes floating nuclear plants
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
31 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Violations Involving Marcus Hook, Pa., Compa
32 US: EH Independent: Call For Nuclear Safety Regs Review
33 Japan Times: 30 A-bomb survivors apply for radiation illness benefit
34 Pacific Magazine: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Ebon Senator On Nuclear Legacy
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
35 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada governor not interested in replacing Norton
36 BBC: Risk of Dounreay particles 'low'
37 US: reviewjournal.com: Mercury storage worries some state officials
38 reviewjournal.com: Porter cancels Yucca meeting
39 US: LA Daily News: Lockyer joins suit on field-lab cleanup
40 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuke dump rules: Base classifications of nucl
41 News & Star: Nuclear debate for west Cumbria
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
42 DOE: U.S. and Kazakhstan Strengthen Energy Ties During Secretary Bod
43 komo news: Feds Challenge Ban On Waste Shipments To Hanford
44 Hanford News: CH2M Hill Hanford honored for tank system project
45 Hanford News: TRIDEC leaders give upbeat report
46 Hanford News: Ban on waste shipments challenged
47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
48 Rocky Mountain News: Judge won't let lawyers question Flats juror
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Bush official admits WMD was a hoax
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:36:59 -0600 (CST)
Bush official admits WMD was a hoax
by: iraq_not_involved_in_911_attacks 03/12/06 02:15 am
Msg: 1606750 of 1606783
4 recommendations
Colin Powell's chief of staff admitted that the weapons of mass
destruction were a "hoax" perpetrated by Bush cronies. He said,
"I participated in a hoax on the American people."
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html
Another former Bush official said, "intelligence was misused publicly
to justify decisions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html?nav=rss_email/components
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] Frmr CIA Official: Iraq may still seek WMDs
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:13:17 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[The more things change... Now the CIA is warnng that the "new Iraq" is
likely to covet those dreaded weapons of mass destruction.]
Newsday via Info Clearing House - Mar 11, 2006
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12285.htm
Former CIA Official: Iraq may still seek WMDs
By Timothy M. Phelps
03/11/06 " Newsday" WASHINGTON -- A former top CIA official said Thursday
that despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is likely to be looking
for weapons of mass destruction within the next five to 10 years.
Paul Pillar, who until last year was in charge of intelligence assessments
for the Middle East, said the CIA warned the Bush administration before the
Iraq invasion in 2003 that a change of regimes would not necessarily solve
any WMD problem.
In a speech at the Middle East Institute here, Pillar said Iraqis live in "a
dangerous neighborhood," with rival countries pursuing weapons of mass
destruction. So the CIA had warned that a future Iraqi government would
likely want the very weapons Hussein was (wrongly) suspected of hiding,
including nuclear weapons, he said.
"Iraq may turn once again to ... a WMD program," Pillar, who is retired from
the CIA, said Thursday. "And wouldn't that be ironic?"
Pillar recently published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that for
the first time fully laid out the CIA's side of the battle with the Bush
administration over Iraq intelligence.
Pillar charges that the administration never sought strategic assessments
from the CIA about Iraq. He said in his article that the Bush administration
made its decision to go to war and then "cherry-picked" items from
intelligence assessments in an effort to justify the decision to the public.
The biggest discrepancy between the CIA's intelligence and the
administration's line on Iraq was the claim by Bush that there was a
relationship between Hussein and al-Qaida, Pillar wrote. There was no
intelligence supporting that theory, Pillar said, but the administration
wanted to capitalize on "the country's militant post-9/11 mood," he wrote.
Pillar wrote that the intelligence community, on its own initiative, warned
the administration before the war that there was a significant chance of
violent conflict in Iraq and that the war would likely boost radical Islam
throughout the Middle East.
In his speech, Pillar said Iraq is serving the same purpose that Afghanistan
once did, as an inspiration and a base for radical Islam.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: US misinterpreted Iraqi compliance with UN inspectors -
Tue Mar 14, 8:27 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US intelligence in 2002 misinterpreted
internal Iraqi messages about weapons of mass destruction,
thinking they were being hidden when in fact the messages were
about complying with UN inspections, a magazine said on its
website.
by the Pentagon" /> 's Joint Forces Command, confirms
misstatements by US officials on Iraq's firepower before the 2003
US-led invasion of the country.
One message about removing the term "nerve agents" from
"wireless instructions" was cited by former US Secretary of
State Colin Powell" /> in his February 5, 2003 statement to the
UN Security Council as an example of Iraq's bad faith, said the
magazine.
Another misread Iraqi message also from 2002 referred to
instructions to "search the area surrounding the headquarters
camp and (the unit) for any chemical agents, make sure the area
is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it."
"US analysts viewed this information through the prism of a
decade of prior deceit. They had no way of knowing that this
time the information reflected the regime's attempt to ensure it
was in compliance with UN resolutions," said the article.
The mistaken belief that Iraq posessed weapons of mass
destruction, was nurtured in part by former dictator Saddam
Hussein" /> , who feared that if it became known Iraq had no
such weapons, "it would encourage the Israelis to attack," the
magazine said.
By late 2002, it added, Hussein tilted in favor of persuading
the world that Iraq did not have nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons and that it was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.
"But after years of purposeful obfuscation," the article said,
"it was difficult to convince anyone that Iraq was not once
again being economical with the truth."
The article, to be published in the magazine's May/June issue,
was written by a defense analyst, a military analyst and a
history professor at a naval academy, who The Washington Post
said also helped draft the book-length Pentagon report the
article referred to.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
4 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: Peace is more important than
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:46:05 -0800
LA CA EN DV BD SL=20
IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: Peace is more important than nuclear power, says UAE
paper
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
DUBAI, Mar. 14 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) paper has opine=
d=20
that Iran should do all it can to resolve its current nuclear standoff=20
peacefully and diplomatically, not through confrontation.
=94Constructive dialogue and engagement with the West and world commun=
ity,=20
not confrontation, is the way out of this political impasse,=94 said the=20
Dubai-based 'Khaleej Times'.
The paper pointed out that even as the UN and the big powers are=20
brainstorming trying to configure their next step on Teheran, the Islamic=
=20
republic has threatened to walk out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Trea=
ty=20
if its rights under the treaty are not respected.
The paper quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying=
=20
that if Iran reached a point where the =94existing mechanism=94 did not w=
ork, it=20
would have to reconsider its policies.
Affirming the Iranian right to having a peaceful civilian nuclear=20
technology the paper said: =94Frankly speaking, all signatories to the NP=
T=20
including Iran have a right to the so-called peaceful, civilian nuclear=20
technology.
=94According to the NPT, nuclear weapons states are supposed to help N=
PT=20
signatories in their civilian nuclear programmes such as nuclear energy=20
projects. NPT makes it mandatory for big boys of the nuclear club to shar=
e=20
their technology with other nations and help them in peaceful nuclear=20
initiatives.=94
Unfortunately, the paper continues, this has rarely happened, encourag=
ing=20
more and more states to pursue the chimera of nuclear weapons at the cost=
of=20
their people's real needs, such as employment, education, health and bett=
er=20
living conditions.
=94But that is no reason for Iran to walk out of the NPT. Even if it i=
s=20
sincerely pursuing a genuinely peaceful nuclear programme for energy=20
purposes, it would do itself a great disservice by abandoning the=20
non-proliferation treaty. Already, it finds itself hopelessly isolated fr=
om=20
the rest of the world. It has been on a dangerous collision course with t=
he=20
West, especially U.S.,=94 the paper said.
The paper added that renouncing NPT at a time like this could make Ira=
n=20
an international pariah forcing UN and IAEA to end their engagement with =
the=20
country.
The paper continued saying that Iran should do all it can to resolve t=
his=20
business peacefully and diplomatically.
=94Constructive dialogue and engagement with the West and world commun=
ity,=20
not confrontation, is the way out of this political impasse. Especially w=
hen=20
neutral players such as the European Union, Russia, China and India -- an=
d=20
much of the international community -- are keen to prevent a West-Iran=20
showdown on the issue,=94 said the paper.
The paper concluded that Iran has a duty to its people and the people =
of=20
the Middle East to spare the region of yet another conflict. =94Peace is =
more=20
important than nuclear power,=94 the paper concluded. (WAM)=20
=20
*****************************************************************
5 F. William Engdahl: Pricing the Risk of War in Iran
Pricing the Risk:
28 January 2006
In the past weeks rumors have circulated widely amid growing
tensions around a possible bombing strike against Iran. Among
the reportsin violation of all precedent since the 1945 USA
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasakiis discussion of possible
deployment of nuclear bombs by either the United States or
Israel, to destroy or render useless the deep underground
Iranian nuclear facilities.
The possibility of war against Iran presents a geo-strategic and
geopolitical problem of far more complexity than did the bombing
and occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proven complicated enough
for the United States. Below we try to identify some of the main
motives of the main actors in the new drama and the outlook for
possible war.
The dramatis personae include the Bush Administration, most
especially the Cheney-led neo-conservative hawks in control now
of not only the Pentagon, but also the CIA, the UN
Ambassadorship and a growing part of the State Department
planning bureaucracy under Condi Rice. It includes Iran under
the new and outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It includes
Putin`s Russia, a nuclear-armed veto member of the UN Security
Council. It includes a nuclear-armed Israel, whose acting Prime
Minister, Ehud Olmert, recently declared that Israel could
under no circumstances allow Iranian development of nuclear
weapons that can threaten our existence. It includes the EU,
especially Security Council Permanent Member, France and the
weakening President Chirac. It includes China, whose dependence
on Iranian oil and potentially natural gas is large.
Each of these actors has differing agendas and different goals,
making the issue of Iran one of the most complex in recent
international politics. Whats going on here? Is a nuclear war,
with all that implies for the global financial and political
stability, imminent? What are the possible and even probable
outcomes?
The basic facts
First the basic facts as can be verified. The latest act by
Irans President, Ahmadinejad, announcing the resumption of
suspended work on completing a nuclear fuel enrichment facility
along with two other facilities at Natanz, sounded louder alarm
bells outside Iran than his inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric
earlier, understandably so. Mohamed El Baradei, Nobel Peace
prize winning head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
the UN body, has said he is not sure if that act implies a
nuclear weapons program, or whether Iran is merely determined
not to be dependent on outside powers for its own civilian
nuclear fuel cycle. But, he added, the evidence for it is
stronger than that against Saddam Hussein, a rather strong
statement by the usually cautious El Baradei.
The result of the resumption of research at Natanz appears to
have jelled for the first time, a coalition between USA and the
EU, including Germany and France, with China and even Russia,
now joining in urging Iran to desist. Last August President
George Bush announced, in regard to Irans announced plans to
resume enrichment regardless of international opinion, that all
options are on the table. That implied in context a nuclear
strike on Iranian nuclear sites. That statement led to a sharp
acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany
and France, the so -called EU-3, to avoid a war. The three told
Washington they were opposed to a military solution. Since then
we are told by Der Spiegel and others the EU view has changed to
appear to come closer to the position of the Bush
Administration.
Its useful briefly to review the technology of nuclear fuel
enrichment. To prepare uranium for use in a nuclear reactor, it
undergoes the steps of mining and milling, conversion,
enrichment and fuel fabrication. These four steps make up the
'front end' of the nuclear fuel cycle.
After uranium has been used in a reactor to produce electricity
it is known as 'spent fuel,' and may undergo further steps
including temporary storage, reprocessing, and recycling before
eventual disposal as waste. Collectively these steps are known
as the 'back end' of the fuel cycle.
The Natanz facility is part of the front end or fuel
preparation cycle. Ore is first milled into Uranium Oxide
(U3O8), or yellowcake, then converted into Uranium
Hexafluoride (UF6) gas. The Uranium Hexafluoride then is sent to
an enrichment facility, in this case Natanz, to produce a mix
containing 3-4% of fissile U235, a non -weapons-grade nuclear
fuel. So far, so good more or less in terms of weapons danger.
Iran is especially positioned through geological fortune to
possess large quantities of uranium from mines in Yazd Province,
permitting Iran to be self-sufficient in fuel and not having to
rely on Russian fuel or any other foreign imports for that
matter. It also has a facility at Arak which produces heavy
water, which is used to moderate a research reactor whose
construction began in 2004. That reactor will use uranium
dioxide and could enable Iran to produce weapons grade plutonium
which some nuclear scientists estimate could produce an amount
to build one to two nuclear devices per year. Iran officially
claims the plant is for peaceful medical research. The peaceful
argument here begins to look thinner.
Nuclear enrichment is no small item. You dont build such a
facility in the backyard or the garage. Frances large Tricastin
enrichment facility provides fuel for the nuclear electricity
grid of EdF, as well as for the French nuclear weapons program.
It needs four large nuclear reactors, just to provide over 3000
MWe power for it. Early US enrichment plants used gaseous
diffusion. Enrichment plants in EU and Russia use a more modern
centrifuge process that uses far less energy per unit of
enrichment. The latter or centrifuge process is also the Iranian
type.
To make weapons grade Uranium requires more than conventional
civilian electric power grade uranium fuel.
Unmaking weapons grade uranium today is also a geopolitically
interesting process, not irrelevant to the current dispute over
Iran. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, under agreements
designed to insure that the Soviet nuclear arsenal would be
converted to peaceful uses, military weapons uranium came on to
the civilian market under a US-Russian agreement.
Today more than half of all the uranium used for electricity in
the USA nuclear power plants comes from Russian military
stockpiles. Currently 20% of all electricity produced in the US
is nuclear generated meaning that Russian uranium fuels some 10%
of all US electricity.
In 1994 a $12 billion contract was signed between the US
Enrichment Corporation (now USEC Inc) and Russia's
Techsnabexport (Tenex) as agents for the US and Russian
governments. USEC agreed to buy a minimum of 500 tonnes of
weapons-grade uranium over 20 years, at a rate of up to 30
tonnes/year beginning 1999. The uranium is blended down to 4.4 %
U-235 in Russia. The USEC then sells it to its US power utility
customers as fuel. In September 2005 this program reached its
halfway point of 250 tonnes or elimination of 10,000 nuclear
warheads.
Worldwide, one sixth of the global market of commercial enriched
uranium is supplied by Russia from Russian and other
weapons-grade uranium stocks. Putin has many cards to play in
the showdown over Irans nuclear program.
The issue of whether Iran was secretly building a nuclear weapon
capability first surfaced from allegations by an Iranian exile
opposition group in 2002.
Natanz has been under IAEA agency purview since suspicions about
Irans activities surfaced. It was prompted by reports from an
Iranian opposition organization, National Council of Resistance
of Iran (NCRI), and led IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei to tour
Irans nuclear facilities in February 2002, including the
incomplete plant in that city of Natanz about 300 miles south of
Tehran. The NCRI is the political arm of the controversial
People's Mujahedeen of Iran, which both EU and US governments
officially brand terrorist but unofficially work with
increasingly against the Teheran theocracy.
Possible Iranian strategy
Its undeniably clear that Irans newly-elected President
Ahmadinejad has a more confrontational policy than his
predecessor. The Iranian Ambassador to Vienna, speaking at a
conference in Austria where this author was present in September
2005, shocked his audience by stating essentially the same line
of confrontational rhetoric: If it comes to war, Iran is
ready.
Lets assume that the Western media is correctly reporting the
strident militant speeches of the President. We must also assume
that in that theocratic state, the ruling mullahs, as the most
powerful political institution in Iran, are behind the election
of the more fundamentalist Ahmadinejad. It has been speculated
that the aim of the militancy and defiance of the US and Israel
is to revitalize the role of Iran as the vanguard of an
anti-Western theocratic Shiite revolution at a time when the
mullahs support internally, and in the Islamic world, is
fading.
Lets also assume Ahmadinejads actions are quite premeditated,
with the intent to needle and provoke the west for some reason.
If pushed against the wall by growing western pressures,
Ahmadinejads regime has apparently calculated that Iran has
little to lose if it hit back.
He is also no rogue agent in opposition to the Iranian clergy.
According to the Pakistani newspaper, Dawn of January 24, 2006,
Ayatollah Jannati, Secretary of the Guardian Council of the
Constitution, stressed Iran's determination to assert its
'inalienable' rights: We appreciate President Ahmadinejad
because he is following a more aggressive foreign policy on
human rights and nuclear issues than the former governments of
Khatami and Rafsanjani, the Ayatollah reportedly said.
President Ahmadinejad is asking, why only you (western powers)
should send inspectors for human rights or nuclear issues to
Iran - we also want to inspect you and report on your
activities, Jannati said. The papers Teheran correspondent
added, the mood within the country's top leadership remains
upbeat and the general belief was that it would be possible to
ride out international sanctions - if it comes to that.
In this situation, some exile Iranians feel it would bolster
Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs to be handed a new UN sanction
punishment. It could be used to whip up nationalism at home and
tighten their grip on power at a time of waning revolutionary
spirit in the country.
Ahmadinejad has been taking very provocative, and presumably
calculated measures including breaking nuclear-facility seals,
to announcing a major conference that would question evidence
that the Nazis conducted a mass murder of European Jews during
World War II. Yet he also has stressed several times publicly
that in accord with strict Islam law, Iran would never deploy a
nuclear device, a weapon of mass destruction, and that it is
only asserting its right as a sovereign nation to an independent
full-cycle civilian nuclear program.
The history of Irans nuclear efforts should be noted. It began
in 1957 when Reza Shah Pahlevi signed a civilian Atoms for Peace
agreement with Eisenhowers administration. Iran received a US
research reactor in 1967. Then in 1974 after the first oil
shock, the Shah created the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
explicitly tasked to develop civilian nuclear power to displace
oil freeing more oil for export, and for developing a nuclear
weapon. The Bushehr reactor complex of civilian power reactors
was begun by West Germany in the 1970s under the Shah, the same
time Iran began buying major shares of key German companies such
as Daimler and Krupp. After his 1979 ascent to power, Ayatollah
Khomeini ordered all work on the nuclear program halted, citing
Islamic beliefs that weapons of mass destruction were immoral.
In 1995, the Russian Foreign Ministry signed a contract with the
Iranian government to complete the stalled Bushehr plant, and to
supply it with Russian nuclear fuel, provided Iran agreed to
allow IAEA monitoring and safeguards. According to an article in
the March 2004 MERIA Journal, that 1995 Russia-Iran deal
included potentially dangerous transfers of Russian technology
such as laser enrichment from Yefremov Scientific Research
Institute (NIIEFA). Iran's initial deal with Russia in 1995
included a centrifuge plant that would have provided Iran with
fissile material . The plant deal was then canceled at
Washingtons insistence.
The monitoring of Bushehr continued until the reports from NCRI
of secret nuclear weapons facilities in 2002 led to increased
pressure on Iran, above all from President Bush, who labeled
Iran one of a three nation axis of evil in his January 2002
State of the Union speech. That was when the Bush Administration
was deeply in preparation of regime change in Iraq however and
Iran took a back seat, not least as Washington neo-conservatives
such as Ahmad Chalabi had convinced the Pentagon his ties to
Teheran could aid their Iraq agenda.
Since that time, relations between Washington and Teheran have
become less than cordial. Iran has been preparing for what it
sees as an inevitable war with the United States. Brig. Gen.
Mohammad -Ali Jaafari, commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
army, told the official IRNA news agency on October 9 2005, As
the likely enemy is far more advanced technologically than we
are, we have been using what is called 'asymmetric warfare'
methods. We have gone through the necessary exercises and our
forces are now well prepared for this. This presumably includes
terrorist attacks and the use of weapons of mass destruction and
their means of delivery, ballistic missiles.
On January 20 2006 Iran announced it had decided to withdraw
investments from Europe. This was the same week UBS Bank in
Zurich announced it was closing all Iranian accounts. According
to US Treasury reports, Iran has an estimated $103 billion in
dollar-denominated assets alone. There is potential to cause
short-term financial distress, though likely little more should
Iran sell all dollar assets abruptly.
What seems clear is that Iran is defiantly going ahead with
completion of an independent nuclear capability and insists it
is abiding by all rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and
IAEA.
Iran also apparently feels well prepared to sit out any economic
sanctions. The country is the second largest OPEC oil producer
(4 .1 million barrels/day in 2005) next to Saudi Arabia (9.1
million bpd). It is fourth largest in the world just under the
total oil production of the USA (4.9 million bpd). Russia with
9.5million bpd production in 2005 takes claim to being the
worlds largest oil-producing country.
Iran has also accumulated a strong cash position from the recent
high oil price, earning some $45 billion in oil revenue in 2005,
double the average for 2001-2003. This gives it a war chest
cushion against external sanctions and the possibility to live
for months with cutting its oil export all or partly. That is
clearly one of the implicit weapons Iran knows it holds and
would clearly use in event the situation escalated into UN
Security Council economic sanctions. In todays ultra-tight oil
supply market, with OPEC producing at full capacity, there would
be no margin to replace 4 million Iranian barrels a day. A price
shock level of $130 to $150 is quite likely in that event.
Iran now has decisive influence within the Shiite dominated new
Iraqi government. The most influential figure in Iraq today is
the Shiite spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Mohammad al-Sistani,
the 75 year old cleric born in Iran. On January 16 2006, after
the new Iraqi government offered al-Sistani Iraqi citizenship,
he replied, I was born Iranian and I will die Iranian. That
also gives Teheran significant leverage over the political
developments in Iraq.
The Israeli options
Israel has been thrown into a political crisis at just this time
of Irans strident moves, with the removal of the old warrior,
Ariel Sharon, from the scene. Israeli elections will come March
28 for a new government. Contenders include the present acting
Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. Israeli media reports that
President George W. Bush has decided to do what he can to try
and ensure that Olmert, standing in for an incapacitated Ariel
Sharon, is elected to be full-time prime minister when Israelis
go to the polls on March 28. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
has invited Olmert to visit Washington DC, probably sometime
next month.
Other reports are that the Vice President, we might say, the
spiritual leader of the US hawks, Dick Cheney, has been
covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of
the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the
indicted US Republican money launderer, Jack Abramoff during the
time Netanyahu was Sharons Finance Minister. Washington
journalists report that Vice President Dick Cheney, and his
advisers David Addington and John Hannah, are working behind the
scenes to ensure that former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
succeeds acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in March. Cheney is
working to defeat the more moderate Kadima Party formed by
Ariel Sharon and his more moderate ex-Likud allies in the
March 28 elections.
Bush has not come out with direct vocal support for Olmert, but
Olmert has stressed that he will continue to work with America
to realize a Palestinian state. Israeli press report the new
middle-of -road (Israeli middle) party of Olmert and Sharon
Kadima
will probably win landslide elections to the dismay of Cheneys
and Karl Roves Christian Right and neo-conservative base.
According to the Palestine newspaper, Al-Manar, the Bush
Administration is conducting secret contacts with the
Palestinian Authority and Arab countries in an effort to have
them help strengthen Olmert's stature. The US reportedly
informed them that it is interested in having Olmert head Kadima
and "continue the process that Sharon began to solve the
Palestinian-Israel conflict." The paper further reports that
Washington feels that Olmert is a smart leader who will be
able, with his advisors, to lead the peace process and rebuff
the political machinations against him.
The Bush White House even informed Olmert, according to the
paper, that it would like him to keep Sharon's advisors on his
team, especially Dov Weisglass and Shimon Peres. Weisglass,
Sharons personal lawyer and broker of ties to Washington,
recently said he was in almost daily contact with Condi Rice.
On January 22, Olmert addressed the issue of Iran. According to
Israeli State Radio, he said that Iran was trying to engage
Israel in the conflict surrounding Tehrans ongoing nuclear
enrichment efforts, and that he concurs with Ariel Sharons
position that Israel would not lead the battle against Iran. He
said that that responsibility falls first and foremost on the
United States, Germany, France and the Security Council. We do
not have to be the leaders. By contrast, his Defense Minister,
Shaul Mofaz, stated Israel will not tolerate Iran achieving
nuclear independence, a statement that analysts feel signals a
military action by Jerusalem is possible, with or without
official US sanction.
This all would indicate that there is a definite split within
Israel between a future Olmert government not eager to launch a
pre-emptive military strike on Irans nuclear facilities versus
the ever -hawkish neo-conservative-tied Netanyahu. Notably,
prominent Washington neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told
Israeli radio in mid January that he expects an Israeli
pre-emptive strike on Iran within the next 60 days, i.e. just
after Israeli elections or just before. Timmermann is close to
Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis Libby,
to Doug Feith and Michael Ledeen.
The question is whether ordinary Israelis are war weary, whether
with Palestine or with Iran, and seek a compromise solution.
Polls seem to indicate so. However, the very strong showing of
Hamas in the January 25 Palestine elections could change the
Israeli mood. The day after their vote success, Hamas leader
Mahmoud A-Zahhar claimed that his movement will not change its
covenant calling for the destruction of Israel, reported the
Israeli online news portal Ynet.
Last week, a new element appeared in the chemistry of the
long-standing Israeli Likud-US Congress influence nexus. Larry
A. Franklin, a former Pentagon Iran analyst and close friend of
leading Pentagon neo-conservatives, was sentenced to 12 years
and seven months in jail for sharing classified Pentagon
information with pro-Israel lobbyists through an influential
Washington-based lobby organization, AIPAC, the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has been at the heart of ties
between the Israeli right-wing Likud and members of the US
Congress for years. It is regarded as so powerful that it is
able to decide which Congressman is elected or re-elected.
Previously it had been considered untouchable. That is no
longer true it seems.
Franklin pleaded guilty last October to sharing the information
with AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. Steve
Rosen and Keith Weissman, who were fired from AIPAC in 2004 in
the affair, are facing charges of disclosing confidential
information to Israel, apparently about Iran. The sentencing is
causing major shock waves throughout major US Jewish
organizations including the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai
Brith. The conviction has hit a vital lobbying tool of AIPAC and
other pro-Israel lobby groups, namely, expenses paid trips for
US Congressmen to Israel. Hundreds of politicians are taken to
Israel every year by non-profit affiliates of groups like AIPAC
and the American Jewish Committee trips Jewish leaders say are
a vital tool in pro-Israel lobbying.
The Bush Administration had tried to bury the Franklin case,
unsuccessfully. They could only delay the trial until after the
November 2004 US elections. The Franklin scandal in the US as
well as the Jack Abramoff lobbying affair, have both hit severe
blows to the suspicious money network between Likud and the
White House, potentially fatally weakening the Israeli hawk
faction of Netanyahu.
The Russian factor in Iran
The role of Putins Russia in the unfolding Iran showdown is
central. In geopolitical terms, one must not forget that Russia
is the ultimate prize or endgame in the more than decade long
US strategy of controlling Eurasia and preventing any possible
rival from emerging to challenge US hegemony.
Russian engineers and technical advisers are in Iran
constructing the Bushehr nuclear plant, at least 300 Russian
technicians. Iran has been a strategic cooperation partner of
the Putin government in terms of opposing US-UK designs for
control of Caspian oil. Iran has been a major purchaser of
Russian military hardware since the collapse of the Soviet
Union, in addition to buying Russian nuclear technology and
expertise.
In March 2005 Iran-Russian relations took a qualitative shift
closer. That month Moscow agreed to the sale of a defensive
missile system to Tehran, worth up to $7 billion-worth of future
defense contracts. In 2000 Putin had announced Russia would no
longer continue to abide by a secret US-Russia agreement to ban
Russian weapons sales to Iran that the government of Boris
Yeltsin had concluded. Since then, Russian-Iranian relations
have become more entwined to put it mildly.
Moscow currently says it is in talks with Iran to build five to
seven additional nuclear power reactors on the Bushehr site
after completion of the present reactor. Russia expects to get
up to $10 billion from the planned larger Bushehr reactors deal
and additional arms sales to Iran. It is currently building the
reactor on credit to be paid by Iran only after the completion
of the project. Sanctions and admonitions will not change
Russia's relationship with one of the most demonized states in
America's axis of evil. Iran has become a major counterweight
for Moscow in the geopolitical game for Washingtons total
domination over Eurasia, and Putin is shrewdly aware of that
potential.
A look at the map (see below), will reveal how geo-politically
strategic Iran is for Russia, as well as for Israel and the USA.
Iran controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the choke point
for oil from the Persian Gulf to Japan and the rest of the
world. Iran borders the oil-rich Caspian Sea as it does NATO
member Turkey.
[Iran]
Significantly, on January 23, the Russian daily, Kommersant
reported that Armenia, sandwiched between Iran and Georgia, had
agreed to sell 45% control of its Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to
Russias Gazprom. The Russian daily added, If Russia takes over
this [Iran-Armenia] pipeline, Russia will be able to control
transit of Iranian gas to Georgia, Ukraine and Europe. That
would be a major blow to the series of Washington operations to
insert US-friendly pro-NATO governments in Georgia as well as
Ukraine. It would also bind Iran and Russian energy relations.
While the Armenian government denies they have agreed,
negotiations continue with Gazprom holding out the prospect of
demanding double the price or $110 per 1000 cubic meters rather
than the present $54 unless Armenia agree to sell the stake to
Gazprom.
Russia is pursuing a complex strategy regarding its cooperation
with Iran. Minatom, the Russian nuclear energy group announced
some time back that Russia was in discussion with Teheran to
increase Iran's nuclear capacity by 6000 megawatts by 2020. The
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed a year ago that
Moscow would supply Iran with fuel for the Bushehr reactor even
if it did not sign the IAEA Additional Protocols. While Putin
has assured the world that Iran must demonstrate full NPT
compliance before the Russian nuclear transfers occur, the
Russian Foreign Ministry stated previously that the IAEA's
failure to condemn Iran opened the door for Russia to help build
future reactors in that country. Putin has managed to put Russia
square in the middle of the present global showdown over Iran, a
position which clearly tells some in Moscow that Russia is
indeed again a global player. Undoubtedly more.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in a January 18
discussion with the daily, Nezavisimaya gazeta, stated, It is
not profitable for Russia to impose sanctions on Iran, since we
just recently signed an agreement to sell them nearly $1 billion
worth of medium-range anti-aircraft weapons. These modern
weapons are capable of hitting targets up to 25 kilometers away
and will probably be used to defend various testing sites in
Iran. Therefore, if some attempt is made to strike at the
country and the deliveries from Russia are made quickly enough,
we can expect a strong response. In other words, Iran will be
able to defend itself.
Ivanov added a significant caveat: However, if ballistic
missiles are used, then nuclear sites can be targeted
effectively. We must not forget that Russia has its experts
working on some of these sites, and is not interested in a
military scenario, if only to protect them.
[me-oil-xzz-thumb] Russias current strategy is to renew its
earlier offer, rejected initially by Teheran, to take the
uranium fuel from Iran to Russia for reprocessing, thus defusing
the crisis significantly. On January 25, Irans top nuclear
negotiator, Ali Larijani, said that Tehran views Moscows offer
to have Irans uranium enriched in Russia as a positive
development, but no agreement has been reached between the
countries, according to an AP report.
Larijani repeated Irans threat to renew enrichment activities
if it is referred to the UN Security Council. Moscow has
proposed having Irans uranium enriched in Russia, then returned
to Iran for use in the countrys reactors a compromise that
could provide more oversight and ease tensions, at least in
theory, with the United States and European Union over Irans
nuclear program. Talks have continued over the specifics,
including Tehrans proposal to have China involved in the
Russian enrichment process.
Following his meeting with Russian Security Council chief Igor
Ivanov, Larijani told press, Our view of this offer is
positive, and we are trying to bring the positions of the sides
closer. Further talks come in February, after the planned
emergency IAEA meeting of February 2. Iran opposition groups
claim the Russian talks are merely a ploy to divide the West and
buy more time. Larijani and Ivanov said in a joint statement
that Tehrans nuclear standoff must be resolved by diplomatic
efforts in the U.N. atomic watchdog agency.
The China factor in Iran
China, in its increasingly urgent search for secure long-term
energy supplies, especially oil and gas, has developed major
economic ties with Iran. It began in 2000, when Beijing invited
Iranian President Khatami for a literal red carpet reception and
discussion of areas of energy and economic cooperation. Then in
November 2004, curiously at the occasion of the second Bush
election victory, the relation took a major shift as China
signed huge oil and gas deals with Teheran.
The two countries signed a preliminary agreement worth
potentially $70 billion to $100 billion. Under the terms, China
will purchase Iranian oil and gas and help develop Iran's
Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi border. That same year,
China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied natural gas from
Iran over a quarter-century.
Irans Oil Minister stated at the time, Japan is our number one
energy importer for historical reasons . . . but we would like
to give preference to exports to China. In return China has
become a major exporter of manufactured goods to Iran, including
computer systems, household appliances and cars.
In addition to selling Iran its computers and home appliances,
Beijing has been one of the largest suppliers of military
technology to Teheran since the 1980s. Chinese arms trade has
involved conventional, missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons.
Outside Pakistan and North Korea, China's arms trade with Iran
has been more comprehensive and sustained than that with any
other country.
China has sold thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles,
and artillery pieces, several hundred surface-to-air,
air-to-air, cruise, and ballistic missiles as well as thousands
of antitank missiles, more than a hundred fighter aircraft, and
dozens of small warships. In addition, it is widely believed
that China has assisted Iran in the development of its ballistic
and cruise missile production capability, and has provided Iran
with technologies and assistance in the development of its
clandestine chemical and nuclear weapons programs. In addition,
China has supplied Iran scientific expertise, technical
cooperation, technology transfers, production technologies,
blueprints, and dual-use transfers.
In sum, Iran is more than a strategic partner for China. In the
wake of the US unilateral decision to go to war against Iraq,
reports from Chinese media indicated that the leadership in
Beijing privately realized its own long-term energy security was
fundamentally at risk under the aggressive new pre-emptive war
strategy of Washington. China began taking major steps to
outflank or negate total US domination of the worlds major oil
and gas resources. Iran has become a central part of that
strategy.
This underscores the Chinese demand that the Iran nuclear issue
be settled in the halls of the IAEA and not at the UN Security
Council as Washington wishes. China would clearly threaten its
veto were Iran to be brought before the UN for sanctions.
EU relations with Iran
The EU is Irans main trading partner concerning both imports
and exports. Clearly, they want to avoid a war with Iran and all
that would imply for the EU. The EUs Balance of Trade (BoT)
with Iran is negative due to large imports of oil. Germanys new
CDU-led government under Chancellor Angela Merkel has made a
clear point of trying to reaffirm close ties with Washington
following the tense relations under former Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder who openly opposed the Iraq war along with Frances
Chirac in 2002 and 2003.
Chirac for his part is the subject of major controversy since he
held a speech January 19 in which he overturned the traditional
French nuclear doctrine of no first strike to say, were a
terrorist nation to attack France, he would consider even
nuclear retaliation as appropriate. The mere declaration by a
French President has sent an uproar internationally. Whether it
was French psychological warfare designed to pressure Iran or
the reflection of a fundamental change in French nuclear
doctrine to one of pre -emptive strike or something similar is
so far not clear. What is clear is that the Chirac government
will not stand in the way of a US decision to impose UN
sanctions on Iran. Whether that also holds for a US-sanctioned
nuclear strike is not clear.
The EU-3, whose negotiations diplomatically have so far produced
no results, are now moving towards some form of more effective
action against Irans decision to proceed with reprocessing. The
only problem is that other than nuclear sabre rattling, the EU
has few cards to play. It needs Iranian energy. It is also aware
of what it would mean to have a war in Iran in terms of
potential terror retaliations. The EU to put it mildly is highly
nervous and alarmed at the potential of a US-Iran or Israel-US
vs Iran military showdown.
The Bush Administration role in Iran
Unlike the Iraq war buildup where it became clear to a shocked
world that the Bush Administration was going to war regardless,
with Iran Washington has so far been willing to let the EU
states take a diplomatic lead, only stepping up pressure
publicly on Iran in recent weeks. On January 19 the US repeated
that neither it nor its European partners want to return to the
negotiating table with Iran. The international community is
united in mistrusting Tehran with nuclear technology, said
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The time has come for a
referral of Iran to the [UN] Security Council, she added.
Rice's choice of the word referral was deliberate. If Iran is
only reported to the Security Council, debate would lack legal
weight. A formal referral is necessary if the Council is to
impose any penalty, such as economic sanctions.
The neo-conservatives, although slightly lower profile in the
second Bush Administration, are every bit as active, especially
through Cheneys office. They want a pre-emptive bombing strike
on Irans nuclear sites.
But whatever Cheneys office may be doing, officially, the Bush
administration is pursuing a markedly different approach than it
did in 2003, when its diplomacy was aimed at lining up allies
for a war. This time, U.S. diplomats are seeking an
international consensus on how to proceed, or at least,
cultivating the impresion.
Iraq and the deepening US disaster there has severely
constrained possible US options in Iran. Back in 2003 in the
wake of the Iraqi victory, leading Washington neo-conservative
hawks were vocally calling on Bush to Move on to Tehran after
Saddam Hussein. Now, because of the bloody quagmire in Iraq,
the US is severely constrained from moving unilaterally. With
140,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the US military physically
cannot support another invasion and occupation in yet another
country, let alone Iran.
Because of Iran's size, a ground invasion may require twice as
many troops as in Iraq, says Richard Russell, a Middle East
specialist at the National Defense University in Washington.
While an air campaign could take out Iran's air defenses, it
could also trigger terrorism and oil disruptions. Washington is
internally split over the issue of a successful nuclear strike
against Iran.
AIPAC and Abramoff impact Washington
Another little-appreciated new element in the US political
chemistry around the Bush White House are two devastating legal
prosecutions which have hit the heart of the black and grey
money network between Washington Republicans and the Israeli
right-wing Likud.
Jack Abramoff, the financial patron of several prominent
Republicans, including ex-House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, and
Steve Rosen, the key force behind AIPAC, were two of the most
influential Jewish lobbyists in Washington before legal scandals
effectively ended their careers and sent them scrambling to stay
out of prison.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy
arising out of his work lobbying for Indian gambling casino
interests. That scandal could implicate far more Congressmen and
even some in the White House.
Rosen is fighting allegations that as chief strategist at AIPAC,
he received and passed classified national security information,
received from Larry Franklin, to unauthorized parties. Perhaps
it is coincidence that two such high-profile damaging cases to
the lobbying power of right-wing Israeli hawk elements surface
at the same time, at just this time when war drums are pounding
on Iran.
AIPAC's drama began August 2004, when on the eve of the
Republican National Convention, the FBI raided the
organization's offices, looking for incriminating documents. A
year later, in August 2005, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia indicted Rosen, by then AIPAC's director of
foreign policy issues, and Keith Weissman, who had been an AIPAC
Iran analyst. The government disclosed it had had the men under
surveillance for more than four years and alleged that they had
received and passed along classified information. The indictment
named a Pentagon aide, Lawrence Franklin, as their
co-conspirator. Franklin, who has agreed to cooperate with
prosecutors, pleaded guilty in October 2005 to passing
classified documents to unauthorized persons and improperly
storing such documents in his home. He was sentenced to 12 and a
half years in prison last week.
Bush, as de facto head of his party, faces a potentially
devastating November Congressional election. With the quagmire
of Iraq continuing and more Americans asking what in fact they
are dying for in Iraq if not oil, Bushs popularity has
continued to plunge. He has now only 46 per cent of popular
support. More than 53 per cent of people have expressed
unfavorable opinion of Bush. The Hurricane Kartina debacle of
bungled response by the White House, the growing perception that
Bush has lied to the public, all are working to seriously
undermine Republican chances in November.
The stench of insider deals, not only with Cheneys Halliburton
is growing stronger and getting major media coverage, which is
new. Conservative traditional Republicans are outraged at the
unprecedented Federal spending binge Bush Republicans have
indulged to protect their own special interests. In a recent
article, Michael Reagan, conservative son of the late President,
wrote, Republican congressional leaders promised individual
members of Congress up to $14 million in free earmarks, (i.e.
special spending allocations) if they would support, which they
did, the massive $286.5 billion Bush transportation bill.
According to Reagan, The bill came to a total of 6,300
earmarked projects costing the taxpayers $24 billion, a clear
case of bribery. The people being bribed were members of
Congress. The people making the bribes were members of Congress.
Congressmen bribing congressmen.
A recent Fox News poll indicated that Americans saw the
Republican congressional majority as materially more corrupt and
more responsible for the current spate of scandals than the
Democrats by a wide margin.
CONPLAN 8022
In January 2003 President Bush signed a classified Presidential
Directive, CONPLAN 8022-02. Conplan 8022 is a war plan different
from all prior in that it posits no ground troops. It was
specifically drafted to deal with imminent threats from states
such as North Korea or Iran.
Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required
coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it
could be launched, a process of months even years, Conplan 8022
called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with
electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponents
responsecutting electricity in the country, jamming
communications, hacking computer networks.
Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially
configured earth-penetrating mini nukes to hit underground
sites such as Irans. In summer 2005 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
approved a top secret Interim Global Strike Alert Order
directing round-the-clock military readiness, to be directed by
the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a
report in the May 15, 2005 Washington Post. Previously,
ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces.
In January 2003 Bush signed on to a definition of full spectrum
global strike which included precision nuclear as well as
conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to
the Presidents September 2002 National Security Strategy which
laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of pre-emptive
wars.
The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls,
a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the
Bush White House might think the unthinkable and order a
nuclear pre-emptive global strike on Iran before the November
elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.
Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US
strategy towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully
orchestrated escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to
force Iran to back down. It seems clear, especially in light of
the strategic threat Iran faces from US or Israeli forces on its
borders after 2003 that Iran is not likely to back down from its
clear plans to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle capacities
and with it, the option of developing an Iranian nuclear
capability.
The question then is what will Washington do? The fundamental
change in US defense doctrine since 2001, from a posture of
defense to offense has significantly lowered the threshold of
nuclear war, perhaps a global nuclear conflagration.
Geopolitical risks of nuclear war
While the latest Iranian agreement to reopen Russian talks on
Russian spent fuel reprocessing has taken some of the edge off
for the moment, on January 27 President Bush announced publicly
that he backed the Russian compromise, along with China and El
Baradei of the IAEA. Bush signalled a significant backdown, at
least for the moment, stating, The Russians came up with the
idea and I support itI do believe people ought to be allowed to
have civilian nuclear power. At the same time Rices State
Department expressed concern the Russian-Iran talks were a
stalling ploy by Teheran.
Bush added However, I dont believe that non-transparent (sic)
regimes that threaten the security of the world should be
allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon.
The same day, Secretary Rice at Davos told the World Economic
Forum that Irans nuclear program posed significant danger and
that Iran must be brought before the UN Security Council. In
short, Washington is trying to appear diplomatic while keeping
options open.
Should Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for
violations of the NPT and charges of developing weapons of mass
destruction, it seems quite probable that Russia and China would
veto imposing sanctions such as economic embargo on Iran for
reasons stated above. The timetable for that is likely sometime
around March-May, that is, after a new Israeli government is in
place.
At that point there are several possible outcomes.
* The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council which proposes
increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons
producing while avoiding sanctions. In essence Iran would be
allowed to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its
sovereignty is respected so long as it respects NPT and IAEA
conditions. This is unlikely for the reasons stated above.
* Iran like India and Pakistan or even China, is permitted to
develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the
growing military threat in its area posed by the United States
from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates, as well as by Israels
nuclear force. The West extends new offers of economic
cooperation in the development of Irans oil and gas
infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into the community of
the WTO and cooperation with the West. A new government in
Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine and with Syria and a
new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way for huge new
economic development in the entire Middle east region, Iran
included. The Mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. This
scenario, desireable as it is is extremely unlikely in the
present circumstances.
* President Bush, on the urging of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the
neo-conservative hawks, decide to activate CONPLAN 8022, an air
attack bombing Irans presumed nuclear sites, including for the
first time since 1945, with deployment of nuclear weapons. No
ground troops are used and it is proclaimed a swift surgical
success by the formidable Pentagon propaganda machine. Iran,
prepared for such a possibility, launches a calculated
counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla or assymetrical
warfare against US and NATO targets around the world.
The Iran response includes activating trained cells within
Lebanons Hezbollah; it includes activating considerable Iranian
assets within Iraq, potentially in de facto alliance with the
Sunni resistance there targeting the 135,000 remaining US troops
and civilian personnel. Irans assymetrical response also
includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within
Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel Great
Satan. Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks
from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells
of Arab Israelis. Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in
the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. The
Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a
disenfranchised Shiite minority which have historically been
denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth. There are
some 2 million Shiia Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Shias do most of
the manual work in the Saudi oilfields, making up 40 percent of
Aramco's workforce.
Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4
million barrels of oil a day. It threatens to sink a large VLCC
oil super -tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz,
chocking off 40% of all world oil flows, if the world does not
join it against the US-Israeli action. The strait has two 1 mile
wide channels for marine traffic, separated by a 2 mile wide
buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for
much of OPEC oil. It is Saudi Arabias main export route.
Iran a vast, strategically central expanse of land, more than
double the land area of France and Germany combined, with well
over 70 million people, and one of the fastest population growth
rates in the world is well prepared for a new Holy War. Its
mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation
inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems
retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan
occupations. World War III begins in a series of miscalculations
and disruptions. The pentagons awesome war machine, total
spectrum dominance is powerless against the growing
assymetrical war assaults around the globe.
Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press,
the Iranian government knows well what cards they hold and what
not in this global game of thermo-nuclear chicken.
Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear
strike on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a
point of no return in international relations. Even with sagging
popularity, the White House knows this. The danger of the
initial strategy of pre-emptive wars is that, as now, when
someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response
potential, the US is left with little option but to launch the
unthinkable-nuclear first strike.
There are saner voices within the US political establishment,
such as former NSC heads, Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bushs
and the Pentagon hawks pre-emptive posture. The question is
whether their faction within the US power establishment today is
powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to
Richard Nixon when his exercise of Presidential power got out of
hand.
It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess
nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory
of the United States. Israel would be the closest potential
target. A US pre-emptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would
raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv
and Washington actually encompass, a subject which neither the
Bush Administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform
the American public about.
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: US, Russia to cooperate on Iran - official
Tue Mar 14, 2:56 PM ET
BAKU, Azerbaijan (AFP) - The United States hopes to work with
Russia to counter Iran" /> Iran's alleged nuclear weapons
program in the UN Security Council, a top US state department
official said.
"We look forward to working with Russia as the issue of Iran's
nuclear weapons ambitions moves into the Security Council,"
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs, told journalists during a visit to Iran's
neighbor Azerbaijan.
Fried said he regretted that Tehran had not accepted a Russian
offer that could have defused the West's stand-off with Iran
over its energy program, which the US claims is a cover for a
weapons program.
Iran insists it is developing nuclear technology only to
generate electricity.
"We have supported Russia's proposal to Iran with respect to
nuclear fuel enrichment on Russian territory and it's a pity
that Iran has not accepted this," Fried said.
Iran on Tuesday announced it had resumed negotiations with
Russia on a compromise proposal under which uranium to be used
in Iranian reactors would be enriched in Russia but said it was
"very disappointed" with Iran's behaviour in talks.
Fried's comments came a day after Iran's arch foe the United
States renewed economic sanctions first imposed in 1995, as US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushpiled on
the pressure ahead of the Security Council meeting expected this
week.
"The Iranian people do not deserve isolation, but it is
isolation which they will get because of the actions of their
government," Fried said in an apparent reference to the
sanctions.
"The international community is united in its determination that
Iran's nuclear weapons program must stop. We are determined to
pursue this objective using diplomatic means," Fried added.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Iran resumes nuclear talks with Russia but still defiant -
Tue Mar 14, 6:37 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended
his country's controversial nuclear program in the face of
heightened US pressure ahead of an expected UN Security Council
showdown.
But Iran" /> Iranalso announced it had resumed negotiations
with Russia on a compromise proposal aimed at resolving the
long-running crisis over its nuclear work, which the United
States claims is a cover for a weapons program.
"Bear in mind that this government, which is the government of
the people, will continue its path with glory, power and wisdom
until it achieves all its rights," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in
the northern province of Golestan in a speech broadcast live on
television.
"And on this path, retreating by even an iota is meaningless,"
he said amid chants of "Death to America" by the crowd.
"We had the revolution in order not to listen... So I'm telling
you (Westerners), be angry at the Iranian people and you will
die of this anger," he added.
His comments came a day after Iran's archfoe the United States
renewed economic sanctions first imposed in 1995, as US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushpiled on
the pressure ahead of the Security Council meeting expected this
week.
Bush also Monday accused Iran of helping Shiite militias in
neighboring Iraq" /> Iraqto build roadside bombs.
Envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
-- the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the council --
met Monday in New York and were expected to hold more talks
Tuesday.
It would be the fourth such meeting since International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) head
Mohamed ElBaradei sent an assessment report on the Iranian
nuclear program to the council last Wednesday.
But in an apparent bid to head off any punitive action by the
15-member council, Iran said talks with Russian officials
resumed on Monday on a proposal by Moscow to enrich Iranian
uranium on Russian soil.
The IAEA wants Iran to halt sensitive uranium enrichment, which
is used in nuclear fuel cycle but can also make the core of an
atomic bomb.
"The Iranian delegation headed by Ali Hosseini-Tash held a first
round of negotiations with the Russians yesterday," Supreme
National Security Council spokesman Hossein Entezami told AFP.
"The negotiations are going on."
"Iran believes negotiation based on international agreements is
the solution to get out of the present situation and accepts all
constructive proposals in this respect," Entezami said.
But in an interview with a Chilean newspaper published on
Monday, Iranian Vice President Fatemeh Javadi said no power
could prevent Iran from exercising its right to develop nuclear
technology.
"Science and research are a right for all countries, including
Chile and Iran. No power can take away this natural right,"
Javadi told the Diario Siete.
"The United States has 400 atomic complexes but at the moment it
wants to eliminate the possibility that our country develops
this technology in a peaceful way," she said.
Ahmadinejad also hit back at the comments by British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw on Monday who warned Tehran that it was on
the wrong track by confronting the West over its nuclear
program.
"Some are saying that (Iran's nuclear program) is not wish of
the Iranians... So I'm telling them to open up their ears and
listen to the people," he said, pointing at the crowd who
shouted: "Nuclear energy is our undeniable right."
The latest crisis was sparked when Iran refused to comply with
an IAEA demand to suspend the research activities on enrichment
it had resumed on January 10.
Entezami also hit out at the United States, saying it "seeks to
use the Security Council as an instrument to pressure Iran".
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader: Nuclear Path 'Irreversible'
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday March 14, 2006 8:31 PM
AP Photo XHS102
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader issued a tough line on
his country's suspect nuclear program Tuesday, saying it is
``irreversible'' and any retreat would endanger the Islamic
republic's independence.
The confrontational tone from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has
the final say on all state matters, set Iran on a collision
course with the West as the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council debated how to deal with fears Tehran is
seeking to develop atomic weapons.
After meeting Tuesday at the United Nations, the Security
Council powers remained divided over how strong a statement to
make on Iran's nuclear program. A British-French draft demands
that Iran halt all uranium enrichment, which can be used to make
nuclear arms, and calls for a report within weeks on Iran's
progress toward answering questions about its nuclear program.
Russia and China, which have strong economic ties with Tehran,
say the draft does not leave enough room for diplomacy and
focuses too much on possible action by the council, which could
impose sanctions.
The White House said the calls by Moscow and Beijing for a
negotiated end to the crisis do not mean the end of U.S. hopes
for a strong statement from the 15-nation council.
``That's premature to get into that kind of discussion,'' White
House press secretary Scott McClellan said. ``The discussions
are ongoing.''
McClellan said Iran wants to divert attention from the real
issue, but that ``all nations understand the importance of
preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. ... This is about
the regime's behavior.''
At the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Bush
administration wants to move ``as quickly as we can,'' although
he added that it wants to maintain the unity of the five
permanent council members that wield veto power.
``Every day that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to
get closer to a nuclear weapons capability,'' Bolton said.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also called for a ``robust
and determined'' stance from the United Nations and said his
country would consider pushing for a weapons embargo against
Iran if efforts to force it to clear up questions about its
nuclear intentions fail.
Khamenei's comments further dimmed already fading hopes for a
compromise proposal by Moscow that called for uranium enrichment
to take place entirely on Russian soil and was seen as the last
chance for averting a standoff at Security Council over Iran.
Tehran has been giving conflicting signals on the proposal,
announcing over the weekend that it was no longer being
considered, then saying talks with Russia were still under way.
Khamenei intervened Tuesday to lay down the one of his strongest
statements on the nuclear issue, apparently aimed at ending any
compromising tone from moderates within the Iranian government.
He told Iranian diplomats who were called home for consultations
that there would be no backing down.
``The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the
nuclear issue ... as breaking the country's independence which
will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation,'' Khamenei said,
according to state television.
``This path is irreversible and the foreign policy establishment
has to bravely defend Iran's rights,'' he told the diplomats.
In a nationally televised speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
also vowed to resist pressure from the Security Council, saying
``no power'' can take nuclear technology from Iran.
``They should know that through propaganda, political pressures
and games they play nowadays ... (they) can't prevent the
Iranian nation from pursuing its path,'' he said, referring to
the West.
Russian negotiators held talks with an Iranian delegations
Tuesday in Moscow, urging a diplomatic solution to the standoff.
The Iranians left the Russian capital after the talks, with no
announcement of any progress. Moscow has appeared increasingly
frustrated with Iran, a longtime ally that Russia is helping to
build its first nuclear reactor.
In another sign Tehran was preparing for the worst, officials
told editors of Iran's newspapers in recent meetings that
editorials criticizing the government's nuclear policies won't
be tolerated, according to an internal newsletter of the Islamic
Iran Participation Front, Iran's largest reformist party.
The nuclear program is a source of national pride in Iran, and
even pro-reform figures have supported its pursuit.
But criticism has been growing among reformists of Ahmadinejad's
foreign policy performance. The Islamic Iran Participation Front
said in its newsletter this week that Ahmadinejad's call for
Israel to be ``wiped off the map'' last year rang alarm bells in
Western capitals and unnecessarily provoked the West against
Iran.
The United States and some in Europe accuse Iran of seeking to
build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its
program aims only to use nuclear reactors to generate
electricity. It insists on its right under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to fully develop peaceful nuclear
technology, including uranium enrichment.
The United States and its European allies want Iran to
permanently abandon uranium enrichment, because the process can
produce not only fuel for a reactor but also the material for a
nuclear warhead.
---
Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Reject Iran Nuke Statement
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday March 14, 2006 2:01 AM
AP Photo UNDK111
By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia and China have rejected proposals
from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the
U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear
up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday.
The dispute raises the threat of an impasse in the Security
Council and means that the U.S., Britain and France may not get
their wish for strong action by the powerful U.N. body. They
believe such a text could further isolate Iran and help compel
it to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce
fuel for a civilian nuclear reactor or fissile material for an
atomic bomb.
But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Monday that
Britain also 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, speaking at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.
Iran, meanwhile, sent more mixed signals about its intentions.
Its president said Iran's very existence depended on nuclear
development, but Russia reported that Iranian diplomats had
asked for more consultations.
Only a day earlier, talks on Russia's Western-backed offer to
host Iran's uranium enrichment program collapsed when Tehran
rejected Moscow's demand to suspend enrichment activities at
home.
``Contradictory signals are coming from Tehran,'' Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Monday of Iran's
response to the proposal. ``One day they reject it, the other
day they don't.''
The board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, voted last month to report Iran to the Security
Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear
intentions and accusing Iran of violating the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran responded by ending voluntary
cooperation with the IAEA and announcing it would start uranium
enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei accused Iran of withholding
information about its nuclear program, possessing plans linked
to nuclear weapons, and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment.
In the last week, council diplomats have weighed how to respond.
Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding nations all said
publicly that discussions continued on several proposals,
including one from the British and French that would urge Iran
to stop enriching uranium.
But a U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because
of the secrecy of the discussions, said Russia and China want
the council to do one thing only: acknowledge the primary role
of the IAEA in handling the Iran issue.
The diplomat said that after three meetings, the Russians and
Chinese showed little indication they would change their
positions.
At the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach toward
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only for
peaceful purposes such as energy.
Russia and China, allies of Iran, believe council action - such
as a challenging statement or economic sanctions - risks
angering Tehran further, possibly causing the regime to withdraw
from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out IAEA
inspectors.
``I think that we want a constructive statement,'' China's
Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press on Monday
morning. ``I think they want to be too tough.''
Britain also wants Israel to rid itself of nuclear weapons, but
it is far more urgent that Iran shut down its enrichment
activities since it poses the greater threat, Straw said in
London.
``If you want a nuclear-free Middle East, the next stop is
Iran,'' he said. ``Nothing would set back the goal of a
nuclear-weapons-free Middle East and a non-nuclear Israel
further than if Iran were to flout its international commitments
and acquire a nuclear weapons capability.''
In Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi indicated
that his government would wait for the outcome of the Security
Council meeting to decide whether to start enrichment on the
scale required to provide fuel for its first nuclear reactor at
Bushehr, to go online later this year.
``It shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the Iranians
would love to talk further,'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said.
``They've loved talking for the last four years and they'll talk
for as long as they can as they master the technical
difficulties they've encountered in the uranium enrichment
process.''
Finance Minister Davood Danesh-Jafari told reporters Monday that
Iran could survive any U.N. penalties.
``If sanctions are imposed, we are capable of managing the
country according to our past experiences. We could run the
country with no dollars in oil revenue as we did in the 1990s.''
The United States and its allies could opt to bypass the
Security Council entirely in confronting Iran. Last week, U.S.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said a coalition of
countries supporting tough action might consider targeted
sanctions if the council was not firm enough.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Confident of Support to Pressure Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday March 14, 2006 11:01 AM
AP Photo JAK108
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said Tuesday she is confident the United States eventually will
get strong backing from other members of the U.N. Security
Council despite division at the start of a U.S.-driven review of
Iran's disputed nuclear program.
Diplomats said Monday that Russia and China have refused to sign
on to a unified set of demands to Tehran, raising the threat of
an impasse that could mean the U.S., Britain and France may not
quickly win the strong action they seek from the powerful U.N.
body.
``I intend to let the diplomacy continue for awhile before we
determine what the outcome is going to be,'' Rice said during a
diplomatic visit to the Indonesian capital.
The Security Council was beginning its discussion of the Iran
case later Tuesday. The United States began pushing for that
review more than two years ago, and has gradually won converts
in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
``I'm quite certain that we'll find the appropriate vehicle for
expressing the international community's solidarity,'' Rice
said.
The United States and its allies say Tehran is hiding ambitions
for a nuclear weapon behind a legitimate program to develop
nuclear energy. Iran denies it.
Rice spoke following a tour of an Islamic grade school that
receives U.S. funding and a meeting with Indonesian Foreign
Minister Hassan Wirajuda. She was also seeing Indonesian
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a U.S.-educated former
general.
Russia and China, Tehran allies that have opposed Security
Council review or sanctions for Iran in the past, agreed to let
the matter come before the Security Council. It is not clear
what those veto-holding nations will do at this point, however.
Rice had a reminder for Russia, which asked for and won a
month's delay in the Security Council review that it had hoped
to use to win an accord with Iran that could have averted
sanctions or other harsh measures by the United Nations. That
time has run without a deal.
``We've fulfilled that part of that bargain,'' Rice said of the
compromise delay with Russia. ``Now it's time for this to be
discussed in the Security Council.''
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that no power
can take nuclear technology away from Iran and vowed that his
country will resist Security Council pressure.
``Rest assured that the technology to produce nuclear fuel today
is in the hands of the youth of this land and no power can take
it back from us,'' Ahmadinejad said.
Rice's day began with the school tour in a ragged Jakarta
neighborhood. Hundreds of police and several U.S. Marines
guarded the school, and a water cannon stood by to ward off
potential protesters.
Andina Sukma Wati, a 10-year-old girl with a traditional white
headscarf and a bright pink backpack asked Rice how a girl can
grow up to be a high government officer.
``You start by studying hard,'' Rice told her.
The Makmuriah Islamic School is subsidized under a $157 million
education program President Bush announced during a visit here
two years ago. Blue placards from the U.S. Agency for
International Development were placed on the students' work
tables for the benefit of visiting news cameras. They read,
``From the American People.''
Rice announced $8.5 million for a new education program
involving the characters from ``Sesame Street.'' She seemed
unfamiliar with the characters from the long-running U.S. public
television program however, muffing ``Miss Piggy'' as ``Miss
Pinky'' before getting it right.
She saw only young children on her visit, and they asked her no
hard questions. The State Department's point person for
improving the U.S. image among Muslims, Undersecretary Karen
Hughes, got a taste of the anti-Americanism prevalent here when
she spoke to high school students last year.
``I understand that the United States has had to do things in
the world that have not popular in much of the world,'' Rice
said in response to a question about anti-American sentiment
that rose after the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
About 5,000 Muslims rallied in front of the tightly guarded U.S.
Embassy in Indonesia a week ago, demanding that American troops
leave Iraq and Afghanistan and calling Bush a terrorist and
colonialist.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Supreme Leader: No Retreat on Nukes
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday March 14, 2006 1:16 PM
AP Photo XHS102
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader ordered the country's
diplomats on Tuesday to defend the country's nuclear program,
saying any retreat would undermine the country's independence
and Tehran's other foreign policy goals.
``The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the
nuclear issue ... as breaking the country's independence which
will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation,'' state television
quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as telling diplomats brought home
from Iran's embassies across the world for consultations with
Iranian leaders.
His comments echoed those of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
vowed to resist pressure from the U.N. Security Council to back
down.
The five veto-wielding members of the council - the United
States, Russia, China, Britain and France - have been weighing
proposals to persuade Iran to respond to concerns about its
nuclear program. They were to resume their talks later Tuesday
at the U.N. headquarters in New York.
The United States and its European allies want Iran to
permanently abandon uranium enrichment and all related
activities, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear
fuel for reactors or materials for a nuclear bomb. Iran denies
any intention to build weapons, saying it only wants to produce
energy.
China on Tuesday expressed optimism that negotiations could
still resolve the dispute, calling on Tehran to cooperate.
``Now there is still room to solve the Iranian nuclear issue
through diplomatic negotiations,'' said Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesman Qin Gang. ``We hope Iran can cooperate closely with
the International Atomic Energy Agency and do more to build up
mutual confidence to help reach a solution.''
But Iran's president said Iraq would not abandon its drive to
produce nuclear fuel by what he called the harsh statements and
pressures by Washington and its allies.
``Rest assured that the technology to produce nuclear fuel today
is in the hands of the youth of this land and no power can take
it back from us,'' Ahmadinejad said in a speech attended by
thousands in northern Iran. The crowd responded with chants of
``nuclear energy is our right.''
The United States and its allies, he said, are angry because
Iran has made progress in its nuclear program.
``Today, unfortunately, few big powers want, through coercion
and bullying, prevent progress of nations... They are really
angry that this great nation (Iran) is gaining access to the
peaks of progress and development.''
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned Monday that Iran's
government is taking the country in the ``wrong direction,''
repressing its own people and pursuing confrontation abroad.
Britain, France, Germany and the United States successfully
pressed the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, to report Iran to the Security Council last week
after Tehran resumed nuclear research and small-scale uranium
enrichment.
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.
It also has threatened to start large-scale uranium enrichment
if the council imposes any sanctions on the country. Iran only
has an experimental nuclear research program and scientists say
the Muslim nation is months away from resolving technical
problems to launch any large-scale uranium enrichment.
Last week, Iran offered what it called a ``final proposal'' to
agree to suspend large-scale enrichment temporarily in return
for IAEA recognition of its right to continue research-scale
enrichment.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: Security Council Still at Odds Over Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday March 14, 2006 6:16 PM
AP Photo VAH115
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia and China remained at odds Tuesday
with the United States, Britain and France over a U.N. Security
Council statement on Iran's nuclear program, which the three
Western nations contend is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.
The five permanent veto-wielding council members met for more
than 90 minutes but didn't resolve differences on a proposed
British-French draft that would demand Iran halt all uranium
enrichment and call for a report within weeks on Iran's progress
in answering questions about its nuclear program.
China wants only a short statement reiterating there are
concerns about Iran's program, allowing space for continued
diplomatic efforts to bring Iran on board, Chinese Ambassador
Wang Guangya told reporters afterward.
``What we want is to leave the room and sufficient time for all
diplomatic efforts to play,'' he said. ``So therefore I think we
should not close all the doors for diplomatic activities.''
China also wants to reinforce efforts by the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and ``not to
replace the IAEA,'' Wang said.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington agrees the IAEA has
a role, but also believes ``the Security Council has an
independent obligation when faced with the risk of proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction in violation of treaty
obligations, which is what the case of Iran is.''
He said the Bush administration wants to move ``as quickly as we
can,'' although he added that it wants to maintain the unity of
the five permanent council members.
``Every day that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to
get closer to a nuclear weapons capability,'' Bolton said.
Iran insists its atomic program has only the peaceful purpose of
using nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Its supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday that the program is
``irreversible'' and warned that giving in to international
pressure would ``break the country's independence.''
Later Tuesday, Britain and France were expected to outline their
proposed statement to the 10 non-permanent Security Council
members, which are elected for two-year terms. Bolton said the
five permanent members would meet again Wednesday morning.
The United States, Britain and France think a strong council
statement could further isolate Iran and pressure it to abide by
demands from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and they raise the
possibility that it might have to resort to tougher measures
later, such as sanctions.
Russia and China, which have strong business and political ties
to Iran, argue that action would risk angering Tehran further,
leading Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and kick out IAEA inspectors.
Last month, the IAEA's board voted to report Iran to the
Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in the Tehran
regime's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and
announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise
inspections of its facilities.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 [NukeNet] J Cirincione: Canada & USA- Mother Of India's Bomb
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:18:59 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
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?
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: US opposes India getting nuclear fuel until NPT standards met -
Tue Mar 14, 5:04 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Washington is opposed to Russia supplying
India with nuclear fuel before New Delhi honors its obligations
under the landmark nuclear deal it recently signed with the
United States, a senior State Department official said.
The official, who did not want to be identified, was reacting to
reports that Moscow plans to supply India with uranium for two
of its nuclear reactors.
"It's OK to supply fuel to India but let's wait until India has
taken the steps called for in the joint initiative to bring its
program into conformity with NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)
standards," the official said.
He was referring to the nuclear deal New Delhi signed earlier
this month with the United States and under which sanctions on
the transfer of nuclear technology to India will be lifted.
In return, India has agreed to separate its military and
civilian nuclear facilities, and place the civilian ones under
international safeguards.
The deal still has to be ratified by the US Congress and the
45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), of which Russia is a
member. The NSG controls trade in atomic fuel, which has long
been denied to India after it conducted nuclear tests and
refused to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Earlier Tuesday a foreign ministry official in New Delhi said
Russia had informed the NSG of its decision to supply fuel for
the reactors at Tarapur in western Maharashtra state.
"This supply of fuel will enable the plant to continue to
operate in safety and provide much needed electricity to the
western power grid of the country," Indian foreign ministry
spokesman Navtej Sarna said.
He said that a shortage of fuel at the Tarapur facilities would
have affected their operations under reliable and safe
conditions.
In Washington, deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told
reporters that the United States was well aware of India's need
for nuclear fuel but that it first had to fulfill its
obligations under the agreement it signed.
"We recognize that they have need for fuel, and we think that
deals to supply that fuel should move forward on the basis of
the joint initiative, on the basis of steps that India will take
but has not yet taken," Ereli said.
Critics of the Russia deal say the move could spur other
countries, including China, to make similar proposals to other
countries outside the framework of international treaties.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 Channel 4 KRNV.com: United Nations hands symbolic victory to Western Shoshone
Attorneys for the Western Shoshone Indian Tribe of Nevada say
the United Nations has ruled in their favor.
Monday the tribe announced the UN has decided the human rights
of tribal members are being violated by the United States
government.
Attorneys say that's because of broken treaties over land rights
and a nuclear waste project in Southern Nevada.
Robert Hager, attorney for Western Shoshone, "The United Nations
has found that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump is
a violation of the human rights of the Western Shoshone, and so
we would expect that the entire Nevada congressional delegation
would use this decision in an effor to stop Yucca Mountain, if
they are opposed to that project."
Attorneys say the UN is now asking the United States to work
with the Western Shoshone to address their concerns and to end
activities detrimental to Western Shoshone lands, such as Yucca
Mountain, livestock grazing, and hunting and fishing.
.gif"> All content Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and KRNV.
*****************************************************************
16 London Times: Nuclear arms will keep Union Jack
March 15, 2006
Political briefing by Peter Riddell
"WE'VE got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We've
got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it." Ever since
Ernest Bevin, as Labour Foreign Secretary, made this pledge,
after a heavy lunch, at a Cabinet committee in October 1946, all
governments have been committed to maintaining British nuclear
weapons. There is no sign that Tony Blair will be any different
as ministers decide when and how to replace Trident.
These decisions come around every 15 to 20 years, raising similar
issues over the threat, cost and national standing. While work is
under way at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston,
ministers say that decisions have not yet been taken.
The Commons Defence Select Committee began its inquiry yesterday.
Some views were predictable but the end of the Cold War has
removed Russia as a nuclear threat, despite all the worries about
authoritarianism and aggression towards its neighbours. Lee
Willett, of the Royal United Services Institute, said that it
would be dangerous for Britain to give up its nuclear weapons
when others were acquiring them. We could not rely on nuclear
non-proliferation talks succeeding.
The most interesting view came from Sir Michael Quinlan, the
former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who helped
to educate Baroness Thatcher in nuclear doctrine. He said that
the cost of replacement was still uncertain. "When we are dealing
with something which is an insurance against a very unspecific,
very distant, possible set of circumstances, one has to look at
how much one is prepared to pay for that insurance. How much risk
are we prepared to accept? There will be some cost that will be
simply too much to pay for the insurance of staying in this
business."
He accepted, however, that it would be very difficult politically
for any government to abandon nuclear weapons as long as France
has them. It would "twitch a lot of very fundamental historical
nerves. I just think there will be that gut feeling that we
can't."
That political "gut feeling" has been central at every stage,
from Bevin, through Macmillan in 1962 to Callaghan in the late
1970s. In part, it has reflected British worries about the
American willingness to defend Britain, even though the British
deterrent is now dependent on US technical support.
The probability that Britain will remain a nuclear power is only
half the story. The deterrent consists of the warhead, the
ballistic missile and the submarine. All have different
operational lives, and scope for being modified to last a few
more years. The submarines are due to come out of service at the
end of the next decade, going below the minimum of three boats
needed to maintain a sea deterrent, but the Ministry of Defence
has said that their life could be extended to the mid-2020s.
There are similar options for the warhead and missile, although
Britain has yet to decide whether to participate in the US
programme to extend the life of the D5 missiles into the 2040s.
So Lord Garden, a Lib Dem peer and former Air Marshal, argues
that no decision needs to be taken until at least 2011. But Mr
Blair wants to take the basic decision while he is Prime
Minister, even if the timetable is elongated and the capability
is reduced. The Union Jack will still fly on nuclear weapons.
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
17 BBC: MPs review UK's nuclear weapons
Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
[Trident nuclear submarine]
Trident will be decommissioned by about 2020
MPs have begun their inquiry into the UK's nuclear weapons
arsenal.
The Commons defence committee is examining whether the UK should
replace its Trident weapons system, which is expected to be
obsolete by 2020.
It is taking evidence from a range of experts about the type of
threat the UK might face in 20 years' time.
Tony Blair has pledged the "fullest debate" before any decision
is taken. Critics say there is no threat which justifies
replacing Trident.
1940 test
Dan Plesch, from the Foreign Policy Centre, told the MPs' first
hearing the UK would probably not be able to use nuclear weapons
without America's agreement.
"The public understanding is that we have this if ever again we
face 1940," said Mr Plesch, referring to the UK going to war with
Germany without US backing.
"There's a strong sense, going back almost to the Armada and
Trafalgar in our culture that we have to have some contingency."
People did not understand that with Trident, "the US would have
every ability in the short and particularly in the longer term to
prevent the system from being used because of our relationship",
he said.
I'm not committing myself to vote... not ruling it out either
Tony Blair
Q: Trident replacement
Sir Michael Quinlan, from the International Institute of
Strategic Studies, said nuclear-armed terrorists were a
"possibility" and a "pretty horrific" thought.
He said: "As far as deterring a state from using nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction, there's clearly an option
there."
But Lee Willett, of the Royal United Services Institute, said it
was impossible to "predict what will be around the corner" in 20
years or so.
Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said
the UK no longer faced a threat from any nuclear-armed nation.
She said Mr Blair had said nuclear weapons were no use against
terrorism, so Britain "should be positioning itself as a global
leader for peace by ending its nuclear weapons programme".
'Window of opportunity'
After the hearing, she added: "We should take this window of
opportunity to begin disarmament discussions as required under
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the UK is "entitled" to have
nuclear weapons.
Mr Blair said a decision on replacing Trident would be taken
before the next election. By the end of the year "we should have
a clear idea of the timeline" for a debate on its replacement, he
said.
We are in a process of thinki about thinking about it Spokesman
for Tony Blair Fact file: Trident missile
However, he would not commit himself to a Commons vote on
replacing Trident.
For the Conservatives, shadow defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox,
said he believed a question remained over the Government's
willingness to replace Trident.
He said: "We are committed not only to retaining the current
nuclear deterrent but also to replacing it when necessary, and
remain to be convinced that there is a delivery system better
than a submarine based system."
The MPs on the Defence Committee do not have the power to decide
on policy, but they are influential.
The committee is holding a series of inquiries over the course of
the current Parliament, "with the intention of informing the
public debate on the future of the UK's strategic nuclear
deterrent".
It will consider the timetable in which decisions on replacing
Trident will have to be taken and implemented.
The cost of replacing the UK's four submarines armed with Trident
missiles could reach 20bn according to some estimates.
*****************************************************************
18 AFP: Britain launches nuclear missile debate
Tue Mar 14, 2:47 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britain opened an inquiry into replacing its
ageing nuclear weaponry with some participants warning it could
be too expensive "staying in the business", others branding it
pointless.
Britain is likely to decide before 2010 whether to replace its
Trident submarine-launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missile
system, which comes up for renewal in around 15 years.
The hearing gave proponents on both sides of the argument the
chance to set out their case as part of the decision process.
Sir Michael Quinlan, a former top Ministry of Defence official,
told the Commons Defence Committee into the British nuclear
deterrent that it was unclear how much a replacement system
would cost.
"How much risk we are prepared to accept," he asked, against an
unspecified future threat.
"My own view is that there will be some cost that will be simply
too much to pay for the insurance of staying in this business."
He favoured scaling back Britain's deterrent, but said it would
be a wrench to give nuclear weapons up -- particularly while
France kept theirs.
"I think it is just national gut feeling," he said.
"To leave the French as the only people with (a nuclear
deterrent, out of Britain and France), I think, would twitch a
lot of very fundamental historical nerves.
"I am not arguing about the logic of it. I just think there will
be that gut feeling that we can't."
Lee Willett, of the Royal United Services Institute military
think-tank, warned against giving up Britain's nuclear weapons
as other countries acquire them.
He said: "We do not know what the future will hold. While others
have nuclear weapons, the only thing that will deter a nuclear
weapon is a nuclear weapon."
Rebecca Johnson, of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament
Diplomacy, dismissed the concept of nuclear deterrence.
"If you believe in it, then it gives you a bit of reassurance
until it gets tested and it fails, at which point it is far too
late to discover that it wasn't actually helping you at all,"
she said.
Britain has four Trident submarines in service. They each have
16 multiple warhead nuclear missiles with a range of 12,000
kilometres (7,500 miles).
If ministers do decide to replace Trident, they would have to
choose whether to stick with a purely submarine-based deterrent
or utilise land- or air-based systems.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
19 [NukeNet] Nuclear energy set to dominate G8 summit
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:18:56 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
So does anyone think we should have an anti-nuclear Day
of Action during the G8 Summit?
Nuclear energy set to dominate G8 summit
1324da2.jpg
Agence France-Presse
1324dbf.jpg
Paris, March 13, 2006
Nuclear power will dominate the first G8 energy summit in Moscow next week.
The rising price of fossil fuels, combined with concerns about the
greenhouse effect and the demands of the Kyoto agreement has meant
industrialised nations are having to reconsider how they source their
energy supplies. Most countries regard nuclear energy as the solution to
environmental concerns and dwindling fossil fuel supplies.
"There is an emerging international trend towards nuclear power, led by
rising prices of fossil fuels, the Russian gas pipe closure and the need to
invest in ways of producing electricity," believes Colette Leiner, head of
energy at consultancy Capgemini.
Oil, gas and coal provide 80 per cent of the world's energy, and experts
believe that production of oil, and to a lesser extent gas, could peak in
the next three decades.
Meanwhile, uranium reserves remain plentiful across the world, and could
meet current levels of demand for up to 80 years.
Nonetheless, France and Finland are the only European countries to have
embarked on a programme of nuclear plant construction, although Britain is
considering building a new nuclear facility.
The project, the brainchild of Prime Minister Tony Blair, is aimed at
enabling Britain to achieve its twin objectives of cutting CO2 emissions
and becoming less dependent on the natural gas supplies it currently
imports to produce its electricity.
In Germany, a decision taken by the last government to phase out nuclear
power has not yet been reversed, although there has been talk of increasing
energy prices.
European Commissioner for Economic Affairs Joaquin Almonia recently said it
would be "suicidal" not to consider nuclear energy given the European
Unions's dependence on imported energy supplies.
European countries import 50 per cent of their gas supplies, with half of
that coming from Russia.
European Commission President Jose Jose Manuel Barroso has said the debate
on energy sources should be conducted without "taboos" -- including nuclear
energy.
In the United States, the resurgence of nuclear power has been clearly
signalled by the Bush administration, while Canada is about to launch an
invitation to tender for a nuclear reactor, said Leiner.
And Toshiba's recent acquisition of US nuclear power plant maker
Westinghouse will boost Japan's nuclear technology capabilities.
Even in Russia, where natural gas supplies remain plentiful, preparations
for the development of a nuclear energy programme are underway.
The energy ministers for the G8 countries (Britain, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States) will be joined in
Moscow by their counterparts from other countries with interests in nuclear
energy including India and China.
Beijing is spending almost $50 billion on a vast nuclear programme aimed at
building 40 reactors by 2020, while India has just signed nuclear
cooperation agreements with France and the United States.
Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: 1324da2.jpg: 00000001,6bd62055,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1324dbf.jpg: 00000001,6bd62056,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
20 Chernobyl Media Distortions As We Approach Chernobyl's 20th Anniversary
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:23:06 -0500
As we approach April 26, 2006, the 20th
anniversary of
the Chernobyl catastrophe it is worthwhile to keep
some of the facts and media distortions [both
below] in mind. Please forward this to other
lists, media and interested parties:
Thanks to John LaForge for the data compiled
below:
A few excerpts from article below:
AP, May 15, 1986: "Airborne radioactivity from the
Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so widespread
that it is likely to fall to the ground wherever
it rains in the United States, the EPA said."
AP, May 14, 1986: "An invisible cloud of
radioactivity spewed over the Soviet Union and
Europe, and has worked its way gradually around
the world."
AP, May 15, 1986: "State authorities in Oregon
have warned residents dependent solely on
rainwater for drinking that they should arrange
other supplies for the time being."
Star Tribune, May 17, 1986: "Since radiation from
the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over
Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have
been discovered in . . . the raw milk from a
Minnesota dairy."
AP, April 4, 1996: "Plutonium and other dangerous
particles released in the accident . . . have now
found their way to Ukraine's major waterways . . .
. 'We have billions of tons of radiated earth that
can't be dumped anywhere, and which will pour
plutonium, cesium and strontium into Europe for
decades,' the chief consultant to the Ukrainian
Parliament's Chernobyl commission said."
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1996:
"radiation contamination was detectable over the
entire Northern Hemisphere."
The pro-nuclear Time magazine reported in 1989
that perhaps "one billion or more" curies were
released, rather than the 50 to 80 million
estimated by Russian authorities.5 One curie is
the amount of radiation equal to the
disintegration of 37 billion atoms 37 billion
becquerels per second. It is a very large amount
of radiation.
The U.S. government's Argonne Nat. Lab has said
that 30 percent of the reactor's total
radioactivity 3 billion of an estimated 9
billion curies was released.6 And scientists at
the U.S. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab suggested
that one-half of the core's radioactivity was
spewed 4.5 billion curies, according the World
Information Service on Energy, quoting Science,
6-13-86.
Vladimir Chernousenko, the chief scientific
supervisor of the "clean up" team responsible for
a 10-kilometer zone around the exploded reactor,
says that 80 percent of the reactor's
radioactivity escaped, something like seven
billion curies.7 At the Union of Concerned
Scientists, senior energy analyst Kennedy Maize,
concluded that "the core vaporized" all 190 tons
of fuel, and all 9 billion curies.8
Former Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Joseph Hendrie, concluded likewise,
saying "They have dumped the full inventory of
volatile fission products from a large power
reactor into the environment. You can't do any
worse than that."9
"After all, the IAEA is in the business of
promoting nuclear energy, not discouraging it. For
10 years the agency has attempted to downplay the
consequences of the accident," wrote Alexander R.
Sich in a cover story for the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists [ see http://www.thebulletin.org ].
The IAEA, still downplaying in 1995, said any
increase in cancer caused by Chernobyl would be
"undetectable."
Nineteen months after the disaster, in Nov. 1987,
the U.S. government
officially doubled its estimate of the
"background" radiation to which we
are exposed every year.11 [Part 2]
Chernobyl at Ten:
Half-lives and Half Truths
(Part one of two)
By John M. LaForge
With a heavy dose of half-truth, the commercial
press worked over-time to reduce the results of
the Chernobyl catastrophe to a "nervous disorder"
confined to the C.I.S. and Europe. Understated
reports on the 10th anniversary of the world-wide
radiation disaster help the nuclear reactor
industry hold on against overwhelming opposition,
in spite of what should have been the final insult
from nuclear power.
The latest psychological "clean up" often went
like this. Peter Crane, a lawyer at the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), said that
"...the explosion... sent a radioactive cloud into
the atmosphere of Eastern Europe." (1) This is a
true statement. It merely neglects to mention the
rest of planet Earth.
Reporter Michael Specter wrote that, "The fire
which burned out of control for five days, spewed
more than 50 tons of radioactive fallout across
Belarus, Ukraine and Western Russia." (2) This
loaded sentence is also literally true. The fact
that the fire burned uncontrolled for two weeks,
after a series of three explosions; that perhaps
190 tons of reactor fuel was catapulted into the
atmosphere; or that the radioactive fallout spread
world-wide reaching Minnesota's milk for example
doesn't make of Mr. Specter a liar, only a miser
with the truth.
Associated Press (AP) correspondent Dave Carpenter
's description that "deadly reactor fuel shot
into the atmosphere, contaminating some 10,000
square miles and reaching as far as Western
Europe" (3) is likewise "correct," but Reuters
News Service reported on 28 Nov. 1995 that the
contaminated areas include about 61,780 square
miles.
Carpenter practiced perfect obfuscation in his
dispatch, saying of the reckless nuclearists over
there: "In a big lie, Soviet officials. . . first
hushed up the disaster then played down its
severity." What is it to understate the sum of
irradiated territory by a factor of six? It isn't
the pot calling the kettle black; it's the cesium
calling the strontium a cancer agent.
Carpenter's AP lullaby was published widely and
included the comment that, ". . .those living in
the shadow of Chernobyl will be living with its
deadly health and environmental legacy for years."
(4)
For years? The word centuries would have been more
accurate, if conservative, since radiation's
health affects are multi-generational and not
limited in time. Indeed, some genetic effects
appear to be increasing with each successive
generation.
The AP's Angela Charlson went so far as to say the
reactor sent "a radioactive cloud across parts of
Europe ..." (5) Understatement of the overwhelming
facts was practiced as well by the editors of The
New York Times, who said on April 21 that the
disaster "spewed radiation across much or Europe"
(6) and on the anniversary, that "...a plume of
toxic gases & dust...spread across the western
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia." (7)
Although the contamination of the rest of the
world was hinted at as lately as 6 Oct. 1995, when
the Times reported that the radiation spread
across western Russia "and beyond," this
uncomfortable fact is nowadays pass.
The Disaster's in Your Head
While the explosions' long-lived carcinogens
primarily cesium, plutonium, strontium and iodine
are well known to be deadly for decades and even
centuries, Soviet officials, the U. N's
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and
U.S. editors have all ridiculed the common sense
fear of Chernobyl's radioactive fallout.
The official Soviet paper Izvestia said in 1988
that doctors in the Ukraine were, ". . .spending
more time on trying to dispel irrational fears
than on treating the effects of radiation." (8)
The IAEA which at first refused to conduct a
post-Chernobyl health study, claiming that all the
accident's effects were confined within Soviet
borders (9), dared to say in a 1991 study that
Chernobyl's health effects were mainly
"psychological." This heavily criticized report
didn't even consider the health of the
"liquidators," or the evacuees from the 18-mile
exclusion zone, 8,000 of whom are now known to
have died from radiation related diseases. (10)
The IAEA study failed to mention the lengthy
latency period for observed cancer incidence. This
cavalier white-wash of the disaster's inevitable
results came from a nominal nuclear watchdog,
which in fact is only the most prestigious booster
of nuclear power. "After all the IAEA is in the
business of promoting nuclear energy not
discouraging it. For ten years the agency has
attempted to downplay the consequences of the
accident," wrote Dr. Alexander R. Sich in a cover
story for the May/June Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists. (11) The IAEA, still sticking in its
vacuum, said in 1995 that any increase in cancer
caused by Chernobyl would be "undetectable."
(11.1)
Editors across the country have embraced the IAEA'
s dismissive attitude, distracting readers with
headlines like, "Area Frozen In Fear," "Citizens
Still Suffering Radiation Phobia," and "The Legacy
of Chernobyl: Fear is the Deeper Wound." A dread
of radiation doesn't appear irrational in view of
last year's report that "A second catastrophic
explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in
Ukraine could happen "at any time," Western
scientists have warned." (12)
Reality Officially Forgotten
A short review of Chernobyl's fallout pattern
shows how irresponsible the late reporting has
become. AP, 15 May 1986: "Airborne radioactivity
from the Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so
widespread that it is likely to fall to the ground
wherever it rains in the United States, the EPA
said." AP, 14 May 1986: "An invisible cloud of
radioactivity spewed over the Soviet Union and
Europe, and has worked its way gradually around
the world." AP, 15 May 1986: "State authorities in
Oregon have warned residents dependent solely on
rainwater for drinking that they should arrange
other supplies for the time being." Minneapolis
Star Tribune, 17 May 1986: "Since radiation from
the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over
Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have
been discovered in... the raw milk from a
Minnesota dairy." AP, 4 April 1996: "Plutonium and
other dangerous particles released in the
accident...have now found their way to Ukraine's
major waterways. ... 'We have billions of tons of
radiated earth that can't be dumped anywhere, and
which will pour plutonium, cesium and strontium
into Europe for decades,' [the chief consultant to
the Ukrainian parliament's Chernobyl commission]
said." Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May 1996, p.
38: "...radiation contamination was detectable
over the entire northern hemisphere."
With so much disparity among so many figures, we
may never know the true dimensions of Chernobyl's
radiation bomb.
Notes:
(1) NYT, Op-Ed, 5 April 1996.
(2) International Herald Tribune, 2 April 1996.
(3) Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 14 April 1996.
(4) Minneapolis Star Tribune, 21 April 1996.
(5) St. Paul Pioneer, 27 April 1996.
(6) NYT, 21 April 1996, The Week In Review.
(7) NYT, 26 April 1996, signed editorial by Philip
Taubman
(8) Los Angeles Times, 11 Feb. 1988.
(9) In These Times, 22 April 1987.
(10) AP, 23 April 1992; WISE News Communiqu,
(Amsterdam) No. 449, 10 April 1996.
(11) Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May 1996, p.
38.
(11.1) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June
1996, p. 8.
(12) The London Observer, 26 March 1995; Milwaukee
Journal, 27 March 1995.
-- John M. LaForge is codirector of Nukewatch, a
peace group based in Wisconsin, and editor of its
quarterly newsletter, the Pathfinder.
Copyright 2000 Star Tribune. All rights reserved
Half Lives and Half Truths: Chernobyl Ten Years
On-Part 2:
By John M. LaForge
(Second of two parts)
The 10th anniversary was no party.
"I have seen the beginning of the end of the
world," is how Michael Mariotte, editor of The
Nuclear Monitor, put it after visiting Chernobyl's
doomed landscape, everything dead or dying for
miles around. "The end of the world begins in
Pripyat, Ukraine, a once-thriving city of 45,000.
Now it sits crumbling, abandoned, a mute but
overwhelming testament to technological arrogance
gone amok."1
Pripyat was the city nearest Chernobyl's Unit 4,
the reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986 and
burned dangerously until October, spewing tons of
cancer-causing isotopes around the world.2
Mr. Mariotte is not known for emotional writing in
The Monitor, but anyone who can stand to
investigate the unfolding human consequences of
the world's worst industrial catastrophe can
understand his choice of words. Izvestia called it
"the greatest technological catastrophe in world h
istory."3
Cancers and other disease caused by Chernobyl's
radioactive poisons are being recorded thousands
of kilometers from the reactor site. The ninety
million people who lived in the path of the very
worst fallout are learning the hard way that
damage done by ionizing radiation is unrelenting,
cumulative and irreversible.
In the first part of this article (Spring 1996
Pathfinder) I compared the recent trivialization
of Chernobyl's consequences to news accounts that
appeared soon after the explosions and fire. For
example, while the commercial press now tell us
that the disaster "spread radiation across parts
of Europe," the fact is that the federal EPA
announced in mid-May 1986 that, "Airborne
radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident
is now so widespread that it is likely to fall to
the ground wherever it rains in the United
States."4
In this part I look at how much radiation
Chernobyl evidently dumped added to the
"background," at official skewing of the its
inevitable long-term effects, and at recent
reports of its human health consequences.
Answers are Blowin' in the Wind
How much radiation was released? What percentage
of which isotopes were thrown into the atmosphere.
Was it mostly iodine-131? How much of the total
was made up of the far more dangerous cesium-137,
strontium-90 and plutonium?
Piecing together the truth is a dizzying job of
ferreting out bias and vested interest. The
pro-nuclear Time magazine reported in 1989 that
perhaps "one billion or more" curies were
released, rather than the 50 to 80 million
estimated by Russian authorities.5 One curie is
the amount of radiation equal to the
disintegration of 37 billion atoms 37 billion
becquerels per second. It is a very large amount
of radiation.
The U.S. government's Argonne Nat. Lab has said
that 30 percent of the reactor's total
radioactivity 3 billion of an estimated 9
billion curies was released.6 And scientists at
the U.S. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab suggested
that one-half of the core's radioactivity was
spewed 4.5 billion curies, according the World
Information Service on Energy, quoting Science,
6-13-86.
Vladimir Chernousenko, the chief scientific
supervisor of the "clean up" team responsible for
a 10-kilometer zone around the exploded reactor,
says that 80 percent of the reactor's
radioactivity escaped, something like seven
billion curies.7 At the Union of Concerned
Scientists, senior energy analyst Kennedy Maize,
concluded that "the core vaporized" all 190 tons
of fuel, and all 9 billion curies.8
Former Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Joseph Hendrie, concluded likewise,
saying "They have dumped the full inventory of
volatile fission products from a large power
reactor into the environment. You can't do any
worse than that."9
The Russians and the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) claimed in a 1986 report, that 50
million curies of radioactive debris, plus another
50 million curies of rare and inert gasses were
discharged. However, the rocketing incidence of
cancers, leukemias and other radiation-induced
illnesses, leads scientists to suspect that the
higher radioactive fallout estimates are likely.
Pandemic numbers of thyroid cancers led even the
cautious Dr. Alexander Sich, in his Chernobyl
cover story for the May 1996 Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists to conclude that the "higher
[radiation] release estimates support the
conclusions drawn by medical experts."
Geneticist Valery N. Soyfer, founder of the former
Soviet Union's first molecular biology laboratory,
analyzed the 1986 report to the IAEA, which has
since been condemned as a cover-up. Dr. Soyfer
says that if only 100 million curies were vented,
then world "background radiation doubled at
once."10 This claim was unsupported by
accompanying evidence, but if "background" was
doubled by 100 million curies, then it was
multiplied 180 times by the release of Chernobyl's
"full inventory." Nineteen months after the
disaster, in Nov. 1987, the U.S. government
officially doubled its estimate of the
"background" radiation to which we are exposed
every year.11
Thyroid Cancers: More, Sooner, Untreatable
Dr. Soyfer further discovered that the Soviets
focused on and publicized the fallout's
radioactive iodine content, but understated the
amounts of other far more dangerous isotopes.
While 10 to 15 percent of the fallout was
iodine-131, the long-lived radionuclides
strontium-90 and cesium-137 made up more than two
thirds of the total contamination.12
Furthermore, the Soviet's 1986 estimate of future
cancer deaths was based only on the impact of
iodine-131, and then only on external doses. As a
result, the IAEA misled the world about Chernobyl'
s cancer threat. People contaminated with
iodine-131 ingested it, first by breathing, then
by drinking contaminated milk for six weeks.
Thyroid cancer is caused by the iodine-131. Its
rates are today ten times higher than the increase
any scientist had anticipated. The U. N. has said
that the number of thyroid cancers among children
in Belarus where 70 percent of the fallout
landed are 285 times pre-Chernobyl levels.13
The British Medical Journal reported in 1995 that
the rate of thyroid cancer in the region north of
Chernobyl Ukraine and Belarus is 200 times
higher than normal, and the (British) Imperial
Cancer Research Fund found a 500 percent increase
in thyroid cancers among Ukrainian children
between 1986 and 1993.14
Fear is growing among physicians treating the
young radiation victims, because the thyroid
cancers are appearing sooner than expected and
growing quicker than usual. Dr. Andrei Butenko, at
Kiev Hospital No. 1 in Ukraine, says of his
patients, "Routine chemotherapy seems to have lost
its effectiveness; something has changed in the
immune system."15
Cesium's Genetic Assault: the 300 Years War
Cesium-137 contamination is probably Chernobyl's
most devastating and ominous consequence. The body
can't distinguish cesium from potassium, so it's
taken up by our cells and becomes an internal
source of radiation. Cesium-137 is a gamma emitter
and its half-life of 30 years means that it stays
in the soil, to concentrate in the food chain, for
over 300 years. While iodine-131 remains
radioactive for six weeks, cesium-137 stays in the
body for decades, concentrating in muscle where it
irradiates muscle cells and nearby organs.16
Strontium-90 is also long-lived and, because it
resembles calcium, is permanently incorporated
into bone tissue where it may lead to leukemia.
The Soviet's acknowledged in 1986 that the
influence of cesium-137 on cancer death rates
would be nine times that of iodine-131. They said
that the effects of strontium-90 would "perhaps
have, along with cesium-137, the most important
meaning."17
Early Findings Go from Bad to Worse
Exposure to radiation more often results in
genetic and reproductive damage than cancer. These
hereditary disorders are unlimited in time, since
they pass from generation to generation in the
sperm and ovum. So, as geneticist Soyfer points
out, Chernobyl's enduring biological legacy will
be that of inherited diseases, deformities,
developmental abnormalities, spontaneous abortions
and premature births.
Some recent epidemiological studies confirm the
worst of these inevitable effects. The June 25,
1995 Washington Post reported that birth defects
in the areas most heavily poisoned have doubled
since 1986.
In a long page one story, the Aug. 2, 1995 New
York Times reported that life expectancy has
plummeted in Russia, making it the first nation in
history to ever experience such a public health
status reversal. Male life expectancy is now the
lowest in the world (below even India or Bolivia)
and, at the same time, infant mortality rose 15
percent in both 1993 and 1994, and there are now
epidemic rates of heart disease and cancer. dr.
David Hoel, an epidemiologist at the Medical
University of S. Carolina, is studying whether
Chernobyl's radiation is a major factor in the
spread in cancers and birth defects. "Everyone
assumes the connection," he said.
The journal Nature has published a study of
children born in 1994 to mothers exposed to
Chernobyl's fallout in 1986. Researchers studied
79 families 186 miles from Chernobyl and found
never-before-observed "germ-line" mutations:
changes in DNA of the sperm and ovum. Such
mutations are passed on from generation to
generation.18
Nature has also reported that in Greece, 2,800
kilometers from Chernobyl, where radiation
exposures were far lower than in areas close to
the reactor, leukemia has been diagnosed at rates
2.6 times the norm in young people who were in the
womb when the reactor exploded. The British
epidemiologist Dr. Alice Stewart found long ago
that only one diagnostic X-ray to the pregnant
abdomen increases the risk of leukemia in the
offspring by 40 percent.19 However, the report
from Greece is the first to link Chernobyl's
wreckage to increased leukemia incidence in
children exposed in utero.20 The report has moved
some experts to again warn that the low levels of
radiation to which people are exposed every day
"could contribute to cancer."
Even the stodgy New York Times has reported that
"cancers are now believed to be the result of
smaller [radiation] doses, and the amount of
damage inflicted by a given dose is now believed
to be larger."21
In a related study, two U.S. geneticists analyzing
animals inside Chernobyl's 6-mile radius found
that small rodents known as voles "sustain an
extraordinary amount of genetic damage." The study
found that "the mutation rate in these animals
is...probably thousands of times greater than
normal." Two findings called "ominous" were,
first, that one-third of the mutations that the
scientists expected to see were not even detected
probably because they were lethal. "It could be
that the animals were never born," said Dr. Robert
Becker of Texas Technical Univ. Second, "the vole
mutations were cumulative, increasing with each
succeeding generation." Both researchers doubted
that any species could sustain such a mutation
rate indefinitely.22
Acceptable Whole-Earth Poisoning
The extent of Chernobyl's radioactive, biological
and ecological damage, and the depth its
psychological and economic devastation are
incalculable.
What everyone does know about nuclear reactors is
that they have a record of whole-earth poisoning,
and that their potential for more of the same is
considered acceptable authorized in advance.
This potential, for unlimited and uncontrollable
radiation "accidents," has been deliberately
developed, promoted, protected, ignored and then
denied, or forgotten.
Sadly, denial and forgetfulness only make another
Chernobyl inevitable.
Notes:
1 The Nuclear Monitor, newsletter of Nuclear
Information Resource Service (NIRS), April 1996.
2 St. Louis Post Dispatch (SLPD), 7-23-90.
3 SLPD, 4-26-90.
4 Associated Press, 5-15-86.
5 Time, 11-13-89.
6 The Chicago Tribune, 6-22-86.
7 "The Truth About Chernobyl," Critical Mass:
Voices for a Nuclear-Free Future, Ruggiero and
Sahulka, Eds., 1996 by Open Media, p. 127.
8 Not Man Apart, the journal of Friends of the
Earth, March 1987.
9 The Minneapolis Star Tribune, 5-19-86.
10 SLPD, 4-24-87.
11 The New York Times, 11-20-87.
12 SLPD, 4-24-87.
13 The New York Times, 11-29-96.
14 The Washington Post, 3-25-95.
15 Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 12-12-94.
16 Caldicott, H., Nuclear Madness, 1994, Norton,
p. 137.
17 SLPD, 4-24-87.
18 The New York Times, 4-25-96.
19 Caldicott, Ibid., p. 43.
20 St. Paul Pioneer, 7-25-96.
21 The New York Times, 6-23-96.
22 The New York Times, 5-7-96, B6. --end--
(Part One ran in NUKEWATCH The Pathfinder, Summer
1996, part Two in Winter 1996/1997 EDITION; an
edited compilation of both parts is published in
Earth Island Journal, Summer 1997, EIJ, 300
Broadway, No. 28, San Francisco, CA 94133.)
JOHN LaFORGE
___________
Nukewatch
P.O. Box 649
Luck, WI 54853
Phone (715) 472-4185
Fax (715) 472-4184
Web http://www.nukewatch.com
*****************************************************************
21 RIA Novosti: Putin urges increase in nuclear power output
14/ 03/ 2006
MOSCOW, March 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia must boost the share of
nuclear power in its total electricity production, the country's
president said Tuesday.
"The share of the electric energy output produced by nuclear
power plants will be 16% in 2006," Vladimir Putin said.
"However, if [this] remains unchanged, than the share of nuclear
power in Russia's overall electric energy production will
decrease to 13%."
"We need not only to preserve this share, but to increase it at
least up to the level of some European countries, where it
stands at 20% and higher," he added.
2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
22 Xinhua: China, Australia positive about cooperating in peaceful use of
nuclear energy
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-14 19:33:06
BEIJING, March 14 (Xinhuanet) -- China and Australia are
keen to cooperate with each other in the peaceful use of nuclear
energy on the basis of equality and reciprocity, Foreign
Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said here Tuesday.
Qin said that Sino-Australian cooperation is in the
interests of both sides and conducive to furthering friendly,
cooperative bilateral relations.
Qin, in response to a question at a regular press briefing
on the reported Sino-Australian negotiations on uranium trade
that concluded on Monday, said both sides had reiterated that
they will support international efforts for nuclear
non-proliferation.
The two sides will cooperate in the peaceful use of nuclear
energy in order to fulfill their international obligations, said
the spokesman.
As to whether the two sides will sign a uranium trade
agreement, Qin said he had not received any information yet.
Enditem
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
23 ITAR-TASS: Building new power generating sets in Far East considered
14.03.2006, 00.13
MOSCOW, March 13 (Itar-Tass) -- Rosenergoatom concern, on the
proposal of RAO UES of Russia (Unified Energy Systems of
Russia), considers a plan of building new power generating sets
in the Far East, Stanislav Antipov, the director-general of
Rosenergoatom concern, told the International Conference on
Energy Security in Moscow.
He said RAO UES of Russia works actively on plans of electricity
supply to China from Russias Far East. Antipov said the Chinese
side stated it was ready to buy electricity from Russia on a
long-term basis. Chiefs of RAO UES of Russia now determine the
companys capabilities for supplying electricity to China from
traditional sources in the region and suggested to Rosenergoatom
to work out the plan of building new nuclear power stations
Primorskaya and Dalnevostochnaya with the VVR-1000 reactors, he
said. We believe, Antipov said, we can do this if the
specific decision is made as to the cost of these plants and the
timeframe in which the construction should start.
Antipov said, There are real prospects for building new nuclear
power plants in the country and putting into operation two
nuclear power plants a year after 2009. We know how to build
and operate nuclear power plants, he said. For successful
construction of the new power generating sets at high pace we
may attract suppliers of some kinds of equipment from other
countries advanced in this area, Antipov said.
ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
24 ITAR-TASS: Putin convenes conference on nuclear power engineering
14.03.2006, 14.54
MOSCOW, March 14 (Itar-Tass) - Russian President Vladimir Putin
convened a conference in the Kremlin on Tuesday over the
development of nuclear power engineering.
The head of state, who repeatedly chaired conferences on energy
problem in general, and proclaimed energy security the main
theme of Russia's incumbent G-8 presidency, addressed the atomic
branch in such a format for the first time.
Twenty years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power plants
have become much more reliable, while prices of oil and gas have
increased dramatically.
This prompted many countries to rethink their attitude toward
nuclear power engineering.
For example, the USA is planning to boost the share of NPPs from
20 to 25 percent, while France, whose NPPs account for 75
percent of electricity, seeks to raise this indicator to 80 to
85 percent.
New NPPs will be built in eastern Europe and China. Even Iran,
which is rich in oil, is building its own nuclear power plant in
Bushehr - with Russia's assistance.
Russia, where the first nuclear power plant went on line in
1954, does not intend to lag behind the world's trends. At
present, its 31 reactors generate approximately 16 percent of
all electricity. The newest reactor at the Kalininskaya NPP was
turned on in December 2004.
Earlier this year, Putin set the task for the nuclear power
engineering to account for the production of one quarter of
electricity in the country by 2030.
In his view, nuclear power engineering is "a priority branch for
the country, that makes Russia a great power; the most ambitious
projects and progressive technologies are linked with this
branch."
"Nuclear power engineering is no longer a Cinderella, the
urgency of its development is not questioned any more, it has
become one of the most important national priorities," officials
at the Rosatom Federal Agency for Atomic Energy said.
Last year, Putin chaired a meeting of the Security Council over
energy security at which he stated that Russia must become a
leader in world power engineering. "The aspiration for
leadership in world power engineering is am ambitious task and
in its solution it is insufficient to only boost production and
exports of energy resources," the president said.
In his opinion, "Russia should become the initiator and
trendsetter in energy innovations and new technologies as well
as in the search for modern forms of conservations of resources
and minerals."
Four months ago, the head of state replaced director of the
Russian nuclear industry Alexander Rumyantsev with Sergei
Kiriyenko.
Commenting on this appointment, the president noted "the branch
is on the threshold of decisions of the organizational
character. It is a branch where Russia has an obvious
advantage."
"It is not a matter of Kiriyenko's becoming an atomic scientist,
it's a matter of organizing one of the most important branches
of Russia," Putin noted expressing the hope that "real results
will be achieved" there.
At present, Rosatom has prepared a development strategy,
according to which Russia has to build at least 40 new reactors
by 2030; i.e. it should commission at least two reactors a year.
Water-cooled 1,000 MW VVER reactors are the backbone of Russia's
nuclear power engineering. Rosatom has already drawn
requirements specification for developing a VVER-1000 + reactor,
i.e. with a rated power exceeding 1,000 megawatt.
A working group for new technologies has begun operating; the
federal programs "Nuclear Energy Complex" and on implementing
the ITER project /thermonuclear reactor/ have been submitted to
the government.
The construction of one nuclear reactor is priced on the world
market at 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars.
Budget funds alone are insufficient, and one of the ways to
raise money is to build nuclear facilities elsewhere. "We'd like
to build abroad 60 gigawatt of capacity, it's 60 power plants,"
Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said.
Russia will foremost look toward "markets in southeast Asia,
because this rapidly developing region needs more and more
electricity each year," Kiriyenko said.
At present, Russia is building three NPPs abroad: in Iran /one
reactor/, and in China and India /two reactors for each/.
On February 1, it formally applied to bid in a tender for the
construction of the Belene NPP in Bulgaria. The winner is to be
announced before the end of the 2nd quarter of this year.
Soviet specialists built 30 reactors abroad.
In early March, the state fully assumed control of
Atomstroiexport which builds NPPs abroad.
Nuclear power engineering is a rather sensitive industry in
terms of safety. No only NPPs, but also their fuel should be
under control.
On January 25, Putin came up with the initiative to set up
international nuclear centers to produce and supply nuclear
fuel, and take back the spent fuel for recycling. It would
reduce to the minimum the threat of proliferation of nuclear
technologies.
ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
25 Mos News: Putin Calls for Increase in Russias Nuclear Power Output -
MOSNEWS.COM
Image by MosNews.com
Created: 14.03.2006 16:06 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:06 MSK
MosNews
The share of nuclear power in Russias overall electricity
output should be raised to the European standard of 20 percent
or higher, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday,
March 14. Putin was speaking at a session which addressed the
issue of the future of Russias nuclear power sector.
Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, Security Council Secretary Igor
Ivanov, Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko and
Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko were also in
attendance.
Nuclear power plants will account for approximately 16 percent
of Russias total electricity production in 2006. If this trend
in the sector continues, the share of nuclear power in the
countrys total electricity output will drop to 13 percent in a
few years time, the President said. We, however, have to not
only preserve this share (of 16 percent), but to increase it, at
least to the level of some European countries where it amounts
to 20 and more percent.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
26 Journal Star: Nuclear plant reassessment means less tax money
PJStar.com -
March 14, 2006
peoria OTTAWA - The LaSalle County Board agreed Monday to a
reassessment of Exelon Corporation's nuclear plant located near
Seneca that will mean a loss of nearly $1 million in tax
revenue. -->
LaSalle County will lose nearly $1 million in deal
BY ERINN DESHINSKY OF THE JOURNAL STAR OTTAWA -
The LaSalle County Board agreed
Monday to a reassessment of Exelon Corporation's nuclear plant
located near Seneca that will mean a loss of nearly $1 million
in tax revenue.
The agreement with Exelon/Commonwealth Edison decreases the
assessed value by about $90 million.
Because of new state regulations on assessing nuclear
facilities, the company was able to drop its market value of the
plant by one-third since it no longer had to include the
equipment inside the plant as part of the market value.
The county stands to lose about $940,000 in real estate taxes
from the plant in 2006. The budget committee, however, was able
to plan for the revenue loss when finalizing the 2006 fiscal
year budget.
The company met with representatives from all the taxing bodies
last year and agreed on a value of $235 million for the plant -
a decrease from the $324 million assessment from 1998.
The county received about $15 million in real estate taxes from
the plant in 2004.
The County Board also established salaries for the zoning
director and coordinator.
LaSalle County environmental services and development director
Mike Harsted was appointed zoning director, with Mathew Stafford
as zoning coordinator.
The two began Feb. 10 and the terms will expire Nov. 30.
Harsted will make $15,000 for his new position and Stafford will
receive $5,000.
County board chairmen Glen "Joe" Dougherty also announced the
appointment of the seven-person zoning board of appeals.
Dougherty said he tried to select people who represented all
areas of the county.
Board member Jerry Hicks said the board is trying to save money
by not hiring a full-time zoning director to oversee the
county's first year of implementing county-wide zoning.
"The ordinance won't go into Effect until April, so it will be
a slow start," Hicks said. "They will be managing the process."
He said the county paid between $60,000 and $65,000 about four
years ago for a county zoning director, so having Harsted and
Stafford assist in the zoning duties will save the county money.
Erinn Deshinsky can be reached at 686-3041 or state@pjstar.com.
2006 PEORIA JOURNAL STAR, INC. ::
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1 News Plaza, Peoria, IL 61643 :: 1-309-686-3000
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Speech: New Plant Design, Certification and Licensing
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone:
301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site
No. S-06-002
Presentation Slides [PDF Icon] "NEW PLANT DESIGN, CERTIFICATION
AND LICENSING"
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery Chairman Nils J. Diaz U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Platts Conference
Washington, D.C. February 13, 2006
Good morning. Thank you for the kind introduction, and thanks to
Platts for the opportunity to present my views on Nuclear
Energy: Opportunities for Growth and Investment in North
America. Indeed, it is a pleasure to be here today, at a time
when our nation, and many other nations, have to address
national security, energy security, and economic security
holistically, and when nuclear energy generation is being
seriously considered as one of the solutions. It is always a
challenge to speak first at a large meeting dealing with a broad
range of dynamic issues, including sociopolitical, financial,
economic, energy security, and, yes, regulatory issues, every
one of them important to the potential growth and utilization of
nuclear energy. However, I noticed, with pleasure, that
Secretary Bodman will be speaking right after me. This is a
unique opportunity for me to offer short, polite, bland remarks
and pass the buck to Secretary Bodman. I would probably get away
with it too. But I wont do it.
I believe that safe, reliable, and secure nuclear energy has
been and can continue to be part of the solution to energy
security and environmental stewardship, and thus contribute to
the well-being of our people. I also believe that this next time
around, nuclear power plant deployment should be carefully
planned and key issues and interfaces resolved at the front end,
executed on budget and on schedule, with all the safety and
engineering know-how developed and learned over the last 25
years. The development, review, and potential deployment of
reactors must contain all the safety checks and balances
required by the law and demanded by the need to ensure the
protection and security of our people.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has new and difficult issues
to resolve in a short period of time to discharge well our
licensing responsibilities, while not missing a step in our
continuing safety oversight of nuclear facilities and materials.
We realize the full scope of our responsibilities, are facing
them with all our resources, and plan to do them well, and do
them openly. Therefore, I must today answer broad questions for
a broad audience.
First, where does the Commission stand overall? This Commission
clearly, deliberately, and openly set the objective that governs
our activities. The Commission stated in its Strategic Plan that
the NRCs objective is to:
Enable the use and management of radioactive materials and
nuclear fuels for beneficial civilian purposes in a manner that
protects public health and safety and the environment, promotes
the security of our nation, and provides for regulatory actions
that are open, effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
From my vantage point, I can tell you that the NRC is true to
this objective, and the agency will continue to be true to it.
To further this objective, we continue to improve the
organization, to prioritize, manage, and use resources well, and
to revisit and create ways to better implement every major
agency function. I believe the agency has achieved and continues
to achieve results that leave no doubt of the agency-wide
commitment to the objective of enabling the beneficial uses of
nuclear energy, within the proven and improving safety framework
for which we are responsible, in an effective, efficient,
realistic, and timely manner. In fact, we have the record to
prove it, and any occasional mistake or deficiency becomes
obvious because it is the exception to the rule. And when such a
mistake occurs, we take care of it.
Therefore, I do get concerned when I hear and read about
perceptions of NRC regulatory instability or lack of regulatory
predictability. I want to be completely clear on this: the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a regulatory agency with a high
degree of predictability for a given set of circumstances. But
we are not miracle workers; the agency will work well, and
better, when we have high quality inputs and, correspondingly,
well-defined processes, tasks, and schedules. Obviously, a
multitude of circumstances will define the playing field.
A lot of the buzz centers around the predictability of outcomes
from the use of 10 CFR Part 52, which contains the requirements
for Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and
Combined Licenses (COL) for Nuclear Power Plants. Outcomes
depend on many factors, and one of the key factors is the
quality of the application submitted. Timely outcomes also
depend on the planning and processes that I will discuss today.
It is true that the combined license component of Part 52 has
not yet been used. Clearly, we now have experience with early
site permits and extensive experience with design
certifications. The reality is that the staff and the Commission
also have extensive experience in performing the critical
elements of a COL review. We have learned much from these
experiences, which include safety evaluations, environmental
impact assessments, ACRS reviews, public interactions,
Federal/State/local interactions, and public hearings.
The primary purpose for establishing the new Part 52 process for
licensing nuclear power facilities was to encourage early
resolution of issues to increase regulatory predictability in
advance of major financial commitments, while maintaining the
requisite safety reviews. Yet, questions are frequently asked
about whether the use of Part 52 will provide regulatory
predictability at the COL stage. I believe that some are
questioning the regulatory predictability for new reactors
mainly because of two particular aspects of this new Part 52:
the mandatory hearing that must precede a decision to issue a
COL and the potential for a second hearing prior to fuel
loading. The NRC is established with an adjudicatory Board
consisting of legal and technical members, with the capability
and legal authority to conduct hearings and rigorous reviews of
alleged deficiencies in applications. Although the agency has
not processed a COL application and therefore has not been
through a hearing for these aspects of the Part 52 process, the
Commission and its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have
extensive experience with licensing and with adjudications for
various types of facilities. Recently, we have been conducting
mandatory hearing proceedings, and, for the most part, they have
proceeded in an organized and timely fashion. It is noteworthy
that Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Commission decisions
have consistently been upheld when challenged in courts of
appeals and the Supreme Court.
Moreover, this Commission has a record that stands out in
assuring that adjudication is fair and equitable, as well as
effective and efficient. In 1998 we issued a Policy Statement on
conduct of our hearings that set the stage for efficient conduct
of proceedings on license renewals and license transfers. We
followed that statement with a revision of our rules of practice
to improve the accessibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of
the hearing process. The Commission has provided model schedules
to guide our Boards and expedite adjudicatory proceedings for
both pending and future proceedings. It has also required the
participants to comply with NRC procedural rules. Litigating COL
adjudicatory proceedings will undoubtedly present new
possibilities for promoting both effective and efficient
resolution of issues, particularly with respect to common
issues. For example, for cases proceeding in parallel, a party
may seek, or a Board may convene, separate Licensing Boards to
resolve discrete, common issues in a consistent fashion and in
parallel with the resolution of other issues. The point here: A
final decision on an issue that is common to a number of cases
can become precedent setting, potentially reducing the need to
revisit it in future cases. Thorough and sound work by all
involved when issues are first presented will be key to take
advantage of these potential efficiencies.
Let me briefly address the potential for a second hearing. The
threshold for granting such a hearing is high. If a plant is
built in accordance with the license, then the Commission has
the capability, and in fact the obligation and the
responsibility, to allow the plant to operate. If a hearing is
granted, operation may be permitted for an interim period while
the hearing is conducted. Part 52 provides criteria and
procedures under which the Commission must and will ensure that
no frivolous means are used to create a second hearing. However,
the responsibility rests squarely on the applicants to maintain
a complete and accurate record, showing that the facility is
constructed and will be operated in accordance with the license,
to allow the NRC to confidently make the necessary findings.
A couple of personal comments. I do not mind when the NRC is
called demanding on safety, exacting and driven on security and
emergency preparedness, intrusive on oversight; or to the
contrary not sufficiently demanding in these areas. If I do not
know the answer to any of these challenges, I will check and
probe to make sure we are where we should be pursuant to the law
and Commission policy, but I dont mind being questioned. But
unpredictable? No way.
When we talk about predictability for licensing new reactors, I
believe that we need to talk about overall predictability, not
only NRCs. Predictability begins when an applicant starts to
consider an application, and extends through licensing,
construction, and operation of the facility. With the present
projected schedules, and the need to establish the requisite
infrastructure to meet those demanding schedules, resolving
significant issues at the front end becomes very important. The
industry and the NRC can and should do much better than in the
70's and 80's. Having said that, let me just emphasize that
predictability in reactor licensing is everybodys business; and
the NRC accepts its share of the responsibility. I will now turn
to how the NRC is addressing, predictably, the issue of new
reactor licensing and our internal and external expectations.
The Commission just approved a proposal to revise 10 CFR Part 52
to clarify it and enhance its usability. I know that the
proposed changes to Part 52 are extensive, and it has been
argued that some of these are marginally beneficial. However, we
can benefit from a better and clearer Part 52 that would
facilitate the upcoming safety reviews for new plants. I
encourage all stakeholders to submit their comments on the
proposed rule early so that the staff can finish its work on
this rulemaking in October 2006 and the Commission can make its
decision. What we need to do at this point is to get this
rulemaking done.
One of the planned activities for new reactor licensing is in
the area of security. The NRC has three important security
rulemakings planned or underway to codify security requirements
for power reactors. The first is the rulemaking on the design
basis threat for radiological sabotage. The proposed rule is
currently out for public comment and a final rule will be issued
later this year. The second rulemaking will amend the power
reactor security regulations in 10 CFR 73.55, 73.56, 73.57, and
Part 73 appendices to align them with the series of orders the
Commission issued following September 11, 2001, and to ensure
safety-security interface issues are properly considered in
plant operations. The Commission intends to finalize this rule
as early in calendar year 2007 as possible. Finally, the
Commissions expectations on security design for new reactor
licensing activities are to be codified in a third rulemaking by
September 2007. The expectation of the Commission is that the
lessons learned by the agency and reactor licensees pre- and
post-9/11/2001 should be considered by the vendors at the design
stage. We have learned much and I believe improvements can be
realized without major design or construction changes.
To set the stage for my next set of comments, I would like to
discuss where potential applicants are today, in the dynamic
front of new reactor applications. To date, 11 potential COL
applications have been publicly announced, distributed among the
3 major reactor vendors now competing for the
U.S. marketplace. Nine months to a year represents a schedule
for completion of any contested proceeding, which begins early
in the staff review process, as well as the mandatory hearing,
which follows completion of the staffs review.
In order to effectively review multiple COL applications in
parallel, the staff is now preparing to implement a
design-centered approach for NRCs reviews of COL applications,
to the extent possible, for as many issues as possible. This
approach involves the use, for each issue, of one review and one
position for multiple applications. It could also be called the
one-for-all approach. It is ready for use now; however, it needs
the nuclear industrys commitment. One-for-all is one thorough,
comprehensive NRC safety evaluation to be used repeatedly, as
appropriate. Although the U.S. nuclear industry has not
necessarily been endowed with oneness, the one-for-all approach
might not be too bad for those who plan to apply for COLs. Using
the design-centered approach, the NRC staff would use a single
technical evaluation to support multiple combined license
applications for the same technical area of review, as long as
the applications standardize the licensing basis to a level that
would make this approach viable. For technical review areas
amenable to this approach, the staff can complete the evaluation
for a reference case, can determine if the design proposed by
other applicants is the same as the design reviewed, and proceed
to issue the evaluation, without further review. Let me
emphasize, again, that standardization is key for this approach
to work; in fact, the term oneness comes to mind.
The design-centered approach could also be applied to parallel
reviews of a design certification application and COL
applications referencing the design. For example, NRC reviews
for the ESBWR and the EPR designs are likely to be conducted in
parallel with reviews of the first few COL applications
referencing these designs. The NRC could proceed with its review
of each design and issue a safety evaluation report with open
items, just as was done in the case of the AP1000 and earlier
designs. Using the design-centered approach, the resolution of
generic open items in the NRC safety evaluation report could be
coordinated among the vendor and the applicants for COLs
referencing the vendors design. The resolution of these generic
issues could then be incorporated into the design and included
in the rulemaking certifying the design. In this manner, they
would be available to future applicants referencing the design.
I believe that applying the design-centered approach to parallel
design certification and COL reviews, and relying on disciplined
standardization, will result in a better, more detailed, and
more thorough safety evaluation for each design. When an
applicant references a standard design certified by rulemaking,
all design matters within the scope of the design certification
rule have been resolved using a fair and equitable process and
need not be re-addressed in the COL proceeding. The
design-centered approach could also lead to a significantly
higher level of efficiency in the licensing process thereby
reducing the amount of staff resources necessary to conduct each
review. We will continue to review our funding needs to
determine what is necessary to carry out our responsibilities.
Furthermore, in the Part 52 rulemaking the Commission is
soliciting comments on an approach that would facilitate
amendments to design certification rules after completion of the
initial certification. With such a provision, a detailed
standard certified design would be able to incorporate
additional features that are generic to the design. NRC will be
predictably more efficient if industry adopts a standardized
approach.
Let me now use the AP1000 to show how a more detailed Design
Certification Rule could be beneficial to COL applicants, the
NRC, and public participants. The present AP1000 Certified
Design does not include specific design details in a few
important areas, such as instrumentation and control systems,
and control room and piping designs. This was done to allow
utilization of the rapidly changing technologies in advanced
designs; these areas are currently addressed by Design
Acceptance Criteria. The Design Acceptance Criteria are a
special set of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance
criteria to be used at the COL stage to ensure that specific
designs meet applicable regulatory requirements. Since specific
design details for these areas were not included in the AP1000
rulemaking, they would have to be addressed by each COL
application and potentially each COL hearing. Again, I believe
that if proposals to address these areas were to be standardized
to the extent practicable, their review could be conducted once
in the context of an amendment to the Design Certification Rule
to codify a design that the NRC has found acceptable. The
rulemaking could be conducted prior to or in parallel with the
review of the reference COL application and completed prior to
adjudication on the reference COL.
Amendments to Design Certification Rules and implementation of
the design-centered approach are consistent with the goal of
standardization and the safety benefits associated with such
standardization, as envisioned by the developers of Part 52 and
the Congress of the United States. It is also consistent with
the U.S. Department of Energy 2010 Initiative, which is centered
on standardization.
Clearly, I am extolling the predictability and benefits of
standardization, including increased resolution and closure of
design safety issues. I know that utility executives that have
expressed an interest in applying for a COL are also seriously
interested in standardization. I also note that rulemaking
affords the benefit of broad public participation and allows
interested parties to focus on particular areas of concern.
Could it be done differently? Of course it could, and the law
clearly says so. The NRC has the obligation to conduct licensing
reviews in the different manners outlined in Part 52, if
requested by applicants, and to do so as effectively as
possible. However, considering the number of potential
applications for new plants that are expected to use the AP1000,
the ESBWR, and the EPR, there is much appeal in an approach that
resolves specific design details for all important areas early
in the process. I also believe that early resolution of
environmental issues and emergency preparedness, prior to
submittal of the COL application, could be beneficial to the
timely completion of COL reviews. For example, this combination,
with a design-centered approach, could shorten NRCs review
schedule by about one year. Regardless, the agency needs to be
prepared to act on multiple applications using several designs
in a timely manner, using the provisions of Part 52. Once we
have reviewed multiple applications, and new applications have
been standardized, I believe that it may be possible for the NRC
to complete the reviews, including the hearings, in
approximately 24 months.
In another world, in another time, it might be different. But,
here and now, the path forward for nuclear power safety,
predictability, and growth seems clear: standardization. The
benefits of detailed certified standard designs, early site
permits or equivalent with much use of generic-to-a-design
environmental impact statements, and standard COLs should be
seriously considered.
What is my major concern today regarding a predictable schedule
for new reactor licensing? It is if and when the NRC will
receive a complete, high quality COL application.
In summary, the sociopolitical, financial, economic, technical,
and regulatory framework for reactors in this country has
changed dramatically since the last plants were designed,
licensed, and built. This is the twenty-first century, and I can
assure you that the NRC is much better at doing what it must do.
Many of the old assumptions are no longer valid. The NRC is
continuing to forge a new licensing and regulatory framework for
today, for tomorrow, and for the future. The Commission and the
staff of the NRC are meeting the challenge, indeed the demand,
to do our job well. I am proud of the people I work with day-in
and day-out, and their dedication to the safety, security, and
the well being of the people of our country, indeed proud of the
strength and stability of the institution we have forged
together.
Last revised Wednesday, February 15, 2006
*****************************************************************
28 PRN: Tritium Suit Filed By Property Owners Living Miles Away
Without Merit
PR Newswire
TITLE="http://www.exeloncorp.com">
WARRENVILLE, Ill., March 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A lawsuit
against Exelon filed Monday by a group of residents who live two
miles from tritium spills at the Braidwood Generating Station is
without merit, the company said today after its initial review of
the suit.
The plaintiffs did not live near the tritium spills, and their
lawsuit does not allege any direct environmental impact on their
property. It does not claim that their own drinking water was
contaminated by tritium or that they or anyone else suffered
personal injury as a result of the spills. Nor does it claim
these spills caused any exposure in excess of applicable
standards.
The suit seeks class-action status but specifically excludes
those owners of property directly affected by localized
groundwater contamination at the Braidwood station. Exelon has
worked closely with nearby property owners since discovering the
tritium contamination in November 2005 and has repeatedly assured
them that the company would protect them against any economic
loss.
Nearly 40 drinking water wells -- representing all private
drinking wells in the vicinity of the tritium leak -- have been
tested for tritium. Only one has shown any detectable amount of
tritium, at a level well within federal drinking water standards
and that presents no health or radiological hazard.
"The water is safe," Exelon Nuclear Vice President of Regulatory
Affairs Thomas S. O'Neill said. "We will defend this vigorously.
"We also recognize that some plant neighbors have genuine
concerns about the tritium we have detected and we are working
hard to address those concerns," O'Neill said. "We have indicated
that the leaks are unacceptable and we have undertaken a
system-wide inspection to make sure we have identified any other
instances. We have committed to a comprehensive remediation
program."
Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits a
very low level of radiation and is found in virtually all of the
earth's water. It is produced in greater concentrations in
commercial nuclear reactors and is discharged into the
environment under federal operating permits. A spill of tritiated
water more than seven years ago on top of the ground at Braidwood
eventually seeped into the groundwater and created a plume of
low-level contamination extending about 1,000 feet from the plant
property.
Exelon has submitted an interim remediation plan to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency and expects to begin cleanup work
in the next few weeks.
Federal regulatory agencies have established a rigorous system of
radiation protection standards for tritium and other substances
that are designed to protect the public. There is no evidence
that the releases caused any exposures in excess of these
standards.
Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC) is one of the nation's largest
electric utilities with approximately 5.2 million customers and
more than $15 billion in annual revenues. The company has one of
the industry's largest portfolios of electricity generation
capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the
Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon distributes electricity to
approximately 5.2 million customers in northern Illinois and
Pennsylvania and natural gas to more than 470,000 customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania. Exelon is headquartered in Chicago and
trades on the NYSE under the ticker EXC.
SOURCE Exelon Nuclear
Web Site: http://www.exeloncorp.com
Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely
responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and
conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. A United Business Mediacompany.
*****************************************************************
29 AFP: US Congress may attach conditions to nuclear deal with India -
Tue Mar 14, 1:56 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress may attach conditions for any
approval of a landmark civilian nuclear agreement with India, a
senior lawmaker said as he announced congressional hearings
later this month on the controversial deal.
"This is a complex agreement with profound implications for US
and global interests. Congress will need to take a close look at
its many provisions in order to come to an informed decision,"
said Henry Hyde, the Republican chairman of the House of
Representatives international relations committee.
Hyde had met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" />
Condoleezza Ricelast Thursday to discuss the deal, sealed on
March 3 by President George W. Bush" /> President George W.
Bushand Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a visit by
the US leader to New Delhi.
The deal gives energy-starved India access to long-denied
civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of
its nuclear reactors under international inspection.
But Congress has to amend a US law to make the deal effective.
The Bush administration has proposed 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 refused to sign the NPT and developed nuclear weapons on
its own.
Hyde and Democratic Representative Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting
record), the House international relations committee's ranking
Democrat, have agreed to introduce the agreements "enabling
legislation" at the request of the Bush administration, a joint
statement said.
But "Hyde suggested that Congress may seek conditions for its
approval," it said, without giving details.
Hearings had been set for later this month, the statement added.
Legislators are concerned that regimes like Iran" /> Iranand
North Korea" /> North Koreawill cite the US-India deal to pursue
their own nuclear weapons ambitions.
"The issues involved are complicated and technical, and it will
take some time for Congress to absorb them as we move the
agreement to fruition," Lantos said.
"I view the new strategic alliance between the worlds oldest and
largest democracies as a breakthrough, but all members of
Congress will undoubtedly wish to see the details of the
agreement before deciding how to vote," he said.
The nuclear deal also needs to be accepted by the 44-member
international Nuclear Suppliers Group to effectively end India's
status as a nuclear pariah after it first tested a nuclear
weapon three decades ago.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
30 UPI: Scientist proposes floating nuclear plants
United Press International - NewsTrack -
3/14/2006 5:08:00 AM -0500
MOSCOW, March 14 (UPI) -- A Russian expert in nuclear energy has
said that Russia can offer the world innovations in global
energy security, including floating nuclear power plants.
Mikhail Kovalchuk, director of the Kurchatov Institute, Russia's
leading nuclear energy research and development institution,
told the RIA Novosti news agency that a nuclear power plant
placed on a special floating platform or barge could be easily
transported anywhere in the world to provide energy.
Constructing nuclear power plants individually is
time-consuming, complicated and expensive, he said. However,
assembly-line production of transportable nuclear power plants
would be "a clearly controllable process, restricted in time,
which will lead to unification of nuclear-reactor parameters and
reduce expenditures," he said.
The technology should be further developed through joint efforts
with other industrialized nations, Kovalchuk said.
Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
31 NRC: NRC to Discuss Violations Involving Marcus Hook, Pa., Company
News Release - Region I - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-013
March 13, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A.
Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
15, to discuss several apparent violations identified during an
NRC inspection, as well as the firms corrective actions. The
apparent violations involved exposures exceeding regulatory
limits to employees and contractors of Epsilon Products Co. who
are not occupational radiation workers.
The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to begin at
10 a.m. at the NRC Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. It
will be open to the public for observation, and there will be an
opportunity for attendees to ask questions of the NRC staff
before the session is adjourned.
On Aug. 27 of last year, Epsilon notified the NRC that a gauge
containing radioactive material (cesium-137) had malfunctioned at
its Marcus Hook site, with its radioactive source failing to
retract to the shielded position. The gauge was installed outside
of a chemical process tank in order to monitor the buildup of
polymerized material within the tank. Subsequent radiological
surveys and interviews conducted by the company determined that
eight of 32 individual workers who cleaned the interior of the
tank between Aug. 24 and 25 received a radiation dose in excess
of 100 millirems. It is not expected that these exposures will
result in adverse health effects for the exposed individuals.
In response to the event, the NRC performed a Special Inspection
at the facility between last Aug. 30 and Jan. 17 of this year,
with the inspectors identifying six apparent violations. They
include: 1.) conduct of licensed activities such that eight
employees and contractors received doses in excess of 100
millirems in a year; 2.) dose rates in unrestricted areas not
maintained below 2 millirems in any 1 hour; 3.) failure to make
appropriate radiological surveys; 4.) failure to provide
appropriate training to an authorized user of radioactive
materials; 5.) not using a device containing licensed radioactive
material in accordance with the provisions of its registration
certificate; and 6.) failure to develop appropriate operating and
emergency operating procedures.
A millirem is a measure of exposure to radiation. The average
American is exposed to about 360 millirems of radiation exposure
each year from natural and manmade sources.
The fact that the NRC is holding a predecisional enforcement
conference does not mean the agency has determined violations
have occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,
the purpose of the March 15th meeting will be to gather
information to enable the NRC to make a decision regarding any
enforcement action.
Last revised Tuesday, March 14, 2006
*****************************************************************
32 EH Independent: Call For Nuclear Safety Regs Review
The Independent Newspaper serving the Hamptons, North Fork,
Shelter Island and East End of Long Island, Suffolk County, NY
By Kitty Merrill
Are nuclear power stations adequately protected against
potential terrorist attacks? The Committee to Bridge the Gap, a
nuclear watchdog group, thinks not. Recently East End state reps
Assemblyman Fred Thiele and Senator Ken LaValle joined with the
group to ask the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to update
safety regulations for nuclear facilities.
Design basis threat regulations estimate the types of threats a
nuclear power station must be capable of defending against, as
well as other aspects of protecting public safety and health.
Recently the Global Resource Action Center For the Environment
joined with Committee to ask the NRC to upgrade its DBT
regulations. Currently DBT law fails to reflect the type and
intensity of attacks similar to the 9/11 disaster. The regs
dont reflect plans to defend against airborne attacks, and
although most facilities are situated near bodies of water, the
regs dont reference potential waterborne attacks.
Thiele said he was concerned about the NRCs less than
aggressive approach to ensuring safety at power stations. Hes
calling for visible and impenetrable protection against attacks
by land, water, and air. LaValle noted Long Islands proximity
to the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, and emphasized the need to
make the facility secure and less vulnerable to attack.
Last month Millstone II was shut down for several days due to an
equipment malfunction.
Copyright 2005 East Hampton Independent News Co. All rights
*****************************************************************
33 Japan Times: 30 A-bomb survivors apply for radiation illness benefits
Thirty Japanese who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in 1945 applied at their local governments Tuesday to be
recognized as suffering from radiation illness.
[News photo]
Survivors of the 1945 atomic bombings watch Tuesday morning as
officials at Hiroshima City Hall accept documents pertaining to
their lawsuit demanding state recognition as radiation illness
sufferers.
The survivors, from Hiroshima and Kumamoto prefectures, filed at
Hiroshima City Hall and the Kumamoto Prefectural Government
building in the morning.
In the afternoon, hibakusha living in Tokyo and Nagasaki
Prefecture filed similar applications. If successful, the
applicants will become eligible for special medical benefits.
The filings reflect efforts on the part of the Japan
Confederation of the A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization to get
the government to improve its recognition system. The group,
also known as Hidankyo, considers the system "too stringent."
The system recognizes someone as having been exposed to
radiation if the person is confirmed as having been in or in the
vicinity of the cities of Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of
the atomic bombings, or confirmed as having visited areas near
ground zero within two weeks of the bombings.
People meeting either of these conditions is confirmed as
needing treatment due to radiation-induced illness will be
eligible to receive an individual medical allowance of 140,000
yen per month.
About 0.8 percent of the Japanese confirmed with wartime
radiation exposure are recognized as suffering from radiation
illness.
"Many atomic bomb survivors are contracting diseases, and
fundamental changes in the system are absolutely necessary to
help all of these people," Hidankyo said in a statement Tuesday.
"Cancers are rapidly increasing among (hibakusha) regardless of
how far they were away from the hypocenters," the statement
said. "The fact that the victims are still under the threat of
death 60 years from the atomic bombings shows the inhumanity of
nuclear weapons."
Hidankyo said further applications are planned in April and May,
with the total number of hibakusha seeking official recognition
expected to surpass 100.
As of the end of last March, 266,598 people possessed A-bomb
survivor booklets -- a certificate that formally recognizes
their exposure to radiation.
The Japan Times: March 15, 2006 (C)
All rights reserved [ width=]
*****************************************************************
34 Pacific Magazine: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Ebon Senator On Nuclear Legacy
Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific
Wed: Mar 15, 2006
MARSHALL ISLANDS: Foreign Secretary Thanks Secretary Norton
And Defends War Contribution
A transcript of the statement made by Ebon Senator and Minister
of Resources and Development John Silk on nuclear issues during
the Nitijela session of March 14. Mr. Speaker,
This is a story of people forced into exile. And it is a story
of a child born into exile. It is, Mr. Speaker, our story
Mr. Speaker, March 7, 2006 marks the 60th anniversary of the
removal of the people of Bikini from their ancestral home, and
the beginning of 60 years of exile and counting. More than half
a century ago, there were only 167 of them; today, they number
over three thousand, and are scattered throughout the Marshall
Islands and the United States. Today, as I speak, less than half
of the original 167 are still alive. Some of them have been
lucky enough to go back home for a temporary visit. But for all
of them, time is fast running out.
Mr. Speaker, I have a granddaughter who is part Bikinian. She is
a descendant of the original 167. She and her parents have never
been to Bikini. And like her father, and her paternal
grandparents, she is also in exile.
Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter is only 2 years old. She is a
child of the 21st Century but yet an orphan of the 20th Century.
For our customs and traditions dictate Mr. Speaker that every
Marshallese born is identified with the land of his/her
ancestors. She has no access to the lands of her father. On that
day of her birth, a torch was passed and received. Innocent in
birth, she represents a new generation of Bikinians. A
generation forced to inherit the legacy of the nuclear testing,
and to carry the torch of a nuclear exile.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few privileged Marshallese who have
visited Bikini Atoll. And should I live to see my granddaughter
grow up to be a mature young woman, then this is what I will
tell her about the ancestral home of her father:
I will tell her Mr. Speaker, that the atoll of Bikini is indeed
a very beautiful island;
I will also try to impress upon her Mr. Speaker, that all of
Bikini Atoll is sacred. For I will tell her that every weto,
every coral head, every tree and grove, has been hollowed by
some fond memory or some sad experience of her people;
I will also tell her Mr. Speaker, that even a grain of sand, or
an empty sea shell that washes ashore with the tide, brings with
it, memories of past events connected with the fate of her
people;
I will also tell her Mr. Speaker, that some parts of the land of
her ancestors have been vaporized and scattered into the wind as
a result of 23 nuclear and thermo-nuclear explosions;
And yes, sadly Mr. Speaker, I will also tell her that even the
ashes of her ancestors are forever in exile.
Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter represents a new generation of
Bikinians who are forever cursed by the events of March 7, 1946.
For them and their parents generation, their right to swim and
sail the lagoon, and to walk the beaches, and the privilege to
eat the fruits of the land, and to wash it down with the sweet
juices of a coconut may never come to pass.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the fact that history has not
been kind to her and her ancestors, it is my solemn promise that
my granddaughter shall not, nor will she ever, hold the present
generation of the American people personally responsible for
what their forefathers did or failed to do to her people. I
submit that they, as much as we, had no control or say over the
politics of the Cold War and the consequences of the nuclear
arms race. However, this generation of Americans, born at the
dawn of the Cold War, is the inheritors of the riches and of the
most powerful country in the world. And if indeed ...The United
States has no closer relationship with any nation in the world
than it has through the Compact of Free Association with the
RMI, as alluded to by US Ambassador Greta Morris, then pray,
Mr. Speaker, that my plea on behalf of my granddaughter and her
generation, to Ambassador Morris and her generation, may not
fall on deaf ears. Thus I pray then Mr. Speaker that this
generation of Americans will have the courage and the will to
rise above the past and make a difference, rather than to allow
itself to remain controlled by the past, and make excuses.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to know what the future holds for
my granddaughter and the children of her generation. However,
our generation (Marshallese and Americans alike), can and must
do our part to bring closure to the legacy of the nuclear
testing. I believe that together, we can sow the seeds of
respect and mutual understanding between our two peoples, and
bequeath to our grandchildren the promise of a better future,
and leave with them, an investment for their children.
Mr. Speaker, my granddaughters plea today is really a plea on
behalf of all Marshallese. We are indeed all Bikinians, and we
are indeed all Marshallese. And so, Mr. Speaker, should we die
before the work is done, let your records show my granddaughter
what we said on this day, the 60th anniversary of her peoples
exile. And should her turn come to depart the land of the
living, I pray that she will have passed to the land of her
ancestors in peace, knowing that all is well.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my granddaughter,
Kommol.
- Publisher Floyd K. Takeuchi Tel: 808-534-7522 Fax: 808-537-9522
EDITORIAL
- Editor-in-Chief Samantha Magick Tel: (61) 2 9571-1595 Cell:
(61) 439-485-179
-Managing Editor, Web Richard F. Coleman Tel: 808-534-7509 Fax:
808-537-9522
ADVERTISING
- Associate Publisher & Advertising Director Florence Betham Tel:
(808) 534-7525 Fax: (808) 537-9522
- Hawaii/US Account Executive Trisha Finefeuiaki Tel: (808)
534-7523 Fax: (808) 537-9522
- Guam/Micronesia Sales Representative Edward Quitugua Tel: (671)
637-7609
CIRCULATION
- Traffic & Circulation Manager Dolly Lindo Tel: 808-534-7584
Fax: 808-537-9522
Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin
Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003
PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices
at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone
(808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine,
P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail
Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin
Communications Inc. For more information contact
*****************************************************************
35 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada governor not interested in replacing Norton
Today: March 14, 2006 at 17:12:5 PST
By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - President Bush may be looking for a
Westerner to replace outgoing Interior Secretary Gale Norton -
but Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn isn't interested in the job.
"He hasn't been contacted and he's not interested," Guinn
spokesman Steve George said Tuesday, after relaying questions
about the cabinet post to the Republican governor who's visiting
troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait this week.
"Every time he's asked about another career, he says, 'I'm
looking forward to retirement. This will be my third retirement.
I'm ready,'" George added.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said the Bush
administration is "looking west" for a replacement for Norton,
who was popular with industry but criticized by many
environmentalists who accused her of sacrificing the environment
to speed up energy development.
Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett will run the department
until Bush names a replacement.
Guinn, elected to the first of his two terms in 1998 in his
first bid for public office, has said he's "absolutely not"
looking at a bid for another federal or state office. He'll be
70 when he steps down as governor at the end of the year.
Guinn is wrapping up his final year as the state's chief
executive by starting a detailed budget draft that the next
governor will inherit. He also is dealing with hundreds of
appointments to boards, commissions and other posts, and is
trying to improve coordination of various health care services.
Guinn has said he and first lady Dema Guinn also plan a tour
that will take them around the state next summer.
While in office, the moderate Republican sought to overhaul
government agency operations, diversify Nevada's
casino-dependent economy and revamp budgeting and tax
collections.
He also pushed for a major student scholarship program and
spearheaded the biggest tax increase in state history before
seeking a $300 million rebate to return excess revenues to
Nevada residents.
Guinn also continued the state's long-standing opposition to
federal efforts to locate the nation's nuclear waste dump at
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
36 BBC: Risk of Dounreay particles 'low'
Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
[Dounreay]
Research has been carried out on Sandside Bay near Dounreay
Risk to human health from nuclear fuel particles found on
Sandside Bay near the Dounreay is 'low', according to environment
agency Sepa.
The study said the chances of the public being exposed to a
particle was 'one in a million per year'.
The Health Protection Agency, who Sepa commissioned to do the
research, said particles found so far on the Caithness beach were
relatively low in activity.
But Sepa warned fragments of greater activity had been found
offshore.
About 50 particles have been found on Sandside since 1984.
Sepa commissioned the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to study the
risks of being exposed to a particle and the chances of coming
into contact with one.
Dog walkers
Research considered the most likely groups to encounter the tiny
fragments - including people digging for bait, dog walkers and
children playing on Sandside beach.
The report said: "The results indicate that the probability of
encountering a fuel fragment on Sandside beach is less than one
in a million per year."
The odds of encountering one of the larger particles rose to less
than one in 80 million.
Dr Paul Dale, of Sepa, said a person would need to have one of
the particles found so far on the beach on their skin for seven
hours for it to cause a burn.
The wound would be expected to heal within one to two weeks.
Dr Dale said: "The particle would have to remain on the same area
of skin and not move at all or be washed off for skin burn to
happen."
He said larger particles than those discovered on the beach lie
on the seabed offshore, but there was no evidence of them washing
onshore.
Dr Dale said Sepa would continue to monitor the situation.
Should a particle be detect on the beach with higher activity
than those discovered there is the potential for short-term
visible effects to occur through skin contact SEPA
In a statement marking the publication of the research on
Tuesday, Sepa said: "Particles found on Sandside Beach to date
are relatively low in activity and any affect on human health is
likely to be short term.
"Should a particle be detected on the beach with higher activity
than those discovered there is the potential for short-term
visible effects to occur through skin contact."
Dounreay site operators, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority, said: "We welcome the report.
"It is obviously an important piece of work and another piece of
the jigsaw for our consultation on the long term management of
particles in the environment."
The options to deal with particles range from doing nothing to
dredging the seabed.
*****************************************************************
37 reviewjournal.com: Mercury storage worries some state officials
Mar. 14, 2006
Substance headed to Hawthorne
By ED VOGEL REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- Although the Nevada government cannot stop the
federal government from shipping highly toxic mercury to
Hawthorne, state officials said Monday they will seek assurances
it is transported properly and stored safely.
"We have a natural skepticism on what the federal government
tells us," said Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas.
"They have told us so many times things are really safe and yet
they don't have a record of being safe."
Titus chairs the Legislative Committee on Natural Treasures,
which met Friday in Hawthorne. Members received a report from
the Department of Defense on its plans to store 4,400 metric
tons of liquid mercury at the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Deport.
The mercury is now held in three locations around the Eastern
United States. More than half is stored near the town of
Hillsborough, N.J., where residents sought its removal because
of health and safety concerns.
Allen Biaggi, director of the state Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, said Nevada has been unable to block the
shipments which are likely to begin early next year.
He expects that hundreds of trucks will bring the mercury to
Hawthorne, about 130 miles south of Reno. The mercury will be
contained in metal half-gallon flasks placed in 30-gallon steel
drums. Once in Hawthorne, the drums will be placed on pallets in
a warehouse inside the depot. Eventually they will be placed in
an ammunition bunker, about four miles from Walker Lake.
Titus said the water table varies under the ammunition depot and
she is concerned about mercury leaks contaminating the lake.
"These will be very strong vessels, but in a catastrophic event
they could be breached," Biaggi added.
But Lt. Col. John Summers, the commander of the depot, said
multiple barriers are being designed to prevent a leakage of
mercury ever escaping the bunker. The water table is 200 feet
below the bunker and monitoring wells are located throughout the
depot.
"I understand their concern about Nevada becoming a dumping
ground for contaminants," he said. "If you go back to the '40s
and '50s there were some unwise actions. But the Department of
Defense has become a better steward of the land."
Biaggi noted that the Environmental Commission just passed
tougher regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines. The
state's only "superfund" site is the Carson River, contaminated
from mercury used in gold mining in the 1860s, he added.
Residents are warned against eating fish from the river.
Titus said the state Legislature needs to add mercury to its
list of hazardous materials so that special precautions will be
taken in transportation.
"This is an element that cannot be destroyed," she said. "It
gets in the food chain, in the environment and causes a lot of
health problems."
She added the mercury containers must be inspected frequently
for leaks upon arrival in Hawthorne. Current plans call for
inspections to become less frequent the longer the mercury
remain in the ammunition depot.
Though the government talks only about "storing" mercury in
Hawthorne, Biaggi said there is no market for the material and
it probably would remain there for centuries.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
38 reviewjournal.com: Porter cancels Yucca meeting
Mar. 14, 2006
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee on Monday canceled plans for a
nuclear waste hearing next week that its chairman was trying to
hold at Yucca Mountain.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., had planned to couple the March 23
hearing with a tour of the work site for the planned waste
repository.
But Porter, chairman of the federal workforce and agency
organization subcommittee, scrapped the hearing after logistics
proved complicated, spokesman T.J. Crawford said.
The subcommittee was seeking to hold the public event on the
secured government reservation 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas,
raising issues of transportation and access for members of the
public and the media, Porter and DOE officials had said.
Instead, Porter will hold a news conference in Las Vegas that
day to release a new Government Accountability Office report on
Yucca Mountain, Crawford said.
Without the Yucca Mountain backdrop, "There is no point in
rushing the actual hearing itself," Crawford said.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
39 LA Daily News: Lockyer joins suit on field-lab cleanup
Article Launched: 03/14/2006 12:00 AM PST
Brief supports foes of decontamination plan
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
Concerned that too much radioactive and toxic contamination
could be left in the Simi Hills, state Attorney General Bill
Lockyer has filed a legal brief in support of a lawsuit
challenging the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab's former
nuclear research area.
Lockyer's involvement pressures the U.S. Department of Energy to
re-evaluate its plan to decontaminate the site. Critics charge
that the DOE has broken promises to thoroughly clean the site
and say the federal agency's plan would leave 99 percent of the
tainted soil on hilltop property.
Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling said the attorney general
decided to get involved and push for a more thorough
environmental study because the DOE plans to release the site
for unrestricted use, which could include building houses on the
land.
"If ever there was a case to push for a full environmental
analysis, this is one," Schilling said. "It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to know you have to do a full environmental
analysis on a site that has had nuclear activity before you turn
it over to another use."
Department of Energy project manager Mike Lopez said he couldn't
comment because of the ongoing lawsuit.
In the past, DOE officials have said they are following all
state and federal safety laws and have rejected charges that the
site will be dangerous. Also, the agency was concerned that the
lawsuit would slow down the lab cleanup.
Lockyer joins the Natural Resources Defense Council,
the city of Los Angeles and longtime lab watchdog group Committee
to Bridge the Gap, which sued the DOE in 2004 over the lab
decontamination.
"The California Attorney General's Office understands this is an
issue of statewide importance," said James Birkelund, senior
project attorney at the NRDC. "If the Bush administration can
ignore the law here then they can get away with it at other
sites across the country."
The 2,800-acre field lab sits in the Simi Hills in Ventura
County, near the Los Angeles city line. From the 1940s through
1988, the federal government conducted nuclear energy testing on
a 90-acre section of the lab called the Energy Technology
Engineering Center.
ETEC was home to 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced a
partial meltdown in 1959. Nuclear research ended and the Energy
Department began its self-regulated decontamination in 1988.
Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746
kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com
Copyright © 2006
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
40 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuke dump rules: Base classifications of nuclear
waste on risk
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 03/13/2006 11:12 PM MST
It shouldn't have taken the guys who have memorized the
periodic table to figure out that the current system for
regulating low-level nuclear waste doesn't make sense. But thank
goodness they did.
A panel from the National Academies of Sciences has
recommended that low-activity radioactive wastes be managed
according to the degree of risk they pose to human health. The
current system is based more on where the wastes were generated
than on their radiological risks.
The reason for this oddball system is that it grew up
piecemeal as various nuclear industries (weapons, electric
power, medicine) developed over time. Though the science panel
points out that the current regulatory scheme is adequate to
ensure safety, it is complex, inconsistent and does not address
risks of various low-activity wastes systematically. It also is
inefficient.
If you have ever tried to figure out the different classes of
nuclear waste that are entombed at the EnergySolutions landfill
(formerly Envirocare) in Tooele County, you understand the
difficulty. More than a few conscientious Utah voters waded into
this swamp in 2002, when a citizen initiative appeared on the
ballot to change the tax and regulatory scheme for nuclear waste
in Utah. That initiative failed.
The issue surfaced in a different form a year later when
Envirocare attempted to import waste from Fernald, Ohio, that
some experts said was more radioactive than Envirocare's Utah
license allowed. That controversy, caused by federal legislation
that reclassified the waste, was the poster child for exactly
what the science panel is talking about. The radioactive
properties of the waste had not changed; only its classification
had. In the end, the waste never came to Utah.
The science panel recommends a four-tiered plan for reform
that relies heavily on federal and state agencies cooperating to
rewrite rules. In some cases, federal and state law may have to
be modified.
The panel says that change will not be easy. But it is
critical to Utah, which is home to the only commercial low-level
nuclear waste facility on private land in the nation. Another is
proposed. Utah's regulators, political leaders and congressional
delegation should push the reform effort.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
41 News & Star: Nuclear debate for west Cumbria
Published on 14/03/2006
By Roger Lytollis
AROUND one in five west Cumbrian jobs depends on Sellafield.
Ten-thousand people work there and thousands more are employed
in associated businesses.
The importance of the nuclear industry to the area’s economy
cannot be denied.
What is up for debate is whether a new nuclear power station
will be built at the Sellafield reprocessing site, and whether
west Cumbria should be embracing the prospect or looking to
lessen its reliance on the nuclear industry.
The government’s Energy Review is widely expected to pave the
way for a new generation of nuclear stations.
Having been part of the government’s nuclear family for more
than 50 years, Sellafield would naturally expect to be a
possible site for a new power station.
This theory was supported last week at a meeting of Cumbria
county councillors in Kendal. Consultants told the council that
Sellafield was a “viable option for a nuclear new-build,
although not an optimal one”.
They predicted that a new reactor could be producing power by
2016, creating between 600 and 1,000 jobs with another 2,000
people involved in building the 3 billion plant.
The consultants were appointed by councillors to examine the
pros and cons of siting a nuclear power station at Sellafield,
as well as how to address the impact of decommissioning at
Sellafield.
The former reactor at Sellafield, Calder Hall, is currently
being decommissioned following its closure in 2003. As the
decommissioning process winds down, big job losses are expected
over the next few years.
But Tim Heslop, Cumbria County Council’s spokesman on nuclear
issues, does not believe the county should automatically embrace
the prospect of a new nuclear power station.
He told the News & Star: “It isn’t just a simple thing of
‘Grab it!’ First of all the government’s got to make a
decision whether we’re going to have a nuclear future.
That’s not for Cumbria to decide.
“We mustn’t be fobbed off with a new-build power station and
then nothing else. I think if we get a new power station
there’s a danger that people will say: ‘That’s enough for
Cumbria.’
“The west Cumbrian economy needs to be diverse. A nuclear
power station, once built, would employ 600 people, maximum. In
the next few years we’re faced with losing 8,000 jobs.”
Councillor Heslop feels there are also practical issues to be
overcome before Sellafield could be considered a prime site, and
that these could be overcome by bringing other industries to
west Cumbria.
“Sellafield would need a new connection to the National Grid.
We’ve never produced a lot of nuclear power at Sellafield and
the existing connection isn’t big enough for a modern nuclear
power station.
“If we’re going to have one [a new nuclear power station] I
think it would be more likely to be at Chapelcross than
Sellafield.
“There’s no reason why you can’t put a nuclear power
station almost anywhere. It would make more sense to put it in
the south east because that’s where most of the energy is
used. The further you transfer power, the more you lose along
the way.
“If we are going to put it here we should be looking at having
other industries in the area for Sellafield to send the power
to.”
Rosie Mathisen is nuclear opportunities manager for West Lakes
Renaissance, the urban regeneration company for Furness and west
Cumbria. She agrees that nuclear power should be part of a more
diverse west Cumbrian economy.
“It’s a balance. We’ve got a really strong nuclear base
and expertise and we also want to build from that into other
areas. We’ve had dependency for hundreds of years on one
industry after another.
“A new nuclear power station could be part of a range of
transforming projects.
“It’s recognised that there has been under-investment in
west Cumbria on all fronts: hospitals, schools, housing,
transport. We were talking about these things before a new power
station was mentioned. That’s not the be all and end all.
“Getting the infrastructure right is a key part of being an
area that companies want to invest in long term.
“New companies are coming into the area on the nuclear
clean-up side. If you can provide the right conditions, there
are opportunities for companies to keep a presence here in the
longer term.
“Investing in infrastructure can help Cumbria be seen as a
nuclear asset rather than a liability, as it has sometimes been
seen in the past. New nuclear build is much cleaner and more
efficient.”
But not everyone is convinced that Sellafield, or anywhere else,
should be home to a new nuclear power station. Friends of the
Earth spokesman Neil Verlander told the News & Star: “We think
the government can meet all its targets by a variety of measures
including renewables and carbon-based fuels.
“Nuclear power has so many problems it should not be an
option. There is a future for the nuclear industry, but that
should be in cleaning up the mess rather than making any more.”
NUCLEAR KNOW-HOW
- Construction began at Calder Hall in Cumbria in 1953 on the
UK’s first commercial nuclear power station.
- Calder Hall was connected to the national grid in 1956, thus
becoming the first nuclear power station in the world to provide
electricity commercially.
- The reactors at Calder Hall were a prototype of the Magnox gas
cooled reactor.
- A second prototype Magnox station at Chapelcross in Dumfries
and Galloway was switched to the national grid in 1959.
- Today, nuclear energy supplies more than 16 per cent of the
world’s electricity and 31 countries use nuclear energy to
generate at least some of their electricity.
- About 10,500 reactor years of operational experience have been
accumulated since the 1950s by the world’s 440 nuclear power
reactors.
*****************************************************************
42 DOE: U.S. and Kazakhstan Strengthen Energy Ties During Secretary Bodmans Visit
March 14, 2006
Meets with President Nazarbayev to Discuss Regional Energy
Security and Cooperation on Nonproliferation Efforts
ASTANA , KAZAKHSTAN - U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
today continued his four-nation visit in Astana, Kazakhstan. In
Astana, the Secretary discussed opportunities for long-term
stable development of the energy sector in Kazakhstan and sought
to strengthen ties between the two countries. Secretary Bodman
met with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev,
U.S. business leaders in Kazakhstan, and other senior government
officials to promote areas of mutual cooperation.
"Kazakhstan
has been an important partner for the U.S. in energy trade and
on nonproliferation efforts, and I thanked President Nazabayev
for his cooperation," Secretary Bodman said. "Kazakhstan has a
critical role to play in advancing global energy security,
especially in this region, and we look forward to working with
them to expand energy infrastructure and promote a transparent
and stable investment climate that attracts foreign investors."
Secretary Bodman's discussions with President Nazarbayev
included encouraging Kazakhstan to take a leadership role in
regional energy development, concluding negotiations to transport
Kazakh oil through the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and ensuring
that an open and stable investment climate exists to further
attract foreign capital.
Secretary Bodman also thanked President Nazarbayev for his
country's support in both Afghanistan and Iraq and in the global
war on terror and noted his leadership on issues such as nuclear
non-proliferation and ethnic and religious tolerance.
In addition to meeting with President Nazarbayev, Secretary
Bodman met with other Kazakhstan government officials including
Deputy Prime Minister Karim Masimov, Minister of Industry and
Trade Vladimir Shkolnik, Minister of Energy & Mineral Resources,
Bakhtykozha Izmukhambetov and Minister of Finance Natalya
Korzhova.
Secretary Bodman discussed the mutual benefits of bilateral
energy cooperation and energy trade under the U.S.-Kazakhstan
Energy Partnership.
Secretary Bodman also met with U.S. private sector
representatives and discussed current business operations and new
investment opportunities, continued trade expansion, and the
importance of a predictable and market-oriented investment
climate in Kazakhstan.
Secretary Bodman arrived in Kazakhstan after visiting Pakistan
where he took part in high-level meeting to discuss ways that the
U.S. and Pakistan can increase cooperation on energy-related
issues.
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 |
*****************************************************************
43 komo news: Feds Challenge Ban On Waste Shipments To Hanford
1-TV-TIPS-KOMO
RICHLAND, WASH. - The federal government has once again
challenged the state of Washington's authority to bar shipments
of certain types of radioactive waste to the Hanford nuclear
reservation owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
In 2003, the state sued the federal government to bar shipments
of offsite waste to Hanford, fearing the trash would be stranded
at the southcentral Washington site on the banks of the Columbia
River.
A federal judge in 2005 gave the state authority over mixed
transuranic waste, which is waste that has been contaminated by
both plutonium, making it radioactive, and hazardous chemicals.
Then, earlier this year, the Department of Energy settled the
lawsuit by agreeing to halt all shipments of low-level waste,
which is radioactive but does not contain plutonium.
The agreement came after a flawed environmental review surfaced.
The Energy Department agreed to halt shipments of low-level
waste until a new environmental review is completed.
However, the federal government has now appealed the judge's
ruling on mixed transuranic waste to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.
In arguments last year in U.S. District Court, state and federal
attorneys agreed Congress had given the Energy Department
authority to dispose of mixed transuranic waste without treating
it. That's an exception to federal law requiring treatment of
hazardous waste before it's disposed of by burial.
The state contends the exemption does not cover storage of mixed
transuranic waste at Hanford but at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico, where the waste is slated for eventual
burial. Untreated mixed transuranic waste may be safely disposed
of at WIPP, but that does not mean it can be safely stored for
years at Hanford, the state said.
The government countered that the mixed-waste exemption covered
storage as well as disposal.
The judge agreed with the state after studying the legislative
history of the exemption. He ruled that the storage prohibitions
apply to mixed transuranic waste already at Hanford and that
intended for shipment there.
Established as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to
create the atomic bomb, Hanford is now the nation's most
contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total
$50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be completed by
2035.
This site contains copyrighted material of (KOMO RADIO-TV) which
*****************************************************************
44 Hanford News: CH2M Hill Hanford honored for tank system project
This story was published Sunday, March 12th, 2006
By the Herald staff
An 11-year effort by CH2M Hill Hanford Group to upgrade
Hanford's double-shell tank system to meet modern environmental
regulations has been named Project of the Year by the Columbia
River Basin Chapter of the Project Management Institute.
The double-shell tanks hold millions of gallons of radioactive
waste emptied from leak-prone older tanks until the waste can be
transferred and treated for permanent disposal.
The project included laying more than 14 miles of transfer
pipes, removing 13 underground concrete structures and upgrading
35 underground concrete vaults.
Workers had to wear supplied-air respirators for the last two
years of the project and often worked in old, underground
facilities that were not designed to be upgraded.
Work was completed in late 2005.
The award was presented Tuesday in Pasco in recognition of the
project's management excellence and outstanding project team
performance.
The runners-up were Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's
project called Marine Research Operations Seawall and Pier
Repair and Lockheed Martin Information Technology's Capability
Maturity Model Integrated Level 5 Certification.
2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
45 Hanford News: TRIDEC leaders give upbeat report
This story was published Saturday, March 11th, 2006
By Jeff St. John, Herald staff writer
With new employers moving into town, accolades for its high-tech
and business-friendly atmosphere and winning four-year status for
its Washington State University branch campus, the Tri-Cities had
a lot to celebrate Friday at the Tri-City Industrial Development
Council's annual meeting.
But as Carl Adrian, TRIDEC president, said, "Our work on higher
education has just begun."
And securing a renewal of the Battelle Memorial Institute's
contract to run Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will be a
key part of that work, Battelle Chief Executive Carl Kohrt told
an audience of about 400 at the Three Rivers Convention Center
in Kennewick.
In responding to the U.S. Department of Energy's announcement
last month that it would require Columbus, Ohio-based Battelle
to compete for its PNNL contract for the first time in its
40-year history, Kohrt said he understood DOE's request.
"The decision was not unexpected," he said, and Battelle has "a
strong team and a solid game plan" for winning the bid.
"We welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to DOE that no other
contractor - I repeat, no other contractor - can match
Battelle's effectiveness and efficiency in operating" PNNL,
Kohrt said.
PNNL plays an important role in the Tri-Cities' plans for higher
education - particularly its partnership with WSU Tri-Cities in
the $24 million Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering
Laboratory to be built this year.
And the presence of PNNL's world-class scientists and technical
resources have been an important part of the success of a bill
passed by the Washington Legislature this session that would
allow WSU Tri-Cities to admit freshmen and sophomores beginning
in fall 2007. That bill is waiting for Gov. Chris Gregoire's
signature.
"We're also pleased to be part of your four-year university in
the Tri-Cities," Kohrt said, and "Battelle will do everything it
can, now and in the future, to help with that success."
With an annual budget of about $730 million and 4,200 employees,
PNNL is also the Tri-Cities largest employer and an important
anchor for post-Hanford economic growth.
Kohrt laid out Battelle's plans for continued research into
nanotechnology, alternative energy, energy conservation and
biological and medical science, as well as its work for the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
He estimated PNNL economic development programs have brought
1,100 jobs to the Tri-Cities in the past 10 years.
But he added, "That's not even close to what we'd like to be
able to do, and what you should expect."
Adrian, TRIDEC president, noted the various successes the
Tri-Cities saw over the last year, including Amazon.com's
decision to locate a call center in Kennewick that now employs
more than 150 and could expand to 400 over the coming years.
A letter-writing campaign organized by TRIDEC's air service task
force also convinced Horizon Air to lower its fares from
Tri-Cities Airport to Portland and Seattle by an average of 37
percent, though Adrian joked, "Fares are now so good that you
can't get a seat."
TRIDEC board chairman Fran Forgette noted that the Tri-Cities
has been lauded for its good business climate and highly skilled
work force in a number of magazines and surveys.
On the higher education front, Forgette presented Frank Armijo,
vice chairman of TRIDEC's higher education committee, with a
tongue-in-cheek "overachiever award," consisting of a red
plastic apple mounted on a trophy stand.
2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 Hanford News: Ban on waste shipments challenged
This story was published Tuesday, March 14th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The Department of Justice is again challenging the state of
Washington's authority to bar shipments of radioactive waste
from being sent to Hanford as well as its authority over waste
already there.
The federal government has appealed a 2005 federal court ruling
that gave the state authority over mixed transuranic waste,
which often is waste mixed with plutonium that also contains
hazardous chemicals. The waste can take thousands of years to
decay to safe radiation levels.
The ruling gave the state the right to prohibit the Department
of Energy from shipping mixed transuranic waste to the Hanford
nuclear reservation and triggered a requirement that DOE meet a
schedule for getting mixed transuranic waste at Hanford
certified for shipment to a permanent repository in New Mexico.
The Department of Justice has not discussed on what grounds it
is appealing that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The state sued DOE in 2003 and expanded the suit in 2004 to
prevent it from shipping most types of radioactive waste to
Hanford. DOE settled the suit early this year after it
discovered that an environmental study had errors.
DOE agreed to stop shipping most types of radioactive wastes to
Hanford until a new environmental study is prepared. DOE had
proposed shipping enough low-level radioactive waste that could
fill up to 410,000 drums holding 55 gallons each, plus
transuranic waste that would fill up to 7,500 drums, according
to the state.
However, before the suit was settled, the state already had won
one ruling in the case on summary judgment. It's that January
2005 ruling over mixed transuranic waste that the federal
government is appealing.
In January 2005 a spokeswoman for the Washington State
Department of Ecology described the ruling as "a really
incredible win for the state."
The ruling made clear that Washington and other states have
authority over mixed transuranic waste, which would include
putting restrictions on accepting shipments.
The federal government had planned to send transuranic waste
from other DOE sites to Hanford to allow early closure of those
cleanup sites and to eliminate the need to develop
characterization facilities for the waste at those sites.
The long-term plan was to then ship the waste from Hanford to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, an underground
repository in the New Mexico desert, where it would be
permanently stored.
But state officials have been concerned the waste might become
stranded at Hanford.
That's because WIPP has not agreed to accept the most
radioactively hot of the transuranic waste, although DOE is
going through that regulatory process.
In addition, Hanford already has enough waste it suspects is
transuranic to fill 75,000 drums, and the state is leery of
bringing in more waste while much of that waste has not been
disposed of yet. The waste is left from the past production of
plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program and more
recent efforts to clean up contamination at Hanford.
In arguments in U.S. District Court in 2005, state and federal
attorneys agreed Congress had given DOE authority to dispose of
mixed transuranic waste without treating it. That's an exception
to federal law requiring treatment of hazardous waste before
it's disposed of by burial.
But the exemption does not cover storage of mixed transuranic
waste at Hanford rather than WIPP, the state argued. Mixed
transuranic waste may be safe to dispose of in untreated form at
WIPP, but that does not mean it is safe to store untreated for
years at sites like Hanford, the state said.
The federal government countered that the exemption for mixed
waste covered not just disposal, but also storage.
The district court judge agreed with the state after studying
the legislative history of the exemption. He ruled that storage
prohibitions apply to mixed transuranic waste already at Hanford
and those intended to be shipped here.
2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford
FR Doc E6-3592
[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices] [Page 13112] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14mr06-58]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Hanford. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, April 6, 2006. 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Friday, April 7,
2006. 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hotel, 304 Southeast Nye Avenue, Pendleton,
Oregon 97801. Phone Number: (541) 276-6111. FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Olds, Federal Coordinator, Department
of Energy Richland Operations Office, 2440 Stevens Drive, P.O.
Box 450, H6-60, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 376-8656; Fax:
(509) 376-1214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda: Hanford's 2008 Budget Submittal.
Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement.
Office of River Protection Integration.
Contracting Strategy.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Five-Year Plan.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact Erik Olds' office at
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available by writing to Erik Olds' office at the address or
telephone number listed above.
Issued at Washington, DC on March 8, 2006.
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-3592 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
48 Rocky Mountain News: Judge won't let lawyers question Flats juror
March 14, 2006
A federal judge has refused to let lawyers for operators of the
former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant question a juror who
left in distress after two days of deliberation in the recent
class-action lawsuit against them.
Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane, in an order issued
Monday, said lawyers for Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell
International Corp. had agreed after the juror left on Jan. 25
that the remaining 10 jurors could return a valid verdict if
they voted at least 8-2 on either side in answering the numerous
questions on the verdict form.
The lawyers' allegations, after they lost the case, that some
jurors may have bullied others about their votes "reveals a
fundamental cynicism regarding the jury process and a
willingness to impugn the character of the remaining jurors
utterly belied by the circumstances of this case," Kane wrote.
He said the law prohibits interviews with jurors about their
mental processes during deliberations. Jurors can be questioned
only about whether external influences such as newspaper
articles had been brought to their attention during the
deliberations, he said.
David Bernick of Chicago, lead trial attorney for Dow and
Rockwell in the case, said the defendants will appeal Kane's
ruling, along with others with which they disagree.
"It is unfortunate that we cannot have a process that's designed
to find out the real facts concerning whether this jury
deliberated in accordance with the court's instructions,"
Bernick said. "We asked to have the court conduct an inquiry at
the time that (the juror who left in distress) was discharged,"
Bernick said. "That request was turned down, and now what the
court has found is that there's not going to be any inquiry
after the fact either."
The jury's verdict, announced Feb. 14 after a four-month trial
and 18 days of deliberations, awarded almost $354 million to
owners of about 12,000 parcels of land east of the former Rocky
Flats nuclear weapons plant.
The jury decided that Dow and Rockwell sloppily handled
radioactive plutonium at the plant, allowing the substance to
pollute the neighbors' property and interfering with their use
and enjoyment of what they owned.
Dow and Rockwell contended that they safely and properly handled
the plutonium during the four decades of the weapons factory's
operation and that only minuscule amounts too small to harm
anyone ever escaped from the plant.
| | 2006 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************