***************************************************************** 04/14/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.89 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Rummy on Iran: "All options, including military, on the 2 [NYTr] To nuke or not to nuke: Bush decides 3 [NYTr] US Claims Iran Could Make a Bomb in "2 Weeks" ! 4 [NYTr] US intelligence: Iran years away from nukes 5 [southnews] Iran's nuclear announcement has Israel worried 6 [southnews] Neocons turn up heat for Iran Attack 7 [NYTr] Iran issues stark military warning to United States 8 [NYTr] Iran rebuffs ElBaradei, refuses to halt peaceful nuclear 9 [NYTr] Iran: Synergies of the Neo-Cons 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran vows not to retreat on nuclear programme 11 New York Times: U.N. Official Reaches No Clear Outcome in Iran Talks 12 New York Times: Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away - 13 Reuters: China says dialogue is key on Iran and North Korea 14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: President cautions big powers 15 AFP: US mulls UN sanction options against Iran 16 AFP: Iran in 'position of power' in nuclear dispute - president - 17 IRNA: Syrian PM: Iran's nuclear achievement to benefit world of Isla 18 IRNA: Larijani urges IAEA, UNSC to take logical actions - 19 Guardian Unlimited: Russia to Host New Round of Iran Talks 20 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Vows to Strengthen Nukes 21 [NYTr] NS Archive - US Intel and the Indian Bomb 22 RIA Novosti: When will the U.S. lift restrictions on Russian uranium 23 UPI: U.S. Senator sees August N-deal passage 24 [NYTr] Original Sin, Nuclear Style 25 Mos News: New Russian Missiles to Be Unrivalled for Next 15-20 Years NUCLEAR REACTORS 26 Guardian Unlimited: A Tour of Chernobyl Is Troubling Visit 27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is not energy solution, say MPs 28 US: Fredericksburg.com: Reactor safety talks set North Anna plant to 29 The Herald: ScottishPower warns on nuclear 30 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy 31 US: NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration o 32 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Sta 33 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Calvert Clif 34 globeandmail.com: 'Dirty fuel' may be Ontario's clean answer 35 AU ABC: Scientist urges switch to thorium. 36 Edmonton Journal: Firm pushing nuke plants to heat sticky oilsands 37 US: NRC: Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and 38 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Chernobyl -- 20 Years Later - Murderous Atoms - NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 39 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $19,500 Fine Against Mistras Holding Group for 40 Yokwe Net: Enewetak People File Lawsuit in U.S. Court of Federal Cla 41 Yokwe Net: Marshall Islands Government Voices Support for Enewetak L NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 42 Las Vegas SUN: Energy secretary makes first visit to Nevada nuclear 43 US: Herald News: Initial reports: Wells' tritium levels safe 44 reviewjournal.com: Bodman emerges impressed 45 US: Saratoga Herald Tribune: Tallevast district to be redrawn 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Energy chief gives Yucca Mountain a glowing recom PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 47 Hanford News: Stability key for Hanford, says Gregoire 48 NVDP: Energy secretary uses SUVs, helicopters to Nevadans 49 Daily Beacon: Oak Ridge joins ITER in push for fusion energy ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Rummy on Iran: "All options, including military, on the Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:01:57 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Asia Times Online via INfo Clearly Housing - Apr 12, 2006 http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12694.htm The war on Iran "All options, including the military one, are on the table." -US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "I announce, officially, that dear Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world." - President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, saying on Tuesday that Iran had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark step toward its quest to develop nuclear fuel. By Pepe Escobar 04/12/06 "Asia Times"--The ominous signs are "on the table" for all to see. The Pentagon has its Long War, the rebranded "war on terror" that Vice President Dick Cheney swears will last for decades, a replay of the war between Eastasia and Oceania in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. President George W Bush issued a "wild speculation" non-denial denial that the US was planning strategic nuclear strikes against Iran, but Iran considerably upped the ante on Tuesday with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's announcement that Iran had enriched uranium for the first time. In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad urged the West to stop pressuring Tehran, saying that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. Iranian nuclear officials say the country has produced 100 tonnes of uranium gas, an essential ingredient for enrichment. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand. >From the point of view of the Pentagon's Long War, a strategic nuclear attack on Iran can be spun to oblivion as the crucial next stage of the war on "radical Islam". From the view of a factionalized European Union, this is (very) bad business; the Europeans prefer to concentrate on the factionalized nature of the Iranian government itself and push for a nuclear deal. Iranian government officials claim that the Germans and the Italians - big trade partners with extensive economic interests in the country - are pushing for a deal more than the French and much more than the British. As much as the EU cannot possibly agree on a unified foreign policy, Europeans in fact reject both sanctions and/or a possible US military strike. Hitler meets Iraqification The demonization of Ahmadinejad in some quarters in the US as the "new Adolf Hitler" is beside the point. As Asia Times Online has shown (The ultimate martyr, April 12), all crucial decisions in Iran remain with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad has been downgraded by the leader to play a "domestic" president's role. His vocal, nationalist defense of Iran's civilian nuclear program follows the leader's script, and is met with approval because virtually all Iranians regard the issue as a matter of national right and pride. According to a late-January poll by the Iranian Students Polling Agency, 85.4% of Iranians are in favor of continuing with the nuclear program. More than 80% feel the country needs nuclear energy. And about 70% regard the European negotiation side as "illogical". Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, issued a fatwa in the 1980s declaring that production, possession and use of nuclear weapons was against Islam. Russia, China and India still take him at his word. For the Iranian government, the nuclear program is a powerful symbol of independence with regard to what is perceived as Anglo-Saxon colonialism. The view is shared by Iranians of all social classes and education backgrounds. Moreover, Iran is pushing for a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement, stating that every country has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. What Iran officially wants is a nuclear-free zone in West Asia, and that includes Israel, the sixth nuclear power in the world with more than 200 nuclear warheads. But the issue itself may be beside the point. What's really at stake is that while the occupation of Iraq might be downgraded, the "invisible" US military bases will consolidate the US presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region. Ahmadinejad in this scenario is the perfect Hitler; US troops - and bases - must remain on the ground to prevent Iran from going nuclear and to prevent Iran's influence in Iraq's "Shi'iteistan". Meanwhile, Washington's avowed initiative of financing groups to provoke "regime change" from within is widely viewed in Tehran as a joke. What Iranians - both in government and in the bazaars and tea shops - take very seriously is the US lending a hand to Israel squeezing Palestine even more - a development also spun in Washington as part of the war on "radical Islam". The Quadrennial Defense Review - the Pentagon's strategic document calling for the Long War against terror - can be easily interpreted as a call for a war on Islam. The first steps towards war A war on Iran could involve many military scenarios. Iranian officials are aware that the US may go for an initial "shock and awe". But they play down the possibility of a street revolution toppling the nationalist theocracy, as Washington hopes; the regime controls everything, and in the event of a foreign attack, virtually the whole population would rally behind the government. They also exclude attacking Israel, because they know Israel may respond with a nuclear strike. But they do not rule out the possibility of the US dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. Iran's current demonology instrumentalizes the UN Security Council, in the name of "peace" and nuclear non-proliferation. But Iranian officials keep complaining that the country's official nuclear proposal was never examined in full by the EU. It included a provision that Iran would continue to negotiate with the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) on uranium enrichment for two more years, and would resume enrichment only if negotiations failed. The next step in the Security Council may be the imposition of "intelligent sanctions" - an oxymoron. In practice, that would mean a partial trade embargo on Iran, excluding food and of course oil and gas. Oil and gas are once again the heart of the matter. A recent energy conference in Tehran (In the heart of Pipelineistan, March 17) made it clear that Iran is a crucial node of a proposed Asian energy-security grid, which includes China, Russia and India. This grid would bypass Western - especially US - control of energy supplies and fuel in a real 21st-century industrial revolution all across Asia. It's no wonder that many analysts view the war on Iran in essence as a war of the United States against Asia. The ultimate prize As was the case with Iraq, Iran is being sold as a threat to world peace (it may be pursuing nuclear weapons). Bush - at least vocally - hopes diplomacy will prevail. But the decision to attack may have been made already, just as it was taken regarding Iraq way before March 2003. Iraq had signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). UN weapons inspectors were expelled on the eve of the 2003 war. Iran has also signed the NPT, but is being accused of pursuing a nuclear-weapons program. UN weapons inspectors still work in the country on and off - but for how long? In 1995, Iraq told UN inspectors, via Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law Hussein Kamel, about a secret nuclear-weapons program, which had just been scrapped. This did not prevent the regime from being accused of concealing WMD just before the March 2003 invasion. In 2002, Iran told the UN that it had a secret nuclear program - not a weapons program. This did not prevent Iran from being accused four years later by the EU-3 of "concealment and deception". In November 2002, the US threatened to strike Iraq unless it cooperated with UN inspectors. The US invaded Iraq anyway, without Security Council backing. In January, the EU-3 called for Iran to be referred to the Security Council. Sanctions may be applied. If no diplomatic solution is found, the Pentagon may find the opening it seeks for the next stage of its Long War. Iran is not to be easily intimidated. Few in Tehran take the threat of oil sanctions seriously. Iranians know that even if the US decided to bomb the country's nuclear sites, they are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians; that would mean in effect a declaration of war against Russia. Russia recently closed a US$700 million deal selling 30 Tor M-1 surface-to-air missiles to Iran - very effective against aircraft, cruise missiles and guided bombs. The missiles will be deployed at the nuclear-research center at Isfahan and the Bushehr reactor, which is being built by Russia. Iranians know Shi'ites in the south and in Baghdad would turn extreme heat on the occupation forces in Iraq. Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, on an official visit to Iran, according to his spokesman, said that "if any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mehdi Army would fight inside and outside Iraq". Iranians also know they can bypass any trade sanctions by trading even more with China. Anyway, Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, which sits at the majlis (parliament), has already threatened that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz". Up to 30% of the world's oil production passes through the strait. Were Iran to block it, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait would not be able to export their oil. The Pentagon may eventually get its Long War - but not exactly on its terms. Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] To nuke or not to nuke: Bush decides Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Dave Muller (southnews) The New Statesman - Apr 17, 2006 http://www.newstatesman.com/200604170004 To nuke or not to nuke: Bush decides There will be an attack; that much is already assumed in Washington. Whether it should be nuclear is a matter of intense debate. The verdict may depend upon the wild card of the president's Messianic "To me it would be a worse crime to stay silent if telling the truth could prevent war." by Andrew Stephen So the Third World War is imminent and the madman in the White House bunker is about to nuke Iran. That, at least, is the message from the veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. The American media, however, seem far less concerned than the British: on the morning the story was making headlines in the UK, Iran did not even make the front pages of the Washington Post or New York Times. "Military fantasies on Iran", a New York Times editorial sniffed on 11 April. So who is right? Is this news or not? It depends on your point of departure. This may surprise people in Britain, but Washington is already working from the assumption that the US will launch some form of conventional-weapon attack on Iran during this presidency. That much is not news here. Indeed, the Bush administration is assuming that when that attack happens it will have the support of Britain and Australia. Nuclear weapons, however, are another matter. Whether they might be used against Iran is a critical issue in the struggle under way between foreign-policy pragmatists and ideological zealots. Washington is divided between these two camps, of which the former is by far the bigger. It consists of sensible people inside the administration itself, the State Department, CIA, Pentagon and the powerful think-tanks, and its numbers are growing exponentially as the president's incompetence becomes undeniable to all but the most fanatical. Every day brings more defections. Even Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has fallen out with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and is on the verge of abandoning the ideological ship - just as Colin Powell did in private over Iraq, but not publicly until it was far too late. The second Washington faction is tiny, but unstable and dangerous. It consists of a tiny handful of people. Only last month, after watching the German film Downfall, I wrote of the White House as a bunker, because that is what it is like: Bush, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, attended by a dwindling band of neoconservatives, sit in their bunker, increasingly detached from reality, still insisting on viewing the world and plotting its course as they choose to do, unhindered by inconvenient realities. (American readers: I am not saying that Bush is like Hitler, but referring to the bunker mentality.) The first faction overwhelmingly agrees with the British, French and German view that Iran must be isolated diplomatically rather than militarily, and it is solidly behind the tough UN Security Council statement of 29 March on Iran. Its members are terrified, however, that in the meantime the madmen in the bunker will lose it completely. Jack Straw is echoing their view when he says it is "completely nuts" to think that the United States is contemplating a pre-emptive nuclear strike; his conduit into the Bush administration is the increasingly marginalised Rice - in effect now a member of faction number one. The second faction . . . well, who can peer into the mind of George W Bush? I doubt if the 43rd president himself knows whether the US will launch nuclear missiles at Iran. (It would be reassuring, by the way, to add that the Democrats comprise a third influential faction, except that these days they barely figure on Washington's political map.) The uncertainties leave a vacuum between pessimists and optimists. There are many, including people at the United Nations, who believe that Bush can and will press the nuclear button. Yet a clear majority in Washington believes that an all-powerful establishment, from the might of the top brass at the Pentagon to the consensus wisdom of practically every senior politician, will prevail against even an out-of-control president. We cannot be totally confident that Sy Hersh has got it completely right, either. The 69-year-old reporter is rightly admired for his countless scoops, from the My Lai massacre in 1968 to the Abu Ghraib outrages 35 years later. But he has also made mistakes: he had to write a 3,000-word retraction for the New York Times in 1981 after getting the Pinochet coup in Chile hopelessly wrong, and in 1997 he was fooled by faked documents purporting to tell all about the relationship between JFK and Marilyn Monroe. Yet perhaps most pertinent in this context is that Hersh is close to Israeli intelligence. Disinformation from Mossad fuelled the US neo-cons' miscalculations over Iraq, and Israel has a clear interest in persuading Bush to strike first against a country that threatens to be a nuclear rival in the Middle East. It could be provoking the ideological struggle in Washington in the hope that the publicity itself might prove self-fulfilling. There are two main areas where I, too, disagree with Hersh's interpretation. First, he makes much of the United States al- ready having covert agents in Iran. But who could be surprised by that? The US, after all, has covert agents operating in London, Paris and Rome, and it has been interfering in Iran's internal affairs for decades. Second, Hersh provides highly plausible detail about US contingency plans for using nuclear missiles on Iranian sites such as the uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. My information, differing slightly from his, is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff did present the White House with a strategy to nuke Iran - but with the strong recommendation that it should not be carried out. That such a strategy existed, moreover, should be no surprise, as drawing up such things - contingency planning - is one of the things the Pentagon exists to do. I e-mailed a senior defence and intelligence analyst friend here about just this point, and will quote his reply verbatim because it precisely conveys the mindset inside the Pentagon: The Defence Department commonly works up plans for all kinds of contingencies. The Department would not be doing its duty if it were not examining all kinds of contingency plans. Only a tiny minority of the Department's contingency plans ever become the basis for action. Plans are even done on occasion not because they are going to be used, but to demonstrate that certain ideas are impractical or unwise, or to show ourselves we are thoroughly prepared to prevail in a designated contingency. In my opinion, this news is a tempest in a pot of tea. Then I asked a former senior nuclear strategist with Nato about the practicalities of the US launching nuclear strikes against 400 separate sites, most of them underground, in Iran. His answer was blunt. "The only nuclear weapon that might penetrate a little before exploding is the B-61 bomb," he said. "If you penetrate a bunker, you create a Chernobyl. The fallout would spread all over the Middle East and who knows where else." There were too many targets, the Shias and Hezbollah would make Iraq even more hellish than it is, and the price of oil would immediately rise to more than $100 a barrel. So that, one would assume, settles it. Here are two experts who know as much as anybody in the world about nuclear weapons as tactical deterrents, and they make the idea seem insane. But the second man, now safely out of Nato and the Pentagon, also said darkly that the Bush administration's denials over Iran sound horribly like its pre-2003 denials over Iraq. There are midterm elections coming up in November, he noted, and, although not all military men are right-wing hawks, not by any means, "Bush is a jackass who needs to prove his manhood". Here we come full circle, back to the struggle being fought in Washington. The dominant view, including from the Pentagon, is that nuclear strikes against Iran would be disastrous, militarily and politically. Yet there remains the terrifying wild card of what Hersh so rightly calls Bush's Messianic complex. It is a sign of how dangerous the situation has become that the current focus on the possibility of a nuclear attack actually makes the prospect of a conventional strike seem like a soft option. Inside the bunker, Rumsfeld has already written off Rice (and, in effect, Straw), dismissing her admission that the Bush administration has made thousands of mistakes in Iraq. "I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly honest," he said, adding that her comments probably reflected "a lack of understanding . . . of what warfare is about". She's only a woman, you see, and one now tainted irrevocably by all those commies in the State Department. But he-men like himself and Bush and Cheney are made of sterner stuff, ready to nuke the world if they have to do that to save it, whatever the wimps outside the bunker may say. Whether the increasingly united Washington establishment will let those hunkering down in the bunker prevail is a different matter. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] US Claims Iran Could Make a Bomb in "2 Weeks" ! Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:04:39 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit [Shades of the infamous British chicken-little Blair claims about Iran... "16 days to a nuclear bomb," shrieks Rice's State Department. Everyone else in the world knows, and states, that Iran is years away from such a capability, IF they even have any such intenstion. -NY Transfer] Bloomberg - 12 April 2006 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sidaduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. Iran will move to "industrial scale" uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today. "Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days," Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month. The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported. "It was a deeply disappointing announcement," Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement. Weapons-Grade Uranium Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium. Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said. "We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days," he said. While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said "there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government" to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program. Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year. China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said. *** The New York Times - 13 April 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away By WILLIAM J. BROAD, NAZILA FATHI and JOEL BRINKLEY Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel. The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line -- a vast increase from the 164 the Iranians said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor. Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020. Iran's announcement brought criticism from several Western nations and to a lesser degree from Russia and China. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for "strong steps" against Iran, using the country's clear statement of defiance to persuade reluctant countries like Russia and China to support tough international penalties. But Russian officials said they had not changed their opposition to such penalties. Nuclear analysts said Iran's boast that it had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges meant that it had now moved one small but significant step beyond what it had been ready to do nearly three years ago, when it agreed to suspend enrichment while negotiating the fate of its nuclear program. "They're hyping it," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, a private group that monitors the Iranian nuclear program. Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington called the new Iranian claims "little more than vacuous political posturing" meant to promote Iranian nationalism and a global sense of atomic inevitability. The nuclear experts said Iran's claim yesterday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs. It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison. Yesterday, Mr. Saeedi, the Iranian nuclear official, said Iran was moving rapidly toward its atomic goals. "We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA student news agency in a reference to Iran's main enrichment facility. Mr. Saeedi said Iran would start operating the first of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, with further expansion to 54,000 centrifuges. "We have no problem in doing that," he told ISNA. "We just need to increase our production lines." The news from Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, has made oil markets very nervous in recent days and contributed to a spike in oil prices to nearly $70 a barrel on Tuesday. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at $68.62 a barrel yesterday, just $2 short of their record after Hurricane Katrina. Since the beginning of the year, the diplomatic crisis has prompted fears that Iran might be tempted to restrict its oil sales, provoking a price jump that would cause economic havoc around the world. Iranian officials have repeatedly said they might use their country's "oil weapon" in a confrontation with the West. But, as is often the case in Iranian politics, such statements were just as rapidly offset by more reassuring comments from the Oil Ministry that Iran would not use its oil exports as a bargaining chip with the West. More realistically, many traders fear that any international penalties against Iran might hurt Iran's oil industry, slow investments, or remove sorely needed barrels from oil-hungry markets. The Russian stance against penalties highlighted the obstacles Washington faces in its effort to force a halt to Iran's nuclear program. A senior aide to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that any effort to employ broad penalties against Tehran would backfire because "Iran's current president will use them for his benefit, and he will use them to consolidate public opinion around him." The United States is urging members of the United Nations Security Council to approve travel and financial restrictions on Iran's leaders, and administration officials view Russia, which has close trade ties to Iran, as the linchpin of those efforts. Ms. Rice said yesterday that the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Iran to change course. "The Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said about Tuesday's announcement. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community." In Iran on Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in an elaborate ceremony that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent -- a level of purity that, if enough could be made, might fuel a nuclear reactor. While Iran hailed the step as a first, the nuclear experts said Tehran had in fact been doing periodic enrichment experiments with centrifuges for seven years, since 1999. Amid the tensions, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran yesterday for talks with Iranian nuclear officials. Despite the provocative nature of Iran's statements, he still held out hope that the government could be persuaded to compromise. "We hope to convince Iran to take confidence-building measures including suspension of uranium enrichment activities until outstanding issues are clarified," Dr. ElBaradei told journalists at the Tehran airport, Reuters reported. Iran's state-run television was dominated by programs about the atomic claim in what seemed like an organized effort to mobilize public support for the nuclear program. One channel showed a reporter stopping people on the street to ask if they had bought pastry to celebrate the news. Another showed nuclear sites and uranium mines. Television news said schools celebrated the success and rebroadcast the announcement of Iran's president hailing the enrichment step. While Iran has sharply raised its atomic claims in the past two days, nuclear analysts said it appeared to be roughly where it was expected to be on the road to learning how to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, and still had years of work ahead of it to attain its ambitious goals. Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said he was not surprised that the Iranians had got a group of 164 centrifuges up and running and had begun to introduce uranium gas into them for enrichment. "There's still a lot they have to do," he said, to perfect the operation of the cascade of centrifuges. A report that he and his colleagues made public late last month suggested that Iran would need 6 to 12 months to master that process, and Mr. Albright said in an interview that he stood by that rough estimate as accurate. His March report said Iran had parts for perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 centrifuges beyond the ones already in operation, and that Iran is not likely to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon until 2009 at the earliest. Several Western nations criticized Iran's recent announcements as needlessly provocative. Foreign Minister Jack Straw of Britain said they were "deeply unhelpful," and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction." Russia and China joined the chorus, but their criticisms were qualified. "For China, we are concerned about the events and the way things are developing," said Wang Guamgya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. But he added, "In spite of this, I believe diplomatic efforts are still under way." In Moscow, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Iran's push to expand uranium enrichment "a step in the wrong direction." But Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov later tempered that. He inveighed against any possible military action against Iran and advised against a rush to judgment, saying Iran had "never stated that it is striving to possess nuclear weapons." [Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York for this article.] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] US intelligence: Iran years away from nukes Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:04:00 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP via CNN - Apr 13, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/13/us.iran.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories U.S. intelligence: Iran years away from nukes WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iran remains years away from obtaining the materials and technology necessary for a nuclear weapon, despite its announcement this week that it has begun enriching uranium, several top U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday. Kenneth Brill, the head of the newly created National Counterproliferation Center, said the U.S. assessment on the timeframe of Iran's weapons development was sufficiently broad that it does not need to be modified. Senior intelligence officials alternatively say Tehran will have a nuclear weapon within a decade, or within several years. "What the Iranians have announced, is what they've announced," said Brill, speaking alongside nine senior intelligence officials at a discussion of the Office of the National Intelligence Director's first year. "They need to let the (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors in there to see it, because they have obligations." He noted that the regime has blustered before about developments that did not readily materialize. "We really have to see what's happened in Iran," Brill said. "There is still a very significant amount of time that needs to be worked through by the Iranians to get to where they want to go." Defending the quality of intelligence assessments, Brill said much of what the intelligence agencies have predicted has been validated by the IAEA and others. U.S. intelligence officials are scrubbing their information and analysis on Iran as tensions increase over its nuclear program. Tehran insists its work is solely for peaceful, civilian purposes, but the U.S. and a number of its allies believe it is after a nuclear arsenal. The nation's No. 2 intelligence official, Gen. Michael Hayden, said the Iran intelligence has benefited from the lessons-learned exercises on estimates about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Based on all the data available to spy agencies, he said confidently that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon. Over time, he added, "We are able to be more clear." He declined to offer specifics about the information -- or the gaps in information. The top U.S. intelligence analyst, Thomas Fingar, said changes have been made in how analysis is done. "All of us have greater confidence in the judgments that we are making and bringing forward on Iran," Fingar said. He said the various intelligence agencies took to heart the various reports on the flawed intelligence leading up to Iraq. "We get it," Fingar said. "We realize we have got to rebuild confidence." 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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 [southnews] Iran's nuclear announcement has Israel worried Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:03:52 -0500 (CDT) Iran's announcement that it's managed to enrich uranium and it plans to press ahead with full-scale production of fuel for a civilian nuclear energy program has reverberated throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile a US State Department official said Iran may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. ______________________ AM - Iran's nuclear announcement has Israel worried Australian Broadcasting Corporation- Thursday, 13 April , 2006 00:16:00 Reporter: Matt Brown TONY EASTLEY: Iran's announcement that it's managed to enrich uranium and it plans to press ahead with full-scale production of fuel for a civilian nuclear energy program has reverberated throughout the Middle East. In Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, the government there has called for a united international front to increase diplomatic pressure on Iran. As Middle East Correspondent Matt Brown reports from Jerusalem, some strategists in the region believe a military solution may be the only answer. MATT BROWN: Israeli intelligence officials believe Iran may be trumpeting its technical triumph in a bid to present the world with a fait accompli to say that the debate about its enrichment program is dead because the scientists have already made it irrelevant. According to this theory, Iran's using this announcement to get the world to focus on merely limiting the level of enrichment to the purity required for civilian use: about one thirtieth of that required to make a bomb. That would move the debate on from the current attempt to stop enrichment altogether. It would leave Iran with a viable nuclear fuel cycle, a complex infrastructure and an increasing body of expertise that could still be harnessed to make nuclear weapons at some point in the future. The former head of research in Israeli military intelligence Yaacov Amidror says Iran's nuclear program must be seen as a global problem and the Iranians must not be let off the hook. YAACOV AMIDROR: It will bring more countries around the Middle East to be nuclear. Second, under the umbrella of nuclear Iran, organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah will be less careful. And the implication might be more threats and more attacks, and insurgents, like in Iraq, will feel more free to act under this umbrella. MATT BROWN: Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that possesses an undeclared nuclear weapons program. It bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981 and it's still intent on maintaining its strategic edge in the region. YAACOV AMIDROR: From the pure Israeli point of view it will be better if it would be done by the United Nations or by a coalition of states, and not by Israel. But if you ask if practically it can be done by Israelis, by Israel, the answer is yes. It will be very hard, almost at the end of our capabilities and energy, but it can be done. MATT BROWN: The Iranians still have a long road to tread. With each step towards full-scale industrial enrichment they cross another line in the sand. But it's still unclear what the consequences will be. This is Matt Brown in Jerusalem for AM. ) 2006 Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1615403.htm ___________________________________________________- Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2) April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month. The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported. ``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement. Weapons-Grade Uranium Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium. Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said. ``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said. While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program. Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year. China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said. To contact the reporter on this story: Sebastian Alison in Moscow at Salison1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: April 12, 2006 12:19 EDT http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 6 [southnews] Neocons turn up heat for Iran Attack Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:45:28 -0500 (CDT) In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published Wednesday and Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in what they declared was its quest for nuclear weapons and that the administration must now plan in earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear facilities, as well as possible military targets, to prevent it from retaliating. Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack by Jim Lobe (Inter Press Service) April 14, 2006 Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major right-wing publications are calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to urgently plan for military strikes and possibly a wider war against Iran in the wake of its announcement this week that it has successfully enriched uranium to a purity necessary to fuel nuclear reactors. In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published Wednesday and Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in what they declared was its quest for nuclear weapons and that the administration must now plan in earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear facilities, as well as possible military targets, to prevent it from retaliating. Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to Adolf Hitler's 1936 march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called for undertaking "serious preparation for possible military action including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes." "[A] great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities," according to Kristol, a leading neoconservative champion of the Iraq war and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, "even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped." National Review, another prominent right-wing weekly, echoed the call. "Any air campaign should be coupled with aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within," advised its lead editorial, entitled "Iran, Now," and almost certainly written by Michael Ledeen of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). "Accordingly, it should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison." The hawks' latest campaign appeared timed not only to exploit the alarm created by Iran's nuclear achievement and by a spate of reports last weekend regarding the advanced state of U.S. war plans, but also to counter new appeals by a number of prominent and more mainstream former policymakers for Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations. The Financial Times Wednesday published a column by Richard Haass, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations and a top adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell during Bush's first term, in which he called for Washington to make "a fair and generous diplomatic offer" to Iran that would permit it to retain a small uranium enrichment program, if for no other reason than to rally international opinion behind the U.S. in the event rejects it. Arguing that the "likely costs of carrying out such an attack substantially outweigh probable benefits," Haass noted that "the most dangerous delusion [among those who support military action] is that a conflict would be either small or quick." On Thursday, he was joined by Powell's deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, who, in an interview with the Financial Times, also called for direct talks. "It merits talking to the Iranians about the full range of our relationship everything from energy to terrorism to weapons to Iraq," said Armitage, who is considered a strong candidate to take over the Pentagon if Donald Rumsfeld resigns or is forced out. "We can be diplomatically astute enough to do it without giving anything away," he added, noting that Washington could be patient "for a while" given the estimated five to 10 years the U.S. intelligence community believes it will take before Tehran can obtain a nuclear weapon. Such statements are anathema to the hawks, who have long depicted any move to engage Iran as equivalent to the appeasement policies toward Hitler of France and Britain in the run-up to World War II. "Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936?" asked the title of Kristol's editorial, which, despite the reports of advanced Pentagon planning that included even the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against hardened Iranian targets, asserted that the administration's policy had been "all carrots and no sticks." His view echoed that of the neoconservative editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who said the administration's "alleged war fever is hard to credit, given that for three years the Bush Administration has deferred to Europe in pursuing a diplomatic track on Iran." The Journal said the government must give priority to developing "bunker buster" nuclear bombs. While Kristol insisted that the "credible threat of force" should initially be used in support of diplomacy with Washington's European allies, he also called for "stepping up intelligence activities, covert operations, special operations, and the like," as well as "operational planning for possible military strikes." What he had in mind was laid out in a companion article by ret. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a member of the ultra-hawkish Iran Policy Committee (IPC), entitled "Target: Iran." If Iran resists diplomatic pressure, according to McInerney, Washington should be prepared to carry out a "powerful air campaign" led by 60 stealth aircraft, and more than 400 non-stealth strike aircraft with roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft, 100 unmanned aerial vehicles, and 500 cruise missiles to take out some 1,500 nuclear-related and military targets. Before or during such an attack, he wrote, "a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy." The IPC has long advocated support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iraq-based paramilitary group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. In yet another op-ed published in Thursday's Washington Post, Mark Helprin, a novelist and Israeli military veteran, called for anticipating the possibility that U.S. forces in Iraq and its broader interests in the region could be imperiled by Iranian retaliation and popular outrage in the Arab Middle East. To prepare for such an eventuality, "we would do well to strengthen in numbers and mass as well as quality the means with which we fight, to reinforce the fleet train with which to supply fighting lines, and to plan for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates." Such concerns, counseled Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Gulf specialist at AEI, are overblown. In a lengthy analysis of the possible costs of a military attack that was also published in the Standard, he argued that Washington should "not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion." "What we are dealing with is a politer, more refined, more cautious, vastly more mendacious version of bin Ladenism," according to the article, entitled "To Bomb, or Not to Bomb: That Is the Iran Question." "It is best that such men not have nukes, and that we do everything in our power, including preventive military strikes, to stop this from happening." __________________________ Behind Bush's hard line on Iran By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Christian Science Monitor April 14, 2006 edition WASHINGTON Five years with President Bush show that his administration's boldest assertions are often, in fact, statements of serious intent - whether they're about "regime change" in Iraq or educational standards for children. Mr. Bush has laid down another such marker with his insistence that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear-weapons capability. Even if they are partly a flourish of verbal brinksmanship, his words help explain why the United States - more than other nations - perceives Tehran to be so dangerous that it is keeping the military option on the table. One reason is that Iran and America have been avowed enemies since the 1979 hostage crisis, with Iran's clerics calling for the annihilation of the US. Yet it also seems clear that this administration - galvanized by 9/11 - sees Iran's words, too, as more than rhetoric, and sees itself as the only nation willing and able to take action. "After 9/11, there was an awakening," says analyst Richard Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003. "The administration has to believe that it's possible to wait too long to deal with a problem, the contours of which could have been seen easily before. Is it safe to do that again?" Clearly, the administration is not alone in its concerns. The prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran are sobering, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is in Tehran this weekend for discussions about Iran's nuclear program. One of the clearest dangers comes from the instability of the region. As perhaps the most volatile area in the world, the Middle East could thus be the most susceptible to war, raising the possibility that Iran would actually use a bomb. Yet even if it were never used, an Iranian nuclear weapon could have a transformative effect. For one, Iran could become bolder in its terrorist activities, knowing that nations would be less likely to retaliate. Moreover, a nuclear Iran would recalibrate the balance of power in the region, perhaps pressing Saudi Arabia or Turkey toward the development of its own nuclear weapons. "What kind of arms races do we get into in the region?" asks Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "As you start to go down the list of uncertainties, it is a little difficult not to believe that the world wouldn't be far better off if Iran didn't proliferate." While the stability of the Middle East - with its enormous oil and gas reserves - is of vital interest to the Bush administration, the president's pronouncements point to another, perhaps deeper concern about Iran's potential behavior. The rule of the nuclear era has been deterrence: You won't attack me with nuclear arms because then I would attack you. The concern with Iran is twofold. One is that Iran could feed a nuclear device into a terrorist network, which would obscure the weapon's origin and make it impossible for the US to respond in kind. The other is that the strain of martyrdom in Shiite Islam - and the Iran regime's extremist ideology - could render deterrence meaningless. Experts debate these points fiercely. But Bush's statements suggest that he is inclined not to dismiss Iran's threatenings. Just as Al Qaeda threatened America from afar before 9/11, then acted, there is the worry that Iran could do the same. "Another lesson of September the 11th is that we must deal with threats before they come to hurt us," Bush said in a March 9 speech. "Whenever we see a threat, the United States of America must take them seriously. We cannot take threats for granted." The threat is greatest for Israel at the moment, and that, too, creates unique pressures for an administration that has firmly backed Israel. Analysts agree that, for now, the US is out of range of Iranian missiles. But that might not always be true, and Israel is well within range now. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that "we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism" - tightening the already strong bond between the US and Israel. "Israel is quite important to the US," says Richard Falkenrath, a former member of the Bush team who helped shape the administration's nuclear nonproliferation strategy. "Europe is not indifferent, but it's safe to say they care less." It is one way America's attitude toward Iran diverges from those in Europe. In some respects, that divergence is part of what appears to be the administration's broader worldview, which has placed little faith in traditional allies and international organizations. "There's the sense that the US has been willing to lead, but other nations have been unwilling to do their part," says Ted Galen Carpenter, a foreign-policy analyst for the Cato Institute in Washington. But the current crisis also highlights how history has colored America's attitudes toward Iran. "[Other countries] didn't have a hostage crisis. They didn't have a break in diplomatic relations like we did," says Mr. Falkenrath. "They have political ties and business ties that we lack." Yet Europe is much more closely aligned with the US on Iran than it ever was on Iraq, many experts also suggest. Part of the Bush administration's fervor is a simple matter of timing, they say. "Whatever the Bush administration has done, Iran has systematically escalated the issue," says Dr. Cordesman. "Until the [discoveries of an accelerated nuclear program] began in 2002, it was seen as a low-level threat." For the time being, he and others caution against overstating the immediacy of the threat, and the rhetorical vehemence of Bush's response. "It has been policy by statement," says Falkenrath. "There have been no [US] threats [to Iran]. No ultimatum. No timetable." At the very least, Iran is still a year or two away from being able to build a nuclear weapon, and most analysts say Iran might not reach the threshold until 2010 or later. Many things could happen in the meantime that could increase the pressure for a military attack or eliminate it completely. "What reaction [we take] will depend on how these things play out," says Mr. Perle. "We're not there yet." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0414/p01s01-usfp.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Iran issues stark military warning to United States Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:02:38 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP - Apr 14, 2006 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060414191647.gkbeufd2.html Iran issues stark military warning to United States TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States. "You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures. "The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran. The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin. "We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack." Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28. The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire. At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions. And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance." "She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action. "We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile. On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations." "There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear." Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China. Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis. In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel. "The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers. "Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust. "If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. "I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said. Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control. "The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said. There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel. "As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement. "Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added. * ================================================================ .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 [NYTr] Iran rebuffs ElBaradei, refuses to halt peaceful nuclear Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:03:48 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP - Apr 13, 2006 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060413181944.ecwr83zf.html Iran rebuffs UN atomic chief, refuses to halt nuclear drive TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's hardline regime dismissed appeals from UN's atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei to freeze its controversial nuclear program and calm suspicions it is seeking the bomb. Speaking after talks with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani brushed off the UN Security Council's demand for a halt in uranium enrichment by the end of the month as "not very important." "We are cooperating in a constructive manner... and Mr ElBaradei is here and the inspectors and cameras are here, so such a proposal is not very important to solve the problem," Larijani told reporters. Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed there was "no room for defeat and retreat." ElBaradei's 24-hour visit comes two days after Iran announced its scientists had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel. The Islamic republic insists its program is a peaceful bid to generate electricity, but the enrichment process can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead. ElBaradei said his inspectors had taken samples to verify Iran's claim of a breakthrough in enrichment, and added that talks focusing on the demand for a suspension would continue. "To build confidence we agreed that we will continue an intensive dialogue in the next few weeks with the aim of being able to move forward on this difficult and important issue," he said. He said the only other result of the talks was an Iranian promise to "accelerate its efforts to work with us in next couple of weeks to provide clarity to the issue that we need to clarify" -- the kind of assurance he has heard before. The IAEA chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council deadline. After three years of investigations, the IAEA says it is still not in a position to say if Iran's ambitions are peaceful. ElBaradei said "the picture is still hazy and not very clear." In further diplomatic efforts, China announced that its assistant foreign minister would travel to Iran and Russia to discuss Iran's announcement in a bid to calm the growing tensions. "We are concerned about the announcement and are also worried about the possible development of the situation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a regular press conference. Representatives of the five permanent members of the Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow next Tuesday to discuss the crisis, with long-running stand-off looking set to enter a period of far more robust diplomacy. The United States has been prodding the Security Council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, but it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said consultations on how to tackle the regime were ongoing, but sidestepped the question of what action could be taken. "I think the international community is united in our concern and determination to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapons capability or nuclear weapons, and we'll continue those consultations about what the next steps would be," he said. But oil-rich Iran has vowed it can weather any sanctions and face off an attack, and instead of slamming the brakes on enrichment has vowed to accelerate the process and reach an industrial-scale fuel production capacity. "The enemies think they can stop Iran's development with a psychological war, propaganda and political pressure. But they do not know the Iranian nation is standing solid like a mountain and there is no room for defeat and retreat," state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Today Iran is a nuclear country and enjoys the position of a powerful country." The breakthrough in making fuel was with 164 centrifuges at a pilot plant in Natanz, and a senior official said Iran wanted to install 3,000 centrifuges within the next year. Ahmadinejad also said Iran was working on advanced P2 centrifuges -- highly efficient devices that can enrich far more effectively than the P1 technology currently in use in Iran. "Our centrifuges are the P1 type, and the next step is the P2, which has a capacity four times greater and on which we are presently conducting research," the president was quoted as saying by IRNA. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 9 [NYTr] Iran: Synergies of the Neo-Cons Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:04:18 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit CounterPunch - April 13, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/matin04132006.html Synergism of the Neo-Cons What's Going on in Iran? By KAMRAN MATIN The implications of last year's victory of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian presidential elections have already reached beyond the Iranian political landscape. Externally the dispute between Iran and the US-EU on Iran's nuclear programme has sharply escalated. This escalation has in turn been both distorted and intensified by Ahamdinejad's recent comments on Israel and Holocaust which the west has spared no time to employ in its political and diplomatic pressure on Iran. The relative 'democratic' openness, which the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami had brought about, is progressively being shut off while the Iranian society is being more militarised. Violent suppression of the internal political and national minorities' opposition has intensified in recent months. In this regard the less reported development is the harsh treatment of the Iranian workers who in a large number of strikes and demonstrations have demanded the improvement of their work and life conditions. On the same day that a few hundreds basij militia threw stones at British and Danish embassies thousands of Tehran bus drivers were violently harassed and beaten; many more were arrested and many of the strike leaders are still in detention without being charged. In fact in order to break the strike the regime brought its militia from other towns to operate the busses hence effectively countering the impact of one of the greatest strikes in Tehran for years. All these developments are inter-connected and parts of a larger process in the Iranian politics and society over the last two decades or so. With the end of Iran-Iraq war and death of Khomeini the members of the Islamic-populist faction were rapidly purged from the state organs. This paved the way for Rafsanjani 'economic reforms' whose centrepiece was an unprecedented privatisation programme similar to Russia's shock-therapy of the early 1990s. These reforms entailed a drastic deterioration of life conditions for the large sections of the Iranian population which enjoyed some degree of state-protection under the war-time populist governments. This process in conjunction with the increasing corruption, cronyism and political repression paved the way for the political come back of the former Islamic-populists who in the interim had undergone an ideological metamorphosis in a liberal direction. However the victory of their candidate, Mohamad Khatami, in 1997 presidential elections was not so much the result of the people's identification with their slogan of founding an 'Islamic civil society' as to the deep and widespread discontent with 8 years of continuous pauperisation under Rafsanjani's government. Khatami's 1997 landslide victory on a reformist platform created a lot of hope among large sections of the Iranian society for major changes. However despite two terms of presidency the reformists failed to connect their essentially democratic agenda to the bread and butter issue which mattered most to the majority of the Iranian population. This failure was essentially rooted in the reformists' brand of liberalism. In fact on the economic issues the reformists differed little from Rafsanjani's pragmatic-technocratic approach: for both capital and property was sacred. But while the reformists saw the traditional unproductive bazaar's and merchant capital's domination of the Iranian economy as the major obstacle to their liberal policies and growth of industrial capital in Iran, Rafsanjani was more prudent in his dealing and relations with the bazaar which still has an enormous economic basis and considerable political power. In short the reformists saw democratic reforms, which given Iran's constitution could have not gone beyond a certain point, as a pre-condition for economic growth whose benefits then would, they expected, trickle down to the masses; a formula which we find in every liberal economy textbook. This of course was and is an illusion as the real events have demonstrated. Currently more than 30% of the Iranian people live under the poverty line, while a small class of super-rich have emerged which has manifold connections to the centres of power. But why and how did the reformists' 20 million-votes mandate disappear? The reason was that the reformists simply never tried or even contemplated the activation of this enormous popular mandate. They did not and could not encourage the people who voted them into the office to get directly involved in the political battles of the day. For this could easily get out of control and end up with a social upheaval which could have swept away them and their conservative rivals alike. The support of the reformists for the ruthless suppression of the student protests by the police and the law enforcement forces under the conservatives' control in June 1999 was a clear indication of the degree to which the reformists and Khatami administration were afraid of direct political action even if it was against their own rivals. In the event Khatami supported the law enforcement forces' handling of the disturbances and called the protesters as 'hoodlums'. Ahmadinejad's victory was, therefore, not so surprising after all. Khatami's liberal policies were generally relevant to and beneficial for the upper middle classes whose size had increased in tandem with Rafsanjani's privatisation programmes. And entangled in a political and definitional game with the conservatives over the nature of the Islamic republic, the meaning of republic, the source of legitimacy of rule etc. they were increasingly pushed away from the harsh realities of the life of overwhelming majority of the Iranian people. This was the context within which Ahmadinejad entered the race for the presidency on a platform of social justice, wealth redistribution and fight against the corruption and won. Now how does the nuclear issue relate to these developments? The less acknowledged fact is that there is currently an intense intra-regime struggle between Ahmadinejad's self-styled 'fundamentalist' faction and the conservative-pragmatic faction whose vast economic interests are being threatened by Ahmadinejad's apparently populist agenda. Sections of this traditional conservative faction are now in the process of forming an alliance with the reformists in order to curb the 'fundamentalist' encroachments. Last week there was a series of meetings between the representatives of the Islamic Iran's Participation Front (the largest reformist grouping in Iran) and a number of traditional conservative organisation and individuals including leading clerics in Qum and Tehran. However the populist veneer of Ahmadinejad's faction should not distract us from an important fact: Ahmadinejad represents a new young state-class, (many of its main figures and incumbent cabinet ministers have long military background and served in the Revolutionary Guards Corpses) which no longer is content with its political and economic subordination to the traditional bazaar-ulama alliance and the nouveau riche class produced by Rafsanjani's privatisation programme. In fact the escalation of tension with the west is in part also a means which Ahamdinejad and his faction are using in their internal power struggle with this politically entrenched alliance; a struggle in which they are greatly aided by the deployment of US forces along all of Iran's borders; given Iran's deeply rooted nationalism and a long history of western intervention in Iran, from Anglo-Russian strangling of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906-11 to Anglo-American coup of 1953 against Mohamamd Mossadeq to western support for Saddam Hussein's during Iraq-Iran war, augments the appeal of Ahmadinejad's tactful nationalist discourse. But this is only one side of the story. The other side is that without changing or at least co-opting the Iranian regime the American neo-cons' greater Middle East strategy will remain incomplete. Without a controlled integration of Iran into the western international circuit of capital Iran will remain a potential headache for the US and its allies. And the Iranian state-class is only too aware of this hence its attempts to solidify its position in any possible future bargaining for a settlement. Such attempts are not incompatible with acquiring nuclear capability. The possession of nuclear weapons by many countries in the region, including most importantly Israel, and the stark contrast between fates of Iraq and North Korea only reinforce Iran's justification for going a nuclear road. The importance of this process of controlled integration of Iran into western capital's circuit can be better appreciated within the context of the American neo-conservatives' geo-political projects to sharpen America's competitive edge vis-a-vis America's new 'strategic contender' China and to a lesser extent the EU. And on the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, nuclear capability can enable Iran to become a firmer ground for the growth of an 'Islamic', or at any rate un-liberal, socio-political alternative whose inevitable magnetism on the Muslim Middle East can be dangerously disturbing to international operation of capital and America's New World Order. No wonder that the west is so keen and hasty in bringing Ahmadinejad's Jacobinist revolution to its thermidor. But the interests of the Iranian people coincide neither with the Islamic Republic's regional adventures, nor with a possible US-led regime-change which will destroy the very infrastructure of the Iranian society; an eventuality of which Iraq is a vivid example. The Iranian people have to pursue their own independent struggle for freedom and social justice independently and in spite of the western imperialism's agenda for regime-change in Iran. [Kamran Matin is a doctoral candidate in politics and international relations at the University of Sussex. An earlier German version of this piece was published in the online journal of 'Friedenspolitischer Ratschlag'.] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran vows not to retreat on nuclear programme Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Friday April 14, 2006 The Guardian The head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohammed ElBaradei, was expected to fly home from Tehran today after failing in his mission concerning Iran's suspected weapons programme. Unless there is a dramatic turnaround by Iran in the next fortnight, Mr ElBaradei will deliver a negative report to the UN security council at the end of April. Mr ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, failed to secure any concessions from Iranian leaders, who told him they did not intend to halt Iran's uranium enrichment programme as demanded by the security council. The west claims Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment is intended to secure a nuclear weapons capability, a charge Iran denies. Article continues "We have not seen diversion of nuclear material for weapons purposes, but the picture is still hazy," Mr ElBaradei said. Iran reached a watershed when its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said on Tuesday the country had joined the "nuclear club" by achieving a uranium enrichment rate of 3.5%; this is a low-grade enrichment suitable for power stations but a much higher standard than previously attained. Mr Ahmadinejad refused a request to meet Mr ElBaradei, saying: "We will not hold talks with anyone about the Iranian nation's right [to enrichment]." He added: "Our situation has changed completely. We are a nuclear country and speak to others from [that] position." The Islamic Republic news agency said he was unconcerned about anger from the west. "We say 'be angry and die of this anger'," he said. Mr ElBaradei said his inspectors would report to the IAEA board. The security council may then face a dilemma over what action, if any, it can take against Iran. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said last night Washington "would look at the full range of options" available to the security council. She said there would "have to be some consequence" for Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment". Q 13.04.2006: Iran's nuclear programme [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 New York Times: U.N. Official Reaches No Clear Outcome in Iran Talks - By NAZILA FATHI and Published: April 13, 2006 TEHRAN, April 13 — Talks between the top nuclear official and Iranian leaders ended today with no clear outcome as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that would not retreat from what he said was its right to develop its nuclear program. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who said on Wednesday that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to a high level. Multimedia Graphic: A Long History of Uranium Enrichment The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, , arrived in Tehran this morning for the visit, which was aimed at persuading Iranian leaders to suspend their nuclear enrichment program. Mr. Ahmadinejad ruled out that demand on the eve of his arrival in a speech in the northeastern city of Mashad. "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase — we say: Be angry and die of this anger," Mr. Ahmadinejad said late on Wednesday, the official IRNA news agency reported. "Today, our situation has changed and we are a nuclear country and we are talking to others from that position," he said, adding that Iran would not retreat "one iota" from its intention to enrich uranium. Dr. ElBaradei said inspectors took samples to confirm that Iran had enriched uranium to a low level used to fuel nuclear power stations. The collection of samples is part of a routine verification process in nuclear inspection. With nationalistic fanfare, Mr. Ahmadinejad announced Tuesday that Iran had joined the group of nuclear nations after successfully enriching uranium to 3.5 percent at the laboratory level and said Tehran was determined to develop its nuclear program on an industrial scale. "I cannot confirm that," Dr. ElBaradei said, when asked about the enrichment. "Our inspectors have taken samples," he said in remarks that were reported by news agencies after he held talks with Iranian officials. "They will report to the board." Iran tried to use the announcement to political advantage and position itself as having accomplished a step in its nuclear program that was unstoppable, despite Western pressure to suspend it. Upon his arrival, Dr. ElBaradei told reporters that he hoped he could "convince Iran to take confidence-building measures including suspension of uranium enrichment activities until outstanding issues are clarified." "I would like to see Iran has come to terms with the request of the international community," he said, adding that he still remained "hopeful the time is right for political solutions, through negotiations." Dr. ElBaradei held talks today with Ali Larijani, the chief nuclear negotiator. An I.A.E.A, spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming, told CNN in an interview broadcast from Tehran that no commitments to suspend enrichment were made by Iran "at this point." Mr. Larijani said Iran would announce its position in two weeks, IRNA quoted him as saying. "Any measure by the nuclear agency or the Security Council should be within a logical framework so that it can offer a solution," he said without elaborating. Mr. ElBaradei also met with the head of Iran's Atomic Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh. Inspectors from the nuclear agency were in Tehran last week and they visited Natanz facility on Sunday, the same day Iran's scientists were said to have enriched uranium to 3.5 percent. Iran's announcement brought criticism from several Western nations and to a lesser degree from Russia and China. Secretary of State has called for "strong steps" against Iran and for the United Nations Security Council to take action when it convenes again on the issue. The White House has asserted that Iran is secretly trying to develop fuel for nuclear weapons and said after Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks on Tuesday that Iran was "moving in the wrong direction." Iran argues that it has the right to pursue a nuclear program that it says is for industrial purposes. The deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization, Muhammad Saeedi, said Wednesday that Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel by said pushing to put 54,000 centrifuges on line — a vast increase from the 164 the Iranians said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent. Today, the head of Russia's nuclear agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, flatly declared that Mr. Saeedi's plans for a quick increase in production was not realistic. "Industrial uranium enrichment is out of the question," given the state of Iran's program, he told Russia's state news agency. During his speech on Wednesday, Mr. Ahmadinejad said Iran was working on advanced P2 centrifuges, highly efficient devices that can enrich far more effectively than the P1 technology currently in use in Iran. "Our centrifuges are the P1 type, and the next step is the P2, which has a capacity four times greater and on which we are presently conducting research," he was quoted as saying by the Iranian student news agency ISNA. Western nuclear analysts said Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has estimated that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon in 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020. China announced today that it would send a high-level envoy to Tehran and Moscow for talks on the issue, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. "China is concerned about the statement by the Iranian side and is worried about the way in which things are developing," said Liu Jianchao, a Foreign Ministry spokesman. Dr. ElBaradei is required to report back to Security Council members by April 28 on whether Iran has agreed to the demand late last month that it shut down its nuclear facilities within 30 days. Today, the American ambassador to the United Nations, , said Washington was waiting for the outcome of the talks between Dr. ElBaradei and the Iranian government. "When we get information on that we will consider what to do next," he said. Mr. Ahmadinejad, during his speech on Wednesday, also pointed to differences inside the country over Iran's nuclear program and vowed not to allow those concerns influence his decision-making. "There are some coward elements who are trying to create differences among people," he said, ISNA quoted him as saying. "They get together, talk and create propaganda and psychological war," Mr. Ahmadinejad said. "But we laugh at them. They call us and say that crisis is on the way, but we believe that the enemy has a crisis and we have no crisis in our country. Our people are brave." Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran for this article, and Christine Hauser from New York. John O'Neil contributed reporting from New York.. Inside NYTimes.com ***************************************************************** 12 New York Times: Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away - Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press The head of the Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, center, in Tehran with Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, right, Iran's envoy to the agency, and Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of its atomic energy program. By WILLIAM J. BROAD, NAZILA FATHI and JOEL BRINKLEY Published: April 13, 2006 Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel. Multimedia Graphic: A Long History of Uranium Enrichment Islamic Republic News Agency, via Reuters President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who said on Wednesday that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to a high level. The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line — a vast increase from the 164 the Iranians said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor. Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020. Iran's announcement brought criticism from several Western nations and to a lesser degree from Russia and China. Secretary of State called for "strong steps" against Iran, using the country's clear statement of defiance to persuade reluctant countries like Russia and China to support tough international penalties. But Russian officials said they had not changed their opposition to such penalties. Nuclear analysts said Iran's boast that it had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges meant that it had now moved one small but significant step beyond what it had been ready to do nearly three years ago, when it agreed to suspend enrichment while negotiating the fate of its nuclear program. "They're hyping it," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, a private group that monitors the Iranian nuclear program. Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington called the new Iranian claims "little more than vacuous political posturing" meant to promote Iranian nationalism and a global sense of atomic inevitability. The nuclear experts said Iran's claim yesterday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs. It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison. Yesterday, Mr. Saeedi, the Iranian nuclear official, said Iran was moving rapidly toward its atomic goals. "We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA student news agency in a reference to Iran's main enrichment facility. Mr. Saeedi said Iran would start operating the first of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, with further expansion to 54,000 centrifuges. "We have no problem in doing that," he told ISNA. "We just need to increase our production lines." The news from Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, has made oil markets very nervous in recent days and contributed to a spike in oil prices to nearly $70 a barrel on Tuesday. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at $68.62 a barrel yesterday, just $2 short of their record after Hurricane Katrina. Since the beginning of the year, the diplomatic crisis has prompted fears that Iran might be tempted to restrict its oil sales, provoking a price jump that would cause economic havoc around the world. Iranian officials have repeatedly said they might use their country's "oil weapon" in a confrontation with the West. But, as is often the case in Iranian politics, such statements were just as rapidly offset by more reassuring comments from the Oil Ministry that Iran would not use its oil exports as a bargaining chip with the West. More realistically, many traders fear that any international penalties against Iran might hurt Iran's oil industry, slow investments, or remove sorely needed barrels from oil-hungry markets. The Russian stance against penalties highlighted the obstacles Washington faces in its effort to force a halt to Iran's nuclear program. A senior aide to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that any effort to employ broad penalties against Tehran would backfire because "Iran's current president will use them for his benefit, and he will use them to consolidate public opinion around him." The United States is urging members of the United Nations Security Council to approve travel and financial restrictions on Iran's leaders, and administration officials view Russia, which has close trade ties to Iran, as the linchpin of those efforts. Ms. Rice said yesterday that the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Iran to change course. "The Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said about Tuesday's announcement. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community." In Iran on Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in an elaborate ceremony that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent - a level of purity that, if enough could be made, might fuel a nuclear reactor. While Iran hailed the step as a first, the nuclear experts said Tehran had in fact been doing periodic enrichment experiments with centrifuges for seven years, since 1999. Amid the tensions, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran yesterday for talks with Iranian nuclear officials. Despite the provocative nature of Iran's statements, he still held out hope that the government could be persuaded to compromise. "We hope to convince Iran to take confidence-building measures including suspension of uranium enrichment activities until outstanding issues are clarified," Dr. ElBaradei told journalists at the Tehran airport, Reuters reported. Iran's state-run television was dominated by programs about the atomic claim in what seemed like an organized effort to mobilize public support for the nuclear program. One channel showed a reporter stopping people on the street to ask if they had bought pastry to celebrate the news. Another showed nuclear sites and uranium mines. Television news said schools celebrated the success and rebroadcast the announcement of Iran's president hailing the enrichment step. While Iran has sharply raised its atomic claims in the past two days, nuclear analysts said it appeared to be roughly where it was expected to be on the road to learning how to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, and still had years of work ahead of it to attain its ambitious goals. Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said he was not surprised that the Iranians had got a group of 164 centrifuges up and running and had begun to introduce uranium gas into them for enrichment. "There's still a lot they have to do," he said, to perfect the operation of the cascade of centrifuges. A report that he and his colleagues made public late last month suggested that Iran would need 6 to 12 months to master that process, and Mr. Albright said in an interview that he stood by that rough estimate as accurate. His March report said Iran had parts for perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 centrifuges beyond the ones already in operation, and that Iran is not likely to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon until 2009 at the earliest. Several Western nations criticized Iran's recent announcements as needlessly provocative. Foreign Minister Jack Straw of Britain said they were "deeply unhelpful," and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction." Russia and China joined the chorus, but their criticisms were qualified. "For China, we are concerned about the events and the way things are developing," said Wang Guamgya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. But he added, "In spite of this, I believe diplomatic efforts are still under way." In Moscow, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Iran's push to expand uranium enrichment "a step in the wrong direction." But Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov later tempered that. He inveighed against any possible military action against Iran and advised against a rush to judgment, saying Iran had "never stated that it is striving to possess nuclear weapons." Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York for this article. ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: China says dialogue is key on Iran and North Korea Fri 14 Apr 2006 12:49 AM ET BEIJING, April 14 (Reuters) - China insisted on Friday that dialogue was the key to resolving the West's nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, two countries Washington has branded part of an "axis of evil". Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, briefing reporters on President Hu Jintao's visit to the United States next week, was asked whether Iran and North Korea would be raised. Yang said all international issues of common concern would be discussed. "We hope all parties will adopt a cool-headed approach," he told a news conference when asked about Iran. "Dialogue is better than confrontation. We should work together toward this end." Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday Iran had told him it would step up efforts to answer questions on its nuclear plans. Tehran meanwhile rejected calls to halt work the West says is designed to make weapons. ElBaradei is due to report to the U.N. Security Council at the end of April. North Korea said on Thursday it might boost its nuclear deterrent if China-hosted six-country talks on ending its atomic programmes remained deadlocked, but said it would return to the table if Washington met a demand to unfreeze its assets. "We hope the various parties will adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach and work towards resuming the talks," Yang, a former ambassador to Washington, told the news conference. "Realisation of the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula conforms to the interests of all parties." © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: President cautions big powers 2006/04/14 Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, April 14 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday cautioned certain big powers against their tyrannical behaviors and approaches. "Today, nations are suffering from the idolatry and the Pharaonic- and Chengiz-like acts and behaviors of certain big powers," said Ahmadinejad in an address to a group of people in provincial city of Bordeskan. He called on world nations to resist the said powers and discipline them. The president said the only way for nations to save themselves from the big powers is to follow the ethics of prophets. He also cautioned the big powers against doing any injustice against other nations. "Today, the root-cause of mankind's problems does not lie in having money or mines, rather in tyranny, aggression and injustice done by the said big powers against other nations." Based on the latest reports, the president wound up his tour of Mashhad and arrived in provincial city of Sabzevar. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: US mulls UN sanction options against Iran Fri Apr 14, 4:30 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is mulling various UN sanctions against Iran " /> Iranfor its controversial nuclear program, including assets freezes and travel restrictions on its leaders, US officials said. The State Department said a meeting of major world powers next week in Moscow would discuss possible punitive measures against Iran if it does not scrap its suspected effort to build a nuclear bomb. Nicholas Burns, the department's number three official, will try to nail down a consensus in talks Tuesday with counterparts from European allies, Canada, Russia, China and Japan, spokesman Sean McCormack said. "These meetings are intended to start to tee up decisions ... about diplomatic next steps, real actions that the Security Council and that the UN can take to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime." he said. The United States has signaled its intention to seek a tough resolution against Iran under chapter seven of the UN charter, which allows for sanctions and even the use of force as a last resort. McCormack said there were several options available to punish Iran if it did not heed a UN Security Council injunction to halt sensitive uranium-enrichment activities by April 28. "Those would include asset freezes ... (and) would potentially include restrictions on the ability of some members of that regime to travel," he told reporters at the department's daily briefing. On a bilateral level, officials said the United States could move to restrict the remaining few business links with businesses in Iran, including imports of carpets and pistachio nuts. But a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named, put a damper on the possibility of seeking UN sanctions against Iran's critical oil and gas sectors. "One of the things we don't want to do is do things that increase the hardship of the Iranian people," the official said. "You want to put the pressure on the regime." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " /> Condoleezza Ricehas called on the Security Council to take "strong steps" in dealing with Iran, but McCormack's remarks constituted the first specific list of options that Washington was considering. Still, any move to impose UN sanctions would have to overcome staunch opposition from Iran's allies, Russia and China, which both wield a veto on the 15-member Security Council. Burns will leave Monday night for Moscow with the dispute over Iran's nuclear intentions nearing a showdown after Tehran's announcement this week that it had achieved low levels of uranium enrichment. The US undersecretary of state for political affairs will confer with his opposite numbers from the Group of Eight industrial powers: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia. McCormack also confirmed Burns would take part in a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France -- plus Germany. The International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), the UN watchdog, is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear program on April 28. McCormack said the Security Council would meet shortly thereafter to consider a response. The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies. Tehran, which says its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, has remained defiant and bellicose towards the United States and Israel " /> Israel. Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated Friday his doubts the Holocaust ever happened. McCormack dismissed his comments as "more reprehensible rhetoric" that "has only added to the fears and concerns of the international community as it relates to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Iran in 'position of power' in nuclear dispute - president - Friday April 14, 09:04 PM TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian leaders brushed off the threat of sanctions or military attack over their controversial nuclear drive, insisting the West was powerless to halt the Islamic republic. The tough rhetoric came after the regime dismissed appeals from UN's atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei to freeze its uranium enrichment programme and calm suspicions it is seeking the bomb. "Today, thank God, the Iranian nation is a powerful one and we are going to have a dialogue with the world from a position of power," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northeast of the country. "Everything we have is from God, and a few weaklings cannot stand against the Iranian people," he said. ElBaradei's trip to Tehran on Thursday came in the wake of Iran's announcement that its scientists had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the work to be halted by April 28. Iran says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead. ElBaradei said talks on the demand would continue, although Iran was showing no sign of any readiness to compromise. Top regime cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in a Friday prayer sermon that the United States was a "decaying power" and pointed out that Iran was "not Iraq or Afghanistan." "The enemy should know Iran is not comparable to any country in the world. Now we are much more powerful than before," said the head of Iran's Guardian Council, a powerful political watchdog. "Don't be intimidated by their threats. They don't have the stamina to do anything," Jannati said. The IAEA chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council deadline. After three years of investigations, the IAEA says it is still not in a position to say if Iran's ambitions are peaceful. ElBaradei said Thursday "the picture is still hazy and not very clear". In Washington, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for UN Security Council action and highlighted part of the UN charter that allows sanctions to escalate into military action. "There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said. "When the Security Council reconvenes, there will have to be some consequence for that action." She suggested chapter seven of the UN Charter which sets out specific action that can be taken when there is a threat to international peace or an act of aggression. "One thing the Security Council has, and the IAEA does not have, is the ability to compel, through chapter seven resolutions, member states of the UN to obey the will of the international system," Rice said. "And I'm certain that we'll look at measures that could be taken to ensure that Iran knows that they really have no choice but to comply." The US chief diplomat did not specifically call for any particular measure. US leaders this week said that reports of planned military action against Iraq were "wild speculation". But chapter seven allows for a gradual increase of international pressure, up to military action. Several resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council against Iraq, before the US-led invasion of March 2003, were taken under chapter seven. Article 41 of the chapter allows for sanctions, including economic and transport measures or the severance of diplomatic relations, and Article 42 states that if those measures fail, the UN Security Council "may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security". "There is no doubt that Iran has continued salami-slicing tactics -- a little bit here, and then a little bit more, and then a little bit more -- despite the fact that the international community has said very clearly, 'Stop'," said Rice. Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow next Tuesday to discuss the crisis. Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: Syrian PM: Iran's nuclear achievement to benefit world of Islam Damascus, April 13, IRNA Iran-Syria-nuclear Syrian Prime Minister Muhammed Naji al-Otari in a meeting with Iran's Expediency Council (EC) Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Thursday said that Iran's nuclear achievements can benefit the world of Islam. Al-Otari thanked the Iranian delegation for the visit and expressed contented with Iran's mastering uranium enrichment technology on laboratory scale. He said there are divergent fields of cooperation between the two states including culture, pilgrimage, tourism, transport, transfer of technology and exchange of information. The Syrian prime minister added that Iran-Syria joint commission is active and expressed hope mutual ties will further promote within the framework of the commission. Turning to escalation of US psychological war against the free and independent states, Al-Otari said, "Iran and Syria face common challenges and they can overcome the psychological warfare launched by the West through further exchange of views and cooperation." For his part, Rafsanjani stressed regional cooperation among Islamic countries. He said by tripartite cooperation, Iran, Syria and Iraq can take effective steps to tackle the problems facing Iraq and at the same time promote mutual relations with each other. Rafsanjani expressed hope that such a cooperation would be materialized in the near future. The EC chairman pointed to the numerous pilgrimage attractions of Bab al-Saghir area near Damascus and said that the Iranian Shia Muslims are prepared to turn the area into a big religious-tourist center and prepare the grounds for attraction of pilgrims from Islamic states. During the meeting, the Iranian co-chairman of the joint economic commission, Mohammad-Ali Saeedi-Kia, presented a report on the progress made on mutually reached agreements, including the project on production of the Iranian vehicle, Samand. ***************************************************************** 18 IRNA: Larijani urges IAEA, UNSC to take logical actions - , April 14, IRNA -- Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani here on Thursday called on the UN nuclear watchdog and the UN Security Council to take logical actions with regards to Iran's nuclear case. "Any action taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency or the UN Security Council should fall within a logical framework so that a a suitable solution (to Iran's nuclear case) could be found," said Larijani in a short interview with reporters after meeting with the IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. Larijani said Tehran has thus far had constructive cooperation with the IAEA and the Agency inspectors have inspected all sites they wished to without any problem. He said settlement of the issue and presentation of a solution by the IAEA and other professional institutions should follow a logical and correct course so that a suitable solution could be reached. Asked on the nature of his talks with the IAEA chief on Thursday, Larijani said the cooperation and investigation process were among the points discussed by the two sides. He said, "Iran has thus far acted transparently; we will continue our cooperation with the Agency too and are ready to discuss and solve the remaining issues as favored by the Agency." Asked whether suspension of Iran's nuclear activities was raised in talks with ElBaradei as the main precondition for continuation of negotiations, Larijani said, "Any action should be logical; at a time when we have constructive cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's cameras are constantly monitoring our nuclear centers, such proposals cannot be important for settlement of the case." To a question on the IAEA chief's stance against Iran's nuclear activities, Larijani said, "ElBaradei cannot raise his personal view; the Agency envoys are busy taking samples and investigating our activities to present their views." He went on to say that ElBaradei had said he would try to have Iran's considerations taken into view. "The final winner (in the nuclear case) is the Iranian nation," said Larijani when asked to say who will be the eventual winner in the nuclear case. ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Russia to Host New Round of Iran Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Friday April 14, 2006 9:46 PM AP Photo VAH107 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will host a new round of talks among leading world powers next week in a bid to head off a confrontation between Iran and the U.N. Security Council, Moscow said Friday. The talks among Russia, the United States, the European Union and China will be held in Moscow on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov said. China urged other governments to remain calm during the standoff over Iran's progress toward what the Islamic theocracy says will be peaceful energy generation and other countries suspect is a covert weapons program. ``We hope all parties will adopt a cool-headed approach,'' Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said at a news conference Friday. ``Dialogue is better than confrontation. We should work together toward this end.'' Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai was scheduled to arrive in Iran on Friday. He then is slated to head to Russia, The United States and Britain say that if Iran does not comply with the Security Council's demand to stop uranium enrichment - which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a bomb - by April 28, they will seek a resolution that would make the demand compulsory. Russia and China, which have strong economic ties with Iran, have opposed the U.S. push for international sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program. Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Iran's southern port of Bushehr and has sold weapons to Tehran. Sergei Mironov, the Kremlin-allied speaker of the Russian parliament's upper house, warned that sanctions against Iran would be ``premature and won't yield positive results,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. Russia's chief nuclear official, meanwhile, voiced hope for a diplomatic solution to the standoff despite Tehran's vow to press ahead with uranium enrichment. Sergei Kiriyenko said that ``there is still a chance for a diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear program.'' Iran says its uranium enrichment is for power-generating purposes, but the United States and others accuse it of covertly pursuing a nuclear weapons bid. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran will not retreat ``one iota'' on its uranium enrichment. Separately, Ahmadinejad Friday called Israel a ``rotten, dried tree'' that will be annihilated by ``one storm.'' ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,'' Ahmadinejad told a conference on Palestinian issues that opened in Tehran on Friday. Kiriyenko said a Russian proposal to host the Iranian uranium enrichment program in an attempt to ensure fissile material is not diverted for weapons remains on the table. Russia said the offer was contingent on Iran freezing its domestic enrichment effort. The Iranians have rejected the link and talks have brought no visible progress. Kiriyenko said that Iran's uranium enrichment capability is still on an experimental scale and is far from what is needed to build nuclear weapons. ``So far, Iran has enriched uranium in a laboratory using 164 centrifuges. This is a far cry from a bomb,'' Kiriyenko said, according to ITAR-Tass. In a speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr reiterated Tehran's position that it was not seeking nuclear weapons. ``Nuclear weapons are ineffective, and Iran is not going to make them,'' Mohammadi said, according to ITAR-Tass. Mohammadi said that Tehran wants to strike an oil and gas alliance with Russia and also is mulling the construction of natural gas pipelines to China and India via Pakistan, ITAR-Tass said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Vows to Strengthen Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Friday April 14, 2006 6:46 PM By JAE-SOON CHANG Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's No. 2 leader vowed Friday to strengthen the country's ``military deterrent force'' in response to an American policy it considers hostile, the nation's official news agency said. North Korea usually refers to its purported nuclear weapons as ``deterrent force.'' North Korean officials often use harsh rhetoric to strengthen their position in international nuclear negotiations. ``The present situation of the Korean Peninsula has been driven to extremes by the U.S. vicious hostile policy'' toward North Korea, said Kim Yong Nam, the North's ceremonial head of state, considered second in line to leader Kim Jong Il. ``It is (North Korea's) right for self-defense to strengthen its military deterrent ... to cope with the grave situation,'' he told a national meeting marking the birthday of late national founder Kim Il Sung, according to the official Korean Central News Agency. The comments came after an informal gathering in Tokyo this week of six countries involved in talks to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program. The gathering failed to produce a breakthrough in the stalled negotiations. The communist state is angry because it had hoped to win a concession from the U.S. this week, but the main U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, wouldn't meet with his North Korean counterpart, saying any meeting should take place at the six-party talks. Before leaving Tokyo on Thursday, the North's nuclear envoy, Kim Kye Gwan, made a similar threat, saying the country would use a delay in the nuclear talks to bolster its military ``deterrent force.'' ``It's not bad that the resumption of nuclear talks is delayed. During that period, we will make more deterrent force,'' he told a news conference. North Korea has said it has atomic weapons, although the claim has not been verified independently. Pyongyang says it won't return to the negotiating table unless the U.S. lifts financial restrictions imposed for the North's alleged currency counterfeiting and other wrongdoing. Washington says the sanctions are a law enforcement matter unrelated to the nuclear talks and will stay in place. North Korea claims the sanctions are a product of what it calls Washington's ``hostile policy'' aimed at overthrowing the communist regime. ``The U.S. is running reckless to bring down the DPRK at any cost, by all means and methods including military attack, economic blockade and undermining from within,'' Kim Kye Gwan told the meeting, using the acronym for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. ``If the U.S. stupidly takes the road of a war against'' the North, Kim Kye Gwan said the country's ``army and people will mercilessly wipe out the aggressors.'' North Korea agreed in September to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security assurances. But negotiations to implement that agreement didn't move forward as Pyongyang disputed the U.S. financial restrictions. The talks, which involves China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the U.S., were last held in November. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 [NYTr] NS Archive - US Intel and the Indian Bomb Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit National Security Archive Update, April 13, 2006 http://www.nsarchive.org U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND THE INDIAN BOMB Documents Show U.S. Intelligence Failed to Warn of India's Nuclear Tests Despite Tracking Nuclear Weapons Potential Since 1950s For more information: Jeffrey Richelson - 202/994-7000 Washington, D.C., 13 April 2006 - Long before India detonated a nuclear device in May 1974, the U.S. Intelligence Community was monitoring and analyzing Indian civilian and military nuclear energy activities, according to documents released today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Those activities are at the core of the current controversy over the Bush administration's proposed legislation that would alter U.S. nonproliferation and export control laws and policies so as to allow full nuclear cooperation with India. Today's posting consists of forty documents - whose original classifications range from unclassified to Top Secret Codeword - produced by interagency groups, the CIA, the State and Defense Departments, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The documents cover a forty-year time span, from 1958 to 1998. The records were obtained by Archive Senior Fellow Jeffrey T. Richelson while conducting research for his recently published book, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea (W.W. Norton). The documents show that as early as 1958 the CIA was exploring the possibility that India might choose to develop nuclear weapons. The reports focus on a wide range of nuclear related matters - nuclear policy (including policy concerning weapons development), reactor construction and operations, foreign assistance, the tests themselves, and the domestic and international impact of the tests. Documents from 1974-1975 and 1998 provide assessments of the reason why the U.S. Intelligence Community failed to provide warning of the 1974 and 1998 tests - assessments which are strikingly similar. They also include recommendations to address the deficiencies in performance that the assessments identified. http://www.nsarchive.org THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 22 RIA Novosti: When will the U.S. lift restrictions on Russian uranium exports? Opinion &analysis - 14/ 04/ 2006 MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) Late last week Moscow hosted the fourth national energy forum on "Russia's Fuel and Energy Sector in the 21st Century." The forum organizers and guests agreed that nuclear industry had entered a period of renaissance, which is logical in view of the common intention to reduce the share of hydrocarbons in the global energy balance. However, participants in the roundtable that was held after the forum also pointed to certain "atavisms" in the development of the nuclear industry that do not fit the logic of constructive and equitable energy relations between Russia and the United States. Why the two countries? Russia is the world's main provider of enriched uranium, and is likely to keep this position in the future, while the U.S. stubbornly upholds anti-dumping restrictions on the export of Russian uranium to the American market. Delegates from private U.S. consumers of uranium, who attended the roundtable, clearly spoke for reviewing the policy of the US Department of Commerce regarding Russian suppliers. Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation is for opening markets to various components of the nuclear fuel cycle and to uranium enrichment and conversion services, said the company's Vice President James A. Tramuto. This will allow diversifying the portfolio of suppliers by stipulating work with existing and future nuclear power plans, and in this way ensure the growth of supplies. There are no reasons to keep the restrictions because the situation has changes since their introduction, said James Malone, Vice President of Nuclear Fuels, Exelon, the largest nuclear operator in the US. Jeff Combs, President of the UX Consulting Company, said retaining the restrictions would slow down the development of the nuclear industry. Uranium prices have doubled in the last two years. The world needs Russian uranium, and Russia should keep its leading place on the global uranium market, especially because American companies have 103 nuclear power units and only one fuel supplier in the U.S. This is clearly not enough to ensure the nuclear safety of the country now, let alone in the future when the U.S. will start building 13 new nuclear blocks. As representatives of private companies, we are well aware of this, but the Department of Energy does not want to see the problem, the American guests of the Russian energy forum said. According to Russia's Techsnabexport (Tenex), one of the world's largest producers and exporters of nuclear materials, services and equipment with the annual turnover of $2 billion, Russia has 50% of the world's uranium enrichment facilities. Russian enrichment technologies are the most efficient and profitable in the world. If Russia is given equal conditions with other countries on the global market of the nuclear fuel cycle, it will satisfy 25-30% of the world's demand, said Tenex head Vladimir Smirnov. The anti-dumping restriction on Russia's uranium exports were imposed during the Soviet era, when the Soviet Ministry of Nuclear Energy delivered a huge amount of natural uranium on the world markets, including the United States, sending prices crashing. The anti-dumping procedure was complemented with restrictions on the Russian ministry. As a result, Russia now may operate on the U.S. market only through a special agent, who is actually its rival. But the most paradoxical thing is that the world's most liberal American economy, of which Washington is rightly proud, is doing its best to save the unprofitable domestic producer. In fact, the U.S. uranium producers, who are using the technologies of the dawn of the nuclear era, survive only thanks to the Russian nuclear industry. Russian nuclear technologies have surged far ahead, and uranium export restrictions are doing colossal damage to the Russian enrichment and nuclear generation sectors. Low enriched uranium is not the natural uranium against which the restrictions were designed, but fuel for nuclear power plants (NPP). Russian producers and American consumers cannot understand why enriched uranium, which is a high-tech service, should suffer from the restrictions. But this is not all. The anti-dumping procedure that is being used in the United States and several European countries does not spread to the 1993 HEU-LEU (highly enriched uranium - low enriched uranium) agreement signed for 20 years. Under it, Russia removes 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from its scrapped warheads, converts it into low enriched uranium and delivers it to the Untied States as fuel for American NPPs. The restrictions were suspended for the duration of the investigation, but the U.S. has set a quota stipulating a restrictive 116% duty on uranium exports made in excess of the quota. Russia has exhausted its quota in 2002. It can continue working despite the high duty, said Smirnov, but Tenex would appeal the size of the duty in case of the lifting of the anti-dumping measures. It will rely on the precedent of French company Areva, for which the duty was cut to near zero. The next hearing on the anti-dumping measures is set for May 23 in Washington. Russia will demand the lifting of the discriminating restrictions on Russian deliveries of nuclear materials to the Untied States and Europe. The Economics Ministry and the Federal Atomic Energy Agency of Russia have sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce requesting that the anti-dumping measures regarding Russian suppliers of nuclear materials and services should be lifted and that they should be ensured free access to the American market. The stand taken by the U.S. energy companies promises a positive solution, especially because the implementation of the ambitious nuclear program recently announced by the U.S. administration would be impossible without the liberalization of the American market of nuclear fuel and stable deliveries of Russian uranium. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 23 UPI: U.S. Senator sees August N-deal passage United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 4/14/2006 7:06:00 AM -0400 NEW DELHI, April 14 (UPI) -- U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has said the Senate is likely to act on the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal before August. The Indian Express newspaper said Friday India would have liked the matter to be taken up before August. The Nuclear Suppliers Group plenary is due in late May or early June when it will deliberate over exceptions on nuclear fuel supply. As the debate on the deal continues India, has geared up its diplomatic efforts to lobby support on both sides of the political divide. Alexander, who is a co-sponsor of the nuclear cooperation deal amendment and a member of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that India could help its cause by beginning safeguard negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. "If India can negotiate safeguards with IAEA before the Senate acts on the agreement, it will help," he said. India has already begun informal talks with the IAEA on the voluntary safeguards agreement. Indian Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar was in Vienna last week holding preliminary talks on the issue with IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 [NYTr] Original Sin, Nuclear Style Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:04:32 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Guardian - 14 April 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1752434,00.html Original sin, nuclear style By David Hirst 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, immediate reason why: that there is already 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 the 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 US divides actual or potential nuclear powers into responsible and irresponsible ones. Iran would be irresponsible, being already the worst of "rogue states". Typically, a "rogue state", as well as being 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 its new president, with his calls to "wipe Israel off the map"? Yet, in nuclear terms in the Middle East, Israel is the original sinner. Non- proliferation must be universal: if, in any zone of potential conflict, one party goes nuclear, its adversaries can't be expected not to. No matter how long ago it was, by violating that principle Israel would always bear a responsibility for whatever happened later. Second, its deceit was no less than Iran's, though, there being no non-proliferation treaty at the time, it was only the US it deceived. Mindful of what Israel's mendacity portended, the CIA warned in 1963 that, by enhancing its sense of security, nuclear capacity would make Israel less, not more, conciliatory to the Arabs it would exploit its new "psychological advantages" to "intimidate" them. Which, thirdly, points to the irresponsible use Israel has indeed made of it. Sure, it always justified it as its "Samson option", its last recourse against neighbours 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 US 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 the full emancipation of an indigenous people that has been the norm in European decolonisation only a compromise vastly more onerous for the defeated Palestinians than the Israelis. But settlement never comes, because Israel resists even that compromise. Its nuclear power, on top of its already overwhelming conventional superiority, ensures that. Such irresponsible use of it is what Shimon Peres 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 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 US will take on the job itself. In effect, Israel's nuclear arsenal, or the protection of it, has become a diplomatic instrument against its benefactor. It is a legacy of America's own " original sin ", that first, reluctant acquiescence in a nuclear Israel, subsequently turned into uninhibited endorsement of it by seemingly ever more pro-Israeli administrations. So here is a superpower, wrote the US strategic analyst Mark Gaffney, so "blind and stupid" as to let "another state, ie Israel, control its foreign policy". And, in a brilliant study, he warned that a US assault on Iran could end in a catastrophe comparable to the massacre of Roman legions at Cannae by Hannibal's much inferior army. For in one field of military technology, anti-ship missiles, Russia is streets ahead of the US. And Iran's possession of the fearsome 3M-82 Moskit could turn the Persian Gulf into a death trap for the US fleet. And sure enough, from the Bush administration itself, the first hints have been coming that, given the regional havoc Iran could indeed wreak, there may be nothing the US can do to stop it going nuclear. This points to a second way the crisis could go - with Israel obliged to renounce its monopoly and the Middle East entering a cold-war-style "balance of terror". It could be a stable one. Clearly, like Israel, the mullahs would make irresponsible, political use of their nukes. But, like Israel's, Iran's nuclear quest is essentially defensive, even if not in quite the same fundamentally "existential" sense. Nothing could have more convinced it of the need for an unconventional deterrent than the fate of that other "rogue state", Saddam's Iraq, which the US had no qualms about attacking because it didn't have one. 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 America's whole approach to the region. And that might have positive effects beyond the nuclear. "There is only one way," said the Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff, "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. To make peace, as the CIA foresaw, Israel doesn't need the intransigence that absolute security brings, but the spirit of compromise that a judicious dose of insecurity might. A utopian notion perhaps, with the world now so focused on the villainy of Iran - yet better than a US onslaught that would add so thick a layer to an already mountainous deposit of anti-western feeling that Israel could barely hope ever to win acceptance in the region. [David Hirst reported from the Middle East for the Guardian from 1963 to 2001] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 25 Mos News: New Russian Missiles to Be Unrivalled for Next 15-20 Years — Expert - Launching of Topol-M missile / Photo from mivmeste.com Created: 14.04.2006 13:51 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:51 MSK MosNews New Russian missiles will easily be able to penetrate any prospective missile shield and will remain unrivalled for the next 15-20 years, the head of Russia’s top missile design institute has said. Yuri Solomonov, the head of the Heat Technology Institute, the top Russian missile-design center, quoted by AP, said the Topol-M and Bulava ballistic missiles would form the core of the nation’s nuclear forces until 2040 and allow Russia to maintain nuclear parity with the U.S.. Each Bulava missile is equipped with six nuclear warheads, and Solomonov said Russia would easily be able to maintain at least 2,000 nuclear warheads by 2011. “By 2011, 2016 and even more so by 2020 the number of warheads will be no fewer than 2,000,” he said. “The Russian people can sleep calmly through 2040,” Solomonov said when asked to comment on allegations that a slow pace of replacement of Russia’s Soviet-built nuclear arsenals with new strategic weapons systems was eroding the nation’s nuclear deterrent capability. He said Russia would soon unveil specific plans to adapt the Bulava missile being developed for Russian nuclear submarines for use with land-based strategic missile forces as well. info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: A Tour of Chernobyl Is Troubling Visit From the Associated Press [UP] Friday April 14, 2006 10:16 PM AP Photo MOSB507 By MARA D. BELLABY Associated Press Writer CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Ukraine (AP) - The visit to the Chernobyl power plant begins as a bit of a letdown. I had expected the 30-mile-radius contaminated zone around the plant to be strewn with shriveled tree trunks and rotting cottages and empty of life. But after camouflaged guards check our passports and motion our van through the barrier at the edge of the zone, there is oncoming traffic. In the town of Chernobyl, 11 miles from the plant, laundry hangs on balconies, people chat with each other on the street and a small store has well-stocked shelves: bananas, vodka, pasta sauce. About 4,000 people live in Chernobyl - but only for two weeks at a time. They are workers brought in for short rotations to keep watch on the contaminated zone around the reactor and carry out decontamination work. Others live in the zone permanently, despite official warnings. One of them is 71-year-old Mariya Urupa, who lives outside town in a cozy brick house. ``Radiation does not exist because you can't see it,'' she tells us. You almost start to believe her, and then the tour changes drastically. The plant, which had been just a hazy mass on the horizon, comes starkly into view as our van bumps down a potholed road. First, we pass the abandoned hulks of what would have been Chernobyl's new fifth and sixth reactors, surrounded by giant cranes frozen in place since the April 26, 1986, explosion. The station's core complex is laid out flat and long like a sleeping giant. As we circle it, we count up: Reactor No. 1, No. 2. Mathematically, we know we are headed toward No. 4. But we seem impossibly close. The van turns a corner and stops. Dead in front of us are the adjoined hulks of the structures housing Reactors No. 3 and 4. We are no more than 650 feet away from the reactor that blew up and spewed radiation across Europe. Radio music wafts over the low concrete wall that surrounds the complex. A women's voice relays something indistinguishable over loudspeakers. But there is nothing ordinary about this. The beeps of our dosimeter, which until now has done little to alarm us, turn frenetic, bumping together: 490 microroentgens an hour, then 520, then around 700. ``Normal background levels are around 12 microroentgens,'' our guide, Yuriy Tatarchuk, tells us cheerfully. Standing there, peering up at the reactor, my first instinct is not to breathe. My second is: Wow! And we all temporarily abandon the journalistic aim of our trip, and turn into tourists, snapping photographs of each other with Reactor No. 4 towering behind us. Tatarchuk watches patiently. He's used to this, having brought many journalists into the zone on behalf of the Emergency Situations Ministry. When we are done posing, Tatarchuk beckons us inside a separate building where a model of the ruined reactor and the sarcophagus surrounding it are on display. The concrete sarcophagus is in trouble. Soviet authorities ordered it built over the reactor's spewing insides in a hurry; today it is crumbling and covered in cracks. Inside, we're told, the reactor's original columns are leaning Tower of Pisa-like. The roof in places doesn't fully close. Birds have gotten inside. It leaks radiation. When it's time to move on, no one argues. Next stop: Pripyat, a Soviet-town constructed in the 1970s to house the plant's workers. At the gated entrance, a lone mutt comes up to our van's open door while the guards again check off our names. ``He's the last one left,'' Tatarchuk says. Pripyat's streets are empty and thick with snow. We are struck by the silence. This is the lifelessness I expected. An amusement park that was expected to open May 1, 1986 - five days after the explosion - sits desolate: bumper cars on their sides, the Ferris wheel frozen in place. Pripyat's 47,000 people were evacuated in convoys of buses and boats down the Pripyat River in four hours the day after the explosion. They were told that they would be leaving for three days; they had to leave their pets behind. Their apartments, once meant as a reward to the Soviet Union's proud nuclear workers, are now crumbling and vandalized. We climb the iced-over steps into the city's tallest structure, a 16-story apartment building. Dust, debris and broken glass litter the floor. The wallpaper is peeling off in big, curlycue strips. ``Not only adults but children too are responsible for cleanliness,'' a Soviet-era sign exhorts. We have no face masks, so cover our mouths with scarves as we trudge into apartments, most emptied of everything, even toilet seats and electrical fixtures. On the roof, the entire city stretches out below us - noticeable for its Soviet-era absence of church domes. When will people return here, we ask. ``Return to what?'' Tatarchuk answers. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is not energy solution, say MPs Tania Branigan and John Vidal Friday April 14, 2006 The Guardian A new generation of nuclear power stations cannot solve energy supply problems in the short term and crucial questions of security, cost and effectiveness remain unanswered, MPs will warn in a report to be published this weekend. The findings of the parliamentary environmental audit committee raise concerns over the risk of terrorist attacks, but also focus on the full costs of nuclear generation, such as the disposal of waste and decommissioning. Its report on nuclear power, renewables and climate change questions whether new plants would cut carbon emissions as dramatically as promised and suggests they could crowd out other energy sources such as windpower. "You cannot claim nuclear is the answer to problems of supply in the gas market [in the next few years] ... Nuclear power couldn't appear over that sort of timescale," said a source who has seen the report. Article continues But the issue is becoming more pressing because of rising demand, increasing insecurity in conventional sources of energy and the approaching energy gap. It would take upwards of 12 years to gain approval for and build new plants. The government's energy review - given the specific task of reconsidering nuclear power after it was rejected in the energy white paper two years ago - finished taking evidence this week and is expected to report back in July. The source who has read the report described expert testimony on the risk of attacks as "impressive and alarming", adding: "If Blair is right that the world has changed, then it must apply to this area as well." Professor Keith Barnham, energy security consultant and emeritus professor of Physics at Imperial College London, told the committee: "The possible outcome of a terrorist attack is so terrible that we feel it has to be faced up to before any new build. Basically, we have so many potential targets as a result of the waste policy." Critics of nuclear energy accept that new reactors are safer than their predecessors. British Nuclear Fuels told the committee that even existing structures were extremely robust and that sites had good security arrangements, approved by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. But there are concerns that the reactor models favoured by the nuclear industry are not the safest available and that increasing the number of plants and the amount of nuclear material transported will inevitably increase the risks. "It's not just about [guarding] installations, but also any transport involved against theft - not just terrorist attacks. That tends to be ignored," said the source. Alan Johnson, the trade and industry secretary, insists that ministers are open-minded about the case for a renewal of nuclear generation, but anti-nuclear campaigners are concerned that the prime minister has already decided new plants are necessary. Critics say private firms are unlikely to invest in nuclear energy without powerful incentives, such as long term guarantees of costs or demand. Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, warned the committee: "I do not believe the utilities are going to take on the onus of purchasing a new nuclear power station unless the government has discussed with them what kind of guarantees can be given over the expected lifetime of such a power station." A member of the committee said that closing the energy gap would require a range of solutions: "There is no silver bullet to meet the nation's growing energy demands." Earlier this year the government's Sustainable Development Commission concluded that there was no justification for bringing forward a new programme of reactors. Like the audit committee, it also identified several major disadvantages to nuclear, including waste, cost, inflexibility and undermining energy efficiency. Yesterday Jonathan Porritt, director of the commission, said: "We sought to demonstrate that Britain is not a country that needs recourse to nuclear to meet energy security or climate change objectives". The industry has traditionally ducked the terrorist issue, saying that an attack is unimaginable. But Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said yesterday that a new programme would inevitably leave Britain vulnerable. "All it needs is one accident and the impact is devastating." FAQ Nuclear options Why is nuclear energy back on the agenda? Questions about the security of oil and gas supplies and concerns about global warming are pushing governments to find alternatives. Experts fear renewable sources are not efficient enough to meet future needs. What is the government doing? Last November it announced that the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, would report on the options in July. What will happen next? If nuclear power is approved there will still be questions to answer, including how to deal with waste and what incentives the private sector might receive for new reactors. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 Fredericksburg.com: Reactor safety talks set North Anna plant to be discussed Free Lance-Star!] Sat, Apr. 15, 2006 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review performance of North Anna reactors with public on Tuesday Date published: 4/14/2006 By RUSTY DENNEN The two nuclear reactors at North Anna Power Station performed safely during 2005. That's according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has released its annual safety review of the Louisa County plant. The full report will be discussed in a public meeting Tuesday at 1 p.m. at North Anna's Visitor Center. NRC staff will review results of the assessment and answer questions. "The NRC continually reviews the performance of the North Anna plant and the nation's other commercial nuclear facilities," William Travers, NRC's Region II administrator, said in a press release. "This meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and with people living near the plant." The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant operations. They use green, then white, yellow and red, to signify the safety level of the plant's performance. NRC inspectors look at key plant systems and procedures to compile the report. Among them: reactor and radiation safety, performance on test drills, the plant's alert and notification system, including sirens, and radiation control effectiveness regarding plant workers. The agency concluded that North Anna, one of two nuclear power plants owned by Dominion power in Virginia, operated safely with all inspection findings in the green category. That means there was very low safety significance, and at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff will also conduct several nonroutine inspections, including the independent spent fuel-storage facility and the containment sump for both units. The containment sumps collect reactor coolant and chemically reactive spray solutions in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. The report found that there were no safety issues regarding the plant's public notification system in the event of an accident or release of radiation at the plant. Residents living near the power station have complained that some sirens within a 10-mile zone around the plant, could not be heard under certain conditions. Dominion is upgrading the siren system. Safety is an issue at North Anna because Dominion has applied for an NRC permit that could lead to the construction of up to two more more reactors at the site. The early site permit application wending its way through the regulatory process would allow Dominion to resolve site, safety and environmental issues prior to making a decision to build any additional reactors. Dominion also owns and operates the Surry nuclear power plant on the James River near Williamsburg. That plant received a safe evaluation. Dominion owns and operates two other nuclear power plants, in Connecticut and Wisconsin. The 13,000-acre Lake Anna was built in the early 1970s to cool the plant's reactors. Unit 1 went online in 1978, and Unit 2 in 1980. The North Anna safety report is available on the NRC Web site at: nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collec tions/news/2006/06-020ii.html/. To reach RUSTY DENNEN: + 540/374-5431 + Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com Date published: 4/14/2006 Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To contact other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone for fredericksburg.com: 540-368-5055 Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va. ***************************************************************** 29 The Herald: ScottishPower warns on nuclear Web Issue 2506 April 14 2006 IAN McCONNELL April 14 2006 Scottishpower yesterday said the UK government should not commit to a major nuclear build programme now, and that investment in this form of generation must not crowd out development of renewable energy such as wind. The utility, which has no interests in nuclear generation but has been investing heavily in wind power, argues these points in its response to the Department of Trade and Industry's energy review consultation. It cautions against the government becoming too pro-nuclear just because it might be wary of being too dependent on imported gas for electricity generation. ScottishPower, which in February announced a £170m investment in flue gas desulphurisation technology to extend the life of its 2304-megawatt Longannet power station in Fife, contends such "clean coal" generation should play a significant part in meeting future energy demand. It also sees a need for more gas-fired plant. In its response to a DTI consultation document entitled "Our energy challenge  securing clean, affordable energy for the long term", the Glasgow-headquartered electricity and gas supplier says: "For the UK as a whole, forecast estimates suggest that plant capacity retirement will be around 20GW (gigawatts) by 2020 and that demand growth will take requirement for new plant to (circa) 27GW. "Some of that gap will be met by renewables but, on the basis of past trends and current plant economics, the most (obvious) candidate is new gas-fired CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine plant). Gas generation is proven technology, it is reasonably economic and efficient. It also represents by far the bulk of new generation investment since 1990." ScottishPower chief executive Philip Bowman, who reversed ScottishPower's previous position when he took the decision to invest in Longannet, made the case for "diversity" as the utility published its response yesterday. He said: "We must strive for a balanced approach to our future energy mix, one that may include new coal, new nuclear, and new renewable technologies. Only this diversity will balance our need to tackle climate change, while protecting security of supply and ensuring greater competition at home and abroad." However, in spite of the mention of new nuclear capacity, ScottishPower makes plain its belief that this should be replacement of plant rather than a major increase in this form of generation. It says: "The claim now is that nuclear can compete on economic terms with gas  depending on the cost of gas. It does, however, have a different risk profile and there is still a deal of public resistance to its development. "Some concerns over dependency on imported gas … may result in the government looking to promote nuclear. We do not believe that there needs to be any major new programme of nuclear announced at this time and that, with life extension and potentially a modest replacement programme, the government can maintain course for achieving clean, secure and affordable energy through to 2020 and have the foundation for beyond then." It adds: "By 2020 there should be clearer evidence of the economics of new nuclear and of clean coal. There is no need to take premature action at this time that means the UK follows an irrevocable path that potentially abandons embryonic technologies that could emerge with some support as the solution of the future  clean coal being one of those technologies. "New nuclear should only be one part of the overall energy policy and in particular it should not delay the growth and potential for new renewable generation." The utility also calls for an increase in central and local government resources to speed up the planning process for renewable energy projects. On the planning front, it also calls on the government to "support indigenous and imported coal supply by improving planning guidelines on (the) UK's surface coal extraction and assisting development of coal transport and storage facilities". ScottishPower meanwhile calls for a tightening of energy efficiency standards for manufacturers. It cites specifically a need to restrict and control of stand-by modes so that household appliances such as televisions and video recorders are not using up electricity when they are not in use. It also advocates the "development of a fully functioning and transparent European energy market". ScottishPower says: "In particular, the UK government should encourage European gas markets to show stronger price transparency, allow equal access rights, and to monitor and control market concentration." It also says there is a need to align regulator Ofgem's priorities "with the wider public energy policy objectives". This, according to ScottishPower, should involve recognition of a "need for a significant increase in investment compared (with) historic levels on both the transmission and distribution networks" and a "need for an acceptable return on investment to enable companies to attract and retain equity funding". Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy FR Doc E6-5582 [Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)] [Notices] [Page 19549-19551] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ap06-98] Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station); Notice of Hearing and of Opportunity To Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements Concerning Proposed Uprate April 10, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Lester S. Rubenstein. This proceeding concerns the September 10, 2003 application of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy), for an amendment to the operating license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Windham County, Vermont. Entergy seeks a license amendment authorizing it to increase the maximum power level of the plant from 1593 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt and to modify associated technical specifications of the license (collectively referred to as an ``uprate'').\1\ This [[Page 19550]] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice of two matters. First, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(a), the Board will entertain oral limited appearance statements from members of the public regarding the requested uprate. The limited appearance statement sessions will be held on June 26 and 27, 2006 in Brattleboro, Vermont. Second, pursuant to 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, the Board will convene an oral evidentiary hearing to receive evidence and to question witnesses concerning the admitted contentions. The evidentiary hearing will be held during the weeks of September 11, and October 16, 2006, at specific times and locations to be determined. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Commission regulations permit the NRC Staff to approve a license amendment and to authorize the licensee to implement the action (e.g., the uprate), prior to the adjudicatory hearing if the NRC Staff determines that the amendment involves no ``significant hazard considerations.'' See 10 CFR 2.1202(a). That is what has happened in this case. On March 2, 2006, after finding that there are no significant hazard considerations associated with the Vermont Yankee uprate, the NRC Staff approved Entergy's request for the license amendment. See 71 FR 11682 (March 8, 2006). Entergy has already begun to implement the uprate. However, the NRC Staff decision shall have no effect on the responsibility and authority of this Board to rule on the validity of the objections raised by the intervenors herein. As the Commission recently explained, ``If the Board determines after full adjudication that the license amendment should not have been granted, it may be revoked (or conditioned).'' CLI-06-08, 63 NRC--, -- (slip op. at 3) (March 3, 2006). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- I. Background and Scope of Proceeding On July 1, 2004, the Commission issued a notice of opportunity for a hearing on Entergy's license amendment request. 69 FR 39976 (July 1, 2004). Two requests for hearing and intervention petitions were filed-- one by the Department of Public Service of the State of Vermont (State) and the other by the New England Coalition (NEC). Each sought, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309, to interpose various contentions challenging the uprate application. The petitions were referred to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, consisting of Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Lester S. Rubenstein, and Alex S. Karlin, to preside over this uprate proceeding. 69 FR 56797 (September 22, 2004). On October 21 and 22, 2004, the Board conducted an initial prehearing conference in Brattleboro, Vermont, and on November 22, 2004, the Board found that the State and NEC had each established the requisite standing to intervene in this proceeding and that each had submitted at least one admissible contention concerning the Entergy application. LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548 (2004). At the present time four admitted contentions define the scope of this uprate proceeding and thus the appropriate scope of any limited appearance statements. The four contentions are as follows: State Contention 1: Entergy has claimed credit for containment overpressure in demonstrating the adequacy of ECCS pumps for plant events including a loss of coolant accident in violation of draft General Design Criteria 44 and 52 and therefore Entergy has failed to demonstrate that the proposed uprate will provide adequate protection for public health and safety as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). State Contention 2: Because of the current level of uncertainty of the calculation which the Applicant uses to demonstrate the adequacy of ECCS pumps, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the use of containment overpressure to provide the necessary net positive suction head for ECCS pumps will provide adequate protection for the public health and safety as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). NEC Contention 3: The license amendment should not be approved unless Large Transient Testing is a condition of the Extended Power Uprate.\2\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ The first three contentions are specified at LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 580 (2004). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- NEC New Contention 4: The Entergy Vermont Yankee [ENVY] license application (including all supplements) for an extended power uprate of 20% over rated capacity is not in conformance with the plant specific original licensing basis and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S, paragraph I(a), and/or 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, because it does not provide analyses that are adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects to demonstrate that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Alternate Cooling System [ACS] in its entirety, in its actual physical condition (or in the actual physical condition ENVY will effectuate prior to commencing operation at EPU), will be able to withstand the effects of an earthquake and other natural phenomena without loss of capability to perform its safety functions in service at the requested increased plant power level.\3\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \3\ This contention is specified at LBP-05-32, 62 NRC 813, 827 (2005). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- II. Notice of Limited Appearance Statement Sessions A. Date, Time, and Location of Oral Limited Appearance Statement Sessions The oral limited appearance sessions will be on the following dates, at the specified location and times: 1. Date: Monday, June 26, 2006. Time: 6:30 pm. to 10:30 p.m. Location: Latchis Theatre, 50 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont. 2. Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006. Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. Location: Same as Session 1 above. B. Participation Guidelines for Oral Limited Appearance Statements Any person who is not already a party will be permitted to make an oral statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern related to this uprate proceeding.\4\ The jurisdiction of this Board and the scope of this proceeding is limited to the uprate. Limited appearance statements will be transcribed but are not under oath or affirmation and do not constitute testimony or evidence. The purpose of limited appearance statements is to allow members of the public to alert the Board and the parties to areas relating to the uprate and the admitted contentions in which evidence may need to be adduced, and to assist the Board in its consideration of these issues.\5\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \4\ The parties to this proceeding are Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the NRC Staff, the Department of Public Service of the State of Vermont, and the New England Coalition. \5\ See 10 CFR 2.315(a); Iowa Electric Light & Power Co. (Duane Arnold Energy Center), ALAB-108, 6 AEC 195, 196 n.4 (1973); 10 CFR part 2, Appendix A, Sec. III(b) (2004), deleted Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 FR 2182, 2274 (January 14, 2004). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Oral limited appearance statements will be entertained during the hours specified above, or such lesser time as may be necessary to accommodate the speakers who are present.\6\ If all scheduled and unscheduled speakers present at a session have made a presentation, the Board reserves the right to terminate the session before the ending times listed above. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \6\ Any members of the public who plan to attend either the evidentiary hearings or the limited appearance sessions are advised that security measures may be employed at the entrance to the hearing facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. In addition, no signs are permitted at the evidentiary hearing. However, signs no larger than 18[sec] by 18[sec] will be permitted during the limited appearance sessions, but may not be attached to sticks, held up, or moved about in the rooms. Cf. Policy Statement on Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings, 67 FR 36,920, 36,923 (May 28, 2002). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In order to allow all interested persons an opportunity to address the Board, the time allotted for each oral limited appearance statement normally will be no more than five minutes, and may be further limited, depending on the number of written requests to make an oral statement that are submitted in accordance with section C below and/or the number of persons present at the designated times. At the outset of each statement, the speaker should identify himself or herself and specify if they have any affiliation (such as employment, consultancy, or membership) with any of the parties. C. Submitting a Request to Make an Oral Limited Appearance Statement Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have submitted a timely written request to do so will be given priority over those who have not filed such a request. To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must either be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. The request must specify the session (Monday evening, Tuesday morning, or Tuesday afternoon) during which the requester [[Page 19551]] wishes to make an oral statement. Based on its review of the requests received by June 20, 2006, the Licensing Board reserves the right to cancel or shorten any of the sessions (Monday evening, Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon) due to a lack of adequate public interest. Written requests to make an oral statement should be submitted to: Mail: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-1101 (verification (301) 415-1966). E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov. In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written request to make an oral statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows: Mail: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, c/o: Jonathan Rund, Esq., Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3 E2C, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Fax: (301) 415-5599 (verification (301) 415-6094). E-mail: jmr3@nrc.gov and ksv@nrc.gov. D. Written Limited Appearance Statements (In Lieu of Oral Statements) A written limited appearance statement may be submitted to the Board regarding this proceeding at any time. Such statements should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using the methods prescribed above, with a copy to the Licensing Board Chairman. A person who has already filed a written limited appearance statement in this matter \7\ is not required to resubmit it, but should notify the Board, as specified above, if he or she wishes to make an oral statement during the June sessions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \7\ See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Prehearing Conference Call and Oral Argument) at 2-3 (October 1, 2004) (unpublished). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- III. Notice of Evidentiary Hearing In addition to the oral limited appearance statement sessions discussed above, the public is notified that this Board subsequently will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the four contentions admitted in this proceeding. The hearing will be governed by the ``Informal Hearing Procedures'' set forth in 10 CFR part, subparts C and L, see 10 CFR 2.300-2.390., 2.1200-2.1213, and is scheduled to take place during the weeks of September 11, and October 16, 2006. Although the precise dates and locations of the evidentiary hearings are yet to be determined, it is the Commission's policy and practice to hold them in the general vicinity of the site of the nuclear facility that is the subject of the proceeding, so that members of the public may attend.\8\ See 10 CFR 2.328-2.329, 2.331. However, it appears that some of the contentions in this proceeding involve some proprietary commercial information, which would require that those portions of the evidentiary hearing be closed to the general public, with only the authorized parties able to attend.\9\ The current plan is to hold the evidentiary hearings in Vermont, if possible, except for those portions of the proceeding that may need to be closed to the public, which may be held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The Board will issue a subsequent order establishing the exact dates, times, and locations for the evidentiary hearing and copies of these rulings will be available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \8\ See Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion Requesting Reconsideration of Initial Prehearing Conference Location) at 2-3 (April 5, 2004) (unpublished); 10 CFR part 2, Appendix A, Sec. I(a) (2004), deleted Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 FR 2182, 2274 (January 14, 2004). \9\ In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, portions of a hearing may be closed to the public if the matters at issue involve the discussion of confidential or legally protected information. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- IV. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. V. Scheduling Information Updates Any updated/revised scheduling information regarding the evidentiary hearing and limited appearance sessions can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm or by calling (800) 368-5642, extension 5036, or (301) 415- 5036. It is so ordered. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, April 10, 2006. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.\10\ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \10\ Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to the representatives for (1) licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2) intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service and New England Coalition of Brattleboro, Vermont; and (3) the Staff. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. E6-5582 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of FR Doc E6-5595 [Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)] [Notices] [Page 19551-19553] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ap06-99] Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to the Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG/the licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP) located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed amendments would delete Section 2F, ``Antitrust'' and Appendix C, ``Antitrust Conditions,'' from the facility operating licenses. According to the application, the antitrust license conditions impose what are known as the ``Stanislaus Commitments,'' which were derived from the licensing process for the proposed, but never completed, Stanislaus Nuclear Plant. The licensee indicates that, as reflected in a 2003 Commission decision (which subsequently was vacated), it appears to PG that there is no legal authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA or Act), or in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) regulations, for the NRC to continue to impose these conditions absent PG's consent. Moreover, in light of changes in the electric industry, NRC imposition of these conditions and the prospect of NRC enforcement of these conditions are no longer necessary to serve their original intended purpose. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [[Page 19552]] (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendments are administrative changes that do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. All limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in the technical specifications (TS) remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because: The amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. The current plant design and design bases will remain the same. The current plant safety analyses remain complete and accurate in addressing the design basis events and in analyzing plant response and consequences. The limiting conditions for operations, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in TS are not affected by the change. The amendments do not introduce a new mode of plant operation or new accident precursors, do not involve any physical alterations to plant configurations, or make changes to system set points that could initiate a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendments do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because: The amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. The change does not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design and licensing bases. The amendments do not affect plant safety margins that are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in TS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's [[Page 19553]] right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendments. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated January 19, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Alan B. Wang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-5595 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; FR Doc E6-5596 [Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)] [Notices] [Page 19554-19556] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ap06-101] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) has submitted an application for renewal of Facility Operating License DPR-35 for an additional 20 years of operation at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim). Pilgrim is located on the western shore of Cape Cod in the Town of Plymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. It is 38 miles southeast of Boston, Massachusetts, and 44 miles east of Providence, Rhode Island. The operating license for Pilgrim expires on June 8, 2012. The application for renewal was received on January 25, 2006, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 54. A notice of receipt and availability of the application, which included the environmental report (ER), was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6101). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application for renewal of the facility operating license was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15222). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) in support of the review of the license renewal application and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as [[Page 19555]] defined in 10 CFR 51.29. In addition, as outlined in Title 36 of the Code of the Federal Regulations 800.8, ``Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act,'' the NRC plans to coordinate compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, Entergy submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 and is publicly available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD 20852, or from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC's Web site at . The Accession Number for the ER is ML060830611. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at . In addition, the Plymouth Public Library, located at 132 South Street, Plymouth, MA 02360 and the Duxbury Free Library, located at 77 Alden Street, Duxbury, MA 02332 have agreed to make the ER available for public inspection. This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Commission's ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' (NUREG-1437) related to the review of the application for renewal of the Pilgrim operating license for an additional 20 years. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the NRC's regulations found in 10 CFR part 51. The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following: a. Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS. b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth. c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant. d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered. e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action. f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule. g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies. h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, and include any contractor assistance to be used. The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping: a. The applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved, or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards. c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards. d. Any affected Indian tribe. e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process. f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC has decided to hold public meetings for the Pilgrim license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meetings will be held at the Radisson Hotel Plymouth Harbor Ballroom, 180 Water Street, Plymouth, MA 02360, on May 17, 2006. There will be two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7 p.m. with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting and will continue until 10 p.m., as necessary. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each meeting at the same location. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting the NRC Environmental Project Manager Mr. Robert Schaaf, by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1312, or by e-mail to the NRC at no later than May 12, 2006. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Public comments will be considered in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS. Mr. Schaaf will need to be contacted no later than May 3, 2006, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. Members of the public may send written comments on the environmental scope of the Pilgrim license renewal review to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Comments may also be delivered to the NRC at [[Page 19556]] Room T-6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays. To be considered in the scoping process, written comments should be postmarked by June 16, 2006. Electronic comments may be sent by e-mail to the NRC at and should be sent no later than June 16, 2006, to be considered in the scoping process. Comments will be available electronically and accessible through NRC's ADAMS link at at the NRC Homepage. Participation in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the renewal application was the subject of the aforementioned Federal Register notice (71 FR 15222). Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting. At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will prepare a concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached, including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for inspection in NRC's ADAMS link at . The staff will then prepare and issue for comment the draft supplement to the GEIS, which will be the subject of separate notices and separate public meetings. Copies will be available for public inspection at the above-mentioned addresses, and one copy per request will be provided free of charge. After receipt and consideration of the comments, the NRC will prepare a final supplement to the GEIS, which will also be available for public inspection. Information about the proposed action, the supplement to the GEIS, and the scoping process may be obtained from Mr. Schaaf at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rani Franovich, Branch Chief, Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-5596 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region I - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-06-023 April 14, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Constellation Generation Group, LLC, on Thursday, April 20, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2005. Constellation operates the twin-reactor plant, which is located in Lusby (Calvert County), Md. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express, 355 Merrimac Court in Prince Frederick, Md. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety performance of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant during the previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. The meeting on April 20th 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/calv_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The meeting notice, with the meeting agenda attached, is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060740658. The NRC slides are available in ADAMS under accession number ML060940405. 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 Calvert Cliffs 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 as of the end of 2005 were determined to be green, Calvert Cliffs will receive a baseline (or routine) level of inspections during the upcoming assessment period. Calvert Cliffs had a white inspection finding open during the first quarter of last year. That finding involved a relay failure that caused the steam dump valves to remain full open following a Unit 2 reactor trip in January 2004. A supplemental inspection, conducted in January 2005, determined that the root causes for the performance deficiencies were understood and that completed and planned corrective actions were reasonable to address the related causes. Based on that information, the finding was closed. 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. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC specialists are the replacement of reactor vessel heads at both units and the dry cask storage for spent fuel at the facility. Current performance information for Calvert Cliffs 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CALV1/calv1_chart.html. Current performance information for Calvert Cliffs 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CALV2/calv2_chart.html. Last revised Friday, April 14, 2006 ***************************************************************** 34 globeandmail.com: 'Dirty fuel' may be Ontario's clean answer POSTED AT 9:21 AM EDT ON 14/04/06 + Comment MARK JACCARD From Friday's Globe and Mail For bored Canadian electricity analysts, like me, Ontario is a godsend. Canada's other regions have their issues, but they're dull. Build another hydropower plant? Pursue more energy efficiency? Yawn. But thank heavens for Ontario. The province must replace 80 per cent of its generation capacity over the next few decades. Traumatized by botched electricity reform and a massive blackout in August 2003, it hovers between markets and central planning. And each option is problematic. Ontario's nuclear legacy is a costly one, and there are public concerns about plant safety and radioactive waste disposal. In their last election campaign, the provincial Liberals promised to rapidly close the coal plants, which account for 20 per cent of existing capacity, and to freeze electricity rates until this year. This week, the province announced that residential electricity rates will jump next month by an average of 16 per cent. The province lacks the low-cost hydropower potential of neighbouring Manitoba and Quebec, and its other renewable power sources are costly. The promise of natural gas has been diminished by recent high prices, in addition to the growing awareness that even this comparatively clean fossil fuel contributes unacceptable levels of carbon dioxide. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the provincial government recently announced modest subsidies for renewables such as wind, biomass and small hydro generators and whopping subsidies for generating solar electricity. After this nod to environmentalists, however, it is now poised to invest in thousands of megawatts of new natural gas plants while considering whether to rejuvenate its nuclear facilities. While environmentalists are excited about the support for renewables, using them to justify expansion of greenhouse-gas emitting natural gas plants is unsettling. First, mounting evidence suggests that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, much maligned for its alarmist language by climate change skeptics, behaved far too cautiously. Recent temperature and weather developments are more consistent with the views of those scientists who could not convince their colleagues to support publicly the more dire predictions of many climate models. Second, models of the global energy-economy system show that, with rapid economic growth in China and India, carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating. To have any hope of stopping emissions growth by mid-century, industrialized countries must ensure that new investments in electricity generation are zero emissions and then convince developing countries to require the same. This is the ideal time for the Ontario government to set a coherent target for moving its electricity system to virtually zero emissions over the next few decades instead of building greenhouse-gas emitting and financially risky natural gas plants. The zero emissions requirement should avoid short-term economic disruption, be low cost, and be flexible enough to allow adjustment as new information emerges about the costs of climate change emissions. The outcome could be surprising. There is a good chance that coal, the so-called dirty fuel, would dominate natural gas, nuclear and renewables in the decades ahead. Technologies that are decades old enable the conversion of coal into a synthesis gas of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide and other unwanted byproducts like sulphur can be separated and injected into old oil and gas wells or saline aquifers 1,000 metres deep in the Earth's crust. (Even allowing for transportation costs, the price is affordable.) The zero emissions requirement could be graduated, providing transition time as plants are replaced over the coming decades. It might require, say, 10 per cent reduction of emissions by 2015, 25 per cent by 2025, 70 per cent by 2035 and almost 100 per cent by mid-century. This schedule would enable carbon capture technology to be phased in starting with a few hundred megawatts and, eventually, full conversion would be realized as technology scale-up is demonstrated. This schedule would also prevent price shocks; annual rate increases would not exceed half a per cent. Even if coal does retain and even expands its share of the province's generation capacity, the government should still pursue energy efficiency including cogeneration, albeit relying more on standards and less on ineffective subsidies. And there would be room for the most cost-effective renewable, natural gas, if it too can be developed with carbon capture, as well as possible transmission links to access hydropower in Manitoba and Quebec, and perhaps for nuclear power, after a public debate to address its unique risks. All this might lead to a clean, enduring and relatively low-cost electricity system in Ontario. Not much fun for us electricity analysts. Mark Jaccard, a professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University is the author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy. Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Scientist urges switch to thorium. 14/04/2006. ABC News Online Safe to hold: Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says thorium is a greener option than uranium. By Brett Evans for Lateline Supporters of an alternative energy source say it has the potential to revolutionise the nuclear power industry and is a safer alternative to uranium. Thorium oxide, which is three times more abundant than uranium, is also a radioactive material. But senior research scientist Dr Hashemi-Nezhad, from Sydney University, says it is safe to hold in your hand. "This is the future of the energy in the world - energy without green, without greenhouse gas production," he said. Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says thorium has all of the benefits of uranium as a nuclear fuel but none of the drawbacks. It can generate power without emitting greenhouse gases and it can be used to incinerate the world's stockpiles of plutonium. Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says thorium waste would only remain radioactive for 500 years, not the tens of thousands that uranium by-products remain active. "In fact, the green movement must come behind this project because we are moving in a direction to destroy all these existing nuclear wastes, to prevent nuclear weapons production, to [prevent] Chernobyl accident happening again," Dr Hashemi-Nezhad said. Particle accelerator Unlike uranium, thorium is not fissile, meaning it must be coaxed into a chain reaction. At present, there are two methods of achieving this: a mixed fuel thorium reactor, which uses a small amount of uranium to kick-start the nuclear reaction; and then there is the project that Dr Hashemi-Nezhad is working on. "A particle accelerator is coupled with a nuclear reactor," he said. "A beam of protons sent from the accelerator heats a heavy metallic target, such as lead, and produces huge number of neutrons. "These neutrons start the chain reaction in the reactor. And once you switch off the accelerator, everything dies down." The thorium reactor being proposed by Dr Hashemi-Nezhad can be switched off immediately in the event of an accident - an option not available in conventional reactors. Conservationist's concern But Australian Conservation Foundation president Ian Low says although thorium has advantages he says using thorium is like being run over by a diesel train rather than a steam train. "It's true that the period of danger of radioactive waste from thorium reactors, if the design can be worked up and proven, would be hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "But we're still talking about very long lifetimes." Mr Lowe says nuclear power is still a long way from becoming clean and green, even with thorium. "If we spent as much as we spend every year on nuclear research on renewable energy, we wouldn't be talking about this issue," he said. "We'd have had enough solar and wind and other forms of renewable energy to give us clean energy solutions for the entire future." ***************************************************************** 36 Edmonton Journal: Firm pushing nuke plants to heat sticky oilsands canada.com Network Candu reactors could save enormous amounts of natural gas, say proponents Susan Ruttan, : Friday, April 14, 2006 EDMONTON - A new Calgary company aims to put a nuclear power plant in Alberta's oilsands, and claims it has public support for the move. Energy Alberta Corp. is currently in negotiations with several big oil companies in the Fort McMurray area, owner Wayne Henuset said in an interview Thursday. If it nails a deal with one of them, it could start the process of getting regulatory approval next spring. Henuset founded the company in October with co-owner Hank Swartout, who is currently CEO of Precision Drilling. In November, said Henuset, the company had a public opinion poll done. "Before we approached the oil companies we thought we should make sure the public would approve of it," he said. "We got over a 60 per cent positive rating. We thought, great." Henuset said the high prices of oil and natural gas now make building a $2.8-billion nuclear plant attractive to oilsands companies. The plant would be a Candu-6 reactor that would allow the participating oil company to produce 200,000 barrels a day of oil. "There's a need for about eight of them (reactors) up there," he said. Nuclear power would be used to create the steam that is used to heat the oilsands bitumen, so it can be pumped to the surface. It would replace current energy sources such as burning natural gas, which is becoming increasingly expensive, he said. "The cheapest method there is is nuclear power," he said. Not only that, but nuclear power is a guaranteed power source for the oilsands, and its price is more predictable than natural gas, he added. If the plant got government approvals, it could open sometime in 2014, he said. Henuset said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a partner in the project. Atomic Energy, the national nuclear reactor company, has been proposing a reactor for the oilsands since 2003. sruttan@thejournal.canwest.com © The Edmonton Journal 2006 ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and FR Doc 06-3594 [Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)] [Notices] [Page 19553-19554] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ap06-100] Electric Company, the City of Riverside, California and the City of Anaheim, California, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix G for Facility Operating License No. NPF-10 and NPF-15, issued to Southern California Edison (the licensee), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), located in San Diego County, California. Therefore, as provided by 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.33, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated January 28, 2005, the licensee submitted a license amendment request where, among other changes, the licensee requested the use of an alternate methodology for calculating the stress intensity factor KIm due to internal pressure loading. As required by the safety evaluation on topical report Combustion Engineering (CE) Topical Report NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, dated March 16, 2001, the licensee, by its supplement dated January 12, 2006, included a request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G for pressure temperature (P-T) limits since the alternate methodology applies the CE Nuclear Steam Supply System method for calculating KIm stress intensity values. The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain requirements of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 to allow the application of the methodology in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, ``The Development of a RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature Limits Report for the [[Page 19554]] Removal of P-T Limits and LTOP [Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection] Setpoints from the Technical Specifications,'' for the calculation of flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (KIm). The Need for the Proposed Action In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, based on the alternative methodology proposed in the licensee's amendment request. The proposed action would revise the currently-approved methodology for P-T limit calculations to incorporate the methodology approved for use in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6. The topical report allows the use of an alternate methodology to calculate the flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (KIm). The exemption is needed because the methodology in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, could not be shown to be conservative with respect to the methodology for the determination of KIm provided in Editions and Addenda of ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through the 1995 Edition and 1996 Addenda (the latest Edition and Addenda of the ASME Code which had been incorporated into 10 CFR 50.55a at the time of the staff's review of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6). Therefore, along with the supplement dated January 12, 2006, the licensee submitted an exemption request, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply the KIm calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, as part of the SONGS 2 and 3 pressure temperature limit report (PTLR) methodology. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would provide an adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the reactor pressure vessel at SONGS 2 and 3. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption to Appendix G, which will allow the use of the methodology in Topical Report CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, to calculate the flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (KIm), that will be issued in a future letter to the licensee. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the SONGS 2 and 3 dated May 12, 1981. Agencies and Persons Consulted On March 28, 2006, the staff consulted with the California State official, Steve Hsu of the Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's exemption letter dated January 28, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated January 12, 2006. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. N. Kalyanam, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 06-3594 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Chernobyl -- 20 Years Later - Murderous Atoms - April 14, 2006 The Geiger counters continued to tick away for days as much as 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) away from the disaster zone, as air masses contaminated with radiation pushed across Europe. Many fears are justified. The major disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant proved the prophets wrong who underestimated the "residual risk" of nuclear energy. A look back from the archives of DER SPIEGEL. Editor's note: The following article appeared in the May 5, 1986 issue of DER SPIEGEL, just days after the world became aware of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. During the next few weeks, SPIEGEL ONLINE will publish a series of reports on the worst accident in the history of civilian nuclear energy and how it changed Europe and the world. The staff at Sweden's Forsmark nuclear power plant, located on the Baltic coast north of Stockholm, was just changing shifts. It was 7:00 a.m. last Monday when workers passing through a routine check in the security sluice at the entrance to the plant's reactor building set off warning signals. DER SPIEGELThe May 5, 1986 cover of DER SPIEGEL: "Murderous Atom: The Super Meltdown in the Soviet Union." Radiation testing personnel were alerted. Using a piece of equipment that looks like a handheld vacuum cleaner, they scanned the plant employees and took radioactivity readings on the walls, on the plant grounds and in rainwater cisterns. The results were astonishing. The Geiger counters were ticking like crazy -- but outside, not in the reactor buildings. "It was crazy," says measuring technician Bengt Wellman. According to Wellman, where the normal reading would be four radioactive decay units per second, "we measured 100 per second," even four kilometers (2.5 miles) from the reactor. Plant manager Karl Erik Sehlstedt issued a level 2 alarm, which meant that the local population was notified by radio. At 11:00 a.m., 800 employees left the power plant and gathered on a nearby athletic field, where they were all scanned for radiation and where many had to leave their shoes behind for decontamination and walk home with their feet covered in plastic bags. An hour and a half later, officials were still unable to rule out the possibility that something had gone wrong at Forsmark. But then similar reports about elevated radioactivity levels began coming in from almost every other Swedish testing station and from neighboring Finland. In some places, the radiation was 10 times as high as natural environmental radioactivity. By then, Swedish experts knew that the invisible radiation and silent danger had blown across the Baltic Sea on a southeasterly air current. Meteorologists simulated the wind patterns of the preceding few days and physicists analyzed the spectrum of radioactive particles. Finally, everything pointed to the presumed source of the heightened radioactivity, a nuclear power plant near Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine. At this point, the people of Kiev were unaware that a nuclear inferno had erupted two days earlier less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) north of their city. They continued to buy fruit and vegetable in local markets and decorate the city's houses and streets for the annual May Day celebration. Horrified, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William J. Crowe told US members of Congress that satellite images revealed that only hours after the accident, Soviet authorities had allowed a soccer match to continue in the vicinity of the reactor meltdown. The players and onlookers had no idea of the hazards to which they were being exposed. IGOR KOSTIN: CHERNOBYL UP CLOSE It was with this silence, inwardly and outwardly, that the Soviets would have preferred to gloss over what had happened in their reactor No. 4 at one of their biggest nuclear power plant complexes. As it turned out, it was the most serious catastrophe in the history of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, an event experts in both the East and the West had declared practically impossible -- the "super maximum credible accident." It was only in response to pressure from the global public and because they believed, for some time, that they would need foreign help in containing the reactor fire that the Soviets first admitted that an "accident" had occurred, later upgrading their assessment of the event to a "catastrophe." The government was no longer denying what Soviet news agency Tass called "a certain amount of leakage of radioactive substances" until finally, last Wednesday, Soviet state television even showed a photo of the half-destroyed nuclear power plant, of the ruin of what was once Chernobyl, reduced to little more than charred iron beams and blackened walls -- a monument to technical hubris. The speculation over the immediate consequences of the catastrophe continued through the end of last week. According to Western intelligence agencies, there were "several hundred dead" and thousands still likely to die as a result of the accident. But the Soviets continued to insist on their numbers: 2 dead, 197 wounded, including 18 with life-threatening injuries. According to Soviet officials, 50 patients had already been released from hospitals. Even before the details became known, politicians and nuclear power lobbyists in the West embarked on a true campaign of appeasement. At the annual meeting of the "Working Group of Regional Energy Supply Companies" in Munich on Tuesday evening, politicians from were quick to point out that these types of "mishaps cannot occur in Germany." Later on, unofficial sources revealed a more alarming position: that such disasters just happen to be "the price of technological progress." Officials wanted to avoid a revival of the debate over the purpose and blessings of nuclear power at all costs, to ward off the kinds of public misgivings over nuclear energy that thwarted the construction of nuclear power plants in the German towns of Wyhl and Gorleben and led to violent civil protests over plants at Grohnde and Brokdorf in the 1970s. But the attempts of nuclear power proponents to quell the growing fears of citizens by containing their arguments failed. Fear of the invisible danger grew as shifting winds blew contaminated air back and forth across the heart of Europe during the course of the week, and as instruments measuring radioactivity levels from Davos to Monaco produced printouts showing sharp peaks. It was a danger that couldn't be felt, seen or heard. In fact, human beings have no inherent means of perceiving radiation -- which was all the more reason to be concerned about reports on television and the radio. First the Polish stations, and later stations in the German states of Bavaria and Hesse, cautioned citizens to avoid drinking milk from cows that graze outside, and to carefully wash fresh produce. Radiation doses up to 500 times higher than normal were measured in some parts of Poland, especially in the eastern portion of the Masurian Lakes region. At a press conference, officials said that a "certain number" of cases of thyroid cases could be expected. Medical experts estimate that 10,000 Poles will contract radiation-induced cancer in the next 30 years. Large numbers of trucks and cars coming from Eastern Europe were checked at border crossings. Whenever Geiger counters registered higher levels of radiation, vehicles had to be decontaminated and, in some cases, air filters had to be removed and were then classified as "low-level radioactive waste." The German Ministry of Health issued an order imposing special inspections on Polish geese and other food products from Eastern Europe. Non-essential travel to the Soviet Union was cancelled. Western companies ordered their employees to return home. Overly anxious citizens in Germany and Scandinavia bought up the inventories of iodine tablets at pharmacies, and the University of Mainz Hospital reported the first cases of poisoning caused by the ingestion of iodine tablets. On Friday, the Hamburger Abendblatt ran a cover story titled "Today and Tomorrow: Wind from the East." Suddenly every weather report was focusing on the wind direction and all but ignoring sunshine and rain. Concerned pregnant women overloaded telephone lines at the German Weather Service in Offenbach with questions of where they should go to avoid the risks posed by radiation. Officials recommended giving dry milk to young children, and called for excessively contaminated fresh milk to be processed into cheese. Officials in the states of Bavaria and Hesse issued ominous-sounding warnings dubbed "preventive measures," advising parents not to allow children to sleep near open windows and to wash children after they had been playing outdoors. Radiation levels measured throughout the southern portion of West Germany, in the far north and in Berlin initially remained within ranges corresponding to normal fluctuations in nature -- including the kinds of peaks vacationers might experience while hiking at higher altitudes in the Black Forest. West German testing stations did register worrisome peak values at times, including up to 120 times the normal level of radioactive isotope iodine 131 in Berlin and even up to 400 times normal values in the western city of Darmstadt. Suddenly Germans found themselves facing a wild, confusing rise and fall of test data, of readings denominated in unfamiliar units, such as Becquerel and Curie, Sievert, Millirem and rad. Information on the locations and intensity of radiation in various parts of the country was suddenly as uncertain as the weather. But at no time did radiation doses measured in Sweden and Germany pose an acute health risk. Nevertheless, the range of particle measurements provided experts with the irrefutable evidence that what happened at Chernobyl was not (as the Russians had claimed) merely an "incident" involving the release of radiation amounts that were completely safe for the Soviet Union's Western neighbors. There was no doubt that what had happened at Chernobyl was the kind of catastrophic case statisticians predicted could only happen once every 10,000 or even 100,000 years, an incident known as a core meltdown. When this occurs in a power plant such as Chernobyl, up to 180 tons of white-hot uranium, combined with the melted special steel of the fuel sleeves, eats through the reactor's concrete wall. At this point, the radioactive inventory of the reactor core corresponds to that of about 1,500 Hiroshima bombs -- except that in this case the nuclear horror doesn't explode in the air in the form of a bomb, but instead, as a glowing, constantly radioactive lump of material, slowly eats its way through the concrete walls and into the ground. © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2006 All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: NRC Proposes $19,500 Fine Against Mistras Holding Group for Safety Violations News Release - Region III - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-06-016 April 14, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $19,500 fine against MISTRAS Holdings Group, based in Carol Stream, Ill., for seven apparent violations of NRC requirements. The company has an NRC license to conduct industrial radiography using cameras that contain sealed radioactive sources to produce x-ray like images of metal objects and components. The company operates under additional names as Conam Inspection and Engineering Services, Inc., and Quality Services Laboratories, Inc. On October 27, 2005, two radiographers employed by the company were conducting radiography at a job location in Philadelphia, Penn. The radiographer received an overexposure to his right hand when he was trying to disassemble the guide tube from the camera without making sure that the sealed source was back in its shielded position. The radiographer told the inspectors that the job-site was noisy and he could not hear a radiation alarm even though he wore all the required radiation monitoring equipment. The radiographer was examined at a local hospital. No observable injury to the skin of the right hand was reported. The NRC conducted a special inspection that reviewed the causes and the circumstances surrounding this incident and the companys response. NRC inspectors identified three apparent violations. They include failure to control the dose to the skin or to any extremity of a radiation worker; failure to perform a survey of equipment containing NRC-licensed material after completing a radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source had been returned to its shielded position before dismantling the equipment; and failure to ensure that the sealed radiography source remained in the shielded position after it was returned to this shielded position. In addition, NRC inspectors identified two apparent violations related to the radiographer in charge leaving the site of radiographic operations to return film to his truck. NRC regulations specify that two radiographers must be present while radiography is being performed and that the radiographer in charge must be present to supervise radiographic operations. The company implemented corrective actions to address the causes of the problems and to enhance their radiation safety program. They included notifying all companys facilities about the overexposure event and requiring all radiographic personnel to discuss the event during the next training; suspending the radiographer and the assistant until they receive additional training; hiring an outside consultant to conduct an assessment and analysis of the potential overexposure to the radiographers hands; and continuing the medical reviews of the radiographer. The NRC also conducted a follow-up inspection to review the companys corrective actions for a violation issued by the NRC on August 17, 2005. The violation involved a radiography camera with NRC-licensed material being left unattended and unsecured at a temporary job site in Philadelphia, Penn., on May 17, 2005. The NRC found three additional violations included in the proposed fine during this inspection. During a review of the companys records NRC inspectors found a report describing a misplaced radiographic camera. When the camera was located later in the day, it was not in a locked and secured location. The incident was not immediately reported to the NRC. In addition, during a review of operations at a temporary job site in Trainer, Penn., inspectors found that radiation surveys were not conducted at the perimeter of the job-site as is required by regulations. The violations associated with this inspection included failure to secure and maintain control of a radiography device; failure to immediately report a lost or missing radiography device; and failure to conduct perimeter surveys at a temporary job-site. The company took corrective actions to address the problems. This included increasing the frequency of physical inventories of NRC-licensed material and improving physical security for the storage location. The NRCs regulations are designed to protect public health and safety. We expect our license holders to adhere to these regulations, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The company has until May 7 to either pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing. The letter notifying MISTRAS Holdings Group of the proposed fine has been posted to the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html #materials. Last revised Friday, April 14, 2006 ***************************************************************** 40 Yokwe Net: Enewetak People File Lawsuit in U.S. Court of Federal Claims Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net Apr 15, 2006 - 08:48 AM The people of Enewetak Atoll of the Marshal Islands filed a lawsuit on April 12 against the U.S. Government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This action followed the filing of a lawsuit the day before by the people of the neighboring atoll of Bikini. Both atolls were used by the U.S. for its Cold War nuclear testing program. The Enewetak lawsuit seeks compensation and/or damages under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for several separate takings by the U.S. of Enewetak land and lagoon. The people of Enewetak seek compensation in the amount of $385,894,500 less the payment made by the Tribunal ($1,647,483) for a total of $384,247,017, plus interest from the date of the award. FROM THE COMPLAINT: Nature of Action This Complaint seeks just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for several separate takings by defendant of property rightfully belonging to the plaintiffs: (a) The taking on December 21, 1947 of the land and lagoon that comprises Enewetak Atoll. This taking lasted under a series of temporary takings until October 1, 1980 when defendant permitted Plaintiffs to resettle and reinhabit the southern islands of the atoll. (b) The taking that began on October 1,1980 for over half the land mass and lagoon of Enewetak Atoll and will continue in whole or in part for the next 20 to 50 years. (c) The taking of plaintiffs'just compensation and implied-in-fact contract claims by defendant's inadequate funding of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal. Plaintiffs (excerpt) The people of Enewetak, the class of plaintiffs for which this claim is filed, were citizens of the United States Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands but are now citizens of theMarshall Islands. All plaintiffs were members of the Enewetak community in December 1947, when all of the inhabitants of Enewetak Atoll were removed from Enewetak Atoll by defendant to Ujelang Atoll prior to the commencement of a series of nuclear weapons tests conducted by defendant on Enewetak Atoll, or are either (i) direct descendants of such members or (ii) otherwise recognized as members of the Enewetak people by traditional law and custom. All plaintiffs possess land rights on Enewetak Atoll. Count III Complaint (excerpt) The Tribunal process has run its course as intended by the U.S. and required by the U.S. courts. The $150 million settlement amount proved to be manifestly inadequate to provide the just compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Although funds which would permit payment of Plaintiffs' just compensation award were requested by the Marshall Islands through the Changed Circumstances Petition, the United States executive and legislative branches have for a period of over 4 years ignored such request making the Compact, the 177 Agreement, and the Tribunal process a mockery and a cruel hoax. Plaintiffs' taking claims and implied-in-fact contract claims are property interests and the failure to provide a method to pay these claims once adjudicated amounts to a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States by failing to adequately fund the Tribunal so that it could pay Plaintiffs award has taken Plaintiffs' taking and implied-in-fact contract claims without providing the just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. READ MORE: Download the entire PDF file - ENEWETAK COMPLAINT FILED APRIL 12, 2006 Dedicated to the people of the Marshall Islands! ©Aenet Rowa, webmaster - yokwenet@aol.com Powered by PostNuke Theme creado por dev-postnuke.com ***************************************************************** 41 Yokwe Net: Marshall Islands Government Voices Support for Enewetak Lawsuit Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net Apr 15, 2006 - 08:48 AM In a statement from the Republic of the Marshall Islands Embassy in Washington, D.C., Ambassador Banny deBrum confirmed that the Government backs the people of Bikini and Enewetak Atolls in their filing of lawsuits in U.S. Federal Court on April 11 and 12, respectively. "The RMI Government fully supports the people of Enewetak, just as we stood behind the people of Bikini, in their decision to file a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims." "Statute of limitation concerns apply in both the Enewetak and Bikini cases. These communities were compelled to take action on their Tribunal awards in the face of a stalled political process. The people whose land was taken by the U.S. Government to detonate nuclear weapons must be compensated. The Nuclear Claims Tribunal lacks adequate funding to pay for the award it made to the Enewetak people." "I wish that the situation could be otherwise and our people were not forced to address these issues in the U.S. Courts. We've been working together for years to pursue every political and diplomatic channel available to us to address the on-going needs in the RMI linked to the testing program." "The suits do not mean that the political and diplomatic efforts come to a halt; the RMI Government will continue to raise these issues with U.S. Government representatives while Bikini and Enewetak simultaneously advance their claims in the U.S. Courts. In the end, we are all trying to do what is best for our people." ---- The Embassy of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Contact: Kristina Stege, First Secretary 2433 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 Tel. # (202) 234-5414 * Fax # (202) 232-3236 * E-mail: info@rmiembassyus.org Dedicated to the people of the Marshall Islands! ©Aenet Rowa, webmaster - yokwenet@aol.com Powered by PostNuke Theme creado por dev-postnuke.com ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Energy secretary makes first visit to Nevada nuclear dump site April 13, 2006 By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. (AP) - U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman made his first visit Thursday to the Nevada desert site picked for the nation's nuclear waste dump, pledging to fix problems and press ahead with opening an expanded repository. "I recognize that there have been problems in the past," Bodman said as he emerged wearing a white hard hat from a five-mile tunnel drilled into the ancient volcanic ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "But we've been working very hard collectively to change that." Bodman said he hoped Congress would speed legislation the Energy Department proposed last week that would remove hurdles to licensing, building and operating the dump. "The legislation will allow us to provide stability, provide clarity, as well as predictability to the Yucca Mountain project," he said, "and will help lay a solid foundation for America's future energy security." The bill, sponsored in the Senate by Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., faces a fight from Nevada's congressional delegation including Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate minority leader. The measure would raise the amount of highly radioactive waste that could be entombed at the site from 77,000 tons to 132,000 tons, and it would tap a special nuclear waste fund, reducing its exposure to congressional budget battles. Some $9 billion has been spent so far on the $58 billion project. Reid, traveling Thursday in Nevada, called the bill "an admission of failure." "This bill will not pass the Senate, and I believe that Yucca Mountain will never open," Reid said. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., accused Bodman of downplaying the dangers of shipping more nuclear material, and the head of a Las Vegas-based anti-Yucca Mountain advocacy group said Bodman should have met with critics of the project. "If you were responsible for such a far-reaching bill with so many implications and impacts on the people of a U.S. state, you should have the obligation or at least the courtesy to meet with the public," said Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nuclear Waste Task Force. Bodman said he heard all sides of the issue during his two-day trip, which included a meeting with editors of the state's largest newspaper in Las Vegas and a tour of the vast Nevada Test Site - where an Energy Department agency plans a huge non-nuclear explosion June 2. Bodman, who became energy secretary in February 2002, said opening Yucca Mountain would reduce the nation's dependence on coal, oil and natural gas by encouraging nuclear power plant construction. No commercial reactors have been built in the U.S. since 1973. The Energy Department hopes the dump will solve the decades-old problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste piling up at commercial, industrial and military sites in 39 states. Bodman, who taught chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1960s, said he was impressed by the "quantity" and "quality" of scientific work at the site. But he stopped short of endorsing its scientific findings, and promised that the repository won't open if it can't be made safe. The energy secretary and Paul Golan, acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, pledged to address issues raised in e-mails suggesting U.S. Geological Survey scientists falsified project work. "We will not tolerate that which has gone on in the past," Bodman said, calling allegations of shoddy science "a blight on the good name of the people that work here." The project has had its budget trimmed and operations scaled back as a crucial radiation standard is rewritten and the scientific work is investigated. The Energy Department had planned to apply for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license by the end of 2004, but the date has been pushed back to fiscal 2008. Bodman recently said it could be 2020 before Yucca Mountain opens. --- On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 Herald News: Initial reports: Wells' tritium levels safe [SuburbanChicagoNews.com] County testing: No danger yet from plant leaks By Cindy Wojdyla CainStaff Writer JOLIET Initial results from the Will County Health Department's well-testing program near the Braidwood Generating Station show no dangerous tritium levels. Jim Zelko, executive director of the health department, reported the preliminary findings to the county board's health committee Thursday. Of 99 wells tested, 59 reports have been returned to the county. Of those, 57 had tritium levels below detectable levels. Two wells had detectable tritium levels of 230 and 264 picocuries per liter. Both were lower than the state's drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter. Even so, the health department plans to test another 200 wells in an area where Exelon said tritium leaked from its plant. And the department is exploring a plan to test wells for heavy metal contamination, something that could be causing reported skin irritations in Godley area residents. Also, Zelko said he wants to make sure all cancer cases in the area have been reported to state officials searching for patterns in the reports. County Board Chairman Jim Moustis said even though the wells don't appear to be contaminated with tritium, a radioactive byproduct of the nuclear power business, the county should have "zero tolerance" of future tritium releases from the plant. Mary Ann Gearhart Deutsche, R-Steger, suggested the county board work to get the state to reduce safe tritium levels in drinking water from 20,000 picocuries per liter to 400, which is the new California public health goal. Don Gould, chairman of the health committee, said he wants the county board to develop a safe nuclear power agenda that can be put forth in the next legislative session. Moustis suggested Will County officials get together with officials from other counties that contain nuclear power plants to talk about problems with the industry in general. All the test results are on the health department's Web site. Go to www.willcountyhealth.organd click on Tritium Information under News Releases and Current Events. Meanwhile, residents who live near the plant will be able to see and hear periodic bursts of steam coming from valves at the plant starting today. The releases are part of periodic testing required to operate the plant. Some of the steam contains a low level of tritium that Exelon officials say has no impact on the environment and carries no health or safety risk to the public. Every 18 months the company is required to shut down a reactor to replace the fuel and do routine maintenance, including the testing. The first round of testing will take about 10 hours. Operators will also be venting steam from the plant's secondary system that may be seen but is not large enough in volume to be heard. This second part of the procedure will last for about 24 hours. - Staff writer Kim Smith contributed to this report.04/14/06 SuburbanChicagoNews.com — © Digital Chicago & Sun-Times ***************************************************************** 44 reviewjournal.com: Bodman emerges impressed Apr. 14, 2006 But official's praise after Yucca Mountain tour given along with concerns about research Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman talks Thursday after a tour of Yucca Mountain. He said he was impressed with work done at the planned nuclear waste repository, but that changes in leadership will let workers know that a repeat of credibility problems will not be tolerated. Photo by Gary Thompson. YUCCA MOUNTAIN -- Wearing a hard hat and goggles, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman emerged from the dark tunnel inside this remote, barren ridge Thursday to say he was impressed with the exploratory effort and research being performed at the site of the nation's planned nuclear waste repository. However, he said the verdict is still out on the credibility of the scientific work that focuses on the movement of water through pores and cracks in the volcanic rock. The findings are key in estimating when waste canisters will corrode and when lethal remnants of spent nuclear fuel will escape into the environment. The credibility issue surfaced last year in a series of e-mails that had been written by federal geologists who discussed falsifying documents to meet deadlines. Data they compiled was used in computer models for three climate conditions that would occur over 1 million years, the time that the highly radioactive waste must be safely contained. Bodman said Sandia National Laboratories is evaluating the hydrology work of the U.S. Geological Survey team to find out how reasonable the scientists' assumptions were and how conservative the staff was in characterizing their models. "Those are tough questions," said Bodman, who is a chemical engineer. "I'm comfortable that we will get answers. I don't know what the answers are going to be, but I'm comfortable we will get answers." Bodman said the people who were held accountable for the questionable work are no longer on the project and that his deputy, Paul Golan, acting director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, is spearheading an effort to change the cultural mind-set of the project's 2,000 employees. "We need a leadership change here that indicates to the individuals who work here that we will not tolerate that which has gone on in the past," the 67-year-old energy secretary told reporters gathered along the rail tracks that lead to the north entrance of the 25-foot-diameter tunnel, which loops through the mountain. Bodman is the third energy secretary in office to tour the finished, 5.2-mile exploratory tunnel. He was preceded by Bill Richardson and his immediate predecessor, Spencer Abraham. Abraham visited the site in early 2002 prior to recommending it to President Bush as the nation's burial ground for entombing 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in a maze of tunnels, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Bodman said his first impression of the site "was that an enormous amount of work has been done over a number of years." He said he has heard people describe the project as failing. But after Thursday's tour, he said, "I have to tell you, based on my first evaluation of it, I was quite impressed with the quality and quantity of work that has been done in order to verify the underlying science of this program -- not that the job is done." Earlier in the day, Bodman said, "The question, however, remains: Is it certain enough and is the quality enough?" Also Thursday, Bodman defended a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate last week by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla. He said the bill is not a measure to put the project on a fast track that would step on states' rights and avoid safeguards, as critics have claimed. Instead, he said the bill is primarily an attempt to remove barriers to gain title to land and water, expand the repository's capacity, develop infrastructure and secure funding generated by nuclear utility ratepayers. Nevertheless, the government watchdog organization Public Citizen noted Thursday that the bill, if approved, would abolish state, local and tribal authority over transporting highly radioactive waste and spent fuel. In addition, the bill would exempt the mountain from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and allow hundreds of millions of pounds of hazardous heavy metals from waste containers to contaminate groundwater used for drinking and irrigation, the watchdog group said. The state's leading critic of the project, Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, said the bill amounts to special treatment for a flawed site. "No other entity or project would be allowed to have these kinds of exemptions," Loux said by telephone. "In his mind, these may be little barriers, but they want things that no other applicant can get." As for expanding the repository's capacity to more than 120,000 tons of nuclear waste, DOE's Golan said the site's environmental impact statement considered such an expansion. However, Loux noted, "The problem is none of it was characterized or studied. They certainly haven't studied that other area. They are just guessing what it is like. They have to cross the Solitario Canyon and Ghost Dance (earthquake) faults to get to it," he said. Another critic, Judy Treichel of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, said, "I don't think he (Bodman) understands his own legislation." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 Saratoga Herald Tribune: Tallevast district to be redrawn Map includes homes outside the polluted area, plan board says BY CHRISTOPHER O'DONNELL MANATEE COUNTY -- Residents of Whitfield Estates will have to wait weeks to find out if their homes will be included in a Tallevast pollution district, but for many the damage has already been done. The district included hundreds of homes outside the area known to be polluted and has fueled fears that home values will plummet. Yet a smaller and more accurate district could have been drawn if the county had waited for a ground-water survey due to be completed by the end of April, residents said. "You have tainted us in Whitfield unnecessarily," said Dennie Innes, a retired school teacher. "You did not think this out." County planning commissioners agreed after hearing fierce criticism of the proposal at a public meeting Thursday. They voted to delay any action until the district is redrawn based on the survey. But real estate in the district has already been affected. A resident selling his home in the Brookside addition of Whitfield Estates was advised by his real estate agent to inform the buyer of the proposal. "If we didn't, we could both have lawyers coming after us," said Wendi Buchanan, a real estate saleswoman with Coldwell Banker. Around 70 people attended the hearing. Homeowners, some in tears, said they were worried homes they had worked all their life to buy would be worthless. Business owners fretted that they would not be able to irrigate large tracts of land if they could not dig new wells. Realtors asked for legal advice on what information they would have to disclose to buyers. Under the proposal, any property that touches the district boundary would be included in the district. It means that all of Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport could be affected even though just a small portion of the airport is within the contaminated area, said Chief Executive Fred Piccolo. The proposal, known as the "Tallevast Overlay District," is intended as a way to stop contamination from the former American Beryllium Co. weapons plant from spreading. It prohibits the digging of wells and requires more review of construction. The county proposed a far bigger area than the 131 or so acres known to be contaminated, roping in hundreds of homes and some businesses in an area bordered by Whitfield Avenue, University Parkway, U.S. 301 and U.S. 41. The district was drawn by the county's Environmental Management Department. Director Karen Collins-Fleming said the Tallevast Overlay District would be redrawn, likely smaller, before being passed into law once the results of the ground-water survey have been reviewed by state environmental officials. But that failed to placate residents, angry at their homes being linked in any way to Tallevast. "I'd like to congratulate Karen and her bunch for completely destroying Whitfield just by drawing arbitrary lines," said Donald Fisher. The Planning Commission's decision means the district proposal will not go before county commissioners yet. The proposal will have to be re-advertised and another public hearing held before the Planning Commission reconsiders it. "We can advertise as far as the county wants," said Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague. "That doesn't mean the district has to be drawn that way." ***************************************************************** 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Energy chief gives Yucca Mountain a glowing recommendation Article Last Updated: 04/14/2006 12:47:22 AM MDT The Associated Press YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. - U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman made his first visit Thursday to the Nevada desert site picked for the nation's nuclear waste dump, pledging to fix problems and press ahead with opening an expanded repository. ''I recognize that there have been problems in the past,'' Bodman said as he emerged wearing a hard hat from a five-mile tunnel drilled into the ancient volcanic ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. ''But we've been working very hard collectively to change that.'' Bodman said he hoped Congress would speed legislation the Energy Department proposed last week that would remove hurdles to licensing, building and operating the dump. ''The legislation will allow us to provide stability, provide clarity, as well as predictability to the Yucca Mountain project,'' he said, ''and will help lay a solid foundation for America's future energy security.'' The bill, sponsored in the Senate by Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., faces a fight from Nevada's congressional delegation including Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The measure would raise the amount of highly radioactive waste that could be entombed at the site from 77,000 tons to 132,000 tons, and it would tap a special nuclear waste fund, reducing its exposure to congressional budget battles. Some $9 billion has been spent so far on the $58 billion project. Reid, traveling Thursday in Nevada, called the bill ''an admission of failure.'' ''This bill will not pass the Senate, and I believe that Yucca Mountain will never open,'' Reid said. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 47 Hanford News: Stability key for Hanford, says Gregoire This story was published Friday, April 14th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer It's no wonder Hanford's vitrification plant is facing an increasing price tag and has fallen behind schedule, said Gov. Chris Gregoire in a Thursday meeting with the Herald editorial board. Try building a house when every month the bank changes the amount it's willing to lend and every few weeks the contractor changes, she said. Last year Congress reduced the amount of money it was willing to spend on the plant being built to treat some of Hanford's worst radioactive waste from $690 million to $526 million in the light of management and technical problems. Some congressional leaders again appear unwilling to budget $690 million for the plant in fiscal year 2007. Since the first plan to build a vitrification plant at Hanford in 1989, the nation has had three presidents and 11 energy secretaries, she pointed out. Each new energy secretary wants to stop and assess the project, before ultimately deciding it must go forward, Gregoire said. Not only the vitrification plant, but also the rest of Hanford, needs stability, commitment from the federal government and stable funding, she said. As the Department of Energy prepares to release proposals for new contracts at the Hanford nuclear reservation and has announced it will recompete the contract at its national laboratory in Richland, Gregoire cautioned that DOE could be just "rearranging deck chairs." "All you do is change the titular head when you change contractors," she said. Most of the work force typically remains in place. The Hanford Advisory Board last week recommended that DOE consider one contract for central Hanford. DOE is proposing three new contracts to continue work under expiring contracts held by CH2M Hill Hanford Group and Fluor Hanford. "I like direct lines of accountability," a benefit of fewer contracts, Gregoire said. In other news: Gregoire would like to leverage the state's tourism dollars by working with other states and southern British Columbia to promote the Pacific Northwest as a vacation destination. Tourism efforts are too fragmented, even within the state, she said. She also pointed out that other states do a better job of matching state money with private money to promote tourism. Tourism will be a topic she works on in the next legislative session, she said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 NVDP: Energy secretary uses SUVs, helicopters to Nevadans Nevada State Democratic Party Slinking through the back door Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is in town for the first time since he took his position more than a year ago. Apparently, its better to oversee the completely botched Yucca Mountain project from afar. But while Bodman was happy to meet with an editorial board on Wednesday and ask cameras to join him in a staged press conference at Yucca Mountain today, he is scampering to avoid other Nevadans: See no evil& According to the Energy Department, Bodman will swoop in and out of Yucca Mountain by helicopter, ensuring he wont have to endure the glares of protestors at the gates of the project. Staff members from Rep. Shelley Berkleys office were told the congresswoman could not attend the media tour of Yucca Mountain scheduled for today. Bodmans employees also declined to allow Judy Treichel, a long-time public advocate against Yucca Mountain, to attend the event. Hear no evil... On Wednesday, Bodman arrived at the Las Vegas Review-Journal for an editorial board meeting in an entourage of three large SUVs. Bodmans drivers avoided the front entrance, where representatives of Citizen Alert hoped to talk to him on his way into the meeting. Instead, the cars slinked around to the back entrance. Why would Secretary Bodman bother to meet with Nevadans on this important issue& his boss, President Bush, never has, said Kirsten Searer, communications director for the Nevada State Democratic Party. Is he afraid he might hear the truth about Yucca Mountain? Bodman has acknowledged in front of Congress that this project is severely compromised and broken, yet he apparently bristles at the idea of meeting with Nevadans who are understandably concerned. Its typical secrecy and incompetence from the Bush Administration. Bodmans broken and severely compromised comments on Yucca Mountain can be found here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2006/mar/13/566632 680.html Copyright 2005 - Nevada Democratic Party Paid for by the Nevada State Democratic Party NSDP Calender 1325 E. Vegas Valley Drive Suite C Las Vegas, NV 89109 702-737-8683 www.nvdems.com Web Development and eMarketing by Geary Interactive This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. ***************************************************************** 49 Daily Beacon: Oak Ridge joins ITER in push for fusion energy Sarah McCarty - Staff Writer Thursday, April 13, 2006 issue With the looming fuel crisis, Stanely Milora, director of the fusion energy division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is working hard to make fusion energy a feasible alternative for the future. “Nuclear fusion is the process that takes place in the sun and all of the stars to produce the thermal energy that we call heat,” said Tom Shannon, professor emeritus in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering. Mark Littmann, organizer of the UT Science Forum that brought Milora to discuss his research last month, explained the process of fusion. When two atoms of hydrogen combine or fuse, an atom of helium is formed. “In doing so, a certain amount of mass would be lost. That mass would be energy,” Littmann said. However, the process requires very high temperatures. “To make the reaction proceed vigorously, the fuel must be very hot — 100 million degrees, or six times the temperature of the sun's core,” Milora said. “The fusion energy program strives to harness this process for a clean, abundant energy source.” In order to contain such a reaction, Milora looks to magnetic fields. “I specialized in developing advanced fueling systems for magnetic fusion energy devices and applying the technology on experiments in the U.S. and abroad,” Milora said. Milora works with International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a national collaboration to use the magnetic fusion energy research to demonstrate fusion energy as a power source. “ITER will be the most advanced and ambitious fusion experiment ever undertaken,” Milora said. “It will be built in an unprecedented collaboration between the European Union, Russia, the U.S., Japan, Korea, India and China. Its goal is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. It is scheduled to be completed in 2015 in Cadarache, France. When it is fully operational (around 2020) ITER will generate 500 million watts of heat from a sustained fusion reaction. ORNL is the host of the U.S. ITER Project Office. The Office is responsible for coordinating the U.S. contributions to ITER.” “If a practical fusion reactor can be developed, the source of fuel is almost limitless,” Shannon said. The process is also relatively ‘clean’ as a source of energy for producing electricity compared to conventional nuclear reactors or the burning of coal and natural gas. There is no other source of energy that has more promise for the large-scale and long-term production of energy on earth.” All site content © The University of Tennessee 2005 Website design © Jeremy Tunnell ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************