***************************************************************** 03/21/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.68 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 The Dirty Secret Nobody Is Talking About: The CIA Passed 2 Guardian Unlimited: Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Approves Iraq Talks With U.S. 4 MSNBC.com: Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details - 5 [NYTr] Bush Warns Iran: We'll Defend Israel 6 [southnews] Between Iran and Israel, try a bomb for a bomb 7 [NYTr] Russia blocks UN nuclear ban on Iran 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Says More Time Needed on Iran Talks 9 Platts: Nuclear talks with Iran 'will be led by EU Three' - Bush 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran protests against US threats 11 AFP: UN Security Council resumes talks on Iranian nuclear crisis - 12 AFP: Six powers fail to agree clear strategy on Iranian nuclear cris 13 AFP: Afghanistan splits with US on question of terror by Iran - 14 IRNA: China, Russia call for diplomatic settlement of Iran N-case - 15 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Calls for New Talks With Iran 16 [NYTr] N.Korea: Pre-emptive Attacks Can Go Both Ways 17 [NYTr] N. Korea Says It, Too, Can Play "First Strike" 18 AFP: Unfazed by threats, US urges Pyongyang to resume nuclear talks 19 Calls, Lobbying Needed Re India/USA Nuke Deal With Australian Uraniu 20 US: [southnews] Eyeing nukes in battle 21 US: The nuclear madness of George Bush - Green Left Weekly #661, 22 US: Nuclear Weapons Directorate: Nuclear Weapons Center set to open 23 US: San Francisco Chronicle: ODD FINDING: WARHEADS TEND TO RIPEN WIT 24 US: SF Chronicle: Need for new U.S. nuclear arsenal disputed / Exist 25 AFP: US spied on French nuclear program 26 Bellona: Techa-2006 competition hit by legal problems and environmen 27 RIA Novosti: Energy market: guarantees against unpredictability 28 AFP: Putin arrives in China with spotlight on energy NUCLEAR REACTORS 29 [NYTr] Chavez Defends Right to Nuclear Energy 30 US: AP Wire: Officials: No problem at nuclear station in Fairfield C 31 Interfax: Russia-China nuclear cooperation to continue - Putin 32 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Beaver Valle 33 US: Herald News: Exelon springs for water 34 Platts: The UK taxpayers faces a "large and uncertain liability" 35 Platts: UK nuke industry must answer basic questions to have future 36 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Indian Point Annual Assessment Results, Prel 37 US: EPA Press Release: Yankee Nuclear Plant in Rowe to Pay Over $48, 38 Press Review news: BULGARIA WITHOUT NEW ENERGY STRATEGY - 39 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet 40 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti 41 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings NUCLEAR SECURITY 42 Myth: Israel's Strike on Iraqi Reactor Hindered Iraqi Nukes NUCLEAR SAFETY 43 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $6,000 Fine for Bayou Inspection Services, In 44 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Energy workers informed about benefits 45 US: NRC: NRC Creates Task Force to Examine Tritium Issue 46 Manawatu Standard: A-bomb survivors bring stories to tell NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 47 BBC: Work to seal nuclear shaft begins 48 US: Platts: NRC establishes task force to investigate titium leaks 49 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Unity on water cleanup 50 US: NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 51 Shetland News: Nuclear waste warning from MP 52 US: MetroWestDailyNews.com: More radiation found at Casella PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 Hanford News: DOE mulls Hanford cleanup options ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 The Dirty Secret Nobody Is Talking About: The CIA Passed Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:10:21 -0600 (CST) The Dirty Secret Nobody Is Talking About: The CIA Passed Nuclear Weapons Technology To Iran By Mark W. Hughes March 2006 Infoshop News (news.infoshop.org) With the US moving ever closer to a military attack targeting Iran, the Iranian nuclear program is the subject of much discussion and debate among politicians and in the mainstream news media. Ignored in this media coverage and diplomacy is the fact that any Iranian program successfully building nuclear weapons will owe much to the US intelligence community that handed Iran detailed technical blueprints for a nuclear weapon trigger. Just as the pre-war coverage of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs conveniently failed to mention that most of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction came from the US and NATO, so too are the inconvenient facts about the history of Iran's nuclear program being hushed up. The story was revealed by James Risen in his book "State of War", and while the media did report on the NSA spying scandal Risen exposed, the story about the CIA operation targeting (and ultimately possibly assisting) the Iranian nuclear program has largely been ignored in the US press. The only significant attention the story received was on the January 8th edition of "Meet the Press", where Risen was interviewed by Tim Russert. However, that program airs early on Sunday morning, so the audience is relatively limited. The Guardian, a UK newspaper, reported the story on January 5th of this year by Julian Borger, including an excerpt from Risen's book. Overall, anyone in the US who did not read "State of War" or missed "Meet the Press" has most likely never heard the story, and for that reason this article will now offer a brief description of the events. In February of 2000, a Russian scientist, at the behest of the CIA, handed to Iran the blueprints for vital components of a nuclear weapon. The Russian, a defector living in the US, was recruited by the CIA as part of Operation MERLIN, an attempt to learn more about Iran's nuclear program and at the same time throw the program off course. The plan involved giving Iran the designs for a Russian TBA 480 high-voltage block, also known as a "firing set", which causes an implosion to trigger a chain reaction in a nuclear core. The CIA altered the designs to include a flaw, assuming Iran would not notice the error. However, after he was asked to take the blueprints to Vienna and give them to Iran's representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters, the Russian noticed the intentional flaw in the designs. In fact, the flaw was so obvious he noticed it within minutes during his first viewing of the blueprints. The Russian scientist delivered the blueprints to the Iranian mission in Vienna as he was instructed to do by the CIA, but he also gave the Iranians a personal note informing them of the design flaw and offering to help them correct the error -- although it is currently unknown whether he was ever contacted by the Iranians again. However, the Iranians had previously acquired advanced technical information and assistance for their nuclear program from, among other nations, Pakistan. It is, therefore, highly probable that even without the Russian's assistance, Iranian technicians would be able to find and correct the obvious flaw in the otherwise detailed and highly valuable blueprints. The CIA case officer in charge of the operation became concerned that the CIA had inadvertently handed over information that would enable Iran to become a nuclear power, and he went to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and informed them. The passing of nuclear technology to a non-nuclear state is, obviously, a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the US is a signatory nation. Besides violating this international treaty, the CIA's actions also violated US law similarly restricting passing such information to other states. Despite this, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence apparently took no action whatsoever, and the facts remained a secret until they were revealed to James Risen by a source at the CIA. In response to Risen's book, the CIA issued a statement simultaneously denying the validity of the story while also denouncing its revelation as "an unfathomable and sad disregard for national security." Another CIA official, quoted anonymously in the Guardian article, asserted that there are numerous other occasions when the CIA intervened in Iran's nuclear program. The official claims the agency several times learned of shipments of nuclear equipment to Iran, and rather than revealing it publicly and/or trying to stop the shipments, the CIA "fiddled with the equipmentb&before it got to Iran." Here again we see the US intelligence community taking it upon themselves to influence global proliferation of nuclear weapons, carrying out de facto foreign policy that could have deadly results for the rest of the world. These startling revelations have had practically no impact on the US media's coverage of Iran's nuclear program, and certainly no impact on US or European policy and so-called "diplomacy" to resolve the current crisis over the Iranian program. Any honest and legitimate analysis of the Iranian nuclear program should include consideration of the facts regarding the role of US intelligence agents in supplying Iran with the components and technical plans for nuclear weapons in violation of international treaty obligations and US federal law, and the lack of any action by elected US government officials once they were fully informed of what had happened. It is, however, doubtful that any such honest and legitimate analysis will take place either in the mainstream media or in the discussions among government officials, if history tells us anything. ### ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday March 21, 2006 8:31 PM AP Photo NYET709 By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons. ``We don't have anything hidden!'' the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show. At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would ``roam Iraq for 50 years'' in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. ``When is this going to end?'' he asked. It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 - to locate WMD. The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings - dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq. Even as the documents make clear Saddam's regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove ``any forbidden equipment.'' Since it's now acknowledged the Iraqis had ended the arms programs by then, the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq's 1980s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Saddam's inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show. ``The factories will remain in our brains,'' one unidentified participant told Saddam at a meeting, apparently in the early 1990s. At the same meeting, however, Saddam, who was deposed by the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is now on trial for crimes against humanity, led a discussion about converting chemical weapons factories to beneficial uses. When a subordinate complained that U.N. inspectors had seized equipment at the plants useful for pharmaceutical and insecticide production, Saddam jumped in, saying they had ``no right'' to deny the Iraqis the equipment, since ``they have ascertained that we have no intention to produce in this field (chemical weapons).'' Saddam's regime extensively videotaped and audiotaped meetings and other events, both public and confidential. The dozen transcribed discussions about weapons inspections largely dealt with Iraq's diplomatic strategies for getting the Security Council to confirm it had disarmed. Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who has suggested that evidence might turn up that the Iraqis hid their weapons or sent them to neighboring Syria. No such evidence has emerged. Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon. ``We played by the rules of the game,'' Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. ``In 1991, our weapons were destroyed.'' Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the U.N. chief inspector. ``We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details,'' he said he told Rolf Ekeus. In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion U.S. team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had, indeed, dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992, and the Iraqis never resumed production. Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to have the Security Council lift the economic sanctions strangling the Iraqi economy, by convincing council members Iraq had eliminated its WMD. But he was thwarted at every turn by what he and aides viewed as U.S. hard-liners blocking council action. The inspectors ``destroyed everything and said, `Iraq completed 95 percent of their commitment,''' Saddam said at one meeting. ``We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). ``Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD,'' he told his deputies. ``We have nothing.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Leader Approves Iraq Talks With U.S. From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday March 22, 2006 12:31 AM AP Photo VAH101 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday that he approves of proposed talks between U.S. and Iranian officials on Iraq, but warned that the United States must not try to ``bully'' Iran. It was the first confirmation that Khamenei, who holds final say on all state matters in Iran, supports the talks. His comments appeared aimed at calming criticism by hard-liners over a major shift in policy by the regime, which long shunned high-level contacts with a country Tehran brands ``the Great Satan.'' President Bush said Tuesday he favors the talks and that American officials would show Iran ``what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq.'' Khamenei said that ``if the Iranian officials can make the U.S. understand some issues about Iraq, there is no problem with the negotiations.'' ``But if the talks mean opening a venue for bullying and imposition by the deceitful party (the Americans), then it will be forbidden,'' he said in a nationally televised speech in the holy Shiite city of Mashhad in northeastern Iran. Both the United States and Iran have said the talks will focus solely on stabilizing Iraq and not deal with the heated issue of Iran's nuclear program. No time or place has yet been set for talks. Khamenei appeared to be weighing in to end hard-line criticism, while insisting Iran would not bow to the United States in any talks. He said some U.S. officials had depicted the talks as if the United States were ``summoning Iranian officials.'' ``I say here that the U.S. government has no right to summon Iranian officials,'' Khamenei said. Khamenei is considered the leader of hard-liners in Iran who largely prevented reformists from opening greater contacts with the United States. Still, under his rule, Iran has held lower-level talks with American officials, particularly in multilateral gatherings for efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and counter narcotics, for instance. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Friday that the talks could help Iraq form a government, while Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, said Iran hopes the meetings will help lead to U.S. troop withdrawal. Iran has considerable influence with Shiite political parties who dominate Iraq's parliament, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq could be ``useful.'' In Tuesday's speech, Khamenei also dismissed the threat of U.N. Security Council action over Iran's nuclear program. ``They threatened us with the Security Council as if the council is the end of the world,'' Khamenei said, adding that Iran will pursue its nuclear program and will achieve it with all its ``heart and soul.'' Khamenei made the comments as the U.N. Security Council postponed a meeting Tuesday on Iran's suspect nuclear program, searching for new ways to break a deadlock with Russia and China over the best way to pressure Tehran, diplomats said. The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons; Iran says its program aims only to generate electricity and has insisted it has a right to carry out uranium enrichment, a key process that can develop either fuel for a reactor or material for a nuclear warhead. The decision to postpone the meeting came after senior diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the council and Germany made little headway on bridging their differences during a 4-hour meeting Monday evening. Diplomats said Russia was the main holdout, with China following behind. That deadlock has forced Britain, France and Germany - the European troika leading negotiations on Iran - to reopen the text of a statement that would be the first Security Council response. Diplomats will focus on bilateral talks to try to find an agreement, they said Tuesday. ``We'll just keep working on it,'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. The United States and its European allies want a statement reiterating demands by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the process that can be used to generate nuclear power or make nuclear weapons. Diplomats said the Russians and Chinese have not budged from their opposition to tough language including a demand for a report in 14 days on Iran's compliance with the IAEA demands. Moscow and Beijing have said that is not enough time, with China suggesting 30 to 45 days. --- Associated Press Writer Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report from the United Nations. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 MSNBC.com: Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - Saddam's foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn't agency listen? •CIA's secret Iraqi source March 20: The CIA once boasted of having a secret Iraqi source. NBC News reveals which member of Saddam Hussein's Cabinet became a paid source of the CIA. NBC's Lisa Myers reports. By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein's government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence. What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles. In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.'s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism," he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country's oil. But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam's actual capabilities. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. The sources say Sabri's answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate. For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active"  program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program. Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate. On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong. In the weeks following September 2002, after first contact with Sabri was made in New York, the agency kept much of his information concealed within its ranks. Sabri would have been a potential gold mine of information, according to NBC News analyst retired Gen. Wayne Downing. "I think it's very significant that the CIA would have someone who could tell them what's on the dictator's mind," says Downing. But, intelligence sources say, the CIA relationship with Sabri ended when the CIA, hoping for a public relations coup, pressured him to defect to the U.S. The U.S. hoped Sabri would leave Iraq and publicly renounce Saddam. He repeatedly refused, sources say, and contact was broken off. When war broke out, Sabri was defiant and outspoken. "Those aggressors are war criminals, colonialist war criminals. Crazy people led by a crazy, drunken, ignorant president," he said. After the war, former CIA director George Tenet once boasted of a secret Iraqi source. "A source," he said in a speech on Feb. 5, 2004, "who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle." Sources tell NBC News Tenet was alluding to Sabri. Tenet said that the source - meaning Sabri - had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production. However, in that speech, Tenet also laid out what Sabri had disclosed: that there was no biological program, that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons but had none. Read Tenet's speech from Feb. 5, 2004 Former CIA director Tenet's remarks at Georgetown Univ. After the war, Sabri was not arrested or put on the notorious "deck of cards." He lives in the Middle East and NBC News is not revealing his location for security reasons. According to Downing, that he is living in the Middle East may be significant. "The fact that he was there, that he was able to get out, live openly, like he is, says that for some reason he received some special status," says Downing. NBC News repeatedly requested comments about this report from Sabri, either in written form, by telephone or in person. NBC News contacted Sabri several times by phone, and hand delivered a letter to a representative of his, explaining in detail the substance of this report, including the details about weapons of mass destruction. Sabri confirmed he received the letter, but repeatedly refused to comment in any way, neither confirming nor denying any of the information in this report. So did the CIA. The agency also would not comment on Sabri, or answer why it discounted or ignored Sabri's assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. MSNBC.com ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] Bush Warns Iran: We'll Defend Israel Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:01:06 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP via Yahoo - 20 March 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060320/pl_afp/usirannuclearisrael_060320195105 Bush warns Iran on Israel CLEVELAND, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel. "The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq. "I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel. On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped "to solve this issue diplomatically" with a "united message" to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia "hopefully" and China. The message would be that "your desire to having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," he said. Bush also touched on Iran's agreement to discuss Iraq with the United States, saying that "it's very important, however, for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq. "We're using this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of interference within a democratic process that is evolving," he said, saying that the talks will not decide Iran's relations with a sovereign Iraq. "Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government," he said. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 [southnews] Between Iran and Israel, try a bomb for a bomb Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:32:06 -0600 (CST) .the United States broadly divides actual or potential nuclear powers into responsible and irresponsible ones... Between Iran and Israel, try a bomb for a bomb By David Hirst Commentary by Daily Star - Lebanon Tuesday, March 21, 2006 There is widespread international agreement that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is an alarming prospect. But very little attention is paid to the most obvious reason why: There already is a Middle Eastern nuclear power, Israel, insistent on preserving its monopoly. So the crisis has been foreseeable for decades; it would be automatically triggered by the emergence of a second nuclear power, friendly or unfriendly to the West. Iran is the unfriendliest possible, encouraging a widespread assumption that it alone is responsible for creating the crisis - and settling it. But is it? It certainly isn't blameless. First, its nuclear arming would deal a major blow to an already fraying international non-proliferation regime. Second, it would involve a huge deceit. Third, the United States broadly divides actual or potential nuclear powers into responsible and irresponsible ones. Iran would be irresponsible par excellence, being already the worst of "rogue states." Typically, a rogue state, as well as being domestically oppressive, ideologically repugnant and anti-American, unites an aggressive nature with disproportionate military strength, thereby posing a constant, exceptional threat to an established regional order. What could now more emphatically consign Iran to such company than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with his calls to "wipe Israel off the map?" Yet, in nuclear terms, Israel is the original sinner in the Middle East. Non-proliferation must be universal; if, in a zone of potential conflict, one party goes nuclear, its adversaries can't be expected not to either. No matter how long ago it was, by violating that principle, Israel must bear a heavy responsibility for what has since happened. Second, its deceit was no less than Iran's, though, there being no nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time, it was only America it deceived. Mindful of what Israel's mendacity portended, the Central Intelligence Agency warned in 1963 that, by greatly enhancing its sense of security, nuclear capacity would make Israel less, not more, conciliatory toward the Arabs; it would exploit its new "psychological advantages" to "intimidate" them. Which - thirdly - points to the irresponsible use Israel has indeed made of its nuclear capability. Sure, it always justified it as its "Samson option," its last recourse against neighbors bent on destroying it. There is no such threat now; but if there was once, or will be again, the question is why. A major part of the answer is that on most counts, except hostility to the U.S., Israel has always behaved like a rogue state. It came into being as a massive disrupter of the established Middle East order, through violence and ethnic cleansing. Such a settler-state could only achieve true legitimacy, true integration into a still-to-be-completed new order, by restoring the Palestinian rights it violated in its creation and growth. That, at bottom, is what the everlasting "peace process" is about. The world has a broad definition of the settlement lying at the end of it. It doesn't involve that full emancipation of an indigenous people that had been the norm in European decolonization; only a compromise vastly more onerous for the defeated Palestinians than the victorious Israelis. But the settlement never comes, because Israel resists even that degree of compromise. For it runs no ultimate risk in doing so. Its nuclear power, on top of its already overwhelming conventional superiority, ensures that. Such irresponsible use of it is what Shimon Peres, the father of Israel's nuclearization, was alluding to when he said that "acquiring a superior weapons system would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands." Or what Moshe Sneh, a leading Israeli strategist, meant when he said: "I don't want the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to be held under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb." As if the Arabs haven't had to negotiate under the shadow of an Israeli bomb these past four decades There are three ways the crisis can go. The first is that Israel insists on, and achieves, the unchallenged perpetuation of its "original sin." For it isn't so much "the world," as President George W. Bush keeps saying, that finds a nuclear Iran so intolerable, but the world on Israel's behalf; not the risk that Iran will attack Israel that makes the crisis so dangerous, but that Israel will attack Iran - or that the U.S. will take on the job itself. In effect, Israel's nukes, or the protection of them, have become a diplomatic instrument against its benefactor. It is legacy of America's own reluctant acquiescence in a nuclear Israel, which subsequently turned into uninhibited endorsement by ever more pro-Israeli administrations. http://www.dailystar.com.lb So here is a superpower, wrote American strategic analyst Mark Gaffney, so "blind and stupid" as to let "another state, Israel, control its foreign policy." And, in a brilliant study, he warned that a U.S. assault on Iran could end in a catastrophe comparable to the massacre of Roman legions at Cannae in 216 BC, by Hannibal's much inferior army. For in one field of military technology, anti-ship missiles, Russia is streets ahead of the U.S. And Iran's possession of the fearsome 3M-82 Moskit could turn the Persian Gulf into a death trap for the American fleet. And sure enough, from the Bush administration itself have been coming the first hints that, given the regional havoc Iran could indeed wreak, there may be nothing the U.S. can realistically do to stop it from going nuclear. This points to a second way the crisis then could go, where Israel would be obliged to renounce its nuclear monopoly and the Middle East would enter into a Cold War-style balance of terror. It could be a stable one. Clearly, like Israel, Iran would make irresponsible, political use of its nukes. But, like Israel's too, Iran's nuclear quest is essentially defensive, even if not in quite the same "existential" sense. Nothing could have more convinced it of the need for an unconventional deterrent than the fate of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which the U.S. had no qualms about attacking because it didn't have one. But surely even the mullahs wouldn't be mad enough to make first-strike use of their deterrent against an Israel that could unleash such overwhelming second-strike capability against them The third way - Iran's abandonment of its nuclear ambitions - would stand its best chance of being accomplished if Israel were induced to do likewise; not just because reciprocity is the essence of disarmament, but because it would signify a fundamental change in the U.S. approach to the region. And that might have beneficent effects way beyond the merely nuclear. Wrote veteran Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff, "There is only one way to avoid a nuclear balance of terror: to use the time left, while we still have a monopoly in this field, to make peace. In the framework of peace, a nuclear-free zone can be established." But that is the wrong way round. For making peace, as the CIA memo foresaw, Israel doesn't need the intransigence that absolute security brings, but the spirit of compromise a judicious dose of insecurity might bring. A utopian notion perhaps, with the world now so focused on the villainy of Iran - yet better than a U.S. onslaught which would add so thick a layer to an already mountainous deposit of anti-Western feeling, that Israel could barely even hope ever to win acceptance in the region. David Hirst was for a long time Middle East correspondent for London's The Guardian. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=23099 The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Russia blocks UN nuclear ban on Iran Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:27:05 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit [China dn Russia deliver still another kick in the teeth for Mr. Bush and his co-conspirators.] Reuters via Al Jazeera - Mar 21, 2006 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D36E28AE-A46D-4F88-93C7-2AB3ACDD8D46.htm Russia blocks UN nuclear ban on Iran Russia, backed by China, has blocked an agreement on a UN Security Council statement aimed at quashing Iran's nuclear ambitions, diplomats say. Senior officials from Germany and the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - the five veto-holding Security Council members - met for more than four hours on Monday to discuss how to handle Iran. They were joined by ambassadors to the UN but were unable to agree on a draft statement from the Security Council telling Iran to stop uranium-enrichment efforts. Nicholas Burns, the UN under-secretary of state, said after the meeting at the British UN mission in New York: "We remain convinced that we will see a presidential statement. It just may take a couple more days." The statement has been under discussion for nearly two weeks already. Disagreement Russia and China are wary of action by the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, fearing that threats might escalate and prompt Iran to cut all contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Envoys, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Russia was toughest on provisions in a draft statement and that China backed Moscow. Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's UN ambassador, said France and Britain, authors of the draft, would take another look at the text to see if it could be refined further. The full 15-member council consults late on Tuesday. Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the UN, was optimistic. "There are a number of areas where we have common points and these will be narrowed in the days ahead," he said. "We agreed to continue discussing it." Burns said the group had common aims. "All agreed that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and is out of compliance with its international commitments," he said. "All agreed Iran is travelling down the road toward enrichment. All agreed that we should stay united, stay together, to send one message." Envoys from the talks said there had been no firm proposals from Britain and others on the next step. The West has considered a resolution under mandatory Chapter 7 provisions of the UN Charter if Iran does not comply but only after a statement is adopted. Background A statement needs the consent of all 15 council members while a resolution requires nine votes in favour and no veto from a permanent member. However, if there is no agreement on a statement, the Western powers could turn the draft into a resolution and dare Russia and China to veto. In a deal struck in November 2004, Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany - the negotiators for the European Union - to freeze any uranium conversion, enrichment and reprocessing in return for economic and political rewards. That deal broke down last year and Iran restarted uranium conversion in August. The IAEA board agreed to report the issue to the Security Council, which received a dossier on 8 March. On the statement, Russia and China have objected to a section of the draft setting a two-week deadline for the IAEA to report whether Tehran has stopped enrichment activities, saying it is too short. The Western powers, at the suggestion of China, also revised a text on Friday, saying that Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the IAEA, would submit a progress report on Iran to the Security Council and the 35-member IAEA board at the same time. Earlier only the council was mentioned. Reuters * ================================================================ .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: U.S. Says More Time Needed on Iran Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday March 21, 2006 12:16 PM AP Photo NYDK106 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Britain's strategy for persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions calls for sanctions that could be enforced militarily if diplomacy fails, but getting U.N. Security Council members Russia and China on board will be a struggle. Britain, the United States, France and Germany are having trouble just getting China and Russia to agree on a Security Council statement calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Senior diplomats from the six countries met for 4 1/2 hours Monday, apparently achieving little. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had expressed hope that the statement could be adopted after council discussions Tuesday afternoon. But after Monday's meeting, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said more time was needed for negotiations. ``It may take a little bit of time, but it's going to be worth the time because when we do achieve that statement, it will be yet another clear unified message by the international community,'' Burns said. The meeting, hosted by British Foreign Office Director John Sawers, occurred hours after a letter came to light detailing Britain's approach to Iran. The confidential document from Sawers laid out a scenario for getting Russia and China behind increasingly tough measures - including possible sanctions - to pressure Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. The process can be used to generate nuclear electricity or make nuclear weapons. Britain's assessment was that the Iranians ``will not feel under much pressure'' from a Security Council statement alone ``and they will need to know that more serious measures are likely,'' Sawers said. The March 16 letter said measures could include a legally binding resolution that could be enforced by military means. But it acknowledged the challenge that negotiators will face in getting Russia and China onboard, and suggested a package of proposals to entice Iran. ``We are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around,'' Sawers said. The letter was addressed to Burns, German Foreign Office Political Director Michael Schaefer and French Foreign Ministry Political Director Stanislas de Laboulaye. The immediate disagreement, with which the Security Council has grappled for a week, is over a proposed council statement urging Iran to abandon uranium enrichment and calling for a report in 14 days. Moscow and Beijing want the International Atomic Energy Agency to assume the main role in cajoling Iran on uranium enrichment. They have warned that pushing Iran too hard could prompt its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the expulsion of IAEA inspectors. They also contend that 14 days is too short for a progress report on Iran's compliance. The six senior diplomats agreed on a brief statement expressing ``deep concern'' that Iran was continuing enrichment and had barred surprise IAEA inspections. After the meeting, China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya reiterated that Beijing could agree to Security Council action ``if it is a short, brief political statement.'' If there is no significant progress after 10 days, Western nations could abandon efforts to approve a Security Council statement in favor of a resolution that would be put to a vote, said a council diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue had not been raised. A vote would force Russia and China to approve, abstain or veto action against Iran. Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected incentives offered in return for a permanent end to enrichment. Its subsequent moves to toward enrichment capabilities led the IAEA to ask for Security Council involvement earlier this year. --- Associated Press reporters George Jahn in Vienna and Barry Schweid in Washington contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Platts: Nuclear talks with Iran 'will be led by EU Three' - Bush New York (Platts)--21Mar2006 Any negotiations with Iran over the status of the country's nuclear development program "will be led by the EU Three," US President George W. Bush said Tuesday in a televised press briefing. Asked at the hastily arranged press conference in Washington about the pending talks between the US and Iran over the continued instability in Iraq, Bush noted that several months ago he gave US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad "permission to explain to the Iranians what we didn't like about their involvement in Iraq. I thought it was important for them to hear first hand..." But Bush denied that there were any plans to have those talks include the ongoing standoff with Iran over that country's nuclear development program. "Our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear weapons will be led by the EU Three," Bush said in a reference to negotiations that have been led by the UK, France and Germany. "That's important because the Iranians must hear there is a unified voice that says that they shall not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon, for the sake of the security of the world.... It's important for our citizens to understand that we have to deal with that issue diplomatically now. And the reason why is because if the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world..." In addition to the European negotiators, both Russia and China are part of efforts to get Tehran to halt its nuclear development program. Separately, Bush was asked whether he agreed with the recent assessment of former Iraqi interim president Iyad Alawi that Iraq is already involved in a civil war. "I do not," Bush said. "There are other voices coming out of Iraq, other than Mr. Alawi.... We all recognize that there is a violence, that there is sectarian violence. But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war..." For more information, take a trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran protests against US threats 2006/03/21 New York, March 21 - Iranian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Mohammad-Javad Zarif on Monday sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan protesting against recent US threats against Tehran. Dollowing is the full text of his letter: "In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful "Your Excellency, Mr Kofi Annan, "Upon instructions from my government, I have the honor to enclose herewith the text of a note verbale dated March 13, 2006 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic addressed to the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran (United States Interest Section). "In the past several months, various senior officials of the United States have used false pretexts to make public and thinly- veiled threats of resort to force against the Islamic Republic of Iran in total contempt of international law and the fundamental principles of the charter of the United Nations. "Statements delivered at the AIPAC meeting in Washington on March 5-7, 2006 by the US Vice-President and Permanent Representative to the United Nations threaten Iran with `tangible and painful consequences' and the `use of all tools at our disposal' to make it aband on its nuclear activities. "Rest assured that although we do not rely on the Security Council as the only tool in our toolbox to address this problem and are already beefing up our defensive measures, the statements and publications are simply the latest and more vulgar in US threats to resort to unlawful, unacceptable and dangerous use of force (against Iran). "The statements, furthermore, show the US'contempt for the UN Security Council and other multilateral mechanisms, and its intention to abuse the very same me chanisms are self-evident. "Regrettably, such dangerous words go beyond callous statements before single-issue constituencies and include documents officially articulating US strategy. The list includes the draft "doctrine of joint military operations" issued by the US Joint Chief of Staff on March 15, 2005 and the "National Security Strategy" issued by the White House on March 16, 2006, both of which defiantly articulate US policies and intentions on pre-emption, the use of force and resort to nuclear weapons in contravention of international law, the charter of the United Nations, the NPT and other US multilateral undertakings on negative security assurances. "These statements and documents, in view of past illegal behavior of the United States, constitute matters of utmost gravity that require urgent, concerted and resolute response on the part of the United Nations and particularly the Security Council. "It is indeed regrettable that past failures have emboldened senior US officials and even others to consider the threat or use of force, both of which are specifically rejected under article 2(4) of the charter as violations of one of the most fundamental principles of the organization, as options available on the table. "The United Nations has a fundamental responsibility to reject those assertions and to arrest this trend. "It will be highly appreciated if this letter and its annex were circulated as a document of the general assembly under agenda items 9,82, 87, 94, 95, 97, 110 and of the Security Council. "Please accept, your excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. (Signed) M. Javad Zarif MA Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: UN Security Council resumes talks on Iranian nuclear crisis - Tue Mar 21, 4:59 AM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - The UN Security Council resumes talks on a Franco-British statement urging Iran" /> Iranto suspend uranium enrichment as demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). The meeting comes after top officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, after more than four hours of talks Monday at Britain's UN mission, failed to agree on a strategy to coax Iran to forgo nuclear weapons. "The talks were difficult", largely because of Russian and Chinese objections to the firm stance advocated by the Western powers, said a Western diplomat who asked not to be named. Participants spoke of common ground on the goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons but the officials representing the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council plus Germany did not produce concrete plans to deal with Iran's nuclear defiance. The meeting, billed as an attempt to map out a long-term strategy to deal with Iran, brought together US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak and foreign ministry political directors John Sawers of Britain, Stanislas de Laboulaye of France, Zhang Yan of China and Michael Schaefer of Germany, "We made some progress in looking at the text of the presidential statement that is before the Security Council," Burns told reporters on Tuesday. "It's clear from today's meeting that there has to be some more meetings up here in New York." "We are on the road towards an agreement," he added. "It may take a little bit of time. But it's going to be be worth the time because when we do achieve a statement, it will be yet another clear unified message by the international community." The Security Council talks on the revised Franco-British draft have sparked hopes among Western members that a deal could be sealed later in the week. "There was a lot of common ground between us. We share the objective vis-a-vis Iran and its nuclear program," said Sawers. "It's essential that Iran takes the steps required in order to start the process of rebuilding confidence in its nuclear intentions." But Sawers denied reports from Vienna that Britain had outlined a long-term strategy that would include an offer to resume talks on European economic incentives in exchange for Iran renouncing a nuclear weapons capabilities. "No British government has made such a proposal," he told reporters. The talks between the so-called EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- and Iran foundered when Iran started nuclear fuel work last August. The IAEA has been investigating Iran since February 2003 on US charges that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear power program to hide an atomic weapons program. Schaefer however reiterated that "the Europeans have declared their readiness to go back into negotiations if Iran freezes its activities and that means all enrichment-related activities, including what they call the R and D (research and development) project which de facto is a pilot project in enrichment." "We have not discussed specifics of resolutions, we have discussed concept, how to go forward," he added. Kisliayk described Monday's talks on all aspects of the crisis as "businesslike" and said more discussions would follow. Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treay to conduct uranium enrichment. Western powers see adoption of the Franco-British non-binding statement as the first step in a graduated response from the Security Council that could ultimately lead to sanctions against Tehran if it refuses to cooperate. But Russia and China, which have close economic and energy ties with Tehran, are cool to sanctions and insist on the IAEA retaining the lead role in handling the issue. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Six powers fail to agree clear strategy on Iranian nuclear crisis - Tue Mar 21, 1:22 AM ET NEW YORK (AFP) - Top officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States wrapped up more than four hours of talks on the Iranian nuclear crisis here but failed to agree on a clear strategy to coax Tehran into foregoing nuclear arms. Participants, however, agreed to continue their discussions, including the issue of a Franco-British statement now before the UN Security Council that calls on Iran" /> Iranto comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) demand that it suspend uranium enrichment. "The talks were difficult", largely because of Russian and Chinese objections to the firm stance advocated by the Western powers, said a Western diplomat who asked not to be named. The meeting, at Britain's UN mission, brought together US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak and foreign ministry political directors John Sawers of Britain, Stanislas de Laboulaye of France, Zhang Yan of China and Michael Schaefer of Germany, officials said. Participants spoke of common ground on the goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons but the officials representing the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council plus Germany did not produce concrete plans to deal with Iran's nuclear defiance. The meeting had been billed as an attempt by the six powers to map out a long-term strategy to deal with Tehran. "We made some progress in looking at the text of the presidential statement that is before the Security Council," Burns told reporters. "It's clear from today's meeting that there has to be some more meetings up here in New York." "We are on the road towards an agreement," he added. "It may take a little bit of time. But it's going to be be worth the time because when we do achieve a statement, it will be yet another clear unified message by the international community." The Security Council was to resume talks on the revised Franco-British draft Tuesday amid hopes by Western members that a deal could be sealed later in the week. "There was a lot of common ground between us. We share the objective vis-a-vis Iran and its nuclear program," said Sawers. "It's essential that Iran takes the steps required in order to start the process of rebuilding confidence in its nuclear intentions." But Sawers denied reports from Vienna that Britain had outlined a long-term strategy that would include an offer to resume talks on European economic incentives in exchange for Iran renouncing a nuclear weapons capabilities. "No British government has made such a proposal," he told reporters. The talks between the so-called EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- and Iran foundered when Iran started nuclear fuel work last August. The IAEA has been investigating Iran since February 2003 on US charges that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear power program to hide an atomic weapons program. Schaefer however reiterated that "the Europeans have declared their readiness to go back into negotiations if Iran freezes its activities and that means all enrichment-related activities, including what they call the R and D (research and development) project which de facto is a pilot project in enrichment." "we have not discussed specifics of resolutions, we have discussed concept, how to go forward," he added. Kisliayk described Monday's talks on all aspects of the crisis as "businesslike" and said more discussions would follow. Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treay to conduct uranium enrichment. Western powers see adoption of the Franco-British non-binding statement as the first step in a graduated response from the Security Council that could ultimately lead to sanctions against Tehran if it refuses to cooperate. But Russia and China, which have close economic and energy ties with Tehran, are cool to sanctions and insist on the IAEA retaining the lead role in handling the issue. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: Afghanistan splits with US on question of terror by Iran - Tue Mar 21, 7:35 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan's foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah said that his country did not share Washington's concerns about Iran" /> Iranas a terrorist threat, saying Kabul has benefitted from Tehran's aid. In answer to a question at a Washington press conference about alleged evidence of Iranian terrorism in Afghanistan, Abdullah said: "We have established good neighborly relations with almost all our neighboring countries." "Iran has been helping us in the reconstruction process. Iran has been supportive of the political process in Afghanistan," Abdullah said here after two days of talks with senior Washington officials. "Friends of Afghanistan have encouraged always promotion of good relations in interactions between Afghanistan and its neighbors," he said, adding that on the question of terrorism, "we don't have evidence of ... efforts against Afghanistan" by Iran. Abdullah made his remarks after US Assistant Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, at the same press conference, leveled a litany of accusations against Tehran over its role as alleged purveyor of the tools of terrorism to US enemies. "Iran is helping to support Al-Qaeda -- or at least not cracking down on them within their own country -- allowing them to roam free, and perhaps even supporting them," Burns said. "The Iranian government of President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad continues the 25-year tradition of making Iran the central banker of the terrorist groups in the Middle East, and also the leading director of terrorist incidents in the Middle East," Burns charged. "We in the United States have been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks sponsored by the Iranian government, going all the way back to the early 1980s in Lebanon, and that has continued over the last two decades," Burns said. He cited in particular alleged Iranian efforts to supply insurgent groups in Iraq" /> Iraqwith sophisticated technology for the development of improvised explosive devices that have been used with devastating effect against US forces in Iraq. "One of our major objections to the policies -- not just of Ahmadinejad but of the predecessor governments -- has been this unstinting support for terrorism. It remains one of the great American concerns about that government," Burns said. "Along with the fact that we object very strongly to their seeking a nuclear weapons capability," he said, "this issue of terrorism is also on the front line of our concerns with the Iranian government." Abdullah met Monday with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice. Issues touched upon during this week's talks included the US-led war on terror, the fight against narcotics production and trafficking, and US efforts to help train troops in Afghanistan's national army. Iran had tense relations with the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan and tacitly supported its removal by US-led forces. It has provided reconstruction aid to the new Kabul government and denied any links to the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: China, Russia call for diplomatic settlement of Iran N-case - Beijing, March 21, IRNA China-Russia-Iran China and Russia on Tuesday called for settlement of Iran's nuclear case through diplomatic channels. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao issued a joint statement after they held talks on Tuesday on Iran's nuclear program. The two presidents stressed that they would continue diplomatic efforts to resolve Iran's case. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang also on Tuesday said Beijing and Moscow enjoy a common stance on settlement of Iran's nuclear dossier. He added Russia's nuclear proposal for Iran would be an appropriate solution on Iran's nuclear case under current circumstances, saying China invites all sides to continue negotiations in this regard. ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Calls for New Talks With Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday March 21, 2006 3:01 AM AP Photo NYDK107 By NICK WADHAMS and GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writers UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Britain has suggested imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran unless it allays suspicions about its nuclear program, but Russia and China remained at odds with Europe and the United States Monday night on the best way to confront Tehran. Senior diplomats from six key nations convened for a 4 1/2-hour meeting to discuss how to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, the radioactive material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon. But they still could not overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to tough action in the U.N. Security Council. The meeting, hosted by British Foreign Office Director John Sawers, occurred hours after a letter came to light detailing Britain's approach to Iran. The confidential document from Sawers suggested a blend of threats and enticements, starting with a Security Council statement and then moving to a legally binding resolution demanding Iran halt uranium enrichment. It would introduce a package of incentives as a way of getting Russia and China onboard, and if Tehran fails to allay fears that it may be developing nuclear weapons, push ``further measures'' - possibly including sanctions, according to the letter obtained by The Associated Press. But Monday evening's meeting appeared to achieve little, with officials from all sides saying that talks would continue. The immediate disagreement, which the Security Council has grappled with for a week, is over a proposed council statement urging Iran to abandon uranium enrichment and calling for a report in 14 days. The Security Council has scheduled consultations on the statement Tuesday afternoon and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had expressed hope it could be adopted at the end of the meeting. But U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told reporters after Monday's meeting that further discussions were needed. ``It may take a little bit of time, but it's going to be worth the time because when we do achieve that statement, it will be yet another clear unified message by the international community'' Burns said. The six countries present - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - differ on the best way to get Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, which can be used either to generate electricity or to produce nuclear arms. The British hoped the Russians and Chinese would agree to tougher council action if necessary in exchange for Western willingness to engage in new negotiations, according to the letter and U.N. diplomats. Moscow and Beijing want the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to assume the main role in cajoling Iran on enrichment and its refusal to fully cooperate with an IAEA probe. They also contend that 14 days is too short for a progress report on Iran's compliance. After Monday's meeting, China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya reiterated his stance that Beijing could agree to Security Council action ``if it is a short, brief political statement.'' The March 16 letter stressed the importance of showing Iran that ``more serious measures are likely'' if it doesn't stop enriching uranium - possibly including a legally binding resolution that cound be enforced by military means. But it acknowledged the challenge that negotiators will face in getting Russia and China onboard, and suggested a package of proposals to entice Iran. ``We are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around,'' the letter said. It was addressed to Burns, German Foreign Office Political Director Michael Schaefer and French Foreign Ministry Political Director Stanislas de Laboulaye. Russia and China have said tough council action could spark an Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The United States, Britain and France want a statement listing demands already made by the IAEA - including the suspension of uranium enrichment and steps toward greater transparency and more cooperation. Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected incentives offered in return for a permanent end to enrichment. Its subsequent moves to toward enrichment capabilities led the IAEA to ask for Security Council involvement earlier this year. --- Associated Press reporter Barry Schweid in Washington contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 [NYTr] N.Korea: Pre-emptive Attacks Can Go Both Ways Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:27:31 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters - Mar 21, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-03-21T161700Z_01_SEO71608_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml N.Korea talks tough, says won't bow to US By Jon Herskovitz SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said it was prepared to launch a pre-emptive military strike and it would not bow to U.S. pressure to give up its nuclear weapons, its official media said in separate reports on Tuesday. The North Korean comments come as six-party nuclear talks on ending Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons have hit a snag over a U.S. crackdown on firms Washington suspects of aiding the North in illicit activities such as counterfeiting and drug trafficking. In recent days, North Korea has also expressed anger at annual joint U.S.-South Korean military drills. Pyongyang sees them as a prelude to an invasion and nuclear attack. It threatened that its Korean People's Army has the right to strike first, if needed. "The KPA, too, has (the) option for pre-emptive attack in most effective and positive defense of itself," the North's official KCNA news agency reported on Tuesday. North Korea made a similar threat last week. The drills will start next week and are designed to help coordinate U.S. and South Korean forces in a joint defense of South Korea. In a separate report carried on KCNA, North Korea called on the United States to find a practical solution to the nuclear standoff. North Korea signed an agreement in September 2005 with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States to scrap its nuclear programs in exchange for aid, security assurances and greater diplomatic recognition. "The U.S. should not insist that we first abandon nuclear weapons. Rather, it would be wise to take the path of cooperation in the field of nuclear matters," KCNA quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying in a report carried on South Korea's Yonhap news agency. "We made nuclear weapons because of a nuclear threat from the United States. We have our traditional way of directly tackling the pressure and we will take this kind of way to the United States," the spokesman said. An English-language version of the report on KCNA was not immediately available. North Korea almost scuttled the September 2005 agreement by saying about a day after it was struck it would be unthinkable to scrap its nuclear weapons unless the United States built a relatively proliferation-resistant light-water reactor for it first. Washington, Tokyo and others said the nuclear reactor up front was not a part of the deal. The five parties in talks with North Korea have urged Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. The last round of the nuclear talks was held in November 2005. Earlier this month, U.S. Treasury officials briefed a senior North Korean official on the U.S. financial crackdown. Some analysts and government officials in Seoul had expressed hope the meeting could lead to a possible resumption of the talks. (With additional reporting by Oh Jung-hwa) ) Reuters 2006. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 17 [NYTr] N. Korea Says It, Too, Can Play "First Strike" Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:29:34 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP via USA Today - Mar 21, 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-21-nkorea-us_x.htm N. Korea suggests it can strike U.S. first SEOUL (AP) North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat. "As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States." Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend. The spokesman also said it would be a "wise" step for the United States to cooperate on nuclear issues with North Korea in the same way it does with India. Earlier this month, President Bush signed an accord in India that would open some of its atomic reactors to international inspections in exchange for U.S. nuclear know-how and atomic fuel. The accord was reached even though New Delhi has not signed the international Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty and condemned the United States for giving India "preferential" treatment. "If the U.S. is truly interested in finding a realistic way of resolving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, it would be wise for it to come out on the path of nuclear cooperation with us," he said. The North's announcement that it has a nuclear arsenal risked escalating tensions in the prolonged standoff over its program and threatened the prospect of resuming six-nation talks on the dispute. "We have built nuclear weapons for no other purpose than to counter U.S. nuclear threats," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said. It is rare for North Korea to mention its nuclear capabilities in such an explicit manner. The communist state usually refers to its "nuclear deterrent force." North Korea first declared last year that it has nuclear weapons, although the claim could not be confirmed independently. Experts believe the North has extracted enough plutonium from its main nuclear reactor for at least a half-dozen weapons. Six-nation talks have been stalled since November over a dispute surrounding financial restrictions the United States imposed on North Korea for its alleged currency counterfeiting and money laundering. Those talks involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. Pyongyang says it will not return to the negotiating table unless the restrictions are lifted. But Washington demands that the North come to the talks without preconditions, saying the two issues are separate. The North's spokesman said his country had shown "maximum flexibility" in trying to resolve the financial dispute, proposing possible solutions during a meeting in New York earlier this month. The meeting produced no breakthrough. "The Bush administration talks about six-party talks, but it actually is paying no attention to the talks," the spokesman said, according to KCNA. The spokesman also disputed last week's U.S. national security report that, among other things, said North Korea posed a serious nuclear proliferation challenge. "In a word, it is a robbery-like declaration of war," the spokesman said. "Through this document, the Bush administration declared to the world that it is a group of war fanatics." Copyright 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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Unfazed by threats, US urges Pyongyang to resume nuclear talks - Tue Mar 21, 2:20 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government urged North Korea" /> to return to stalled six-party talks on its illicit nuclear weapons program, amid reports of new saber-rattling from Pyongyang towards the United States. International media reports said Tuesday that officials in Pyongyang have boasted that North Korea has the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, but State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington was not fazed by Pyongyang's threats. "What we would do, first of all, is encourage the North Korean government to return to the six-party talks to engage in serious discussions, as opposed to making kind of inflammatory statements," McCormack told reporters, urging the North Koreans to return to negotiations "at the earliest possible date". The six-party talks, involving North and South Korea" /> , the United States, China, Japan and Russia, aimed at ending the North's nuclear programs, have been stalled since November. McCormack also reiterated US assertions that Washington has no plans to launch a military strike against the communist country. "We've been very clear, the president, the secretary of state and others have made it very clear that the United States has no plans to invade or attack North Korea," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 Calls, Lobbying Needed Re India/USA Nuke Deal With Australian Uranium Exports Possible Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:29:31 -0500 The article below dosen't mention that not only is this not a done deal but that there's significant opposition to it at least here in the USA. Hence the need for those of us in India, USA and Australia to lobby our representatives to kill this deal dead in it's tracks. In the USA please call your Reps & Senators at: 202-224-3121 & 1-877-762-8762 and push strongly to kill this deal. The destruction of the NPT Treaty and nuclear weapons proliferation may hang in the balance. Please forward this to other related lists and individuals. 1. Bush Briefs Australia PM on India Nuclear Deal 2. Pakistan Clamors for Same US Nuclear Deal as India http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-india-australia.html Bush Briefs Australia PM on India Nuclear Deal a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: March 21, 2006 Filed at 7:50 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph CANBERRA (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush has briefed Australian Prime Minister John Howard on a U.S. nuclear deal with India in a move seen as groundwork by Canberra for a possible policy change to allow uranium exports to India. The pair discussed the deal after Bush called to pass on his sympathies over a tropical cyclone that devastated parts of northern Queensland state, a spokesman for Howard confirmed. The agreement, reached earlier this month, will see India receive U.S. nuclear technology in return for separating its military and civil facilities and opening civilian plants to inspections. India wants to buy uranium from Australia, which has more than 40 percent of the world's known reserves of the mineral. But Canberra maintains it will not sell to countries, such as India, that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ``My read on it would be, yes, (Howard) is paving the way for a possible change of policy. Whether he does or not depends on how people react to it,'' Monash University political analysts Dennis Woodward said. Howard said he and Bush discussed the nature of the agreement and the reasons why the United States had entered into it and the advantages of having India's civil nuclear capacity placed under international inspection. ``We both agreed that was a very significant step forward and we both of course agreed that India is going to bulk much larger in the affairs of the region because of the enormous economic growth that country is enjoying,'' Howard told reporters. BEIJING WANTS URANIUM Howard had already discussed the deal with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visited Sydney late last week. Howard said on Friday he would send a team of officials to India to find out more about the deal with the United States, but said there would be no immediate change in Canberra's policy. ``Obviously, like all policies, you never say never,'' he said. Rice said on Thursday that Washington will not push Australia to supply uranium to India, which conducted a nuclear test in 1974 and in 1998 and declared itself a nuclear weapons state. Canberra is negotiating a nuclear safeguards agreement with Beijing, allowing it to sell uranium to help meet China's rapidly growing energy market. ``I would definitely see us selling uranium to China before we'd count on selling it to India,'' Woodward said. Australia also requires countries to agree to a separate nuclear safeguards agreement before it will export uranium. Canberra is negotiating such a deal with Beijing to allow it to sell uranium to help meet China's rapidly growing energy market. China is expected to build 40 to 50 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, while India is looking to boost its nuclear power industry, which currently accounts for only three percent of energy production. Australia has 19 nuclear safeguard agreements, covering 36 countries, including the United States, France, Britain, Mexico, Japan, Finland and South Korea. Australia has only three operating uranium mines, which are owned by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and General Atomics of the United States. 2. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-pakistan-usa-nuclear.html Pakistan Clamors for Same US Nuclear Deal as India a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: March 21, 2006 Filed at 8:11 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Stung by U.S. President George Bush's refusal to grant access to American nuclear know-how, Pakistan accused the United States of discriminating against it and of upsetting the balance of power in South Asia. Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri told the Senate, the upper house of parliament, late on Monday, that any deal to supply technology for civilian nuclear power programs for its rival India should also available to Pakistan. Bush, in a visit to Islamabad earlier this month immediately after concluding a nuclear accord in New Delhi, told President Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan was not being considered for a similar deal because of its different ''history'' and different needs. ``Pakistan will not accept any discriminatory treatment,'' Kasuri told the upper house. ``The U.S. must have a package approach while dealing with India and Pakistan.'' India and Pakistan almost went to war for a fourth time in 2002, and a two-year old peace process between South Asia's nuclear armed rivals is already flagging. On Tuesday, at a seminar in Islamabad, Pakistani defense analysts aired fears that the U.S.-India deal would sway the balance of power in South Asia even further in India's favor. ``This imbalance now gets even worse as a consequence of America's total and all out support to India,'' said Talat Masood, a former general turned political analyst. Visiting Pakistan last week at Bush's behest, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman gave Pakistani officials short shrift when they floated ideas of creating ``nuclear parks'' for U.S. companies to develop nuclear energy plants. Despite being told to forget about any deal, Pakistani officials' protestations have become louder in recent days, possibly encouraged, analysts say, by the strong criticism Bush encountered at home over the concession to India, a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan, though a key ally of the United States in a global war on terrorism, remains under a cloud due to the role played by its top scientist in a nuclear black market scandal. The disgraced scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was placed under house arrest over two years ago after admitting selling nuclear parts to Libya, Iran and North Korea, and U.S. investigators have been barred from questioning him. The Pakistani military's past support for Islamist militant groups, some of which latterly forged links with al Qaeda, also does not help Pakistan's case, analysts say. Compared with India's robust democracy, Pakistan has repeatedly switched between civilian and military rule making it hard to predict what kind of government will follow in the post-Musharraf era, analysts said. Bush voiced confidence that Musharraf, who came to power in a military coup in 1999, aimed to fully restore democracy. But so far the general has stifled the mainstream political parties and allowed anti-American Islamists increasing influence, despite his own espousal of policies of ``enlightened moderation.'' The United States meantime has engaged India, seeing opportunities in its growing economic power, and, according to analysts, its potential as regional counterweight to China. Pakistan's hopes that friendship with the United States could give it extra diplomatic muscle in dealing with rival India have been dashed, analysts say. ``I don't expect any 180 degree turn in our foreign policy, but we should re-evaluate our reference points with the United States,'' said Shireen Mazari, head of the Institute of Strategic Studies. ``We should put a brake on our open-ended cooperation ... We are not as weak as we think we are.'' Shifting alliances could see Pakistan turn once more toward its old friend, China. Late last week, Pakistani media reported Musharraf as saying he will seek more support from Beijing. China helped Pakistan build a 300 mw nuclear plant at Chasma town in Pubjab province and is currently helping to build a second facility at the same site. ***************************************************************** 20 [southnews] Eyeing nukes in battle Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:32:15 -0600 (CST) Even as he was telling Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, President Bush was urging Congress to pay for a new nuclear weapon designed to destroy underground military facilities. Eyeing nukes in battle Column by Sanford Gottlieb The Cincinnati Post Monday, March 20, 2006 Even as he was telling Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, President Bush was urging Congress to pay for a new nuclear weapon designed to destroy underground military facilities. Although the nuclear "bunker-buster" is still on the drawing board, Iran can be expected to charge the United States with atomic hypocrisy during this war of words. No less than a conservative Republican from southwestern Ohio, Rep. David L. Hobson, has thwarted Bush's push for the bunker-buster for the past two years. Hobson chairs a House subcommittee that appropriates money for the nuclear weapons complex. He persuaded the House not to spend a cent for research on the bunker-buster. The Senate followed. What worries him most about this weapon, Hobson has said, "is that some idiot might try to use it." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Senate subcommittee in April that 70 countries are pursuing "activities underground." "We don't have a capability of dealing with that," he testified. "We can't go in and get at things in solid rock underground." Rumsfeld suggested he needs the relatively small bunker-buster to avoid using "a large, dirty nuclear weapon." Yet at the time of his testimony, Rumsfeld probably saw a study from the National Academy of Sciences estimating that the small bunker-buster, if used in an urban area, could cause more than a million deaths. Pursuit of the bunker-buster and Rumsfeld's testimony confirm the administration's shift away from nuclear deterrence toward possible use of nuclear weapons in war. Under Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has added missions to its war plans. STRATCOM's global strike plan foresees the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction or to destroy an adversary's WMD stockpiles. The Pentagon's draft "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" describes these new missions. The draft was discovered on the Pentagon Web site in September by Hans Kristensen, now with the Federation of American Scientists. When Kristensen shared his find with the media, the draft disappeared from the Web site. But STRATCOM's war plans remain in force. "You may win this year," Rumsfeld told Hobson in 2005, "but we'll be back." Meanwhile, Congress has mandated that any future earth-penetrator weapons must be based on conventional explosives. The Pentagon had hedged its bets. In 2004, the Defense Department awarded a contract to Boeing to design and test a huge conventional bomb, to be known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It would be the biggest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, capable of demolishing "multistory buildings with hardened bunkers and tunnel facilities." So why has the administration been pressing for a nuclear version? The United States still has a massive Cold War arsenal. About 5,000 hydrogen bombs and warheads are deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and bombers; another 5,000 are held in reserve. In addition, 600 to 700 tactical nuclear weapons are ready for battlefield use. Russia has fewer than 5,000 H-bombs deployed but many thousands more in reserve, and 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Many Russian nuclear weapons are not fully secured. Britain, France, China and Israel have several hundred nuclear weapons each. India and Pakistan are slowly building their arsenals. In addition to the bunker-buster, the Bush administration wants new nuclear warheads to replace old ones. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is doubtful. He thinks the replacement process could be a back door to new warhead concepts, not what's needed when trying to persuade Iran to keep out of the nuclear club. A more meaningful approach, says Kimball, would be to slash the swollen U.S. and Russian arsenals. Yet under the Treaty of Moscow, by 2012, both nuclear behemoths could still deploy 2,200 long-range nuclear weapons, not counting those in reserve and tactical arms. The world will still bristle with the most destructive of weapons of mass destruction 22 years after the Cold War's end. That's not a prospect likely to dissuade the insecure leaders of Iran. Sanford Gottlieb, a former executive director of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, is the author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?" http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/EDIT/603200301/1003 The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 21 The nuclear madness of George Bush - Green Left Weekly #661, Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:37:39 -0600 (CST) Green Left Weekly RSS feed Green Left Weekly #661, March 22, 2006 The nuclear madness of George Bush On February 6, US President George Bush confirmed his intention to commit the US to a program of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Touted as a key measure in the ''Advanced Energy Initiative'', outlined in Bush's January State of the Union speech, the plutonium extracted from spent fuel is allegedly to be used as a fuel source for a new generation of nuclear power plants across the US and elsewhere. The proposal will overturn a 29-year ban in the US on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium. [Full article] * US nuclear hypocrisy: Bush pushes Iran sanctions ****************************************************************************** John Pilger: 'Support GLW!' We can't do it on our own! Green Left Weekly $250,000 Fighting Fund 2006 Enjoy reading Green Left Weekly? Want to help support our work? Why not make an online donation . **************************************************************************** Oxfam report: Australia's Indigenous health shame You will probably never meet Ken (not his real name). He's off to work at two o'clock each morning, a driver of a street-sweeping vehicle in a fast-gentrifying capital city suburb. He's been cleaning streets for 10 years. But it is not just the ungodly hour he goes to work: as an Indigenous Australian man, Ken has a 34-37% chance of dying before the age of 55. [Full article] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ International News # UNITED STATES: The nuclear madness of George Bush # US nuclear hypocrisy: Bush pushes Iran sanctions # IRAQ: US military trained government death squads # IRAQ: Minister admits death squads operate from inside government # PALESTINE: Israel's attack on Jericho # Global protests demand 'troops out!' # FRANCE: Mass protests; 50 universities occupied # BOLIVIA: Who's in Morales's government? # EL SALVADOR: High voter turnout and election violence # UNITED STATES: Venezuelan cheap heating oil program expands # EQUADOR: Protests threaten -- 'FTA signed, Palacio out' # VENEZUELA: Oil giants' taxes hiked up again # EAST TIMOR: The cost of neoliberal advice # Srebrenica survivors call for justice # BRITAIN: Industrial action hits universities # CHINA: The workers grind harder while 'economy' booms # Pakistan: Left groups unite # INDONESIA: Thousands of poor demand cash assistance # PAKISTAN: Thousand protest Iraq occupation # WEST PAPUA: The secret war against the defenceless people of West Papua ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Click here to join the GLW discussion list Visit the Socialist Alliance website Resistance Books for all your radical literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Brief # BRITAIN: Protests at plans to curb Iraqi unions # BRITAIN: South African unionist condemns Israel's apartheid # UNITED STATES: Cindy Sheehan says withdraw troops from Iraq # UNITED STATES: 300,000 march for immigrant rights # NEW ZEALAND: McDonald's backs down # MARSHALL ISLANDS: Islanders fight for US nukes compensation # VENEZUELA: New national flag recognises struggles # VENEZUELA: Minister proposes Radiosur # WEST PAPUA: Several killed in Freeport uprising # VENEZUELA: Vietnam embassy opens # PHILIPPINES: Union leader shot dead # ISRAEL: Hospital holds baby for ransom # Britain's first war for Iraq's oil # CHILE: President-elect addresses IWD rally Regular Features # Write On: Letters to the Editor # Case for socialism: Capitalism: a system for the parasitic minority Comment and Analysis # New Oxfam report: Australia's Indigenous health shame # Qld, NSW unionists support June 28 national protest # Housing in the market? # Homeless funding campaign # Australian government backs Terminator # Villawood's casual cruelties # 'The work force makes the decision' # Our Common Cause: Dirty tricks against the Tasmanian Greens reach new low # Rewarding the rich, punishing the poor Cultural Dissent # A writer of courage and conviction # On the box # Suez Crisis: the Iraq of 1956 # Oscar winning film exposes South African capitalism # Scottish writer's tilt at Uhmerka Australian News # Troops out of Iraq! No war on Iran! # 'Leave the Iraqis alone!' # Fighting Fund 2006: $350 million bank robbery! # Sovereignty was never ceded # NSW Greens launch anti-discrimination law campaign # WA unionists call for minister's resignation # Philip Adams supports Packer memorial protesters # Australia accused of war crimes # Chinese detainee attempts suicide # Staff and students organise against funding cuts # NCR technicians strike for union bargaining # Boeing workers still fighting # Our state, not Gunns'! # Rice and the silencing of student dissent # West Papua solidarity protest Activist Calendar # Check out the Activist Calendar here . Click here for Green Left Weekly's copyleft details. About Green Left Weekly Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Back issues Distribution details Links to other sites ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 22 Nuclear Weapons Directorate: Nuclear Weapons Center set to open at Kirtland by Harold Meisterling 3/20/2006 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- Kirtland will become the home of Air Force Materiel Command's newest organization, the Nuclear Weapons Center, on March 31. "The base has been at the heart of nuclear activities for over 60 years, so it is no surprise that the NWC would find a home here," said Col. Greg Foraker, director of the Nuclear Weapons Directorate. "Kirtland is a natural place to locate the newest member of the nuclear community, the Nuclear Weapons Center," Colonel Foraker said. "We have the history here and already have the important players and experts in place." Why a Nuclear Weapons Center? "Several recent Air Force reviews of how nuclear business is conducted within the Air Force revealed that the community can do better with a re-focusing of nuclear weapon system management and funding," said Col. Terrence Feehan, 377th Air Base Wing commander. AFMC officials accepted the challenge and initiated action in January 2005 to create a "nuclear" focused organization within the command. After numerous meetings with involved agencies, extensive planning and "lots" of staff work, on Feb. 3, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, approved establishing a Nuclear Weapons Center here. The NWC initially includes the Cruise Missile Group at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., the 896th Munitions Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nev., the Nuclear Weapons Directorate here and the 377th ABW. The NWC comprises two wings, the 377th ABW, the host organization directly responsible for Kirtland and its more than 100 associate units, and the 498th Armament Systems Wing, responsible for nuclear weapons system management. The 498th ARSW is responsible for the entire scope of nuclear weapon system support functions to include sustainment, modernization and acquisition support activities for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. Kirtland has a rich nuclear history beginning in 1942 with the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District's Armed Forces Special Weapons Command at Sandia Base. The Air Force's Special Weapons Center served as the host unit in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Air Force Weapons Laboratory became the focus of nuclear activity through the early 1990s. Numerous nuclear activities remain today such as AFMC's Nuclear Weapons Directorate, the Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories, the Nuclear Weapon Counterproliferation Agency and a number of other "nuclear" oriented organizations. (Terry Walker, 377th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, contributed to this article. Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service) ### Copyright is Author's one and is specific to each document. According to Copyright's Disclaimers, all documents available in "Open Sources Center" are part of Public Domain and access-free. ### Subscribe to our Free Newsletter, enter your email address in the specific field at http://www.isria.com Access specific contents by subscribing to Monitor Pack at http://www.isria.com/en/membership.php Consulting Services at: http://www.isria.com/en/consulting.php --- Open Sources Center by ISRIA [ http://isria.com] -- Support our initiative, Subscribe ***************************************************************** 23 San Francisco Chronicle: ODD FINDING: WARHEADS TEND TO RIPEN WITH AGE SFGate.com James Sterngold Tuesday, March 21, 2006 Modern thermonuclear weapons contain a reported 6,000 or so parts, but the most critical, expensive and dangerous is the pit, a hollow sphere made of a plutonium alloy, encased in high explosives. That is the so-called primary part of the two-stage warhead. The primary nuclear detonation is triggered when the blast of the high explosives crushes the pit at such force that the plutonium atoms, under enormous pressure and a bombardment of sub-atomic particles, split apart in a runaway chain reaction, called fission. That energy -- as great as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 -- then ignites the more powerful secondary stage, which is essentially turbocharged with a booster gas, a hydrogen isotope called tritium. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, production stopped, the United States instituted a self-imposed ban on nuclear testing and the weapons design laboratories refocused their expertise on monitoring and refurbishing the existing weapons, not building new ones. The last warheads were built in the 1980s. According to Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, plutonium is an exceedingly complex material that is difficult to work with in part because it can be a deadly carcinogen, requiring expensive safeguards, and in part because its properties can change suddenly in response to temperature, pressure or chemical shifts in the atmosphere. The biggest concern relates to the fact that the dense plutonium atoms spontaneously decay, or split, producing a uranium atom and a helium atom. Over time -- meaning decades -- tiny bubbles of helium can collect. The concern is that the bubbles could expand and other changes could take place that would reduce the energy released during fission. But one of the metal's most unusual characteristics, scientists have discovered, is that while the plutonium atoms are decaying, another process is under way, called self-annealing. This process repairs the atomic structure, making the plutonium more stable. In an article written for Physics Today in 2000, Raymond Jeanloz, a physics professor at UC Berkeley, wrote, "Pu [the symbol for plutonium] samples not only retain long-range order but actually get closer to the ideal crystal structure with increasing age." In an article written for a technical publication in 2003, two weapons lab scientists, Joseph Martz and Adam Schwartz, said their research showed the helium bubbles in plutonium "will not affect performance for pits in excess of 60 years of age." Page A - 4 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 24 SF Chronicle: Need for new U.S. nuclear arsenal disputed / Existing warheads may last longer than believed, experts say + Existing warheads may last longer than believed, experts say" James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, March 21, 2006 [High-grade plutonium is shown at the Los Alamos National ...] Scientists say evidence is mounting that the radioactive plutonium used in nuclear weapons could have a far longer useful life than previously estimated, raising questions about the need for an expensive Bush administration program to build more than a thousand replacement warheads. With hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars potentially at stake, the research on the aging of this dangerous and complex weapons ingredient, being conducted at the nuclear weapons laboratories, is being followed closely by Bush administration officials, lawmakers and nuclear weapons experts. Although the results are preliminary, some scientists who have reviewed parts of the research say the fuel could be potent for a century or more, far longer than the 45- to 60-year minimum lifespan for the plutonium components -- known as pits -- previously estimated by the weapons labs. If that is true, said a Bay Area lawmaker whose committee oversees the weapons complex, Congress could decide that the new generations of replacement nuclear warheads sought by the Bush administration may not be needed for decades or that far fewer replacements would have to be built. "This does have a direct correlation with the whole complex" of new weapons factories the administration is seeking, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. The most expensive element in the administration's plan is expected to be a new pit factory that would be capable of building 120 per year. Tauscher said that if the plutonium is found to have a longer lifespan, "the need for 120 pits could be way off." The issue may come to a head later this year. In debating the need for the replacement warheads, Congress required that the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the weapons complex, report by this fall its latest assessment of the useful lifespan of plutonium. Research has been under way for several years at the weapons labs, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, which are managed by the University of California, and the Sandia National Laboratories. Portions of the research, though not finished, have been analyzed by some outside experts as part of the scientific peer review. For now, the government refuses to release any lifespan estimates and would not comment on questions raised by the research. "Until the aging studies are complete, any further comment on plutonium aging would be purely speculative," said Bryan Wilkes, an NNSA spokesman. But earlier this month Linton Brooks, the head of the NNSA, acknowledged during testimony before the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee that the lifespan could be longer. "It may turn out to be that it's 60 plus," said Brooks, as quoted by Global Security Newswire. "We're doing accelerated aging tests to find that out." Previously, the weapons laboratories estimated that the plutonium remained potent for 45 to 60 years at a minimum. Eventually, scientists say, it would undergo radioactive decay, weakening the explosive force of the bombs. But some scientists who sit on lab advisory committees or have followed some of the newer research say it appears the plutonium in pits may be reliable for at least 90 years. Sidney Drell, a professor emeritus at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and a longtime government adviser on nuclear issues, said the new research suggested 60 years "is the lower limit, as far as I'm concerned." "I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years is the new number," said Raymond Jeanloz, a physics professor at UC Berkeley who has served as a government adviser and helps monitor research at the weapons labs. "They've really agonized about every conceivable detail," added Jeanloz, who is also chairman of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences. "It's been very hard to come to a consensus. But it looks like it could be years or decades or millennia before any serious degradation takes place." Nuclear weapons production and underground testing halted with the end of the Cold War, but Bush administration officials have argued that concerns over the U.S. stockpile -- some warheads are almost 40 years old -- and the reliability of plutonium have increased the need for a new weapons factory and replacement warheads. "Today, our weapons are aging and now are being rebuilt in life-extension programs that are both difficult and costly," Brooks said at the hearing on March 1. The administration's proposal, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, or RRW, was funded for the first time by Congress last year with $25 million for the initial research. The program is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next several decades. The most complex element is expected to be the new factory for fabricating pits -- hollow spheres made of a plutonium alloy, encased in high explosives -- the components that start the atomic chain reaction in thermonuclear weapons. The question is how the more recent research might affect the replacement program. Tauscher said she supports the program but that a longer plutonium lifespan could mean large reductions in the size of any pit factory. But Siegfried Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos and a respected plutonium expert, cautioned against such conclusions by arguing that the United States could not live with uncertainty in its nuclear arsenal. "The problem is, we get into an area where we have no experience," he said in an interview. "Plutonium metallurgy is my business. I worked with it for 40 years. I do not have the confidence that we can go greater than 45 years. I do not consider it worth the risk of certifying the stockpile beyond 45 years." The risk, said Hecker, is overestimating the durability of a weapon that may need to be used in the most dire of circumstances. But some scientists appear to be getting more, not less, certain about the current stockpile. In an article written for a technical publication in 2003, two weapons lab scientists who are leaders in the aging research, Joseph Martz and Adam Schwartz, said, "Experience from stockpile surveillance programs reflects this point: Pits have remained remarkably pristine and free of corrosion, especially since the adoption of modern cleaning and sealing methods." Bob Peurifoy, who worked as a senior weapons scientist at Sandia National Laboratories for nearly four decades and has served on government advisory panels, said he believes the aging problem has been exaggerated. "I am a strong and unqualified supporter of a strong nuclear deterrent," said Peurifoy. "My professional life was based on that belief. I just think the Congress was conned" about the lifespan of plutonium and the need for replacement warheads for political purposes. Peurifoy has championed making pits not out of plutonium but out of highly enriched uranium, which he said produces a slightly heavier but far more reliable weapon. Uranium, he said, has a half-life of 700 million years -- it is 24,400 years for plutonium -- so radioactive decay is less of a concern, and it is easier to fabricate into pits. Also, in the early days of the weapons program, the United States tested and deployed warheads with uranium pits (the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima used uranium), so a great deal of data exists on how they work. "I see no serious justification for the RRW they want," said Peurifoy. E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: US spied on French nuclear program Tue Mar 21, 5:53 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States spied extensively on France's nuclear weapons program for decades, beginning just after World War II, documents made public show. The 32 declassified documents, ranging in date from February 1946 to June 1987, were produced by the CIA" /> , State Department, US Pacific Command, Strategic Air Command, and Manhattan Project. And while the spying itself is not unexpected, the papers, posted on the Internet by George Washington University's National Security Archive, show the extent of US interest in the French program, and methods used to monitor it. "The biggest effort was in the late 50s through the mid 70s. Of course (France) stopped atmospheric testing in 1974, so there was less data to collect," NSA researcher Jeffrey Richelson told AFP. Also, "it was not as much of a concern when you get to the late 70s and 80s and you're more concerned with the 'rogue states,'" he added. During the height of its interest, however, Washington deployed satellites, debris-collecting U-2 aircraft, communications intercepts, US Navy ships as well as spies to gather information on the French program, both in France and the Pacific. "It certainly indicates that it was of significant interest to the US during that period of time," Richelson said. The first documents in the collection were produced by the Manhattan Engineer District's foreign intelligence section. Citing "a reliable source," a top secret memo dated February 18, 1946 reports on "a rumor circulating to the effect that French scientists have the formula and techniques concerning atomic explosives and that they are now willing to sell this information." "They allegedly do not wish to sell to the Allies or to their own government for political reasons," it says. "It is known that, of the officials on the French Atomic Committee, all are communists or communist sympathizers, and that lower echelon personnel are carefully screened for political leanings to the far left," says a July 1946 "Review of the French Atomic Energy Development." In the early 1950s, the State Department and Army pitched in with information on personnel involved in the French nuclear program, even though France had not yet decided to pursue development of a nuclear weapon. Surveillance stepped up after France established an atomic agency and began searching for a test site, and again when it began conducting tests, in Algeria in 1960 and later in the Pacific. Documents from the 1960s describe the French Pacific nuclear test sites in detail, as well as Operation Burning Light, the deployment of aircraft to measure electromagnetic pulses generated by nuclear tests, after communication intercepts revealed their timing. Although the last document is dated 1987, "there was still surveillance activity in the 90s," Richelson said. "Some of it was done by the New Zealanders. Their Government Communications Security Bureau intercepted a lot of French traffic from that Pacific test area" in cooperation with the United States, he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 Bellona: Techa-2006 competition hit by legal problems and environmentalists' doubts ST. PETERSBURG—Rosatom has announced a competition to solve social and environmental problems in the region of the embattled Mayak Chemical Combine, but environmentalists are worried about how it will be financed and the lack of guarantees that the winning projects will actually be implemented. Young girls resting on the bank of the contaminated Techa River near Mayak. Thomas Nilsen/Bellona Vera Ponomareva, 2006-03-21 11:57 Rosatom head Sergei Kirienko announced the competition—called Techa-2006—to competitively deal with social and environmental problems at the Mayak Chemical Combine, Russia’s most polluted nuclear facility, while he was on a visit to Mayak’s hometown of Ozersk in January. Rosatom has allocated 12 million roubles ($400,000) in grant money to finance the competition. The tender represents the first time that environmentalists and rights activist have been invited to help solve Mayak’s problems. Activists and environmentalists have long been critical of the lack of action by officials and by Mayak management. NGO representatives formed a working group to draw up the rules for the competition. But the last paragraph of the competition regulations published on Rosatom’s web site does not mention either financing or implementation of the best projects, but speaks only about financial prizes for the winners. This has led to concerns among participating ecologists that the tender is only a symbolic gesture by Rosatom’s new head, Kirienko. “When we drew up the conditions, we were talking about Rosatom allocating money to finance NGO projects, but when I saw the regulations on the holding of the competition I was slightly shocked” said ,” Nadezhda Kutepova, president of the Ozersk-based NGO Planet of Hopes in an interview with Bellona Web. “ [The regulations] declared a competition for projects without financing, with prizes to be awarded to the winners—a kind of social competition.” Competition winners will get 100,000 roubles ($3,300) for first prize, 75,000 roubles ($2,500) for each of the two runners-up, and 50,000 roubles ($1,700) each for three third-place projects. Five discretionary prizes of 20,000 roubles ($666) may also be awarded. “Where the 12 million roubles that were promised have gone, and why they have turned into some prizes, and why these prizes [are being awarded] is incomprehensible,” Kutepova said. Legal problems dictate “prizes” Igor Konyshev, an advisor to Kirienko and member of the competition commission, told Bellona Web that the prize scheme had been drawn up due to legal difficulties. “An open competition is being held for the first time, and we ran into incomplete legislation,” Konyshev said, adding that the winning projects would be financed. Konyshev said Rosatom had decided to hold the tender in three stages. After the NGOs decide on possible areas for the projects, the competition committee will examine the applications and choose the winners. “The commission has extended a hand to NGOs and nominated prizes for those projects that meet the competition’s standards,” he said. Konyshev said financing for the projects would be provided in the third stage, when tenders would be held to find contractors for the chosen projects. “This is a legal formality, and most likely the project designers will get the grants,” he said. Vladimir Trugubov, director of the Centre for Competition Tenders, said the competition could not be held in one stage because of Federal Law No. 94, which deals with the organisation of competitive tenders. Under the law, tenders can only be held for concrete projects, which will only be picked after the second stage of judging. To choose these projects, an intermediate competition is needed. “This is a creative competition, and we would like to clarify what civil society thinks should happen in the defines areas,” Trugubov said in an interview with Bellona Web. The deadline crunch The deadline for the prospective projects has been set for March 29th, though Rosatom only distributed that time-frame to competitors on March 6th. “If you consider that I received [this deadline] on March 6, and that at least two weeks is needed to distribute information, and that people then have to write a detailed application, this is a very short timeframe,” Kutepova said. Kornyshev said he hoped NGOs would submit applications, as Rosatom had announced its intention to hold the competition in early January. “In addition, I think that the competition committee will look charitably on the applications —the most important thing is that they should capture the essence of the project,” he said. The first meeting of the competition committee, which comprises representatives from Rosatom, Mayak management, and the NGOs Green Cross, Planet of Hopes, and the Movement for Nuclear Safety, will take place March 30. In April the winners of the competition will be announced and tenders take place, while implementation of the projects will start in late May. Konyshev said he expected about 15 organisations to take part. “The more the better, but I think that about 15 projects is realistic. We would even find money if the total cost runs about 10-12 million [roubles],” he said. Lack of information may derail the number of proposals Although the competition was widely announced following Kirienko’s visit to Ozersk, there is now an obvious lack of information. No officials have made any public declarations on the start of the competition, let alone clarified the changes that have taken place in its financing scheme. The competition regulations also make no mention of whether the projects will actually be financed. The lack of information could be a reason why fewer applications are being received. “I know of several organisations that wanted to submit a project, but decided against it after finding out about the final conditions,” Kutepova said. “This is simply giving money to Mayak,” the head of the Chelyabinsk Region-based Ecology and Helping Hands foundations, Nikolai Shchur, told Bellona Web. “You give them your idea, and they give prize money for that idea. But you won’t implement the project—it may be implemented by Mayak, and in any case the money is going to Mayak. We all know how Mayak eats up money that it gets from the federal budget and from its own profits—there’s a criminal case being examined at the moment,” against Mayak for its dumping practices along the Techa Reservoirs. Helping Hands has been doing project work on polluted areas for four years. The foundation has acquired specialist equipment for the maternity hospital in the Chelyabinsk Region village of Argayash, and organised an “oasis for first-born children,” where mothers-to-be are guaranteed healthy food and can take lessons—including lessons on defence of their rights. “We would have suggested such projects in other regions,” Shchur said. “Further, we would have suggested re-housing people from polluted regions.” Shchur said that a house in Chelyabinsk Region could be bought for 10,000-100,000 roubles. “Twelve million [gives us] a very real opportunity to resettle people from the worst places. And a social organisation could look for houses, and draw up sales agreements,” Shchur said. Resettlement of people from regions along the Techa River is a burning problem. Money has currently been allocated to resettle only people from two streets in the village of Muslyumovo. Another village in the polluted area—Tatarskaya Karabolka—is currently not earmarked for resettlement, in anticipation of a new federal law on helping victims of radiation accidents that will include people from the village. According to Shchur, Tatarskaya Karabolka is being developed in various ways, including road repairs, telephone installations, and preparations for connection to the national gas grid. “This is the latest crime,” Shchur said. “As soon as the village is developed, people will go there, buy country houses, snap up land, etc.” Mayak director sacked over court case Rosatom head Kirienko sacked Mayak director Vitaly Sadovnikov in an order dated March 15th. The official communiqué said the order was given based on a procedural order from the General Prosecutor’s Office and the courts. Sadovnikov is currently accused of breaching safety rules in running the plant and handling environmentally dangerous waste products, which lead in 2001-2004 to dumping of tens of millions of cubic meters of liquid radioactive waste into the Techa river. “The director of Mayak is quite rightly undergoing legal investigation, but dumping of waste was never a secret,” said Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman of the environmental group Ecodefence! in an interview with Bellona Web. “Criminal responsibility should be taken not only by Sadovnikov, but also by Rosatom and Rostekhnadzor,” the body currently in charge of nuclear safety regulation. “The Prosecutor is obligated to take on at least two more officials: Andrei Malyshev from Rostekhnadzor, and Sergei Antipov from Rosatom,” Slivyak said. “ Otherwise the prosecutor’s office will be taking a selective approach.” Malyshev was acting head of Rosatomnadzor, Russia’s nuclear regulatory body, in 2003. According to Slivyak, Malyshev was legally obliged to strip Mayak of its licence after assuming office. Rosatom’s deputy director, Antipov, is responsible for handling of irradiated nuclear fuel, radioactive waste, and sources of radiation, as well as environmental conservation, environmental safety, and cleaning up polluted areas. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 27 RIA Novosti: Energy market: guarantees against unpredictability Opinion &analysis - 17/ 03/ 2006 (Moscow plays host to the G8 session of energy ministers) MOSCOW, (Igor Tomberg, for RIA Novosti) -- The G8 session of energy ministers, their colleagues from China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, and spokesmen for the World Bank, OPEC and IAEA, has become a dress rehearsal for the forthcoming G8 summit in St. Petersburg in July. The world leaders are planning to adopt a program for building a global system of energy security. This is how Minister of Industry and Energy Viktor Khristenko described the recent session. He also noted that "the quality of life of the entire world community directly depends on the reliable access to energy", and this is why there is a need for a "common approach to the task of ensuring global energy security". The ministers adopted a final statement on the results of the session, which supports Russia's main points: * It is necessary to secure mutual and fair access to energy markets - global energy requires global partnership; * Energy security is the same for consumers and producers: the stability of supplies and the effective protection of the environment; * Third countries have the right to develop atomic power engineering, but their efforts should be subject to international control and should not violate the regime of nuclear weapons non-proliferation. The ministers emphasized that the 21st century is bound to see a considerable growth in the world consumption of energy. They recognized that a future global fuel-and-energy system would require a huge investment into the production, transportation and procession of energy resources. Another major event was the meeting of energy ministers with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who focused on the problem of stability of the global system of energy security. "One of the keys to global energy security is a fair distribution of the risks among energy producers, transporting countries and consumers," Putin emphasized. "The energy market must be ensured against unpredictability and its level of investment risk must be reduced." President Putin believes that the world energy market will feel the benefits from Russia's major energy projects very soon. "Russian companies are already carrying out projects of strategic importance for genuinely strengthening the global energy security system. We are looking at the development of the major Shtokman gas field. Intensive work on the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline is now underway. We are working on a project to lay a pipeline from Eastern Siberia to the Pacific coast, with a branch to the People's Republic of China." President Putin also mentioned Russia's role in increasing the production of gas: "Russian companies are planning the active expansion of their activities in the fast-growing liquefied gas market." The president said Russia would prepare specific proposals on energy security for the July G8 summit and is prepared to support major projects financially. An important result of the G8 meeting in Moscow is the official support for atomic power engineering as the most accessible alternative to non-renewable hydrocarbon resources. The ministers discussed the prospects of nuclear power engineering, and a number of future scenarios, using Iran as an example. They came to the conclusion (reflected in the final document) that nuclear power engineering is very promising, especially for developing economies. In preparing for their summit in St. Petersburg, G8 leaders should determine the potential risks in this field and give poor nations a chance to get access to energy carriers. One of the most vigorous proponents of the nuclear power alternative was U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman. He had his own program in Moscow - to reveal the new U.S. strategy designed to enhance energy security in the U.S. and the rest of the world. The strategy is being referred to as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). A U.S.- Russian rivalry is obviously emerging in the sphere of nuclear power engineering (Washington is not going to yield its leadership in nuclear power, even to G8). At the same time, such major components of the Russian and American programs as nuclear weapons non-proliferation, ecological safety and accessibility of nuclear materials to a broad range of consumers enable the two countries to bring their positions closer together and avoid excessive rivalry. Russia made it clear that it will defend its positions on fuel markets. Viktor Khristenko said the concept of energy security includes the guaranteed demand for its oil and gas abroad. This does not fully coincide with the Western strategy. In February, President Bush called on his compatriots to give up their addiction to oil and focus on the development of alternative energy sources. The strategy of the EU is to dramatically reduce its growing dependence on the supply of energy carriers, particularly from Russia. Apparently, this is why the final statement did not include guarantees of demand, which were strongly recommended by Russian delegates. Generally, the G8 energy meeting had a positive outcome, but the contradictions it revealed on some problems will be rather hard to remove. Russia is engaged in difficult talks on joining the Energy Charter, primarily with the EU. Russia has already signed the Charter, and is actively negotiating the transit protocol to it, according to Khristenko. EU representatives insist on Moscow joining the Energy Charter, largely because it prohibits the signatories to reduce energy supplies even in case of a price dispute. The EU is clearly trying to protect itself against the situation that developed last January around Ukraine and Moldova. There are many difficult-to-negotiate details. Secretary General of the Energy Charter Secretariat Andre Mernier said at a news conference in Moscow that if Russia ratified the Charter, it might lose certain levers. Russia signed the Energy Charter in 1994, but the State Duma has yet to ratify the document. The protocol on transit has become a stumbling block: the West insists on third countries' access to gas pipelines on Russian territory. Khristenko stressed that the transit protocol is the Charter's backbone. "The talks are not easy, but they are going on," said he. "If there is progress, the Charter will be ratified." Optimistic official estimates aside, the Moscow session has shown that building a global energy system is a formidable challenge. G8 members have different interpretations on many problems related to energy security. But at the same time, a consensus is possible and will have to be reached. This is another result of the G8 energy session, probably more important than others. Igor Tomberg is an expert from the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: Putin arrives in China with spotlight on energy Tue Mar 21, 3:31 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinhas arrived in Beijing to begin a two-day state visit likely to be dominated by bargaining on China's insistent demand for new energy supplies and Russia's push to secure more Chinese investment in other sectors. The Russian leader, accompanied by a large delegation of influential business leaders and top political officials, landed at Beijing International Airport and was to travel into the capital where he was due to hold talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaolater in the day. The two sides were expected to sign more than 15 agreements including a framework deal between the Russian electricity monopoly United Energy Systems and China's state energy corporation for supply of Russian electricity to China, Russian officials said ahead of the trip. Other expected agreements included one on formation of a strategic partnership between the Russian state oil company Rosneft and the Chinese Development Bank and a protocol on gas delivery between Russian state-run gas giant Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation. Putin and Hu were scheduled to join opening ceremonies on Wednesday of a new Russian-Chinese business forum grouping top industrial leaders from both countries and created with a view to spurring business-to-business relations between the two countries. In addition to energy and other industrial issues, Putin and Hu were expected to discuss international issues including upcoming diplomatic steps at the United Nations" /> United Nationson concerns about Iran" /> Iran's nuclear program and the situation in North Korea" /> North Korea, officials from both countries said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 29 [NYTr] Chavez Defends Right to Nuclear Energy Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:05:01 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Chavez Defends Right to Nuclear Energy Caracas, Mar 21 (Prensa Latina) Venezuela defended on Tuesday the Third World's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and accused the US of threatening Iran because of its energy resources. At the opening of a thermoelectric plant which will use gas instead of hydrocarbon derivatives, Chavez said it was untruthful to allege that Iran is developing an atomic bomb, which he attributed to an attempt to monopolize nuclear energy development. "This is false, there isn't any evidence of this," said Chavez, referring to stories of Iran's alleged intention to make nuclear bombs. He said the countries of the South have the right to develop nuclear technology, as the United States, France, Germany and other states do. Why can't Third World countries develop this energy whenever we are in a position to do it? wondered the Venezuelan president, who described energy issues as a fundamental problem of today's world. hr/ccs/rma/ml * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 30 AP Wire: Officials: No problem at nuclear station in Fairfield County | 03/21/2006 | Associated Press JENKINSVILLE, S.C. - Warning sirens sounded Tuesday morning around the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Fairfield County, but officials say there was no problem with the reactor and other critical elements. The sirens sounded for about three minutes at 2:30 a.m. in Fairfield, Newberry and Richland counties, said Eric Boomhower, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. "It was an inadvertent activation of the system," Boomhower said. "We're trying to figure out exactly what the problem is. "It was not actually related to any issue at the plant and the public was never in any danger," he said. There are more than 100 sirens within 10 miles of the plant in the three counties to warn the public if there is a problem, Boomhower said. SCE&G owns the plant with Santee Cooper, the state-owned electric utility. ***************************************************************** 31 Interfax: Russia-China nuclear cooperation to continue - Putin Interfax.com Mar 21 2006 12:39PM BEIJING. March 21 (Interfax) - Russia will continue to cooperate with China in nuclear projects, Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists in Beijing. Apart from energy supplies, "our cooperation [in the energy sector] also involves the delivery of related equipment and nuclear projects, including our contribution to the creation of new nuclear power capacities in China," he said. © 1991-2006 Interfax All rights reserved News and other data on this web site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax. ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region I - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-014 March 21, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. on Tuesday, March 28, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant. The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2005. FirstEnergy operates the twin-reactor plant, which is located in Shippingport, Pa. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in Room 103 of the plants Training Building, located on Shippingport Road, across from the Beaver Valley parking lot entrance. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety performance of the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant during the previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. The meeting on March 28th will afford the public a chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and to pose any questions they might have regarding plant performance or our oversight activities. A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/bv_2005q4.pdf. The slides for the meeting are available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060680441. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. Overall, the Beaver Valley plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant during 2005 were determined to be green, Beaver Valley will receive a baseline (or routine) level of inspections during the upcoming assessment period. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are the replacement of the Unit 1 steam generators and reactor vessel head, radiological safety, emergency preparedness and fire protection. Current performance information for Beaver Valley Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BV1/bv1_chart.html. Current performance information for Beaver Valley Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BV2/bv2_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, March 21, 2006 ***************************************************************** 33 Herald News: Exelon springs for water [SuburbanChicagoNews.com] During well testing: Affected residents may receive up to 20 gallons per week free By STAFF WRITER BRACEVILLE Exelon on Monday announced it will provide bottled water to residences near the power plant while drinking water wells at those homes are tested for tritium. Exelon will continue to provide bottled water until wells are confirmed to have no detectable tritium, which is expected to take up to 12 weeks, according to a press release from the company. The Illinois Department of Public Health will verify test results and send confirmation letters to residents. "We have no reason to believe any detectable tritium exists in those residence wells, nor do we suspect it," said Keith Polson, site vice president at the Braidwood Generating Station. "But at the same time, we want to ensure our neighbors' peace of mind until we can demonstrate it scientifically. Through Exelon's testing program, private wells at about 420 residences in Godley; within 1,500 feet of the discharge pipe; and within 1,500 feet of identified areas of elevated tritium will be tested or retested, according to the company. A map of the testing area is available at www.braidwoodtritium.info. Each affected residence will qualify for up to 20 gallons of water each week. It will be available for pickup at the Berkot's grocery store in Braidwood. Eligible residents will be notified by mail by Exelon this week and must show identification with address verification when picking up the water. NRC research group Meanwhile, a group of experts from around the nation will be gathering in the coming months to examine inadvertent, unmonitored releases of radioactive tritium from commercially controlled nuclear power plants, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Numerous spills have been reported to have occurred in the past 10 years at the Braidwood Nuclear Plant. Others have occurred at nuclear facilities in Dresden and Byron as well as others across the country. Exelon announced the discovery of elevated tritium levels at the Braidwood plant in December. "In our view, it is criminal to first hide these leaks when they occur and then trivialize the potential health consequences from an unsuspecting public when they are discovered," said Paul Gunter, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Takoma Park, Md. The nuclear watchdog group petitioned the NRC for information regarding past, present and potential future tritium spills. Gunter said those living near reactors should demand that their drinking water be tested. "The available information on these releases shows no hazard to the public," said Luis Reyes, NRC executive director for operations. "Nonetheless, we need to conduct an in-depth review to see if the NRC needs to take additional action of a broad nature." At the same time the NRC decided to establish the tritium study group, it also created a Web page to provide the public the latest available information on tritium issues. This information can be accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-cont am-tritium.html. Results of the investigation are expected by Aug. 31. Support for legislation Also Monday, state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete, and Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, joined state Rep. Careen Gordon, D-Coal City, and Sen. Gary Dahl, R-Granville, in supporting a law requiring the owner or operator of any nuclear power plant in the state to report to the Illinois Environmental Protection and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency within 24 hours of any unplanned release of radioactive materials. The legislation calls on the IEPA to propose new rules on standards for detecting unpermitted releases of radioactive substances. The bill also allows for unannounced inspections. The Will County Health Department is launching a program to test area drinking wells that is expected to begin this week. Last week, numerous lawsuits were filed against Exelon. Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State's Attorney Jim Glasgow filed a joint suit against the power company, accusing it of not taking proper care of the pipelines and other equipment used to dispose of the tritium that led to the contamination of millions of gallons of groundwater. Also, there have been so many responses to the announcement of a class-action lawsuit announced last week that legal representatives are holding a community meeting to discuss the actions filed against Exelon. The meeting will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Reed-Custer auditorium, 249 Comet Drive, in Braidwood. "We know their property values have gone down and they all have huge concerns," said Kenneth Grey, an attorney from the McKeown Law Firm. "We intend to ask the courts for medical monitoring." - Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or via e-mail at . 03/21/06 SuburbanChicagoNews.com — © Digital Chicago & Sun-Times ***************************************************************** 34 Platts: The UK taxpayers faces a "large and uncertain liability" London (Platts)--20Mar2006 The UK taxpayers faces a "large and uncertain liability" due to the government's 2002 bailout of British Energy, the National Audit Office said today. The government's Department of Trade and Industry took over responsibility for meeting some of British Energy's nuclear liabilities, reestimated last month at almost 5.3 billion pounds (US$9.3 billion). The department set up a system whereby British Energy contributes about two-thirds of its cash flow each year to pay off these liabilities, which means more money for the fund when the company is doing well. If the current high UK wholesale electricity price persists, said the audit office, the liabilities' fund will benefit "at a level higher than the most optimistic scenarios considered by the department" during British Energy's restructuring between 2002 and 2005. However, much depends on the company's future financial performance, the audit office warned. Such uncertainty "places a significant risk in the hands of the taxpayer," it said. The report is at http://www.nao.org.uk. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 35 Platts: UK nuke industry must answer basic questions to have future - Wicks London (Platts)--21Mar2006 The UK nuclear industry needs to answer some fundamental questions, if it is to be considered part of the future energy mix, energy minister Malcolm Wicks said Tuesday. Wicks said the nuclear industry must demonstrate that a shorter planning process for new plants, as called for by industry, would not result in a weakening of current safeguards. "I issue a challenge to the nuclear industry," Wicks told the British Nuclear Energy Society and European Nuclear Society Conference in London. "You are calling for greater certainty over licensing. You are calling for shorter planning processes. You are calling for the scope of planning inquiries to be restricted. But my challenge to you then is to show me how this might work in practice. How might you achieve these things while still maintaining the same high levels of scrutiny and safeguards we have now?" The UK's Energy Review, of which the future of nuclear power is an important feature, ends April 14. But Wicks said that even if the review came out in favor of nuclear power, that would not mean a green light for new nuclear build. "This is why we are tackling the issue of nuclear waste through the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, why we will be using the findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to inform the Energy Review and why we have asked the Health and Safety Executive to examine some of the risks associated with potential new build and their approach to ensuring industry sensibly manages these risks," he said. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: NRC to Discuss Indian Point Annual Assessment Results, Preliminary Findings from Special Inspection on March 28 News Release - Region I - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-015 March 21, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov nuclear power plant. An afternoon meeting will cover the NRCs annual assessment of safety performance for Indian Point Units 2 and 3. An evening session will deal with the results of an NRC Special Inspection conducted to assess Entergys efforts to evaluate Unit 2 spent fuel pool leakage and subsequently discovered contamination of on-site groundwater. Entergy Nuclear Northeast operates the plant, located in Buchanan, N.Y. There will be two opportunities on March 28th for the public to learn about NRC activities at Indian Point, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. Those who are unable to attend the afternoon meeting hopefully will be able to attend the evening session and vice versa. We recognize the high level of interest in these issues and will be prepared to answer questions regarding these topics at the respective sessions. The afternoon meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at Crystal Bay on the Hudson Charles Point Marina, at 5 John Walsh Blvd. in Peekskill, N.Y. (Directions are available at http://www.crystal-bay.com/location.html[exit icon] .) Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. The evening meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., also at Crystal Bay on the Hudson. It will include details of the NRC Special Inspection. In addition, information will be provided by the company about its investigation and assessment of the leakage and contamination and by the State of New York regarding its independent monitoring of groundwater in and around the site. Following the presentations, representatives of the NRC, Entergy and the states Department of Environmental Conservation will respond to questions. A report issued on March 16 summarizes the findings of the Special Inspection and can be found in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060750842. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. Information and correspondence regarding the Indian Point tritium contamination and tritium contamination in general can be found on the NRC web site at the following locations: www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-issues.htm l, www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-trit ium.html. At the annual assessment meeting in the afternoon, the period of performance to be discussed with representatives of Entergy will be Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2005. Overall, the Indian Point units operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. During 2005, all of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Indian Point 3 were green, placing it in the Licensee Response Column of the NRCs Action Matrix. As such, the unit will receive baseline, or routine, inspections in 2006. Indian Point 2, meanwhile, received a white finding in the second quarter of last year involving the degradation of a plant emergency cooling system. A supplemental inspection for the white finding was completed in December 2005 with positive results. Indian Point 2 will return to the Licensee Response Column of the NRCs Action Matrix in the second quarter of 2006, in the absence of any new findings having a safety significance of greater than green. In the agencys 2005 mid-year assessment for Indian Point, the NRC discussed the continuation of a substantive cross-cutting issue in the area of problem identification and resolution (PI&R). A cross-cutting issue is one that affects several different areas of performance. Based on the results of a PI&R team inspection in June 2005, a supplemental inspection in December 2005 and Entergys progress in addressing longstanding issues which challenged the implementation of its PI&R program, the NRC has determined that closure of the cross-cutting issue is now appropriate. Above and beyond the NRCs Reactor Oversight Process, enhanced oversight remains in effect for Indian Point in response to issues associated with Indian Point 2 spent fuel pool leakage, including groundwater contamination, and work designed to improve the reliability and availability of the plants Alert and Notification System, including changes to meet backup power requirements detailed in an NRC order issued in January 2006. That oversight is made possible by a deviation from the Reactor Oversight Process approved on Oct. 31, 2005, by the NRCs Executive Director for Operations. A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the facility during the period and will serve as the basis for the annual assessment meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/inp3_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The meeting notice, with the meeting agenda attached, is available in ADAMS under accession number ML060660412. The NRC slides will be available at least three days before the meeting and will be provided in a revision to the meeting notice. Current performance information for Indian Point 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP2/ip2_chart.html. Current performance information for Indian Point 3 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP3/ip3_chart.html. Last revised Tuesday, March 21, 2006 ***************************************************************** 37 EPA Press Release: Yankee Nuclear Plant in Rowe to Pay Over $48,000 for PCB Violations Release date: 03/21/2006 Contact Information: Paula Ballentine (617) - 918-1027 The owner of the decommissioning nuclear power plant in Rowe, Mass., will pay $48,750 to settle EPA claims that it violated federal PCB regulations. The company, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, will pay the penalty in settlement of an administrative enforcement action brought by EPAs New England regional office. The action stems from the improper disposal of steel that had been coated with PCB-contaminated paint. EPAs complaint, filed on February 15, 2006, alleged that the Yankee Atomic Electric Company violated the federal Toxic Substances Control Act and the conditions of a PCB disposal approval issued by EPA. According to EPA, Yankee failed to follow the requirements for disposing of the steel from the structure that supported the nuclear reactor. The structure was coated with PCB contaminated paint and subject to EPAs PCB disposal regulations. At Yankees request, EPAs New England office issued a disposal approval that allowed the company to remove the PCB containing paint and then recycle the steel. The approval required sampling to verify that any remaining PCB contamination fell below specified levels, and required Yankee to notify EPA if it learned of a possible violation of the approval conditions. The company learned in May 2005 that some of the reactor structures steel had been placed in a scrap steel container for collection by a local steel recycler, but had not been sampled for PCBs before the recycler collected and removed the steel from the site. EPA was not notified of this event until June 2005. Yankee has determined that approximately 50,420 pounds of steel from the reactor structure had been collected by the recycler; the company was able to recover 33,360 pounds, but some 17,060 pounds could not be recovered. This steel had been shipped from the recycler to a smelter in Sayreville, New Jersey, which uses an electric arc furnace to melt scrap steel. Yankees failure to ensure that the steel was properly sampled and decontaminated resulted in some of the PCB contaminated steel being smelted, which potentially caused the release of PCBs into the environment near the smelter, said Robert Varney, Regional Administrator of EPAs New England office. If Yankee had immediately notified EPA of the problem, as the disposal approval required, EPA may have been able to help in recovering the material before it was smelted. Despite this incident, continued Varney, the cleanup of the site, as regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and EPA, is expected to be completed successfully, and all parties continue to cooperate in this complex endeavor. EPA has not filed charges against the steel recycler or the smelter. For more information, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region1/enforcement/tsca/index.html # # # ***************************************************************** 38 Press Review news: BULGARIA WITHOUT NEW ENERGY STRATEGY - www.sofiaecho.com Tue 21 Mar 2006 The Economy Ministry will modify the existing national energy strategy to meet European requirements, rather than create a completely new project. Yesterday Deputy Economy Minister Ivanka Dilovska met representatives of major companies with interest in the energy sector including EVN, Enel, E. ON, Siemens and Bulatom. The ministry will wait for the final EU decision on the Green Book, before the strategy is updated, Dnevnik newspaper reported. In June economy and energy ministers of EU member states will discuss the document. Its acceptance is expected in 2007. According to the Economy Ministry participation in the Nabucco project, the construction of Belene nuclear power plant and the new blocks of Maritza Iztok 1 plant will provide alternatives to Russian natural gas. The re-structuring of the National Electric Company and of gas supplier Bulgargaz will be the main projects for this year, Dilovska said. Sofia Echo ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting FR Doc E6-4084 [Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 14254-14255] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr06-120] on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on April 5, 2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 10:30 a.m.-12 Noon The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named [[Page 14255]] individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: March 14, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-4084 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; FR Doc E6-4086 [Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 14254] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr06-119] Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 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: NRC Form 590, Application/Permit for Use of the Two White Flint North (TWFN) Auditorium. 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0181. 3. How often the collection is required: Each time public use of the auditorium is requested. 4. Who is required or asked to report: Members of the public requesting use of the NRC Auditorium. 5. The number of annual respondents: 5. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 1.25 hours (15 minutes per request). 7. Abstract: In accordance with the Public Buildings Act of 1959, an agreement was reached between the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MPPC), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the NRC auditorium will be made available for public use. Public users of the auditorium will be required to complete NRC Form 590, Application/Permit for Use of Two White Flint North (TWFN) Auditorium. The information is needed to allow for administrative and security review and scheduling, and to make a determination that there are no anticipated problems with the requester prior to utilization of the facility. Submit, by May 22, 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 world wide web site: . 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 . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-4086 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: Sunshine Act Meetings FR Doc 06-2777 [Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 14255] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr06-121] Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of March 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 24, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of March 20, 2006 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 20, 2006. Week of March 27, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 27, 2006. Week of April 3, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 3, 2006. Week of April 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 10, 2006. Week of April 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 17, 2006. Week of April 24, 2006--Tentative Monday, April 24, 2006 2 p.m. Meeting with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) FERC Headquarters, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426 Room 2C (Public Meeting) Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:30 p.m Meeting with Department of Energy (DOE) on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . * * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule/html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice of the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: March 16, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-2777 Filed 3-17-06; 1:06 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 42 Myth: Israel's Strike on Iraqi Reactor Hindered Iraqi Nukes Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:45:37 -0600 (CST) Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Thursday, March 16, 2006 Myth: Israel's Strike on Iraqi Reactor Hindered Iraqi Nukes Today, the Bush administration releases a major national security strategy document which reaffirms the U.S. policy of so-called "preemption" and depicts Iran and its nuclear program as major threats. Many advocates of striking at Iran's nuclear facilities cite Israel's 1981 bombing of an Iraqi nuclear facility. The following specialists are available for interviews: RICHARD WILSON, wilson5@fas.harvard.edu, http://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson Mallinckrodt research professor of physics at Harvard University, Wilson visited the Osirak Iraqi reactor in 1982 after it was bombed by Israel. He said today: "Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards. Certainly, Saddam Hussein would clearly have liked a nuclear bomb if he could have had one, but the issue is whether there were enough procedures for that reactor in place to prevent him from doing so and all the indications are that there were enough procedures. "The Osirak reactor was destroyed in June 1981. It was not until early in July 1981 that Saddam Hussein personally released Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar from house arrest and asked him to start and head the clandestine nuclear bomb program. The destruction of Osirak did not stop an Iraqi nuclear bomb program but probably started it. Worse still, the Israelis were so pleased with themselves that it appears that neither they nor the CIA looked for and understood the real direction of the Iraqi nuclear bomb program. "In the international discussions with Iran, this must be borne in mind. Bombing a peaceful program, rather than controlling it, is very dangerous. But, alas, this is not the lesson that many people, who have not studied the technical evidence, have gained." IMAD KHADDURI, imad.khadduri@rogers.com, http://abutamam.blogspot.com Khadduri is author of the book "Iraq's Nuclear Mirage: Memoirs and Delusions." He worked on the Iraq nuclear weapons program beginning in 1981 and left Iraq in the late 1990s. He said today: "I worked on the pre-1981 nuclear program and I was certain it would not be used for military purposes. But after the 1981 bombing, we were so angry that we were ready to work on a military program." Before the invasion of Iraq, Khadduri argued that, contrary to what the Bush administration was claiming, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program had been dismantled. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: public@lists.accuracy.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org For all list information and functions, including changing your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public ***************************************************************** 43 NRC: NRC Proposes $6,000 Fine for Bayou Inspection Services, Inc. News Release - Region IV - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-002 March 20, 2006 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: fine of $6,000 against Bayou Inspection Services, Inc., of Amelia, La., for violating NRC requirements. In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of the NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection, the agency determined that the company violated NRC requirements for the possession and use of radioactive materials. The violations involved the companys failure on two occasions to secure or maintain constant surveillance of radioactive materials used in radiographic exposure devices in unrestricted areas. Radiography is a non-destructive testing method which uses sealed radiation sources to make x-ray like images of heavy metal objects like pumps, valves and pipes. NRC regulations require that users of radioactive materials maintain appropriate security of them at all times in order to protect public health and safety, said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce Mallett. NRC staff discussed the apparent violations, their significance, the root cause and the companys corrective actions during an enforcement conference with company officials on October 25, 2005. The company has taken steps to prevent recurrence. The NRC has classified one of the violations at Severity Level III, which carries a $6,000 civil penalty. The agency has a four-level severity scale in which Severity level I is the most serious. The company has 30 days to either pay the fine or challenge it. The company can request alternative dispute resolution in an attempt to resolve the issue. The NRCs letter, its enclosures, and the companys response will be made available to interested members of the public through the agencys public electronic reading room at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing these documents is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209. Last revised Tuesday, March 21, 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 DesMoinesRegister.com: Energy workers informed about benefits ERIC LUND REGISTER CORRESPONDENT March 21, 2006 Ames, Ia. — About 30 people attended a town hall-style meeting Monday night intended to inform current and former Ames Laboratory employees and other workers in the atomic energy industry how to file claims for medical benefits for occupation-related sicknesses. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, which has already paid out more than $1.5 billion nationally, including $42 million to 469 Iowans, is intended to provide compensation for illnesses such as radiogenic cancer, chronic beryllium disease and chronic silicosis caused by working for the U.S. Department of Energy. Tom Barton, director of the Ames Laboratory, which conducted atomic energy research in the 1940s and '50s, including work on the Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bomb, said pre-1955 safety standards, "although normal at that time, should be deemed inadequate by today's standards." He said that it's impossible to estimate the number of workers who got sick as a result. The program, administered by the Department of Labor, is divided into two parts, which together can pay $400,000 for any one individual. Part B is intended for diseases unique to the nuclear program, and covers current and former Department of Energy employees, contractors and subcontractors, employees of atomic weapons employers and beryllium vendors, uranium miners, millers and ore transporters and their families and can pay out a maximum of $150,000. Part E, which was created in 2004 to replace a Department of Energy program, is intended for the same groups with the exception of Department of Energy workers and those at atomic weapons employers and beryllium vendors, and can pay out a maximum of $250,000. This year, the program is expected to pay out an estimated $1.5 billion. Copyright © 2005, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: NRC Creates Task Force to Examine Tritium Issue 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. 06-037 March 20, 2006 the issue of inadvertent, unmonitored releases of radioactive liquids containing tritium from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Agency leaders directed creation of the group earlier this year following reports of unmonitored releases of water containing tritium. The available information on these releases shows no hazard to the public, said NRC Executive Director for Operations Luis Reyes. Nonetheless, we need to conduct an in-depth review to see if the NRC needs to take additional action of a broad nature. At the same time the NRC decided to establish the tritium study group, they also decided to create a page on the NRC Web site to provide the public the latest available information on tritium issues. This information can be accessed at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-cont am-tritium.html. Eleven of the 12 task force members come from the agencys Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and Nuclear Regulatory Research, as well as from regional offices. The twelfth, a representative of state government, is being selected. The group will report to Bill Kane, the Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs, and is required to complete its review by Aug. 31. A written report summarizing the task forces findings will be issued late this year. The task force is required to address several topics, including: + A general assessment of the potential public health impact from these releases; + How the issue was communicated to the public, state and local officials, other federal agencies, Congress and other interested groups; + A review of other inadvertent releases at nuclear power plants, including decommissioning sites, from 1996 to the present; + Industry actions in response to the releases, including the timing of remediation efforts; and, + NRC oversight of inadvertent releases, both under the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) and the process in place prior to the ROP. The task force can also consider issues not listed in its charter, and can identify issues for longer-term review by NRC staff. The task forces charter is available on the NRCs Web site by entering ML060690186 at this address: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. Last revised Monday, March 20, 2006 ***************************************************************** 46 Manawatu Standard: A-bomb survivors bring stories to tell New Zealand www.manawatustandard.co.nz Wednesday, 22 March 2006 By LEE MATTHEWS A head cold kept 15-year-old Sueko Motoyama alive when she was atom-bombed in Nagasaki in World War II. She was at home nursing her cold when the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, 2.8km from her house, and she escaped being burned to death by hiding in a Japanese-style closet. Mrs Motoyama is one of three speakers who will talk about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, at the International Pacific College tomorrow night. Last year was the 50th anniversary of the bombing, and the talk is to commemorate the events. With Mrs Motoyama will be Tadako Kawazoe. She was a one year old when the bomb fell on Nagasaki, and the force of the blast blew her from one room into another in her house, which was 2.5km from ground zero. Her mother picked her up and fled with her to a dugout shelter. Travelling with the two bomb veterans is Ena Koda, a high school student who leads a peace study club at her school. She will explain why she believes abolishing nuclear weapons is important. IPC student Ami Ito planned the event, inviting the speakers to Palmerston North. It was important to hear the survivors' stories, because soon none would be left, she said. The speakers will also talk in Wellington and Auckland. ***************************************************************** 47 BBC: Work to seal nuclear shaft begins Last Updated: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 [Dounreay] Sealing off a waste shaft at Dounreay will take four years An underground waste shaft at Dounreay which exploded in 1977 is being sealed off in a £16m operation. Grout will be poured down 400 boreholes which are being sunk to form a protective ring around the 65m shaft. The UK Atomic Energy Authority, the site operators, said the shield was designed to eliminate the risk of radioactive particles leaking. Grouting was selected as the preferred method following a period of public consultation in 2004. The operation to seal off the Caithness site's waste shaft will take up to four years to complete. For almost 20 years nuclear and non-radioactive waste was tipped into it. Plant decommissioning But this disposal solution was abruptly halted in 1977 when it exploded. The project, one of the most critical parts of the overall decommissioning of the plant, will allow the contents of the shaft to be isolated. About 400 boreholes will be drilled to a depth of up to 80m in a protective ring around the shaft and filled with grout - providing a curtain around the waste hole. Management said that once complete, the curtain would protect against leakage and eliminate any doubts about the shaft being the source of particles found on the seabed and beach nearby. The development will also provide a stable environment when the waste is ultimately removed. ***************************************************************** 48 Platts: NRC establishes task force to investigate titium leaks London (Platts)--21Mar2006 NRC has established a task force to invetigate titium leaks, the agency said today. The task force's formation follows recent reports of unmonitored releases of water containing tritium during the last decade at some plants. "The available information on these releases shows no hazard to the public," NRC Executive Director for Operation Luis Reyes said in a statement. However, he said, NRC needs to conduct an in-depth review to see if additional action is needed. The twelve-member panel, composed of representatives from NRC headquarters and regional offices and a state government official to be named later, is required to complete its review by August 31. The task force will "examine the issue of inadvertent, unmonitored releases of radioactive liquids containing tritium from US commercial nuclear power plants," NRC said. The task force's charter is on NRC's Adams document system under accession number ML060690186. For more news, request a free trial to Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 49 San Bernardino County Sun: Unity on water cleanup Article Display Date: 03/21/2006 12:00 AM PST 5 agencies teaming up against contamination Andrew Silva, Staff Writer + - Read about item 25 on the agenda for the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors regarding perchlorate cleanup in the water supply Stop it from spreading. Clean up what's there. Make sure there's plenty of water for everybody. That's the gist of a $106 million plan to clean a rocket-fuel ingredient from the groundwater in Rialto, Colton and Fontana. "We got all the engineers together and decided if we're going to clean this up, how would we do it," said Peter Wulfman, manager of San Bernardino County's solid-waste division. With five agencies involved, getting all of them to agree on a common strategy for attacking the problem is a major step. Paying for it is the tricky part, but the deal should make it easier to lobby for money, officials said. "The word from legislators was, `Come to us with a collective effort and you have a better chance of receiving support,' " said Eric Fraser, Colton's director of water and wastewater. Colton has had three wells contaminated by perchlorate, but all three have well-head treatment facilities to remove the contaminant before it's delivered to customers. North Rialto is the source of a plume of underground contamination that has spread about six miles to the southeast, affecting 22 wells, and could lead to water shortages unless it is cleaned up. Perchlorate can limit thyroid function and is thought to be potentially dangerous to developing fetuses and children. The salt is used in rocket fuel, fireworks, flares and certain munitions, all of which have been stored or manufactured by numerous businesses in north Rialto. Nine of those 22 wells already have well-head treatment facilities to remove the perchlorate. The others remain out of service. N o residents are being supplied water containing perchlorate, officials said. The county waste division is involved because when it bought land to expand the Mid-Valley Landfill in Rialto, the land was on top of one of the heaviest concentrations of perchlorate. The Board of Supervisors and the Rialto and Colton city councils are scheduled to vote today on an agreement tied to the plan. The agreement, which also must be signed by the West Valley Water District and the Fontana Water Co., says the five agencies agree on the cleanup plan and will seek federal money to help pay for it. The federal government has kicked in several million dollars toward the cleanup, and Goodrich Corp., which once operated in the area, paid $4 million to the affected agencies a few years ago and plans to spend up to $10 million more. The county is almost ready to start up a new treatment plant near Rialto Municipal Airport that will treat water with the heaviest concentrations of perchlorate, Wulfman said. Eventually, a "picket fence" of wells will intercept the contamination before it can spread farther, he said. At the same time, the remaining production wells need to get treatment facilities to ensure a steady water supply. The estimated cost for 10 well-head treatment systems plus five years of maintenance and operations is $45.2 million. Five years of operation and maintenance, plus the cost of installation, on the existing treatment facilities is tagged at $28.8 million. The cost for the wells designed to intercept the contamination is estimated at $32.2 million. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced a bill that would provide $50 million for cleaning up perchlorate. Rialto and Colton have also sued the Defense Department and numerous businesses that operated in the area in an attempt to recover the cleanup costs. Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 50 NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: RIN 3150-AH87 FR Doc E6-4083 [Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 14120-14122] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr06-18] VSC-24 Revision 6 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations revising the BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation VSC-24 cask system listing within the ``List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 6 to the Certificate of Compliance. Amendment No. 6 would modify the present cask system design to revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to periodic monitoring during storage operation. Specifically, the amendment would eliminate TS 1.3.4 that requires daily temperature measurement of the cask. The daily temperature measurement is not required because the daily visual inspection of the cask inlet and outlet vent screens, required by TS 1.3.1, provides the capability to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions under the requirements that govern general design criteria for spent fuel storage casks. This is because the visual inspection would determine if the cask inlets and outlets were blocked (the focus of the thermal analysis submitted by the CoC holder). The amendment would also revise TS 1.2.3 to correspond with TS 1.3.1 by revising the method of thermal performance evaluation to allow for daily temperature surveillance after the cask has reached thermal equilibrium. In addition, the amendment would update editorial changes associated with the company name change from BNFL Fuel Solutions Corporation to BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before April 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH87) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comment will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social [[Page 14121]] security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays [telephone (301) 415-1966]. Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into 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 PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. An electronic copy of the proposed Certificate of Compliance (CoC), TS, and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML053330269, ML053340113, and ML053330282, respectively. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail jmm2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal Register. Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1007 and does not include other aspects of the VSC-24 cask system design. The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on June 5, 2006. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by April 20, 2006, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR- RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1007 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1007. Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 7, 1993. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: May 30, 2000. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 21, 2001. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 3, 2003. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: September 13, 2005. [[Page 14122]] Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: June 5, 2006. SAR Submitted by: BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Ventilated Storage Cask System. Docket Number: 72-1007. Certificate Expiration Date: May 7, 2013. Model Number: VSC-24. * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-4083 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 51 Shetland News: Nuclear waste warning from MP 'Great is the Truth and it will Prevail' 21 March, 2006 THE GOVERNMENT has admitted that nuclear waste from six countries is stored at Dounreay in answers to parliamentary questions from Orkney and Shetland MP, Alistair Carmichael. Ministers have also been forced to admit that spent nuclear fuel from Georgia will have to be kept at Dounreay indefinitely as the country is considered too unstable. The plant in Caithness holds radioactive material from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland and Georgia. Material from all but Georgia is likely to be returned after reprocessing in the UK. The admission was made by energy minister Malcolm Wicks in a written parliamentary answer last week. Mr Carmichael said: "We know that not only are we in the United Kingdom struggling to find an acceptable means of dealing with nuclear waste, but that other countries are having the same difficulty. "To countenance the building of more nuclear power stations in these circumstances would be crass stupidity. "It is also worrying that amongst the waste held is waste imported from Georgia which cannot be returned as that country is considered to be too unstable. The government, of course, is right not to return that waste, but one has to question the wisdom of setting ourselves up as a nuclear waste dustbin. "It is clear that many of those countries which are seeking to acquire civil nuclear power are less than stable. It will be next to impossible for us to deny them nuclear capacity if we ourselves insist on having it." Tuesday, 21 March 2006 08:17 2003-2005 Shetland News Agency ***************************************************************** 52 MetroWestDailyNews.com: More radiation found at Casella By John Hilliard/ Daily News Staff Tuesday, March 21, 2006 HOLLISTON -- Board of Health officials are losing their patience with Casella Waste Systems after another load of radiation-laden trash was found yesterday at the Washington Street station -- and demand a fast fix. "We've had two radiation incidents in the last two weeks," Chairman Richard Maccagnano chided Casella officials at last night's board meeting. "It's obvious that we need to change the radiation protocol." Yesterday afternoon, radioactive material was found in trash at the Casella transfer station -- the incident was the second this month, and the third since January. The trash was stored overnight in a secured garage at the Casella station, inside a garbage truck, said company division manager Len Landry. Workers discovered radioactive material in a truck leaving the station yesterday, just like the previous two incidents. Officials from the state Department of Public Health will visit the facility today to determine whether radiation is still present. If no radiation is found the trash load can leave the station. While the low-level radioactive material is not a threat to public health, company workers have not identified the source of the radiation or where it came from. "We'd prefer not to be digging around in the material," Landry said. The town imposed a radiation protocol after the January incident, which required Casella to notify town officials in case radioactive material was found in the trash. "The goal is to catch this going in, so you can turn the truck around and send it out," Maccagnano said. Landry said the station's scanners are not located properly to detect radiation until trucks depart the facility -- due to work being done to the station's truck scale -- but those detectors will be relocated once that work is finished. Although the Board of Health pushed for the names of companies that use the Holliston transfer station to find the source of the radioactive waste, Casella attorney Michael Healy said the identities of Casella's customers is a "trade secret." Board members Suzanne Shannahan and Elizabeth Theiler said it is possible the material found yesterday is medical waste from a cancer treatment. Radioactive material found at Casella on March 10 was identified as a load of diapers. Healy said Casella's Holliston station does not handle waste from hospitals. "Material shouldn't be coming from a hospital. I know it has, but that's a breakdown at the hospital," Healy said. Maccagnano said he wanted faster notification by Casella when the company discovers radioactive material in its trash loads. Yesterday, radioactive material was found at about 11 a.m., and Casella workers alerted the state at 11:15 a.m. But town officials weren't told until 12:30 p.m., he said. Theiler said the board should hire a radiation expert -- funded by Casella -- to review the town's radiation protocol and help officials figure out whether there could be a common source to the radioactive waste. "All the goodwill in the world went into this radiation protocol, and we still have holes," Theiler said. In other business, the town has determined former Health Agent William Domey did not put the town at legal risk for working on site plans after he let his state-issued engineer's license expire nearly two years ago. Domey resigned Friday, a week after being suspended without pay by the board. "The town doesn't appear to be exposed" to problems, said Town Administrator Paul LeBeau. (John Hilliard can be reached at 508-626-4449 or jhilliar@cnc.com.) © Copyright of CNC and . ***************************************************************** 53 Hanford News: DOE mulls Hanford cleanup options This story was published Sunday, March 19th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is preparing to make some critical decisions on one of the worst environmental threats at the Hanford nuclear reservation: 149 aging, leak-prone underground tanks, most of them still holding radioactive waste. Key questions include how quickly to get the waste treated, how much of the waste may be left at the bottom of the tanks and what to do with the tanks themselves. DOE has prepared a list of options to study, none of which would meet legal deadlines or other requirements for cleaning up Hanford. The agency is launching a round of public hearings this week in Washington and Oregon on the environmental study that will lead to a decision. The hearings, which will also cover other waste issues that affect ground water beneath Hanford, open in Seattle Tuesday and conclude with a March 28 hearing in Pasco. It is considering six alternatives to closing 149 underground tanks, some of which have held radioactive and hazardous chemical waste since they were built as temporary storage during World War II. The waste is left from the chemical processing of fuel rods irradiated in Hanford reactors to remove plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The most controversial is likely to be Alternative 5, which proposes leaving 10 percent of the waste at the bottom of the tanks permanently. The rest would be removed and turned into a stable glass form or otherwise treated for permanent disposal. The Tri-Party Agreement, which governs Hanford cleanup, calls for 99 percent of the waste - or as much as is reasonably possible - to be removed from the tanks. In the past they've leaked an estimated 1 million of gallons of waste into the soil at the center of Hanford. The ground water beneath the tanks moves toward the Columbia River. "It appears to be a calculated and misleading alternative and should be removed," Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest, said at a HAB committee meeting. Leaving it in the study can only be politically dangerous, he said. Several congressional hearings this month have looked at ways to control cleanup costs at Hanford. DOE has countered that show-ing the effects of leaving 10 percent of the waste in the tanks could work as an argument for emptying the tanks to 99 percent. Although the Hanford Advisory Board will not discuss and issue comments until its April meeting, its proposed advice to DOE includes making sure at least one alternative for emptying the tanks and treating the waste meets Tri-Party Agreement requirements. Leaving 10 percent of the waste in the tanks, in violation of the Tri-Party Agreement, is the only one of the alternatives that would allow the remaining waste to be treated by the agreement's deadline of 2028. Alternatives that call for 99 percent of the waste to be removed would not have the waste treated until 2034 or 2087. None of those dates likely would be met. Much of the waste removed from the tanks would to be turned into stable glass logs at the vitrification plant under construction at Hanford. But because of budget, management and technical problems at the project, the start of operations could be pushed from 2011 to 2017. Treatment options include expanding the vitrification plant to glassify more waste and using alternative treatment methods, such as bulk vitrification, which would turn the least radioactive waste into blocks of glass the size of land-sea shipping containers. The study also will consider what to do with the tanks once waste removal is finished. Options include cutting them up and burying the pieces elsewhere in central Hanford or leaving them in the ground, filled with a grout-like material and covered with a protective cap. DOE will consider the effects to ground water, danger to workers and technical challenges as it evaluates the alternatives for closing the tanks. The hearings will cover not just the tank waste and closure, but also two other issues: The demolition of Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility, and radioactive and hazardous chemical waste to be buried permanently at Hanford. DOE had completed a study on solid waste, but the state of Washington questioned whether ground water information was adequate. In the final stages of a lawsuit filed by the state against DOE to stop the importation of nuclear waste to Hanford, DOE discovered problems with the ground water information in the study. It agreed to redo portions of it as part of the settlement. DOE is combining that study with the waste tank and FFTF study - both of which already were under way - to get an overall look at the cumulative impacts to ground water. The Pasco hearing at TRAC, 6600 Burden Blvd., Pasco, will include time for informal discussions with DOE and Washington state Department of Ecology staff beginning at 6 p.m. March 28. The meeting, with presentations and public comment, will last from 7 to 10 p.m. For more information about the meetings in Pasco, Seattle, Portland or Hood River, Ore., go to www.hanford.gov/public/calendar/ Written comments also may be submitted until April 10 to Mary Beth Burandt, Office of River Protection, DOE, P.O. Box 450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, Wash., 99352. Decisions based on the environmental study are expected in fall 2008. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************