*****************************************************************
05/01/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.103
*****************************************************************
   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 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Pushes for Talks on Nukes, Security
2 Prevent War With Iran - Have You Signed Iran Nuke Appeal Yet?
3 Iran Continues To Enrich Uranium, UN Nuclear Watchdog Tells Security
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Denounces U.S. Nuclear Strike Stance
5 Independent: Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? 
6 Guardian Unlimited: Putin, Bush Discuss Iran Nuclear Dispute
7 AFP: Iran says enrichment suspension makes 'no sense' 
8 AFP: Iran complains to UN chief over threat of US attack 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Nuclear Negotiator Calls for Talks
10 AFP: US presses for concerted response to 'continued defiance" by Ir
11 Xinhua: U.S., Japan call for resuming six-party talks   
12 US: [NukeNet] Lobby Re US Senator Biden supports India-US nuke deal
13 BBC: £1bn windfall from carbon trading
14 Mos News: Gorbachev Calls G8 to Invest in Solar Energy - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 [NukeNet]  Scotland: Nuclear accident exercise r eveals 'fatal
16 Platts: UK government says Blair undecided on nuclear despite report
17 US: Concord Monitor: Irrational exuberance over nuclear 'solution'  
18 US: Daily Item: Susquehanna nuclear power unit shut down for 'minor'
19 TheStar.com: Ontario poised to enter new nuclear era
20 Chicago Sun-Times: Teacher exhibits her photos of Chernobyl 
21 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
22 ZAMAN DAILY: Gov't Claims Full Authority in Nuclear Plant Issue
23 US: Boston Globe: Residents blast panel's inaction 
24 lamonitor.com: Chernobyl: Still hot after all these years 
25 Scotsman.com: Sci-Tech - Report reveals nuclear plant picture scares
26 UPI: Japan urged to strengthen nuclear reactors
27 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear no cure for climate change, scientist
28 US: AP Wire: Nuclear engineers in high demand
29 US: AP Wire: Nuclear fuel maker to move from N.C.
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
30 [DU List] Mission acomplished, - by Felicity Arbuthnot
31 Marshall Islands survivor declaration in Chernobyl
32 US: toledoblade.com: Port's delay on beryllium firm's request costly
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
33 US: Deseret News: Southern Utah's Democrats rally in Dixie 
34 Platts: Committee recommends two-stage plan to store UK radwaste
35 US: Deseret News: Opinion on nuclear waste in Utah? Speak up 
36 US: Deseret News: Nuclear waste recycling is costly, foes say 
37 Nevada Observer: Missives Fly As More Join The Anti-Yucca Mountain T
38 US: Deseret News: Reprocessing plan pushed in D.C. 
39 US: AU ABC: Uranium debate continues within Labor
40 US: AU ABC: SA senator wants Labor uranium policy overturned. 
41 News & Star: We're leaving nuclear timebomb for our kids
42 AU ABC: Govt says hands tied over waste dump site offers
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
43 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Evidence of new leaks, group reports
44 SPI: Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if Congress wil
45 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford cleanup hearing May 9 in Seattle
46 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
47 Daily Herald: Argonne's growing pains at 60 - 
48 Seattle Times: Lucky find reveals nuke-tank flaws
49 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford: The long cleanup
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Pushes for Talks on Nukes, Security
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:14:58 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS MM NA HD IP BW NU=20
POLITICS: Iran Pushes for Talks on Nukes, Security With U.S.
Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - Iranian leaders have been signaling to Washing=
ton since late 2005 that Iran wanted direct negotiations with the United =
States on Tehran's nuclear programme and other outstanding issues between=
  the two countries.

The campaign began with private talks between Iranian officials and forei=
gn visitors in the country, and has included public suggestions by member=
s of the Iranian parliament for U.S-Iranian talks. But last week, Preside=
nt Mahmoud Ahmedinejad indicated for the first time that he is open to ta=
lks with Washington.

In an hour-long press conference Apr. 24, Ahmadinejad said Iran =94is rea=
dy to talk to all world countries, but negotiation with anybody has its o=
wn conditions=94, and then specifically named the United States. =94If th=
ese conditions are met, we will negotiate.=94

Ahmedinejad's remark, which was reported by the independent Paris-based I=
ran News Service, went unnoticed in the U.S. media. However, the media di=
d report the Iranian president's statement in the same press conference t=
hat talks with the U.S. on Iraq were not necessary now that a government =
was set up.

Although Ahmedinejad did not say what Iran's conditions for talks are, th=
e Iranian response to the U.S. proposal last November for bilateral talks=
  on Iraq may be a good indication of what Tehran has in mind. When Iraqi =
President Jalal Talabani took the U.S. proposal to Tehran on a visit last=
  November, in which he met Ahmedinejad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei=
, and other top leaders, he was told Iran would agree to talks on two con=
ditions: they would remain private and they would involve all outstanding=
  issues between the two countries.

Despite a common view in the media, reflecting official U.S. views, that =
Ahmedinejad has taken Iranian policy in a much more radical direction sin=
ce he took office last August, Iranian leaders, including those who have =
been critical of some of Ahmedinejad's public rhetoric, have publicly emp=
hasised that Iran's nuclear policy is not determined by the president.

In late February and early March, the secretary of the Supreme National S=
ecurity Council for 16 years, Hassan Rohani, stated on two different occa=
sions that Iran's stance on the nuclear issue is decided by the state's t=
op officials and not by the current government. =94Iran's general policie=
s do not change with new governments,=94 he said on Feb. 20.

Although it was the first time that Ahmedinejad had commented on the subj=
ect of talks with the United States, his press conference remark was not =
the first direct public indication by the Iranian government of interest =
in negotiations with the United States on both the nuclear issue and othe=
r security questions.

On Mar. 6, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, =94What we a=
re saying is that if America abandons its threats and creates a positive =
atmosphere in which it does not seek to influence the process of negotiat=
ions by imposing preconditions, then there will be no impediment to negot=
iations.=94

These new public signals came against a background of a quiet diplomatic =
campaign by Iranian officials in recent months to communicate Iran's read=
iness to negotiate directly with the United States on broad security issu=
es. They have sent that message through both diplomats and other prominen=
t figures who have met with them in Tehran.

A statement published in the International Herald Tribune Wednesday by fo=
rmer foreign ministers of the United States, Germany, Netherlands, Poland=
, France and Luxembourg, said the five European members of the group had =
all =94met with influential Iranian officials during the past few months =
and found a widespread interest among them in conducting a broad discussi=
on with the United States on security issues=94.

The current campaign is not the first by Iran to interest Washington in d=
irect negotiations on security issues. In early May 2003, Swiss Ambassado=
r in Tehran Tim Guldimann, who represented U.S. interests in the country,=
  forwarded to Washington a one-page Iranian proposal that offered to meet=
  U.S. concerns about the nuclear issue and Iranian support for Hezbollah =
and other anti-Israeli groups, in return for security guarantees and an e=
nd to economic sanctions.

That negotiating initiative, which was said to have the support of Suprem=
e Leader Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council, was also pre=
ceded by a quiet campaign of signals by Iranian officials through both of=
ficial diplomatic channels and non-official channels of Iranian interest =
in such negotiations, according to Paul Pillar, who was then the national=
  intelligence officer on Iran.

The Iranians apparently believed the time was ripe for negotiations, beca=
use of the potential chaos that could engulf Iraq in the wake of the U.S.=
  invasion, and the U.S. need for the cooperation of Iranian-sponsored Shi=
ite political parties and military groups who were responsive to Iranian =
advice.

Bush administration officials had also begun in late 2002 to express alar=
m at the progress made in Iran's nuclear programme and alleged Iranian pl=
ans to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

=94The Iranians expected and had plenty of reason to expect that this wou=
ld be a good moment to approach the United States,=94 says Pillar.

The George W. Bush administration ignored the Iranian proposal in 2003 an=
d has publicly rejected possible talks with Iran on the nuclear issue in =
recent months. However, Iran's announcement in early April that it had ac=
hieved a 3.6 percent level of enrichment of uranium -- the first step tow=
ard having a level of enrichment necessary to make a nuclear weapon -- ha=
s made a negotiated solution to the issue much more urgent.

Following that announcement, the two top members of the Senate Foreign Re=
lations Committee, Chairman Richard Lugar and ranking Democrat Joseph Bid=
en, called for direct U.S. talks with Iran.

Some analysts familiar with the thinking of Iranian national security off=
icials believe they have gone ahead with partial enrichment in order to p=
osition themselves for broader talks with the United States going beyond =
the nuclear issue.

=94Enrichment has become a big bargaining chip,=94 says Iranian journalis=
t Najmeh Bozorgmehr, who has had access to top Iranian leaders in off the=
  record interviews for the past several years. =94They are producing fact=
s on the ground that would give them leverage in negotiations with the Un=
ited States.=94

Bozorgmehr, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says=
  the Iranians hope to get the removal of sanctions, security guarantees a=
nd guaranteed fuel supply in return for concessions on the fuel enrichmen=
t issue.

Journalist Praful Bidwai reported for IPS last week that government offic=
ials and other experts in Tehran told him there was =94fairly broad agree=
ment=94 that a compromise proposal on the nuclear issue and security guar=
antees and normalisation of U.S. relations with Iran could be negotiated.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
*****
+IRAN: Defiant but Ready to Deal (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33=
030)
+POLITICS-US: =94Cabal=94 Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks with Iran (http://ip=
snews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D32672)

(END/IPS/NA/MM/IP/HD/NU/BW/GP/KS/06)

=20
=3D 05010009 ORP001
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 2 Prevent War With Iran - Have You Signed Iran Nuke Appeal Yet?
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:31:47 -0700


<x-flowed>
Prevent Iran War - Pls Sign Iran Appeal/Write to Your Government
(urls for Parliamentarians and Civil Society Appeal and Letter to Kofi 
Annan below)

Dear Parliamentarian or NGO:

Please forgive us if this is the hundredth time you have seen this appeal, 
especially if you have already signed it.

If you havent signed it do please sign it. To sign please email this adress 
<foesyd4@ihug.com.au> with your name, position, name of organisation, and 
(if you are a parliamentarian) party and electorate. Please do not forget 
location and COUNTRY.

If you have already signed please get another organisation to sign it and 
write to your government.

Parliamentarians and NGOs: PLEASE SIGN PARLIAMENTARIANS AND CIVIL SOCIETY 
APPEAL ON IRAN AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS, LETTER TO KOFI ANNAN.(urls and text 
below at end of this email)
Individuals - PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR GOVERNMENT/UNITED NATIONS SECURITY 
COUNCIL, or sign appeal 'after Downing Street', or the Greenpeace 
appeal  (urls below at end of this email)

Individuals (as well as Parliamentarians and NGOs) are also strongly urged 
to write to your foreign minister and/or Security Council representative in 
the same sense as the Appeal, urging a peaceful solution to the crisis with 
Iran.  Please FAX or write to your government, preferably handwritten or 
printed on letterhead.

(Security Council anf foreign ministers fax numbers below).
PARLIAMENTARIANS AND CIVIL SOCIETY APPEAL ON IRAN AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

A PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO THE IRAN CRISIS AND A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST

NO 'FIRST USE' OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

To:
President George Bush
Secy of State Condoleeza Rice
UN Ambassador John Bolton

President Ahmadinejad of Iran
Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Jharze
Iran UN Ambassador, H.E. Zarif-Khonsari

Ehud Olmert, Acting Prime Minister of Israel,
Israel Foreign MinisterTzipi Livni,
H.E. Mr. Dan Gillerman, Israel UN Mission

cc
Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of UK
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,

The Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
The Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia

M. Jacques Chirac, Président de la République Française
M. Dominique de Villepin, Premier Ministre
M. Philippe Douste-Blazy, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères
S.E. Jean-Marc de la Sablière, Représentant permanent auprès des Nations-Unies

Herr Horst Köhler, Bundespräzsident Deutschlands
Frau Angela Merkel, Bundeskanzlerin Deutschlands
Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Deutsche Bundesaussenminister

Mr Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the United Nations
Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the IAEA

Wolfgang Schussel, President of the European Union, Chancellor of Austria,

President Putin of Russia
Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia

China UN, Geneva and  IAEA Missions

IAEA Board Members


Dear Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign 
Ministers, Secretaries of State, IAEA Board Members, and Ambassadors,

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is possibly the single greatest threat 
to civilisation.  If a feared cascade of proliferation occurs, the 
probability that by malice, madness, miscalculation or malfunction, nuclear 
weapons will at some point be used will increase sharply. All nations have 
a responsibility to ensure that the number of nations with nuclear weapons 
does not grow, to prevent non-state actors from obtaining them, and for 
those who posses nuclear weapons to eliminate and abolish them.

Threats and rumours of military action or even nuclear weapons use only 
worsen a growing crisis between Iran, the United States, and Israel.

Reports of preparations for and explorations of military options, no matter 
how speculative, are highly disturbing and are in themselves dangerous. 
Such explorations must cease. There must be no talk of war.

But there IS talk of war, both from the United States and from Israel. 
President Ahmadinejad, you have spoken of "wiping Israel from the map."  In 
the US and Israel, 'hotheads' call openly for "swift military action", 
while 'responsible' leaders speak of "no option being ruled out." President 
Bush, we heard these same two formulations used just months before the 
invasion of Iraq.   We urge that  the explorations of military or nuclear 
options cease immediately, and support IAEA General Director, Mohamed 
ElBaradei in calling for this belligerent talk from all parties to stop now.

The United States and other Nuclear Weapon States and de facto nuclear 
weapon states -nations that already possess nuclear weapons- have made 
little progress toward the internationally mandated goal of the total and 
unequivocal elimination of those weapons. Although there has been some 
limited progress in lowering total nuclear stockpiles, the established 
nuclear weapons possessors continue to rely on those weapons in their 
security doctrines, and do not envisage change in that posture 'for the 
foreseeable future'.

This continues in spite of a clear international consensus to the effect 
that nuclear weapons are a continuing threat to civilisation and life, in 
spite of repeated calls by the international community for progress toward 
their total and unequivocal elimination.

Nations that possess large nuclear arsenals cannot consistently or credibly 
call for others to eliminate or cease the pursuit of nuclear weapons 
arsenals of their own while not moving to eliminate their own nuclear 
weapons.  A global commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons is a 
global commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and applies 
equally to all parties.  There can be no exceptions.  Those who now posses 
nuclear arsenals are obliged to eliminate those arsenals. Those who do not 
have them must not pursue them.

Similarly, the violation of the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East by one 
party does not in any way excuse its violation by another party. However, 
the renunciation of the nuclear option by one party will facilitate its 
renunciation by another party.

Israel's nuclear arsenal and the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran - if 
indeed that is taking place - are dangerous per se and open the gate for 
further proliferation by other Middle Eastern nations, and for a middle 
eastern arms race that would be dangerous in the extreme. This must not happen.

Serious concerns exist over the possibility that US nuclear doctrine may 
envisage strikes against other nations that involve a first use of nuclear 
weapons, or possibly the use of nuclear weapons against nations that are 
not themselves nuclear - armed. We note with approval the recent letter by 
US senators and others in this matter.

A third use of nuclear weapons must never take place. It would be a 
catastrophe not only for Iran or Israel but for the entire region and even 
for the entire world, because of its radioactive fallout, its chaotic 
effects, and because it would break the taboo against the use of these 
weapons that has so far held place for the last 60 years. Breaking this 
taboo could result in the further use of nuclear weapons, with a lower and 
lower bar for such use. The widespread use of nuclear weapons would be 
catastrophic for the world.   We urge all parties to renounce the pursuit 
of nuclear weapons, and to adopt policies that rule out their use.

The Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, and prominent 
individuals signed below hereby urge a solution to the crisis in relations 
between the US and Iran, Israel and Iran, based on the following clearly 
defined principles:

1) No use of any military option whatsoever by any party for any reason.

2) A clear commitment by all nuclear-armed parties not to use nuclear 
weapons in this situation, and a broader commitment to the doctrine of no 
'first use' of nuclear weapons.

3) The implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution on a 
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East, implementation of the annual 
consensus-adopted General Assembly resolutions on 'Establishment of a 
Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the region of the Middle East'.

4) A clear commitment by all parties to the global elimination of nuclear 
weapons, including through reaffirming the Final Declaration of the 2000 
Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and relevant General Assembly 
resolutions.

5) A diplomatic path to the removal of tensions between the US, Israel, and 
Iran, involving compromise on both sides, recognition of the legitimate 
security concerns of all parties including both Israel and Iran, and 
refraining from inflammatory statements or the exploration of military 
options by any party.


URLS AND FAX NUMBERS BELOW

urls for this appeal (Parliamentarians and Civil Society Appeal on Iran):


PNND website at the following url:

http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/ParliamentariansIranNukes.htm

It is also on the GANA website of Ak Malten at:

http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/Iran_Nuclear_letter.html


In french:

Tu le trouveras sur le site d'ACDN : http://www.acdn.net en français et en
anglais.


Other Important Petitions against Attack on Iran:

Letter to Kofi Annan url:

  http://www.ippnw.org,
below "Udates and News".


DON'T ATTACK IRAN - PETITION
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

GREENPEACE APPEAL:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/don-t-nuke-iran


Some Important Fax Numbers:

<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org>(contact details for all security 
council members may be found on:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org)

George Bush, President, USA:1-202-456-2461

Condoleeza Rice, Secy of State USA: 1-202-647-6047

USA UN Mission NY - 1-212-415-4443 (Amb John Bolton)

Iran Minister of Foreign Affairs 0098-21-667-43149

Iran UN Ambassador NY - 2-212-867-7086

Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs 97-225-303015

Israel UN Mission NY 1-212-499-5515

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany: 49-228-56-2357  or 49-30-4000-2357

Germany UN Mission 1-212-940-0402

Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 7-095-244-9248/4112

Russia NY UN Mission 1-212-628-0252

China UN Mission 1-212-634-7626

Brazil Geneva UN mission 43-1-513-8374

Canada Foreign Ministry 1-613-992-2482

Canada UN mission 1-212-848-1195

Sweden Foreign Ministry 46-8-723-1176

Sweden UN Mission 1-212-832-0389

Norway Foreign Ministry 47-2224-9580

Norway UN mission 1-212-688-0554

Jack Straw, UK Secy of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 
44-207-270-2833

UK Un Mission 1-212-745-9316

Hon. Alexander Downer, Australian Ministry for Foreign Affairs 61-2-6273-4112

Australia UN Mission 1-212-351-6610.







Current List of Signatories for the Parliamentarians and Civil Society 
Appeal on Iran


PARLIAMENTARIANS AND CIVIL SOCIETY APPEAL ON IRAN AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

A PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO THE IRAN CRISIS AND A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST

NO 'FIRST USE' OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

To:
Members of the United Nations Security Council

President George Bush
Secy of State Condoleeza Rice
UN Ambassador John Bolton

President Ahmadinejad of Iran
Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Jharze
Iran UN Ambassador, H.E. Zarif-Khonsari

Ehud Olmert, Acting Prime Minister of Israel,
Israel Foreign MinisterTzipi Livni,
H.E. Mr. Dan Gillerman, Israel UN Mission

cc
Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of UK
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,

The Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
The Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia

M. Jacques Chirac, Président de la République Française
M. Dominique de Villepin, Premier Ministre
M. Philippe Douste-Blazy, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères
S.E. Jean-Marc de la Sablière, Représentant permanent auprès des Nations-Unies

Herr Horst Köhler, Bundespräzsident Deutschlands
Frau Angela Merkel, Bundeskanzlerin Deutschlands
Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Deutsche Bundesaussenminister

Mr Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the United Nations
Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the IAEA

Wolfgang Schussel, President of the European Union, Chancellor of Austria,

President Putin of Russia
Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia

China UN, Geneva and  IAEA Missions

IAEA Board Members


Dear Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign 
Ministers, Secretaries of State, IAEA Board Members, and Ambassadors,

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is possibly the single greatest threat 
to civilisation.  If a feared cascade of proliferation occurs, the 
probability that by malice, madness, miscalculation or malfunction, nuclear 
weapons will at some point be used will increase sharply. All nations have 
a responsibility to ensure that the number of nations with nuclear weapons 
does not grow, to prevent non-state actors from obtaining them, and for 
those who posses nuclear weapons to eliminate and abolish them.

Threats and rumours of military action or even nuclear weapons use only 
worsen a growing crisis between Iran, the United States, and Israel.

Reports of preparations for and explorations of military options, no matter 
how speculative, are highly disturbing and are in themselves dangerous. 
Such explorations must cease. There must be no talk of war.

But there IS talk of war, both from the United States and from Israel. 
President Ahmadinejad, you have spoken of "wiping Israel from the map."  In 
the US and Israel, 'hotheads' call openly for "swift military action", 
while 'responsible' leaders speak of "no option being ruled out." President 
Bush, we heard these same two formulations used just months before the 
invasion of Iraq.   We urge that  the explorations of military or nuclear 
options cease immediately, and support IAEA General Director, Mohamed 
ElBaradei in calling for this belligerent talk from all parties to stop now.

The United States and other Nuclear Weapon States and de facto nuclear 
weapon states -nations that already possess nuclear weapons- have made 
little progress toward the internationally mandated goal of the total and 
unequivocal elimination of those weapons. Although there has been some 
limited progress in lowering total nuclear stockpiles, the established 
nuclear weapons possessors continue to rely on those weapons in their 
security doctrines, and do not envisage change in that posture 'for the 
foreseeable future'.

This continues in spite of a clear international consensus to the effect 
that nuclear weapons are a continuing threat to civilisation and life, in 
spite of repeated calls by the international community for progress toward 
their total and unequivocal elimination.

Nations that possess large nuclear arsenals cannot consistently or credibly 
call for others to eliminate or cease the pursuit of nuclear weapons 
arsenals of their own while not moving to eliminate their own nuclear 
weapons.  A global commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons is a 
global commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and applies 
equally to all parties.  There can be no exceptions.  Those who now posses 
nuclear arsenals are obliged to eliminate those arsenals. Those who do not 
have them must not pursue them.

Similarly, the violation of the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East by one 
party does not in any way excuse its violation by another party. However, 
the renunciation of the nuclear option by one party will facilitate its 
renunciation by another party.

Israel's nuclear arsenal and the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran - if 
indeed that is taking place - are dangerous per se and open the gate for 
further proliferation by other Middle Eastern nations, and for a middle 
eastern arms race that would be dangerous in the extreme. This must not happen.

Serious concerns exist over the possibility that US nuclear doctrine may 
envisage strikes against other nations that involve a first use of nuclear 
weapons, or possibly the use of nuclear weapons against nations that are 
not themselves nuclear - armed. We note with approval the recent letter by 
US senators and others in this matter.

A third use of nuclear weapons must never take place. It would be a 
catastrophe not only for Iran or Israel but for the entire region and even 
for the entire world, because of its radioactive fallout, its chaotic 
effects, and because it would break the taboo against the use of these 
weapons that has so far held place for the last 60 years. Breaking this 
taboo could result in the further use of nuclear weapons, with a lower and 
lower bar for such use. The widespread use of nuclear weapons would be 
catastrophic for the world.   We urge all parties to renounce the pursuit 
of nuclear weapons, and to adopt policies that rule out their use.

The Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, and prominent 
individuals signed below hereby urge a solution to the crisis in relations 
between the US and Iran, Israel and Iran, based on the following clearly 
defined principles:

1) No use of any military option whatsoever by any party for any reason.

2) A clear commitment by all nuclear-armed parties not to use nuclear 
weapons in this situation, and a broader commitment to the doctrine of no 
'first use' of nuclear weapons.

3) The implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution on a 
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East, implementation of the annual 
consensus-adopted General Assembly resolutions on 'Establishment of a 
Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the region of the Middle East'.

4) A clear commitment by all parties to the global elimination of nuclear 
weapons, including through reaffirming the Final Declaration of the 2000 
Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and relevant General Assembly 
resolutions.

5) A diplomatic path to the removal of tensions between the US, Israel, and 
Iran, involving compromise on both sides, recognition of the legitimate 
security concerns of all parties including both Israel and Iran, and 
refraining from inflammatory statements or the exploration of military 
options by any party.

Signed:

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

Tadatoshi Akiba Mayor of Hiroshima President, Mayors for Peace,
Abolition-2000 Global Council,
Douglas Mattern, President, Association of World Citizens, San Fran,
Ron Mc Coy, President, Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, International Physicians for 
the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW),
Susi Snyder, Secy General, Womens International League for Peace and 
Freemdom (WILPF)
Aaron Tovish, International Peace Bureau (IPB) Geneva,
Nicky Davies, Global Disarmament Campaign Coordinator, Greenpeace Int.
Alfred L. Marder President,  International Association of Peace Messenger 
Cities,
Margaret Melkonian, Vice Pres, Hague Appeal for Peace,UN Plaza, NY,
Hans von Sponeck, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1998-2000)
Nouri Abdul Razzak Hussain, Secy-General Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity 
Organization (AAPSO) Egypt,
Bahig Nassar Coordinator, Arab Coordination Center of NGOs, Egypt,
Rev. David Mumford,  International Coordinator, International Fellowship of 
Reconciliation, Alkmaar, Neth,
André Bouny, president of the International Committee for Supporting the 
Vietnamese Victims of the Orange Agent
Susan Zipp, Advisor, Communications Coordination Committee for the United
Nations
Gérard Onesta, MEP, Vice-Président du Parlement Européen
Angelika Beer MEP, President of the European Parliamentary delegation on
Iran,



NETHERLANDS

Ak Malten, Global Anti Nuclear Alliance (GANA) The Hague, Neth,
Peer de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy(WISE) ,Amst, Neth,
Fiona H. Dove, Director, Transnational Institute, Amst, Neth,
Martin Broek, Dutch Campaign Against Arms Trade, Neth.
Marjan Lucas, IKV, The Hague,
Gerard Lössbroek Pax Christi Netherlands,
Gerard Lössbroek, Internationale network of Museums for Peace
Leo Platvoet  Senator GREENLEFT,



BELGIUM

Pol D'Huyvetter, Voor Moeder Aarde vzw - Friends of the Earth 
(Ab2000GlobalCouncil)
Prof. H. Firket,  President of AMPGN ,IPPNW-Belgium
Jo Hanssens, chair Pax Christi Vlaanderen
Walter Baeten, chair.IJzerbedevaarcomitée
Roel Stynen, Forum voor Vredesactie
Georges Spriet, Vrede vzw
Philippe Haeyaert, chair Verbond VOS, Vlaamse Vredesvereniging
Bart Horemans, UM4P
Enrique Ferro, Association Belgo-Palestinienne, Brussels BELGIUM

Peter Vanhoutte, Fmr MP, Belgian Parliament,
Jos Ansoms, mayor Wuustwezel & MP (CD&V)
Tony Beerten, mayor Heusden-Zolder (Nieuw)
Jean-Pierre Brouhon, alderman Elsene (ECOLO)
Hugo Casaer, mayor Beersel (CD&V)
Camille Dieu, MP (PS)
Dirk Claes, mayor Rotselaar & MP (CD&V)
Danny Claes, mayor Nazareth (CD&V)
Ir. Roland CRABBE, mayor Nieuwpoort (CD&V)
Jean Cornil, Senator (Parti Socialiste)
Luc Dehaene, mayor Ieper (CD&V )
Herman De Loor, mayor Zottegem (sp.a)
Roel Deseyn, Député (CD&V)
Raf Drieskens, mayor Neerpelt (CD&V)
Hans Eyssen, mayor Holsbeek (CD&V)
Pierre Galand, Sénateur (PS)
Eloi Glorieux, MP (Groen!)
Yvon Harmegnies, MP & Mayor DOUR (PS)
Patrick Janssens, mayor Antwerp (sp-a)
Roger Heyvaert, mayor Meise (VLD)
Geert Lambert, Député & Président SPIRIT
Anne-Marie Lizin, Sénateur & mayor Huy (PS)
Jean-Pierre Maeyens, 1° échevin Hoeilaart (Groen!)
Willy Minnebo, mayor Zwijndrecht (Groen!)
Marcel Mondelaers, mayor Beringen (CD&V)
Patrick Moriau, MP & mayor Chapelle-lez-herlaimont (PS)
Jan Peumans, mayor Riemst & MP (N-VA)
Katrien Schryvers, mayor Zoersel & MP (CD&V)
Benny Spreeuwers,  mayor Opglabeek  (CD&V)
Willy Taminiaux, mayor La Louviere  (PS)
Erika Thijs, Senator Bilzen (CD&V)
Koen T'Sijen, MP (SPIRIT)
Annemie van de Casteele, Sénateur (VLD)
Dirk Van der Maelen, MP (sp-a)
Paul Van Grembergen, mayor Evergem (PVG-Spirit)
Patrik Vankrunkelsven, Mayor & Senator (VLD) & vice-chair ‘Mayors for Peace’
Mark Van Roy, alderman te Tervuren
Magda Van Stevens, alderman Vilvoorde (Groen!)
Hendrik Verbrugge, mayor Alken (CD&V)
Roger Verduyckt, mayor Begijnendijk (VLD)
Frank Beke, mayor Gent (sp-a)
Zoe Genot, MP (Ecolo)
Muriel Gerkens, MP (Ecolo)
Rob Mennes, mayor Schelle (CD&V)



FRANCE

Jean-Marie Matagne, Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire (ACDN),
Xavier Renou, Greenpeace- France
Arielle Denis / Pierre Villard, Mouvement de la Paix, France,
Dominique Lalanne, Abolition of Nuclear Weapons/Stop Essais
France
Phillipe Brousse, Jean-Yvon Landrac, Réseau "Sortir du nucléaire", France,
Jean-Pierre Morichaud, Le Forum Plutonium, France,
Fabrice Flipo, Vice-président, Amis de la Terre - France
Jeanne-Henriette Louis, Quakers-France
Simone Landry & Solange Fernex, Ligue Internationale des Femmes pour la 
Paix (WILPF-France)
Rene Wadlow, Editor, Transnational-Perspectives, France
Roger Schenegg, Vivre entre-Deux Mers
André Bouny, D.E.F.I. Viêt-nam,
Miho Shimma-Cibot, Institut Hiroshima-Nagasaki (IHN),
Anick Sicart & Jacques Trélin, Appel des Cent pour la Paix,
Patrick Hubert, Mouvement pour une Alternative Non-violente (MAN)
Gérard Lévy, Commission « Paix et Désarmement », Les Verts,
Jean Yves Chetail, Arts, Cultures et Humanités,
Patrick Chapus, ASPCVS
Ahmed Manaï, Institut Tunisien des Relations Internationales (ITRI)
Roland Jourdain, navigateur,
José Bové, porte-parole de Via Campesina,
François Dufour, ancien porte-parole de la Confédaration Paysanne
Guy Nicolai, Directeur technique, VAE BTS-GPN,
Pierre Coulomb, ingénieur ECL, Administrateur CRIIRAD, conférencier de
l'Université Rose-Croix Internationale,
Rene Wadlow, Editor, Transnational-Perspectives, France,
André Larivière, permanent du RSN,
Roland Desbordes, enseignant retraité,
Hervé Desplat, ancien militaire et vétéran de la 1e guerre du Golfe,
Hervé Loquais, ingénieur Arts et Métiers,
Prof. Jacques Joly, Président Association Démocratique des Français à
l'Etranger (ADFE/ Français du Monde), section du Japon de l'Ouest



AUSTRIA

GLOBAL 2000, Silva Herrmann, Energy Campaigner, Austria,
Elvira Plöschko, Antiatom Szene, Pasching, Austria,
Heinz Stockinger, Chair, PLAGE-Salzburg, (Independent Salzburg Platform 
Against Nuclear Dangers, Austria)
Dr. Elke Renner Chair,  Andreas Pecha Secy, Austrian Peace Council
Doris Holler-Bruckner, Editor-in-chief Oekonews.at, Austria,
Klaus Renoldner, President, OMEGA/IPPNW - AUSTRIA



SWITZERLAND

Bernhard Piller, Swiss Energy Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland
Claudia BurglerPSR/IPPNW Switzerland, Basel,
Ueli Leuenberger, Vice-président des Verts Suisses,
Rudolf Rechsteiner MP (Soc Dem) Switzerland,



GERMANY

Xanthe Hall, (Ab2000 Global Council/IPPNW Germany)
Dr. Angelika Claußen, M.D.IPPNW-Germany,
Greenpeace Germany,
Elias Michaels, "Aktion Völkerrecht / International Law Campaign"
Irmgard Heilberger, Director, Women's International League for Peace and 
Freedom (WILPF)Germany,
Veronika Hüning, Vice President of Pax Christi, German Section
Julia Kramer, BANg - European Youth Network for Nuclear Disarmament,
Friedens- und Begegnungsstätte Mutlangen
Gewaltfreie Aktion Atomwaffen Abschaffen (GAAA), Germany,
Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft - Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (DFG-VK),
Roland Blach,  Trägerkreis "Atomwaffen abschaffen", Germany,
Henning Droege, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Homöopathie, Naturheilverfahren, 
(Haslach) Germany,
Axel Mayer, BUND Regionalverband Südlicher Oberrhein, Freiburg, Germany,
Hans-Peter Richter, German Peace Council
Angelika Schneider Versoehnungsbund/International Fellowship of 
Reconciliation, German branch,
Ingrid Schittich, AWC Deutschland e.V. - Association of World Citizens / 
German branch,
Cooperation for Peace, Germany,
Klaus Rudolph, Citizens Initiative Omega,
Eva Quistorp,(FmrMEP), Women for Peace, Germany
Veronika Hüning, Vice President of Pax Christi, German section
Malte Spitz, Political Director, GRÜNE JUGEND (Green Youth), Germany
Sven Giegold , ATTAC Germany
Uta Zapf, MP, Social Democratic Party
Ulrich Maurer, MP, Left Party PDS
Wolfgang Gehrke, MP, Left Party PDS
Paul Schafer, MP, Left Party PDS
Joern Wunderlich, Left Party PDS
Heike Haensel, Left Party PDS
Winfried Nachtwei, Green Party
Hueseyin-Kenan Aydin, The Left Party. PDS
Kirsten Tackmann, The Left Party. PDS
Ute Kozcy, Green Party, Germany



UK

Peter Nicholls, Chair, Abolition 2000 UK,
George Farebrother, World Court Project, UK,
Kate Hudson, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) Lond, UK,
Jill Stallard, CND Cymru, Wales,
Jenny Maxwell, Chair, West Midlands CND, Birmingham UK,
Angie Zelter, Reforest the Earth, UK,
Frank COOK  MP (uk)
LYNNE JONES MP (Birmingham Selly Oak), UK,
David Chaytor, MP for Bury North,
Alan Simpson MP, Labour Member of Parliament, UK,
John Austin MP (UK) Labour Member for Erith & Thamesmead (Lond)
Dr. Caroline Lucas MEP Green Party,South East England,
Jean Lambert MEP - Green Party, London,
Jill Evans, MEP, Cymru,(Wales),



NORWAY

Hallgeir H. Langeland, MP Norway,
Bjørn Hilt Regional vice president of IPPNW in Europe, Norway,
Tordis Sørensen Høifødt - NLA chair, IPPNW-Norway,



SWEDEN

Barbara Brädefors, Swedish Peace Committee,
Frida Sundberg, Chair, SLMK-Sweden,
Hälsningar Eva Petersson, SSAMK.
Sven Thiberg, International ARC PEACE architects,
Lotta Hedström, Swedish Green Party Swedish Parlt, Cttee for Foreign Affairs



DENMARK

John Avery Chair, Holger Terp, Danish Peace Academy, Copenhagen,
John Avery,  Chairman, Danish Pugwash Group
Povl Revsbech, MD Chair,  IPPNW, Danish Affiliate
Birgit Lindsnæs Deputy Director General, DIHR, Copenhagen



FINLAND

Juhani Mastokangas Friends of the Earth Finland
Henri Onodera, Finnish Peace Committee,
Kati Juva, Chair, Dr. Jouni Ylinen Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
Finland (PSR-Finland)
Lea Launokari, Women for Peace, Helsinki, Finland,
Women against Nuclear Power, Helsinki Finland,
Grandmothers agains nuclear power, Helsinki, Finland and
Amandamaji r.y., Helsinki Finland
Heidi Hautala MP, Chairperson of the Green Parliamentary Group of Finland,
Oras Tynkkynen, MP, Green Parliamentary Group, Finland
Erkki Pulliainen, Professor Member of the Parliament of Finland



CZECH REPUBLIC
Hnuti Duha, FOE-Czech Republic, Brno,


RUSSIA

Sergey Kolesnikov, Deputy chairman for Committee of State Duma (Russian 
parliament) for education and Science, Vice-Pres IPPNW,
Vladimir Slivyak, Ecodefence, Moscow, Russia,

Enrico Peyretti, Giuliano Martignetti Movimento Nonviolento Torino, Italy



ROMANIA

Constantin S. Lacatus, President, People of Sibiu for Peace (Sibienii
Pacifisti)
Eng. Constantin Cretu, 'Carpathians Genius' Bucharest/Romania


Prof. Ivo SLAUS, President, PUGWASH-Croatia.

Prof. Dr. Leziz Onaran, President, Umur Gürsoy (MD)NUSED (IPPNW-Turkey)

Ali Eltari President, Albanian Ecological Club,

Pedro Jorge Pereira  GAIA - Portugal


GREECE

Wayne Hall, Athens Ecological Movement, Greece,
Wayne Hall, ATTAC-Hellas
Thanassis ANAPOLITANOS , MEDITERRANEAN ANTI NUCLEAR WATCH, GREECE,
Panos Trigazis, Observatory of International Organizations and Globalization
Michalis Modinos, Inter-Scientific Institute of Environmental Research
George Papadimitriou, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of 
Athens
Katerina Katsanou, KEADEA.
Margarita Papandreou,



Kim Hye-Jeong, Secretary General, KFEM-FoE Korea


JAPAN

Yayoi Tsuchida, Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo)
Hiromichi Umebayashi, President, Peace Depot, Japan,
Hideyuki Ban,  Citizens' Nuclear Information Center  (CNIC) Tokyo, Japan



UNITED STATES

Steve Leeper, Mayors for Peace United States,
Tamara James, Chris Morin, Co-Presidents, Mary Day Kent Executive Director, 
Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) US Section,
Bruce K. Gagnon Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space,
Alice Slater, Abolition2000 Global Council,
Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies, Washington DC,  U.S.
Patrick Groulx  founder - Iron John & Mary With A Snugly US,
Helen Caldicott, President, Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI),
James Galbraith, Chair, Economists for Peace and Security,
Daniel Ellsberg, Truth Telling Project, USA,
Dr. Sadik Alsaraf, Professor, Roundlake, IL, U.S.A.
Judy Treichel Exec. ,Dir, Nuclear Waste Task Force, Las Vegas, Nev,
Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., Executive Director, American Center for
International Law ("ACIL"), U.S.A.
Betty Obal, Loretto Disarmament Economic Conversion Committee (LDECC)
Elizabeth Winder Pax Christi Pacific Northwest Seattle, U.S.
Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies Washington DC



CANADA

Steven Starr, Physicians for Global Survival, Canada,
Joanna Santa Barbara, Centre for Peace Studies, Mc Master Univ, Ont,
Ray Morris, Co-Chair, KAIROS, Salmon Arm, BC,
Sr. Mary-Ellen Francoeur President, World Conference of Religions for Peace 
Canada
Jean Rajotte, Pres, International Institute of Concern for Public Health. 
Toronto,
Libby Davies, Member of Parliament, Vancouver East, Canada
Joe Comartin, MP, Windsor Ontario,


MEXICO

Efraín Cruz Marín, Vocal de Prensa y Propaganda de Académicos de Ciencias y 
Humanidades, Plantel Sur, Asociaición Civil, Universidad Nacional Autónoma 
de México. México.
Luis Gutiérrez Esparza President,  Latin American Circle for International 
Studies (LACIS), Mexico,
Luis Gutiérrez Esparza, Fundación por la Paz en la Era Nuclear (FPEN)




AFRICA

Diodorus Kamala MP, Tanzania,

Association of World Citizens - Ghana

Celeste Hito Kanyinda Matamba, national president of the Agence pour 
le  Développement Communautaire- Congo Kinshasa (RDC)



SOUTH AFRICA

Maya Aberman, Earthlife Africa, Cape Town, RSA,
Prof. Faisal Suliman, ISLAMIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,DURBAN,SOUTH AFRICA
Colin Glen Phaphama Initiatives, Bryanston SA,






INDIA

Achin Vanaik, Praful Bidwai, Sukla Sen, Smitu Kothari, Coalition for 
Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India,(CNDP), ND, India,
Sandeep Pandey and Arundhati Dhuru, National Alliance of People's Movements 
(NAPM),
Prof N.N. Murthy, IBRF, India,
Mahipal Singh, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Delhi,
Syed Shahabuddin, (ex-MP, fmr Amb.), President, All India Muslim 
Majlis-e-Mushawarat, New Delhi, India,
Smitu Kothari, Intercultural Resources, New Delhi, India,
Harsh Kapoor, South Asians Against Nukes (SAAN) France/India,
Prof. J.G. Krishnayya, Systems Research Inst, Pune,
Prahlad Singh Shekhawat, Alternative Development Centre, Jaipur , India
Maj. Gen. S. C. N. Jatar, Retd Pres, Nagrik Chetna Manch (Citizens' 
Awareness Front), Pune, India,
Centre for Science and Environment, N. Delhi,  India,
KALYANI MENON-SEN, Coordinator,  JAGORI WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE, NEW DELHI,
Dr. Prakash Louis, Bihar Social Institute, Bihar, India
S. P. Udayakumar, People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, Nagercoil TN, 
India.
D. Gabriele, National Convenor, National Alliance for Peoples Movement
Madurai , TN,  India,
Wilfred D'Costa Gen. Secy, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) INDIA,
Harsh Kapoor South Asians Against Nukes India / France,
J. Gurumurthi, Secy, All India Insurance Employees' Association (AIIEA)
Chennai, INDIA
Syed Shahabuddin, ex-MP, former Ambassador, presently President, All India 
Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, New Delhi, India.
E.P.Menon India  Development  Foundation Bangalore.
MANOJ BHATTACHARYA.Member of Parliament INDIA.




PAKISTAN

Zia Syed, All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU),Gujrat, PK,
A.H. Nayyar, President,  Pakistan Peace Coalition
Peter Jacob Executive Secretary, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace 
- Pakistan,
Farooq Tariq General Secretary Labour Party Pakistan,


BANGLADESH

Amir Hossain Chowdhury Exec.Secy. Institute for Environment and Development 
Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh,



ISRAEL

Dorothy Naor, New Profile, Israel
Pnina Feiler, Physicians for Human Rights. Kibbutz  Yad-Hanna, Israel
Itamar Mann Israeli Union for Environmental Defense Tel Aviv Israel
Ofra Ben-Artzi Jerusalem Israel
Aki ORR (Member of the Israeli Committee for a Middle-East free of all 
weapons of mass-destruction )



PHILLIPINES

Sonia S. Mendoza Chair,  Mother Earth Foundation - Philippines,
Clemente G. Bautista Jr, Coord,  Kalikasan-Peoples Network for the 
Environment, Philippines


INDONESIA

Commision for Justice and Peace of The Bishop's Conference of Indonesia
Jl. Cikini II/ 10 Jakarta, Indonesia,
Commision of Migrant and Itinerant People of The Bishop' Conference of 
Indonesia Jl. Cikini II/10 Jakarta, Indonesia,

NZ

Bob Rigg, New Zealand National Consultative Committee on
Disarmament (NCCD)
Marion Hancock, Director, The Peace Foundation Aotearoa/New Zealand,
Larry Ross, New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association, Christchurch, NZ,
Kevin McBride National Coordinator Pax Christi Aotearoa-New Zealand
Robert White, Centre for Peace Studies,  Univ. Auckland, NZ,
Hugh Steadman, The Sapiens Movement,  Blenheim, New Zealand.
Gordon F Copeland MP United Future - the Family Party NZ,
Keith Locke MP, Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Green Party, New Zealand.
Michael Hemmingsen, President, Society for Global Philosophy, Wellington, NZ,





AUSTRALIA

John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia Sydney Australia
Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Western Australia,
Robin Chapple MLC, ANAWA,
Cameron Schraner, PND-NSW, Surry Hills, NSW,
Dimity Hawkins, Executive Officer, Medical Association for the Prevention 
of War (MAPW),
Sue Gilbey, Australian Peace Committee, Adel, SA.,
Professor Joseph Camilleri, Pax Christi, Vic,
Father Claude Mostowik msc Director of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart 
Justice and Peace Centre, Sydney, Australia
Father Claude Mostowik, Convenor, Pax Christi Australia [NSW]
Margaret Hinchey, Catholic Coalition for Justice and Peace (CCJP), NSW
Bronwyn Marks, Convenor, Hiroshima Day Committee, Sydney,
Dr Stella Cornelius, Conflict Resolution Network, Chatswood, NSW,
Hillel Freedman, Nuclear-Free Australia, Melb,
Dr R. J. Hunter, President, Scientists for Global 
Responsibility(SANA)  (Sydney Univ, Aust)
Rev Allan Thompson, General Secretary, Uniting Church in Victoria and
Tasmania,
Nick Chesterfield, West Papua National Authority, Melb,
Dr Vacy Vlazna, ACHEH PAPUA MALUKU, Fairlight,
Vikki John, Bougainville Freedom Movement, Vic,
Peter Carrol, SCRAP, Holsworthy,  NSW,
Chris Hamer, President, World Citizens Association (Australia)
VeeSpak, NicNacTheatre, Randwick NSW,
Michael Priceman, Convenor Sutherland Shire Environment Centre & People 
Against a Nuclear Reactor,
Peter Robertson Coordinator Environment Centre of the Northern Territory 
(ECNT) Darwin, NT,
Doug. N. Everingham, Australian Minister for Health 1972-75
Parliamentary Adviser, Australian delegation, 1982 UN Assembly
Michelle Pule, President, New World Order, Maylands, W.A.,
Senator Lyn Alison, Leader, Australian Democrats,
Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, Australian Democrats, SA
Senator Andrew Bartlett, Democrats, Qld,
Senator Kerry Nettle, Greens, NSW,
Senator Christine Milne, Greens, Tas,
Senator Rachel Siewert, Greens, W.A.,
Kelly HoareMP, Member for Charlton NSW,
Jill Hall MP, Member for Shortland NSW,
Warren Snowdon MP, Member for Lingiari NT,
Carmen Lawrence MP, Member for Fremantle, President, ALP,
Julia Irwin MP Federal Member for Fowler,
Lee Rhiannon Greens MLC, NSW,
Ian Cohen MLC, Greens, Parliament of NSW,
Giz Watson MLC Greens, North Metropolitan Region, W. A.,

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 3 Iran Continues To Enrich Uranium, UN Nuclear Watchdog Tells Security Council
 
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:00:48 -0400


 
IRAN CONTINUES TO ENRICH URANIUM, UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG TELLS SECURITY 
COUNCIL
New York, May  1 2006  6:00PM
One month after the United Nations Security Council called for Iran 
to suspend uranium enrichment, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/iranreport_sg.html">IAEA) 
is reporting that this work continues, and it can make 
no further progress in determining whether the country is carrying 
out illicit nuclear activities because it lacks the cooperation 
of the Government.

“After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about 
all aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, the existing gaps in 
knowledge continue to be a matter of concern,” IAEA Director-General 
Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council in a report released 
today.

“Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active 
cooperation by Iran - transparency that goes beyond the measures 
prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol 
- if the Agency is to be able to understand fully the twenty years 
of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran,” the report adds.

According to the report, Iran’s uranium conversion campaign “is still 
ongoing.” Iran has continued to feed UF6 gas – used for uranium 
enrichment – into large-scale machinery built for that purpose 
in March. 

The report was requested by the Security Council on 29 March, in 
its first official action after the matter was referred to it by 
the Agency, as the Council called on Iran to re-establish full and 
sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing 
activities, including research and development.

That action followed Iran's decision to resume it s efforts to produce 
enriched uranium, a substance that can be used for peaceful 
purposes, such as generating energy, or for making nuclear weapons. 
The Tehran Government denies claims by the United States and 
other countries that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Today’s report recalls that, until February, Iran had agreed to some 
transparency measures requested by the Agency, including access 
to certain military sites.

However, it says, additional measures, including access to documentation, 
dual use equipment and relevant individuals, are still needed 
for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature of 
Iran's enrichment programme, the purpose and use of the dual use 
equipment and materials, and alleged studies which could have a 
military nuclear dimension.

“Regrettably, these transparency measures are not yet forthcoming,” 
Mr. ElBaradei states, concluding that “the Agency cannot make 
a judgement about, or reach a conclusion on, future compliance or 
intentions,” although it will keep pursuing its investigation.
 2006-05-01 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Denounces U.S. Nuclear Strike Stance
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 1, 2006 7:46 PM

AP Photo VAH104 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran denounced the United States on Monday 
for contemplating possible nuclear strikes against Iranian 
targets and urged the United Nations to take urgent action 
against what it called a dangerous violation of international 
law. 

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan obtained by The
Associated Press, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif called
President Bush's refusal April 18 to rule out a U.S. nuclear
strike on Iran and a similar follow-up statement by Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice ``illegal and insolent threats.'' 

Bush was asked whether U.S. options regarding Iran ``include the
possibility of a nuclear strike'' if Tehran refuses to halt
uranium enrichment. ``All options are on the table,'' Bush
replied, but he stressed that the United States will continue to
focus on diplomacy. 

Iran insists it is legally entitled under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium to provide fuel for
civilian power plants but the United States suspects its real
aim is to produce nuclear weapons, a view backed by Britain and
France. 

Zarif said the use of ``false pretexts'' by senior U.S.
officials ``to make public and illegal threats of resort to
force against the Islamic Republic of Iran is continuing
unabated in total contempt of international law and fundamental
principles of the United Nations Charter.'' 

The ``U.S. aggressive policy'' of contemplating the possible use
of nuclear weapons also violates the nonproliferation treaty and
other U.S. multilateral agreements, he said. 

``Such dangerous statements, particularly those of the United
States president, widely considered in political and media
circles as a tacit confirmation of the shocking news on the
administration's possible contemplation of nuclear strikes
against certain targets in Iran, defiantly articulate the United
States policies and intentions on the resort to nuclear
weapons,'' Zarif said. 

``In view of the past illegal behavior of the United States,
these assertions yet again constitute matters of extreme gravity
that require an urgent, concerted and resolute response on the
part of the United Nations and particularly the Security
Council,'' he said. 

``It is indeed regrettable that past failures of the United
Nations in responding to these illegal and inexcusable threats
have emboldened senior United States officials to go further and
even consider the use of nuclear weapons as an `option on the
table,''' Zarif added. 

After lengthy negotiations, the U.N. Security Council adopted a
statement a month ago demanding that Iran stop enriching
uranium. A report Friday from the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, confirmed what the world
already knew: Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium. 

The United States, Britain and France immediately announced
plans to introduce a new Security Council resolution this week
that would make Iran's compliance with their demands mandatory.
To intensify pressure, they want the resolution under Chapter 7
of the U.N. Charter, which means it can be enforced through
sanctions or military action. 

China and Russia, the two other council members with veto power,
oppose sanctions and military action and want the Iran nuclear
issue resolved diplomatically, with the IAEA taking the lead,
not the Security Council. 

Bush called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday to
discuss Iran. 

``The two leaders stressed the importance of preventing Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons, especially in the United Nations
Security Council,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan
said. 

A Kremlin statement said the two sides ``discussed interaction
on urgent international problems, including the Iranian nuclear
issue, on which numerous consultations at various levels are to
be held in the coming days.'' 

U.S. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Annan had not yet received
the letter from Zarif. The U.S. Mission to the United Nations
said it was also waiting to see the letter before commenting. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Independent: Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? 

James C Moore: 

Israel has American warheads ready to fire 

Iranians see only hypocrisy from the world's nuclear powers 

Published: 30 April 2006 

As international political powers seek Iran's capitulation on
nuclear weapons development, little notice is given to what the
Americans and the British have done to create this crisis nor
what steps the Israelis might eventually take to make it
profoundly more complicated. 

Iran's antipathy toward the West did not spontaneously generate
out of the crazed rhetoric of radical mullahs. It has been
spurred by what Iranians see as hypocrisy on the part of members
of the world's nuclear community, and the bumbled meddling of
the US and UK in Iranian affairs for more than a half century. 

Iran is dangerous, but the British and the Americans have helped
to make it that way. And the situation is even more precarious
than it appears. 

Shortly after the Gulf War in 1991, Germany gave Israel two of
its diesel-powered Dolphin-class submarines. The Israelis agreed
to purchase a third at a greatly reduced price. In November
2005, Germany announced that it was selling two more subs to
Israel for $1.2bn (£660m). 

Defence analysts have suggested the Dolphin-class boats are a
means for Israel to have a second-strike capability from the sea
if any of its land-based defence systems are hit by enemy
nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive
war is geopolitically afoot: Israel and the American president
might not be willing to wait until after the first shot is
fired. 

Initially, Israel was expected to arm its submarine fleet with
its own short-range Popeye missiles carrying conventional
warheads. At least three mainstream publications in the US and
Germany, however, have confirmed the vessels have been fitted
with US-made Harpoon missiles with nuclear tips. Each
Dolphin-class boat can carry 24 missiles. 

Although Israel has not yet taken delivery of the two new
submarines, the three presently in its fleet have the potential
to launch 72 Harpoons. Stratfor, a Texas intelligence business,
claims the Harpoons are designed to seek out ship-sized targets
on the sea but could be retrofitted with a different guidance
system. 

According to independent military journalist Gordon Thomas, that
has already happened. He has reported the Harpoons were equipped
with "over the horizon" software from a US manufacturer to make
them suitable for attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Because
the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf make the Israeli subs
easily detectable, two of them are reported to be patrolling the
deeper reaches of the Gulf of Oman, well within range of Iranian
targets. 

If Israel has US nuclear weaponry pointed at Iran, the position
of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, becomes
more politically supportable by his people. Despite the fact
that Israel has been developing nuclear material since 1958, the
country has never formally acknowledged it has a nuclear
arsenal. Analysts have estimated, however, that Israel is the
fifth-largest nuclear power on the planet with much of its
delivery systems technology funded by US taxpayers. To
complicate current diplomatic efforts, Israel, like Pakistan and
India, has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
even as it insists in the international discourse that Iran be
stopped from acquiring what Israel already has. 

Before Ariel Sharon's health failed, Der Speigel reported that
the then Israeli prime minister had ordered his country's Mossad
intelligence service to go into Iran and identify nuclear
facilities to be destroyed. Journalist Seymour Hersh has also
written that the US military already has teams inside Iran
picking targets and working to facilitate political unrest. It
is precisely this same type of tactic by the US and the UK, used
more than a half century ago, which has led us to the
contemporary nuclear precipice. 

In 1953, Kermit Roosevelt led the CIA overthrow of Mohamed
Mossadeq, Iran's democratic- ally elected prime minister.
Responding to a populace that had grown restive under
imperialist British influence, Mossadeq had plans to nationalise
the vast oil fields of his country. 

At the prompting of British intelligence, the CIA executed
strategic bombings and political harassments of religious
leaders, which became the foundation of Mossadeq's overthrow.
Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose strings were pulled from Downing Street
and Washington, became a brutal dictator who gave the
multinational oil companies access to Iranian reserves. Over a
quarter of a century later, the Iranian masses revolted, tossed
out the Shah, and empowered the radical Ayatollah Khomeini. 

Iran has the strength needed to create its current stalemate
with the West. Including reserves, the Iranian army has 850,000
troops - enough to deal with strained American forces in Iraq,
even if US reserves were to be deployed. The Iranians also have
North Korean surface-to-air missiles with a 1,550-mile range and
able to carry a nuclear warhead. 

America cannot invade and occupy. Iran's response would likely
be an invasion of southern Iraq, populated, as is Iran, with
Shias who could be enlisted to further destabilise Iraq. There
are also reported to be thousands of underground nuclear
facilities and uranium gas centrifuges in Iran, and it is
impossible for all of them to be eliminated. But the Israelis
might be willing to try. An Israeli attack on Iran would give
Bush some political cover at home. The president could continue
to argue that Israel has a right to protect itself. 

But what if Israeli actions endanger America? Israel cannot
attack without the US being complicit. Israeli jets would have
to fly through Iraqi air space, which would require US
permission. And America's Harpoon missiles would be delivering
the warheads. These would blow up Iranian nuclear facilities and
also launch an army of Iranian terrorists into the Western
world. 

But George Bush is still without a respectable presidential
legacy. He might be willing to risk everything to mark his place
in history as the man who stopped Iran from getting nukes. The
greater fear, though, is that he becomes the first person to
pull the nuclear trigger since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and then
his place in the history books will be assured. 

James C Moore is the author of three books about the Bush
administration. His latest, 'The Architect', will be published
in September by Random House of New York 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Putin, Bush Discuss Iran Nuclear Dispute
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 1, 2006 5:46 PM

AP Photo DCPM111 

MOSCOW (AP) - President Bush called Russian President Vladimir
Putin on Monday to discuss the standoff over Iran's nuclear
program, days before the issue goes before the U.N. Security
Council. 

The council is expected this week to begin debating new steps
aimed at persuading Iran to comply with international demands to
halt its uranium enrichment activities. The United States and
Russia are on opposite sides of that debate, with Washington and
its European allies pushing for possible penalties. 

``The two leaders stressed the importance of preventing Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons, especially in the United Nations
Security Council,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan
said. ``And they committed to remaining in close contact on this
important priority.'' 

A Kremlin statement said the two sides ``discussed interaction
on urgent international problems, including the Iranian nuclear
issue, on which numerous consultations at various levels are to
be held in the coming days.'' 

The U.N. nuclear agency issued a report Friday confirming that
Tehran refused to comply with a Security Council demand that it
halt enrichment by that day. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday the United
States would seek a U.N. resolution requiring Iran to comply.
She mentioned a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter,
which can be enforced through penalties or military action. 

Veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China oppose
that idea. 

The United States and other nations believe Tehran's nuclear
activities are aimed at creating nuclear weapons, although Iran
insists its program is peaceful and aimed only at producing
power. 

Moscow has close ties to Iran and is building the nation's first
nuclear power plant. But the Kremlin has been frustrated by
Tehran's defiance of international pressure and refusal to
accept a Russian proposal aimed at easing tension by moving
Iran's uranium enrichment to Russia. 

On Monday, the Iranian government allocated about $243 million
to finish the plant in Bushehr in the southwest, spokesman
Gholam-Hossein Elham said. Also, workers demonstrated in front
of the former U.S. Embassy to support the disputed program. 

Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Monday that Bushehr
would go on line in 2007. Iran had expected the plant, which was
built with Russian help, to be in operation by Dec. 31. 

``I think the plant will begin to operate a year later,''
Larijani was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic
News Agency. 

It was the first time a top Iranian official mentioned another
possible delay.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran says enrichment suspension makes 'no sense' 

 Mon May 1, 11:51 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's top national security official
has argued that there was "no sense" in the country returning to
a suspension of sensitive nuclear work as demanded by the UN
Security Council. 

 "A suspension does not make any sense to us, because we do not
think an atomic bomb can come out of a 164 centrifuge cascade,"
Ali Larijani was quoted as saying Monday by the ISNA news
agency. 

Iran has installed 164 centrifuges at a pilot plant for the
sensitive process of uranium enrichment -- which on a large
scale can be extended to making nuclear weapons. 

Iran argues it is so far only carrying out "research" work, and
only wants to eventually make civilian reactor fuel. On Friday a
UN Security Council deadline for the work to stop expired
without Iranian compliance. 

Iran is now facing a Western push for tougher Council action,
and Larijani repeated Iran's warning that increased
international pressure could force it to halt UN inspections and
even quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

"We see no reason to quit the NPT. We won't do so if they do not
force us," Larijani said. 

Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only to make reactor fuel
to generate electricity, as is authorised by the NPT. But
Western powers want a suspension of the work while suspicions
over Iran's nuclear programme remain. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran complains to UN chief over threat of US attack 

 Mon May 1, 3:53 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> complained to UN Secretary General Kofi 
Annan" /> over what it perceives as the threat of a United States 
attack, as the regime continued to defy demands to halt its 
disputed nuclear drive. 

In a letter forwarded to the United Nations" /> chief by Iran's
ambassador in New York, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the regime
condemned "American officials for their illegitimate and open
threats to use force against the Islamic republic of Iran". 

"These are in obvious contravention of international rules and
the principles of the United Nations," the letter was quoted as
saying by the official news agency IRNA. 

It said that "these rude threats have recently been publicised
through some reports in US newspapers", and noted a report in
The New Yorker magazine last month which said US military
planners had even looked into using nuclear 'bunker-busters' to
strike Iran's atomic facilities. 

"These (threats) have entered a new stage, with the refusal of
US officials to deny these reports," the letter said, calling
for "serious attention" as well as "quick and firm action" from
the world body. 

The complaint came as diplomats from the five permanent Council
members and Germany were to meet in Paris Tuesday and again at
the foreign ministers level in New York on May 9, following up
on an International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA) report
confirming Iran has not complied with demands to freeze uranium
enrichment. 

The United States and Europe are hoping a reluctant Russia and
China will agree to a robust resolution that legally obliges
Iran to halt the sensitive work -- which makes reactor fuel but
can also be extended to make the core of an atom bomb. 

But even if they succeed in reaching a consensus, Iran looked
unlikely to back down. 

"The struggle of the Iranian people against the United States is
like the struggle between Moses and the pharaoh," commented
Mohsen Rezai, the right-wing secretary of the country's top
political arbitration body, the Expediency Council. 

"For the Americans, it is not a nuclear issue but one of Iran
progressing to become developed and powerful," he told the ISNA
news agency, repeating the regime's view that the crisis is
merely an extension of US ambitions to see the ouster of Iran's
ruling clerics. 

Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani also argued
that there was "no sense" in the country returning to a
suspension of enrichment. 

"A suspension does not make any sense to us, because we do not
think an atomic bomb can come out of a 164 centrifuge cascade,"
he was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency. 

Iran has installed 164 centrifuges at a pilot plant in Natanz,
situated in the desert south of Tehran. 

Iran argues it is so far only carrying out small-scale
"research" work, and that it only wants to eventually make
civilian reactor fuel. On Friday a UN Security Council deadline
for the work to stop expired without Iranian compliance. 

What Tehran wants is to continue enrichment and keep the case
out of the Security Council, which unlike the IAEA has
enforcement powers. Iran argues it only wants to generate
electricity and that fuel cycle work is therefore a right
enshrined by the NPT. 

Iran has been seeking to split Council members by balancing
threats of tough reprisals -- such as ending IAEA inspections --
if the pressure mounts and some concessions if it eases. 

Russia and China are for the time being opposed to any
sanctions, or a resolution invoking the UN Charter's Chapter 7
-- a reference which would open the door to political and
economic sanctions and even, as a last resort, military action. 

US President George W. Bush" /> on Monday telephoned his Russian
counterpart Vladimir Putin" /> to discuss ways to block Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons, White House spokesman Scott
McClellan. 

McClellan said the two leaders "committed to remaining in close
contact on this important priority". 

They also "reiterated their desire to conclude the US-Russia
bilateral negotiations on Russia's accession to the WTO ( World
Trade Organization" /> ) soon," the spokesman said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Nuclear Negotiator Calls for Talks

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 1, 2006 11:46 PM

AP Photo VAH105 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator Monday said
Tehran was ``ready for any kind of negotiation to achieve our
rights,'' renewing a call for further talks on the Islamic
republic's atomic program. 

As officials from the five permanent U.N. Security Council
members gathered in Paris to discuss strategy, Ali Larijani also
called again for Iran's dispute with the international community
to be returned to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency, headed by Mohamed ElBaradei. 

``Let's allow Mr. ElBaradei to do his job based on the
international conventions,'' Larijani told group of students in
Tehran University, the official Iranian news agency reported. 

Diplomats representing the United States, Britain, France,
Russia and China, which hold Security Council vetoes, meet in
Paris on Tuesday with Germany to discuss ElBaradei's report to
the council that Iran was in violation of the council's demand
that Tehran stop enriching uranium, a process that can produce
fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. 

The report opened the way for the council to take punitive
measures against Iran, but immediate action was not seen as
likely because Russia and China now are opposed to international
sanctions against Tehran at this point. 

Iran contends it has a right to enrich uranium as long as it
does not attempt to use it for nuclear weapons. Its opponents
contend Iran ceded that right by conducting secret nuclear
research and development. 

Earlier Monday, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told
reporters Tehran had earmarked $242.5 million for the completion
of the Bushehr reactor in southwest Iran. 

Larijani said Bushehr would go on stream in 2007. Iran had
expected the plant, which was built with Russian help, to be in
operation by the end of this year.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: US presses for concerted response to 'continued defiance" by Iran - 

 Mon May 1, 4:58 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is using various channels to 
press for a concerted international response to Iran" /> Iran's 
"continued defiance" in forging ahead with its nuclear program, a 
White House spokesman said. 

 "This is a threat that all of us must deal with. It is a real
threat to the region and to the international community," Scott
McClellan told reporters at a press briefing. 

"But we are united in our determination to work together to
prevent the regime in Iran from developing a nuclear weapon or
nuclear weapon capability," the spokesman said. 

McClellan expressed the administration's support for a "Chapter
7 resolution" in the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity
Council that would legally require Iran to comply with demands
to freeze all uranium enrichment activities. 

"It's important for the Security Council, to have credibility,
for it to mean what it says. And if it's going to mean what it
says, then it needs to address Iran's continued defiance," said
McClellan. 

He said US President George W. Bush" /> President George W.
Bushearlier on Monday held direct talks via telephone with his
Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putin, to
discuss ways to block Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

McClellan said that the president "stressed the importance of
preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" including
efforts currently underway in the United Nations Security
Council. 

"For two decades, they hid their activities from the
international community. And their latest steps that they have
taken only further increase the concern of the international
community that they are developing nuclear weapons under the
cover of a civilian program," the spokesman said. 

Meanwhile Washington also has dispatched Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns to take part in a meeting of diplomats to be held
Tuesday by the five permanent UN Security Council countries,
plus Germany, on Iran's nuclear program. 

That meeting, McClellan said, will focus on "how do we move
forward to meet our shared goal of preventing the regime from
developing a nuclear weapons capability or the know how or a
nuclear weapon." 

Yet another meeting, at the foreign ministers level, has been
set for New York next week on the matter. 

"This is an important shared priority, and we are reaching out
to all our friends and partners and allies in this effort to
address it," said McClellan. 

He said Tehran's nuclear program would also figure prominently
in talks between Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who
arrives in Washington later this week. 

"I'm sure they will have a good discussion about this priority,"
McClellan said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 Xinhua: U.S., Japan call for resuming six-party talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-02 03:53:07   

    WASHINGTON, May 1 (Xinhua) -- The United States and Japan
called on Friday for a resumption of the six-party talks and
urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to return
to the talks without preconditions. 

    The appeal was made in a joint statement after a meeting
attended by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso
and defense chief Fukushiro Nukaga. 

    "The ministers reconfirmed a shared commitment to the Joint
Statement of Six-Party talks, and urged North Korea to return
expeditiously to the talks without preconditions," the statement
said. 

    The statement also urged the DPRK to dismantle its nuclear
program "in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner" and
"to cease all illicit and proliferation activities." 

    The United States has urged the DPRK to return to the
six-party talks at an early date. However, the DPRK has said it
will not return to the talks if the United States does not lift
the sanctions imposed on the country last year. Enditem   

Editor: zhaoqv   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 [NukeNet] Lobby Re US Senator Biden supports India-US nuke deal
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:32:19 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   Dear All,
                  We can't let this go through. We
all need to immediately call [ Phone 202-224-3121
& 1-877-762-8762]  both of our Senators, Biden and
John Kerry who also has been pushing this
extremely dangerous deal. please forward this to
other lists & individuals and call them right now!

   US Senate: http://www.senate.gov

     -Bill Smirnow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alice Slater" <aslater@gracelinks.org>
To: <abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com>;
<abolition-global_council@yahoogroups.com>;
<abolition-usa@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:29 AM
Subject: [abolition-caucus] US Senator Biden
supports India-US nuke deal


 > This is terrible news.  Biden is the minority
leader of the US Senate
 > ForeignRelations Committee.  I met him on the
train once and spoke to him
 > about the US disarmament obligations under the
NPT. He told me that the
 > NPT did not require the US to give up its
nuclear wapons!!  We're in
 > trouble!  Alice
 >
 > Rediff: Nuclear deal is in US interest - Biden
 >
 > Suman Mozumder in New York | April 29, 2006
13:20 IST
 >
 >  Senator Joseph R Biden (D-Delaware), the
ranking Democrat on
 > the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday
suggested that
 > helping India to meet its growing energy needs
will be in the
 > interest of the United States.
 >
 > Without mentioning even once the India-United
States agreement
 > on the civilian nuclear cooperation that needs
Congressional
 > approval  before ratification, the former
chairman of the
 > powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee said
that India's
 > energy needs presents an opportunity for the
United States.
 >
 > Indo-US Nuclear Tango
 >
 > "In 1960s the US helped bring the Green
Revolution in India.
 > American agricultural developments helped India
feed its people.
 > That was good for India and that was also good
for American
 > business. Now India faces a burgeoning need for
energy, and so
 > too, I believe, presents an opportunity for the
US."
 >
 > Biden made the remarks while delivering the
keynote address this
 > evening at a conference titled "Cities in a
World of Migration:
 > India and China in Global Perspective,'
organised by the New
 > School University in New York. Many among the
100-odd people in
 > the audience included Indian and Chinese
academics as well as
 > independent scholars.
 >
 > "What if this government actually engages and
attempts to seek
 > energy independence and alternative sources of
energy other than
 > fossil fuels? What if we actually took the
ingenuity of the
 > business community and the scientific community
with the help of
 > government as a partner to make a firm
commitment to energy
 > independence by the year 2020. What if all of
that technology
 > became as much of an export commodity as oil is
from the sands
 > of Saudi Arabia today," Biden asked.
 >
 > "I think there are many economially viable ways
to move beyond
 > fossil fuels. In the meantime, what if we
develop more clean
 > cole technology to be able to help India and
China to meet their
 > overwhelming energy needs because they have
overwhelming amounts
 > of fossil fuels in the form of cole," Biden
said.
 >
 > "Why shouldn't we treat all these as cause for
optimism and not
 > listen to those, the same voices' that one used
to hear during
 > the Cold War period, he asked.
 >
 > During the April 5 appearance of Secretary of
State Condoleezza
 > Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to push for
 > the nuclear deal, Biden, in his introductory
remarks, said that
 > he was ".probably going to support" the India-US
civilian
 > nuclear cooperation agreement. Although he did
not say that in
 > as many words on Friday, Biden clearly seemed to
indicate his
 > support for the agreement.
 >
 > At the outset of his keynote, Biden admitted
that although he
 > has been invited to speak about migration in
India and China, he
 > has not specific expertise on the subject and
would like to talk
 > a bit about United States' relationship with the
two countries
 > before touching on the main theme.
 >
 > "It is hard for me spending so much time in the
Senate Foreign
 > relations Committee not discuss the strategic
relationship with
 > the two countries that I believe will shape the
future of our
 > children and grandchildren more than any other
country in the
 > world. So, let me start with that," Biden said.
 >
 > The Senator said that when one talks about India
and China, one
 > usually talks about their incredible economic
competition and
 > sometimes about possible military competition.
But Biden felt
 > what one forgets often that much as these two
countries are
 > rising powers, they also have rising problems.
 >
 > Biden said that meeting the economic and
political demands of
 > the Chinese people is going to require a massive
investment in
 > housing, public health, energy, education and
public
 > administration. "Each of these investments in my
view will
 > represent a significant opportunity for the US.
For we are the
 > world leaders in each of those areas," he said.
 >
 > "The point I am trying to make here is we should
not look at the
 > growth of India and China with dread. We should
look at it as a
 > genuine opportunity for world stability and
economic gain and
 > access for the United States of America," Biden
said."We should
 > not fear the competition, for the global economy
is based upon
 > competition and we should recognize the economic
and political
 > challenges of China and India are also a real
opportunity for
 > the United States."
 >
 > 7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile!
 >
 >  Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All
Rights Reserved.
 >
 >
 >
 > Alice Slater
 > GRACE Policy Institute
 > 28 W. 44 St., Room 1506
 > New York, NY 10036
 > 2120404-2100(tel)
 > 212-404-2105(fax0
 > www.gracepolicyinstitute.org
 >
 >
 > To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus,
send an email from the account you wish to be
subscribed to:
abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 >
 > Do not include a subject line or any text in the
body of the message.
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abolition-caucus/
 >
 > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
 >     abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 >
 > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 >     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 >
 >
 >
 >


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 13 BBC: £1bn windfall from carbon trading
 
Last Updated: Monday, 1 May 2006
 
Roger Harrabin BBC News environment correspondent   

[Gas emissions]                                 

Under Labour emissions have gone up by more than 2%                                                              

Power firms could make a £1bn windfall profit from the EU Carbon
Emissions Trading Scheme, BBC News has learned. 

The windfall is likely because many firms have benefited from
increases in electricity prices brought about by the scheme
without needing to make any extra investment in return. 

Peter Bedson, from IPA Consulting, confirmed to the BBC that the
unwarranted profit could reach £1bn. 

Environmental pressure groups have called the news a scandal. 

Part of the problem, Mr Bedson said, is that firms have been
given, free-of-charge, the carbon emissions permits on which the
scheme is based. This, he explained, is like the government
giving energy firms free money. 

The WWF pressure group has demanded a windfall tax to re-direct
the profits into energy conservation. 

The Conservatives said it was an example of government
incompetence. 

Their environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth said: "MPs warned
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) this would happen but
they took no notice." 

A true market scheme would s the permits auctioned, not given 
away by governments            
	   	
The windfall lies in the design of the EU emissions trading
scheme, which works by governments setting a limit for the total
amount of carbon that can be emitted from its heavy industry and
the power sectors. 

Instead of banning firms from exceeding the limit, governments
hand the firms free pollution allowances up to a certain level. 

If a firm can cheaply cut its pollution by installing better
technology it will have carbon permits to spare. 

If another firm is overshooting its pollution limit it will need
to get hold of extra allowances. The firms can then trade carbon
permits on the EU market. 

Economists like it because it gives maximum pollution savings at
least cost. But a true market scheme would see the permits
auctioned, not given away by governments. 

The system means that generators using high-carbon fuels like
coal need to buy extra carbon permits. 

That forces up the price of electricity overall, which benefits
generators using low-carbon fuels like nuclear and gas. This is
where the power firms have made their windfall profit. 

Carbon price 

Mr Bedson did a report on the issue for the DTI earlier this
year. 

Since then the price of carbon shot up and his revised estimates
suggest that the resulting windfall will reach around £1bn. 

This will depend on the future price of carbon, which is in
doubt since the crash in the carbon price partly triggered by
over-allocations of pollution permits to French generating. 

Green groups are particularly angry that despite knowing about
the windfall, the government have been fighting the EU in the
courts to try to get the carbon allocation for the firms
increased. 

Last week they confirmed they would abandon the fight. But the
DTI wants to compensate the generators by increasing their
allocation under the next phase of the scheme. 

All round Europe governmen are in cahoots with the lowest common 
denominator of business
		
Conservative environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth      

WWF, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all want the government
to set much tougher limits on carbon emissions from the biggest
polluters. 

They all say the government should auction the permits. 

Conservative environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth said: "All
round Europe governments are in cahoots with the lowest common
denominator of business. 

"The problem will not be sorted out until the market is made to
work properly by forcing firms to bid for their permits instead
of being allowed to lobby government for them free of charge.
The DTI aren't competent to decide on this." 

Pollution 'increase' 

Attention will now be focused on the government's carbon targets
for big business under the next phase of the EUETS, which are
due to be resolved shortly. 

The government has said it will cut carbon emissions from big
firms by between three and eight million tonnes. But experts
note that the cuts are not real cuts - they are based on what
industry is projecting it will emit in future. 

So the three million tonnes cut is in fact an increase in
pollution. 

Government supporters will argue that there were bound to be
problems when a large complex scheme like the scheme was set up,
but that it was vital to design a scheme that would be supported
by big business. 

They will hope that problems will be ironed out in future year
when the scheme beds down. 

Problems are happening across Europe. The price of carbon
crashed last week, and the market is in disarray. 

It will come to a head this week when governments reveal how
many extra carbon permits need to be purchased. 

The scheme is a mainstay of the EU's policy for meeting its
Kyoto obligations. Critics of the Kyoto Protocol are already
celebrating the problems in the market. 

The UK government is failing in its carbon emissions targets. It
planned to cut CO2 20% by 2010 to tackle climate change -
described by Tony Blair as the biggest long-term challenge for
mankind. 

But under Labour emissions have gone up by more than 2%. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 14 Mos News: Gorbachev Calls G8 to Invest in Solar Energy - 

NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
www.prisonpotpourri.com                 
 	 	
Created: 01.05.2006 21:31 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 21:31 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	
The first and last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, has
called the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized nations
(G8) to invest in solar energy.

Gorbachev, founder and chairman of Green Cross International,
sent a letter to heads of state and leaders of parliaments in
the G8 nations as they prepare for the upcoming G8 Summit in St.
Petersburg, Russia. He explained his idea of “Energy Security.”

“This idea reflects our vision of a way of helping the energy
impoverished in the developing world, while creating
concentrations of solar energy in cities that could be used to
prevent blackouts, and would result in lower electricity bills,”
Gorbachev quoted by Renewableenergyaccess.Com website said. The
Global Solar Fund “could easily be raised by cutting subsidies
for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, to install solar
photovoltaic equipment around the planet, thereby driving down
the price and creating a mass market for a clean fuel
technology.”

The recent discussions of nuclear power serving as a solution to
climate change prompted comment from Gorbachev: “Nuclear power
is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea
for climate change challenges. You don’t actually solve problems
by finding solutions that create more problems down the track.
Of all the energy options, nuclear is the most capital intensive
to establish, decommissioning is prohibitively expensive and the
financial burden continues long after the plant is closed.”

Contrasting such energy expenditures in this country, Gorbachev
pointed out, “In the U.S., for example, direct subsidies to
nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999
with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast,
subsidies to wind and solar combined during the same period
totaled only $5.5 billion.”
 	 	 	 
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM

*****************************************************************
 15 [NukeNet]  Scotland: Nuclear accident exercise r eveals 'fatal
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:31:25 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

<http://www.sundayherald.com/55448>http://www.sundayherald.com/55448
Sunday Herald - 30 April 2006
Nuclear accident exercise reveals ‘fatal flaws’
By Rob Edwards
Environment Editor


----------
MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident exercise held in Edinburgh 
last year would have left real casualties trapped in vehicles and spread 
deadly radioactive contamination, an official report has revealed.

Serious communication failures between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and 
Scottish emergency services led to blunders that in a real nuclear incident 
could have had fatal consequences.

Previous exercises over the past 10 years have thrown up similar problems. 
But nothing seems to have been learnt from them, campaigners said.

Exercise Senator 2005 imagined a catastrophic chain of events involving 
Trident nuclear warheads on the move. The exercise was based around an 
aircraft engine falling out of the sky on to a weapons convoy, which then 
crashes into an oil tanker on the A720 city bypass.

According to experts, such a horrific scenario would probably result in an 
explosion and fire which would spew a cloud of highly toxic plutonium over 
a large part of Scotland. As the Sunday Herald has previously reported, it 
is even possible for accidents to detonate nuclear bombs.

“Many thousands of people would be put at risk,” said Dr Frank Barnaby, a 
nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at 
Aldermaston in Berkshire. “If they get a speck of plutonium in their lungs, 
the probability is fatal lung cancer.”

And he warned that such an accident would also have devastating economic 
consequences: “You would have to evacuate and decontaminate a huge area. It 
would be enormously expensive.”

Exercise Senator 2005 involved hundreds of officials from 10 public 
agencies simulating their responses to the imagined accident over three 
days in September. It was observed by diplomats from Russia and a host of 
European countries.

Dreghorn Barracks in Edinburgh acted as the city bypass, while co- 
ordination centres were set up at the police headquarters in Fettes Avenue, 
St Andrew’s House and at the MoD in London. After the event, all the 
agencies involved conducted a formal post-mortem to identify the “lessons 
learned”.

The resulting report, posted on the MoD’s website, paints an alarming 
picture of confusion, crossed wires and inadequate communications.

The most damning account comes from Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue 
Service. The initial call-out omitted the code to show it was an exercise, 
while the content of the seven call-outs received “was not useful”. 
Operators also had to handle “comments such as, ‘I don’t remember where I 
am,’ when we questioned them”.

The fire service failed in its aim of “mass decontamination” because of 
faulty information from the MoD. “If this had been a real incident, 
casualties would have been allowed to go to hospital or rest centres 
contaminated,” the service observed. “The rescue of casualties that were 
meant to be trapped in vehicles was not achieved as the briefing of the MoD 
fire service on casualties was not carried out properly.”

Water used to wash the hands and faces of radioactively contaminated 
victims was simply poured on to the roadway. “If this had been a real 
incident,” the fire service pointed out, “contaminated water would have 
been allowed to contaminate additional areas with no attempt made to 
contain it.”

Lothian and Borders Police agreed that there was “confusion over the advice 
given by the MoD to fire and ambulance regarding decontamination”. There 
was also “initial confusion” over exactly where the accident had taken place.

The police reported several communication problems with the MoD, partly 
because they used different radios. The MoD also failed to keep the 
Scottish Executive informed, the police said.

After an accident, the health of the public and the emergency services is 
critically dependent on what happens in the first 36 hours. But because one 
of the exercise co-ordination centres was set up in advance, it did not 
provide “a realistic quality check”, the police said.

Other agencies, such as the Scottish Ambulance Service and the City of 
Edinburgh Council, also reported communication breakdowns. Even the MoD 
acknowledged that its relationship with the civil emergency services was 
“embryonic”.

Di McDonald, director of the Nuclear Information Service, a peace research 
group, argued it would have been better to run a bigger exercise including 
the bomb convoy crews. “In a real nuclear road accident, the consequences 
will be disastrous,” she said. “If similar mistakes are made, more lives 
could be lost.”

According to Frank Barnaby, who now works with the Oxford Research Group, a 
disarmament think-tank, emergency exercises have repeatedly revealed the 
same problems. “But they don’t seem to learn from them, so what the hell is 
the point?” he asked.

The MoD accepted there have been “areas where communications could be 
better”, but it promised that training and procedures had been amended to 
remedy the problems. “The purpose of exercises is to identify good practice 
and opportunities for improvement,” a spokesman said. “Exercise Senator 
2005 demonstrated that our overall procedures worked well.”

The Scottish Executive’s post-mortem of the exercise disclosed that one of 
its aims had been the “protection of the reputation of the Scottish 
Executive”.

This drew scorn from Scottish Green Party environment speaker, Mark Ruskell 
MSP. “I can only hope that their attempts at managing the media were better 
than the ‘embryonic’ attempts at planning for a nuclear convoy explosion 
which would be unmanageable and catastrophic for ordinary Scots,” he said.

The Executive, however, argued that after an accident it would be essential 
for the public to trust the advice being offered by government.

“Clearly the priority when dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear accident 
is the protection of the public,” said an Executive spokesman.

“The Scottish public deserve reassurance and guidance and we make no 
apologies for aiming to ensure that the Executive’s reputation in this 
regard is clearly established in the public mind.”


----------

Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
<http://www.sundayherald.com/print55448javascript:history.back()>Back to 
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 16 Platts: UK government says Blair undecided on nuclear despite reports

London (Platts)--28Apr2006
 
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has not reached a firm decision to 
support a new generation of nuclear power plants, despite a 
newspaper report to the contrary Friday, Downing Street's senior 
press officer Brendan O'Grady said.

     According to the "Financial Times," Blair believes it will 
be impossible to make up for the shortfall produced by the 
decommissioning of the UK's nuclear plants through other clean 
technologies such as wind or clean coal.

     "We've not said that," O'Grady said, adding that Blair had 
not yet reached any firm decision on nuclear power. "The Energy 
Review process is still ongoing, and will report in the summer, 
although the consultation period is now over," he said.

     The newspaper said that although Blair expected most of the 
ruling Labour Party to support him in his decision, he is 
uncertain of the position towards nuclear of Chancellor Gordon 
Brown, his expected successor.

     Last year, the Treasury, which is Brown's department, began 
a study of the costs of clean coal. It remains unclear whether 
the department will use that study to propound clean coal as an 
alternative to nuclear or to impugn the technology's commercial 
viability.

     Nuclear power currently provides 20% of the country's 
electricity supply, but many of the plants will reach the end of 
their life within the next decade or so.

     For more information, take a trial to Platts Nucleonics Week 
at http://nucweek.platts.com.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 17 Concord Monitor: Irrational exuberance over nuclear 'solution'     

 Concord, NH 03301
 
Copyright 1997-2006 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot 
P.O. Box 1177 Concord NH 03302 603-224-5301

Monitor editorial

May 01. 2006 8:00AM 
  
A merica's oil dependence and the New England weather have 
something in common: Everybody talks about them, but nobody does 
anything about either one. In the case of oil, that may be about 
to change. 

Whenever oil prices spike, politicians have the same old debate.
Members of both parties agree that oil dependence has an
unhealthy influence on U.S. foreign policy. Beyond that they
differ. Democrats want to pass tax breaks for alternative energy
producers and force automakers to make more fuel-efficient cars.
Republicans say let the free market work, and most of them want
to relax environmental standards to allow for more oil drilling. 

And nobody moves until the crisis passes, prices ease or people
stop kvetching about $2.87-a-gallon gasoline. 

But real change may be coming. The new star in the quest to wean
America off oil is an old star: nuclear power. 

Members of both parties are warming up to nukes, and Wall Street
is beginning to bet heavily on it. President Bush says he sees
no reason not to build more nuclear power plants. Sen. Edward
Kennedy, chief whipping boy of the right, said on NPR that the
president of MIT had assured him that technological advances had
made nuclear power safer. Why not move forward with it, Kennedy
said. 

At a press conference a week ago, the centrist Republican
Christie Todd Whitman, former EPA administrator, called nuclear
power "environmentally friendly, affordable, clean, dependable
and safe." Whitman now works for the nuclear industry, as does
Patrick Moore, a cofounder of Greenpeace. Moore says Greenpeace
was wrong to oppose nuclear power in the 1980s and is wrong to
oppose it now. 

The public seems to need little convincing. In opinion polls,
nuclear power is hot, with an approval rating of about 70
percent. 

A wise reaction to this groundswell for nuclear power is: Not so
fast. 

The rising public approval rating is perfectly understandable.
There has been no major nuclear accident in decades. Neither
Chernobyl's 20th anniversary nor the even older memory of Three
Mile Island causes much of a gasp anymore. Besides, condoning
nuclear power in the fight against oil dependence requires
absolutely nothing of the public. You can say you're for it
without knowing much about it and it doesn't cost you a nickel. 

Our caution does not mean nuclear power should not get a new
look. It should. The nuclear industry has a strong safety
record. Scientific advances may mean future nuclear plants will
be even safer than the ones now operating. The disposal of
nuclear waste might not be the deal-breaking issue it once was. 

But the rush to nuclear power is heedless. Before it turns into
a building boom, the public needs a vigorous debate. What
scientific developments would make nuclear power safer than it
was when the public - and the marketplace -abandoned it 20 years
ago? What about the waste problem? A dozen basic questions like
these need a good public airing. 

Nuclear power might have the potential to reduce the nation's
thirst for oil. But even in the haze of the distant past, the
ghastly lesson of Chernobyl and the peril at Three Mile Island
should not be forgotten. Nuclear power is not a quick and easy
way out of America's oil dependence, nor is it the only way, and
the public should not rush headlong into it. 

Monitor editorial

Material posted to this site retains copyright. See the User's
Guide for details. Concord Monitor Online, P.O. Box 1177,
Concord NH 03302
 Phone: 603-224-5301 | E-mail: cmwebmaster@concordmonitor.com
*****************************************************************
 18 Daily Item: Susquehanna nuclear power unit shut down for 'minor' 
water leak fix
 		 		 

Daily Item - Sunbury, PA
			 			 			 			 			 			 			 	 	 				
200 Market Street Sunbury, PA 17801 (570) 286-5671 (800) 792-2303
 				 				 
May 01, 2006                    

BERWICK -- PPL Corp. shut the 1,140-megawatt unit 2 at the
Susquehanna nuclear power station in Pennsylvania on April 29 to
repair a water leak, the company said in a release.

 “The leak is minor -- significantly less than the amount that
would require us to shut down for repairs according to the
plant’s operating procedures -- and it does not affect our
ability to operate safely,” Robert Saccone, vice president of
Nuclear Operations for PPL Susquehanna, said in the release.

“We made the proactive decision to find and fix the leak now, so
that we don’t run the risk of having to shut down the unit
during the summer if the leak gets worse. In the summer months,
the regional power grid, consumers and PPL count on Susquehanna
to provide reliable power as electricity use increases,” Mr.
Saccone added.

PPL said it planned additional maintenance in other areas of the
plant during this short outage that will help maintain the
reliability of the unit, which was in service for 322
consecutive days before this shutdown.

The unit was operating at full power early Friday.
The 2,245 MW Susquehanna station is located in Berwick in
Columbia County, about 125 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

There are two units at the station, the 1,135 MW unit 1 and the
1,140 MW unit 2.
 	 		 		 				 	 	 		 			 	 		
The Daily Item is published by Ottaway Newspapers of PA, LP
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Item Publishing Company 
All rights reserved.          
*****************************************************************
 19 TheStar.com: Ontario poised to enter new nuclear era
 
Mon May. 1, 2006. | Updated at 08:02 PM 

IAN URQUHART

Ontario is about to embark on a new nuclear era.

This week, Energy Minister Donna Cansfield is expected to go to
caucus (Tuesday) with her 20-year plan and to cabinet soon
afterward, with a public announcement expected later this month.

However, it is the worst-kept secret at Queen's Park that the
plan includes new nuclear power plants to replace the existing
reactors, which supply about half of Ontario's electricity and
are coming to the end of their design life.

For the past eight months, Premier Dalton McGuinty has been
dropping broad hints about the government's pro-nuclear stance.

But sources say the Cansfield plan will contain some surprises,
including a heavier-than-expected emphasis on conservation and
some caveats about the nuclear option.

Last December, the Ontario Power Authority  a
government-appointed advisory body and procurement agency  gave
short shrift to conservation and placed heavy emphasis on
nuclear power in its recommendations.

The power authority allocated just 5 per cent of its proposed
"supply mix" to conservation. 

But it called for nuclear power to continue to supply about 50
per cent of our electricity needs, with a dozen reactors
replacing old ones at a cost of up to $35 billion.

Cansfield, who handled the conservation file for the government
prior to becoming energy minister last fall, will adjust these
percentages, according to sources in the government.

She won't go as far as the anti-nuclear environmentalists want;
they say the government can meet the province's electricity
needs over the next two decades with no new nuclear power but
with an aggressive conservation plan that would cost half as
much as replacement reactors. Cansfield believes that is
unrealistic.

But she will go further than the power authority recommended on
the conservation side, particularly in the area of "load
management"  paying industry to scale back operations during
peak usage periods when the alternative is to import costly
power from the United States.

As for nuclear power, Cansfield is expected to raise cautionary
flags about the capacity of the nuclear industry to meet demand
for new reactors within the power authority's time frame.

Sources say Cansfield will also stipulate that any new reactors
must be built for a fixed price, with none of the cost overruns
that plagued past projects.

Darlington, the last nuclear plant built in Ontario, was
originally estimated at $5 billion but came in at $14.3 billion
when it was finally completed in 1993.

Unanswered in Cansfield's plan are the key questions of who
should operate the new reactors (government-owned Ontario Power
Generation or a private sector firm), where they should be
located (likely alongside existing nuclear plants), and what
technology should be used (CANDU, the Canadian reactor, or a
foreign design).

The government wants to keep these questions open to maximize
its leverage in future negotiations with contractors, including
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the federal agency that
builds CANDU reactors.

Before getting to that stage, however, the government must first
clear the hurdle of an environmental assessment, which will be
the first ever conducted on a nuclear plant in Canada.
Darlington was launched before environmental assessments were
required.

The whole process, from the decision to build through
environmental assessment and other regulatory hurdles to
construction of the plant, could take up to 10 years.

The critics of nuclear power are not waiting to attack, however. 

Indeed, NDP Leader Howard Hampton started on the attack last
week with a series of questions linking the government's nuclear
plans to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

Finance Minister Dwight Duncan accused Hampton of
"fear-mongering."

On the other side of the debate are the provincial
Conservatives, who have no problem with the nuclear option but
say the government is foolish to be phasing out its coal-fired
power plants. Major industrial users and the power workers'
union are also making the case for coal. 

Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski said in the
Legislature last week that the government should be investing in
"clean coal," to which Cansfield responded that there is no such
thing, at least not with current technology.

The Liberals could get whipsawed in this debate, losing votes on
the left to the anti-nuclear New Democrats and on the right to
the pro-coal Conservatives.

To counter these attacks, the Liberals plan to portray McGuinty
as the first premier in two decades who is willing to make the
tough but necessary decisions about electricity.

That may be spin, but it's hard to argue with.

Ian Urquhart's provincial affairs column appears Monday,
Wednesday and Saturday. 

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 20 Chicago Sun-Times: Teacher exhibits her photos of Chernobyl 

May 1, 2006

BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter 

The silence of Chernobyl is one of "total abandonment," Luba
Markewycz says.

 "It's as if no one cares or knows about this place," the
Chicago schoolteacher said.

 The city has been mostly empty since shortly after April 26,
1986, when it was evacuated after a reactor explosion at the
Chernobyl nuclear plant just nine miles away.

 Markewycz, an amateur photographer, captured on film many
powerful shots of the city in a trip to the area last summer.
Forty of her photos are on display as part of a larger exhibit
on the Chernobyl disaster at the Ukrainian National Museum of
Chicago, 721 N. Oakley, through Sunday.

Teacher and photographer Luba Markewycz only spoke to one person
in her daylong trip to the Chernobyl area — a 7-year-old girl
who was visiting her grandmother. (RICHARD A. CHAPMAN/SUN-TIMES)

Town dates to 11th century

A native of Ukraine who came to Chicago in 1950, she visits
relatives in Ukraine every summer and also does seminars on
teaching techniques. She and Ukrainian friends were able to get
special permission from the government to visit the city of
Chernobyl and Prypiat, a town formerly home to nuclear plant
workers. She also went to the outskirts of the nuclear power
plant. 

About 100,000 people had lived in Chernobyl, an 800-year-old
city.

 She visited a residence where many emergency workers stayed
after the accident. The place was covered in a pink spray that
was used to douse the radiation. She snapped a photo of two
workers' shoes -- left behind 20 years ago -- covered in the
spray.

 "It looks like blood," she said.

 But the social studies teacher at LaSalle Language Academy said
visiting the schools was the hardest. The students left thinking
they would return within a few days, and their books were still
stacked neatly on desks where they left them.

 "I kept thinking I'd hear the voices of children," she said.
"But there's nothing. Total silence."

 'Would you give me a smile?'

Now the blackboards in the school are covered with the names and
phone numbers of former students who returned on trips, hoping
to reunite with old classmates. Markewycz plans to contact the
former students and possibly photograph them.

 The only person she spoke with in her daylong trip was a
7-year-old girl visiting her grandmother, one of the
approximately 300 people who have since moved back to Chernobyl.

 "I said, 'Would you give me a smile?'" said Markewycz, a
grandmother herself. "She looked up and said, 'No.'"

 Markewycz took her photo anyway.

 dnewbart@suntimes.com

Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc E6-6505 
[Federal Register: May 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 83)] [Notices] 
[Page 25613] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01my06-88] [[Page 25613]]
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for DGI 
Biotechnologies, LLC's Facility in Edison, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nick, Commercial and R 
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone 
(610) 337-5056, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: JLN@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 
license amendment to DGI Biotechnologies, LLC (DGI) for Materials 
License No. 29-30389-01, to authorize release of its facility in 
Edison, New Jersey for unrestricted use and terminate the 
license. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
support of this proposed action in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has 
concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 
appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the 
publication of this Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize 
the release of the licensee's Edison, New Jersey facility for 
unrestricted use and terminate the license. DGI was authorized by 
NRC from 1997 to use radioactive materials for research and 
development purposes at the site. In 2003, DGI ceased operations 
with licensed materials at the Edison site and the DGI facility 
was taken over by Antyra, Inc. (Antyra). On September 28, 2005, 
Antyra requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted 
use. Antyra has conducted surveys of the facility and provided 
information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the 
license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for 
unrestricted release.
 
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license 
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the 
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by 
Antyra.
 
Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no 
additional remediation activities necessary to complete the 
proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of 
the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that 
since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in 
subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact 
is appropriate.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the 
EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to 
terminate the license and release the facility for unrestricted 
use. The NRC staff has evaluated Antyra's request and the results 
of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action 
complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The 
staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from 
the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, 
Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support 
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and 
ML042330385).
 
Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were 
identified. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that 
there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed 
action, and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed action.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for the license amendment and 
supporting documentation, are available electronically at the 
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this Notice are: Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance 
of a License Amendment of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Materials License No. 29-30389-01, DGI Biotechnologies, LLC in 
Edison, New Jesey (ML061070474); and Final Status Survey Results 
for DGI Biotechnologies, LLC Facility, 40 Talmadge Road, Edison, 
New Jersey (ML052840126). 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 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 
Documents related to operations conducted under this license not 
specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically 
available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have 
an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request 
to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions 
for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html .
 
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 20th day of April, 
2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6505 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 ZAMAN DAILY: Gov't Claims Full Authority in Nuclear Plant Issue

ISTANBUL

By Ismail Altunsoy, Istanbul

Published: Monday, May 01, 2006
zaman.com

As the natural gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine brought 
possible power cuts to the agenda in Turkey, discussions over 
"energy supply and security" have restarted.

The Energy Ministry, developing a project to affect the 
liberalization of the electricity market, is working to pave the 
way for the construction of a state-run nuclear station.

The Ministry will discuss the issue tomorrow together with the 
Energy Market Regulation Board (EPDK), and with market players 
and businessmen.

The construction of nuclear energy stations cannot be undertaken 
by the private sector alone and is set as the main reason for the 
new "arrangement;" however, the EPDK opposes the arrangement 
saying they are concerned that "the liberalization can be later 
withdrawn."

It is necessary to obtain a license from the EPDK to build the 
plant and produce electricity.

"If supply security cannot be established with the measures in 
this article, power production companies are given the authority 
to build the necessary production facility with the proposal of 
the ministry and the decision of the Council of Ministers," reads 
the draft, excluding the Board from this particular issue only.

The nine-article document prepared by the ministry also brings a 
change to the Renewable Energy Resources Law.

Accordingly, the seven-year purchase guarantee period has been 
increased to 10 years. This paves the way for the reassessment of 
dam projects that applied to the Energy Board for the utilization 
of hydraulic resources and investment and received a negative 
response from the State Water Works Authority (DSI), and for the 
DSI to take the final decision.

The Turkish Power Transmission Corporation is authorized to 
determine the power supply.

On Saturday, EPDK Chairman Yusuf Gunay announced that "in the 
nuclear energy project, the state, in partnership with the 
private sector, will not be issued a license" according to the 
current law.

The energy needed in the next term could be met by domestic 
resources, the EPDK says.

The companies that received a license from the institution for 
power production are "worried" about the preparation of the law, 
pointing out that public weight in the sector will increase. The 
privatizations may come too late, they warn. 



Copyright© 1995-2004 Feza Newspaper Publishing Co. 
 Fevzi Cakmak Mah. A. Taner Kislali Cad. No:6 34194 Bahcelievler
/ ISTANBUL
 Phone:+90 (212) 454 1 454 (pbx), e-mail: e.editor@zaman.com.tr
*****************************************************************
 23 Boston Globe: Residents blast panel's inaction 

Board hears concerns over chemical in wells
 
By Sally Heaney, Globe Correspondent  |  April 30, 2006 

A number of residents of the Brabrook Road neighborhood in Acton
vented their frustration at a Planning Board meeting last week
when the board took no action against a local builder. The
residents suspect the builder used blasting materials with the
chemical perchlorate and caused perchlorate contamination in two
wells.

''I am totally disappointed," Brabrook Road resident Karu Ratnam
told the board Tuesday. ''It seems like [you] just want to pass
it on to someone else."

The residents are seeking reimbursement for well-testing
expenses from the developer of Ellsworth Village, a housing
complex for seniors being built at the end of Brabrook Road.
Blasting was done last fall to put a water main beneath Brabrook
Road to connect Ellsworth Village to the public water supply.

Contractors who oversaw the blasting told the Planning Board
that no material containing perchlorate was used.

James Fenton, a member of Ellsworth Village LLC, the project
developer, said at the meeting that he took extra precautions to
ensure that blasting agents containing perchlorate were not used
on the project. He said the blasting was delayed for a week to
ensure that the right kind of materials was employed.

The actual blasting was done by subcontractor Saunders Drilling
and Blasting. Dave Saunders also said at the meeting that
blasting materials he used were free of perchlorate.

But neighborhood residents said that blasting agents containing
perchlorate are the logical, although unproven, source of the
perchlorate levels found last month in two private wells
adjacent to the blasting. The levels are above the standards
drafted by the state for the chemical, which has been found to
interfere with thyroid function. Testing on one of the wells
before the blasting showed no perchlorate in the water.

When reached by telephone Wednesday, Fenton said Ellsworth
Village has nothing to do with the water situation and that he
was at the meeting representing the construction company that
did the work on Brabrook Road.

He blamed local environmental activist Carol Holley for stirring
up neighbors on the perchlorate issue.

On Thursday, two days after the board session, Henry Chapin, the
owner of the well with the highest perchlorate reading, said
that he and Ratnam had just met with Fenton, and the developer
offered to do excavation work to connect their homes to town
water at cost. That could save Chapin an estimated several
thousand dollars on a total hookup bill that he said could
approach $9,000. Fenton could not be reached to comment on the
reported offer.

Planning Board chairman Gregory Niemyski said at the Tuesday
meeting he doesn't know where the contamination came from. ''I
don't know whether it is the result of the blasting or the rock
change or of stuff leaking into your wells," he told residents. 

When granting permission to build Ellsworth Village, the
Planning Board required that, if perchlorate compounds were to
be used in the blasting process, the developer would pay for the
testing. Niemyski said that Fenton met the board's requirements
by using blasting agents he didn't think contained contaminants.

At the meeting, the board did not require Fenton to reimburse
the residents for well-testing they'd paid for. The board hasn't
closed the matter, but probably doesn't have the authority to do
much, Town Planner Roland Bartl said after the meeting. He said
that there are as yet no state or federal standards on
acceptable limits of perchlorate in drinking water and that,
even if there were, enforcing them may not be within the
Planning Board's purview.

''There was nothing more the Planning Board could do at the time
or still could do now," he said. The Planning Board members
think ''it is between the residents and the developer, or the
blaster, or the suppliers of the blasting materials."

Bruce Reichlen, an associate member of the board, said, ''We
can't force anyone to meet a regulation that doesn't exist."

Last month, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation
to issue proposed drinking water standards for perchlorate,
which has been found in 10 locations across the state, including
Boxborough and Westford.

The proposed standard of 2 parts per billion ''will be
protective of public health, especially for sensitive
populations, such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants,
and individuals with low levels of thyroid hormones," according
to a state Department of Environmental Protection document.

The document also says that perchlorate has been found to
interfere with thyroid function, which could lead to impaired
human development and metabolism. No federal standards
regulating perchlorate levels in drinking water currently exist.

Nine homeowners paid $127.50 each to have their wells tested
last September before the blasting began in October, according
to Holley, who lives on Pope Road near Brabrook Road and is on
the board of Acton Citizens for Environmental Safety. She said
that no detectable levels of perchlorate were found in any of
the wells.

When eight wells were retested in early March, Ratnam's showed a
level of 1.38 parts per billion, according to information
provided by Ratnam to the Planning Board. In a third round of
testing later that month, Ratnam's well had 2.43 parts per
billion, above the state's proposed standard.

Chapin, Ratnam's next-door neighbor, had not previously had his
well tested, but joined in the third round. The test results for
his well showed 5.36 parts per billion, according to information
he provided to the Planning Board. Chapin said at the meeting
that he and Ratnam live closest to the blasting site. No other
wells have shown detectable levels of perchlorate.

Material safety data sheets with information about the blast
materials were filed with the Fire Department and the Board of
Health prior to blasting. An e-mail from Health Director Doug
Halley to the town manager said that, based on those sheets,
''The Health Department has confirmed that perchlorate is not a
listed ingredient for the explosives, the blasting caps or the
detonators."

But a document on the state Department of Environmental
Protection website mentions that some explosive products can
contain small amounts of perchlorate, even if perchlorate is not
listed as one of the ingredients.

Another neighbor, Debby Adams, said she plans to go before the
Board of Selectmen again and assert that, since the blasting was
done in a public road, the town has some responsibility.

Some residents previously talked with the selectmen and were
told to go to the Planning Board. Although perchlorate has not
been found in her well, Adams worries it could show up later.

''I have had thyroid surgery and my health is compromised," she
said.

Residents asked at the meeting whether any more blasting would
be required on the project.

''I don't know," Fenton responded.

''If you do have to blast again," Niemyski, the Planning Board
chairman, said, ''you'd better think about it twice."

Sally Heaney can be reached at . [ /] © Copyright 2006 Globe
Newspaper Company. More: 
*****************************************************************
 24 lamonitor.com: Chernobyl: Still hot after all these years 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Cathie Sullivan, who lives in Tesuque, has traveled to Eastern
Europe three times in the last four years, originally as a part
of a State Department exchange program for women concerned about
safety issues related to nuclear technology. 

Her counterpart in each visit was Natalia Manzurova, a Russian
woman raised in one of the former Soviet Union's secret nuclear
cities where plutonium was produced for the weapons complex.

Because of her advanced studies in radiation biology and her
personal sense of duty in a national crisis, Manzurova was one
of hundreds of thousands of citizens known as "liquidators" who
went to Chernobyl after a disaster on April 26, 1986, to
"liquidate the consequences of the accident."

In 2004, Sullivan and Manzurova met in Kiev and traveled to the
ruins of the Chernobyl power plant. Out of this visit, they
collaborated on a booklet, "Hard Duty: A Woman's Experience in
Chernobyl," based on Manzurova's stories. 

The monumental catastrophe of Chernobyl 20 years ago this week
in what is now Ukraine has fascinated the global media for the
last few days as an anniversary event, but its meaning has begun
to blur over the years.

"Hard Duty" is a brisk corrective. 

Trish Williams, operations director of the Los Alamos Study
Group, attended memorial ceremonies in Kiev last week and toured
the exclusion zone around the site that is still too hot for
public access.

"Cathie Sullivan has had much more experience in this realm than
I have - evidenced by her beautiful, small, but fully packed
booklet." said Williams, who returned on Thursday. "I have
stories to tell, but none as powerful as (Manzurova), who along
with many, many thousands of others risked their lives to go in
and try to mitigate the disaster." 

Sullivan has been thinking and writing about Chernobyl for the
last four years and has strong views about its significance.

"Our reactors our safer, we think, and they are," she said, but
mistakes can be unforgiving and an accident like this with a
100-year intergenerational threat must be heeded.

"The scale of this accident needs to be fully appreciated before
we ramble on down the path of more nuclear power plants for
generating electricity," she said. "It would be an absolute
disservice to the future to downplay the contamination that
remains and the health impact that we haven't accurately
quantified."

An international report came out in September 2005, estimating
that 4,000 to 9,000 people had died or would die from
radiation-caused cancers and concluded that the health
consequences from Chernobyl were "not so significant as they
were first considered to be."

The report was developed by a group called the "Chernobyl
Forum," comprised of representatives from international
organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
World Health Organization, the World Bank and some state
organizations of Russia, Ukraine and others.

But Sullivan said the IAEA in particular had a conflict of
interest in downplaying the health effects from the disaster,
since their mission is also to promote nuclear energy.

More recent reports, one by the European Committee on Radiation
Risks and the other by Greenpeace, contradict the conclusions of
the Chernobyl Forum and multiply the human consequences by
factors of 10 and more.

The point is, said Sullivan, medical people more influenced by
physicists and engineers in the nuclear disciplines have
captured the discipline known as "health physics" rather than
biologists, epidemiologists and geneticists in the life sciences.

The debate becomes especially polarized on the issue of the risk
of low-level radiation,

The National Academy of Sciences produced the most recent in a
series of studies last year, known as BIER VII (Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiation), that nuclear power opponents say
supports the conclusions of a prior report that every exposure
to radiation produces a corresponding increase in cancer risk.

Or, as Sullivan puts it, "No doses are free. The effects are
linear: The more you get, the more you risk."

Beyond the insidious long-term health effects, one of most
profound consequences of the explosion in block four of the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant that contaminated every country in
North America was to halt the construction of nuclear power
plants in the U.S. In tandem with the much smaller incident at
Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania a few years earlier, Chernobyl
gave nuclear power an almost irretrievably bad name.

The risk and liabilities became nearly permanently unattractive
to private investors.

But lately, new interest is stirring and a "nuclear renaissance"
has begun in the U.S., inspired by the need for a source of
energy with low carbon emissions. Aided by simplified start-up
procedures and new federal subsidies, a score of applications
for new nuclear power plants have cropped up.

In opposition, said Sullivan, stand the lessons of Chernobyl,
not only the potential for devastation but also the secrecy and
broken trust.

These are among the lessons recounted in "Hard Duty."

To obtain a copy of "Hard Duty," e-mail cathiesullivan@att.net.
The price is $7, and includes postage. The proceeds go to
Natalia Manzurova's Chernobyl Survivor group that she heads in
her hometown Ozersk.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 25 Scotsman.com: Sci-Tech - Report reveals nuclear plant picture scares
 
[Scotsman.com News]             

Edinburgh Evening News

1 May 2006    

PEOPLE taking photographs outside Torness Power Station made up
two of 18 security incidents reported at the Dunbar nuclear
plant in the last three years. 

Details released by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security today
revealed there have been two incidents that involved individuals
taking photographs from outside the nuclear plant and two
incidents relating to security guard staffing levels since
March, 2003. 

The remaining incidents related to technical faults with the
plant's alarm systems, CCTV or power supply. 

Police were also called to the plant in March 2003 after a black
cable was found across the top of a flight of stairs, which
caused a security guard to trip and fall down the stairs. 

The cable was found to have been cut from a coil at the plant
but the culprit was never found. 

The alarm was raised in February this year when someone reported
a photographic image being projected on to the side of the
reactor. 

This was actually an art project involving a six-minute video,
Lumen de Lumine (Light out of Light), by Ken McMullen, being
beamed on to a 40-metre section of wall at Torness. Thousands of
drivers and rail passengers caught a glimpse of the Â£40,000
film, which explored the relationship between art and science. 

Reporting of security incidents is mandatory under the Nuclear
Industries Security Regulations of 2003. 

©2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
 26 UPI: Japan urged to strengthen nuclear reactors
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

5/1/2006 1:20:00 PM -0400                               

TOKYO, May 1 (UPI) -- Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission is
urging power companies to use seismic research to develop better
earthquake resistance measures for nuclear power stations. 

The proposed revisions urge utilities to prepare for a possible
major earthquake occurring either directly below or near nuclear
power stations. 

Because of the cost, the power industry maintains that the
revisions are unnecessary, and that Japanese nuclear power
plants are already reinforced strongly enough to withstand a
potential major earthquake. 

Yomiuri Shimbun reported on April 29 that a panel of experts
drew up the commission's recommendations to revise government
guidelines which, if adapted would be the first major overhaul
of the standards in 25 years. 

Public concern over nuclear power plant safety has risen after
the Kanazawa District Court in March ordered Hokuriku Electric
Power Co.'s Shiga nuclear No. 2 reactor in Ishikawa Prefecture
to suspend operations. 

Japan is the world's third-largest generator of nuclear
electricity, behind the United States and France, currently
operating 55 of the world's 443 nuclear reactors. Japan is
planning to construct an additional 12 reactors.

© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 27 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear no cure for climate change, scientists warn 

smh.com.au
 
www.smh.com.au

By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter

May 2, 2006
 	 	
AUSTRALIA could not develop a domestic nuclear power industry in
time to stave off the effects of climate change and such a
program would be prohibitively expensive, energy experts say.

The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations
needed to even partly replace coal as a source of electricity
would be so heavy no private investor would take on the risk
without huge government subsidies, they said.

The Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, warned at the weekend
that Australia would have to get used to the idea of a domestic
nuclear power industry because it was part of the solution to
global warming.

Scientists have warned the world needs to make large cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions now to avoid further big changes to
weather patterns.

But coal-fired power plants could not be replaced fast enough
with nuclear plants to make any real difference, said the
research principal at the Institute for Sustainable Futures,
Chris Riedy.

"It would take 10 years to get one nuclear power plant up even
if there was no public protest," Dr Riedy said. "And all of the
evidence from where they have been built [overseas] shows they
have had to have massive [government] subsidies to keep them
going."

A 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate between 2 and
3 per cent of Australia's current electricity consumption, said
Dr Iain McGill, research co-ordinator for the Centre for Energy
and Environmental Markets at the University of NSW.

"Coal generation is about 85 to 90 per cent of national
electricity market generation, so it might require around 30 to
40 such plants to replace coal-fired generation," he said. "Such
a program would almost certainly take numerous decades."

Dr Mark Diesendorf, a senior lecturer at the Institute of
Environmental Studies at the University of NSW, said a
1000-megawatt nuclear plant would cost at least $3 billion to
build - 2½ times that of a coal-fired power plant - and much
more to operate than fossil fuel plants. To build a lot of
nuclear plants, say, over 20 years, would emit so much
greenhouse gas it would take 40 years to break even in terms of
CO 2, he said.

"You would have this great big spike in CO 2 emissions … I think
the whole thing is insane," he said of suggestions that nuclear
power could help fight global warming.

In Britain a House of Commons environmental audit committee
report published two weeks ago rejected constructing new nuclear
power plants to replace those that will soon be shut down,
because they could not be built quickly enough to meet demand
for electricity.

The US Government is offering financial subsidies to the
country's stalled nuclear industry to encourage construction of
new plants worth about $US17 billion ($22.4 billion).

A campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, David
Noonan, said nuclear power would be "incredibly expensive and
too slow and ineffective" a way to tackle climate change.

"It is the only source of power that could annihilate your city.
It would certainly be a terrorist target as well as a signal to
the region that Australia might be going down the nuclear
weapons path," he said. 

Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.                                                   
*****************************************************************
 28 AP Wire: Nuclear engineers in high demand

05/01/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

CLEMSON, S.C. - With nuclear plants expanding and their employee
ranks growing older, trained nuclear engineers are in high
demand. 

More than a quarter of the industry's 15,600 employees will be
eligible for retirement in the next five years, said Carol
Berrigan, senior project manager at the Nuclear Energy
Institute. 

This is good news for engineering students across South
Carolina. 

All of the University of South Carolina's graduate students in
nuclear engineering have jobs at least one semester before
graduating, said Abdel Bayoumi, director of the graduate
program. 

And companies start recruiting undergraduate nuclear engineering
students at South Carolina State University as early as their
sophomore year, said Kenneth Lewis, dean of the university's
College of Science, Mathematics and Engineering Technology. 

Both school officials said the academic programs were developed
to meet the industry's need for workers. 

Entry-level nuclear engineers can make more than $50,000, and
more if they have graduate degrees. 

Duke, SCANA, Southern Nuclear and Progress Energy all have
applied to build new plants in South Carolina. 

"Whether it be an engineer, welding technician, trainer,
financial or procurement specialist, we need it all and this is
the time to get involved," said Amy Buu, the professional
development chair for the North American Young Generation in
Nuclear, an industry association for people under age 35. "For
us to remain a technologically advanced society we need energy." 

Buu, 29, of Columbia, works at Westinghouse Electric Co. as a
Customer 1st Leader in nuclear fuels. 

Duke Energy plans to hire about 50 people each at plants in
Oconee, Catawba and McGuire, said company spokeswoman Rita Sipe.
The company also will hire about 800 full-time employees at a
planned nuclear station in Cherokee County. 

"We recognized a number of years ago that we were going to need
to hire people for the future," Sipe said. 

Duke hires about 50 college interns to work at a nuclear plant
during the summer and learn about careers in the nuclear
industry. It also partners with technical colleges to allow
electricians, welders and maintenance workers to work while
attending school. 

South Carolina State University has programs to expose both high
school students and teachers to basic concepts of nuclear
science. 

"There is a lot going on in the nuclear industry to try to
attract young people to these types of jobs and encourage them,
even when they are in high school," Sipe said. 

Information from: The Greenville News,
http://www.greenvillenews.com

*****************************************************************
 29 AP Wire: Nuclear fuel maker to move from N.C.

05/01/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The Savannah River Site will gain more than 500
jobs with the construction of a factory to convert weapons-grade
nuclear material into fuel for power plants. 

About 200 employees from contractor Duke Cogema Stone & Webster
will relocate from offices in Charlotte, N.C., by the end of the
year. The contractor plans to hire about 320 subcontractor
employees by the end of the year. The new employees will perform
construction activities such as excavating the site, pouring the
concrete foundation and installing equipment. 

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced the jobs Monday. 

The plant will convert 34 metric tons of potentially lethal
plutonium to mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, under terms of a 2000
nuclear nonproliferation pact. 

"This is welcome news for Savannah River Site, the MOX program
and the state," Graham said in a news release. "I'm glad we are
taking steps to get the construction and eventual operation of
the facility moving forward."

*****************************************************************
 30 [DU List] Mission acomplished, - by Felicity Arbuthnot
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:32:04 -0700


<x-flowed>
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75774

Mission Accomplished’
By Felicity Arbuthnot

Most of us have woken in the witching hours and wondered: 'why did I ever 
say that ...' and known it would return to haunt. Most of us too, can spot 
the instant a public figure does the same. 'Watch my lips' no more tax 
rises, said George Bush Snr. Doomsday was sure to follow. 'I feel the hand 
of history on my shoulder' said Prime Minister Blair in Northern Ireland. 
The country's Parliament went into meltdown and remains a political 
Chernobyl sarcophagus. 'Mission accomplished', declared by George W. Bush 
on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st 2003 may prove to be 
the Mother of all Blunders. The only small blessing is that he wasn't 
flying the plane which delivered him on the deck at one hundred and fifty 
miles an hour, given unfortunate encounters with quad bikes, ordinary bikes 
(near totalling a policeman at Gleneagles) and Pretzels.

The ruins of lives, homes, towns, villages in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 
pollution of the region and the entire planet (Dr Chris Busby, Scientific 
Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk found that radiation 
from weapons used in Iraq, travelled and quadrupled radiation readings in 
Europe in just nine days)* the ongoing destruction and estimation of as 
many as three hundred thousand subsequent violent deaths in Iraq, up to 
ninety five percent possibly at the hands of and certainly under the watch 
of, occupying forces or their cohorts and employees, the drip drip of 
dodgier and dodgier dossiers (there'll surely be more) to justify an 
entirely unjustifiable and illegal invasion; the disappearance of an entire 
sovereign government, up to thirty thousand people held in Iraq without 
trial. Hidden detention centres and disappeared flown around the globe to 
be tortured, un-named and untraced, denied all the legalities that 
painstaking, if imperfect, international Treaties and Conventions have 
committed to, built over generations. Missing $billions of sovereign 
moneys, squatted sovereign buildings, imposed puppet governments and no end 
in sight, on to Iran, the road to Damascus in an 'endless war' which, says 
the ‘Pretzelly’ challenged President, could last generations.

We may, in fact not have the luxury of generations for war or even peace. I 
am indebted to Irving Wesley Hall of www.notinkansas.us for meticulous, 
referenced addition to the Depleted Uranium debate. They have army sources 
unavailable to most, a chilling inside track. The lie to the spin. Two 
stories of enormity which they have uncovered perhaps demonstrate the 
historically incomparable mess we are in. Bearing in mind that it is 
estimated that two thirds of those who served in the 1991 Gulf war are sick 
or on disability benefits, thought to be linked to DU and or untested 
inoculations and destruction of toxic sites, orders of magnitude more of DU 
has been used and continues to be used in Iraq. This time round though, no 
meaningful figures regarding DU contamination are obtainable. 'Medical 
professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers from 
Iraq and Afghanistan have been threatened with ten thousand dollar fines 
and jail, if they talk about the soldier or their medical problems', states 
Hall. 'Reporters have been prevented access to more than fourteen thousand 
medical evacuees, flown nightly ... to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington 
DC. What is the DoD hiding?' He asks.

Hall relates the sad, salutary tale which perhaps answers his own question. 
Sergeant Michael Lee Tosto, possibly 'first American victim of 2003's 
"Shock and Awe" ..' He died in Baghdad on June 17th 2003, aged twenty four. 
In common with a number of deaths reported at that time, he died, said the 
army, of pulmonary edema, or cardiac failure after showing flu like 
symptoms. His family said he was A1 fit and had never suffered any major 
illness. Dr Garth Nicholson of the Institute of Molecular Medicine, 
Huntingdon Beach, California and an expert of DU poisoning told Hall: 'We 
are witnessing the same symptoms of radioactive poisoning today as fifteen 
years ago. We are hearing the same denials of reality from Donald 
Rumsfeld's Department of Defence ...'

Michael's father wondered why his son was wearing white gloves, when his 
son was delivered for the funeral by the army. Michael's wife, Stephanie, 
reached under one glove and found his wedding ring was missing, queried, 
the army replied that it may have been 'contaminated'. Rather than send 
back his identifying 'dog tags', they sent back brand new ones. Were his, 
too, contaminated?
Major Richard J, McNorton, specially charged by US Central Command to 
assist bloggers in obtaining accurate information has been remarkably 
reticent in replying to Hall's requests regarding the following US Army 
Central Command communique (June 2005.) It stated that ' ... soldiers of .. 
62nd Quartermaster Company from Fort Hood, Texas', had been supplying water 
for showers to, ironically, 'Camp Forward Danger' in Iraq to men and women 
of the New York National Guard, with water from the Tigris river, untested 
for radiation. 'Our men and women just spent six months taking radioactive 
showers in a depleted uranium broth ... washing open wounds ... eating more 
than five hundred meals with food, plates, cutlery washed in hot water - in 
two senses of the word ..'
An enraged soldier contacted Hall: 'I am sick and probably dying ... this 
was a suicide mission ..Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld .. are no better than Bin 
Laden (we are on a ) suicide mission to murder innocent people (and) 
volunteering unwittingly to be nuked by DU.'
Nuked Iraqis have additional to contend with. A letter from an Iraqi 
doctor, received yesterday, states in part :

We are living in a complicated risky horrible deteriorating miserable 
unhappy life. Nobody dare to get out of house after sun set. No patient is 
able to go to a hospital at night even if this means dying at home. Our 
daily talk is who, and how many lives were ended by violence. Imagine, only 
in our street 10 people were killed ... If you want the mangnitude in our 
locality, the number probably exceeds 150.
... theft, darkness in view of interupted electricity, and sounds of 
explosions and gunfire at night .... life ending business is becoming the 
most profitable job these days.
The forensic medicine dept receives an estimated number of three thousands 
bodies terminated by firearms per month in Baghdad only . The reasons cant 
be explained in this letter .... all are intended consequences in an 
invaded (sorry liberated) country.
My neighbor, a young man (just like my son), was attacked by two bullets in 
his head just 200 meters away from our house at noon time when ……. (my 8 
years daughter) was back from school.
When I returned Safia rushed with a hysterical smile: Daddy, daddy, you 
know our neighbor, Mr ...was dead after 2 shots in his brain. What shocked 
me is that she is smiling, not sad, not crying.
Soon after this, Safia had difficulty in sleep ... and now she usually cant 
sleep alone unless in my bed holding me with her arms.

The US Administration still hasn't bought that history of modern Iraq and 
failed foreign adventures there. Condoleeza (I've an oil tanker named after 
me) Rice and Donald Rumsfeld went to instruct the new 'Prime Minister' last 
week (having temporarily buried the hatchet not in each others heads.) His 
name is Nuri al Maliki. The last puppet Prime Minister was imposed by the 
British. His name too was Nuri ( Sa'ad.) He was murdered and dragged round 
the streets until he was referred to as Shish Kebab. Not much left.
'Mission accomplished'?

* www.llrc.org.uk


<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/fgf/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/fifaworldcup_uk/>Win 
tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger.

----------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    *  Visit your group 
"<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pandora-project>pandora-project" on the web.
    *
    *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


----------

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 31 Marshall Islands survivor declaration in Chernobyl
 
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 19:22:26 -0700


<x-flowed>

April 27, 2006
Honolulu, Hawaii;  Ms. Lemeyo Abon, a young girl in March 1, 1954 when the
strongest hydrogen bomb codenamed 'BRAVO' was detonated on Bikini Atoll and
radioactive fallout exposed her people living downwind from the test site,
returned today from participating at the Forum on the 20th anniversary of
the Chernobyl accident.  Ms. Abon was saddened to learn how many lives the
accident had ruined, especially the young ones.

Twenty years ago, April 26, 1986, just a bit after midnight, the accident at
the nuclear reactor number 4 exploded and caught unaware thousands of
people, many of them children who were exposed to radiation.  Many of the
children then are of child-bearing age now, but some are reluctant to start
any family for fear of the uncertainties.

The experts in the radiation exposure field attended the Forum and presented
their progress reports on Chornobyl and plans for the future.  Ms Abon from
the Marshall Islands traveled the farthest to be in solidarity with the
Children of Chornobyl. She represented ERUB, the organization of survivors
of 67 nuclear and  atomic tests - 1946-1958.





            Ms. Lemeyo Abonâ€™s Testimony
           20th Anniversary of Chernobyl
             April 24 â€“ 25, 2006


Today, I stand before you as a survivor of nuclear fallout from the Marshall
Islands.  I am honored to be here in solidarity with the people and Children
of Chornobyl as we observe the 20th anniversary of the catastrophic accident
that touched and altered hundreds and thousands of lives forever.

My name is Lemeyo Abon .  I come from Rongelap atoll in the Marshall
Islands.  The Marshall Islands are located in the middle of the Pacific
Ocean - thousands of miles away from the United States.  But, the United
States chose these tiny atolls for its Nuclear Testing Program.  A total of
67 atomic and nuclear tests were exploded between 1946 to 1958.

When the military official asked the Bikini people to use their land for the
good of mankind â€“ he did not tell the truth that he did not know what the
effects of such tests would bring, and that he did not know when the people
would return to their homeland. He misled them to believe that the
relocation was temporary and the people could return home after a week or a
few months.  That was not true.  It is now 60 years since the Bikini people
were relocated away from their homeland and 52 years for the Rongelap
people.  We can not go back home because the United States has not allocated
enough funds to clean the contaminated lands.

On March 1, 1954, the United States military exploded the strongest hydrogen
bomb called 'BRAVO' on Bikini atoll.  'BRAVO' was 1,000 times stronger than
the A-bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.  I don't know if there ever was a
stronger bomb than Bravo!

What happened to Chornobyl 20 years ago is similar to what happened to us.
As information of the accident at the nuclear reactor in Chornobyl was kept
secret from the people and the world, so was information about nuclear
fallout from â€˜BRAVOâ€™ kept secret from us living downwind from the test 
site.
   So when the radioactive powder descended from the sky we children began to
play with it.  We rubbed it on our bodies and in our hair.  Hours later,
everyone was sick with the typical symptoms of nuclear exposure.

See, the U.S. military officials knew 72 hours before that the wind
direction had sifted toward our islands, but they did not warn us.  No body
told us about what to do in case of an accident.  We were not evacuated
until 2 days later.

We are convinced that we were used as guinea pigs to study the effects of
radiation in human bodies.  Now it is not only us who are sick with cancer,
but our children and grandchildren have inherited our cancer diseases.  Many
of our people are sick with all type of cancer disease, most commonly
thyroid cancer.  Younger mothers continue to give birth to severely deformed
babies as you see in these photos from last year (hold up photo).  Yet the
United States Department of Energy who monitors the health of survivors from
â€˜BRAVOâ€™ insists that these cases are NOT related to nuclear exposure.

We say, they are.

We say, treat our children until there is proof that they are not sick from
radiation.

We do not care about ourselves as we are already sick, but we care about our
children and their future generations.

We do not want them to suffer as we have.

We say, United States, do not turn your back on the great injustice that our
people have endured as result of the nuclear tests.  Do not count how much
money it will cost to treat the survivors in the Marshall Islands.

Stop the war in Iraq and divert the funds to treat our children.

I stand before you today to ask for your support for the survivors in the
Marshall Islands in pushing the United States to bring justice to the people
by making sure that funding to treat their cancer diseases, for cleaning the
contaminated land and bring it to its natural state continues.

I ask all of you who believe in solidarity to help shame the United States
of America to admit the injustice that they have done.  HELP US ACHIEVE
JUSTICE.  Justice means 1) provide the medical treatment needed, 2) include
the children and grandchildren, 3) clean-up the contaminated land, and 4)
compensate those who have lost their homeland forever!

I have with me the Survivors in the Marshall Islands Petition;  if you
believe in Justice, please come forward and sign it.

This year is especially special as survivors, supporters and concerned
groups come together to observe these nuclear milestones: Chornobylâ€™s 20th
anniversary, Bikini & Bravoâ€™s 52nd, Hiroshima & Nagasakiâ€™s 60th 
anniversary
late last year, Moruroa, Tahiti's 40th and the Marshall Islands 60th
anniversary since the U.S. started its testing program.

For the sake of our children of Chornobyl, the children of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the children of Tahiti, the children of the Marshall Islands and
children everywhere where thereâ€™s the past and present history of nuclear
test and contamination - let us renew our pledge to work toward a nuclear
free and safe world for them.

God bless everyone.
Thank you for this opportunity to be part of this Forum.


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 32 toledoblade.com: Port's delay on beryllium firm's request costly

Article published Monday, May 1, 2006
 
 Board lost thousands in fees over safety concern
 
By CHRISTOPHER D. KIRKPATRICK BLADE STAFF WRITER

Placing moral concerns ahead of money, Toledo-Lucas County Port
Authority board members potentially lost tens of thousands of
dollars in economic development fees for the agency.

 
At issue is a debate about responsibilities of the port
authority board in running the 30-county Northwest Ohio Bond
Fund.

 The matter surfaced in March when Brush Wellman Inc., a maker
of beryllium products for the defense industry, sought $7.5
million in bond money.

 Because members had questions about worker safety, the port
board members delayed, in a 9-2 vote, taking action on the
application.

 In response, Brush Wellman said it would look to the
Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority for the money - costing
the Toledo agency a 0.25 percent fee per year on the outstanding
balance of the loan.

 "The board simply sought to have discussions with Brush Wellman
about health, human, environmental, and medical issues," board
member Ken Dobson said. "It was not confrontational,
antagonistic, or anti-growth at all. It was just something we
wanted to do."

 Mr. Dobson, director of the Capacity Building in Construction
program at the University of Toledo, stressed the importance of
economic development and said that the board would likely have
approved the request if it was given some more time.

 The Toledo-Lucas County port board is supposed to certify that
bond applications are in order. There are no provisions to
debate social or health issues.

 "I've always been concerned about that slippery slope," said
Nadeem Salem, a port board member who works for Savage
&Associates and voted in favor of the delay.

 "People are expressing valid concerns, and no one is saying
these aren't valid concerns," he said. "It just goes back to a
general theme of: What is our role?"

 The bond program generates $800,000 to $1 million a year for
the port authority. One-quarter percent of $7.5 million is
$18,750.

 The new plant, which could be built in Elmore or in Delta,
Utah, would produce valuable material for the defense industry
and create 25 good-paying jobs. But it also would produce
potentially dangerous dust that can lead to fatal illness.

 Brush Wellman has had issues in the past related to worker
safety and was the subject of a Blade series that exposed a
50-year pattern of misconduct by the U.S. government and the
American beryllium industry, wrongdoing that caused the injuries
and deaths of dozens of workers producing the metal, whose dust
can cause an incurable, chronic lung disease.

 The company says its workers would not be in danger in the new
plant and says it has received approval from various agencies
and governments, including receiving $9.5 million from the
Department of Defense.

 "I think we understand their concerns. We do quite a bit in
that regard [with worker safety]. This new particular building
we are looking at putting up is something being designed right
now with state-of-the-art technology," said Michael Hasychak,
vice president and treasurer of the company.

 "We are doing the right things," he said.

 The Toledo-Lucas County port board - by delaying action and
appearing to have lost the business - exercised its power based
on its public policy concerns.

 The port board had a similar situation recently over an
application for a large-scale dairy farm, which some
environmentalists claim are polluters because of the amounts of
animal waste produced.

 In that case, the board approved the application.

 In response to the delay, Brush Wellman said in an April letter
that it would look to Cleveland and enclosed a $4,000 check
covering the port board's expenses.

 Jerry Arkebauer, vice president of finance for the Toledo-Lucas
County Port Authority, said it was unfortunate that Brush
Wellman chose Cleveland. He said the company explained that they
needed the board's answer by the end of March but instead
received a 30-day delay.

 "That put the company in a bind because they needed to make
decisions about what state they were going to put it," Mr.
Arkebauer said.

 "Postponing it 30 days doesn't mean it will be approved in 30
days," he said.

 Mr. Arkebauer added that it is "terribly unusual" for another
area's port authority to fund a project so close to Lucas County.

 The company left open the possibility of using the Toledo-Lucas
County Port Authority for future bond deals.

 Port board Vice Chairman Bill Carroll admitted he was surprised
that the company decided to look elsewhere but added that it was
the company's choice.

 "The board has to make a decision but it's got to be a good
economic decision for the region and for the environment and for
all residents," he said. "We hadn't decided at this point
whether it was a good or bad deal yet."

 The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, in addition to
operating Toledo Express and Metcalf airports, the train
station, and the Port of Toledo, has developed expertise in
reviewing bond applications.

 Under the program, the port authority staff signs off on bond
sales on behalf of the state over a 30-county region, and the
board approves the transactions.

 It began with the creation of the Northwest Ohio Bond Fund,
which was seeded with money from the state and the port
authority.

 That fund has been so successful in providing loans that the
port expanded its role into bond sales that go forward in the
open market on Wall Street.

 These are the largest sales, and the port authority has no
liability if the money is not paid back to the bondholders.

 It's a no-risk money-maker for the port authority, but some
port members have had issues about being a hired gun.

 "Obviously, you don't want to lose business," Mr. Salem said.

 "But you have multiple opinions and everybody is going to look
from different perspectives. There were some valid requests for
more information [about worker safety]," he said.

 Blade Staff Writer Erica Blake contributed to this report.

 Contact Christopher D. Kirkpatrick at:
ckirkpatrick@theblade.com or 419-724-6077.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 33 Deseret News: Southern Utah's Democrats rally in Dixie 

[deseretnews.com] 

Sunday, April 30, 2006 

By Nancy Perkins 

Deseret Morning News 

ST. GEORGE — Southern Utah Democrats gathered Saturday to 
celebrate their growing numbers and cheer on local candidates 
running for office. 

"We are encouraged," said Washington County Democratic 
chairman Cyril Noble before the county convention began at the 
Dixie Center in St. George. "We have qualified candidates 
running this year. Not just names on a ballot, but qualified 
candidates." 

Saturday's event featured speeches from local and 
statewide candidates, as well as campaign booths providing 
literature from several political action groups. Salt Lake 
County Mayor Peter Corroon spoke at a well-attended 
Jefferson/Jackson fund-raising dinner on Friday evening, the 
first of its kind in Washington County. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch's challenger, Pete Ashdown, said the 
senator's recent comments about a conventional explosion test 
planned for the Nevada desert show he is out of touch with Utah 
voters. 

"Is there any doubt that if Sen. Hatch weren't running 
for re-election he would be asleep at the piano on this one?" 
Ashdown said, which prompted applause and cheers from the 
audience. 

The federal government's plan to detonate 700 tons of 
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil at the Nevada Test Site is being 
challenged on several legal fronts. But Ashdown said Hatch, who 
is now calling for assurances from the government that no 
radioactive dust will be released from the soil by the blast, is 
not taking a strong enough stand. 

"If they were going to light a firecracker out there, I 
would tell you it's wrong," said an emotional Ashdown, who had 
to stop for a moment before continuing. "My dad told me about 
the day it rained mud in Salt Lake City and my family was 
affected by the nuclear tests. Never again will this happen 
under my watch." 

Ashdown urged county Democrats to canvass their 
neighbors, families and friends by using the Internet. 

"Canvassing is important; it is essential," he said. "But 
there's a reason why there's not a Fuller Brush man knocking on 
your door." 

Washington County voters, long a Republican stronghold, 
have consistently sent Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, back to 
Washington. There are other, well-qualified, candidates this 
year that could also win if voters knew their names and their 
values, Ashdown said. 

"This race is winnable. I've seen it in the eyes of the 
people," he said. "I am so proud to lead this slate of 
candidates in Utah. I hear the Republicans talk about family 
values, but I don't hear them talk about business values. That's 
where you pay good wages, absorb insurance costs and don't 
destroy employee pensions. It's not putting your needs in front 
of everyone else's." 

E-mail: nperkins@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 34 Platts: Committee recommends two-stage plan to store UK radwaste
 
London (Platts)--28Apr2006
 
A two-stage plan to store UK radwaste prior to its underground 
disposal was recommended Apr 27 by the country's Committee on 
Radioactive Waste Management, or Corwm. 

The government formed the committee in November 2003 to provide a 
solution to managing the country's eventual 470,000 cubic meters 
of high- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes. Corwm said it 
recognized the likely difficulty in reaching an early agreement 
to go ahead with deep geological disposal because of ethical and 
social concerns. 

Corwm Chairman Gordon MacKerron told a press conference in 
Brighton that it was likely to be "at least several decades" 
before such a facility could be developed and fully implemented. 
Such a timeframe could easily extend into future generations, he 
said, if further technical and community concerns emerge. "So, 
because of these kinds of uncertainties, we are also recommending 
robust interim storage, which will need to last for many 
decades," he said.

"This would serve as a precursor to what we think is the best end 
point, which is deep disposal" several hundred meters 
underground, he said. Corwm's two-stage recommendation is still 
in draft form. Corwm intends to get the finalized version to the 
government by the end of July, it said.

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 35 Deseret News: Opinion on nuclear waste in Utah? Speak up 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 29, 2006 

State officials urge Utahns to say 'no way' to PFS plan 

By Lisa Riley Roche Deseret Morning News 

More than 110,000 Utahns have already registered their opinion 
about the design of a new state quarter — yet just a fraction of 
that number have let the federal government know what they think 
about a proposed nuclear waste site. 

Laura Seitz, Deseret Morning NewsGov. Jon Huntsman Jr. 
signs a declaration opposing proposed N-waste storage as Rep. 
Chris Cannon, left, Rep. Jim Matheson and Sen. Orrin Hatch, who 
also oppose the storage plan, watch. With the deadline 
nearing for public comment on a portion of the project in Tooele 
County that goes through Bureau of Land Management property, 
state officials urged Utahns to say "no way" to allowing 
high-level nuclear waste storage. 

"In a very real sense, we have an opportunity to put the 
final nail in the coffin of PFS," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said at 
a press conference called with members of the state's 
congressional delegation to declare Friday "No Way Day." 

PFS, or Private Fuel Storage, is attempting to store some 
44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the 
Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians about 50 miles 
southwest of Salt Lake City. The plan is widely opposed by 
government, business and community leaders. 

But the public also has an opportunity to weigh in, at 
least through May 8, the end of the BLM's 90-day comment period. 
At issue is whether PFS should be permitted to transport the 
waste across a 21-acre parcel of land controlled by the federal 
agency. 

Huntsman said he'd like to see as many Utahns contact the 
BLM as those who expressed a preference about the design of the 
state quarter set for release next year. "Imagine if we got that 
many," the governor said, "what the impact would be." 

Pam Schuller, who is fielding public comments received by 
the BLM's Salt Lake field office that will decide whether to 
grant PFS access, said the number of responses has increased 
over the past week thanks to a push by members of the 
congressional delegation and others. 

"Every minute, I'm getting a couple of dings on my 
computer. I'm still counting. It's around 3,000," Schuller told 
the Deseret Morning News. "Based on what I'm understanding, 
we're bracing for a deluge." 

Just two weeks ago, the number of Utahns who'd contacted 
the BLM was reportedly less than 100. Schuller said every 
comment received will be reviewed to determine the public's 
concerns. 

"We are not taking this lightly, not at all," she said. 
"We have to consider the merits of the case. If the public has 
information we need to know about, please tell us. We want to 
make a reasoned and informed decision." 

Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon, both R-Utah, 
along with Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, addressed an auditorium 
full of political candidates, state workers and others gathered 
for the noontime press conference. 

Hatch warned that although the storage facility was being 
billed as temporary, it would take 20 years for all of the waste 
intended for the site to be moved into place. "Temporary? 
Anybody who believes that, I have a few things I'd like to sell 
to you," he said. 

The senator directed Utahns to the state's official Web 
site, www.utah.gov, to link to information about contacting the 
BLM, as well as to www.utahpolicy.com, a political Web site that 
details how the Internet is being used to rally support against 
the waste site. 

Matheson also said Utahns must make their concerns heard 
by contacting the BLM. "This is critical to our future," the 
state's lone Democratic member of Congress said. "Everyone in 
Utah, take a few minutes." 

Cannon said Utahns possess "a passion about having an 
influence on the process." He said new technologies to reprocess 
waste that are being developed by Utah-based EnergySolutions 
could be a solution. 

Public comments on the PFS proposal can be e-mailed to 
pam_schuller@blm.gov, faxed to 801-977-4397, or mailed to: 

Pam Schuller 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Salt Lake Field Office 

2370 S. 2300 West 

Salt Lake City, UT 84119 

How to comment 

Public comments on the PFS proposal can be e-mailed to: 

pam_schuller@blm.gov. 

E-mail: lisa@desnews.com 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 36 Deseret News: Nuclear waste recycling is costly, foes say 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 29, 2006 

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News 

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods is being promoted as a 
better alternative to simply storing the highly radioactive waste
from power plants in repositories. 

But how viable is reprocessing? 

A Deseret Morning News evaluation found that critics say 
reprocessing is fraught with economic and safety concerns and 
that reprocessing carried out in Great Britain caused accidents 
and radioactive leakage. But the technology also has strong 
support. 

Reprocessing is an issue in Utah because EnergySolutions, 
the Salt Lake City-based nuclear cleanup and disposal company 
formerly known as Envirocare, supports it. EnergySolutions says 
reprocessing would reduce the volume of nuclear waste that would 
need to be stored. 

In an April 17 press release, EnergySolutions CEO Steve 
Creamer said, "Recycling is the right thing to do for America 
and will make the PFS (Private Fuel Storage) proposal for Utah 
obsolete," a point also being made in a current series of 
EnergySolutions TV ads. 

PFS would store up to 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel 
in an above-ground facility at Skull Valley, Tooele County, for 
up to 40 years. Meanwhile, the federal government is planning a 
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. 

EnergySolutions noted that in March that the U.S. 
Department of Energy issued a request for parties to submit 
expressions of interest in a demonstration program for the 
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP, supported by President 
Bush, would have advanced countries supply nuclear fuel to other 
nations. 

Under GNEP, the United States would develop technologies 
to recycle nuclear fuel "that do not result in separated 
plutonium — a key proliferation risk of existing recycling 
technologies," says a DOE Web site. 

EnergySolutions recently purchased the American arm of 
British Nuclear Group, which carries out reprocessing in the 
United Kingdom. That gave EnergySolutions the American rights to 
reprocessing technology. Creamer made it clear that any U.S. 
reprocessing by the company would not take place in Utah. 

An expensive process 

"The main problem is cost," said Steve Fetter, professor 
and dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of 
Maryland, College Park. "It is expensive to reprocess nuclear 
fuel." 

Fetter, interviewed by telephone, said new uranium is 
relatively cheap, and plutonium from reprocessing is far more 
expensive to use in nuclear fuel. With reprocessing, he said, 
the product has "negative economic value." 

To fabricate the uranium and plutonium from reprocessing 
and use them in fuel is difficult "because plutonium is 
hazardous. It requires special equipment, a special facility 
that's very expensive." 

Even if the plutonium were free, he said, the cost of 
using this reprocessed fuel would be greater than buying fresh 
uranium for the plants. 

Cost also is a concern for Frank von Hippel, professor of 
public and international affairs at Princeton University and 
co-director of Princeton's Program on Science and Global 
Security. 

He said that in the 1960s and '70s, the United States 
promoted reprocessing but later reversed that stance. That 
happened after India used reprocessing to separate plutonium 
from nuclear fuel — then used the plutonium for its first 
nuclear bomb, he said. 

Also, he said, America's leaders decided it was not 
economical to reprocess and recycle plutonium. "That was 
confirmed by other countries' later experience," von Hippel said 
in a telephone interview, "countries that didn't stop as quickly 
as we did." 

According to von Hippel, "We're talking in the ballpark 
of $100 billion for reprocessing and recycling," as well as 
preparing material for storage. That is the waste already 
generated, not counting future waste, he said. 

"That's probably the low end of the range," von Hippel 
added. 

"Recycling makes good sense for a number of reasons," 
Greg Hopkins, senior vice president of EnergySolutions, said in 
response to e-mailed questions. 

"When taken on a life-cycle basis, considering the value 
of energy recovered and the disposal costs saved, it's economic. 
Recycling will also allow for the increased use of nuclear power 
for energy generation." 

He said that presently, 20 percent of the U.S. power 
supply is derived from nuclear generation stations. 

"There will be reduction in societal costs that are 
significant, but hard to calculate, with more nuclear 
generation." More nuclear power could reduce the need to import 
foreign fuel, resulting in greater energy security and energy 
independence, he said. 

Not depending as much on burning fossil fuel means "a 
reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the 
atmosphere," Hopkins said. 

Problems in Britain 

Serious accidents have plagued nuclear fuel reprocessing 
in Great Britain. 

In May 2005, the British Health Protection Agency's 
Radiation Protection Division issued a report summing up the 
risks to the country's population from ionizing radiation from 
all sources, including medical X-rays. It concluded that risk 
from non-medical sources were "at a very low level." 

The report, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the UK 
Population: 2005 Review" discusses exposure from nuclear fuel 
reprocessing. Reprocessing is carried out at a plant called 
Sellafield, located at Cumbria on the Irish Sea. Sellafield is 
operated by British Nuclear Group, part of a holding company 
called BNFL. 

In 1983, according to Sellafield's Internet site, a 
"beach incident" occurred in which "highly radioactive 
discharges resulted in beach closure." 

The radiation exposure report says, "Although there have 
been decreases in discharges made by Sellafield in recent years, 
the environmental levels have not reduced substantially. This is 
mainly due to historical discharges of 137-cs (radioactive 
cesium). Liquid wastes from Sellafield are discharged directly 
to the Irish Sea via a pipeline." 

Seafood consumers were believed to ingest some 
radioactive material, and exposure was also possible from 
sediments or through handling contaminated fishing gear. 

Still, the report concludes, the exposure was "in general 
. . . low." 

Discussing fallout from past nuclear tests, discharges of 
radioactive waste and consumer products, the report says, 
"Exposures to members of the public from these sources remain at 
a very low level." 

Six years ago, the British government temporarily shut 
down a reprocessing plant because officials feared workers had 
"deliberately falsified records relating to the quality of fuel 
pellets," says a Deseret Morning News article from that time. 

Later, in April 2005, the thermal oxide reprocessing 
plant at Sellafield was shut down when a remote-controlled 
camera showed that a pipe had leaked badly. It turned out that 
the leak had begun months before, "possibly as early as June 
2004," says a report authorized by British Nuclear Group 
Sellafield Ltd. 

Britain's Nuclear Decommissioning Agency released a 
report in March 2006 pointing to metal fatigue as the cause of 
the failure. A large quantity, about 83 cubic meters, of "highly 
radioactive and corrosive" liquid ran into a secondary 
containment pool. There it remained, and apparently nobody was 
exposed to the toxic witch's brew. 

Still, the incident raised concern. The government 
placed 49 requirements on British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd. 
before it could restart the plant. 

"EnergySolutions cannot comment on the details of 
specific operational matters in the UK," Hopkins wrote in an 
e-mail to the Deseret Morning News. "We note however that 
installed engineering systems fully contained the material and 
that no material was released to the environment, and no 
personnel were injured or exposed to the leaked material. 

"We also saw in recent UK press articles that the plant 
in question is due to restart shortly." 

Hopkins wrote that EnergySolutions believes that in the 
United States, the possibility of such accidents is extremely 
low. 

"Nevertheless adequate design and operational safeguards 
have to be put in place and tested to ensure that the public, 
the environment and workers are fully protected in the event of 
an accident." He added that operational error can never be 
completely ruled out, and that's why engineering safeguards are 
required. "Lessons learned through many years of successful 
operations are constantly being incorporated," Hopkins wrote. 

Repository needed? 

"Reprocessing absolutely does not relieve the need for a 
geologic repository," said Vanessa Pierce, program director for 
the Salt Lake City-based activist group Healthy Environmental 
Alliance of Utah. Reprocessing is not really recycling, she said.

The resulting volume of waste is less, Pierce said, "but 
that's irrelevant" to the question of whether a repository is 
needed. The capacity of the government's planned repository at 
Yucca Mountain is not limited because of the size of the waste 
containers but by the need to control heat generated by the 
highly radioactive material, she said. 

Even though reprocessing reduces the bulk of the waste to 
be stored, the material that is left, which is not usable in 
power plants, still generates significant heat, Pierce said. 

"You still need almost the same amount of space even 
though you've got a smaller volume of waste. So it does 
virtually nothing to solve our need for a geological repository."

Fetter, the University of Maryland professor, said 
fission products left over after reprocessing "cannot be 
recycled" and must be stored in a repository. "Yucca Mountain 
would be needed even if we reprocessed all the spent nuclear 
fuel," he said. 

"It is the heat of the waste that determines how much you 
can put into the repository." Reprocessing as practiced in 
England and France "doesn't reduce the heat of the waste at all."

EnergySolutions' Hopkins replied, "Reprocessing does 
require a long-term storage facility like that proposed for 
Yucca Mountain. 

"However, recycling used fuels greatly improves the 
storage facility efficiency. If the U.S. simply continues 
operating its existing nuclear power plants, without recycling, 
then more than one repository will be required." Without 
recycling, Hopkins said, the current stockpile of spent fuel 
would fill the anticipated capacity at Yucca. "Recycling used 
fuel," he added, "avoids the need for additional repositories." 

E-mail: bau@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 37 Nevada Observer: Missives Fly As More Join The Anti-Yucca Mountain Tumult

Vol. 3,  No. 13          May 1, 2006 		

 Nevada's Online State News Journal             
   
Pressure On Energy Department Continues --- DOE Response Is Still 
To Ignore All

by Johnny Gunn

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is continuing to plunge ahead 
with requests to double and triple the size of the Yucca Mountain 
Nuclear Waste Repository without answering any of the criticisms 
that have been leveled over the years including those of safety. 
They have no idea how long the casks to hold the high level waste 
will hold up to water mitigation; they have no idea what the 
radiation strength of the waste will be in 10,000 years or 
250,000 years; and they won't discuss the charges of fraudulent 
information being used in place of good science. Other than that, 
the project is only 20 years or so behind schedule and falling 
further behind fast.

The Western Governor's Association (http://www.westgov.org) has 
sent a letter to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources listing several complaints. The letter was signed by 
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and dated April 13. Over the 
years the western governors have been in favor of the Yucca 
Mountain project despite Nevada's continuing concerns about 
safety. Legislation introduced at the request of the 
administration recently (S.2589) calls for changes in DOE 
procedure that is a serious safety concern for the governor's 
association.

Napolitano's letter calls S.2589 a "fundamental departure" and an 
"unwarranted change" from the way nearly two decades of 
non-classified DOE shipping campaigns have been planned for and 
conducted. She says, "We note the following concerns in 
particular: Exemption of Yucca Mountain shipments from existing 
federal regulations." The governor's main concern is that "S.2589 
would allow the Secretary of Energy to exempt Yucca Mountain 
shipments from any or all provisions of the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Authorization Act." Napolitano's letter continues, 
"The result of this would be to make DOE essentially 
self-regulated for these shipments."

The Western Governor's Association letter was followed 
immediately by one from the Nevada Nuclear Projects director Bob 
Loux. Addressing the Senate energy and Natural Resources 
Committee chaired by Senator Pete Domenici, Loux called into 
account "the ability of the site's natural system around Yucca 
Mountain to protect the surrounding population from the 
radioactive waste." In particular, Loux pointed out, "DOE's 
scientists now admit that despite the claim of 20-years of study 
they have little understanding of the natural system."

Loux's letter is a virtual condemnation of the process DOE has 
used to attempt to get license procedures underway with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "The Department of Energy," 
he says, "has given the site's adverse characteristics short 
shrift because the Department's strategy was and still is to rely 
almost entirely on the waste package alone to meet NRC license 
requirements. But knowing that is not what Congress intended in 
the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE has up to now pretended 
that Yucca Mountain has passed a thorough site evaluation." Among 
other problems are water mitigation issues, safety of 
transportation, and length of safe service of the casks to be 
stored underground.

It has been pointed out over and over during these committee 
hearings that site studies of what is called the natural system 
have either not existed or have been passed off as not being 
worth discussing. It was in March of this year that NRC 
scientists said in a report to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear 
Waste, "...if we have understanding of the natural system, then 
we can go in and say the natural system itself also is a good 
barrier...I think it behooves us to really look at the natural 
system...So we want to demonstrate a natural system can make 
large contributions to the repository performance... ." 
Apparently, Loux says none of this has been done.

While Domenici's committee was meeting in Senate Chambers, Nevada 
Congressman Jon Porter (R) was holding meetings of the Federal 
Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee in House Chambers 
dealing with the issues of a recent Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report, and the continued problems with alleged 
fraudulent e-mails from DOE contracted employees. The DOE 
Inspector General has been investigating the allegedly fraudulent 
e-mails and has turned evidence over to the U.S. Attorney in 
Nevada. The federal attorney has refused to file criminal charges 
in the case but Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman said the 
letters have had the effect of undermining public confidence in 
the quality assurance programs of the Department of Energy. The 
letters have been described as reckless and irresponsible by 
those involved.

Porter opened the hearing by commenting on DOE's Yucca Mountain 
project as a whole. "This project," he said, "is consistently 
failing under the weight of its own mismanagement and ineptitude 
at correcting recurring quality assurance deficiencies."

Porter had some heavy guns as backup for his session including 
Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons (R) and written testimony from 
Nevada Senator John Ensign (R) and Nevada Congresswoman Shelley 
Berkley (D). A report issued in March by GAO blistered DOE on its 
quality assurance programs and Jim Wells, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment, GAO testified before the committee in 
defense of that report. Porter called his hearing "Yucca 
Mountain: Broken Management, Broken Quality Assurance, Broken 
Project."

In part the GAO report states, "DOE cannot be certain that its 
efforts to improve the implementation of its quality assurance 
requirements have been effective because it adopted management 
tools that did not target existing management concerns and did 
not track progress with significant and recurring problems." In 
his testimony before Porter's subcommittee, Wells said, "The 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required DOE to construct a 
repository for permanent storage and to begin accepting these 
wastes by January 31, 1998. In 2002, after more than 15 years of 
scientific study the President recommended and Congress approved 
Yucca Mountain as a suitable location for the repository. 
However, DOE continues to encounter delays and it is not certain 
when it will apply for the license to construct the repository."

There are about 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste located at 72 
locations around the country, mostly at nuclear energy plants. 
The United States gets about 20 percent of its electrical power 
from nuclear energy. A major part of the licensing procedure is 
safety and a quality assurance program was initiated by DOE to 
ensure that its work and technical information it produces are 
accurate and defensible. Persistent problems implementing those 
procedures have brought numerous questions about the quality of 
the work. Quality assurance questions continue even today.

Wells said, "DOE had completed efforts known as Management 
Improvement Initiatives to better manage quality assurance 
problems, but could not assess their effectiveness because its 
performance goals lacked objective measures and time frames for 
determining success." He said that began back in 2004 and in 
early 2005, "DOE reported that it had discovered a series of 
e-mail messages written in the late 1990s by U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) working under a DOE contract that appeared to imply 
that workers had falsified records for scientific work." Wells 
continued, "Several of these messages appeared to show disdain 
for the project's quality assurance program and its 
requirements." In December 2005 and again in February 2006 "some 
project work was stopped due to continuing quality assurance 
problems."

Paul M. Golan is the Acting Director, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management, DOE, and Porter asked him what he 
can say today (April 25, 2006) that will ensure the American 
people that the Yucca Mountain Project will be based on sound 
science. Porter said, "While Golan stated that improvements were 
being made, I'm unconvinced."

Following the hearing Porter exclaimed, "With the way this 
project has been managed, we can never be confident that we're 
dealing with sound science." He went on, "I'd like to say Project 
officials addressed my concerns about quality assurance failures 
and examples of mismanagement raised in the updated GAO report, 
but unfortunately, I'm left even more concerned for the safety of 
Nevadans."

What we appear to be seeing is a federal agency totally unable to 
manage a project of the size and complexity of Yucca Mountain. 
The management at DOE is sloppy at best, inept is a better word, 
and they don't have the necessary controls over their operation 
to make the project safe. Or to prove that what they are doing is 
safe and in the best interests of Nevada and the country. The 
energy secretary himself testified in Congress that the project 
is "broken."                 

*****************************************************************
 38 Deseret News: Reprocessing plan pushed in D.C. 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 29, 2006 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Energy is pushing its plan to
get into the nuclear-waste reprocessing business, but Congress 
will eventually determine how much money it will put toward the 
effort and how far the department will be able to go with it. 

Leaders of federal labs will talk with lawmakers in May 
specifically on the plus points of getting the program off the 
ground, and Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell has already made 
the rounds to Russia, Japan and France to talk with leaders 
there about the plan. 

House appropriators are likely to start talks on the 
initial versions of the spending bills. The House Appropriations 
Energy and Water Subcommittee will get first crack at assigning 
numbers to the bill, which needs to then be passed by the whole 
committee and then the full House. The process repeats itself in 
the Senate. A select group of members then takes the House- and 
Senate-passed version of the bills and irons out the differences 
to reach a final version. 

Appropriators supporting the program will need to find 
money in the bill that also funds the Energy Department's plan 
to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, 90 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas, as well as Army Corps of Engineer 
projects and some Defense programs. 

The Global nuclear Energy Partnership, nicknamed GNEP, is 
the administration's latest push for more nuclear power plants 
while at the same time it is aiming to build a nuclear waste 
reprocessing plant by 2010. 

Congress approved $49.5 million for the 2006 fiscal year 
for the department to start the initial steps toward a recycling 
facility, such as completing an environmental impact statement 
and an overall program plan that would eventually pick a site. 
The department started on this in March. 

But the 2007 budget request has a $250 million request in 
it to move even further with hopes of opening an "advanced 
fuel-cycle facility" by 2010. The goal is to find a way to 
reprocess used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants 
without creating weapons-usable material like plutonium. 

The department wants to work with other countries to work 
on a demonstration of a safer way to reprocess waste and then 
use what they find in the advanced fuel-cycle facility — a 
location for which has not yet been determined. 

The overall goals are to reduce the amount of waste 
nuclear power plants produce while reducing the proliferation 
threat and encouraging more plants to be built. 

Dennis Spurgeon, the Energy Department's new assistant 
secretary for nuclear energy, said he sees himself as the "chief 
salesman for nuclear energy." Spurgeon said the United 
States is not even among the leaders in nuclear reprocessing, 
and that needs to change because the country will need nuclear 
power in the future. 

President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing because it 
created material that could be used in nuclear weapons. Although 
President Reagan eventually lifted the ban, no nuclear waste has 
been reprocessed in the country since. 

Spurgeon said the GNEP idea faces the same challenges 
that any new program faces. 

"You need money to get the answers, and you need the 
answers to get the money," Spurgeon said. 

Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said the 
department wants Congress to provide full funding for this new 
initiative, which Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has roughly 
estimated will cost $20 billion to $40 billion over the long run.

"We believe it is something worth investing in," Stevens 
said. 

But the environmental community says this is just another 
problem waiting to happen. 

"This program has three major goals, none of which are 
attainable," said Michele Boyd, a legislative director for 
energy issues at Public Citizen. 

She said this should not be seen as a way to reduce waste 
because reprocessing itself will produce its own brand of waste 
that will also need disposal. Additionally, new plants that 
would use the new type of fuel created through reprocessing are 
incredibly expensive. 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 39 AU ABC: Uranium debate continues within Labor
 
PM - Monday, 1 May , 2006  18:21:32
 
Reporter: Gillian Bradford

 MARK COLVIN: The debate over uranium is continuing to swirl
around the Labor Party, with the Opposition leader Kim Beazley
again hinting at a possible change in the party's long-held
policy.

Labor has held tight to its "no new mines" policy for 20 years.

But now Mr Beazley says it's not a question of who digs it up,
but where the uranium goes and under what conditions.

The uranium issue is contentious for Labor. The party's
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has again warned that the
party could lose some of its core vote if it ditches its
opposition to new mines.

From Canberra, Gillian Bradford reports.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Labor's policy not to allow any new uranium
mines stretches back more than two decades.

But the Opposition leader Kim Beazley is now leaving the door
open for a shift in Labor's policy.

It won't be formally decided until the party's National
Conference next year, but Mr Beazley is putting it on the record
that he can see the case for change.

KIM BEAZLEY: With regard to uranium, it's a dangerous substance.
It's not a question, however, of who digs it up, but the terms
and conditions under which it is sold.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: There's also a growing list of senior party
figures, from South Australian Premier Mike Rann and shadow
resources spokesman Martin Ferguson, who think the old platform
just doesn't stack up.

And joining them is another frontbencher, South Australian
Senator Annette Hurley, who's also a member of the ALP's
National Executive.

ANNETTE HURLEY: Well, I think it probably is out of date. I
would like to see some changes in it to allow new mines to
operate under the existing strict requirements.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Before she came to the federal arena, Annette
Hurley sat in South Australia's Parliament as the shadow
minister for resources.

ANNETTE HURLEY: Well, I think here in South Australia we've got
one of the largest uranium mines in the world, and it seems a
bit illogical for us not to allow smaller uranium mines to
produce even more uranium, providing that strict conditions are
adhered to.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: What will you be seeking to do in the lead-up
to the National Conference?

ANNETTE HURLEY: Well, I have been arguing for some time that we
need to rethink that policy. It's been some time since we had a
good look at it.

And I will be arguing within the party forums that we should
look at allowing new mines to operate in Australia, provided
that they're under the same strict conditions as the existing
one.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Do you see, though, that there's any potential
for a bleed in Labor's vote; that some core Labor supporters
could go Green if you change that policy?

ANNETTE HURLEY: I don't see why we should, providing it's a
properly crafted policy.

If we come up with a policy that keeps all the safeguards in
place, that ensures that our exported uranium is going to
countries that adhere to all the international regulations, I
think that we can come up with a policy that satisfies most
people.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: The case against changing Labor's policy has
been firmly taken up by the party's environment spokesman and
left faction leader, Anthony Albanese.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Well, I'm yet to see a single Labor Party
branch in the nation carry a resolution calling for a change in
policy.

And I don't believe that there are people out there who are
saying, in marginal seats: "I'll change my vote to Labor if only
they change their anti-uranium and anti-nuclear positions." I
just don't think that's the case.

I do think, however, whilst there isn't a pro-nuclear vote in
Australia, I do think there is an anti-nuclear constituency,
both within the party and within the broader community. And
they're certainly making their views felt. And they will be
passing resolutions and making their views felt for delegates to
the next ALP National Conference.

MARK COLVIN: Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese,
ending that report from Gillian Bradford.   

2006 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: SA senator wants Labor uranium policy overturned. 

01/05/2006. ABC News Online

A Federal Opposition senator has spoken out in favour of
overturning Labor's uranium policy banning the development of
new mines.

 There is a growing debate in the party, with Labor's
environment spokesman Anthony Albanese warning any relaxation of
the policy will cost votes.

 Labor Leader Kim Beazley says he is more concerned about
nuclear safeguards than where uranium is mined.

 South Australian Senator Annette Hurley, who is also a member
of the ALP national executive, says the current policy is out of
date.

 "I think here in South Australia we've got one of the largest
uranium mines in the world and it seems a bit illogical for us
not to allow smaller uranium mines to produce even more uranium,
providing strict conditions are adhered to," she said. 


*****************************************************************
 41 News & Star: We're leaving nuclear timebomb for our kids
 						
Published on 01/05/2006

[Sellafield: Centre of debate]                                                                          -->                                                             
                                                                                                                                        Sellafield: Centre of debate
By Anna Richardsonand Phil Coleman
 
STORING Cumbriaâ€™s growing mountain of nuclear waste underground 
could cause a timebomb for future generations, an anti-nuclear 
group claimed.
 
Speaking after the influential Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management this week recommended underground storage bunkers,
Cumbrianâ€™s Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core) warned
that it was a case of â€œout of sight, out of mindâ€.
 
Coreâ€™s Martin Forwood poured scorn on the official backing for
the plan, which has come amid mounting speculation that the
government sees nuclear power as a secure long-term energy
source for the UK.
 
He said: â€œThe problem with the underground storage of this
waste is that in the long run itâ€™s a case of out of sight out
of mind, and that would be extremely dangerous â€“ not only for
ourselves but also for future generations.
 
â€œNobody can guarantee the long-term safety of nuclear waste
underground for centuries and centuries.â€
 
Some observers fear that the committeeâ€™s recommendation could
pave the way for a storage facility to be built in west Cumbria,
though no locations have been specified.
 
Much of the UKâ€™s waste is stored at Sellafield, and site GMB
convenor, Peter Kane, believes Sellafield is the natural choice.
 
The draft report recommends that communities work in partnership
with those implementing the waste disposal, and also suggests
communities will have the right to withdraw from the process
before moving to the next stage, up to a pre-defined point. 

But Workington MP Tony Cunningham said west Cumbria would be
affected no matter what happens.
 
He added: â€œWe have to bear in mind that whatever decision is
going to be made will affect Cumbria as almost 70 per cent of
the waste is in west Cumbria.
 
â€œWhatever the final report comes out with will affect us
because we have the bulk of the waste here anyway, so itâ€™s a
very important report. There are many things it could have an
impact on.â€ 

Seascale councillor and Conservative group leader David Moore
welcomed indications that the local community will be involved
in whatever decision is finally made about waste storage. 

Mr Moore said: â€œFor the amount of time they have spent on it
there is not a lot of detail. 

â€œThere are some pluses there but I think I would have liked to
have seen more detail on the other options.
 
â€œBut it seems quite clear the communities that may be willing
to talk to them will be able to veto out at any time.â€
 
Several years ago, the underground storage issue was fiercely
debated in Cumbria after radioactive waste specialists Nirex
failed in an attempt to build an underground waste dump at
Gosforth.
 
*****************************************************************
 42 AU ABC: Govt says hands tied over waste dump site offers
 
ABC Alice Springs | Local News | Story 

07:40 (ACDT)Tuesday, 2 May 2006. 04:40 (AWST)

 The Northern Territory Environment Minister says there is
little her Government can do to prevent Indigenous people from
volunteering their land as a nuclear waste site. 

Traditional owners near Tennant Creek in central Australia are
considering offering the Muckaty Station as a possible site to
host the Commonwealth's radioactive waste. 

A delegation from the Northern Land Council (NLC) visited the
Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney yesterday but the NLC would not
confirm if representatives from Muckaty joined them. 

Marion Scrymgour says the Commonwealth knows where the Territory
Government stands. 

"In terms of Muckaty Station those traditional owners are
working through with the Northern Land Council," she said. 

"There's not much other than what we're already doing and that's
continuing our protest, and certainly saying no for the Northern
Territory in terms of nuclear waste." 

*****************************************************************
 43 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Evidence of new leaks, group reports
                            
Monday, May 1, 2006 

 Regulators say tanks are sound, but testing for spills is
lacking 

By LISA STIFFLER P-I REPORTER

A watchdog group says it has discovered newer, larger leaks from
Hanford's monstrous underground tanks than previously known. 

State and federal regulators say the tanks are not leaking --
but admit that systems are lacking for detecting seepage from
the aged vessels that bottom out 55 feet below the surface. 

The report from Heart of America Northwest asserting problems
with leaks has taken on an increased urgency. In recent months,
Hanford's multibillion-dollar project to remove most of the 53
million gallons of radioactive and toxic waste from the tanks
and turn it into a safer, glasslike compound has experienced
escalating cost estimates. Its completion date has been pushed
back by years. 

That leaves the tank waste languishing underground longer. More
than 84 percent of the metal tanks at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation are decades beyond their intended lifespan and at
least a million gallons have escaped. 

"You wonder how long it's going to be before the tanks are in
such bad shape that it's like retrieving (waste) from a tank
that's really not there," said Suzanne Dahl, state Ecology
Department project manager for the tanks. 

"It's like this slow-moving potential disaster in front of you,"
she said. 

The dangerously radioactive material is making its way to the
nearby Columbia River, where salmon spawn and water is drawn for
irrigation. 

The waste was generated as a byproduct of nuclear bomb making
beginning in the 1940s. The U.S. Department of Energy, which is
responsible for cleaning up the desert site, acknowledges that
67 of the 177 tanks have leaked in the past. 

The report by Heart of America Northwest -- publicly released
today -- relies on data from single-shell tanks collected
earlier by government workers and contractors. The group claims
that at least one tank that was considered sound has leaked.
They say there is evidence of another leak that happened
sometime between 1996 and 2002 that had not been publicly
acknowledged. 

[advertising] "They're not looking for leaks because they don't
want to find them," said Gerald Pollet, director of the
Seattle-based group. "DOE has tried to put forward this myth
that those tanks haven't been leaking." 

DOE officials said repeatedly that the tanks hadn't leaked. 

In recent years, the "pumpable" liquid contained in the 149
single-shell tanks has been transferred to double-shell tanks --
none of which is known to have leaked. But 30 million gallons of
sludge, a chunky substance called salt cake and liquids that
can't be removed remain. Four of the single-shell tanks have
been emptied. 

Work is being done to figure out better ways of testing for
leaks, including research into improved probes that can find
seepages underneath tanks. A primary means of leak detection has
been monitoring the waste inside the tanks, but those volumes
fluctuate with barometric pressure and won't reveal small
changes. 

It's only a matter of time before new leaks occur, said Jay
Manning, head of Ecology. "It is possible that some leakage is
getting past the detection."                 

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
*****************************************************************
 44 SPI: Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if Congress will pay
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com] [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Monday, May 1, 2006 

By LISA STIFFLER AND CHARLES POPE P-I REPORTERS

It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a facility to 
safely treat millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste 
stored in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone 
underground tanks. 

  - Evidence of new leaks, group reports  

When the project is completed, the bill could total $38 for
every man, woman and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3
billion price tag doesn't swell even further. It has nearly
tripled in less than six years, making it a massive taxpayer
burden. 

This is a critical time for the project. An increasingly
impatient Congress is now deciding how much money to contribute
to the effort -- considered the most important step in the
cleanup of the sprawling desert site on the Columbia River. Some
fear lawmakers could simply wash their hands of it and walk
away. 

"The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," said Gerald
Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford
watchdog group. 

       [Double-walled tanks]    

These double-walled tanks at Hanford each hold 1 million gallons 
of highly radioactive nuclear waste from bomb making. Built in 
1984, they were later covered with 5 feet of dirt. The liquid 
waste that's inside them is slated to be pumped out and turned 
into glass.  

The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million gallons of
deadly waste left over from decades of plutonium production has
caused the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors to
stumble repeatedly. 

Weak -- even negligent -- management has pushed the project's
completion from 2011 back to 2017 or later and driven costs up
by billions, according to reports from government agencies, the
Army Corps of Engineers and watchdog groups. 

At the same time, environmental and health risks are mounting.
The corrosive waste weakens the walls of the tanks and the risk
of leaks keeps growing, regulators admit. 

The federal officials running the Hanford cleanup and their
contractors apologize for the delays and errors in cost
calculations. They promise to do better. 

"Everything that I do on this project each day is to identify
with certainty what the costs and schedule basis is, and to
restore confidence and credibility in this project," said John
Eschenberg, the Energy Department's manager for the project. 

Construction is under way on the massive "vitrification"
project, which one day would turn the waste into a glassy
compound that will trap the radioactive material for safe
storage. But the department's contractor -- construction giant
Bechtel National Inc. -- has had to put the brakes on most of
the building due to safety and technical problems. 

Countless additional factors have helped drive up costs. They
include the initial miscalculation of the amount and cost of
materials needed for the project and underestimation of the
technical and regulatory hurdles facing the facility. In March,
a team of experts identified more than two dozen issues that
could prevent the plant from working as planned. The plant was
expected to operate for nearly two decades. 

The mounting setbacks have sent state leaders recently to
Washington, D.C., to beseech lawmakers to keep funding the
costly endeavor near Richland. 

Next week government officials will come to Seattle to explain
publicly how much money is needed to support the Hanford
cleanup, including the vitrification project, and to get
feedback on where it's being spent. 

The case is getting harder to make. Some worry Congress or the
Energy Department could scrap the vitrification project, perhaps
opting to build new storage tanks and putting the waste there.
Another option is using a cheaper, but less safe, technology for
treating the waste plaguing Hanford -- a key player in World War
II's Manhattan Project. 

Comments at an April 6 congressional hearing examining Hanford's
problems heightened that fear. 

"I'm convinced now that after learning about the failures of
project management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality
assurances and the uncontrollable costs we will hear about today
that this project is on a fast road to failure," said Rep. David
Hobson, R-Ohio. 

Hobson's dark opinion is important because he chairs the
subcommittee providing money for cleaning up Hanford and other
Energy Department plants. 

Everyone agrees the project is challenging. In the decades since
Hanford fired up the first reactor in 1944, a mishmash of waste
has been dumped into 177 tanks in the quest for weapons-grade
plutonium. The tanks -- which some say may have leaked recently
-- store millions of gallons of chemically complex liquids,
sludge and chunky salt cake. 

Those responsible for problems with the vitrification project
frequently put much of the blame on its unique nature. 

"After all, it was a first of a kind, never been built anywhere
in the world, much less in the United States," Tom Hash,
Bechtel's president of systems and infrastructure, told Hobson's
subcommittee. 

That statement, however, was not entirely accurate. 

Savannah River echoes
 

Hanford isn't the Energy Department's only radioactive headache. 

South Carolina's Savannah River Site was established in the
early 1950s to produce plutonium and radioactive hydrogen to arm
nuclear weapons. 

In 1983, the department began the process of building a
vitrification plant there to treat 37 million gallons of
dangerous waste that also had been stored in buried, leak-prone
tanks. 

At Savannah River, just as at Hanford, Bechtel was a prime
partner in building the facility. 

And just as at Hanford, the project was beset by major cost
overruns, poor management and technical problems. 

In a 1992 report that is similar in tone and findings to recent
reviews of the Hanford project, the General Accounting Office
(now the Government Accountability Office) itemized the
problems. The cost, the GAO said, had soared from an estimated
$2.1 billion to $4 billion. The project fell behind schedule. 

Ineffective management "has been a principal factor contributing
to the tremendous cost growth of the (waste facility) program
and the schedule delays," reported the government investigators. 

"Other factors, such as system testing that identified technical
problems and equipment and design deficiencies" also affected
the program's cost and schedule, the GAO said. 

As with Hanford, DOE officials and the contractors repented and
vowed to do better. 

The plant finally opened in 1996 -- three years late. It has
produced 2,200 canisters of glassified waste since then, but
lingering technical problems have limited its effectiveness,
allowing the capture of only small amounts of radioactive
material per canister. DOE estimates the plant will finish the
job in 2026. 

Savannah River has struggled to develop a process that separates
high-level waste from less lethal, low-level waste. Once the
process works, it will speed cleanup because only the worst
waste will be sent to the vitrification plant. A citizens
advisory board said last month that the delay could add $1
billion to cleanup costs. 

While concerns raised about the operations are disturbingly
similar, some say comparisons between Hanford and Savannah River
are unfair because the Washington operation is much larger and
more complicated. 

John Britton, spokesman for Bechtel's Hanford project, said of
Savannah: "It's a very small plant in comparison." 

'Ready, shoot, aim'
 

Not long before the first drop of concrete was poured at
Hanford's vitrification plant in the summer of 2002, the desert
site was flush with optimism. 

"This really is a watershed year," said Harry Boston, the Energy
Department's manager for the project at the time. "A lot of hard
work has been done over many years and now we are in a position
to reap the rewards." 

Today, construction essentially has stopped on two of the
vitrification project's three main facilities. While 1,700
builders bustled there a year ago, that number has withered to
about 375. 

The project has embraced a "design-build" strategy in which
chunks of the facility are engineered and construction starts
before the overall blueprint is completed. Critics call it the
"ready, shoot, aim" approach, but supporters say it's a smart,
accepted practice. 

Engineering problems have plagued the effort over the years. 

Last year, the government finally heeded earthquake-related
concerns raised in 2002 by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board -- the independent government board charged with
monitoring DOE programs. That again forced Bechtel engineers to
review their plans to make sure the facility could withstand a
potential temblor. 

Construction already had started, but because the plans were
"conservative," Britton said, "we haven't had to tear anything
down or do anything over." 

But fixes to some of the equipment may be necessary, said A.J.
Eggenberger, the board's chairman. And more information about
the area's earthquake potential is still needed, he said at last
month's subcommittee hearing, resulting in "continued
uncertainty." 

That keeps the cost estimates and timelines for completion on
shaky ground. 

Bechtel's original contract was for a $4.3 billion project -- a
figure that has ballooned since 2000, topping $11.3 billion. 

The causes for the price inflation and delays are many. First,
the initial cost estimates were too low. Bechtel officials admit
they overestimated the potential productivity of workers and
engineers, failing to account for the decades that had passed
since a large-scale, U.S. nuclear project was launched. The cost
of concrete and steel shot up globally since the effort started.
Original expectations for the amount of materials needed also
were too low. The project underestimated technical challenges.
The list goes on. 

To help correct for the setbacks, watchdogs are calling for more
outside oversight, such as bringing in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission -- the national agency responsible for nuclear
safety. 

There are calls to back off the design-build approach so that
plans are closer to completion before the hammering begins. The
GAO recommends that plans are 90 percent finished before
building happens. Currently, they're 65 percent complete. 

Clearly, something needs to happen to keep Congress on board. 

At the April hearing, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said Congress
was frustrated with Hanford's slow progress, usually driven
"after we whack them in some way." 

"There's a lot of taxpayer money out here ...," he said. "In the
private sector, we're concerned about timeliness, waste of
money." 

In response to those concerns, Washington state lawmakers and
Gov. Christine Gregoire have launched an aggressive charm
campaign to calm the nerves of those holding the purse strings.
This summer, another analysis is due from the Army Corps that
will more definitely set the costs and timing for the project.
Many folks are not expecting good news. 

"What we can't afford is another cut" in the vitrification plant
budget, Gregoire said last week after meeting with Senate
leaders and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "Every one of these
delays costs us time, money and hurts the environment."

ABOUT THE TANKS
Single-shell 	
  + There are 149 single-shell storage tanks at Hanford. 	
  + They were built between 1943 and 1964. 	
  + They are at least 30 years past their life expectancy. 	
  + All liquid that can be pumped out has been transferred to
double-shell tanks. 	
  + 67 tanks have leaked. 	
  + 30 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks Double-Shell
	
  + There are 28 double-shell tanks at Hanford. 	
  + They were built between 1968 and 1986. 	
  + Designed to last 25-50 years, the oldest are past their life
expectancy. 	
  + None is known to have leaked. 	
  + 23 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks. 
HANFORD CLEANUP
 

The public can comment on Hanford's planned in two ways: 


+ Attend a public hearing May 9 at the Talaris Conference
Center, 4000 N.E. 41st St. (near University Village). Open house
at 6 p.m., discussion at 7 p.m.
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/budget.htm">See an agenda.


+ Submit written comments to: The Department of Energy, P.O. Box
450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99352, or
Theodore_E_Erik_Olds@orp.doe.govor Karen_Lutz@rl.gov.

 P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or
lisastiffler@seattlepi.com. See the P-I's environment blog at
www.datelineearth.com.Is the Hanford cleanup important and worth
the cost? [*] Read 10 comments and post your own now!           
     
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 45 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford cleanup hearing May 9 in Seattle
 	 	 	 	 	 
[seattlepi.com]     

Monday, May 1, 2006 · Last updated 1:13 p.m. PT 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 	 		

SEATTLE -- An open house next week in Seattle will give the
public a chance to talk about how cleanup money is being spent
at the Hanford nuclear reservation. 		

The state Ecology Department is holding the hearing on the 2008
budget as part of an agreement with the Energy Department to
meet deadlines for cleaning up radioactive waste. 		

The open house will be held May ninth at the Talaris Conference
Center near the University of Washington. 	                 


[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 
101 Elliott Ave. W.
 Seattle, WA 98119
 (206) 448-8000
 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 46 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
 
                         FR Doc E6-6524 
[Federal Register: May 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 83)] [Notices] 
[Page 25584] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01my06-46]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Thursday, May 18, 2006, 5:30 p.m.-9 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky 
42001.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Murphie, Deputy 
Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy 
Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 
200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (859) 219-4001.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: 5:30 p.m.--Informal Discussion 6 p.m.--Call to 
Order Introductions Review of Agenda Approval of April Minutes 
6:15 p.m.--Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments 6:35 
p.m.--Federal Coordinator's Comments 6:40 p.m.--Ex-officios' 
Comments 6:50 p.m.--Public Comments and Questions 7 p.m.--Task 
Forces/Presentations Land Acquisition Study Statement of Work 
Water Disposition/Water Quality Task Force--End State Maps 8 p.m. 
Public Comments and Questions 8:10 p.m. Break 8:20 p.m. 
Administrative Issues Preparation for June Presentation Budget 
Review Review of Work Plan Review of Next Agenda 8:30 p.m. Review 
of Action Items 8:35 p.m. Subcommittee Report Executive 
Committee--Chairs Meeting Review 8:50 p.m. Final Comments 9 p.m. 
Adjourn Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact David Dollins at the 
address listed below or by telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. 
The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also 
be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, 
Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 
Monday through Friday or by writing to David Dollins, Department 
of Energy, Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, 
Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6819.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on April 25, 2006.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6524 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 Daily Herald: Argonne's growing pains at 60 - 

Marni Pyke

Few 60-year-olds have to endure growing pains.

But that’s what is facing the venerable Argonne National
Laboratory as its overseer, the University of Chicago, competes
for the privilege of continuing to run the facility.

The U.S. Department of Energy put the operating contract for
Argonne up for bid in January. More than 20 firms are rumored to
be interested in taking charge of the scientific institution
that ushered in the nuclear age.

The U of C contract expires Sept. 30. 

So as they celebrate the lab’s 60th birthday this spring, top
administrators are focusing on ensuring the university’s crown
jewel stays put.

Robert Rosner is director of Argonne National Laboratory near 
Darien. (Photo couresty, Argonne Lab)  
									 								
Heading up the effort is Argonne Director Robert Rosner, who 
assumed leadership of the Darien-area facility a year ago.

The university is taking the competition seriously, especially
in light of the fact the government awarded the operation of
Argonne West, a nuclear lab in Idaho, to another entity last
year.

It has forged new partnerships with the University of Illinois,
Northwestern University and two national firms, Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc.  

“I think the Argonne West competition was a practice run for
us,” Rosner said. “There’s a lot to be said for learning to
compete.”

Another crucial quest for Argonne has been the rare isotope
accelerator. This $1 billion project allows scientists to
examine elements such as uranium in minute detail.

Argonne is competing against Michigan State University for the
accelerator, but it’s unlikely the government will be taking any
action until 2011.

“We’re forever grateful they didn’t cancel it,” Rosner said.

Instead, the political attention of Congress and the White House
has turned to America’s lagging behind in technology. This could
result in the lab securing a major coup, such as a significant
upgrade of the Advanced Photon Source, a world-renowned X-ray
system.

“If we do our homework, it looks like we will succeed,” Rosner
said.

The Daily Herald talked to Rosner about the contract, his first
year as director and Argonne’s plans for the next 60 years. The
following is an edited transcript.

Q. How important is winning the operating contract?

A. The University of Chicago is the birthplace of atomic energy
in the world, and this lab is the birthing grounds of the
nuclear power industry in the United States. The university is
very proud of this lab. In the past, it held on to the dream of
nuclear energy and getting it right when the rest of the world
was pooh-poohing it.

Q. What are the stakes involved?

A. The university will continue to be a great research
university. 

But first of all, there’s their reputation. It’s not great to be
a loser. No. 2, I think there’s a true loss for the state of
Illinois because Argonne is in fact the mainstay of the
high-tech industry in the state and that means this is not the
private reserve of the University of Chicago, but is a state
resource.

Q. Describe your first year as director.

A. Busy. I had to deal with a whole bunch of issues that
happened before I showed up here and had to resolve them. One
was safety issues.

Q. The Department of Energy’s cited of Argonne for nuclear
safety violations earlier. How did you handle these problems?

A. I addressed them head-on. The problems were fundamental
issues in modern attitudes toward industrial safety.  You have
to have a safety culture and the infrastructure to support that. 

We had people who understood safety very well. They were experts
and really good at it, but because of that they thought you
don’t have to document every little thing.

(To rectify this, Rosner turned to the example of the U.S. Navy,
which uses nuclear-reactors in its vessels.)

Reactors are very high-tech items, but the Navy has 17- and
18-year-olds operating them.

How do they operate them safely? The answer is a very rule-bound
system. There’s a checklist of things operators must do and
there’s no deviating from this.

We brought in people who were well-regarded experts in these
issues and we hired them.

The decision I made was instead of just answering the mail and
saying “We’ll fix the safety issues,” it was “We’ll become the
lead lab in safety.”

Q. Some would say the future of nuclear power is bleak,
particularly given the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
disaster.  

A. Chernobyl is a reactor design the Soviets came up with that
was never, ever, ever considered in the West. What happened
there is actually a physical impossibility for Western-type
reactors. 

In the last 15 to 20 years, there’s been a huge change in the
nuclear industry. It used to be they were operated by utilities.
That’s no longer true, not in the traditional sense. In
Illinois, Excelon Corp. is the operator of many of the plants. 

What these companies have done is to make a detailed study of
what it takes to make money at nuclear plants. They came up with
some very interesting conclusions, such as if you operate plants
safely, you go a long way toward making money.

Q. What about Argonne’s role?

A. Argonne is focused on the more distant future. Right now
nuclear power is mostly focused on light-water reactors which
produce spent (uranium) fuel that is not easy to dispose of. 

Less than 10 percent of energy content from fuel is actually
extracted. Argonne has long argued for a global nuclear energy
program called the closed fuel cycle.

With the closed fuel cycle, it’s all about taking spent fuel and
reprocessing it so it can be used again. It’s the difference
between running a program that lasts 100 years and one (that
lasts) 1,000 years.

A lot of fundamental science issues have been established at the
laboratory. The next step is to demonstrate this on a large
scale.

Q. What’s in the future for Argonne?

A. One thing that’s likely to happen is that the power of
computers will become so powerful that we can simulate real
physical systems.

With the Boeing 777 airplane, they never built a prototype, they
did the whole design on a computer. Cars now are designed that
way.

We’ll do this with almost everything. Imagine doing this with a
genetic disease — finding what gene went wrong and going in and
fixing it. The technology does exist for doing gene insertion. I
know it sounds like science fiction but it’s something that will
happen I’m sure.

Q. Argonne just agreed to work more closely with Fermilab in
Batavia on research projects such as the International Linear
Collider. The collider hurls electrons and positrons at each
other at light speed. What are the uses of the ILC and the Rare
Isotope Accelerator?

A. Both the RIA and ILC are all about answering some of the
deepest questions we ask about the world. Where are we from?
What are we made of? How did the stuff we’re made of come to be?
What are the ultimate forces of nature? Where did the universe
begin?

And there are practical spin-offs. With RIA, there are medical
applications. Imagine if you chose a radioisotope for medical
purposes where the energy of the emitted radiation is tuned
(toward) killing a tumor. It’s kind of neat.

 					
© 2006 Daily Herald, Paddock Publications, Inc. |                        |                      
*****************************************************************
 48 Seattle Times: Lucky find reveals nuke-tank flaws
 
Monday, May 1, 2006 - Page updated at 11:54 AM 	
 	 		
By Hal Berntonand Warren Cornwall Seattle Times staff reporters                                                                                                                                    

A Bechtel National quality-control official acknowledged "dumb
luck" played a role in the discovery of a flawed inspection of
an 8,000-gallon tank intended to contain radioactive liquids and
gases at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, according to draft
meeting minutes made available from a corporate whistle-blower. 

Bechtel installed the stainless-steel tank in November 2003,
receiving a $15 million payment for reaching that milestone. But
in the months that followed, Bechtel officials realized they
needed to do a more thorough inspection that helped uncover
numerous problems with welds. 

The tank troubles were an embarrassing setback for Bechtel,
which is the prime contractor in an $11 billion effort to treat
the toxic leftovers from America's nuclear bomb-making era. Some
53 million gallons of those wastes are now stored in 177 aging
tanks, 67 of which are thought to already have leaked. 

In an agreement signed with Washington state, the federal Energy
Department has committed to begin processing the wastes into
stable glass logs by 2011, although start-up is now not expected
until 2017 or later. 

Bechtel whistle-blowers say the tank problems are indicative of
broader safety problems that still hang over the unfinished
plant. 

This year, six current and former Bechtel employees involved in
quality assurance and engineering design contacted the
Government Accountability Project (GAP), a nonprofit Hanford
watchdog group. They alleged that management  under pressure to
meet construction deadlines  sometimes ignored employee
concerns about the design and construction process. 

Quality control is critical in the plant's complex engineering
and construction process. Once processing begins, any major
leaks risk contamination that could sideline the plant for
years, and other malfunctions could pose risks of explosions. 

Bechtel executives say they stand behind the work done to date,
which includes 60 percent of the design and 25 percent of the
construction. They say their internal oversight system has
successfully caught flawed vessel welds and other mistakes in
the last six years. 

"These were real shortcomings. They erode the confidence of our
stakeholders, and do not meet our standards," said Tom Hash,
chairman of Bechtel National, in April 6 testimony submitted to
Congress. "We have fixed each of these problems and learned from
them." 

Several of the whistle-blowers gave hundreds of pages of
internal documents to GAP detailing Bechtel's struggles to catch
and fix errors, and how those problems should be reported. GAP
has kept the names of all the whistle-blowers confidential. 

In an August 2005 draft document, a Bechtel employee complained
that he was discouraged from detailing problems in the
proscribed written reports. 

"This avoidance ... is repeated, pervasive and persistent in the
face of repeated protests by myself," wrote the employee in a
document that GAP provided The Seattle Times. "It appears that
people have not been filing CARS [corrective action reports] in
order to curry favor with management, which has discouraged
CARS." 

Bechtel officials also were wary of the Energy Department
oversight, referring to the need to "push back" to ease
scrutiny, said one whistle-blower interviewed by The Times. 

"That was the mantra, and if I heard it twice, I heard it 100
times," said the former employee, who requested anonymity for
fear that publicly speaking out would make it difficult to find
new employment. 

Tom Carpenter, a GAP investigator, says that the federal
Department of Energy has done a poor job of oversight. He
proposes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees
private nuclear-power plants, be given authority to regulate
Bechtel construction. 

Energy Department officials dispute that criticism, saying they
have been a successful watchdog. The department cited Bechtel in
March for a "less than adequate safety and quality culture," and
required changes. 

"Safety is the No. 1 priority of this department," said Megan
Barnett, a federal Energy Department spokeswoman. 

State officials also are involved in overseeing the Bechtel
project, with two full-time inspectors and three who visit once
a week. So far, they think that Bechtel's own efforts  and the
outside oversight  is strong enough to catch safety problems. 

"We feel comfortable, at this point, that the facility will be
safe and effective," said Jay Manning, the director of the state
Department of Ecology. 

Manning said the biggest risks lie with the older, leak-prone
tanks that now store the waste. He is fearful that Congress,
amid concerns about cost overruns and safety, may balk at
funding the treatment plant. 

Last week, Manning and Gov. Christine Gregoire went to
Washington, D.C., to lobby for construction money. 

"The last thing that you should do in terms of public safety and
efficiency is slow down construction," Manning said. 

In the fall of 2003, Bechtel appeared to reach a key milestone,
installing the first of more than 60 tanks. The first tank would
be installed in a "black cell" area that would be sealed and
inaccessible once operations begin. 

The stainless steel tank is to act as a "scrubber," receiving
liquids and gases produced as the waste was melted. 

Bechtel officials acknowledge mistakes in engineering,
procurement and construction. 

The Energy Department informed Bechtel engineers that the tank
would need a full inspection, including X-rays of areas that
would hold gas as well as liquids, according to department
correspondence with Bechtel. 

But Bechtel engineers failed to pass on the proper inspection
requirements to the tank fabricator. So, the tank was not
properly checked over by the fabricator, and also was not
inspected properly by Bechtel prior to installation. 

It wasn't until January 2004, after a subcontractor uncovered
weld problems with tank nozzles, that Bechtel engineers
determined the need for the fuller inspection. 

At a May 2004 meeting, Bechtel official Ed Smith said it was
"dumb luck" that enabled Bechtel to finally figure out the
proper inspection procedures, according to draft minutes of the
meeting. 

After Smith's comments, Bechtel's project manager, Jim Henschel,
tried to shift blame to the Energy Department. He faulted the
government agency for a "poor choice of words in a contract
document," according to the draft minutes. He later proclaimed
that he's "ready for a fight" with the Energy Department. 

By the time of the May meeting, department officials had
requested return of the $15 million "milestone payment." The
Energy Department, however, eventually backed off that request. 

In recent months, the Energy Department began its own push back.
The department in March fined Bechtel $198,000 for the troubles
with the stainless-steel vessel as well as quality control,
training and other violations. 

Bechtel officials acknowledge Henschel's remarks, as recorded in
the internal meeting minutes, were inaccurate. "He has since
changed his tune ... ," said John Britton, a Bechtel spokesman.
"We're working hard and this has been a painful lesson to
learn." Additional efforts have included hiring more inspectors
to watchdog contractors that fabricate plant equipment. 

For the Energy Department, the safety concerns are part of a
broader struggle to build a plant to treat the wastes now stored
at Hanford. An initial attempt was scrapped in 1992, then a
second effort faltered amid delays and construction costs that
escalated from $6.9 billion to $15.2 billion. 

In 2000, the Energy Department hired Bechtel to engineer and
build the plant. 

Last year, Energy Department officials discovered their computer
models had underestimated the risks posed by earthquakes. 

Since then, construction has slowed as engineers redesign the
plant to stronger seismic standards. 

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company                                              
*****************************************************************
 49 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford: The long cleanup

[seattlepi.com]     

[OPINION] 

Monday, May 1, 2006 

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

The tightening of the energy screws on consumers has prompted
efforts to revive the American nuclear reactor industry. If
nuclear power generation is to have any credibility, the federal
government must manage existing waste. 

Maybe that reality has something to do with how surprisingly
upbeat Gov. Christine Gregoire sounded last week as she lobbied
the federal government for better funding of the Hanford
cleanup. She urged administration leaders and key members of
Congress to approve $690 million in spending to continue working
on Hanford waste containment. Republican leaders in the state
also support the proposal. 

After backing a cut in Hanford cleanup last year, the Bush
administration is seeking the modest increase. Gregoire said
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will also commit his department
to better Hanford oversight. 

Two recent reports have found big problems. The congressional
Government Accountability Office blamed poor Energy Department
management, a contractor's mistakes and technical challenges for
spiraling costs of a key Hanford treatment plant. Scientists for
the National Research Council found similar work in Idaho is
going much better than at Hanford. 

The $690 million, which is also backed by such Republicans as
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings and state Attorney General Rob McKenna,
is only a portion of what will be needed in future years to
prevent radioactive contamination from reaching the Columbia
River. If the river is contaminated, Gregoire warned, no living
person will see the cleanup completed. Repairing nuclear power's
reputation would be just as lengthy a project. Tell us what's on
your mind. [*] Read 6 comments and post your own now! 


  [SEATTLEPI.COM POLL]   
  Should America use nuclear power to expand its energy
production?   
  Yes     Yes, we will be more independent and probably reap
economic benefits, too  
  No     No, and we should dismantle existing nuclear power
plants as soon as possible  
  Not sure or other        
    
Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 
(206) 448-8000
 
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************