***************************************************************** 03/17/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.65 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Adviser Says Iran Bluffing on Iraq 2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Wants Iran Talks in Iraq 3 Security UN Consults On Iaea Report Relating To Iran's Nuclear Ambit 4 [southnews] Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran? 5 [southnews] An Iran option the US prefers to ignore 6 [NYTr] US Envoy Discusses Plans for Iran Talks 7 [NYTr] Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies 8 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Rejects U.N. Proposals on Iran 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bolton: U.N. Will Send Iran Strong Signal 10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says U.S. Would Consider Meeting Iran 11 IRNA: Iran, US problem is political: Lebanese MP 12 AFP: Iran says nuclear program not negotiable 13 AFP: China ready to give Iran up to six weeks to meet IAEA demands - 14 AFP: US says Iran talks offer suspect 15 IRNA: EU welcomes US-Iran talks on Iraq as positive step 16 IRNA: Rice urges Iran to resume talks on nuclear program 17 ICT: U.S. told to stop abuse of Western Shoshone 18 [NukeNet] Urgent Alert--Secret G8 'Nuclear' Communique 19 RIA Novosti: China backs Russian proposal on nuclear fuel centers 20 BBC: India and Russia in energy talks 21 AFP: Pakistan warns India nuclear deal will 'unravel' NPT 22 AFP: Indian PM thanks Russia for proposed uranium supply 23 ITAR-TASS: Russia wants to expand cooper with China in nuke peaceful 24 Kommersant: Putin Offers Equal Access to Nuclear Technologies NUCLEAR REACTORS 25 [NukeNet] G8 split in nuclear-energy talks 26 US: Duke Energy should not get money for nuke reactors 27 US: [NukeNet] NYTimes article & News Release, Illinois Attorney 28 More speakers/details announced for Chernobyl+20 conference 29 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S.-India Nuke Bill Sent to the Hill 30 US: Charlotte Observer: Duke Power's goal: S.C. nuclear plant 31 US: Charlotte Observer: County's nuclear dreams revived 32 US: Charlotte Observer: S.C. nuclear plans to draw concerns, protest 33 US: Charlotte Observer: Groups throughout the country ready to fight 34 RIA Novosti: Putin to discuss new Russia-EU agreement, energy 35 US: Rutland Herald: NRC member criticizes Yankee decision 36 Independent: Chernobyl: the legacy 37 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Senate wants review of Yankee relicensing 38 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti 39 US: NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance 40 US: NRC: RIN-3150-AF12: Fitness for Duty Programs; Notice of Meeting 41 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 42 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Final Design Approval and Final Safet 43 Kyiv Post. Prime minister: Nuclear energy will help Ukraine 44 US: Morris Daily Herald: Tritium assessment started at La Salle 45 IRNA: Jannati: Nuclear energy symbol of Islamic sovereignty 46 Sofia Morning News: Sofia Re-signs N-Fuel Transit Deal NUCLEAR SECURITY 47 Guardian Unlimited: Trial Begins for German on Nuclear Charges 48 US: NRC: NRC Completes Minnesota Agreement to Regulate Use of Certai 49 AFP: China and Iraq to top three-nation security talks - Rice 50 AFP: 'Key member of Khan nuclear network' goes on trial in Germany - NUCLEAR SAFETY 51 [du-list] Call for Gulf War (Au) vets to be tested 52 [du-list] Summary of DU Test Results for Iraq War Vets 53 US: [du-list] another censored messages too hot for RADSAFE 54 AU ABC: Call for Gulf War vets to be tested for uranium contaminatio 55 US: reviewjournal.com: Bill pursues compensation for former test sit 56 Pacific Magazine: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear Veterans Set Up Alternat 57 US: WHO TV: Salazar, Udall seek answers to nuclear worker compensati NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 58 US: Las Vegas SUN: DOE not ruling out any nuclear storage options 59 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Billions wasted on Yucca 60 Xinhua: Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine to sign new deal on nuclear fuel 61 US: IRNA: India to start uranium mining 62 US: AU ABC: Uranium industry seeks standard policy across states - PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 63 Seattle Times: Movies: "Dark Circle": A warning of nuclear dangers 64 DOE: Secretary Bodman Meets with Regional Energy Ministers in Hungar 65 Oakland Tribune: A 50-year blast: Sandia celebrates anniversary 66 lamonitor.com: Watch ordered for plutonium facility at lab 67 Knox News: Work resumes on Y-12 job ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Adviser Says Iran Bluffing on Iraq From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 11:01 PM AP Photo WHCD105 By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's top foreign policy adviser said Friday that Iran's new willingness to talk about Iraq with the United States is probably a ploy designed to ``divert pressure and divert attention'' from international concern that Tehran wants a nuclear bomb. The United States accuses Iran of using a civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons, an allegation Tehran denies. The U.N. Security Council is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program this month, with Washington pressing for penalties. The Bush administration views Tehran's acceptance of an American offer to talk about Iraq, made months ago, as an indication that Iran is feeling the international heat, national security adviser Steven J. Hadley said. ``What is interesting is that the Iranians would choose now, at this moment, in such a very public way, to embrace this idea and try to expand it to a negotiation about a broader set of issues,'' Hadley said. ``The concern, therefore, is that it is simply a device by the Iranians to try and divert pressure that they're feeling in New York, to try and drive a wedge between the United States and the other countries with which we are working on the nuclear issue and, if you will, divert pressure and divert attention.'' Hadley added: ``Obviously, this is something that we and those who are working with us on these issues will not let happen.'' The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, said Thursday that Iran would discuss Iraq directly with the United States. Washington has accused Tehran of meddling in Iraqi politics and of supporting armed militias in Iraq by sending men and weapons, such as components for the increasing lethal improvised explosive devices, across the border. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Wants Iran Talks in Iraq From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 9:46 PM AP Photo LON119 By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The American ambassador said Friday he wants U.S.-Iranian talks about Iraq - a first between the two antagonists since the U.S. invasion - to be held in Baghdad. Tehran's foreign minister predicted the groundbreaking session, if it happens, could untangle the Iraqi political crisis and open the way for a new government. The White House said any meeting would have to involve Iraqi leaders as well. But members of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority objected to any discussions with Shiite-dominated Iran, which they accuse of interfering with Iraq's affairs. In an interview with The Associated Press at the U.S. Embassy, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who is applying heavy pressure on politicians to work seriously on forming a government, also suggested that Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, was not the unifying figure Iraq needs as the next head of government. Al-Jaafari owes his nomination, in no small part, to the support of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite with close ties to Iran. Before U.S.-Iranian talks could even be scheduled, however, Khalilzad and the top Iranian diplomat, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, had agreed on one point: They want talks limited to Iraq - not the angry U.S. standoff with Tehran over its nuclear program. And the Afghan-born Khalilzad, who can speak with Iranians in a common language - his native Dari is a Persian dialect - insisted there would be no bargaining with Iran. ``We are not entering into negotiations about Iraq with Iran. The Iraqis will decide the future of Iraq. We have concerns - and I've spoken about them - with regard to Iranian policy in Iraq,'' the ambassador said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan reinforced Khalilzad's stand. ``Repeatedly, we have expressed our concerns about Iran's behavior in Iraq, and about their activities in Iraq. And so that would be the sole purpose of the discussion,'' McClellan said. ``Now, any negotiations about Iraq would have to occur with the Iraqi leaders,'' he said. ``The Iraqi people are the ones who are charting their own future.'' The United States has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi politics and of sending weapons and men across the border to stir up trouble. But Iran has expressed grave concern about the sectarian fighting and reprisal killings in neighboring Iraq. Iraqi Sunnis objected to any U.S.-Iranian engagement. ``Iran is interfering deeply in Iraqi affairs, and the Iraqi people are afraid that a deal might be settled between Iran and America at the expense of Iraq's independence,'' said Bashar al-Faydi, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars. The United States has not decided whether to talk to Iran about its alleged support for armed militia in Iraq, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to announce any conclusion. Iranian activities in Iraq that the United States finds troubling arise from a mixture of geography, history, religion and politics. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims. The overwhelming majority of Iranians belong to that sect and are governed by a Shiite theocracy. Many important Shiite religious shrines are located in Iraq, meaning that thousands of pilgrims routinely cross the countries' long, common border. During the rule of Saddam Hussein, his Sunni minority brutally oppressed Iraqi Shiites, forcing many to flee to Iran. Since Saddam was toppled in the U.S.-led invasion three years ago, Shiite exiles have flooded back. Some have become political and religious heavyweights in the country's new power structure. That leaves Iran - a member of President Bush's ``axis of evil'' - with what the U.S. sees as undue political and religious influence in Iraq. Further complicating relations, Iraq's largest Shiite political bloc, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, draws political and religious support from two men who spent long years in Iran. The SCIRI-linked militia, the Badr Brigade, has deep roots in Iran, as well. Despite the sectarian link between majority Shiites in Persian Iran and mostly Arab Iraq, nationalist sentiments also divide them. Memories have not faded in either Iran or Iraq of their 1980-88 war, a conflict that was started by Saddam and left a million people dead on both sides. The U.S.-Iranian relationship is also heavily freighted with deep suspicion on both sides. A defining moment was the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, which overthrew the shah, a steadfast Washington ally. Then came the hostage crisis in which Americans were seized and held in Tehran for 444 days. More recently, the United States and its Western allies have accused Iran of using what it calls a civilian nuclear program as a cover to build atomic bombs. Iran denies the charge, but its offer to hold talks appeared to reflect the desire of at least some top officials in Tehran to relieve pressure over its nuclear program in return for help on Iraq. The 54-year-old Khalilzad has held talks with Iranians before, when he was ambassador to his homeland, Afghanistan, Iran's neighbor to the east. ``I was authorized by the president of the United States to talk with the Iranians about our concerns about Afghanistan. So I'm doing the same thing now here,'' he said. ``I think we would assume since these discussions are with regard to our concern with Iranian policies in Iraq that it (the talks) should be in Baghdad,'' Khalilzad said. The Iranians left no doubt about their agenda. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran will hold talks with the United States about Iraq to help the process of building a government there, and to support the Iraqi people,'' Mottaki said in a speech to worshippers who had gathered at Tehran University for the Friday prayers sermon. He did not explain how Iran could be helpful in breaking the deadlock over an Iraqi government, although the logjam is primarily based on sectarian and ethnic objections from Sunnis and Kurds to the Shiite al-Jaafari's nomination as prime minister. Those objections were reflected in Khalilzad's assessment of al-Jaafari's candidacy. ``There is a lot of disagreement about the prime minister. There are forces inside the United Iraqi Alliance (which nominated al-Jaafari by one vote) that want him to be the next prime minister, and there are forces both inside and outside the alliance that do not,'' Khalilzad said. ``The important thing from our point of view is the prime minister should be one who can unify Iraq, the various ethnic and sectarian groups.'' --- AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid in Washington contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 3 Security UN Consults On Iaea Report Relating To Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:00:47 -0500 SECURITY COUNCIL CONSULTS ON IAEA REPORT RELATING TO IRAN’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS New York, Mar 17 2006 6:00PM The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions topped the agenda of a closed-door meeting of the United Nations Security Council today, the first time the issue has been formally addressed by the 15-member body. Following the meeting, a number of diplomats who attended the consultations told reporters that the Council is close to agreement on elements of a text reaffirming that Iran should comply with calls from the <"http://www.iaea.org/index.html">IAEA Governing Board and seeking a report from the Agency Director-General on the matter. They said consultations would resume early next week. Council discussions today centred on an IAEA report requested by the Board of Governors last month which points to outstanding questions about Tehran’s activities. “Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,” it states. The report voices concern that “uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency verification.” The report notes that under normal circumstances, drawing any conclusion about a country’s nuclear activities would take time, and the duration would be even longer in the case of Iran because of a number of factors, including the “undeclared nature” of Iran’s past programme. In 2003, it was discovered that Iran had carried out secret nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Before transmitting the report to the Council, Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the 15-member body “will lend its weight to the IAEA’s efforts so as to make sure Iran will work as closely as possible with us.” 2006-03-17 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 4 [southnews] Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran? Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:53:50 -0600 (CST) 03/16/06 " GlobalResearch" -- -- The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear bunker busters in Iran in a preemptive strike. Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran: This Way Lies Madness By Stephen M. Osborn 03/16/06 " GlobalResearch" -- -- The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear bunker busters in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The bunker buster is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting. The Castle-Bravo blast at Bikini in 1954 was a fifteen megaton surface blast. It blew a hole over a mile wide and four hundred feet deep in the atoll, completely obliterating the island and vaporizing over thirteen billion cubic feet of coral, rock and water, sending it in a radioactive cloud extending into the stratosphere. The fallout over the atolls downwind was devastating to the people and ecology there. All of that material is rendered extremely radioactive and as it cools it condenses to fall as rain or radioactive snow which contaminates everything it touches. The effects are felt worldwide. Firing der Bushs bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days. Those further downwind will take longer. The global incidences of cancers and disease will again rise markedly. The land downwind will remain contaminated and unusable for generations. If there were deep shelters, it has been postulated by the designers that the bunker busters would not penetrate deeply enough to affect them. I imagine that would initiate the attack theory of sending one nuke after another into the same hole. Picture the intensity of the radioactive disaster that would perpetrate on the area. There are not too many of us left that witnessed the tests, but there are a number of groups that monitor the effects through cancers, birth defects, both physical and mental and monitoring of contamination in the environment. We are still feeling the results of those tests. I have exchanged e-mails with downwinders and with the children of downwinders who have had children with birth defects that had no previous history of such things in their families; who suffer from cancers that are peculiar to nuclear radiation. Now we are facing the specter of Depleted Uranium, which is turning up in atmospheric filters around the world. Depleted Uranium is a nuclear byproduct of the nuclear industry. It is a low level radioactive material of extreme density. The half life of DU is 4.5 billion years. Workers in DU have to wear full protective equipment and respirators. DU ammunition is extremely hard and dense. It penetrates armor like tissue paper, vaporizing and burning, leaving dust and particles as shrapnel to be ingested or breathed. DU is not what the public thinks of as a radioactive material. It only emits alpha and beta radiation. A piece of paper will stop it. However, when it is in the lungs or elsewhere in the body, it is in contact with living tissue, bombarding that tissue with low level radiation for the rest of your life and beyond. That radiation can lead to cancers, genetic damage and eventual death. Independent laboratories like Johns Hopkins have studied this and made predictions of the harm it can do. The government says, as it did with Agent Orange, There is nothing to it, it is all in your head. Meanwhile, people continue to sicken and die and will for generations. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was just a very hot, stubborn fire in nuclear fuel. Chernobyl and a huge surrounding area is uninhabitable for an estimated three to six hundred years. The fallout from Chernobyl contaminated food and livestock around Europe and Scandinavia for a long time, and the radiation is still traceable in the earth and some living things. I, and many thousands like me, worked for many years to end the nuclear threat. Treaties were drawn up and ratified. The Peaceful Uses of Space treaty which guaranteed that no nation would use space as a platform for making war. That treaty is now derided by the American Military Establishment as naive. We are ready to take full control of the space around earth to provide a high ground for attack on any threat to the United States hegemony. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was to keep nuclear weapon technology from spreading around the world. Der Bush has narrowed that down to anyone who could conceivably at some time in the future be a threat to American domination. Our friends can build what they want. Well even help them. The Arms Reduction Treaty between us and the CCCP. That was a treaty to destroy nuclear weapons and delivery systems on a mutual basis, with observers from each country verifying the destruction. Der Bush and Putin decided to change that to putting the weapons in storage instead of destroying them. Storage means access by black marketeers who can bribe poorly paid security guards and remove weapons and weapon grade material for resale to the highest bidder. Treaties mean nothing to this government, of course, if they interfere with profits or power. The Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners is ignored, the international conventions against torture are ignored, the tenets of our own Bill of Rights and Constitution guaranteeing privacy and freedom of _expression to its citizens are being canceled our by der Bush and his minions, the United Nations Charter is ignored or derided. The Kyoto Protocols on global warming and other studies are ignored by this administration as they interfere with short term profits. All of these breaches of humanity are overshadowed, however, by the possibility of our using nuclear weapons. The effects of that will be as earth shattering as global warming and pollution. This can be avoided very simply by not using them, the one thing we cannot count on der Bush doing unless we stop him by absolutely forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called preemptive wars with anybody who disagrees with him. Here are some links for those who wish to read a bit further into the subject. This is my page on the Atomic Veterans site. It contains writings on my nuclear experiences. Then explore the rest of the site. http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/osborn.htm Downwinders are those who have been exposed to radiation through our testing both here and in the Pacific. http://www.downwinders.org/ There are a number of Chernobyl sites of interest, but these two really bring it home. http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/ Goes over the circumstances and effects of Chernobyl on the world. The Kiddofspeed site is the site of a courageous lady named Elena who has ridden her motorcycle through Chernobyl and its surroundings, photographing what she found there. http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html Depleted Uranium is discussed at many sites including the following, http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm Googling Depleted Uranium will give you about five million hits, many of them government apologia saying that DU is harmless, or nearly harmless. http://www.cadu.org.uk/ is the site of the Committee Against Depleted Uranium and well worth reading. http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html Is a site on DU and Gulf War Syndrome, which also explores some of the problems with the manufacture of DU armaments to the ecology in the vicinity of the plants. Please, do your own reading on the subject, then insist that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable for any reason. As one who has faced the nuclear dragon and survived, I can only say that Ban the Bomb is not just a slogan, it is a necessity. ) Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12363.htm The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 5 [southnews] An Iran option the US prefers to ignore Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:17:59 -0600 (CST) After a week of internal wrangling culminating in a mini-split, with China and Russia unwilling to forge a united front with the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council on a strongly worded statement on Iran, the latter are proceeding anyway. Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya has said Beijing was prepared to give Iran "four weeks to six weeks" to comply with demands by the UN nuclear watchdog that it halt all uranium enrichment activities. Speaking before a formal meeting of the UN Security Council on the crisis, the Chinese UN envoy said: "We must leave sufficient time for diplomacy and for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to work .. at least four weeks to six weeks." China ready to give Iran up to six weeks to meet IAEA demands AFP Saturday, March 18 2006 Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya said the Security Council should give Iran "four weeks to six weeks" to comply with demands by the UN nuclear watchdog that it halt all uranium enrichment activities. Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya said the Security Council should give Iran "four weeks to six weeks" to comply with demands by the UN nuclear watchdog that it halt all uranium enrichment activities. Speaking before a formal meeting of the council on the crisis, the Chinese UN envoy said: "We must leave sufficient time for diplomacy and for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to work ... at least four weeks to six weeks." Amid signs of progress in negotiations to agree on a Franco-British statement that Iran comply with IAEA demands regarding its nuclear ambitions, the 15 council members met to review the text. "Basically we need to send a message through this (statement) that the Security Council is reinforcing the role of the IAEA not (trying) to replace or take over from the IAEA," Wang told reporters before the meeting. The council has been considering various drafts for a statement since last week. A draft discussed Thursday and obtained by AFP said the UN nuclear watchdog would report "to the Security Council as well as to the IAEA board of governors, in (14) days on Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA board." A diplomat in Vienna said the time to be given to Iran to comply will "likely end up at 30 days," rather than the provisional 14 indicated in brackets in the draft. Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct uranium enrichment. Meanwhile Wang said a meeting of senior foreign ministry officials of the Security Council's five permanent members and Germany in New York Monday aimed to "consider the next step of activities by the IAEA." US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and his counterparts from China, France, Russia and Britain, which are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto-wielding power, plus Germany, will attend the meeting, a State Department official said Thursday. Germany is one of three European powers -- along with France and Britain -- which have pursued three years of inconclusive negotiations to persuade Tehran to renounce plans to seek nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives. ____________________________________________ An Iran option the US prefers to ignore By Kaveh L Afrasiabi Asia Times Online - Kowloon,Hong Kong Mar 17, 2006 After a week of internal wrangling culminating in a mini-split, with China and Russia unwilling to forge a united front with the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council on a strongly worded statement on Iran, the latter are proceeding anyway. The US, France and the United Kingdom have submitted a draft text that, while it calls on Iran to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions, reeks of legal nihilism. The draft statement, now being debated among the 15 members of the Security Council, calls on Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities and to maintain a "full and sustained suspension", giving IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei two weeks to report on Iran's response. It also calls on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to resolve "outstanding issues" and to take the steps needed to "begin building confidence". The last statement is rather strange, since the IAEA has always insisted that "verification is confidence-building". And in light of three years of robust inspection it is rather disingenuous of the sponsors of this text to imply that there has been no confidence-building on Iran's part. These involved about 1,700 inspection-hours and 20 other visits to military and civilian facilities at short notice beyond the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Equally questionable is the selectiveness with which the draft statement refers to IAEA resolutions and reports without once mentioning their acknowledgements of Iran's "steady progress", "access" and greater and greater transparency. This was reflected in ElBaradei's candid statement in December at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies that "over the past three years we have compiled a detailed picture of most aspects of Iran's past and current nuclear program ... we have asked that Iran provide additional transparency measures". Hence, given that the IAEA has given a clean bill of health to very few countries and that requesting greater transparency is not exactly calling a member state in "breach of its obligations", one wonders how far the US and its European allies can run with this ball. Can the Security Council operate in a legal vacuum indefinitely? To elaborate, the February 4 decision by the IAEA to complain about Iran to the UN did not cite two important articles, XII.C and III.B.4, in the IAEA statute that would trigger a "report [on] the non-compliance to all [IAEA] members, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations". Instead, in a compromise reached in London to get Russia and China on board, it was decided that the IAEA director general should "report to the Security Council" only on the need for Iran to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its program by (i) re-establishing "full and sustained suspension" of all its enrichment and reprocessing activities; (ii) reconsidering the construction of the Arak heavy-water research reactor; (iii) ratifying and implementing the Additional Protocol, and pending ratification to act in accordance with its provisions; and (iv) implementing transparency measures "requested by the director general which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol". As Jean Dupreez at Monterey, California's Center on Non-Proliferation Studies has aptly noted, in the absence of any smoking-gun confirming an Iranian weapons program, the legal foundation for any punitive measures against Iran are lacking. Mindful of these delicacies, the Non-Aligned Movement requested, at the conclusion of the most recent IAEA meeting this month, that Iran's case remain within the IAEA, a sentiment shared by both Russia and China. To return to the legal nihilism of the Security Council, the draft statement cleverly seeks to sidestep the legal framework by pushing for a measure - full suspension of the fuel cycle - which the IAEA itself has demanded not as a right but as a "legally non-binding confidence-building measure". In other words, Iran has been asked to either "volunteer" to suspend its enrichment activities or be found in violation of the will of the Security Council. Also, the draft text expresses the "conviction that continued Iranian enrichment-related activity would intensify international concern". There is, first of all, international concern about not just Iranian but any nuclear fuel cycle, which is why the IAEA has called for a universal moratorium on new enrichment facilities and the establishment of an international fuel bank. But until that idea pans out, countries such as Iran, which has a track record with the IAEA since 1973, can meet this "expressed concern" only within the legal framework of the IAEA, that is, by implementing the terms of its bilateral safeguard agreements with the agency to put those concerns and anxieties to rest. Yet, echoing the IAEA's latest resolution on Iran, the draft text currently circulating within the Security Council asks Iran to "implement transparency measures ... which would extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol". At the same time, the drafters of this "presidential statement" have called on Iran to "promptly ratify and implement in full the Additional Protocol". Yet, as per the above, the drafters are seeking measures beyond the Additional Protocol, thereby undermining its value. This attitude, if it persists, given that the majority of IAEA member states have not adopted the Additional Protocol, will only undermine the IAEA's singular emphasis on the Additional Protocol and its hoped-for universal adoption. All this belies the rosy prediction of former IAEA deputy chief Pierre Goldschmidt that "the Iran case provides an opportunity to improve the overall non-proliferation regime". Goldschmidt overlooks the nightmarish scenario that the non-proliferation regime could suffer a lethal blow as a result of the Iran crisis, given UN head Kofi Annan's admission at the 2005 NPT review conference that the NPT regime faced a double crisis of "verification and confidence". Clearly, the US double standard of differentiating "good proliferators", such as Israel and India, from "bad proliferators", such as Iran, must count as serious causes of this crisis. Indeed, the entire non-proliferation regime may suffer as a result of this rule-avoiding approach crystallized in the draft text on Iran. If it is adopted and eventually proven as the first link in a chain of a "graduated response" by the Security Council, culminating in sanctions which prompt Iran to exit the NPT and the IAEA framework, it may have a domino effect. That is, it could lead other states, including several in the Middle East, to follow suit or, at a minimum, question the wisdom of their transparency with the IAEA. Ironically, the so-called "outstanding questions" mentioned in the draft text have, in fact, been deemed as not outstanding and "normalized" by the admissions of ElBaradei. These include the foreign source of equipment contamination (via Pakistan) and the results of environmental samplings at some military sites. Anomalies in the case against Iran The US and Europe would be well advised to consider the anomalies in their article of faith, their self-constructed paradigm sheepishly followed by their "free and pluralistic press" regarding Iran's purported march toward nuclear weapons. Briefly: # In 1995, Iran voted in favor of the indefinite extension of the NPT. # Iran has been an enthusiastic supporter of the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and, in light of the required nuclear testing for any would-be proliferators, this raises the question of why would Iran take such steps if it is not in its nuclear interests. # Iran just reversed a two-year "voluntary and legally non-binding" suspension of its uranium-enrichment activities. # In Brussels in January, Iran put forward a six-point proposal that includes another two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment - a novel proposal dismissed out of hand as old news by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The other points included Iran re-embracing the Additional Protocol by formally legislating for its adoption, and pursuit of an international fuel bank. # Another proposal, still on the table and submitted last March to the IAEA and the EU-3 - Germany, France and Britain - was for a contained, monitored enrichment. # Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a religious decree, fatwa , against the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons, a position he and other leaders of the Islamic Republic have regularly reiterated. These points count as "anomalies" in the sense that they do not support the behavior of a would-be proliferator. Indeed, if that were the case, why would the Iranian leaders insist so much, and so frequently, on the un-Islamic and amoral nature of nuclear weapons? On the other hand, it is impossible to isolate the Iranian nuclear issue from other developments, above all the United States' desire to defang the Islamic Republic via the nuclear standoff by isolating it and, at a minimum, weakening it considerably. This would remove a major barrier to its planned visions for the "greater Middle East". These extra-nuclear considerations are often neglected in the West. Good news on the horizon? What is remarkable about the Iranian nuclear crisis is how close it could be to being resolved. Iran is willing to forgo large-scale enrichment and limit itself to a small cascade of centrifuges for research and development, in conjunction with assurances of a fuel supply, mainly from the Russians. The Russians dropped the ball on the way to Washington, yet there are strong indications that this proposal could resurface soon - if only the US would stop ignoring this option, which is viable for two main reasons. First, the military risk posed by such a small cascade is minimal as the fissile-uranium output of 168 centrifuges would be nowhere near enough to facilitate a weapons program. Second, the reason the IAEA favors this option is that agency safeguards would be in place and it would notice any change in Iran's agreed program. With the potential risks of militarization thus minimized, this option is distinctly preferable to others, including the military one, which without doubt would spur a clandestine weapons program on Iran's part. And this is not to mention the collateral damage on the world economy and other grim consequences. The cause of regional and world peace, therefore, dictates urgent attention to this viable option benefiting the cause of the overall non-proliferation regime. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He is also author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction . http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak02.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 6 [NYTr] US Envoy Discusses Plans for Iran Talks Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:00:19 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit [It is tempting to think that the whole "Iranian Nuke crisis" is merely a strawman designed to make it politically possible for the US to hold talks with Iran about the mess in Iraq. It's tempting to think that the US, in its utter desperation about what to do about its mess, has cooked up a phoney "crisis" to issue threats against Iran and then offer to withdraw them (all the while denying they are doing so) if Iran would only agree to help pull the Bush regime's chestnuts out of the fire. It's a plan that one can see Henry Kissinger or Jimmy Carter and his pal Zbig dreaming up. But while tempting -- and plausible for an administration with some sense of geopolitics -- it just seems well beyond the capability of the ignorant fantasy-besotted numbskulls in the Bush Regime, even if they are beginning to dimly appreciate the total hopelessness of their situation. -NY Transfer] AP via Yahoo - Mar 17, 2006 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_KHALIZAD?SITE=WYCHE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT U.S. Envoy Discusses Plans for Iran Talks By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Friday that discussions were under way about when he would meet with Iranian officials about Iraq and that the talks should be held in Baghdad. In an interview with The Associated Press, the Afghan-born Khalilzad also said the international community, particularly Arab states in the Persian Gulf, should help fund the rebuilding of the war-shattered country because they have "a lot at stake." Khalilzad, who has played a major role in forcing Iraqi politicians to begin serious negotiations on forming a new government, suggested that Shiite Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was not the unifying figure Iraq needed as the next head of government. The comments came a day after Tehran offered to enter into talks with the U.S. aimed at stabilizing Iraq, following a request to do so made Wednesday by Shiite political heavyweight Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who spent years in self-exile in Iran during Saddam Hussein's regime. The Bush administration said it would discuss the insurgency with the Islamic republic, but both sides said the talks would not address the standoff over Iran's nuclear activities. "Our position is clear. The subject of discussions will be Iraq," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Friday in a speech to worshippers who had gathered at Tehran University for prayers. He also said the talks could help the Iraqis form a government. "The Islamic Republic of Iran will hold talks with the United States about Iraq to help the process of building a government there, and to support the Iraqi people," Mottaki said. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday in Sydney that talks with Tehran on Iraq's slide toward civil war "might be useful," but they would not cover Iran's nuclear program. The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, who is also Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said Thursday that Khalilzad repeatedly had invited Iran for talks on Iraq. Khalilzad said he had never written to or spoken with Iranian officials about the talks but agreed they should be limited to Iranian policy regarding Iraq. The U.S. envoy said a decision on when the talks would occur was "still being discussed. But I think we would assume since these discussions are with regard to our concern with Iranian policies in Iraq that it should be in Baghdad. That would be our approach." The White House appeared cautiously welcoming on Friday of the Iranian offer to talk. Press secretary Scott McClellan called it an "interesting development" and declined to say that the Bush administration views it as a ploy by Tehran to undermine and distract attention from the ongoing efforts in the U.N. Security Council to address Iran's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions. "We'll have to see," McClellan said. "We're beginning to see some signs that the regime is beginning to listen." But McClellan expressed some skepticism that talks would take place. If they do, he said, "What we'd like to see is for the regime to change its behavior. ... They should be playing a helpful role in the region." The U.S. has not decided yet whether to talk to Iran about its support for armed militias in Iraq, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a lack of authorization to announce any conclusions. In addition to the Washington's claims that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, the United States has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq as it struggles to overcome a brutal insurgency and an al-Qaida terror campaign. President Bush has said some components in roadside bombs contained Iranian components. Iran denies both allegations. Talks with Iran about its support for insurgents in Iraq would not be the first face-to-face bilateral discussions between the two foes. Khalilzad met with Iranian diplomats in his prior post as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. While diplomatic relations were dissolved after radical fundamentalists took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held U.S. diplomats hostage until 1981, American and Iranian negotiators have met on such issues as devising a post-Taliban government in Afghanistan and on countering narcotics. The talks on Afghanistan also included Russian and Indian diplomats. In Geneva in early 2003, with U.S. troops in Afghanistan and others arriving for the invasion of Iraq, U.S. and Iranian officials met under U.N. auspices. With much of the $20 billion the Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction already spent or earmarked and with only $1.6 billion in the next supplemental appropriation, Khalilzad said the United States was looking to the international community for help, especially from Iraq's fellow Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. "The Gulf states have a lot at stake here. They're doing very well financially thanks to the high price of oil. We're looking to them to help the national unity government," he said. Formation of such a government is far from a reality even though Iraq's new parliament met in its first session Thursday, which adjourned with lawmakers stalemated over a speaker and Cabinet. Khalilzad has pushed political leaders into a series of meetings in the past several days to hammer out a compromise on the deadlock over the nomination of al-Jaafari to serve a second term. "There is a lot of disagreement about the prime minister. There are forces inside the United Iraqi Alliance (which nominated al-Jaafari by one vote) that want him to be the next prime minister, and there are forces both inside and outside the alliance that do not," Khalilzad said. "The important thing from our point of view is the prime minister should be one who can unify Iraq, the various ethnic and sectarian groups." [Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven in Washington and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.] ) 2006 The Associated Press. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:00:43 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Global Research via Info Clearing House - Mar 16, 2006 http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12363.htm Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran: This Way Lies Madness By Stephen M. Osborn 03/16/06 " GlobalResearch"--The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear bunker busters in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The bunker buster is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting. The Castle-Bravo blast at Bikini in 1954 was a fifteen megaton surface blast. It blew a hole over a mile wide and four hundred feet deep in the atoll, completely obliterating the island and vaporizing over thirteen billion cubic feet of coral, rock and water, sending it in a radioactive cloud extending into the stratosphere. The fallout over the atolls downwind was devastating to the people and ecology there. All of that material is rendered extremely radioactive and as it cools it condenses to fall as rain or radioactive snow which contaminates everything it touches. The effects are felt worldwide. Firing der Bushs bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days. Those further downwind will take longer. The global incidences of cancers and disease will again rise markedly. The land downwind will remain contaminated and unusable for generations. If there were deep shelters, it has been postulated by the designers that the bunker busters would not penetrate deeply enough to affect them. I imagine that would initiate the attack theory of sending one nuke after another into the same hole. Picture the intensity of the radioactive disaster that would perpetrate on the area. There are not too many of us left that witnessed the tests, but there are a number of groups that monitor the effects through cancers, birth defects, both physical and mental and monitoring of contamination in the environment. We are still feeling the results of those tests. I have exchanged e-mails with downwinders and with the children of downwinders who have had children with birth defects that had no previous history of such things in their families; who suffer from cancers that are peculiar to nuclear radiation. Now we are facing the specter of Depleted Uranium, which is turning up in atmospheric filters around the world. Depleted Uranium is a nuclear byproduct of the nuclear industry. It is a low level radioactive material of extreme density. The half life of DU is 4.5 billion years. Workers in DU have to wear full protective equipment and respirators. DU ammunition is extremely hard and dense. It penetrates armor like tissue paper, vaporizing and burning, leaving dust and particles as shrapnel to be ingested or breathed. DU is not what the public thinks of as a radioactive material. It only emits alpha and beta radiation. A piece of paper will stop it. However, when it is in the lungs or elsewhere in the body, it is in contact with living tissue, bombarding that tissue with low level radiation for the rest of your life and beyond. That radiation can lead to cancers, genetic damage and eventual death. Independent laboratories like Johns Hopkins have studied this and made predictions of the harm it can do. The government says, as it did with Agent Orange, There is nothing to it, it is all in your head. Meanwhile, people continue to sicken and die and will for generations. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was just a very hot, stubborn fire in nuclear fuel. Chernobyl and a huge surrounding area is uninhabitable for an estimated three to six hundred years. The fallout from Chernobyl contaminated food and livestock around Europe and Scandinavia for a long time, and the radiation is still traceable in the earth and some living things. I, and many thousands like me, worked for many years to end the nuclear threat. Treaties were drawn up and ratified. The Peaceful Uses of Space treaty which guaranteed that no nation would use space as a platform for making war. That treaty is now derided by the American Military Establishment as naive. We are ready to take full control of the space around earth to provide a high ground for attack on any threat to the United States hegemony. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was to keep nuclear weapon technology from spreading around the world. Der Bush has narrowed that down to anyone who could conceivably at some time in the future be a threat to American domination. Our friends can build what they want. Well even help them. The Arms Reduction Treaty between us and the CCCP. That was a treaty to destroy nuclear weapons and delivery systems on a mutual basis, with observers from each country verifying the destruction. Der Bush and Putin decided to change that to putting the weapons in storage instead of destroying them. Storage means access by black marketeers who can bribe poorly paid security guards and remove weapons and weapon grade material for resale to the highest bidder. Treaties mean nothing to this government, of course, if they interfere with profits or power. The Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners is ignored, the international conventions against torture are ignored, the tenets of our own Bill of Rights and Constitution guaranteeing privacy and freedom of _expression to its citizens are being canceled our by der Bush and his minions, the United Nations Charter is ignored or derided. The Kyoto Protocols on global warming and other studies are ignored by this administration as they interfere with short term profits. All of these breaches of humanity are overshadowed, however, by the possibility of our using nuclear weapons. The effects of that will be as earth shattering as global warming and pollution. This can be avoided very simply by not using them, the one thing we cannot count on der Bush doing unless we stop him by absolutely forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called preemptive wars with anybody who disagrees with him. Here are some links for those who wish to read a bit further into the subject. This is my page on the Atomic Veterans site. It contains writings on my nuclear experiences. Then explore the rest of the site. http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/osborn.htm Downwinders are those who have been exposed to radiation through our testing both here and in the Pacific. http://www.downwinders.org/ There are a number of Chernobyl sites of interest, but these two really bring it home. http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/ Goes over the circumstances and effects of Chernobyl on the world. The Kiddofspeed site is the site of a courageous lady named Elena who has ridden her motorcycle through Chernobyl and its surroundings, photographing what she found there. http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html Depleted Uranium is discussed at many sites including the following, http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm Googling Depleted Uranium will give you about five million hits, many of them government apologia saying that DU is harmless, or nearly harmless. http://www.cadu.org.uk/ is the site of the Committee Against Depleted Uranium and well worth reading. http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html Is a site on DU and Gulf War Syndrome, which also explores some of the problems with the manufacture of DU armaments to the ecology in the vicinity of the plants. Please, do your own reading on the subject, then insist that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable for any reason. As one who has faced the nuclear dragon and survived, I can only say that Ban the Bomb is not just a slogan, it is a necessity. ) Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Rejects U.N. Proposals on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 10:31 PM AP Photo UNDK113 By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia's U.N. ambassador on Friday rejected proposals that would have the U.N. Security Council demand a quick progress report on Iran's suspect nuclear program, saying - half in jest - that fast action could lead to the bombing of Iran by June. Andrey Denisov spoke just before a U.N. Security Council meeting where diplomats planned to consider a revised list of British, French and American proposals for a statement on Iran. The latest draft proposals, obtained by The Associated Press, retain many elements that Russia and China have opposed. A key sticking point for Russia is a proposal asking Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to deliver a progress report in two weeks on Iran's progress toward clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program. Russia and China say two weeks is far too soon. ``Let's just imagine that we adopt it and today we issued that statement - then what happens after two weeks?'' Denisov said in an interview. ``In such a pace we'll start bombing in June.'' Denisov chuckled after he made the remark, but it reflected Russia's fears that the international community has not yet decided how to respond if Iran continues to resist demands that it make explicitly clear it is not seeking nuclear arms. To address that concern, senior officials from six key countries involved in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program will convene Monday to discuss both initial council action and the larger strategy toward Iran. The officials from Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany will talk about both the proposals circulated Friday and overall strategy. For the last week, the Security Council has debated the best way to address the Iran issue. The split is now between Britain, France and the United States, which want a statement spelling out a number of detailed demands, and Russia and China, which believe that such action would send the wrong message to Iran. Russia and China, which are allies of Iran, have said in the past that tough council action could spark an Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They also fear council action could eventually lead to tougher measures, such as sanctions. Backed by the United States, Britain and France have proposed a statement that would spell out a list of demands that have already been made by the IAEA. They include a demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and take steps toward greater transparency and more cooperation. Uranium enrichment can be used either in electricity generation or to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is to produce nuclear energy - not weapons - but the IAEA has raised concerns that Tehran might be seeking nuclear arms. Even though the demands in the British and French proposals are not new, Denisov said Russia would prefer the council to simply refer to IAEA documents that also contained those demands. The primary concern of Russia and China throughout has been that the IAEA play the main role in handling Iran. They fear that such demands by the council would mean that the council, which has the power to impose sanctions, would be taking the lead. ``We need to send a message ... that the Security Council is supporting and reinforcing the role of the IAEA, not to replace or take it over from the IAEA,'' China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said. The discussions came a day after Tehran offered to enter into talks with the U.S. aimed at stabilizing Iraq. The Bush administration said it would discuss the insurgency with the Islamic republic, but both sides said the talks would not address the standoff over Iran's nuclear activities. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bolton: U.N. Will Send Iran Strong Signal From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 2:16 AM AP Photo VAH109 By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Thursday the U.N. Security Council appears determined to send a ``strong and clear signal'' to Tehran about its suspect nuclear program, after a meeting of the powerful U.N. body that he described as the best so far. In an informal gathering of the 15 council members, diplomats agreed to hold the first formal Security Council consultations on Friday - a sign that a split between Britain, France and the United States on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other, may have closed somewhat. In addition, senior officials from six key countries involved in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program will convene Monday to try to hammer out a final deal and discuss what the council ought to do after it makes its first statement on Iran. ``I would describe today's meetings as the best we've had so far,'' Bolton said after the talks, the full council's second informal meeting on Iran. ``The mood of the discussion is certainly in the direction of a strong and clear signal to Iran on the part of the Security Council.'' Members of the council have grappled with the issue for a week, since the board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, sent a report on Iran to the Security Council. The board said it lacked confidence in Tehran's nuclear intentions and accused Iran of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Britain, France and the United States want the Security Council to call on Iran to abandon uranium enrichment and comply with other demands by the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its program. They suspect Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Russia and China, which are allies of Iran, are not as skeptical of Tehran's intentions, and have said in the past that tough council action could spark an Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expulsion of inspectors from the IAEA. They also fear a chain reaction of council action that could lead to tougher measures later on, such as sanctions. Uranium enrichment can be used either in electricity generation or to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is to produce nuclear energy - not weapons - but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised concerns that Tehran might be seeking nuclear arms. Bolton and the ambassadors from France and Britain refused to discuss what progress had been made. But diplomats said that Britain and France, who have taken the lead on crafting a council response, planned to draw up a text and present it to the rest of the council at Friday's closed-door discussion. ``We moved forward,'' France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya was more equivocal in brief remarks to the press. ``I think the differences are still there,'' he said. ``There are some common points but there are also some differences.'' It's unlikely the council will come to a final decision before Monday, when senior officials from the council's five veto-wielding nations - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - and Germany will meet in New York. That meeting would bring together the most senior foreign affairs officials from those nations since a London gathering on Jan. 30. Bolton told reporters that the top diplomats would talk about what to do after the first council action. He described those talks as separate from the issue of the text discussed Thursday. The diplomats will try to come up with a ``clear strategy'' on what happens next, Russia's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov told The Associated Press. ``We need to have an agreed way ahead within the IAEA, in the Security Council.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says U.S. Would Consider Meeting Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 9:01 AM AP Photo TOK227 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) - Talks between American and Iranian diplomats on stabilizing Iraq ``might be useful,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday, but she gave no timeline for any contact and ruled out discussion of Tehran's disputed nuclear program. Iran has offered to begin talks with the United States aimed at stabilizing Iraq, even as Washington maneuvers to confront Iran's nuclear ambitions in the powerful U.N. Security Council. ``This isn't a negotiation of some kind,'' Rice said following a meeting in Sydney with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. ``If we found it useful to exchange information we'll talk, and if we do it will be about Iraq.'' On Thursday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Iranian foreign policy. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is authorized to talk with Iran about Iraq, much as the United States has talked with Iran about issues relating to Afghanistan. The United States cut diplomatic ties with Iran after the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. U.S diplomats were held hostage for more than a year. President Bush, who ordered the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its government, has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq. The Bush administration recently asked Congress for $75 million next year to promote democratic change in Iran, one of the countries Bush included with pre-war Iraq as an ``axis of evil.'' Rice later flew to Melbourne, Australia's second-largest city, to thank Australian troops who served alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and to attend the quadrennial Commonwealth Games. ``In liberating Iraq from that horrible dictator and liberating the neighborhood from that terrible threat, you, the Australian armed forces, and the American armed forces ... gave the Iraqi people a chance,'' Rice told a group of about 100 Australian Army and Navy forces. In a well-publicized show of force, U.S. and Iraqi forces swept into the countryside north of the capital Baghdad on Thursday, looking for insurgents in what the American military called its ``largest air assault'' in nearly three years. Rice indicated that intelligence on insurgent activity in Samarra led to the show of force. When the military has ``reason to believe'' that a strike will flush out insurgents, Rice said, ``then the military does that.'' She cited long-standing concerns about Samarra as an insurgent hotbed. The military said the assault detained 41 people, found stolen uniforms and captured weapons including explosives used in making roadside bombs. It said the operation would continue over several days. The operation came as the Bush administration was attempting to show critics at home and abroad that it is dealing effectively with Iraq's insurgency and increasingly sectarian violence. White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied the offensive was tied to the new campaign to change opinion about the war. ``This was a decision made by our commanders,'' he said. The attack was launched as Iraq's new parliament met briefly for the first time. Lawmakers took the oath but did no business and adjourned after just 40 minutes, unable to agree on a speaker, let alone a prime minister. The legislature set no date to meet again. Still, the session marked a small step toward forming a unity government that the United States hopes will calm the insurgency and enable it to begin withdrawing American troops. The U.S. military forces have been trying to build up the Iraqi army so that it can play a leading role in fighting the insurgents. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Iran, US problem is political: Lebanese MP Beirut, March 17, IRNA Iran-US-MP The problem between the US and Iran over the nuclear case is political, a Lebanese MP said here Thursday. "The US has since victory of the Islamic Revolution exerted pressures, restrictions and campaign against Iran and today is doing its best to act against officials in Tehran through pushing the country's nuclear case through the UN Security Council," said Lebanese MP Ghazi Zeter told IRNA. Zeter noted that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has allowed the UN nuclear inspectors to inspect its nuclear facilities and monitor its nuclear activities. Iran has also held diplomatic talks with the European Union (EU), the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) and other international bodies to find a fair solution on its nuclear case, he stressed. "No country can deprive Iran of this (nuclear) right... and the US pressures are insinuated by the Zionist regime," said the parliamentarian, while underlining Iran's right to attain peaceful nuclear technology. The US would face problems and its interests would be at stake should Washington continue with its pressures in favor of the Zionist regime, the former Lebanese minister of social affairs warned. Iran is a significant state in the Middle East and its role in settlement of regional problems should be taken into consideration, he concluded. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Iran says nuclear program not negotiable Fri Mar 17, 6:07 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran reiterated that its nuclear program is not up for negotiation, despite possible calls by the UN Security Council for it to accede to demands by the UN nuclear watchdog and immediately halt all nuclear enrichment activities. "We have said it many times, our nuclear program is a peaceful one. The right of the Iranian people of having it is not negotiable," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Tehran worshippers in speech before the sermon. "The right of the Iranian nation is stated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the right was not bestowed to us by other countries," he said, as worshippers chanted "nuclear energy is our undeniable right." The International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agency's "reporting Iran's nuclear case to the United Nations " /> United NationsSecurity Council is a politicized move," Mottaki added. Meanwhile, the head of Iran's body Guardian Council vetting body, Ayatollah Ali Janati said: "They have taken us to the Security Council; they can do what ever they want to do." However, he added "we will resist and we are ready to pay the price." Leading the Friday prayer sermon, Janati said "we have to stand firm since the glory of Islam and Muslims depends on things like this." The full council is set to meet Friday to consider a Franco-British statement calling on Iran to accede to all demands made by the IAEA and immediately halt all nuclear enrichment activities. The text urges Iran to resume implementation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's Additional Protocol, which allows for wider inspections of a country's nuclear facilities. It also requests IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to report on Iranian compliance within 14 days. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: China ready to give Iran up to six weeks to meet IAEA demands - Fri Mar 17, 4:28 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya said the Security Council should give Iran "four weeks to six weeks" to comply with demands by the UN nuclear watchdog that it halt all uranium enrichment activities. Speaking before a formal meeting of the council on the crisis, the Chinese UN envoy said: "We must leave sufficient time for diplomacy and for the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency " /> ) to work ... at least four weeks to six weeks." Amid signs of progress in negotiations to agree on a Franco-British statement that Iran comply with IAEA demands regarding its nuclear ambitions, the 15 council members met to review the text. "Basically we need to send a message through this (statement) that the Security Council is reinforcing the role of the IAEA not (trying) to replace or take over from the IAEA," Wang told reporters before the meeting. The council has been considering various drafts for a statement since last week. A draft discussed Thursday and obtained by AFP said the UN nuclear watchdog would report "to the Security Council as well as to the IAEA board of governors, in (14) days on Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA board." A diplomat in Vienna said the time to be given to Iran to comply will "likely end up at 30 days," rather than the provisional 14 indicated in brackets in the draft. Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct uranium enrichment. Meanwhile Wang said a meeting of senior foreign ministry officials of the Security Council's five permanent members and Germany in New York Monday aimed to "consider the next step of activities by the IAEA." US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and his counterparts from China, France, Russia and Britain, which are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto-wielding power, plus Germany, will attend the meeting, a State Department official said Thursday. Germany is one of three European powers -- along with France and Britain -- which have pursued three years of inconclusive negotiations to persuade Tehran to renounce plans to seek nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: US says Iran talks offer suspect Fri Mar 17, 4:58 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House said that Iran Iran's offer to hold talks with the United States on Iraq was likely an attempt to "divert pressure" Tehran has drawn over its nuclear program. Iran waited months to agree to a US offer to hold talks, and did so only after Tehran's atomic program was referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, said US national security adviser Stephen Hadley " /> Stephen Hadley. "The concern, therefore, is that it is simply a device by the Iranians to try to divert pressure that they are feeling in New York", Hadley told a small group of reporters. He also said it was an attempt "to try to drive a wedge between the United States and the other countries with which we are working on the nuclear issue, and, if you will, divert pressure and divert attention" from Tehran's nuclear ambitions. A senior US official, who requested anonymity, was far blunter, calling Iran's offer "a stunt" and saying that Washington may agree merely to avoid "criticisms" that it did not do all it can to defuse bloody tension in Iraq. Hadley insisted that any talks should not be read as a signal that the United States was softening its take on Iran, saying: "Nothing has changed in the concerns that we have about the Iranian regime." "We don't want to, in any way, by anything we do, to legitimate this regime, particularly in the eyes of their people," he said. The anonymous US official said that Washington also hoped to exploit apparent grumblings in Iran about hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's handling of the nuclear issue and his country's economy. "We want to provoke a debate, within the (Iranian) leadership, on the wisdom of these policies," the official said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: EU welcomes US-Iran talks on Iraq as positive step , March 17, IRNA -- In its initial reaction, the European Union has welcomed decision by the Untied States and the Islamic Republic to hold talks on Iraq as a positive development "I think that this has to be seen as a very positive development," EU sources told journalists in Brussels Friday. "We always said that it is important to engage fully Iraq's neighbors," underlined the sources speaking on condition of anonymity. The sources clarified that the US-Iran talks on Iraq have no connection with Iran's nuclear issue. "We need to hold these two topics separate on our line, but I think in itself they are an important and a positive step," added the sources. In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Friday that Iran will hold talks with the US on crisis in Iraq in line with its assistance to the country and contribution to the government formation process there. The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, told reporters in Tehran on Thursday that Iran was ready to negotiate with Washington about Iraq. Larijani said his offer to talk with the US followed a request by the Iraqi Shiite leader Abdel Aziz Hakim. Meanwhile, Iran, Iraq and Palestine are on the agenda of the Council of EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday. The three topics are also expected to be discussed by EU leaders when they meet in their spring summit in Brussels on 23-24 March. ***************************************************************** 16 IRNA: Rice urges Iran to resume talks on nuclear program Sydney, March 16, IRNA US-Australia-Rice US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday urged Iran to resume negotiations over its nuclear program. Rice was speaking after meeting her Australian counterpart Alexander Downer for talks which covered topics including Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, Indonesia's development and the recent nuclear deal between Washington and India. Rice said it was time for Iran to 'heed the international community's call' to resume negotiations on its nuclear program. Rice said she was 'quite certain the (UN) Security Council will find an appropriate vehicle for expressing again ... the desire of the international community ... that Iran return to negotiations'. Iran said that its national program is to produce nuclear energy but Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported Iran to Security Council. 1416/2322/1414 ***************************************************************** 17 ICT: U.S. told to stop abuse of Western Shoshone [2006/03/16] by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today GENEVA - With strong language calling for the United States to desist and halt the abuse of Western Shoshone human rights, the U.N. Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued an ''Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure'' during its 68th session. ''The Committee has received credible information alleging that the Western Shoshone indigenous peoples are being denied their traditional rights to land, and that measures taken and even accelerated lately by the State party in relation to the status, use and occupation of these lands may cumulatively lead to irreparable harm to these communities,'' the committee said in its conclusions to the United States. Praising the action of the U.N. committee, Bernice Lalo, among Western Shoshone in a delegation to Geneva, said the future of the people is at risk from gold mining and the unlawful seizure of land. ''We are Shoshone delegates speaking for a Nation threatened by extinction. The mines are polluting our waters, destroying hot springs and exploding sacred mountains - our burials along with them - attempting to erase our signature on the land. ''We are coerced and threatened by mining and federal agencies when we seek to continue spiritual prayers for traditional food or medicine on Shoshone land. ''We have endured murder of our Newe people for centuries, as chronicled in military records, but now we are asked to endure a more painful death from the U.S. governmental agencies - a separation from land and spiritual renewal.'' The committee advised the United States to ''freeze any plan to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developers.'' Further, the United States was advised to desist from all activities on Western Shoshone ancestral lands in relation to natural resources, which are being carried out without consultation with the Western Shoshone and despite their protests. ''It notes in particular the reinvigorated federal efforts to open a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain; the alleged use of explosives and open-pit gold mining activities on Mount Tenabo and Horse Canyon; and the alleged issuance of geothermal energy leases at, or near, hot springs,'' the committee said. The committee said it has been advised of reported resumption of underground nuclear testing on Western Shoshone ancestral lands. Further, it advised the United States to stop imposing grazing fees, trespass and collection notices, horse and livestock impoundments and restrictions on hunting, fishing and gathering. The United States was told to halt arrests and rescind all past such notices to Western Shoshone people who were using their ancestral lands. The committee's action challenges the U.S. government's assertion of federal ownership of nearly 90 percent of Western Shoshone lands, approximately 60 million acres in what is now referred to as Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. Joe Kennedy, a Timbisha Shoshone in the delegation to Geneva, said, ''The situation is outrageous and we're glad the United Nations Committee agrees with us. Our people have suffered more nuclear testing than anywhere else in the world and ... underground testing [is continuing] despite our protests. ''Yucca Mountain is being hollowed out in order to store nuclear waste. We cannot stand for it - this earth, the air, the water are sacred. People of all races must stop this insanity now in order to secure a safe future for all.'' Judy Rojo, Western Shoshone, said U.S. federal agencies are preventing Western Shoshone access to many sacred places. ''Our ancestors' burials are being dug up and placed into local museums' basement storage areas because of [a] surge of gold mines and nuclear developments. This is an outrage to our people! ''While others are allowed the freedom of religion, we are kept from the very same right. The Newe [people] use this ancestral land for sacred ceremonies. ''Truth is what it is - that can never change. We pray for the healing of our peoples, the land and the harassment and destruction to stop.'' Although the battle has been going on for some time, the delegation said there is now a dramatic rush by the federal government to finalize what they consider to be a settlement with the Western Shoshone. After receiving the report form the Western Shoshone delegation, the committee said it is concerned by the United States' legal position that asserts that Western Shoshone peoples' legal rights to ancestral lands have been extinguished through gradual encroachment. The initial request for U.N. intervention came from the Western Shoshone National Council, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Winnemucca Indian Colony and Yomba Shoshone Tribe. The committee's decision in March came after the United States failed to respond to previous requests for responses. The committee told the United States that it has the obligation to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law in the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, without discrimination based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin. Praising the committee's decision to intervene, Steven Brady, Western Shoshone, said, ''Again, we are very pleased that our rights are finally being taken seriously and we look forward to positive actions being taken by the U.S.'' © 1998 - 2006 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 18 [NukeNet] Urgent Alert--Secret G8 'Nuclear' Communique Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:16:30 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Urgent Alert--Secret G8 'Nuclear' Communique Revealed! Draft on "Energy Security" Confirms the 2006 G8 Summit's Alarming New Push For "Nuclear Rebirth" ** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- FORWARD WIDELY ** Contact: Reclaim the Commons www.reclaimthecommons.net email: reclaimthecommons(at)riseup(dot)net A secret draft of the "G8 Summit Communique on Energy Security," scheduled to be released officially on July 16th at the July 15 - 17, 2006 G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, has been leaked. The Communique is now posted for the global public to read and review, front and center at http://ReclaimTheCommons.net This alarming document calls for a huge new global expansion of nuclear power as well as trillions of dollars in new investment to escalate oil, gas and coal production around the world. Its message on nuclear energy is clear: "We believe that development of nuclear energy would promote global energy security..." and "We intend to make additional joint efforts to ensure non-discriminatory access to this energy source." It confirms other public signs that the 2006 G8 Summit is being used to usher in a new era of global nuclear proliferation. At a meeting of G8 energy ministers this week in Moscow, Russia's president Vladimir Putin called for "the equal and discrimination-free access to nuclear technologies for all countries." US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said after the meeting: "We are hopeful of a very substantial rebirth of the global nuclear industry." A joint statement released by G8 ministers said: "For those countries that wish, wide-scale development of safe and secure nuclear energy is crucial." However, not all of the Group of 8 industrialized countries are in agreement about the G8's push for a "nuclear rebirth," which is being led by the United States and Russia. Germany has attacked the plan under consideration by the G8 -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US -- for broad expansion of nuclear power as a way of enhancing "energy security." Germany has pledged to progressively shut down its 19 nuclear power stations and exit atomic power altogether. A German government spokesman said on March 15th said that the Communique "does not represent Germany's position at all." He added that its proposals on nuclear power were "not acceptable to Germany." In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair's administration has publicly promoted plans for a massive program of nuclear energy expansion. But the UK government has been told by its own environmental advisers that nuclear power is not the appropriate way to combat climate change or to ensure energy security. The UK's Sustainable Development Commission is urging Prime Minister Tony Blair to reject the nuclear option in favor of an "aggressive" expansion of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Although the G8 has no juridical status whatsoever, and exists outside any democratic framework, it has become an important spectacle and platform, where top leaders of the world look for consensus among each other, before imposing their policies on their populations. In defiance of this top-down and dictatorial style of decision-making, and to further the advance of the "information commons," Reclaim the Commons has published the "G8 Summit Communique on Energy Security" on its website, for people throughout the world to see and debate. According to its Statement of Unity, Reclaim the Commons stands for "true democracy, for all people to have a voice in the decisions that affect them, for complete transparency in all decision-making processes, and for every person's human rights to be honored and protected." At the 2005 G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders focused on negotiating initiatives to mitigate the impacts of climate change and cancel the debt of African countries. In a dramatic and disturbing turn-around, the 2006 G8 Summit appears set to promote trillions of dollars of investment in fossil fuels, "which will exacerbate both climate change and developing country debt," according to an analysis of the leaked Communique by the clean energy activist group Oil Change International, online at http://priceofoil.org. Environmental and global justice activists worldwide are troubled by -- and adamantly opposed to -- this regressive approach to "energy security" in 2006 by the G8 leaders. As early as July 2005, Russia had expressed its intention to focus on "energy security" as the central theme of the 2006 G8 Summit. But by December 2005, it had become obvious that this was merely a cynical strategy by Russia to project its wealth in the areas of oil and natural gas on to the world stage, rather than a serious push to decrease global dependence on fossil fuels through investment in renewable energy sources. As the world's second largest oil exporter, after Saudi Arabia, and the major exporter of natural gas to Europe, fossil fuels give Russia much of its trans-national political and economic clout. On January 3, just days after Russia took over the annual Presidency of the G8 from England, a call for grassroots "energy dissent" during the 2006 G8 Summit was distributed worldwide through the global Indymedia network. Responding to the crucial role that Russia had recently played in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol -- the international treaty on climate change that requires member countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases -- and bringing it into force, the call stated that this "makes this G8 Summit another critical moment for climate justice action." But the call warned that "dissenters will demonstrate that there can be no 'energy security' while climate crisis and ecosystem destruction gain speed, and civilization drives suicidally down a road paved by dependence on non-renewable, fast-depleting fossil fuels." It noted that the G8 countries consume 45% of world oil and produce 47% of global emissions of carbon dioxide. "Their energy security," the call concluded, "is our energy grave!" The new revelations about the extent to which nuclear power -- in addition to fossil fuels -- will also dominate the agenda at the 2006 G8 Summit will serve only to increase the outrage and opposition of environmental and global justice movements against the G8's backwards shift on "energy security." Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International told the Reuters news agency: "The nuclear industry is desperate to secure funding of billions from the taxpayers of the G8. If they succeed we will fail in securing a sustainable energy future and will fail to prevent dangerous climate change." In an astonishing twist of irony, July 16th -- the date in 2006 when the G8 plans to officially release and launch its "Communique on Energy Security" -- also marks the anniversary of the first-ever atomic bomb explosion, at the 'Trinity' test site in New Mexico, in 1945 three weeks before the United States' nuclear bomb assaults on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, 2006 is the 20th anniversary of the former Soviet Union's catastrophic nuclear power plant meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine. But the deadliness of nuclear energy is not only a phenomenon of the distant past. On December 15th, 2005, at a nuclear power plant 3 miles outside St. Petersburg -- host city to the 2006 G8 Summit -- in Russia, an explosion ripped through a smelter and killed two workers. How will environmental and global justice movements around the world respond to the new initiative by the G8 to expand use of the Earth's deadliest energy source? The website of Reclaim the Commons provides this hint: "Building on these historical links that remind us of nuclear power's horrific effects, anti-nuclear movements worldwide should initiate emergency plans to mobilize opposition against the G8's dangerous and destabilizing 'nuclear rebirth,' with global protest actions on July 16, 2006 to END THE NUCLEAR AGE!!" In 2004, Reclaim the Commons was a leading voice and organizer of protest during the G8 Summit that year, held in the United States at Sea Island in Georgia. Since 2004, Reclaim the Commons has also coordinated annual demonstrations and grassroots "counter-conventions" at the corporate conventions of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and this April 8 - 10, 2006 in Chicago. Reclaim the Commons remains committed to raising public scrutiny and rejection of the G8 Summit's basic and intrinsic function -- which is to stifle and bypass transparent, accountable proccesses of global democracy. The Reclaim the Commons Statement of Unity declares: "The Commons are the universal heritage of people and all living things. They are everything needed to support healthy life on earth: air, water, food, shelter, health care, energy sources and our genes. They are what is needed to sustain culture: our multicultural heritages, education, information and the means to disseminate it, essential human services, public spaces, and political space. They are equally the land, its forests, the oceans, and all ecosystems. In sum, the Commons are everything that we inherit jointly and freely, and hold in trust for future generations. "We are currently witnessing a massive theft of the global Commons, which are being turned into commodities by those who seek profit for the few at great cost to the many. We oppose this wholeheartedly and choose to envision a better world for all life on this planet. We choose a world that is truly democratic, just, and sustainable; a world where every person's basic needs are met, where wealth is equitably distributed, where racial, economic and gender justice prevail, where indigenous cultures are cherished, and where restitution is made to the exploited. We work toward a society based on thriving, regional economies that are ecologically and economically sustainable, in which control of the Commons is returned to public stewardship. "We call for an end to all privatization and destruction of the Commons, an end to the use of biotechnology to further concentrate ownership and control over food sources and health services, and an end to corporate control at all levels of government- from national and international military & trade policies to the domestic agenda that institutionalizes racism, sexism and poverty. "We call for true democracy, for all people to have a voice in the decisions that affect them, for complete transparency in all decision-making processes, and for every person's human rights to be honored and protected." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 19 RIA Novosti: China backs Russian proposal on nuclear fuel centers 17/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 17 (RIA Novosti) - China supports a Russian proposal to set up international nuclear fuel centers under the control of the UN's nuclear watchdog, a senior official said Friday. Sun Qin, chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA), speaking in Beijing at a meeting with the head of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, Sergei Kiriyenko, said, "Every country has the right to develop nuclear energy." President Vladimir Putin said in late January that Russia was ready to build an international center "to offer nuclear fuel cycle services, including [uranium] enrichment" under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia has offered to enrich Iranian uranium on its soil as a compromise solution to the current standoff over the Islamic Republic's controversial nuclear programs. Putin said that enrichment centers could also be set up in other "nuclear club" countries, providing access on a non-discriminatory basis to nations seeking nuclear fuel. "We consider the initiative to establish international centers to provide nuclear fuel cycle services to be very significant," Sun Qin said. He also called Russia and China "countries with a major responsibility". "Our countries complement each other in cooperation on the non-proliferation regime, and in the peaceful use of nuclear energy," he said. Kiriyenko, who began his visit to Beijing Friday, said that Russia highly valued cooperation with China, including through the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, and the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 20 BBC: India and Russia in energy talks Last Updated: Friday, 17 March 2006 [Russian PM Mikhail Fradkov and Indian PM Manmohan Singh] The Russian-Indian deal is premature, the US says Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says he is confident of greater nuclear power cooperation with Russia. He was speaking after talks in Delhi with Russian PM Mikhail Fradkov. Russia recently agreed to sell uranium to power two Indian nuclear reactors. Mr Fradkov said after the meeting that the sale was "in the interest of both the countries. India says the fuel is needed to ensure that the units at the Tarapur power station operate safely. Mr Singh thanked Russia for responding to its request for uranium. "I am confident that both countries will utilise opportunities to expand our partnership in civil nuclear cooperation," he said at a news conference following the talks. Russia and France have intermittently provided Delhi with uranium since the US stopped supplies following India's first nuclear tests in 1974. Under a recent deal, India is to have access to US civilian nuclear help, but cannot do so under current US law. Mr Fradkov also signed some trade and technology agreements on banking and space cooperation. He attended a India-Russian business meeting after arriving in Delhi on Thursday evening. 'Proper-sequence' Moscow is also likely to supply equipment and material for a new atomic power plant coming up in India's southern Tamil Nadu state with Russian help, reports say. The US has expressed its reservations about Russia supplying nuclear fuel to India. [The Bhabha atomic plant outside Mumbai, India] India needs nuclear power to help meet its energy needs A top US official said such a deal should not go through before India's recent landmark nuclear deal with the US is cleared by the US Congress and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG]. "India needs energy [...] so one understands that," US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns was quoted telling reporters in Washington by AFP news agency. "We think the proper sequencing would be that if India needs nuclear fuel for its reactors in Tarapur, that the proper way to do this would be to have the US Congress act, hopefully change our laws, have the NSG act and change NSG practices, and then countries would be free to engage at that point in civil nuclear trade with India," he added. Indian authorities say Russia had notified the Nuclear Suppliers' Group of its intentions to meet India's request for fuel for the Tarapur plant in western Maharashtra state. They say a shortage of fuel for Tarapur "would have affected its continued operation under reliable and safe conditions". NUCLEAR POWER IN INDIA India has 14 reactor in commercial operation and nine under construction Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity India has limited coal and uranium reserves Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel its nuclear power programme long-term Source: Uranium Information Center Global nuclear powers The last supplies made by Moscow in 2001 sparked US protests. The controversial US-India nuclear deal, which reverses three decades of US policy, was finalised during President Bush's recent visit to India. It will give energy-hungry India access to US civil nuclear technology. In return, Delhi has agreed to open 14 of its nuclear facilities to inspection. Eight others have been designated as military sites and will remain closed. Mr Bush has admitted it might be hard to get the landmark deal through the US Congress, which must ratify it. Critics of the deal say it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington opposes. Some opponents in India say it might compromise national security and Indian foreign policy. ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Pakistan warns India nuclear deal will 'unravel' NPT Fri Mar 17, 12:01 AM ET HONG KONG (AFP) - The main international treaty aimed at stopping the spread of atomic weapons will fall apart in the wake of the US civil nuclear deal with India, neighbour and rival Pakistan has warned. In an interview with the Financial Times, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri also said his country wanted equal treatment and that it would pursue its own options for nuclear power. "The whole Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will unravel," Kasuri told the paper. "Nuclear weapons are the currency of power and many countries would like to use it. Once this goes through, the NPT will be finished," he said in the interview published on Friday. US President George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bushhas agreed to give India access to nuclear technology in exchange for separating its civil and military atomic programmes and placing a majority of its reactors under international inspection. The United States has not indicated it is willing to offer the same treatment to Pakistan, whose former top nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan admitted in 2004 to trading nuclear technology with Iran " /> Iran, Libya and North Korea " /> North Korea. But the Pakistani foreign minister told the paper: "We demand equality of treatment and we'll continue to pursue it." The Financial Times cited foreign ministry officials saying that the most likely supplier of nuclear reactors would be China. The paper quoted analysts as saying that a tie-up between Islamabad and Beijing could counter growing Indian influence in the region. "The US should be conscious of the sentiments of this country," Kasuri said. "Public opinion sees things in black and white. They compare the US to China and feel it has not been a constant friend the way China has." The US deal with India still must be ratified by the US Congress and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls trade in atomic fuel. Such fuel has been denied to India because it conducted nuclear tests but has refused to join the NPT. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Indian PM thanks Russia for proposed uranium supply Fri Mar 17, 8:35 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has thanked Russia for its decision to supply uranium to two fuel-starved Indian nuclear reactors, during a visit to New Delhi by Russian Premier Mikhail Fradkov. The Indian foreign ministry earlier in the week said that Moscow had agreed to New Delhi's request for a limited amount of uranium for its Tarapur reactors in the western state of Maharashtra. "I would also like to convey our warm appreciation to the Russian government for responding positively to our request for nuclear fuel supply to Tarapur 1 and 2 (nuclear facilities)," Singh said at a joint press conference with Fradkov at the end of two-hour-long talks. Fradkov's two-day visit came days after Washington said it opposed Moscow providing the uranium before India honoured its obligations under a landmark nuclear deal it struck with the United States during a visit this month by President George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bush. The deal, which seeks to lift a decades-old ban on transfer of nuclear technology to India, still has to be approved by the US Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India's Tarapur plant was built by US company General Electric in the 1960s but Washington halted uranium supplies after New Delhi staged its first nuclear tests in 1974 and refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then, the plants have received sporadic supplies from Russia and France. On Wednesday, India said it first approached Washington for fuel for the two reactors at the Tarapur nuclear power plant. But it said the request was turned down due to US laws banning transfer of critical material outside the NSG. New Delhi defended the Russian decision, saying that Russia had approached the NSG under the "safety exception clause", and thus did not violate the group's guidelines. The clause allows fuel transfers if there are grounds to believe that depriving a reactor of fuel could create a nuclear danger. Singh said that he was optimistic that India and Russia would expand ties in civil nuclear energy. "I am confident that both countries will utilise opportunities to expand our partnership in civil nuclear energy cooperation," he said. Singh said that India's Kudankulam nuclear power project in the state of Tamil Nadu, being built with Russian help, was "a flagship of cooperation" in nuclear energy. Fradkov said that cooperation between the two countries was "evolving". Singh also sought Russia's help in the construction of a proposed seven-billion-dollar gas pipeline from Iran " /> Iranvia Pakistan, saying India was "desperately short of hydrocarbon resources". Russia is India's largest military supplier. Both sides have been jointly developing an array of military hardware including the BrahMos cruise missile, electronic warfare systems and anti-terrorism hardware. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 ITAR-TASS: Russia wants to expand cooper with China in nuke peaceful uses 17.03.2006, 08.32 BEIJING, March 17 (Itar-Tass) - Head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Sergei Kiriyenko said Russia is interested in expanding cooperation with China in the sphere of peaceful uses of atomic power. Kiriyenko arrived in Beijing on a working visit. “We have very wide contacts in the sphere of peaceful uses of atomic power, it also concerns cooperation in building nuclear power plants and scientific-technical interaction,” the Rosatom head stressed. Kiriyenko said he would hold talks in the Chinese capital with the leadership of the Chinese Nuclear Industry Committee and Chinese Nuclear Corporation. Then he will go to the Lianyungang city in the east of the country to visit an NPP that is under construction with Russian participation. The Tianwan NPP is the largest object of economic cooperation between China and Russia. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 24 Kommersant: Putin Offers Equal Access to Nuclear Technologies In time of meeting with G8 ministers, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, center, called for ensuring procedures of equal and discrimination-free access to nuclear technologies for all countries. Photo: Dmitry Azarov Mar. 17, 2006 Russia's President Vladimir Putinmet the G8 energy ministers in the Kremlin’s Catherine Hall yesterday, March 16. Putin promised involvement of foreign capital in subsoil development in Russia and advocated equal access to nuclear technologies for all countries. “The power engineering directly affects welfare of inhabitants of our planet,” Putinreminded to the G8 ministers yesterday, specifying uneven development of the market. “It is subject to various risks and today’s situation in economy is a challenge,” Putin said without elaborating. “Crude production was record past year... Russia is willing to work on the LNG market. In the following months, I hope, Dumawill pass acts on severance tax, new rules for subsoil development and rules for foreign capital’s involvement in the process, which is well expected of course,” the president inspired the G8 ministers. “The key to resolving these issues is fair spread of risks among producers, transit participants and consumers. The contracts between them should be long-term. It makes users confident that they may get everything in time.” And last but not least, Russia’s president also called for the equal and discrimination-free access to nuclear technologies for all countries. These words of Putin prompted nearly half of the ministers to make special notes. by www.kommersant.com © 1991-2006 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights ***************************************************************** 25 [NukeNet] G8 split in nuclear-energy talks Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:13:08 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) This is a division within the G8 that must be exploited by anti-nuclear movements, to disrupt the "ambitious plans for developing nuclear power being pushed by Russia and the United States." G8 split in nuclear-energy talks 54b26b4.jpg Lucie Godeau | Moscow, Russia54b26bb.jpg 54b26c2.jpg 54b26c8.jpg 54b26ce.jpg 16 March 2006 04:46 54b26d4.jpg 54b26dc.jpg Group of Eight (G8) countries were divided on Thursday on ways to ensure long-term world-energy security, as the European Union admitted its members had diverging views on ambitious plans for developing nuclear power being pushed by Russia and the United States. "It is a very different approach from the members of the G8," Andris Pielbalgs, EU commissioner for energy, told reporters as G8 energy ministers huddled in talks on how to ensure secure energy supplies amid rising global demand that is stretching supply capacity. "I think it's very difficult to see a common view on nuclear energy in the G8," Pielbalgs said, adding: "A common position on nuclear energy is still difficult to reach because it's still controversial." Germany had attacked a plan under consideration by the G8 -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US -- for broad expansion of nuclear power as a way of enhancing energy security. Pielbalgs acknowledged that, among the EU states, Britain was in the process of reviewing its energy strategy, France was "very strongly supportive" of pursuing nuclear development, while "Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants". Nuclear power development was likely to figure prominently at the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July in a growing debate about the use of nuclear energy amid high oil prices and a volatile situation in the Middle East. "The instability of oil prices and their dependence on a series of non-economic factors is having a negative effect on the global situation," Russia's Energy and Industry Minister Viktor Khristenko said when opening the G8 discussion. On January 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an initiative for the creation of an international network under UN supervision for production of nuclear fuel to be provided to any country with the means to pay for it on a "non-discriminatory" basis. The US, which has also been discussing plans to boost safe nuclear-energy development, has warmed to the Russian proposal, with US energy secretary Samuel Bodman saying here on Wednesday that Putin's initiative on nuclear energy was "consistent with our thinking". As G8 states voiced starkly differing views on the nuclear issue, Russia showed little inclination to give in to mounting European pressure for it to sign an energy charter treaty, laying out ground rules for energy producers and consumers. The treaty, which the US has also balked at, would, among other things, prevent Russia from curtailing energy supplies as it did during a gas-price dispute with Ukraine in January, and would encourage the opening of Russia's energy transport infrastructure to outside competition. While the US and Europe have called for "liberalisation" in Russia's vast and coveted energy sector -- increasingly controlled by state-run firms like the energy giant Gazprom -- Moscow has reacted coolly. As the world's second-largest exporter of oil behind Saudi Arabia, and owner of the world's largest natural gas reserves, Russia holds a lot of the cards in the debate on energy security. But it was also Moscow, chairing the G8 for the first time, that placed energy security at the top of the G8 agenda, and Russia will likely have to show some flexibility on Western demands for higher "visibility" in its energy sector if its G8 presidency is not to be seen as a flop. Piebalgs said earlier that Europe was not satisfied with the level of Russian gas production. "We want Russia to produce more gas and consume less," Piebalgs told Moscow Echo radio in an interview late on Wednesday. Greater energy saving in the country "would be advantageous for Russia, the EU and the international market," he said. Europe, which depends on Russia for some 25% of natural-gas imports, is concerned that Russia may not be producing enough gas for export, and is still edgy after Russian gas-supply disruptions in January and February. In Brussels on Tuesday, EU ministers called for a "new partnership" with Russia to secure EU energy imports after Moscow's spat with Ukraine over natural-gas prices briefly lowered the bloc's supplies. -- Sapa-AFP Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. _______________________________________________________________________ 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: 54b26b4.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60ac,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26bb.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60ad,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26c2.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60ae,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26c8.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60af,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26ce.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60b0,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26d4.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60b1,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 54b26dc.jpg: 00000001,5d3d60b2,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 26 Duke Energy should not get money for nuke reactors Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:58:44 -0600 (CST) March 17, 2006 Duke Energy Should Be Denied Taxpayer Subsidies to Build New Nuclear Reactors; Better Alternatives Exist WASHINGTON, D.C. Duke Energys plan to apply for a construction and operation license to build two new nuclear reactors at a site owned by Southern Co. in Cherokee County, S.C., should not be permitted to come to fruition, Public Citizen said today. Duke is angling to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to defray the costs of applying for a license as well as operating the plants; it should not be given a government handout for the application, the organization said. Nor should the government issue a license. Not only does nuclear power pose a threat to public health and safety, but Duke Energy has a track record that indicates it has been dishonest with consumers. To read entire press release, visit http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2155. /*Your email ID. --*/ ***************************************************************** 27 [NukeNet] NYTimes article & News Release, Illinois Attorney Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:13:11 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear All, First click on http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html Today's story about Braidlwood and other nukes that leak tritium, plus the anouncement of 17 new reactor orders. Then read the attahed about a lawsuit concerning Braidwood's tritium leaks. Thanks to Jonathan for sending the NY Times link and to Bobbie and Paul for the lawsuit info. Pleas pass this on to your other e-mail contacts. Jeannine From Paul Gunter to all of us! Tritium - now you know all about it! Bobbie ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Gunter Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:53 PM Subject: FW: News Release, Illinois Attorney Genral Hi, Hot off the press. Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Tel. 301 270 6477 www.nirs.org ---------- 54b3177.jpg For Immediate Release Contact: Melissa Merz 312-814-3118 877-844-5461 (TTY) mmerz@atg.state.il.us March 16 , 2006 MADIGAN, GLASGOW FILE SUIT FOR RADIOACTIVE LEAKS AT BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR PLANT LEAKS OF TRITIUM-LACED WASTEWATER DATE TO 1996 Chicago Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow today filed a lawsuit against the owner and operators of the Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station in Will County for the facility's releases of wastewater containing tritium into the groundwater beneath the facility and the groundwater outside the boundary of the plant. The first leak allegedly occurred a decade ago. The Village of Godley is located southwest of the nuclear plant, while the Village of Braidwood is approximately two miles north. The eight-count complaint, filed today in Will County Circuit Court, names as defendants Exelon Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation based in Chicago; Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), an Illinois corporation; and Exelon Generation Corporation, LLC, of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. Exelon Generation and ComEd produce and distribute nuclear power for their parent, Exelon Corporation. Com Ed was the owner and operator of the Braidwood station until 2000, when Exelon assumed those duties. Operations at the Braidwood nuclear plant generate tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can replace non-radioactive hydrogen atoms in ordinary water to form tritiated water. Small amounts of tritium are commonly found in most surface water; however, higher concentrations are found in water used by nuclear power plants. Health experts say human exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer. According to Madigan's and Glasgow's suit, Exelon released tritiated water at eight separate locations on the defendants' property. Three distinct releases occurred in 1996, 1998 and 2000, and three other releases occurred at unknown times, from the facility's blowdown line, an underground pipe that carries wastewater, including tritiated water, approximately four and one-half miles from the power plant directly to the Kankakee River. An additional release occurred at an unknown time in the area near and to the west of the station and an eighth release occurred March 13 near the tritiated water temporary storage area at the plant. Braidwood's blowdown line is located on property owned by the defendants, but runs adjacent to private and public property, including a forest preserve and nature area. Madigan's and Glasgow's lawsuit alleges that the eight leaks contributed to water pollution and that six of the releases were the result of inadequate maintenance and operation of vacuum breakers along the blowdown line. Vacuum breakers allow air into the line to prevent the formation of a vacuum within the pipe. In alleging water pollution in their lawsuit, Madigan and Glasgow alleged that tritiated water entered the vacuum breaker housing and flowed into the groundwater and upward through a manhole onto the surrounding land. "When releases occur, it is absolutely critical that all parties, including state and local officials, employees and those who live in the surrounding area, are notified as soon as possible," Madigan said. "The potential hazards associated with the nuclear industry demand such a response." "The method of operations put in place at the Braidwood Nuclear Plant since 1996 by Commonwealth Edison and their parent company as of 2000, Exelon, clearly placed their profit margin first with a callous disregard for the health, safety and welfare of the local residents. Exelon was well aware that tritium increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the public of their risk of exposure," Glasgow said. "This lawsuit is critical to enjoin Exelon from releasing any additional tritium into the groundwater and to mandate an effective remediation of the serious damage that has already been done." Glasglow continued, "As always, Attorney General Madigan has made available the resources of her office readily to work with my office in the filing of this most critical action on behalf of the residents of Will County. This action will go a long way in providing the residents of Godley and Braidwood with a level of confidence that our offices are going to prosecute these serious violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to the fullest extent of the law." "Since the IEPA learned in late 2005 about the tritium releases from Exelon, we have been aggressively investigating the nature and extent of the groundwater problems," said Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Director (IEPA) Director Doug Scott. "We have also made every effort to respond to public concerns and we will continue to be involved as long as there is need." The IEPA investigated the case and referred it to Madigan's office in March 2006 after samples taken by the defendants in December 2005 indicated elevated levels of tritium contained in the groundwater at various locations outside the property boundary of the nuclear plant, including a private well allegedly contaminated by the 1998 release. The timeline for the alleged leaks of tritiated water is as follows: * 1996: an estimated 40,000-gallon release of tritiated water from vacuum breaker number 1 (VB1), the closest to the nuclear reactor and adjacent to a ditch which flows north, around the reactor and then south toward Godley. Water from the release flowed on the surface, entered the ditch and remains in the groundwater around VB1. * 1998: an estimated three million gallon-release from VB3 resulted in tritiated water ponding on the surface, which the defendants allegedly left to evaporate and soak into the groundwater where it remains. * 2000: an estimated three million gallon-release from VB2. According to the suit, the defendants recovered some of the released water, but an unknown amount remains in the groundwater near the area it was released. * Dates unknown: releases from vacuum breakers 4, 6 and 7, which impacted three additional areas. The release from vacuumbreaker 4("VB 4") resulted in tritium contamination, in excess of 20,000 pCi/L (picocuries per Liter), of groundwater within property owned by the Will County Forest Preserve District. * Date unknown: release of tritiated water in the area near and to the west of the station. * March 13, 2006: Tritium released from tritiated water temporary storage area. In addition, as a result of the leaks from VB3 in 1998 and VB2 in 2000, a plume of tritiated water is present near the vacuum breakers and has extended through the groundwater to the north through a surface pond and into groundwater north and west of the Braidwood property. The lawsuit alleges that all of the defendants also discharged non-radioactive contaminants such as sewage without a state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit into surface and groundwater off site. The complaint further alleges that tritiated water was released on March 13, 2006, from a containment area surrounding a number of tanks the defendants are using to store tritiated water, causing a threat to groundwater. Because of the problems with their equipment that caused the earlier leaks, the defendants currently are storing the tritiated water in these tanks instead of discharging the water into the Kankakee River. Finally, the complaint alleges that the defendants created and maintained a public nuisance through the releases and the other alleged non-compliance. As a remedy for the alleged water pollution, Madigan's and Glasgow's suit seeks an injunction ordering the defendants to: * Cease use of the blowdown line for the discharge of tritiated water until further order of the Court; * Prevent further migration of any contaminants released in the groundwater at and near the facility in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; * Implement measures to prevent the release of any contaminant from the facility in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; * Fully characterize the nature and extent of all soil and groundwater contamination caused by the releases, including identifying background contaminant levels and the future flow of contaminant plumes in groundwater in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; * Immediately provide a potable drinking water source to all people affected by the violations in an amount and quality sufficient to meet their daily needs, and in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; and * Eliminate any threat to the use of groundwater by citizens in the area impacted by releases from the plant. The suit also seeks the maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for the water pollution violation and an additional $10,000 for each day the violations continue.Madigan and Glasgow also seek the maximum civil penalties for additional allegations that include exceeding groundwater standards. The lawsuit specifically names ComEd in two counts for allegedly violating its NPDES permit by not reporting until December 2005 the alleged leaks that took place in 1996, 1998 and 2000. Such incidents must be reported to state and federal authorities within 24 hours. The complaint also names ComEd for its alleged failure to contain and remove the tritiated water from the areas impacted by the 1996 and 1998 leaks. Each of these counts seeks a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 per violation and an additional $10,000 for each day the violations continue. Division Chief Matthew Dunn, Bureau Chief RoseMarie Cazeau, Assistant AttorneyGeneral Christopher Perzan and Environmental Counsel Ann Alexander are handling the case for Madigan's Environmental Enforcement Division. -30- ---------- Return to March 2006 Press Releases ---------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "wandnukecom" on the web. * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * wandnukecom-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------- _______________________________________________________________________ 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: 54b3177.jpg: 00000001,3bd74e08,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\OfficeoftheIllinoisAttorneyGeneral-BraidwoodNuclearPlant.htm" ***************************************************************** 28 More speakers/details announced for Chernobyl+20 conference Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:40:12 -0500 HEINRICH BÖLL STIFTUNG

HEINRICH BÖLL STIFTUNG

NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

WORLD INFORMATION SERVICE ON ENERGY

GREENS/EFA IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

BUNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN (in the German Parliament)

INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR

EARTH DAY NETWORK

ECOCLUB

www.ch20.org

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                Contact: Tetyana Murza, Ecoclub

March 18, 2006                                                                       +380 97 5952346; +380 44 483-2961
                        tanyam@nirs.org; www.ch20.org 

 

 

MORE SPEAKERS, DETAILS ANNOUNCED FOR CHORNOBYL+20:

REMEMBRANCE FOR THE FUTURE CONFERENCE, APRIL 23-25

 

 

Organizers of the Chornobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future conference today released the names of more confirmed speakers, and new details about this international event to be held at the House of the Teacher in Kyiv, Ukraine, April 23-25, 2006.

 

The conference is intended as a clear counterpoint to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) meeting in Minsk, Belarus in April and an “official” conference in Kyiv April 24-26. At both events, the IAEA is expected to continue its efforts to downplay the consequences and lessons of the Chornobyl disaster to further its agenda of promoting new nuclear power construction. By contrast, the conference will expose the real and lasting effects of Chornobyl, and will seek to point the way to a safe, clean, plentiful energy future.

 

Among the confirmed plenary speakers announced today are:

*long-time environmentalist and founder of Earth Day, Denis Hayes

* Renate Künast, floor leader of Alliance 90/The Greens in the German Parliament;

*Yu Jie of Greenpeace China;

*Prof. Dimitry Hrodzinsky – National Commission on the Radioactive Protection of the People of Ukraine

 

Workshop leaders and speakers announced today include:

*well-known Russian whistleblower Alexander Nikitin;

*founder of Ireland’s Chernobyl Children’s Project International Adi Roche;

*Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S.;

*Mashile Phalane of Earthlife South Africa;

*Steve Thomas, of the University of Greenwich, United Kingdom;

*Anna Golubovska-Onisimova – President, Mama 86, Ukraine

*Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, U.S.;

*Prof. Keith Baverstock, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio, Finland

 

A full list of speakers, including those previously announced, can be found at the conference website, www.ch20.org. More speakers will be announced in coming weeks.

 

Organizers also announced an optional visit to the Chornobyl reactor site on April 22. Conference participants wishing to go on this tour should register for it on the conference website. Also on April 22, an Earth Day/Chornobyl+20 event will be held in Kyiv’s famed Independence Square, as Ukrainian grassroots groups converge on Kyiv following an energy tour of the country in support of a new sustainable energy policy for Ukraine.

 

BACKGROUND—NUCLEAR POWER TODAY

Public opposition to nuclear power skyrocketed across the globe following the April 26, 1986 Chornobyl reactor accident. In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon had confidently predicted 1,000 operating reactors in the U.S. alone by 2000. Instead, because of Chernobyl and nuclear power’s ongoing safety, waste and economic problems, only 440 were operating worldwide by that year, and none were under construction in North America or Western Europe. That year ended with nuclear power being excluded from eligibility for Clean Development Mechanism credits under the Kyoto Protocol.

 

Just six years later, the nuclear power industry is actively seeking a resurgence, based largely on its alleged ability to alleviate the growing global climate crisis. 11 new reactors have been proposed for Ukraine alone; 12 new reactors have been publicly suggested in the U.S.; a new reactor is under construction in Finland; India, China, Bulgaria, Russia and other countries are building or actively considering building new reactors.

 

Yet, nuclear power has not solved—and cannot solve what is inherent in the technology—its basic underlying drawbacks. It remains uniquely dangerous, extremely expensive, and no nation in the world has achieved the ability to isolate lethal, long-lived radioactive waste from the environment. The Chernobyl+20 conference will examine all of these issues in detail, along with issues surrounding nuclear proliferation and global energy equity, among other topics.

 

Moreover, nuclear power is unsuited for a role in addressing climate change. Embarking on a nuclear construction program sufficient to achieve even modest carbon emissions reductions would require a new reactor going on-line every two weeks for the next 40-50 years—an unachievable goal and one too late to make a meaningful impact. Such a program would cost trillions of dollars; lead to greatly increased nuclear proliferation and safety concerns; establish 1,000 or more new potential terrorist targets of mass destruction across the world; require development of dozens of new high-level radioactive waste sites when the world has been unable to build even one; and squander the resources necessary to implement the sustainable energy technologies that will have the greatest impact on reducing carbon emissions and addressing the climate crisis.

 

The choice is stark: the world can have nuclear power, or it can address climate change. The world cannot do both.

 

Note: media wishing to obtain credentials to cover the conference should contact Tetyana Murza at +380 97 5952346; +380 44 483-2961; tanyam@nirs.org. In the U.S., contact Michael Mariotte at 301-270-6477, nirsnet@nirs.org.

 

--30--

 ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.-India Nuke Bill Sent to the Hill From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 9:31 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has asked Congress to approve a landmark plan to share civilian nuclear technology with India, even as critics say the agreement's details have not been fully negotiated. A bill to implement the plan was introduced on Bush's behalf Thursday by the two leaders of Congress' foreign relations committees, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. Neither indicated support for the bill. The legislation would exempt India from U.S. laws that restrict trade with countries that have not submitted to full nuclear inspections. New Delhi has refused to sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and critics fear Bush's plan will allow rogue countries to build nuclear weapons programs with impunity, using imported civilian nuclear technology. Hyde and Lugar promised a thorough review, with hearings scheduled in coming weeks with top officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Analysts say Congress will be debating a plan with many loose ends. While a March 2 agreement by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh determined a crucial part of the plan - separating India's civilian and military nuclear facilities - the two countries still must negotiate the conditions, duration and scope of the overall cooperation plan. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said those negotiations ``have not even started and will take months if not a year or more to complete.'' Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Bush is ``basically saying, 'trust us''' to Congress. ``He's trying to circumvent the review process in the hopes that he can short-circuit any attempt by Congress to provide normal oversight ... or any opposition to the agreement, which is slowly building,'' Wolfsthal said. Congressional aides say the administration hoped the issue would be settled by May, although Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns predicted Thursday a long struggle to win lawmakers' approval. ``This is round one of a 15-round match,'' Burns, a negotiator of the deal and one of the administration's main spokesmen for it, told reporters. Besides pushing the plan through Congress, the administration also must persuade the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material, to change its rules. The NSG meets in May. The administration probably will face tough questions. Bush's Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress, but lawmakers have shown a growing tendency to break from Bush's leadership as his popularity declines and November's congressional elections approach. Burns addressed the plan's critics Thursday, asking, ``So does India create a precedent that would somehow dilute the nonproliferation regime?'' ``Clearly not,'' he said, ``It's going to strengthen that regime, not weaken it.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 30 Charlotte Observer: Duke Power's goal: S.C. nuclear plant | 03/17/2006 | Duke Power chose Cherokee County, S.C., as the possible site of a nuclear power plant. Its the same site where Duke halted construction on a plant. It's the same site where Duke halted construction on a plant. STAN CHOE The country's first new nuclear power plant in decades could be rising 50 miles southwest of Charlotte near Gaffney, S.C. Duke Power said Thursday it picked Cherokee County off the Broad River as the site for what could be its fourth nuclear plant in the Carolinas. The announcement pulls the national spotlight to the Carolinas, as utilities work to be among the first to build the next generation of nuclear plants -- and secure some of the billions in government incentives that come with that. Two of the furthest along are Duke, the Carolinas' largest utility, and Raleigh-based Progress Energy Inc. Whether an S.C. plant will come to be and how much it would cost rate payers are up in the air. None of the utilities says it has made the final decision to build a plant. But Duke and Progress are preparing to take a costly, multi-million dollar step: applying to federal regulators for a license to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. Duke, which would partner with a Georgia utility owner on the S.C. plant, said Thursday it hopes to apply for a license for up to two reactors at Cherokee Falls late next year or early in 2008. A plant could be online by 2015, the company says. Utility executives and some analysts say a new generation of nuclear plants is a necessity, as the country faces growing demand for electricity and not enough supply. Duke Power is telling N.C. regulators it could be uncomfortably close to draining power supplies during peak demand times next year. Before it could build a plant in Cherokee, Duke would need to convince S.C. regulators that its estimates aren't overly optimistic, as they have been in the past. Duke, which would develop and operate the plant with Atlanta-based Southern Co., said the plant could cost between $4 billion and $6 billion and create up to 1,000 construction jobs and 800 full-time operations jobs. The plant could have a capacity of 2,234 megawatts, more powerful than its McGuire Nuclear Station on Lake Norman. Ratepayers routinely pay for such capital investments through their bills. But Duke says it's too early to say how the costs would be spread. Duke chose the Cherokee site list from a list of 14, searching for a spot with the best mix of access to a lot of water, convenient roads and railways to bring in supplies, and big transmission lines to move the electricity. Duke said it liked two of the other 12 enough to earmark them for possible future expansion of more nuclear plants. Duke said it will look into applying for early-site permits for two tracts of land it owns in Davie County near Mocksville and in Oconee County, S.C., next to a nuclear plant it already operates there. An early site permit for the two would allow Duke to get approval for some preliminary environmental reviews. If it won the permits, it could come back anytime within 20 years and get a head start on the application process to build nuclear reactors there. It's not the first time Duke chose Cherokee. Duke began construction of a nuclear plant on the site but never finished in the early 1980s, after its projections for power demand in the Carolinas fell off. The site has had some land clearing and grading, as well as some cooling ponds already built. That would give Duke a head start, said Brew Barron, the utility's chief nuclear officer. Since the '80s, the 2,000-acre plot took a turn as a movie set, potential NASA training site and finally the battleground for a legal dispute over ownership between Duke and the Southern Co., the parent of Georgia Power. On Thursday, the companies said they had come to an agreement, with Southern selling an interest in the land to Duke. They will co-own the land and the plant built on it. Duke would get 55 percent of the power generated by the first nuclear unit, with Southern getting the balance. Duke would get all of the power from a second unit. Such combinations are likely to be common, said Robert Hornick, an analyst with Fitch Ratings. The companies can share the costs of such gigantic projects. It's also not surprising most of the nuclear activity in the country so far has been in the South, said David Schanzer, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott. Besides being more appreciative of the jobs a nuclear plant creates and an increase to its tax base, "the South is not known for being a hotbed of gonzo environmentalism," Schanzer said. Cherokee County, in fact, is offering to rebate 50 percent of the property taxes if Duke does build a nuclear plant there. Environmentalists and other nuclear opponents say they are girding for a battle. They decry the billions in incentives going to the nuclear industry. About a dozen utilities are interested in getting the first nuclear plant license since Shearon Harris near Raleigh two decades ago. The first six can get up to $2 billion in risk insurance to cover costs that would come from construction or operational delays outside the companies' control. Others can get loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a cost of a project and a 1.8 cent subsidy for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear generated electricity. The subsidy could cost about $6 billion in lost revenue for the U.S. Treasury through 2025, according to Public Citizen, a vocal nuclear opponent. S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford welcomed a possible nuclear plant. "In the competition for global investment, this announcement could potentially be an enormous win for South Carolina in terms of not only direct jobs, but our power generating capacity for further job-creating efforts going forward," he said. What's Next LATE 2007/EARLY 2008: Duke Power applies to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for S.C. plant. LATE 2010/EARLY 2011: Duke expects a ruling from feds. Meanwhile, it could also apply to S.C. regulators for siting authority. 2015: A new nuclear plant could be online. ***************************************************************** 31 Charlotte Observer: County's nuclear dreams revived | 03/17/2006 | Rural site abandoned in early '80s welcomes potential influx of jobs SCOTT DODD, DAN HUNTLEY FRED KELLY Staff Writers GAFFNEY, S.C. - Cherokee County's nuclear dreams have risen from the abyss. In the 1970s, Duke Power sank $600 million into a rural site on the Broad River before abandoning the project in 1983, as costs skyrocketed and the expected demand for energy from the nuclear plant didn't materialize. Duke sold off the unfinished 2,000-acre site, and a strange history unfolded. Shelby filmmaker Earl Owensby bought it, and James Cameron filmed the underwater movie "The Abyss" there (and got sued for rent by Owensby). A Florida company tried to buy the property to build the world's largest trash incinerator. And NASA briefly considered it for a weightless-environment training facility to teach astronauts to work in zero gravity. Now Duke is back, partnering with the site's new owner, Southern Power, to pursue plans for a new potential nuclear plant. County leaders fought for this opportunity, approving an incentives package last year that offered a 50 percent break on property taxes if Duke builds the plant. For a community best known for outlet stores and a giant peach-shaped water tower -- both along Interstate 85, about 45 minutes southwest of Charlotte -- the two-reactor plant could employ 800 to 1,000 people. "We're very excited," said County Council Chairman Hoke Parris. "We're looking for good, high-paying, high-tech jobs." Cherokee County, with about 54,000 residents, lies between Charlotte and Greenville-Spartanburg. It has absorbed some of the sprawling growth along the I-85 corridor, expanding its population by 18 percent during the 1990s, faster than South Carolina as a whole. But like much of the Carolinas, it has also been hit hard by the loss of factory jobs. "Most of the textiles are gone in our county," Parris said. "That's what has hurt us most." Manufacturing still dominates the economy, with about 42 percent of the work force. Among the biggest employers are the Nestle frozen food plant and Freightliner. A nuclear plant would immediately become one of the county's largest -- and best-paying -- companies. "I'm not worried about a little nuclear waste," said Ray Mullinax, 32, as he worked in his mother-in-law's floral shop in downtown Gaffney. Empty store fronts dot the aging two-story buildings that house mom-and-pop stores along Limestone Street, the town's main drag. Bill Wechel, who was cutting hair at Elmore's Barber Shop, spoke for many when he said he isn't worried about a potential nuclear diaster. "You could walk out that door and have an accident," he said. At Dee Tee's Check Cashing, the proposed plant hasn't been a topic of conversation among the regulars who sit and chat with workers. That's because almost everyone agrees that they want the plant built, said Darren Mason, co-owner of the store. "Jobs bring money," he said. "Money means more sales. There's a snowball effect." Garland Johnson and his son, Carter, run a 6,000-acre farm on the Broad, about 10 miles south of the proposed Duke site. Garland Johnson said he's not worried about the plant's safety, based on Duke's previous record. "We need the power, and nuclear is the cleanest and cheapest energy around," he said. "It's not going to bother us here." Bill Whitesides lives about a mile from the plant on a 1,000-acre farm in York County, and operates a general store in nearby Smyrna. "It was a different era when Duke abandoned the plant 20 years ago," said Whitesides, whose family has lived in western York County since before the Civil War. "The plant probably won't help anybody's land values, but it's cleaner than burning coal ... and it lessens our dependence on Middle Eastern oil." Annie Laura Hamrick is worried, though. She lives on the river in York County about three miles south of the proposed plant. She fought it in the 1970s and is still concerned about its potential impact on the river. "Two years ago with the drought, the city of Gaffney's water supply nearly cut off," Hamrick said. "What's going to happen when up to a quarter of the river's flow is lost by the plant?" ***************************************************************** 32 Charlotte Observer: S.C. nuclear plans to draw concerns, protests | 03/17/2006 | DUKE POWER ANNOUNCEMENT BRUCE HENDERSON bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com As Duke Power considers building a new nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C., a move it announced Thursday, federal officials are still wrestling with what to do with the nation's tons of radioactive used fuel. Spent fuel, as it is called, is typically stored at the power plants where it was used. Construction of a permanent disposal site in the Nevada desert still hasn't won final approval. Critics charge that on-site cooling pools, where hot fuel fresh from the reactor goes for five to seven years, are potentially dangerous. The National Academy of Sciences, in a report last year, said successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools would be difficult but possible. An attack leading to a fire, it said, could release large amounts of radioactive material if the metal-clad fuel rods burn. The nuclear industry, including Duke, say the plants are among the most secure facilities in the world. In addition to the pools, Duke stores spent fuel in sealed metal cylinders called casks that are then enclosed by metal or concrete outer shells. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sanctions that storage method. Duke uses cask storage at its McGuire plant on Lake Norman and Oconee plant near Seneca, S.C. It's planned to begin at the Catawba plant on Lake Wylie this year or next year, Duke has said. Duke won't say how much spent fuel is stored at its plants, information the federal government now considers security-sensitive. The Congressional Research Service reported that, in 2002, Oconee stored 1,615 tons, McGuire 1,178 tons and Catawba 861 tons. "Used fuel storage at any new plant is something we have to factor into the project," said Duke spokesman Rita Sipe. The used fuel is safe where it is, says the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, but the plants weren't intended for long-term storage. "The onus is on the government to meet its obligation" for a permanent disposal site, spokesman Steve Kerekes said. The Department of Energy has no estimate of when it will open the repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, The New York Times reported last month. "We have confidence that the federal government will continue moving the project forward," Sipe said. While Yucca Mountain is limited to 70,000 metric tons of waste -- nearly as much as is now stored at power plants -- the site is big enough to hold more, federal studies say. The Department of Energy recently proposed recycling spent fuel, reducing the amount that has to be disposed. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, an industry critic, said power plants have a generally good safety record of storing their own spent fuel. But he says as much fuel as possible should be moved out of pools. Makhijani also says storage casks should be fortified by hardened sleeves to withstand an attack. Bruce Henderson: (704) 358-5051. ***************************************************************** 33 Charlotte Observer: Groups throughout the country ready to fight every step of the way | 03/17/2006 | LEIGH DYER AND STAN CHOE Ldyer@charlotteobserver.comschoe@charlotteobserver.com Environmental and industry groups are lining up to battle over proposed nuclear power plants. The coming debate over Duke Power's hopes to build a new facility in Cherokee County, S.C., announced Thursday, will marshal forces nationally and locally. Environmental group Greenpeace is opposed to all new nuclear power plants, said Lisa Finaldi, who is campaigns director for Greenpeace U.S. and is based in Raleigh. "It's a top priority for Greenpeace in the world, not just the U.S.," she said. The group plans to work with local groups to oppose the Duke site at every stage of the process, she said. Added Michele Boyd, who tracks nuclear power for the Ralph Nader-founded consumer advocacy group Public Citizen: "We're going to be really focused on galvanizing the community." The groups are monitoring Duke's proposal along with several other possible plants around the country to see which one emerges as the front-runner to focus their opposition on. On the other side, Duke Power can expect support from industry group the Nuclear Energy Institute, which may speak in the utility's favor at Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings, spokesman Steve Kerekes said Thursday. The institute believes nuclear power is clean, reliable and affordable, and new plants are needed to meet the growing energy needs of the Southeastern U.S., he said. Opponents argue that nuclear power's costs are too high; its safety is questionable; its security is vulnerable to attack; its technology contributes to proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries; and there is no solution for disposing of the waste it generates. National opponents plan to work with the regional groups that are beginning to organize in the Carolinas. Jim Warren, executive director of the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, said offensives are about to begin in Raleigh and Columbia. The nuclear watchdog group says it will fill dockets with state regulators with testimony and arguments that nuclear is the wrong way to go. "There is going to be a lot of opposition, not just in terms of rallies and those kinds of things," Warren said. "You're going to see a wide range of people resisting this." A local chapter of the Sierra Club, which is normally vocal about environmental issues, hasn't yet taken a stand on the Duke Power site. Joe Zdenek, chair of the Henry's Knob group of the S.C. chapter of the Sierra Club, said Thursday he was not familiar with Duke's plans. "We do not have a stand against nuclear power in general," said Zdenek, of Rock Hill. "We do have issues with the proper disposal of the spent fuel rods .... We'll be monitoring Duke's plans." But another leading environmental group, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, promises an outcry. "I'm not surprised Duke picked South Carolina, because there is less of an awareness of energy issues both among the people in power and among the public," said Janet Zeller, executive director of the league in Glendale Springs. "We certainly don't have the financial resources of an energy company, but we do have people and an awful lot of information saying nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous." -- Staff writer Dan Huntley contributed. -- Leigh Dyer: (704) 358-5058 ***************************************************************** 34 RIA Novosti: Putin to discuss new Russia-EU agreement, energy with EC head 17/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's president will discuss a new Russia-EU agreement and energy partnership with the head of the European Commission, the presidential press service said Friday. Ahead of Vladimir Putin's meeting with Jose Manuel Barroso, the EC's office in Moscow quoted the head of the EU's executive branch as saying that Europe needed to develop more effective cooperation with Russia in the energy sector. Europe and Russia are mutually dependent in energy terms, and cooperation in this and other sectors is of crucial importance, Barroso said. Energy security, which Russia has set as a priority of its current presidency in the Group of Eight club of industrialized nations, was also on the table at Putin's meeting with G8 energy ministers on Thursday. Putin said Russia was not only preparing specific energy initiatives for July's G8 summit in St. Petersburg but also working on ways to develop nuclear energy projects involving other countries. Putin and Barroso are also expected to consider a new agreement on partnership and cooperation between Russia and the EU to replace the current agreement, which expires in 2007. Barroso said it is time to review the structure of further bilateral relations, and consider ways to establish closer and more effective cooperation. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 35 Rutland Herald: NRC member criticizes Yankee decision Rutland Vermont News & Information March 17, 2006 By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff One of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s five members believes Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should not have been allowed to boost its power until safety concerns still under appeal had been resolved. In a letter made public Thursday, NRC member Gregory Jaczko wrote to his fellow commissioners that he had “substantial concerns” about letting Vermont Yankee produce more power immediately. “I have substantial concerns about the decision to make the license amendment approving the requested Vermont Yankee extended power uprate application immediately effective,” Jaczko wrote. Several safety issues raised by the Department of Public Service and the ant-nuclear group New England Coalition about the power increase still are pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial panel affiliated with the NRC. Hearings won’t take place until this fall. “It appears that in complex cases like that confronting the NRC in Vermont Yankee’s application, the agency has misapplied the implementation of the ‘no significant hazards consideration’ determination,” Jaczko wrote. Under NRC procedure, the NRC staff must make a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” before the uprate can go ahead. According to Jaczko, the staff only issued that finding after the final amendment was issued March 2, when usually such a determination is made very early in the review process, raising questions. “This in and of itself reveals that this determination was obviously complex — more of an analysis regarding whether there were significant hazards rather than an analysis of whether the application involved significant hazards considerations,” he wrote. “Somewhere we strayed from our course,” he wrote, saying he believed that the NRC staff had adopted procedures contrary to law. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Jaczko was only one member, and that his concerns would be addressed at a later meeting of the full board. “He’s one of five commissioners and he’s free to express his concerns,” Sheehan said. He said Jaczko’s letter came after the New England Coalition filed a petition with the NRC on March 3 asking for a stay to prohibit the company from boosting power. That request came a day after the NRC issued Entergy Nuclear its final permit. Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said Jaczko’s comments “are an issue between the commissioners” and declined to comment. Earlier in the day, Williams noted that computer analysis of the acoustic vibration in a steam line at the plant, which has essentially put the uprate on hold after a 5 percent boost, needed additional analysis which would take another week. Raymond Shadis, senior technical adviser for the New England Coalition, couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday about Jaczko’s statement. Jaczko, who has a doctorate in particle physics, has worked for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate minority leader who is one of the strongest critics of the plan to build a high-level nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain outside Las Vegas, as well as U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a long-standing nuclear critic. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 36 Independent: Chernobyl: the legacy Twenty years on from the world's worst environmental catastrophe, John Woodcock revisits the still-poisonous landscapes of Ukraine and Belarus. But as Britain debates whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, are we forgetting the terrifying lessons of 26 April 1986? Published: 18 March 2006 Tourism does not come more chilling than in the visitor centre at the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power station. The view from the window is hypnotic in its awfulness. It overlooks what appears to be an unremarkable industrial complex, dominated by a red-and-white striped chimney stack wrapped in a steel frame. Pop music blaring from a radio somewhere within the site adds to a sense of normality that is misleading, shockingly so. The surrealism of disco sounds in such a place is reinforced by the centre's ominous exhibits. They are dominated by a large model of what cannot be seen from the window. It represents the inside of the wrecked Reactor No 4. Tiny figures in white protective suits are placed among the mock debris, replicating those who today, only a few hundred yards away, perform the most dangerous tasks imaginable. Beside the display, a video relates what happened at the plant 20 years ago next month, on 26 April 1986. In brief, inexperienced operators in the control room made catastrophic mistakes during the testing of equipment, compounding fundamental design flaws and inadequate safety procedures. The result was the world's worst - and continuing - environmental disaster involving nuclear energy. One casualty was the company town of Pripyat, little more than a mile down the road. It was home to the plant's workers and their families, until the population of nearly 50,000 was evacuated en masse, as a radioactive vapour descended on them. What they left behind will remain abandoned forever. It is the ultimate ghost town. There are still scenes, among its poplar-lined avenues and Party symbols of the Soviet era, which capture the poignancy of a hurried escape: a piano in the remains of a 14th-floor apartment; a doll left in the community's nursery where bed-frames line the walls; books strewn on the floor of what was the public library, some date-stamped on the day disaster struck. As the commentary in the visitor centre puts it: "Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pripyat was conquered by the atom." The film ends with the message: "The Chernobyl problem is still unresolved." The changing red numbers on a digital panel are part-confirmation of that. On the day we were there the figures were darting between 1.21 and 1.17, and back again. Julia Marusych, head of the information department at Chernobyl and the woman with possibly the toughest public-relations job on the planet, explained what the numbers meant. They represent, in milliroentgens, the level of radiation outside the centre. 1.21 did not seem a lot, I suggested, and she agreed, before making the point that modest or not, it is still 100 times more than the average natural level of background radiation. Inside the perimeter fence enclosing the vast redundant plant itself, so-called "stabilisation crews" monitor what is going on at the heart of the site now. It is perilous work. Censors indicate that radiation levels at the reactor's core are 300 million times greater than normal safety margins. Devastating though the explosion and fire were in 1986, only 3 per cent of the reactor's lethal cocktail of radioactive material escaped at the time - sufficient, however, to lay waste to parts of northern Ukraine, and contaminate 70 per cent of neighbouring Belarus. Two decades on and more is now leaking into the atmosphere through large holes in the concrete sarcophagus that was built to encase the reactor. Experts said at the time that the protective structure would have to survive far longer than the pyramids of ancient Egypt, such is the long-term potency of radiation. The present structure has proved inadequate and only now, after years of argument, is work scheduled to begin on what is hoped will be a permanent solution. In the meantime, how safe is the site, which, remarkably in the circumstances, drew 2,000 visitors last year, many with a scientific interest, but also those classed as "disaster tourists"? The spokeswoman doesn't know. No one does. "We cannot say conditions are safe," said Julia Marusych. "Risks remain." How secure is she in her cheerful, modern office when it overlooks the menacing complex which emits such a deadly and invisible poison? How is her health? She shrugs. She feels fine, but after working there for six years... Officially the disaster claimed 56 lives, mainly among those who fought a heroic battle to contain it. Doctors and others are in no doubt that the true figure is already into the thousands as the long-term effects of radiation take their toll. Cancers in various forms have soared, as has the number of children being born with deformities. Humanitarian aid groups in western Europe do what they can. An Irish-based charity is at the forefront, providing respite for the terminally ill, helping to pay for life-saving operations, and giving money and practical support to impoverished, state- run institutions which will struggle to cope with the human cost of Chernobyl for generations to come. The charity's founder, Adi Roche, has been to the region about 50 times, and visited the plant itself on eight occasions, putting her own health in jeopardy. She believes the risk is justified in promoting her anti-nuclear stance, all the more relevant to her now that Britain is considering an energy policy ever more reliant on nuclear power. With its greatest calamity looming behind her she said: "We are in the middle of madness here. Chernobyl represents the first large-scale 'experiment' in the management of a nuclear crisis, and it has failed miserably." Her opponents include Viktor Krasnov, director of the Department of Nuclear Radiation Safety at Chernobyl, where he has worked for 14 years. He talks optimistically about the situation there, despite the fears of some experts that the reactor's core could implode, causing even greater devastation than before. "There is no immediate danger," he insists. Krasnov is also confident about the sarcophagus, despite its leaks through a decaying shell and the fact it will be relied upon for at least six more years before a new protective shield is constructed. "The situation is under control. It is absolutely safe." He has not lost faith in nuclear power. On the contrary, he thinks it was a mistake to abandon Chernobyl's other reactors. If he had his way Chernobyl would still be generating electricity in support of Ukraine's four other nuclear plants, and helping to reduce reliance on politically vulnerable energy supplies from Russia. Krasnov's view is that the lessons learned at Chernobyl have reinforced the industry as a whole. He added: "I am absolutely sure that such an accident will never happen again. Nuclear energy is safe." You do not have to travel far for contradictions. The scene is a vehicle graveyard where 2,000 contaminated relics - former Soviet helicopters, army trucks and tankers, fire engines, ambulances, buses and cars - reveal the scale of the so-called Battle of Chernobyl. In the words of a retired Army colonel who ruined his health in flying numerous sorties over the site during the emergency, it was nothing less than a battle "to save the world" from unprecedented amounts of fallout. The wreckage is kept in a guarded compound while the authorities decide what to do with it. After 20 years, answers remain elusive. In the end it may join more heavily contaminated equipment and have to be buried. Such desolation also exists in a different form 100 miles and more from Chernobyl. Radiation pays no heed to national borders. In Belarus, exclusion zones contain numerous villages emptied of life because the land is dangerously irradiated, and will remain so for centuries. Their names have already disappeared from updated maps. Where bulldozers haven't already removed the past, wooden and brick houses look forlorn as they collapse bit by bit and are embraced by the vegetation of an apparently normal landscape, dominated by forests of pine and silver birch, and almost devoid of human activity. Yet for those who can obtain the documentation to venture into these beautifully desolate areas, there are a few signs of habitation. Take the case of what once was Komsomolskya Street, in the hamlet of Bartolomeevka, in Belarus. At No 23, the electricity is cut off, the postman never calls and officialdom has ceased to recognise its existence. This is the home of Ivan and Lena Muzychenko, an elderly couple who refused to leave and now survive through their chickens and hens, and the food they produce in their polluted garden. "It is better to die from radiation than hunger," they say. A handful of others have, against all advice, returned to the village. One local man, Nikolai Gordunov, was evacuated in 1991 to a "safe" town far away across the country. After three years he could no longer tolerate what he calls "balcony life" in an urban apartment and chose to return to the contaminated countryside where he grew up. Sharing the risks with him is Svetlana, the woman he met and married while in exile. Chernobyl wiped out numerous villages in 1986 despite the valiant efforts of 600,000 people, many of them volunteers, who risked their health - and in many cases gave their lives - to "clean up" the polluted land in the days, months and years afterwards. They were the so-called liquidators, or likwitators. Few were braver than retired Soviet colonel Oleg Chichkov, now 65. At the time of Chernobyl he was flying army helicopters near the Chinese border. He recalls reading a "tiny article" about an incident at a nuclear power station across the continent. "They'll soon have that under control," he said to himself. Shortly after, he and a few colleagues were ordered there immediately. From Chichkov's military training and knowledge of nuclear power he was under no illusions about what was at stake. In his MI26 helicopter, supposedly protected against radiation by its lead-covered floor, he and other pilots between them flew 60 sorties a day for more than five weeks above the site. Chichkov was 45 then and had three children. Although the pilots were given iodine pills, he understood the perils of radiation and refused to expose younger crews who were not yet fathers to the risk of becoming infertile. Of those who shared the missions with him, four are now dead, and his own health is deteriorating. He has had a stroke, suffers from a bone disease, and walks with a limp. He retains his military bearing however. His uniform is ablaze with medals, one of them for service at Chernobyl. But on a practical level life has been tough since the collapse of the Soviet Union and what he describes as the resulting "mess". A grant covers half the rent on his apartment, he receives a state pension equivalent to about £25 a month, and once a year has a paid-for spell in a sanitorium. He has another perk as well - the man who helped "to save the world" is entitled to travel free on public transport in Minsk. Not only has his own health suffered. His wife, Natasha, had thyroid cancer, one of thousands of such victims whose condition is marked by a post-operative red crescent scar across the throat known locally as the "Chernobyl Necklace". Life has changed in other ways for Igor Avetisov. He lived in Uzbekhistan, more than 2,000 miles away, when he was told that his driving skills were needed at Chernobyl. He was flown to Kiev with 120 others - including friends, many of whom he says died prematurely. They arrived at Chernobyl nearly two months after the explosion, and even then they were not told how dangerous the situation was. He remembers seeing an army of people washing down the roads in a near-hopeless effort to keep the radioactive dust down in the summer heat. He also recalls driving near Pripyat and other places where one minute there had been everyday normality, the next only clues to indicate vanished lives that would never be restored. "In the gardens, washing was still on the lines. In a shop I saw sausage on the scales, and money that had not been locked away. It was kind of scary." Avetisov is 70 now, with a smile dominated by his gold tooth. He is surprisingly cheerful considering that his poor health has exiled him in Belarus for the past 16 years. He is both angry and philosophical, proud too to have a medal which records that he was "a participant in the liquidating of the consequences of Chernobyl nuclear power plant". He did return to his distant homeland for a while but because of his lung disorder doctors there advised him to live by the sea or near pine forests. A relative offered to care for him, though it meant returning to a country which, for all the official assurances, continues to pay a huge environmental and human cost. This is confirmed by scenes at Vesnova, a state-run institution in the countryside south of Minsk. It is part orphanage, part unit for severely handicapped children and young people. It is home to 138 victims, aged four to 25, and the director is in no doubt that in many cases physical and mental abnormalities are linked to their mothers' exposure to radiation and its genetic consequences. Several of the children were abandoned by their parents because they lacked the resources to cope. Countless other families struggle to care for their sick children at home, despite the hardships and minimal state support. Charities help alleviate the suffering - which in some families has affected three generations since the disaster - by providing drugs, nursing care and other forms of help. Despite Chernobyl's tragic toll - a 2,400 per cent increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer, 250 per cent increase in congenital birth deformities, 100 per cent increase in cancers such as leukaemia, plus heart disease and a soaring suicide rate, according to one charity - Soviet-style persecution is being inflicted on those who speak out. The most famous dissident is Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky, former rector of the medical institute in Gomel. He went public after noting an alarming increase in heart problems and birth defects among children after Chernobyl. As a result he was hounded by the secret police and removed from his post. He continued to challenge the government line and in 2001 was jailed for eight years with hard labour on trumped-up bribery charges. He was adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International and eventually released in 2004. Even so, he remains under virtual house arrest and risks further punishment for continuing his work. He also has a personal incentive. His wife, Galina, has had her thyroid and womb removed - cancers that he attributes to the disaster. Their apartment in Minsk also serves as a makeshift laboratory where the professor researches the effects of radiation on animal foetuses, notably those of hamsters, which have a genetic print similar to that of humans. Unsurprisingly he is a fervent opponent of nuclear power. So what is his message to Tony Blair as the British government considers building more nuclear plants? "To those sitting in offices, debating this issue, I have this simple message: to want more nuclear power rather than less is madness. I wish I could show these people what I see in mortuaries in my country. I wish I could show them the horror of what my experiments reveal. I would say to them, 'Do you need further proof?' © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 37 Brattleboro Reformer: Senate wants review of Yankee relicensing By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff Friday, March 17 MONTPELIER -- It's only been a few months since owners of Vermont Yankee announced they want to extend the plant's license 20 years, but already it's clear Entergy Nuclear is in for a tough fight with the local citizenry. The Mississippi-based owners might also be in for a tough fight with the Legislature over a license extension. A bill that would let lawmakers review the relicensing cleared the Senate floor this week, and its sponsors have high hopes that it will get through the House before the end of this legislative session. What happens next is up to House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho. She'll decide which House committee takes up the bill, and that will determine how quickly, if it all, it comes up for a vote before representatives. Sen. Rod Gander, D-Windham, one of the bill's sponsors, says he's counting on Senate Pro Tempore Peter Welch to work closely with Symington, to guide the proposal through the House. As far as Entergy is concerned, the Legislature has no business weighing in on its license extension. Company officials have made it clear they're opposed to the bill. Entergy says the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the only body that has to OK a license renewal. The NRC is currently reviewing Entergy's application. The state's Public Service Board is also expected to review the plant's bid for a license extension. Vermont Yankee's current license expires in 2012. That's when many residents, and quite a few legislators, would like the plant to close. Legislators -- particularly Windham County delegates -- say they want to participate because the plant's continued operation has far-reaching implications for the state's economy, energy future, safety and welfare. "This is not an up or down vote on Vermont Yankee now," said Gander. "The most important thing is that this Legislature do its best to give a future Legislature the authority to weigh in on this." Last year the Legislature passed a controversial bill dealing with Vermont Yankee's spent nuclear waste. It allowed Entergy to proceed with plans to build steel and concrete waste containers on plant grounds, but it placed an annual tariff on the containers. It also required Entergy to come back in 2012 and get permission for additional containers, if plant operation was extended past 2012. Entergy officials are saying that future trip to the Legislature is plenty. Coming back for a separate review on license renewal "seems excessive," plant spokesman Brian Cosgrove told the Associated Press this week. The federal Atomic Energy Act gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight of nuclear power plant issues, including license renewal. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has said if state lawmakers vote on license renewal in a way that somehow counters what the commission has to say about it, the commission's decision would trump any state decision. Kristi Ceccarossi can be reached at kceccarossi@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 160. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; FR Doc E6-3920 [Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)] [Notices] [Page 13867-13868] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17mr06-118] Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). [[Page 13868]] ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 140, ``Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements.'' 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0039. 3. How often the collection is required: As necessary in order for NRC to meet its responsibilities called for in sections 170 and 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act). 4. Who is required or asked to report: Licensees authorized to operate reactor facilities in accordance with 10 CFR part 50 and licensees authorized to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility in accordance with 10 CFR parts 40 and 70. 5. The number of annual respondents: 91. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 1,307. 7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 140 of the NRC's regulations specifies information to be submitted by licensees to enable the NRC to assess (a) the financial protection required of licensees and for the indemnification and limitation of liability of certain licensees and other persons pursuant to section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and (b) the liability insurance required of uranium enrichment facility licensees pursuant to section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Submit, by May 16, 2006, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-3920 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a FR Doc E6-3921 [Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)] [Notices] [Page 13869-13870] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17mr06-120] License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 21-01443-06, for Unrestricted Release of a Former Facility for Warner-Lambert, LLC., Ann Arbor, MI AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone: (630) 829-9871; fax number: (630) 515-1259; or by e-mail at wgs@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 21-01443-06, which is held by Warner-Lambert, LLC (licensee), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. The amendment would authorize the unrestricted release of the licensee's former facility located at Building V, Domino Farms, 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The amendment to Warner-Lambert's license will be issued following the publication of this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve Warner-Lambert's request to amend its license and release the licensee's former facility for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The proposed action is in accordance with Pfizer's request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend the Warner-Lambert NRC Byproduct Material License by letters dated January 19, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060240154), and February 14, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060480083). Warner-Lambert was first licensed to use byproduct materials at its Domino Farms facility on May 29, 1991. The licensee is authorized to use byproduct materials for activities involving in-vitro biochemical research. The majority of the licensee's operations involved the use of phosphorous-32 and iodine-125 in maximum quantities of 30 and 25 millicuries, respectively. Over the last several years hydrogen-3 and carbon-14 were used more frequently, in maximum concentrations of 100 millicuries. On January 31, 2006, Warner-Lambert completed removal of licensed radioactive material from the Building V, Domino Farms facility located at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor. The licensee conducted surveys of the facility and provided this information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological condition of the Building V, Domino Farms facility is consistent with radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment because it has moved out of the Building V facility located at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, and is conducting licensed activities at another location. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment, and allows the facility to be released for unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the licensee to demonstrate that the release of the Building V, Domino Farms facility is consistent with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff determined that there were no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action because no radiological remediation activities were required to complete the proposed action, and that the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in Sec. 20.1402 have been met. Based on its review, the staff determined that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action for the Building V, Domino Farms facility are bounded by [[Page 13870]] the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action of releasing the licensee's former Building V, Domino Farms facility located at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive for unrestricted use is to take no action. Under the no-action alternative, the licensee's facility would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the Building V, Domino Farms facility. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is inconsistent with 10 CFR 30.36, which requires licensees who have ceased licensed activities to begin decommissioning activities or submit a decommissioning plan, which upon approval, will be used to conduct decommissioning activities. This alternative would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden in controlling access to the former Building V, Domino Farms facility, and limit potential benefits from the future use of the facility. Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The Michigan DEQ, Waste and Hazardous Materials Division, Radiological Protection and Medical Waste Section was provided the draft EA for comment on February 23, 2006. Mr. Bob Skowronek, Chief, Radioactive Material and Medical Waste Unit, with the Michigan DEQ, responded to the NRC by telephone on February 24, 2006, indicating that the State had no comments regarding the NRC Environmental Assessment for the release of the Warner-Lambert, Building V, Domino Farms facility. II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the site for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, the NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The documents and ADAMS accession numbers related to this notice are: 1. Carol Lentz, Pfizer, Inc., letter to Patricia Pelke, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 19, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060240154). 2. Carol Lentz, Pfizer, Inc., letter to Patricia Pelke, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 14, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060480083). 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG- 1748, August 2003. 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, August 1994. 5. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003. Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 9th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-3921 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: RIN-3150-AF12: Fitness for Duty Programs; Notice of Meeting FR Doc E6-3922 [Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 13782-13787] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17mr06-16] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: NRC's purpose in holding a meeting is to obtain stakeholder feedback on the staff's alternative concepts for work-hour controls and the applicability of drug, alcohol and, access authorization program requirements to combined license (COL) holders during construction. The NRC is seeking to have an exchange of views during the scheduled public meeting, as part of the development of alternatives. The meeting agenda and the staff's concepts for alternative requirements are included in the Supplemental Information section of this meeting notice. The staff will also discuss the development of implementation guidance for the fatigue management provisions of this rulemaking. DATES: Wednesday, March 29, 2006. 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Session 1 (FFD for COL applicants). 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Session 2 (Alternative work hour controls). Thursday, March 30, 2006. 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Session 1 (Implementation guidance for fatigue management provisions). A limited number of telephone lines are available for interested members of the public to participate in this meeting via a toll-free teleconference: 1-800-638-8081. Pass Code: 9516 (for March 29, 2006) and 1-800-475-0212. Pass Code 48994 (for March 30, 2006). ADDRESSES: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Diec, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2834, DTD@NRC.GOV. Dave Desaulniers, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1043, DRD@NRC.GOV. Tim McCune, Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 301-415-6474, TSM5@NRC.GOV. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 26, 2005, the NRC published proposed amendment for Fitness for Duty (FFD) programs to Title 10, part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 26) in the Federal Register (70 FR 50442). The 120-day public comment period ended on December 27, 2005. The NRC received a number of substantive public comments both in support of and against the fatigue management provisions of the proposed rule that would require a 24-hour break in any 7-day period, a 48-hour break in any 14-day period, and collective work hour limits. The NRC also received comments on the applicability of drug and alcohol and access authorization programs associated with facilities under construction. In developing the final rule, the staff determined that additional stakeholder input would help resolve these issues. Agenda: Meetings With Stakeholders To Obtain Feedback on Staff's Concepts for FFD Requirements for Combined License Holders During Construction and Alternative Work Hour Controls Wednesday March 29, 2006 Session 1 (9 a.m.-12 p.m.) (FFD for COL applicants) 9 a.m.-9:05 a.m.--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC). 9:05 a.m.-9:10 a.m.--Remarks on Stakeholder Comments on Construction Applicant (T. McCune/NRC). 9:10 a.m.-9:20 a.m.--Summary of Stakeholder Comments on Construction Applicant (V. Barnes/NRC). 9:20 a.m.-9:40 a.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Modified FFD Program for Individuals with Unescorted Access (T. McCune/V. Barnes/ NRC). 9:40 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Questions and Comments. 10:30 a.m.-10:50 a.m.--Break. 10:50 a.m.-11:10 a.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Full FFD Requirements for Certain Individuals With Unescorted Access to a Construction Site (T. McCune/V. Barnes/NRC). 11:10 a.m.-11:55 a.m.--Questions and Comments. 11:55 a.m.-12 p.m.--Closing Remarks (David Diec/NRC). Session 2 (1 p.m.-5 p.m.) (Alternative Work Hour Controls) 1 p.m.-1:10 p.m.--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC). 1:10 p.m.-1:45 p.m.--Summary of Stakeholder Comments on Work Hour Controls Overview of Resolution Concept--Non-Outage Periods (D. Desaulniers/NRC). 1:45 p.m.-2:15 p.m.--Questions and Comments. 2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.--Break. 2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Outage Periods Operations, Maintenance, HP/Chemistry and Fire Brigade Personnel (J. Persensky/NRC). 2:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.--Questions and Comments. 3:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept: Outage Periods and Security Personnel (E. Skarpac/NRC). 3:30 p.m.-4 p.m.--Questions and Comments. 4 p.m.-5 p.m.--Additional Questions and Comments if needed. Thursday March 30, 2006 Session 1 (9 a.m.-12 p.m.) (Implementation guidance for fatigue management provisions) 9 a.m.-9:10 am--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC). 9:10 a.m.-9:30 a.m.--Process for development of guidance to support Final Rule (NRC Staff). 9:30 a.m.-10 a.m.--Outline of NEI proposed guidance (NEI). 10 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Guidance on 26.199(c)) as a performance-based rule (NEI/NRC). 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.--Break. 10:45 a.m.-11:15 a.m.--Work hour scheduling (NEI). 11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.--Managing hours worked (calculating hours/ turnover)(NEI). 11:30 a.m.-11:50 a.m.--Questions and Comments. 11:50 a.m.-12 p.m.--Summary, Path forward and Closing Remarks (D. Diec/NRC). [[Page 13783]] Issues Discussion-Alternative Concepts for Fitness-for-Duty Requirements for Construction Sites Background The current 10 CFR part 26 requires FFD programs for licensees holding permits to construct a nuclear power plant. The provisions of the FFD programs are stipulated in Sec. 26.2(c). The proposed 10 CFR part 26 updates the rule and increases consistency with changes in other relevant Federal rules and guidelines. In particular, the proposed Sec. 26.3(e) expands the scope of FFD programs to include combined license holders and holders of manufacturing licenses (under 10 CFR part 52). In addition, the NRC recently asked the Office of the Federal Register to publish the agency's proposed Amendment for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, 10, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 72, 73, 75, 95, 140, 170, and 171 to clarify the applicability of various requirements to each of the licensing processes (i.e., for early site permit, standard design approval, standard design certification, combined licensing, and manufacturing license). The NRC expects this proposed amendment to be available for public comment around March 13, 2006. As a result of public comments on proposed Sec. 26.3(e) and industry efforts to develop guidance for implementing FFD programs at construction sites for new reactors, the NRC is reconsidering its proposed requirements for FFD programs at construction sites (the point at which construction begins will be defined in proposed Sec. 52.103(c) and Sec. 50.10(e)(3) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations). In comments on proposed Sec. 26.3(e), NEI and other industry stakeholders suggested that nuclear power plant construction sites should be regulated on the basis of industrial safety considerations, rather than public health and safety or the common defense and security, and that full FFD programs were unnecessary. The NRC agrees with these commenters that activities at a construction site before the arrival of nuclear fuel will not pose immediate radiological risks to public health and safety. However, poor workmanship by construction workers who are impaired could introduce flaws into systems and components and challenge safe plant operations after a new plant goes on-line, if the flaws are not detected through the extensive testing of systems and components that is planned for new construction. A more immediate concern is individuals working at new plant construction sites will have access to information about the design, layout, and intended operations of the systems and components they construct, information that could be of benefit to an adversary if disclosed. Furthermore, some construction workers may have opportunities to engage in sabotage. Undetected involvement with illegal drugs or an untreated alcohol problem could make these individuals vulnerable to influence. Therefore, the NRC believes that regulating construction activities for new reactors solely in terms of industrial safety would not provide the necessary level of assurance of public health and safety and the common defense and security. The NRC also recognizes the many logistical and cost challenges of implementing several of the requirements in proposed Sec. 26.3(e) for FFD programs at construction sites. The NRC agrees that much of the workforce at a construction site will likely be transient and rapidly changing and that applying some of the proposed requirements to such workers may be overly burdensome. For example, the proposed requirements that these workers have access to an employee assistance program (EAP) and that determinations of fitness be done by a substance abuse expert in accordance with proposed Sec. 26.189 may impose costs on licensees that are not commensurate with the potential benefits to public health and safety and the common defense and security. Furthermore, although some new construction sites will be near existing nuclear power plants, other construction sites will likely be distant from a current licensee's specimen collection facilities for drug and alcohol testing. Imposing requirements for random testing of all individuals who will work at such ``greenfield'' construction sites could have the unintended consequence of requiring licensees to build specimen collection and alcohol testing facilities at these sites before construction can begin. Therefore, the NRC is considering alternative approaches to the requirements in proposed part 26 that would apply to construction sites. One alternative under consideration is a two-tiered approach to FFD programs for construction sites after construction has begun: Licensees and other entities could implement modified FFD programs for certain individuals who would have unescorted access to the construction site while requiring other individuals with specific job duties at the construction site to be subject to a full FFD program. Modified FFD Program for Individuals With Unescorted Access to the Construction Site The modified FFD program that the NRC is considering would be intended to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who have unescorted access to a construction site are fit for duty and trustworthy and reliable, commensurate with the risk to public health and safety and the common defense and security that their activities and their access to certain information would impose. The modified FFD program would apply only to individuals who have unescorted access to the construction site and work at the construction site for more than 5 days in any 1-year period. Individuals who work at the construction site for 5 days or fewer in a year, or who visit the site for other reasons, would not be subject to an FFD program, instead would be escorted while on site. Under the modified FFD program, construction workers who have unescorted access to the construction site would be subject to some of the elements of a full Part 26 FFD program, but not to others. In addition, the licensees and other entities who are responsible for construction activities (i.e., combined license holders under part 52 before the Commission has made the finding under Sec. 52.103(g), combined license applicants who have received authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3), construction permit holders under part 50, and construction permit applicants who have received authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3)) would be permitted to establish procedures for implementing certain FFD program elements that are best-suited to the circumstances at their site, but may not fully comply with the requirements for each program element in proposed part 26. The following FFD program elements would not apply to individuals who have unescorted access to a construction site under the modified program: (1) The fatigue management requirements in proposed subpart I; (2) the FFD training requirements in proposed Sec. 26.29; (3) random drug and alcohol testing requirements in proposed Sec. 26.31(c)(5); (4) the requirement for access to an EAP under proposed Sec. 26.35, and (5) the determination-of-fitness process described in proposed Sec. Sec. 26.187 and 26.189. Individuals who have unescorted access to a construction site would be subject to behavioral observation, as described in proposed Sec. 26.33, but would not be required to perform behavioral observation of others [[Page 13784]] because they would not be trained to do so. The modified FFD program would be required to implement the following specific requirements in proposed part 26: (1) FFD policies and procedures for a more limited set of topics than specified in proposed Sec. 26.27; (2) pre-access drug and alcohol testing in Sec. 26.31(c)(1), for-cause drug and alcohol testing in Sec. 26.31(c)(2), and post-event testing for industrial accidents, as specified in proposed Sec. 26.31(c)(3)(I); (3) the protection of information requirements in proposed Sec. 26.37; (4) collecting specimens and conducting alcohol tests in accordance with the requirements in proposed subpart E, although licensees and other entities would be permitted to rely on collection sites that meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 40.43; (5) at the licensee's discretion, testing of specimens at a licensee testing facility in accordance with the requirements in proposed subpart F; (6) initial and confirmatory testing of urine specimens for drugs and validity at an HHS-certified laboratory in proposed subpart G; (7) NRC review of drug test results in accordance with Sec. Sec. 26.183 and 26.185; and (8) annual reports of FFD program performance data under proposed Sec. 26.217 and the applicable reports required under Sec. 26.219(b) of significant FFD policy violations or programmatic failures. Imposing the specific requirements in proposed part 26 for these FFD program elements under the modified programs would: (1) Ensure that individuals who are subject to the program understand their responsibilities; (2) provide for the detection and deterrence of drug and alcohol abuse; (3) protect the privacy of personal information that may be collected under part 26; (4) ensure the integrity of the drug and alcohol testing performed under the modified program; and (5) meet the NRC's need for certain information to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the modified programs. Specific requirements would also be added for granting unescorted access to construction sites under a modified FFD program. The added requirements would be similar to the requirements in proposed subpart C for granting and maintaining authorization under the full FFD program that are contained, including requirements for obtaining a self- disclosure and employment history in proposed Sec. 26.61, conducting a suitable inquiry in proposed Sec. 26.63, and performing pre-access drug and alcohol testing in proposed Sec. 26.65. The NRC believes that the same stringent requirements as proposed for granting authorization to a nuclear power plant protected area should be applied in granting unescorted access to a construction site to ensure that individuals are trustworthy and reliable, as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse. Individuals who are applying for unescorted access to a construction site under the modified FFD program would be subject to pre-access testing before they could be granted unescorted access to a construction site in more circumstances than under the full FFD program, particularly with respect to reinstating individuals' unescorted access to a construction site after a short absence from the site during which they were not subject to behavioral observation. Pre- access testing would be required in more circumstances under the modified FFD program because the modified program would not require random testing. Licensees and other entities that implement a modified program would be permitted to grant unescorted access to a construction site without pre-access testing only if (1) the individual previously held authorization and had been subject to both a drug and alcohol testing program that included random testing and to a behavioral observation and arrest-reporting program that met part 26 requirements from the date on which the individual's last authorization was terminated through the date upon which the individual would be granted unescorted access to the construction site, or (2) the licensee or other entity relies on negative results from drug and alcohol tests conducted before the individual applied for unescorted access to the construction site, as permitted under proposed Sec. 26.65(b), and the individual remained subject to a behavioral observation and arrest- reporting program that met part 26 requirements, beginning on the date on which the drug and alcohol testing was conducted through the date on which the individual is granted unescorted access to a construction site and thereafter. The extent to which licensees and other entities could accept and rely on elements of the modified FFD program to meet the requirements for granting authorization in proposed subpart C would also be more limited than the extent to which the proposed rule would permit them to rely on other, full FFD programs. For example, if an individual who had unescorted access to a construction site had a positive drug test result that was confirmed by an NRC under the modified program, and if the FFD violation was reviewed and resolved without a determination of fitness by a substance abuse expert (as would be permitted under the modified program, but would be required for a full FFD program under proposed Sec. 26.187), then a licensee who is seeking to grant the individual unescorted access to a nuclear power plant protected area could not do so without ensuring that a substance abuse expert made a determination of fitness in accordance with proposed Sec. 26.189. In addition, because an individual who was subject to a modified FFD program would not have received any FFD training, a licensee who was seeking to grant unescorted access to the individual would be required to ensure that the individual received the required training before granting unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant. The reciprocity between full FFD programs described in proposed Sec. 26.53(d) would also be permitted between modified FFD programs. However, licensees and other entities would not be permitted to rely on program elements from a modified FFD program when granting authorization, except if the modified FFD program elements fully complied with the specific requirements in proposed part 26 for that element. There would be several FFD program elements in the modified program that licensees and other entities would be permitted to develop and implement on the basis of the circumstances at their specific construction site. These program elements would not be required to fully comply with the specific requirements for each program element in proposed part 26, as follows: Modified FFD programs would be required to have procedures that describe the process to be followed if an individual's behavior raises a concern regarding the possible use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs on or off site, the possible possession or consumption of alcohol on site, or impairment from any cause which in any way could adversely affect the individual's ability to safely and competently perform his or her duties, but the modified program would not be required to comply with the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.77 for management actions regarding possible impairment. Modified FFD programs would also be required to establish sanctions for FFD policy violations that, at a minimum, would prohibit the individual from having access to or performing any job duties at the construction site until the licensee or other entity determined that the individual's behavior would not pose a risk to public health and safety or the common defense and security. However, the modified programs would not be required to implement the [[Page 13785]] minimum requirements for sanctions in proposed Sec. 26.75 or apply the specific procedures for conducting a determination of fitness in proposed Sec. 26.189. Modified FFD programs would be required to have procedures for determining and tracking individuals' identities and maintaining records in a manner that would enable the program to function, but would not be required to meet the specific recordkeeping requirements in proposed Sec. 26.213. Modified FFD programs would be required to provide for an objective and impartial review of the facts related to a determination that an individual had violated the FFD policy, but would not be required to meet the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.39 for a review process for FFD violations. Modified FFD programs would also be required to conduct audits to assure the continuing effectiveness of the FFD program, including FFD program elements that would be provided by C/Vs, the FFD programs of any C/Vs that would be accepted by the licensee or other entity, and the programs of the HHS-certified laboratories on which the licensee or other entity and its C/Vs would rely. The modified FFD program would be audited at a frequency that would assure its continuing effectiveness and corrective actions would be required to resolve any problems identified. Licensees and other entities that implemented modified FFD programs would also be permitted to jointly conduct audits, or accept audits of C/Vs and HHS-certified laboratories by other licensees and entities that are subject to part 26. However, modified FFD programs would not be required to meet the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.41 for the audits and corrective actions required for a full FFD program. In addition, audits would be required to verify the honesty and integrity of FFD program personnel, but modified FFD programs would not be required to meet the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.31(b). Licensees and other entities would also be permitted, at their discretion, to implement full FFD programs to which all individuals with unescorted access to a construction site would be subject. Or they may choose to implement all of the specific requirements for any FFD program element required under part 26 or, at their discretion, a subset of program elements. However, if a licensee or other entity chose to implement one of the modified FFD program elements listed above that did not fully comply with the specific requirements for that element in proposed part 26, the NRC would require the licensee or other entity to submit its modified FFD program plans to the NRC for review and approval as part of the COL review process. These plans would then become part of the COL. The NRC believes that the flexibility to implement modified FFD program elements would eliminate undue restrictions on construction site activities while assuring that individuals who have unescorted access to construction sites are fit for duty and trustworthy and reliable, as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse. Full FFD Requirements for Certain Individuals With Unescorted Access to a Construction Site A second tier of requirements, the full FFD program, would apply to individuals who are granted unescorted access to a construction site and who perform the following job duties: (1) Supervise construction activities at the site; (2) perform security duties as an armed security force officer, alarm station operator, response team leader, or watchperson for the construction site; (3) serve as an escort at the construction site for visitors (i.e., individuals who are not performing construction activities at the site or who will be performing construction activities but will be present on site for 5 days or fewer in a year); or (4) serve as a reviewing official to grant or deny unescorted access to the construction site. The individuals who perform these job duties will have frequent opportunities to conduct behavioral observation of construction workers who have unescorted access to the construction site, as well as visitors to the site. They would therefore be in a position to detect behavior that may indicate impairment, and to detect and deter other undesirable conditions or actions. However, it would be necessary to ensure that the individuals in these job duties are trained in behavioral observation. In addition, the individuals who perform these job duties would have important responsibilities for assuring that work is performed correctly and that construction site security is maintained. Therefore, the NRC believes it would be necessary to ensure that individuals who perform these job duties are subject to a full FFD program, including random testing. However, to reduce the logistical impact of the random testing requirement, licensees and other entities would not be required to establish specimen collection facilities at a `greenfield' site, for example, but would be permitted to have these individuals tested at a local hospital or other facility in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 40, ``Procedures for Department of Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs'' (65 FR 1944, August 9, 2001). Specific Thoughts About FFD Requirements for Construction Sites 1. Under a modified FFD program, individuals who have unescorted access to a construction site would not be subject to random drug and alcohol testing. The purpose of random testing is to deter and detect substance abuse. However, these individuals would be subject to behavioral observation from supervisors and security personnel at the site and for-cause drug and alcohol testing if any indications of altered behavior are observed. A review of FFD program performance data, which licensees and other entities are required to report to the NRC under the current and proposed rules, indicates that short-term contractors have consistently had higher rates of positive drug and alcohol test results than long-term contractors and licensee employees. The NRC believes that the majority of construction site personnel will be contractor/vendor, rather than licensee, personnel. 2. Under a modified FFD program, licensees and other entities would be required to provide the FFD policy statement to individuals who are subject to the modified program, rather than making the policy statement ``readily available,'' as permitted in proposed Sec. 26.27(b). The requirement to ``provide'' the policy statement to affected individuals would be necessary to ensure that these individuals are aware of what is expected of them and what consequences may result from a lack of adherence to the policy. The policy statement would be the only means by which individuals would be informed of their responsibilities under the modified program because they would not receive FFD training. 3. The modified FFD program under consideration would not require the determination of fitness process specified in proposed Sec. 26.189 to be performed by a substance abuse expert in proposed Sec. 26.187. The modified program also would not establish requirements for followup testing if an individual had violated the FFD policy. The modified program would not include these requirements because of past experience with how licensees and other entities respond to FFD policy violations for C/V personnel. That is, the NRC expects that licensees and other entities will terminate the unescorted access of any individual who has violated the FFD policy and [[Page 13786]] deny them further access to a construction site, because, in many cases, the skills of short-term C/V personnel are easily replaced. If a licensee or other entity sought to grant, maintain, or reinstate unescorted access to an individual who had violated the FFD policy, the modified FFD program would require the licensee or other entity to determine that the individual's behavior does not pose a risk to public health and safety or the common defense and security, but would not specify the process to be followed to achieve this goal. 4. The NRC is also seeking comment on the scope of the job duty groups who would be subject to the second tier of more stringent requirements (i.e., a full FFD program). That is, are there job duty groups, other than supervisors, escorts, security personnel, and reviewing officials, whose activities could pose a sufficient risk to public health and safety or the common defense and security that subjecting them to the full FFD program is warranted? 5. The NRC is also considering excluding holders of manufacturing licenses (under proposed part 52 of 10 CFR) from FFD requirements at this time. These potential licensees may not be constructing reactors at the same fixed sites at which the reactors would be installed and their construction activities may occur elsewhere. Therefore, the NRC believes that additional study of the circumstances of these potential licensees is warranted. 6. As discussed above, the modified FFD program under consideration retains specific requirements for some FFD program elements, eliminates requirements for some program elements, and establishes general performance objectives for other program elements without establishing specific requirements. There may be other mixes of general and specific requirements that could be applied to FFD programs at construction sites that would provide adequate assurance of public health and safety and the common defense and security, commensurate with the potential risks of construction site activities. Subpart I--Fatigue Management In response to the publication of the Proposed Part 26 rulemaking for public comment (70 FR 50442, August 26, 2005), the NRC received many comments from stakeholders regarding Subpart I, Fatigue Management. The full text of these comments is available at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=Part26_risk&st= prule. Requirements that were the subject of substantive comment include: (1) The proposed requirement for individuals to have at least one 24-hour break in any 7-day period (Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(ii)), (2) the proposed requirement for individuals to have at least one 48-hour break in any 14-day period (Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(iii)), and (3) the proposed requirement for collective work hour limits (Sec. 26.199(f)). Although many comments supported these provisions, a number of comments expressed concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences, necessity, or effectiveness of these requirements. Several stakeholders commented that the proposed requirement for individuals to have at least one 24-hour break in any 7-day period would not provide the flexibility necessary for licensees to effectively schedule 8-hour shifts (many licensees currently use a schedule that includes periods of 7 consecutive 8-hour shifts). Regarding the requirement for individuals to have at least one 48-hour break in any 14-day period, several stakeholders expressed concern about the potential effect of this requirement on the ability of licensees to provide adequate coverage for unplanned maintenance (e.g., to quickly restore inoperable equipment). Other stakeholders commented that a 48-hour break during a series of night shifts would adversely affect an individual's circadian adjustment of individuals to the night shift. Several stakeholders commented that the collective work hour limits were unnecessary because they were redundant with other requirements whereas other stakeholders expressed the concern that the collective work hour limits were not adequate because they did not address worker fatigue on an individual basis. Additional comments concerning collective work hour limits included the concern that collective work hour calculations were susceptible to manipulation and that the maximum 8-week period of exemption from the collective work hour limits would not be adequate for certain longer term outages. The NRC believes the concerns described above may be largely addressed through alternative requirements that would be equally effective in meeting the objectives of the rulemaking. To address stakeholder comment regarding the proposed minimum break requirements and collective work hour controls, the staff is considering the following concept for amending the proposed fatigue management provisions. Proposed Resolution of Comments Concerning Minimum Break Requirements and Collective Work Hour Controls Delete the following provisions from the proposed rulemaking: Requirement for a minimum 24-hour break in any 7-day period. Requirement for a minimum 48-hour break in any 14-day period. Collective work hour limits. Add the following minimum break requirements: Individuals subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule would be required to have a minimum 36-hour break in any 9-day period. This requirement would be applicable whether the plant is operating or in an outage. While the plant is operating, individuals subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule would be subject to the following break requirements: --Individuals working 8 hour shift schedules would be required to have a minimum of one 24-hour break per week, averaged over a shift cycle. --Individuals working 10 hour shift schedules would be required to have a minimum of two 24-hour breaks per week, averaged over a shift cycle. --Individuals working 12 hour shift schedules would be required to have a minimum of three 24-hour breaks per week, averaged over a shift cycle. During the first 60 days of a plant outage, individuals subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-4) of the proposed rule would be required to have a minimum of three 24-hour breaks in each successive (i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period. During the first 60 days of a plant outage, security outage, or increased threat condition, individuals subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(5) of the proposed rule would be required to have a minimum of four 24-hour breaks in each successive (i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period. Beginning day 61 of a plant outage, security outage, or increased threat condition, individuals subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule would be subject to the controls applicable to an operating plant, except as follows: --The maximum 60 day period for application of outage or increased threat condition limits could be extended 7 days for an individual or [[Page 13787]] group of individuals for each independent 7 day period the individual or group works not more than 48 hours during the outage or increased threat condition. Implementation Details For purposes of compliance with the minimum 24-hour break requirements: Because work schedules may contain shifts of more than one length (e.g., combinations of 8 and 12-hour shifts), shift schedules would be defined as follows: [rtrif] 8-hour shift schedules average not more than 9 hours per day. [rtrif] 10-hour shift schedule average not more than 11 hours per day. [rtrif] 12-hour shift schedule average not more than 12 hours per day. Only break periods of 24 consecutive hours or more would count towards the break requirements. Breaks would be counted in 24-hour increments. For example, a 36 hour break would count as one 24-hour break. A break of 48 consecutive hours would count as two 24-hour breaks. The maximum duration of a shift cycle over which a licensee would be able to average breaks would be limited to six weeks. Any portion of a plant outage, security outage, or increased threat condition that does not comprise a complete 15 day period would be subject to the individual work hour limits in proposed Sec. 26.199(d)(1), Sec. 26.199(d)(1)(I), and the requirement described above for a minimum 36-hour break in any 9-day period. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eileen McKenna, Chief, Financial, Policy and Rulemaking Program, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-3922 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; FR Doc E6-3924 [Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)] [Notices] [Page 13868-13869] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17mr06-119] Exemption 1.0 Background Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, which authorizes operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of one pressurized-water reactor located in Rhea County, Tennessee. 2.0 Request/Action Sections IV.F.2.b and c of Appendix E to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 require the licensee at each site to conduct an exercise of its onsite emergency plan and of its offsite emergency plans biennially with full or partial participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. During such biennial exercises, the NRC evaluates onsite and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluates offsite emergency preparedness activities, including interaction with the various State and local emergency management agencies. TVA successfully conducted an exercise at WBN during the week of November 5, 2003. The licensee had scheduled a plume exposure pathway exercise for November 2, 2005, however, due to Hurricane Katrina, the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA) was unable to support the exercise. Under the current regulations, the licensee would have had until December 31, 2005, to complete their next exercise. Instead, the licensee will conduct an evaluated exercise on June 7, 2006. Future exercises will be scheduled biennially from the year 2005. The Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), may grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 that are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. The Commission, however, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. 3.0 Discussion The underlying purpose for conducting a biennial exercise is to ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties and to test the adequacy of emergency plans. In order to accommodate the scheduling of exercises, the NRC has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the WBN exercise in calendar year 2006 places the exercise past the previously scheduled biennial calender year of 2005. Since the last exercise conducted at WBN on November 5, 2003, WBN has conducted four training drills, a full scale plume phase off-year exercise on November 3, 2004, and an integrated training drill on September 28, 2005. The NRC staff considers the intent of this requirement is met by having conducted these series of exercises and drills. The NRC staff considers that these measures are adequate to maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness during this period, satisfying the underlying purpose of the [[Page 13869]] rule. Therefore, the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are satisfied. Only temporary relief from the regulation is provided by the requested exemption since WBN will resume their normal biennial exercise schedule in 2007. The licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. The exemption is being sought by the licensee in response to a request by TEMA to postpone the exercise. TEMA was unable to support the original schedule for the exercise due to a series of severe weather events. FEMA stated, ``Based on the impact that the response to Hurricane Katrina had on the State of Tennessee, we are agreeing to the postponement of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant exercise until June 2006.'' The NRC staff, having considered the schedule and resource issues with those agencies that participate in and evaluate the offsite portion of the exercises, concludes that the licensee made a good faith effort to meet the requirements of the regulation. The NRC staff, therefore, concludes that the exemption request meets the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) and should be granted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants TVA an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.b and c for WBN, Unit 1. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 76470). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Licensing. [FR Doc. E6-3924 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Final Design Approval and Final Safety FR Doc E6-3926 [Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)] [Notices] [Page 13870] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17mr06-121] Evaluation Report, Supplement 1, for AP1000 Standard Plant Design; Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a revised final design approval (FDA) to Westinghouse for the AP1000 design under 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix O. This FDA allows the AP1000 design to be referenced in an application for a construction permit or an operating license under 10 CFR Part 50 or in an application for a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52. The FDA was revised to make it coterminous with the design certification rule that was issued on January 27, 2006, (Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52). This FDA supersedes the FDA dated September 13, 2004. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also issued Supplement 1 to the final safety evaluation report (FSER) related to the certification of the AP1000 standard plant design. The FSER (NUREG- 1793) and Supplement 1 thereto supports issuance of the revised FDA. A copy of the AP1000 FDA and Supplement 1 to the FSER have been placed in the NRC's Public Document Room for review and copying by interested persons. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Laura A. Dudes, Branch Chief, New Reactor Licensing Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-3926 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 43 Kyiv Post. Prime minister: Nuclear energy will help Ukraine solve its energy dependence Mar 17 2006, 18:07 DONETSK, Ukraine (AP) - Ukraine's prime minister declared Friday that the country must put aside its concerns about nuclear energy and see it as a means to make money and reduce this ex-Soviet republic's energy dependence on Moscow. "God gave us uranium and today we should use it," Yuriy Yekhanurov said during a visit to the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk. "Now our task is to assure our society that nuclear energy is the future of our country." Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko called for Ukraine to boost its reliance on nuclear energy after Kiev's bruising public fight with Russia over natural gas prices. The dispute led to a nearly twofold increase in prices for Ukraine. Initially, Yushchenko had said Ukraine should begin producing its own nuclear fuel, but Yekhanurov said there were no plans for "a full nuclear cycle." He called instead for the development of new nuclear technologies, which could then be sold. "We have all the possibilities, including raw materials and machine-building plants," Yekhanurov said. Ukraine currently supplies Russia with raw uranium, then buys it back after enrichment for use as fuel for its four nuclear power plants. A full nuclear cycle means that Ukraine would be enriching uranium by itself. Uranium enrichment is a possible pathway to the development of nuclear arms. Ukraine was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident when Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 exploded and caught fire in 1986, spewing radiation across a large swathe of Europe. Ukraine has 15 reactors, but only 13 are currently working. An active green movement has developed in the country which opposes the increased use of nuclear energy. © 2004 - 2006, SputnikMedia.net. Contact Kyiv Post ***************************************************************** 44 Morris Daily Herald: Tritium assessment started at La Salle news@morrisdailyherald.com 3/17/2006 4:05:00 PM Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow, who filed a federal civil lawsuit Thursday in Chicago relative to the tritium leaks at Braidwood Generating Station, discusses the issue with an attendee at the Feb. 27 community meeting in Godley. (Herald Photo/Jo Ann Hustis) Glasgown, Madigan file lawsuit over leaks at Braidwood By Jo Ann Hustis Herald Writer MARSEILLES – La Salle Generating Station spokesman Ann Thomas does not anticipate any negative findings in the utility’s current tritium assessment program. Thomas said today La Salle Station, as well as every other generating station in the Exelon Nuclear fleet, is undergoing the tritium assessment program. The procedure stems from a series of tritium-laced water leaks over a 10-year span at Braidwood Generating Station at Braceville. “At La Salle Station, we’re identifying every component that might carry tritium, as well as any other radioactive nuclides as well,” she noted. “We’ve begun basically identifying every component — every system — that would carry the water. The next step will be assessing the risk of any potential leaks — any possible leaks.” A radioactive hydrogen isotope in the form of water, tritium is a reactor fission product which emits beta particles and has a half-life of 12.2 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gone on record saying the tritium-laced leaks at Braidwood Station are not a public health and safety hazard. Thomas estimated the data-gathering at La Salle Station will be done by the end of next week. The entire assessment program for the plant will be concluded by the end of April, she noted. “We really don’t expect to find anything,” Thomas added. “We have a different design than Braidwood Station. We do not make radioactive releases and so, just from what we’ve found so far, we haven’t found anything and we don’t anticipate to find anything at La Salle Station.” The differences between La Salle Station and the Braidwood facility are the differences between being a pressurized water reactor and a boiling water reactor. Braidwood Station is a pressurized reactor, which uses ordinary demineralized water as a coolant and moderator. The reactor is pressurized to keep the coolant from boiling. Exchangers transfer heat from the reactor to a non-radioacive secondary system. La Salle Station is a boiling-water reactor in which water is boiled in the fuel core to produce steam, which operates the turbine, which generates electricity. “We don’t discharge water, whereas Braidwood does,” said Thomas. “We use the same water all the time.” Thomas did not know why Exelon Nuclear did not build all the reactors in the fleet as boiling water reactors. “I couldn’t even speculate on that,” she said. “It’s probably one of those things where you kind of learn as you go. Obviously through the assessment program, this is a learning process for everyone involved.” Thomas did not want to speak on behalf of Exelon or Braidwood regarding the eight-count civil lawsuit filed Thursday in federal district court in Chicago citing Braidwood Station for eight releases of tritium-tainted water into the groundwater since 1996. The leaks occurred both on and off-site, the complaint says. “I would have no comment,” she noted. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed the suit, which names as defendants Exelon Corporation, Commonwealth Edison Company, and Exelon Generation Company. The complaint notes the utility’s blow down pipe released tritiated water on seven separate occasions on the Braidwood site, at least on in each of 1996, 1998, and 2000. The dates when three other of the eight releases occurred is not known, the complaint says. The date is also not known on the seventh release in an area west of the station. An eighth release, not associated with the blow down pipe, occurred Monday, March 13, near where the utility temporarily stores tritiated water. The complaint is asking the court for an injunction stopping Braidwood Station from using the blow down pipe to discharge tritiated water, and to prevent further migration of any contaminants released into the groundwater at or near the facility. The plan for the prevention must be court-approved. Also, to implement measures to stop release of any contaminants from the utility. This plan, too, must be court-approved, the complaint says. In a third plan to be approved by the court, the utility must fully describe all soil and groundwater contamination from the releases, plus future flow of the contaminated groundwater. The complaint is asking the court to order Exelon to immediately provide a daily potable drinking water source for everyone affected by the tritium spills, and to eliminate any threat to groundwater used by citizens near the utility. In addition, the complaint is asking the maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for the water pollution violation, and $10,000 for each day the violations continues, plus the maximum civil penalties if the groundwater exceeds standards. Two counts name ComEd for not reporting to state and federal authorities until December 2005 the tritiated water leaks in 1996, 1998, and 2000. These counts ask the maximum civil penalty of $10,000 each, plus $10,000 for each day the violations continued. The blow down pipe is a 4.5 mile underground pipe to carry wastewater, including tritiated water, from the utility to the Kankakee River. The pipe is on Braidwood property, and adjacent to both public and private property, including a forest preserve and nature area. The eight leaks contributed to water pollution in the area. Six leaks resulted from inadequate maintenance, and operation of vacuum breakers in the underground pipe. Vacuum breakers allow air into the line to prevent vacuums from forming inside. The complaint says the tritiated water leaked from the vacuum breaker housing into the groundwater and up through a manhole into the surrounding area. Exelon Nuclear responded Thursday to the lawsuit, saying the utility takes full responsibility for low-level tritium contamination near Braidwood Station, and is moving forward with remediation plans and work. The utility said in a prepared news release Exelon is continuing discussions with Madigan’s office on the tritium issue. Exelon spokesman Tom O’Neal said the utility has an aggressive remediation plan that is currently being evaluated by the state. “We expected this announcement (on the lawsuit) and the positive aspect is we can now focus on removing the tritiated groundwater, and move on. We want to reiterate Exelon is committed to operating within all state and federal rules,” he said. “We want to reiterate as well the levels of tritium we are dealing with here do not represent a health or safety hazard. It is very important, given the real concerns of our plant’s neighbors over this issue, that any public discussion be fact-based.” O’Neal said the utility intends to do whatever it takes to strengthen its relationship with the area community. “We know we have some bridge-rebuilding to do with our neighbors near the plant and regulators,” he said. Morris Daily Herald • 1804 N. Division St. • Morris, Illinois 60450 (815) 942-3221 • (800) 215-9778 ***************************************************************** 45 IRNA: Jannati: Nuclear energy symbol of Islamic sovereignty Tehran, March 17, IRNA Iran-Prayers-Jannati Secretary of the Guardians Council Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said here on Friday that regardless of what the UN Security Council would do we need to resist, since the nuclear energy is the symbol of Islamic sovereignty today. Addressing thousands of worshipers at Tehran University, the provisional Friday Prayer leader of referred to the latest developments regarding the country's nuclear program in his second sermon, adding, "Today Islam's power is the talk of the day and we need to pursue our nuclear program seriously while keeping the people alert and well informed about it." He said, "We need to further emphasize that the nuclear energy is our absolute right, that we have absolutely no unjust demand, and that we have no intentions, but to take peaceful advantage of the nuclear energy." Jannati reiterated, "It is very astonishing for me since what they are insisting on should logically be condemned internationally. These (people) came here, visited any site they wished and launched their inspections quite freely, in all their inspections, too, they also conducted their spy work, and yet gained absolutely nothing against us." He said, "Even now we are telling them to step forward and be our partners, but they keep insisting on their own stands." The Friday preacher of Tehran then narrated an anecdote about a man who has arrived in Balkh City in old times and saw a man who was sitting in a coffin and being carried on the shoulders of the people. "The man was insisting that he was alive, but those in his mortuary procession kept quieting him and telling him that he was telling a lie, since he was actually dead! Amazed, the newcomer had asked about the truth of the matter. the reply was, `The judge says this man is dead, but he insists he is not!" Jannati reiterated, "Now it is our tale with the United States. No matter how hard we insist that we want the nuclear energy merely for peaceful purposes Washington insists that Tehran is after acquiring the A-bomb." The interim Friday Prayer leader of Tehran noted, "Oil wells would be dried in twenty years time and the people would then have no option but to use services provided resorting to the nuclear energy. Minus nuclear energy we would be deprived of water, electricity, industries, etc. by then." The worshipers then chanted the slogan, "Nuclear energy, our absolute right," and Jannati, thanking them, added, "we need to resist and to pay the expenses for this resistance, just as we have been doing from the very beginning, so that the future generations would stand tall and feel proud about their mighty fathers." Focussing on bitter events of the past Iranian year during his last Friday sermon of the year, Jannati referred to the martyrdom of media reporters and revolutionary guard commanders in air crashes, insults made against the exalted Prophet of Islam (PBUH), and the explosions at holy shrines of two Infallible Imams (PBUT). Ayatollah Jannati opined that the Samarra explosions were politically motivated and were aimed at sowing the seeds of discord between the Shi'a and Sunni Muslims, while the insults made against the prophet were aimed at fuelling the flames of hatred between the Muslims and the Christians. He added, "All the same, the alertness and political maturity of the world Muslims and their leaders does not permit the plotters of such moves harvest their bitter crops." Jannati predicted that both the United States and Europe were dying empires, accelerating towards annihilation, and yet are bewildered with the extent of their material power. He praised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government's simple way of living, love for serving the nation, and solidarity with the people, setting example of the president's nine provincial visits in shortest possible time. Ayatollah Jannati also praised the people for their broad participation in the elections that led to President Ahmadinejad's victory. ***************************************************************** 46 Sofia Morning News: Sofia Re-signs N-Fuel Transit Deal www.novinite.com Business: 17 March 2006, Friday. Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine are to re-sign an updated agreement on the transit of nuclear fuel for Kozloduy power plant. The accord settles the route of fuel transit through Ukrainian territory, Russian news agency ITAR-TASS reported. Earlier this month fresh nuclear fuel deliveries for Bulgaria were guaranteed until 2020, with an extension of the contract. The existing ten-year agreement for fuel transportation through Ukraine and Moldova will be extended with another ten years, the Russian agency said. On the territory of Russia and Ukraine the special loads will be transported via railway transport, while from Ukraine to Bulgaria - via water transport, the document says. Nuclear loads will be re-laded at the Ismail Harbour, Ukraine. The agreement has been prepared since 2002 and lasted for over three years because of the negotiation procedures between Ukraine and Russia. novinite.com All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Trial Begins for German on Nuclear Charges From the Associated Press [UP] Friday March 17, 2006 12:31 PM By STEPHEN GRAHAM Associated Press Writer MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - A German engineer went on trial Friday on charges he aided Libya's efforts to build a nuclear bomb as part of a secret network also believed to have supplied Iran and North Korea. Gotthard Lerch, 63, is the most prominent alleged member of the network surrounding A. Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arms program, to face trial. Khan has admitted running a nuclear black market. Lerch, extradited to Germany from Switzerland in June, is charged with breaking arms and exports laws by aiding the Libyan nuclear program between 1999 and 2003. He could face up to 15 years in jail if convicted by the state court in the southwestern city of Mannheim. Lerch denies the charges. As the trial opened, Lerch's attorneys filed a motion calling for three of the six judge panel to be removed from the case for alleged bias, claiming they had denied Lerch's team full access to the prosecution's evidence. They said the court had forbidden them from taking notes from secret files and failed to clarify whether the lawyers could discuss the classified evidence with Lerch or repeat it in court. ``I don't know what I'm allowed to say. Help me,'' attorney Gottfried Reims said to Presiding Judge Michael Seidling. Seidling said he had yet to receive requested guidance from Germany's internal security service, but insisted proceedings could continue. Lerch, a trim man with graying hair, sat quietly between his two lawyers and did not immediately address the court. Lerch was arrested in Switzerland in November on an international warrant after his name figured prominently in investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog. German prosecutors say Lerch was paid 55 million German marks (about euro28 million, US$34 million) for his role, which included overseeing procurement of gas centrifuges able to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons and their delivery to Libya via South Africa and Malaysia. The interception of a German-registered freighter carrying components for the enrichment plant from Dubai to Libya in 2003 prompted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to admit its secret plans and agree to work with the IAEA. The prosecutors say Lerch was so close to Khan that the German ``not only set up, but also supervised and coordinated technically'' the Libya program. Khan was exposed the next year as the chief of a lucrative nuclear smuggling ring that also aided Iran and North Korea. Pakistan's government denied any knowledge of his proliferation activities and pardoned him because of his earlier services. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 NRC: NRC Completes Minnesota Agreement to Regulate Use of Certain Radioactive Materials News Release - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-035 March 17, 2006 with the state of Minnesota to assume part of the agencys regulatory authority over certain radioactive materials in the state. Minnesota becomes the 34th state to sign such an agreement with the NRC. The agreement will become effective March 31, 2006. Under the agreement, the NRC will transfer to Minnesota the responsibility for licensing, rulemaking, inspection and enforcement activities for: (1) radioactive materials produced as a result of processes related to the production or utilization of special nuclear material (SNM); (2) uranium and thorium source materials; and (3) SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The NRC will transfer approximately 150 licenses, most for medical and industrial uses of radioactive material, to Minnesotas jurisdiction. The NRC will retain jurisdiction over a number of activities identified in 10 CFR Part 150, including regulation of commercial nuclear power plants and federal agencies using certain nuclear material in the state. In addition, NRC will retain authority for the review, evaluation and approval of sealed sources and devices containing certain nuclear materials manufactured in Minnesota and distributed throughout the country. Before approving the agreement, NRC reviewed Minnesotas radiation control program to ensure it was adequate to protect public health and safety and was compatible with NRCs program for regulating the radioactive materials covered in the agreement. An announcement of the proposed agreement was made in November, inviting comments from the public. No comments were received. The agreement will be announced shortly in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreement, the Governor of Minnesotas request and supporting documents, as well as the NRC staffs assessment will be available through the NRCs ADAMS online document library. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRC Public Document Room staff at (301) 415-4737 or 1 (800) 397-4209, or by e-mail at PDR@nrc.gov. Thirty-three other states have previously signed such agreements with NRC. They are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Last revised Friday, March 17, 2006 ***************************************************************** 49 AFP: China and Iraq to top three-nation security talks - Rice Thu Mar 16, 11:40 PM ET SYDNEY (AFP) - China's growing international role and the war in Iraq will be the focus of unprecedented security talks between the US, Australia and Japan, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. Rice, who has called on China to explain the reasons for its military build-up, played down suggestions that the main topic of the trilateral talks on Saturday would be the containment of Beijing's growing power. "While is it important for us to discuss the Pacific, and of course discuss the dynamic changes in this region including China, I think it would be wrong to leave the impression that that is the only thing on the agenda," she told a press conference in Sydney. "We and Australia and Japan have a lot of other issues in common as well; for instance, we have been active together in Iraq. "So it is a natural course to discuss the situation in Iraq and I am sure that that will be a source of conversation tomorrow." Australia and Japan have both controversially committed troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq, in Japan's case in the first deployment of soldiers since World War II to a country where fighting is underway. Rice will be joined in the talks Saturday by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and their Japanese counterpart Taro Aso. Speaking to reporters after a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, Rice said Australia, Japan and the United States shared a large and global agenda. This included resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis through six-party talks and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "We all want the same thing towards the region. Australia does, the United States does and Japan does," she said. "We want a region at peace. We want a region in which free trade and a rules-based international economy is going forward. "We want a region in which China... is more open in their domestic policy and more open in its face to the world." Rice said it was important to create the conditions under which China became a positive force for the region. "We have good relations with China. And we have encouraged good relations between Japan and China," she said. The secretary of state was upbeat on the thorny Sino-Japan relationship, saying the foundations existed for a better alliance between them. "Despite some of the difficulties that exist in that relationship, they do have an extensive economic relationship, trade relationship, and we are together in APEC " /> APECas members of the Pacific rim nations," she said. "So there is a lot to work with in the Japan-China relationship and we've encouraged that relationship to get better and better." Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch ally of the Bush administration who has also sent troops to join the US-led coalition in Afghanistan " /> Afghanistan, said Washington was Australia's closest security ally. "The partnership between the United States and the Australian government in fighting terrorism and in defence of liberty and the expansion of democracy around the world is both strong, unconditional and consistent," he said. Rice was due to visit the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne later Friday before heading back to Sydney for the trilateral talks. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 50 AFP: 'Key member of Khan nuclear network' goes on trial in Germany - Fri Mar 17, 2:08 AM ET BERLIN (AFP) - A German engineer was to go on trial accused of supplying Libya's now-abandoned nuclear weapons programme with technology through the smuggling network of the disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. A court in the southwestern city of Mannheim will hear that Gotthard Lerch, 63, is suspected of being a key member of Khan's network. Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb program, has admitted involvement in transferring nuclear secrets to Iran " /> Iran, Libya and North Korea " /> North Korea. He has been under house arrest since 2004. Lerch was charged after a German cargo ship was stopped on the way to Libya in 2003. It was found to be carrying equipment to build a gas-ultra-centrifuge capable of enriching uranium for either nuclear reactor fuel or to develop a nuclear bomb. In a dramatic diplomatic move, Libya announced in 2003 that it was giving up efforts to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, allowing the former pariah state to return to the international fold. Lerch was arrested last year on an international arrest warrant in Switzerland, where he lives, and was handed over to German authorities. Investigators believed he earned 28 million euros (34 million dollars) from supplying the technology to Libya from 1999 onwards. He will specifically be charged with breaking German laws on the control of weapons and export regulations and is expected to plead not guilty. Germany's Der Spiegel magazine reported this week that Lerch had been incriminated by key members of the Khan network. The report said they included Buhary Seyed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan who prosecutors say was a middleman between the Khan network and Libya. Der Spiegel said the trial would be closely watched because the UN nuclear watchdog suspects the Khan network has supplied Iran with centrifuges as sophisticated as those it tried to provide to Libya. Iran's disputed nuclear programme has been referred to the UN Security Council over Western concerns it is covertly developing nuclear weapons. The Islamic republic says it has purely peaceful objectives. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 51 [du-list] Call for Gulf War (Au) vets to be tested Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:13:15 -0800 ABC via Yahoo! Australia & NZ News, Thu, 16 Mar 2006 6:17 PM PST for uranium contamination http://au.news.yahoo.com/060317/21/y9oc.html Queensland's Sunshine Coast Environment Council is campaigning for the uranium contamination testing of Australian service personnel who served in the Gulf War. -- ---------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 17 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 52 [du-list] Summary of DU Test Results for Iraq War Vets Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:16:28 -0800 SUMMARY OF DEPLETED URANIUM TEST RESULTS FOR IRAQ WAR VETERANS Dan Fahey[1] 17 March 2006 SUMMARY The use of armor-piercing ammunition made from depleted uranium (DU) during the war in Iraq has raised concerns about DU exposures among military personnel and civilians. Since 2003, the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have tested more than 2,100 Iraq war veterans for DU exposure and the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has tested approximately 350 veterans. There have reportedly been few positive test results, but these results obscure problems with selection processes and testing methods. In this paper I summarize publicly available information about the use of DU munitions in Iraq, analyze differences between DoD/VA and MoD testing processes, review the results of government testing efforts, and discuss the significance of the testing processes and results. DEPLETED URANIUM IN IRAQ The US and British militaries have confirmed that they used DU ammunition during the war in Iraq, but the exact quantities and locations where DU was shot remain uncertain.[2] The US Army and Air Force shot approximately 115 metric tons of DU between March 2003 and March 2004[3] (Table 1). The US Marine Corps has not disclosed how much DU its Abrams tanks and AV-8B Harrier jets shot since 2003, but I estimate the additional use by the Marine Corps would bring the total use through March 2004 up to between 118 to 136 metric tons (130 to 150 tons).[4 ] British forces apparently shot DU munitions only during the 2003 invasion; the MoD has acknowledged that British Challenger II tanks shot approximately 870kg/DU (1,920 lbs/DU).[5] The use of DU munitions by US forces since March 2004 remains uncertain. The testing of veterans for exposure to DU through September 2005 could be taken as a sign of ongoing, though limited use of DU munitions,[6] but in January 2005 then-Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers wrote: "munitions containing DU are not being used in the current stability and support operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."[7] Possible exposures may have resulted from the destruction of DU ammunition or the breaching of DU armor on tanks,[8] and some service members wounded by fragments have been tested "to ensure DU residues were not used in an improvised explosive device."[9] Table 1. Estimate of the Use of DU Munitions in Iraq, March 2003 to March 2004[10] Armed Force Shooting DU Number of Rounds Quantity of DU (kg) US Air Force (A-10 aircraft) Jets: ~309,000[13] Jets: ~93,400 US Army (Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle) Bradleys: ~121,000[12] Bradleys: ~10,300 Tanks: ~2,466[11] Tanks: ~11,442 UK Royal Army (Challenger tank) Tanks: ~185 Tanks: ~870 TOTAL (Including estimated US Marine Corps expenditure) 118,000 to 136,000 (260,000 to 300,000 lbs.) Table compiled by Dan Fahey There is no credible evidence that missiles and bombs containing natural or depleted uranium have been used in Iraq. A US Department of Defense official has explicitly stated: "none of the guided bombs or cruise missiles that the US used in Iraq and Afghanistan contained uranium of any type."[14] Myths and misrepresentations form the basis of recent activist claims that natural uranium found in air filters in England originated from US air strikes in Iraq. TESTING PROCESS DoD and MoD have similar processes for selecting service members for DU testing, but once identified, MoD uses a more sensitive testing method than that employed by DoD. Selection Process. DoD selects servicemen and women to receive testing based on the results of the questionnaire "Post Deployment Health Assessment" (DD 2796).[15] There is an assumption inherent in this self-identification process that service members were fully aware of all the times and places they may have been exposed to DU, but even for those who believe they were exposed, testing has been incomplete. In September 2004,investigators from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that a review of several units' questionnaires showed that out of 32 veterans who indicated they were "sometimes" or "often" exposed to DU during service in Iraq, only 3 were provided with a DU test.[16] In addition to the questionnaires, military officials have identified three entire units for DU testing.[17] MoD also provides DU testing based on self-reported exposures and official identification of service members possibly exposed to DU during and after two friendly fire incidents.[18] MoD reportedly issued a card to its servicemen and women in Iraq that states: "You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deploymentŠYou are eligible for a urine test to measure uranium."[19] Testing Method. MoD uses a testing method that is more sensitive than the test used by DoD and VA..[20] The essence of the difference between these test methods is that DoD/VA's test must be administered within 180 days of exposure in order to reliably identify the presence of DU in a veteran's urine,[21] while MoD's tests can identify DU in urine more than a decade after exposure.[22] DoD/VA's test screens for total uranium levels in urine, but since everyone excretes small amounts of uranium, this method is not capable of detecting small amounts of DU in urine containing normal levels of uranium.[23] DoD/VA's test is useful for identifying veterans retaining DU fragments from wounds, who typically excrete high levels of DU for years, but after 180-days it may not detect small amounts of DU in the urine of veterans who had inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination exposures. By contrast, MoD's test is capable of detecting small amounts of DU in urine containing normal levels of uranium. The 180- day window for the DoD/VA test to be considered effective is particularly troubling given that many servicemen and women serve 1-year tours in Iraq. TEST RESULTS It is encouraging to note that DoD has tested more than 2100 veterans and found only 8 positive results (Table 2), but since DoD has provided no detailed information about when these veterans were tested (i.e. before or after the 180-day window), it is difficult to evaluate the significance of these results. Although the vast majority of those tested served in Iraq, DoD has also tested "a few" veterans who served at Karshi Khanabad (K- 2) in Uzbekistan,[24] where DU from Soviet weaponry was found in the soil.[25] The vast majority of service members tested served in the US Army in Iraq (Table 3). Table 2. Results of Urine Testing of US Iraq War Veterans Time Period Number Tested Elevated Uranium Confirmed DU Exposure 30 June 2003 - 31 March 2004[26] 766 14 5 1 April 2004 - 30 September 2004[27] 841 97 1 1 October 2004 - 31 March 2005[28] 363 25 1 1 April 2005 - 30 September 2005[29] 152 1 1 Total 30 June 2003 - 30 September 2005 2122 18630 8 Table compiled by Dan Fahey Table 3. Tests by Branch of Service, 2003-200531 Branch of Service Number Tested U.S. Army 1785 U.S. Navy/U.S. Marine Corps 321 U.S. Air Force 16 Table compiled by Dan Fahey MoD has tested approximately 350 British veterans of the Iraq war for DU exposure.[32] MoD has been vague about its test results, saying only that "fewer than ten" tested positive for DU exposure.[33] Those who tested positive were wounded in March 2003 in one of two friendly fire incidents involving DU ammunition.[34] DISCUSSION While MoD uses the best-available test capable of detecting minute levels of DU years after exposure, DoD and VA use the most cost-effective (i.e. cheaper) but less sensitive DU test. The low number of positive DU test results in US Iraq war veterans may be a sign that few troops have been exposed to DU, or it may be due to DoD/VA's use of a testing method that may produce false-negatives more than 180 days after exposure. The main problem in interpreting the DoD/VA test results is the lack of information about the selection process and time of test post-exposure or post-deployment. If some veterans self-reporting DU exposures are not being tested and if others are being tested more than 180 days after their exposure, the credibility of the DoD/VA results is questionable. A side effect of the problems with the DoD/VA testing process is that opportunistic activists have emerged to exploit the DU issue and manipulate veterans' concerns. In particular, the Canada-based Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) has claimed to have found evidence of DU exposure in dozens of veterans, but UMRC's integrity has been fatally undermined by recent revelations that laboratory contamination resulted in many false-positive test results,[35] and by the group's groundless claim that natural uranium it found in Afghanistan came from US weaponry.[36] More broadly, the lack of information about where and how much DU was released in Iraq has fed speculation about exposures and effects. Peace groups looking for reasons to oppose the war in Iraq routinely promote unsupported and hyperbolic claims about DU that are fabricated by disreputable and self-serving activists. Some activists, including a few veterans, have concocted alarming but unsubstantiated stories about DU causing thousands of cancers and innumerable birth defects. Much of the information about DU on the Internet and in the media should be understood as "cyber-claims"; i.e. claims that originate and propagate in cyberspace with little or no connection to scientific evidence or verifiable facts. In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, DoD/VA have tested about four times as many Iraq war veterans for DU as the total number of Gulf War veterans tested since 1991 (Chart 1).[37] This may be interpreted in a variety of ways, but one important aspect of this outcome is that the VA uses the same test for veterans of the 1991 Gulf War that is being provided to Iraq war veterans. That is, VA is using a test that is unlikely to determine DU exposures in Gulf War veterans who do not retain DU fragments. British scientists have developed a test that can verify or rule out Gulf War exposures to DU by inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination; the question now is when Congress will order DoD/VA to provide Iraq and Gulf War veterans with the best-available DU test. Chart 1. US Veterans Tested by War and Time Period (Bar graph not reproduced in text) Conflict Number Tested Iraq War (2003-2005) 2122 Gulf War (1991-2005) 516 Chart created by Dan Fahey The DU issue must also be placed in context of the other health issues facing veterans. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that Iraq has "several thousand contaminated sites resulting from a combination of general industrial activities, military activities and post-conflict damage and looting."[38] Many of these locations are polluted with carcinogenic chemicals, presenting risks to servicemen and women as well as local populations. The persistence of conflict is limiting the ability of UNEP and the Iraqi Ministry of the Environment to conduct environmental assessments and engage in remediation activities, and DoD has remained silent about its actions to identify or address contaminated sites. In addition, thousands of US veterans are already reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and hundreds-possibly thousands-more are experiencing traumatic brain injury. DU is a salient issue for military veterans and Iraqi civilians, but it should be understood as one of the many serious health issues facing veterans and one of a multitude of environmental health hazards present in Iraq. Endnotes 1 Dan Fahey is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley. His reports and additional information about DU can be found at www.danfahey.com and www.wise-uranium.org/diss.html. Contact email: duweapons@hotmail.com. 2 Statement of Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, "Depleted Uranium," National Public Radio, Science Friday, 18 April 2003, http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2003/Apr/hour1_041803.html; UK Ministry of Defence, http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/middle_east_2003.htm. 3 The most recent release of information about the quantities of DU shot by US forces in Iraq took place during a 6 March 2004 conference on DU at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DoD's Dr. Michael Kilpatrick provided information for US Army and Air Force expenditures only. The US Marine Corps has not disclosed how much DU it has shot. See "Depleted Uranium Weapons: Toxic Contaminant or Necessary Technology", Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 6 March 2004, http://web.mit.edu/pugwash/du/. See additional information and a link to an audio recording of the conference proceedings at: http://www.wise-uranium.org/diss.html#MITDU04. 4 See Dan Fahey, "Unresolved Issues Regarding Depleted Uranium and Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom," 24 March 2004, www.danfahey.com. 5 Lord Bach, Under Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement, response to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, UK Parliament (London, 12 June 2003) www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30 612w03.htm#30612w03_sbhd3. If each round is approximately 4.7 kg, this would equate to approximately 185 rounds shot in combat. 6 W. Winkenwerder, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, "Subject: Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium Bioassay Results-Fourth Semi-Annual Report and Request for Data Submission," 27 February 2006. 7 Richard B. Myers, General, letter to Sandy Silver, President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), 27 January 2005, "Information Paper, Subject: Depleted Uranium (DU) Information Summary and Response," 10 January 2005. 8 Associated Press, "Abrams tank set ablaze; crew escapes," The Army Times, 10 March 2006, http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1590086.php. 9 W. Winkenwerder, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, "Subject: Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium Bioassay Results and Semi-Annual Data Submission," Memorandum for Assistant Secretaries of the US Army, Navy and Air Force, 28 July 2005. 10 Fahey, supra n. 4. 11 Hon. J. Kyl, US Senate, letter to Mr. Jack Cohen-Joppa, 14 July 2003. Senator Kyl states that the tank rounds shot by Army tanks were M289A1. The M829A1 has a DU penetrator weight of 4.64 kg. 12 Bradley Fighting Vehicles shoot the 25 mm M919 round, which has a DU penetrator weight of 0.0855 kg. While the exact number of DU tanks rounds was previously reported (see n. 10), the exact number of 25mm DU rounds shot has not been released. The figures for the Bradley were calculated based on the total amount of DU shot by the Army, as reported by Dr. Kilpatrick, minus the quantity of DU shot by Abrams tanks, as reported in July 2003. Consequently, these numbers should be taken as approximations until DoD releases more accurate figures. 13 Dr. Kilpatick said the US Air Force released approximately 93,400 kg of DU (103 tons) by March 2004. 14 Glenn Lamartin, U.S. DoD, letter to Hon. John Kyl, 25 August 2004, http://www.wiseuranium.org/pdf/lamiq04.pdf. 15 U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, "Post Deployment Health Assessment," DD 2796, April 2003. A positive response to questions 14, 17, or 18 triggers an evaluation and possible bioassay, according to the U.S. Department of Defense Deployment Health Clinical Center (DHCC), "Depleted Uranium Provider Reference Pocket Cards," Post Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline, Version 1.0, December 2003, Card 2. 16 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Preliminary Medical Screening Data: Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Servicemembers Indicating Suspected Exposure to DU on Their Post-Deployment Health Assessment Forms," Briefing for The Honorable Ciro Rodriquez (D-TX) and The Honorable Bob Filner (D-CA), 30 September 2004. 17 See Dan Fahey, "Summary of Government Data on Testing of Veterans for Depleted Uranium Exposure During Service in Iraq," 10 February 2005, www.danfahey.com. 18 Brian G. Spratt, "Health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: estimates of exposures and risks in the Gulf War, the Balkans, and Iraq," undated, forthcoming in Critical Reviews in Chemistry. 19 Neil Mackay and Amy Wilson, "MoD 'lied' over depleted uranium," The Sunday Herald (UK), 29 February 2004. 20 DoD/VA use inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS); MoD uses multicollector (MC)- ICP-MS and sector field (SF)-ICP-MS. SF-ICP-MS is similar in quality to ICP-MS, but MC-ICP-MS is superior to both methods, and is the primary method used by MoD. See R. Parrish et al, "Determination of 238U/235U, 236U/238U and Uranium Concentration in Urine Using SF-ICP-MS and MC-ICP-MS: An Interlaboratory Comparison," Health Physics 90(2) (February 2006) 127-138; Spratt, supra n. 17. 21 J.G. Webb, U.S. Army Medical Command, "Subject: Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU)," OTSG/MEDCOM Policy Memo 05-003, 4 March 2005; W. Winkenwerder, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, "Subject: Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium Medical Management," 9 April 2004. 22 Spratt, supra n. 18. 23 Ibid; cf. Parrish, supra n. 20. 24 Fahey, supra n. 16. 25 U.S. Deployment Health Clinical Center (DoD), "Environmental Conditions at Karshi Khanabad (K-2)," 9 September 2002; Fahey supra n. 4. 26 W. Winkenwerder, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, "Subject: Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium Bioassay Results and Semi-Annual Data Submission," Memorandum for Assistant Secretaries of the US Army, Navy and Air Force, 10 September 2004. 27 W. Winkenwerder, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, "Subject: Operation Iraqi Freedom Depleted Uranium Bioassay Results and Semi-Annual Data Submission," Memorandum for Assistant Secretaries of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, 14 February 2005. 28 Winkenwerder supra n. 7. 29 Winkenwerder supra n. 5. 30 DoD's most recent report on test results lists the total elevated uranium count as 186, but this does not correspond to results presented in the four reports presented by DoD; information contained in all four test results reports shows a figure of 137. I cannot explain the difference, but have reported DoD's total. 31 Winkenwerder supra n. 5. 32 Spratt, supra n. 18. 33 Ian Bruce, "Fewer than 10 Gulf war troops had uranium poisoning," The Herald (UK), 5 February 2004. See also UK Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, "Interim Summary of Results," www.duob.org.uk/interim_summary.htm. 34 Rory McCarthy, "Friendly fire kills two UK tank crew," The Guardian (UK), 26 March 2003; Audrey Gillan, "I never want to hear that sound again," The Guardian (UK), 31 March 2003; Spratt, supra n. 18. 35 Reportedly eight of the urine samples tested by UMRC were re-tested by scientists using best-available methods, and all were found to contain no depleted uranium. One of these false-positives has been reported in the press: see BBC News, "Man loses depleted uranium action," 2 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4766580.stm. For descriptions of other problems with the UMRC's tests, see mention of the "Durakovic et al" paper in Parrish et al, supra n. 20. 36 See my discussion of this claim in Dan Fahey, "Science or Science Fiction? Facts, Myths and Propaganda in the Debate Over Depleted Uranium Munitions," 12 March 2003; www.danfahey.com. 37 The VA's DU Program includes 32 veterans; the DU Program has also tested and/or examined and additional 484 Gulf War veterans (466 were only tested; 38 others participated in the DU Program during the 1990s). Cf. McDiarmid et al, "Biologic Monitoring for Urinary Uranium in Gulf War I Veterans," Health Physics 87(1) July 2004: 51-56; M. McDiarmid et al, "Urinary Uranium Concentrations in an Enlarged Gulf War Veteran Cohort," Health Physics 80(3) (March 2001) 270-273; M. McDiarmid et al, "Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium," International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 79 (2006) 11-21; Dan Fahey, "Environmental and Health Consequences of Depleted Uranium Munitions," in Avril McDonald et al, Eds., The International Legal Regulation of the use of Depleted Uranium Weapons: A Cautionary Approach, (Den Haag: Asser Press, forthcoming 2006). 38 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), "Assessment of Environmental 'Hot Spots' in Iraq," (Geneva: UNEP, 2005), http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications.htm#iraq. To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 53 [du-list] another censored messages too hot for RADSAFE Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:13:13 -0800 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: State of Washington Passes DU Bill Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:51:05 -0800 > Does this mean that someone is contemplating doing lung biopsies of those folks? Why bother with lung biopsies when white blood cell karyotyping is non-invasive, so much less expensive, and will show the damage from soluble uranyl oxide which has long since translocated from the lung? It's essentially the same test as thousands of expecting mothers get from amniocentesis every day. Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222, from page 213: 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) See: http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 54 AU ABC: Call for Gulf War vets to be tested for uranium contamination 13:17 (ACDT)Friday, 17 March 2006. 10:17 (AWST) Queensland's Sunshine Coast Environment Council is campaigning for the uranium contamination testing of Australian service personnel who served in the Gulf War. Spokesman Scott Alderson says the council is assisting fellow nuclear-free organisations to help raise funds for testing to verify a connection between health problems and exposure to depleted uranium. He says the family of a Sunshine Coast Gulf War veteran who have immune system problems illustrates the risk of uranium contamination. "We want the most thorough testing possible, which costs a fair bit of money, even just getting urine samples to get done can cost over $1,000 because the testing isn't done in Australia," he said. "So we want to get some of the veterans that have been involved in the Gulf War and get them tested, the people that are having issues particularly with their immunity system." ***************************************************************** 55 reviewjournal.com: Bill pursues compensation for former test site workers Mar. 17, 2006 Measure would ease application process By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Former Nevada Test Site workers who contracted cancers in the years after possible exposure to radioactive materials on the job would qualifying for medical compensation easier under a bill introduced Thursday in the Senate. Most who worked on the front lines of nuclear weapons activities on the Nevada reservation from the 1950s through the early 1990s would be granted special status to streamline their claims, said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "These Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and well-being for their country," Reid said in a statement accompanying the bill. "Little did we know there was another side to those atomic tests -- the exposure of men and women working at the site to cancer-causing substances." John Funk, a former test site carpenter who worked in tunnels where nuclear devices were detonated, said the legislation "pretty much covers everything." Funk said, "It sounds pretty good, and I don't know if it is going to fly or not, but let's hope it does." About 3,300 former test site workers or their survivors have applied for $150,000 payments authorized by Congress in a 1990 law addressing health claims of government and contract employees who toiled in nuclear weapons factories. But those who worked at the Nevada facility have had the lowest rate of claims accepted for payment by the Energy and Labor departments, which have operated the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. A Review-Journal analysis in August showed that 6 percent of test site workers or their survivors had been approved for claims. Reid said the test site workers were victimized by "inadequate monitoring, incomplete radionuclide lists and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests conducted at the site that vented." In the early days of the test site, workers handled radioactive materials or worked in their vicinity without knowledge of the risks, Reid said. The legislation would declare former test site workers in a "special exposure cohort" whose members do not have to go through lengthy dose reconstructions to qualify for compensation. In the 1990 law and amendments passed since, Congress has designated special exposure status for workers at several nuclear facilities, including those in Paducah, Ky., Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tenn. The government detonated 1,021 nuclear devices at the Nevada test site during the Cold War. Funk said prospects for payments raised in the new legislation might cause others to come forward. He said he was organizing a March 25 meeting for former Nevada atomic workers to discuss their efforts to win compensation. It will be held at 2 p.m. in the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters meeting hall, 501 North Lamb Blvd., he said. The special exposure status means former test site workers or their survivors would have to show only that they were worked at the site for a certain period and were diagnosed with at least one of the 22 types of cancer covered by the labor program. Reid's bill qualifies workers at the site between 1950 and 1993, when nuclear tests were conducted. The workers would have been present during an atmospheric or underground test, or performed work following any of the experiments. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 56 Pacific Magazine: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear Veterans Set Up Alternate Association Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific Friday: March 17, 2006 A group of veterans from French nuclear tests in French Polynesia’ s Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls has set up a new association, called “Children of Moruroa” (Tamarii Moruroa), Oceania Flash reports. President of the new organisation, Yannick Lowgreen, told local media earlier this week that just like the only other veterans’ association, Moruroa e Tatou (Moruroa and Us), they too wanted to ask French authorities for an independent enquiry on the effects and consequence of French nuclear testing in French Polynesia, which were carried out between 1966 and 1996. But unlike Moruroa e Tatou, they would rather have the enquiry conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The new association President also stresses that he and his associates were “proud to have been part of the nuclear adventure”. “We are against those who say the whole of Moruroa’s population has been contaminated and that all the illnesses found there are nuclear-related”, Lowgreen stressed during a press conference, in obvious opposition to the other veterans’ association, which they say is “politically motivated”. “Those tests have not only been used to develop a bomb, they have also helped medicine to progress, because nuclear physics does not only have military application”, Lowgreen told reporters. Lowgreen also strongly rejected claims that it was setting up this new association, he was acting on instructions. Moruroa e Tatou, in past years, has asked the French government to come clean on the real effects of its nuclear tests. Recent findings from an independent study have revealed that at least five nuclear tests, conducted in the open air in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, had triggered nuclear fall-out in several inhabited islands of French Polynesia………OCEANIA FLASH/PNS Pacific Magazine: - 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 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 pmaddchange@pacificbasin.net Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin Communications Inc. For more information contact info@pacificbasin.net ***************************************************************** 57 WHO TV: Salazar, Udall seek answers to nuclear worker compensation cuts Des Moines: WASHINGTON Two Democratic lawmakers from Colorado are demanding that the Bush administration abandon its proposal to scale back benefits to sick Cold War-era weapons workers in Rocky Flats, Iowa and other sites. In a letter sent today (Thursday) to Bush administration officials, Senator Ken Salazar and Representative Mark Udall say they want an update on the White House's proposal to reduce workers' benefits, which was made public last month. A document from the Office of Management and Budget cites the need to control the costs of benefits in a program created by Congress five years ago to compensate nuclear weapons workers with radiation-related cancer. An advisory board is set to make a decision as early as April on whether to provide automatic compensation to workers at Rocky Flats, Iowa, Tennessee and the Marshall Islands. Under the program, workers exposed to cancer-causing radiation or beryllium and silica, which can cause lung disease, get 150 thousand dollars, plus future medical benefits. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and WHO-TV, a ***************************************************************** 58 Las Vegas SUN: DOE not ruling out any nuclear storage options March 16, 2006 By JENNIFER TALHELM ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - Key lawmakers say they are not pursuing - for now - a suggestion by Private Fuel Storage that the federal government temporarily store nuclear waste at their proposed facility in Utah. PFS, a group of utilities that won a license to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel above ground about 50 miles west of Salt Lake City, pitched the idea to several members of Congress in a letter making its way around Capitol Hill this week. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has received the letter, but he and his staffers are still evaluating it, Domenici's spokesman Matt Letourneau said Thursday. And a spokeswoman for New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the lead Democrat on the committee, said Bingaman has opposed the idea of interim storage so far. The two will be important lawmakers to win over if PFS hopes to make the Department of Energy a client. Another would be Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who chairs an appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. Although Hobson asked an Energy Department official earlier this week whether the department should consider the offer, he has no plans to pursue any more information from the government, his spokeswoman Sara Perkins said Thursday. In the letter, which is dated Dec. 13, 2005, PFS Chairman and CEO John Parkyn said that moving waste to PFS's facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation would save the government billions of dollars. He also said it would be safer and more practical than storing waste at several sites across the country. PFS won its license earlier this year just as several of its members announced they were no longer interested in the project. To begin construction, PFS must show it has enough money. It also still must get approval from other federal agencies. The Energy Department has said it is committed to storing waste in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But recently, as the Yucca Mountain project has hit several obstacles delaying its opening, officials have said they will look at the possibility of storing waste temporarily somewhere else. Sue Martin, a spokeswoman for PFS, said the company hopes their facility will be considered. "We want to be part of the interim solution for spent nuclear fuel in this country," she said. "We have a license, we certainly have a head start. If we can be helpful to the government, that would be wonderful." Craig Stevens, an Energy Department spokesman said Thursday that the department still has an open mind about how to store nuclear waste, but for the moment, using a private nuclear waste facility is not one of the options. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 59 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Billions wasted on Yucca Today: March 17, 2006 at 7:34:35 PST Nothing to show for huge expense but missed deadlines, lawsuits and a scientific dead-end In the 1980s Congress settled on burial as the best method for getting rid of deadly waste accumulating at nuclear power plants around the country. In 1987 it decided that Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, should be studied as the sole burial site. Congress then established Jan. 31, 1998, as the day of Yucca Mountain's grand opening. From the start, Nevada steadfastly opposed this plan and warned Congress that it would continue fighting against it because of the life-and-death safety issues involved. Nonetheless, the federal government clung to this arbitrary deadline. But scientific facts have a way of disintegrating even the most solid of deadlines. Nevada's legal arguments, based on geological findings and the obvious hazards of nuclear-waste transportation, rendered the 1998 deadline dead on arrival. The Energy Department, in charge of studying Yucca Mountain, then tried a 2010 deadline. Then a 2012 deadline. They didn't stand up either. Today the deadline is much more vague. "We should be able to open it next decade," Paul Golan said Wednesday. He is the acting director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Waste Management. So far, the Energy Department has spent $9 billion on drilling tunnels and studying the mountain's suitability to safely contain the waste for hundreds of thousands of years. And to show for it, they have three missed deadlines, not a shred of evidence that burial is safe and 60 lawsuits from nuclear power companies seeking billions for having had to store the waste on their own properties for the past eight years. It should be clear by now that Yucca Mountain cannot be made safe for nuclear waste storage. The government would be better off settling with the nuclear utility companies, perhaps by subsidizing their storage costs until a truly safe permanent solution is found. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 60 Xinhua: Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine to sign new deal on nuclear fuel transportation www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-18 03:11:53 SOFIA, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine are tore-sign an updated agreement on the transit of nuclear fuel for Bulgaria's Kozlodui nuclear power plant, the Sofia News Agency (SNA) reported on Friday. The accord settles the route of fuel transit through Ukrainian territory, SNA reported. According to the new agreement concerning Russian and Ukraine territory, the special loads will be transported via railway, while those from Ukraine to Bulgaria would be via water route. The nuclear fuel would be reloaded at the Ukrainian Danube Harbour, Ismail. Fresh nuclear fuel deliveries for Bulgaria are guaranteed by the Russian company, TVEL, until 2020, with an extension of the contract. In the contract the Russian company guaranteed, for the first time, to transport, process and store Kozlodui's spent nuclear fuel by the end of the exploitation period. The existing ten-year agreement for fuel transportation through Ukraine and Moldova will be extended by another ten years, SNA reported. The trilateral negotiations have stretched over three years owing to the difficulty in finding agreement between Ukraine and Russia. The nuclear power plant Kozlodui was built in 1969 in Bulgaria. It is also the biggest nuclear plant on the Balkan Peninsula with a total capacity of 3.76 million kw. The electricity generated by the plant is exported to neighbouring Romania, Turkey, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro and Macedonia. Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 IRNA: India to start uranium mining New Delhi, March 16, IRNA India-Uranium-Mining Giant machines will soon begin exploratory drilling for uranium in Chitrial area of Nalgonda district in Andhra Pradesh. Noise from the drilling rigs will drown the voices of those who for years have opposed uranium mining in the district fearing it might poison nearby Nagarjunasagar reservoir, a major source of drinking water, PTI report said here Thursday. The Atomic Minerals Division (AMD), a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), located in Hyderabad, has invited tenders for exploratory drilling estimated to cost Rs 25 million. The tenders will be opened on March 29 and work could begin from April and be completed in eight months, according to officials of AMD. The new drilling area, approximately 130 km southeast of Hyderabad, is at the heart of Rajiv Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary that is one of India's tiger reserves. Chitrial, is an important place (in Nalgonda district) where radioactivity is spread over an area of 50 square kilometers, according to AMD which says the area 'is expected to add significantly to the uranium resource of the country'. The Indo-US deal may have cleared the way for uranium import but a cautious DAE has stepped up uranium exploration everywhere in the country just in case of disruption in foreign supplies. "The coming years will see a quantum leap in our activities," says a spokesman for the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), a DAE undertaking in charge of uranium mining. UCIL says it aims to deepen the existing mines, expand processing facility, open new mines in Singhbum thrust belt and is on the verge of opening new deposits in Domiasiat in Meghalaya, Banduburang in Jharkhand and Lambapur and Peddagattu areas of Nalgonda district in Andhra Pradesh. Presence of uranium in Lambapur and Peddagattu, about 140 km southeast of Hyderabad, was established 10 years ago but local opposition held up actual mining by UCIL. Early this month the government of Andhra Pradesh cleared the project. Meghalaya contains largest and richest sandstone-hosted uranium deposit of the country at Domiasiat in West Khasi Hills district, says AMD. Mining there is again held up for environmental reasons but UCIL is now hopeful of mining that area too. Former DAE Secretary PK Iyengar is fully supportive of India's exploration initiatives. "I do not believe India has no uranium. We will find it if we look harder," he said. The AMD intends to do exactly that. "An era has now emerged to outsource the various efforts required to speed-up the pace of exploration," says RM Sinha, Director of AMD. ***************************************************************** 62 AU ABC: Uranium industry seeks standard policy across states - 17/03/2006 The uranium mining industry wants to change public perception of the controversial resource. It is also the focus of a government-appointed steering committee, established to help Australia take advantage of the global uranium boom. Independent chair John White says the Uranium Industry Framework will aim to make uranium policy more consistent across state and territory borders. "Our recommendations are aimed at achieving world class standard competitiveness," he said. "Looking forward one decade, as the greenhouse gas issues mount and climate change becomes a bigger problem, it will be very hard for individual states to say: 'well we just refuse to make the resource available', under the request of international community, operating under safe international treaties and guidelines." ***************************************************************** 63 Seattle Times: Movies: "Dark Circle": A warning of nuclear dangers Friday, March 17, 2006 - The nuclear facility at Rocky Flats, Colo., stopped producing components for nuclear weapons in 1989. That was six years after the release of "Dark Circle," a stark documentary, co-directed and narrated by Judy Irving, about the environmental impact of plutonium leakage from the weapons plant. Movie review [3.5 stars] "Dark Circle," a documentary co-directed by Judy Irving and Chris Beaver. 80 minutes. Not rated; contains some disturbing images of animal and human suffering. Grand Illusion. Irving's well-received  and quite different  "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" played Seattle last year. In "Dark Circle," she and colleague Chris Beaver dive into the deep and scary waters of nuclear-power production and its brethren industry, U.S.-made weapons of mass destruction. While the apparently low-key filmmakers got impressive access to the inner workings of the Rocky Flats plant, the real story they're pursuing takes place a few miles downwind, to a planned community where middle-class families learn the air, water and soil surrounding them is contaminated by astonishingly high levels of plutonium particles. The film's narrative trail switches back in time to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the thousands of Americans intentionally exposed to nuclear-test radiation. It also hops to California for the famous Diablo Canyon Power Plant showdown between the federal government and anti-nuke activists. The drama is intense and heartbreaking, no more so than when a particularly outspoken activist visibly implodes with guilt over selling her tainted home to an unsuspecting family so she can get her own kids out of the danger zone.  Tom Keogh, Special to The Seattle Times Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 64 DOE: Secretary Bodman Meets with Regional Energy Ministers in Hungary March 17, 2006 BUDAPEST, HUNGARY  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today participated in a regional energy meeting with ministers from Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, Croatia and Romania. During the meeting, Secretary Bodman and the ministers discussed the importance of advancing sufficient, affordable, clean and reliable energy supplies to sustain global economic growth, accommodate heightened demand, and promote regional energy security. Traveling to Budapest from Moscow where he participated in the G8 Energy Ministerial, Secretary Bodman reaffirmed the G8 priorities of protecting and strengthening energy infrastructure, developing strategies to mitigate energy supply disruptions, and promoting stable and transparent market-based investment. The U.S. and Central Europe share many of the same energy goals including greater energy efficiency, use of clean and reliable energy supplies, and expanded energy infrastructure, Secretary Bodman said. This meeting provided a unique opportunity to discuss strategies to enhance Central Europes regional energy security. Secretary Bodman encouraged the energy ministers to increase regional energy security by diversifying the source and type of energy on which they rely, enhancing energy efficiency, reforming electricity and gas markets, regional integration, and clean energy technologies including clean coal and renewables. They also discussed regional and global cooperation on expanding and strengthening energy infrastructure. During his discussions, Secretary Bodman highlighted the importance of developing liquefied natural gas import capabilities and expressed support for their efforts to bring Eurasian gas to Central and Eastern Europe. Secretary Bodman also encouraged the nations to continue dialogues with neighboring countries and the European Union on a wide range of energy issues. Attending todays meeting in Budapest, hosted by Hungarys Minister of Economy and Transport Janos Koka, were Czech Republics Vice Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade Jiri Bis, Polands Minister of Economy Piotr Grzegorz Wozniak, Slovakias Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Jirko Malcharek, Austria's Director and Head of the Energy Policy Division for the Federal Ministry of Economy Otto Zach, Croatias Minister of Economy Branko Vukelic, and Romanias Miratenister of Economy Ioan Codrut Seres. Secretary Bodmans visit to Hungary wraps up a five-day, four-country trip, where he traveled to Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to promote global energy security and greater international cooperation on energy 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 | ***************************************************************** 65 Oakland Tribune: A 50-year blast: Sandia celebrates anniversary Article Last Updated: 03/17/2006 4:26 AM PST By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE — Inside the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, the rivalry between Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore weapons labs — for H-bomb designs, money and prestige — is legendary. But a third H-bomb lab, Sandia, operates inside that competition, with branches in California and New Mexico as two houses of defense science divided by geography and assignment, if united by a single manager. What began 50 years ago as a team of ordnance engineers dispatched from New Mexico to help fledgling bomb designers at the University of California Rad Lab became a permanent partner as a full-fledged national-security lab called Sandia-California. Frank Murar was one of the first 16 Sandians to come to California. Earlier this month, he and hundreds of other retirees came back for Sandia-California's anniversary and swapped tales from the Cold War arms race. "We were working with tight time scales in the'50s and the'60s in a race with the Soviet Union," he said. Murar helped create the United States' first intercontinental ballistic missile warhead and, after the Soviets broke the 1958-1962 nuclear testing moratorium, was among U.S. weaponeers who filled the skies over the Pacific with massive detonations to test bomb ideas they had stored up. "We just had a furious effort," he said. "There were just a whole series of designs that people had thought up." The Rad Lab and the Sandia labs, headquartered in Albuquerque, N.M., could hardly have been more different in culture. Lawrence Livermore was full of creative academics, hungry to break Los Alamos' early'50s monopoly on weapons design. Sandia's cultural parentage at Western Electric, then AT and now Lockheed Martin, filled it with button-down engineers practicing near obsession with detail and procedure. Those cultures melded in a weapons design partnership team that became the tightest working relationship in the weapons complex. "We didn't always sing from the same song sheet as the folks in Albuquerque, but we had to get along with the heavy metal folks across East Avenue" at neighboring Lawrence Livermore, said Jack Howard, Sandia-California's first director, in a recorded message for the anniversary. The California labs produced some of the safest, most compact and innovative H-bombs ever devised. They invented the concepts of insensitive high explosives that merely melt in the presence of flame and permissive action links or coded locks to limit the odds of an unauthorized use of a nuclear bomb. By the end of the Cold War, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia-California weaponeers succeeded in packing every available safety and security feature into their bombs and warheads. "Weapons in the stockpile that have been the safest and most secure combinations of components came from these two labs," Lawrence Livermore weapons chief Bruce Goodwin told Sandians at their 50th celebration. For much of the Cold War, Los Alamos physicists tended to hand a canned nuclear explosive design to Sandia-New Mexico to turn into a weapon. Thomas Cook, who as vice president over Sandia-California from 1968 to 1982 was its longest serving chief, said the Lawrence-Sandia team conceived of their designs as a single whole. "In California, the weapons were all integrated," he said. "It saved a lot of weight." The military, especially the Navy, often ended up choosing less feature-filled designs from a competing Los Alamos/Sandia-New Mexico team for the most numerous weapons in the arsenal. The Californians, in other words, began and ended the Cold War as the underdogs. "We came in second, so we just have to try harder," said Mim John, chief of Sandia-California. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 66 lamonitor.com: Watch ordered for plutonium facility at lab The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Nuclear operations at the plutonium facility have been on standby mode for nearly three weeks, according to an official of Los Alamos National Laboratory. A site report by a federal safety agency, released today, confirmed that the laboratory has established a continuous fire watch and placed Technical Area 55 in "standby (Mode 2)," because of an "emergent concern over operability of sprinkler heads" in the plutonium processing building PF-4. "Concern arose when engineering personnel were walking down the system and found that up to about half the sprinkler heads in the rooms have paint or corrosion which could compromise the functionality of fire suppression," according to the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board report. Radioactive material from glove boxes was being containerized to increase the margin of safety, at the time of the report on Feb. 24, in case of an extended suspension. During the laboratory's review some sprinkler heads failed to meet recommended, but non-binding fire protection standards established by the National Fire Protection Association, said Kevin Roark of the Los Alamos Public Affairs Office. "Everything stopped in place," he said. "They are changing out all the sprinkler heads on the main floor and quite a few in the basement." He said the standby mode is technically called "mode two," and that the facility is expected to be back in operation "in two more weeks or so." While the facility is in safe mode, with fire watchers on guard, no activities that could spark a flame are allowed. "No cutting, no welding, no grinding," Roark said. Roark said the plutonium-handling facility was taking advantage of the situation to take care of other issues that can't be fixed during normal operations. The plutonium facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LANL's sister-laboratory in Livermore, Calif., was shut down in January 2005, and has yet to resume full operations. National Nuclear Security Administrator Linton Brooks notified LLNL of his intent to find them in violation of the Price-Anderson Act for a series of safety violations. It remains "a valid question," at Los Alamos about whether the sprinkler head incident will result in a violation, according Charles Keilers, the DNFSB site representative. The question of whether the laboratory was in compliance with its own safety basis could fall either way, he said. At the same time, he noted, the laboratory found the problem and took the necessary steps to fix it. The fire protection program has been a persistent concern of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as summarized in a letter to Brooks in May 2005, that found significant issues, including "delays in the completion of inspections, tests and maintenance." At the same time, the board expressed their particular concerns about the lack of high-level, safety-control systems at the highly hazardous PF-4 facility, where plutonium 238 is processed. Unlikely accident scenarios at the facility, the board warned, and especially fires have the potential for dangerous consequences, including excessive off-site radioactive exposures of the public. The Defense Nuclear Safety Board is holding a public meeting and hearing on health and safety issues at the laboratory on Wednesday, starting at 6 p.m. in the Duane W. Smith Auditorium at Los Alamos High School. More information on the meeting is available on the web at www.dnfsb.gov/pub_docs/dnfsb/pm.html . Monitor Assistant Editor © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 67 Knox News: Work resumes on Y-12 job Full-scale construction at uranium storage site may be approved soon By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 17, 2006 OAK RIDGE - Construction activity is gradually resuming at the government's new $350 million storage facility for bomb-grade uranium, and full-scale work may be approved late next week or the week after that, a spokesman at the Y-12 National Security Complex said Thursday. About 70 workers have returned to the construction site, said Bill Wilburn of BWXT Y-12, the plant's managing contractor. That's about a third of the project's work force, he said. The high-security project has been stalled since early February because of problems related to the building's reinforcing steel. Caddell-Blaine, the construction contractor, reportedly did not install the proper size of rebar in some areas because of errors in translating the original design requirements. "The contractor has restarted steel placements and some non-building structure construction, such as utility accesses and concrete pads that are required for the project but not part of the building itself," Wilburn said in response to questions. "The contractor also is putting up structural steel in the mechanical support areas of the building," Wilburn said. BWXT, the government's managing contractor at the Oak Ridge plant, is coordinating the restart activities with Caddell-Blaine and federal overseers. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is also reviewing the project closely. Construction was shut down Feb. 3 after BWXT engineers identified multiple discrepancies from the building's design. Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which has responsibility for Y-12 and other parts of the weapons complex, received briefings on the project while in Oak Ridge recently. Brooks said it was a significant setback, indicative of a quality-control problem, and would require a number of fixes. But he said he did not think it would be necessary to tear down any of the walls already constructed and redo the work. "It's not a disaster," Brooks said. Steven Wyatt, public affairs chief for the NNSA, said, "We understand that resumption of all construction activities is still a few weeks away. The contractor has taken aggressive steps to improve overall project management, quality control, oversight and assessment for this project." According to a safety board memo released Thursday, an independent review team found that BWXT had relied too much on the construction contractor and its quality inspection and not assigned enough experienced and knowledgeable people to the project team. Wyatt said the NNSA, which is a semi-independent unit of the U.S. Department of Energy, supports the actions taken to remedy the problems. The project is a top priority at Y-12. The new facility will enable the government plant to consolidate the nation's stockpile of weapons-grade uranium at a single location and bolster security. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel 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: *****************************************************************