*****************************************************************
05/03/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.105
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] Iran Urges UN Action Against US nuclear strike plans
2 [NYTr] Iran Issue Dissected in Paris
3 [NYTr] Paris: Iran Meeting a Dud
4 UN Security UN Considers Action On Iran's Nuclear Programme
5 [southnews] Scott Ritter:  Once more unto the breach
6 What do you think is going on?
7 [southnews] Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection
8 [NYTr] US Evil Will Lead to Attack on Israel, Says Iran
9 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Introduce Iran Resolution
10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Enriches Uranium to Fuel Reactors
11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Statement It Would Hit Israel
12 Guardian Unlimited: This high-octane rocket-rattling against Tehran 
13 BBC: UN draft on nuclear Iran tabled
14 FT.com: US allies urge direct dialogue with Iran
15 AFP: UN Security Council to meet on Iran nuclear crisis
16 AFP: Iran accuses US of 'bullying' in nuclear crisis
17 AFP: US, Germany in 'total agreement' on Iran nuclear program - Merk
18 AFP: White House urges UN Security Council action against Iran -
19 US: AP Wire: Lawmakers shape state's energy plan
20 US: The Nation: Energy Independence Day
21 Rediff: N-deal: 'Be ready to accept amendments'
22 RIA Novosti: Modernization of submarine fleet a priority - Navy Comm
23 AFP: US experts cut by half size estimate of China nuclear arsenal -
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 IPS-English HEALTH-EUROPE: Chernobyl's Elusive Bottom Line
25 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse, Fermi on way back to full service
26 US: Brattleboro Reformer: State pulls VY uprate objections
27 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant
28 US: Times Argus: Vt. satisfied with Yankee boost
29 peopleandplanet.net: nuclear future is a trillion dollar dream
30 US: NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation
31 Pretoria News: Nuclear power the safest by far
32 Kyiv Post: Chornobyl project put on hold
33 US: NRC: RC to Discuss 2005 Performance at South Texas Project Nucle
34 US: MyWestTexas.com: Design under way for reactor: UTPB hires nuclea
35 edie news centre: Giant scale is weak spot of nuclear power 
36 Nanton News: Nuclear power not great for Alberta
37 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant
38 asahi.com: Newsmaker: An invitation to close the nuclear umbrella
39 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Turkey Point Nuclear Pla
40 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Harris Nuclear Plant
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
41 US: ENN: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Plans for Bird Flu Pandemic
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
42 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $6,500 Fine 	for H Inspection Co. of Houston, 
43 China Daily: Emergency system key to nuclear safety 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 US: [NYTr] Iran Discovers New Uranium Deposits
45 US: [NukeNet] NJPIRG Article about Shirani and dry cask issues on
46 US: [NukeNet] DOE PREDICTS NUKE REACTIONS IN CASKS
47 US: [NukeNet] NUCLEAR WASTE DECLARED SAFE
48 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield faces criminal charges
49 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Uranium at Level to Fuel Reactors
50 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Warning against uranium sales - 
51 US: Bradenton Herald: Palette of poison
52 US: Deseret News: Salt Lake officials join opposition to nuclear was
53 BBC: Criminal action over nuclear
54 Platts: EPA hopes to issue final Yucca rule by end 2006
55 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear experts push for waste re-use plan 
56 US: kutv.com: SLC Leaders Join Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition
57 New Scientist: UK told to bury nuclear waste, again
58 News & Star: Plan to bury nuclear waste is debated
59 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca e-mails: No blood, no foul 
60 US: NEWS.com.au: WWF accepts nuclear reality 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
61 Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon
62 Hanford News: Landfill moves forward
63 kgw.com: Low-radioactive landfill opening at Hanford
64 KnoxNews: Munger: Oak Ridge experts assist in nuclear rescue program
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Iran Urges UN Action Against US nuclear strike plans
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:09:09 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP via Yahoo - May 2, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_3&printer=1;_ylt=Asx2cj9GBkN2YOlUl5XyiNoUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Iran Urges U.N. Action Against U.S.

By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer

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 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 on April 18 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," the president 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 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other U.S.
multilateral agreements, he said.

Zarif's letter made no mention of recent threats by Iran's President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel "off the map."

Instead, the Iranian ambassador honed in on statements from U.S. officials,
especially from Bush, which he said "defiantly articulate the United States
policies and intentions on the resort to nuclear weapons."

Zarif said past U.N. failures to respond "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.'"

In a brief statement responding to the letter, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton
said "if Iran wants to be treated differently, then Iran should stop
pursuing nuclear weapons and give up terrorism."

The secretary-general had no immediate comment on the letter, said Marie
Okabe, a U.N. spokeswoman.

After lengthy negotiations, the U.N. Security Council adopted a statement a
month ago demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium. A new 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 which 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.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, reiterated Monday that Tehran
was "ready for any kind of negotiation to achieve our rights" and again
called for Iran's dispute with the international community to be returned to
the IAEA, rather than taken up by the Security Council.

He spoke on the eve of a meeting in Paris of political directors from the
six countries that have been trying to find a diplomatic solution to the
standoff  Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China.

Copyright ) 2006

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Iran Issue Dissected in Paris
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:09:21 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Iran Issue Dissected in Paris

Moscow, May 2 (Prensa Latina) Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Serguei
Kislyak is attending Monday a new negotiation round in Paris, France,
among members of the Security Council plus Germany to seek an accord
on the Iranian nuclear program.

This is the first meeting after the presentation of the report by
International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) general director
Mohamed El Baradei at the UN Security Council.

The  document,  presented  on April 28, states Teheran limited
cooperation with the IAEO and was far from suspending the enrichment
of uranium, as demanded a Security Council resolution in late March.

The Paris meeting is expected to be a preface for the six foreign
ministers' gathering, slated for May 9 in New York to handle this
situation.

Today's encounter will be attended by deputy foreign ministers from
the European Troika (Great Britain, France and Germany), as well as
Russia, China and United States, as a new possibility of the
international community to solve this issue.

ln/iff/oda/mf
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] Paris: Iran Meeting a Dud
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:34:55 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Paris: Iran Meeting a Dud

Moscow, May 3 (Prensa Latina) Representatives from the UN Security
Council"s member countries plus Germany continue Wednesday without
achieving an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, while the US
insists on sanctions.

The recent meeting held in Paris, attended by foreign ministers from
Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and United States
concluded with two opposing sides as for the application of a
condemnatory resolution against Teheran.

Moscow and Beijing are seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict
and reject the application of sanctions and possible military
operations.

Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov reiterated that the
International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO)"s possibility of
working in that country must not be weakened.

He talked of the importance of preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, but insisted on the need to respect the right of all States
to peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The Paris meeting was the first event after the presentation of the
report on April 28 by IAEO general director Mohamed El Baradei at the
UN Security Council, stating Teheran had limited cooperation with the
IAEO and was far from suspending the enrichment of uranium, as
demanded a Security Council resolution in late March.

ln/iff/oda/mf
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 UN Security UN Considers Action On Iran's Nuclear Programme
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:00:51 -0400


 
UN SECURITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS ACTION ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
New York, May  3 2006  7:00PM
A draft resolution to rein in Iran’s nuclear programme was submitted 
today to the United Nations Security Council today as the 15-Member 
body began to consider its response to the latest report of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/iranreport_sg.html">IAEA), 
which says Tehran 
has defied the Council’s call to suspend uranium enrichment and ensure 
its nuclear activity was strictly for peaceful purposes as 

According to its backers – the United States, United Kingdom and 
France – the draft text would demand compliance from Iran under the 
UN Charter’s Chapter VII, which would make it a legally binding 
decision that could be followed up by enforcement measures such 

The IAEA report, sent to the Council on Friday, notes that existing 
gaps in knowledge about the programme “continue to be a matter 
of concern,” and stresses that any progress “requires full transparency 
and active cooperation by Iran,” which concealed its nuclear 
activities for nearly 20 years in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

Earlier this year, the IAEA referred the matter to the Council after 
its Director-General, Mohamed ElBaradei, had repeatedly reported 
that although the Agency had not seen any diversion of material 
to nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, it was still not 
able to conclude that there were no undeclared nuclear materials 
Iran says its activities are solely for energy purposes but the United 
States and other countries insist it is clandestinely seeking 
to produce nuclear weapons. Last August, Iran rescinded its voluntary 
suspension of nuclear fuel conversion, which can produce 
the enriched uranium necessary either for nuclear power generation 

Tomorrow, the Council is expected to hear further explanations of 
the IAEA report from technical experts, according to the Congolese 
Presidency, as they continue their deliberations on the matter. 
 2006-05-03 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/
*****************************************************************
 5 [southnews] Scott Ritter:  Once more unto the breach
 
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 01:17:47 -0500 (CDT)

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Britain, France and Germany presented the U.N. Security Council on 
Wednesday with a draft resolution that urges states to restrict nuclear 
trade with Iran and requires Tehran to halt enriching uranium or face 
"further measures,"

Security Council Is Given Iran Resolution

Pressure Builds to End Tehran's Nuclear Efforts

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 4, 2006; A18

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- Britain, France and Germany presented the U.N. 
Security Council on Wednesday with a draft resolution that urges states 
to restrict nuclear trade with Iran and requires Tehran to halt 
enriching uranium or face "further measures," a veiled reference to 
possible sanctions.

Russia and China immediately signaled they will oppose the U.S.-backed 
resolution, which demands that Iran halt nuclear research and 
development activities, and stop construction on a heavy-water nuclear 
reactor at Arak because it could be used to produce weapons-grade fuel. 
The resolution calls on governments to prevent the transfer to Iran of 
all "items, materials, goods and technology" that could be used to 
enrich or reprocess nuclear fuel or advance the Islamic state's missile 
programs.

The resolution calls on the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy 
Agency to present a report on Iran's compliance with the demands to the 
IAEA board and the Security Council. The United States and the Europeans 
favor a deadline of two weeks to a month.

The latest action marks an escalation in a three-year campaign by the 
West to pressure Iran to scale back its accelerating nuclear activities. 
Despite broad concern about Iran's program among nations on the Security 
Council, there are deep differences over how the council should respond.

Russia and China have opposed even an implicit threat of sanctions, but 
U.S. and European diplomats are hoping they can persuade the two 
veto-wielding powers to support this resolution, or at least abstain 
from a vote.

Senior Iranian officials have said that they will not abide by the 
resolution, which they assert unjustly limits their right, under the 
1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program.

U.S. and European diplomats said they hope to have a vote on the 
resolution before Tuesday, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is 
scheduled to discuss Iran's nuclear program in New York with senior 
diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

"We are very skeptical about the sanctions. We think historically they 
have not been very useful," said Russia's new ambassador, Vitaly 
Churkin. "We hope that we can find a political and diplomatic solution."

Churkin said that Russia, which supplies nuclear technology and missile 
components to Iran, has strong reservations about some key provisions in 
the draft resolution. He expressed concern that the threat of 
unspecified "further measures" against Tehran could be used as a pretext 
for military action. "We do not believe the matter can be resolved by 
the use of force."

"I don't think this draft as it stands now will produce good results," 
said China's ambassador, Wang Guangya.

U.S. and European diplomats stressed that the resolution before the 
council is not intended to threaten sanctions or the use of force, 
although it was written under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can 
be enforced through sanctions or force. Those steps would require 
additional review by the council.

Bush administration officials said that they ultimately intend to pursue 
a broad range of sanctions -- including a ban on weapons sales and other 
commercial activities that could benefit Iran's nuclear program -- if 
Tehran continues to enrich uranium.

"This resolution will not deal with sanctions," said U.S. Ambassador 
John R. Bolton. But he added: "We expect that if Iran doesn't back away 
from their conduct, which constitutes a threat to international peace 
and security, that the council would be ready to take steps subsequently 
-- the first of which would be targeted sanctions, and we don't exclude 
that we would take other steps in connection with sanctions outside the 
council as well."

The 15-nation council issued a nonbinding statement on March 29 urging 
Iran to cease its enrichment activities within 30 days. Iran defied the 
request, and announced that it was pressing ahead on its efforts to 
enrich uranium, which it insists is for an energy program, not arms. The 
IAEA reported on April 29 that Iran is accelerating its nuclear 
enrichment efforts and concealing crucial information about its program.

In Washington, Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel reaffirmed their 
mutual determination to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.

"The Iranians must understand that we won't fold, that our partnership 
is strong, that for the sake of world peace they should abandon their 
nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush told reporters before dinner with 
Merkel at the White House.

Merkel, who was visiting Bush for the second time in four months, 
praised their "very, very good relationship" and declared herself "in 
total agreement" on Iran. At the same time, she emphasized the need to 
convince other countries, presumably Russia, and to take an incremental 
approach rather than push too fast for sanctions or other tougher action.

Staff writer Peter Baker in Washington contributed to this report._

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302137_pf.html
________________________________

Once more unto the breach

Scott Ritter

May 2, 2006 12:46 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/scott_ritter/2006/05/post_62.html

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has just released a report 
concerning Iran's nuclear programme, in which it notes that Iran has 
failed to comply with the UN security council's demands to cease its 
nuclear enrichment programmes. The IAEA report finds that Iran has, in 
defiance of the security council, in fact carried out a successful test 
to enrich uranium to the low levels needed in the production of nuclear 
energy. The IAEA also found that Iran had failed to provide a level of 
cooperation and transparency necessary for the IAEA to exclude the 
possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme being carried out 
under the guise of civilian nuclear energy activities.

While the IAEA's report has underscored Iran's disturbing disregard for 
responding to the concerns of both the IAEA and the UN security council, 
it does not certify Iran as a clear and present danger, requiring a 
strong and immediate response from the international community. And yet 
the IAEA report has generated rhetoric from both the United States and 
Europe that seems well beyond that which the content of the report seems 
to merit. The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has joined US 
officials in condemning the Iranian government for its failure to halt 
its nuclear enrichment efforts, and has called for the UN security 
council to "increase the pressure on Iran". Many officials in Europe 
have echoed the UK position, believing, it seems, that such action 
represents a manifestation of President George Bush's stated objective 
of resolving the Iranian matter "diplomatically and peacefully".

Just how naive can Europe be? While public sentiment against the US-led 
invasion (and ongoing occupation) of Iraq remains high, manifesting 
itself in the reduction of the original "coalition of the willing" to 
pathetic levels, Europe ("old" and "new") continues to behave as if the 
current conflict with Iraq and the potential of future conflict with 
Iran remain two separate and distinct issues.

It is shocking to see European officials, skilled in the heavily nuanced 
world of EU diplomacy, accept without question the sophomoric 
equivocation by the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice that "Iran 
is not Iraq". This phrase has been used repeatedly by Rice to deflect 
any query as to whether or not there are any parallels between the 
current US "diplomatic" stance on Iran and the "diplomacy" undertaken in 
the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has widely been acknowledged 
as representing little more than a smokescreen behind which the Bush 
administration prepared for a war already decided upon.

Iran may not be Iraq, but these two nations are inextricably linked 
through the Machiavellian machinations of a US national security 
strategy that not only embraces the legitimacy of pre-emptive war, but 
also the notion of America's inherent right to pursue a policy of 
"regional transformation" in the Middle East, a policy that has as its 
core operational thematic pre-emptive military action to remove the 
regimes of so-called "failed" and "rogue" states. In the 2006 version of 
this national security strategy, Iran is named 16 times as the leading 
threat to the national security of the United States. I would hope every 
European diplomat has read this document, and takes its contents to 
heart. The national security strategy of the United States, circa 2006, 
can leave no doubt as to what the true intent of the Bush administration 
is regarding Iran: regime change. The current "crisis" regarding Iran's 
nuclear ambitions represents nothing more than an emotionally-charged 
facilitator for war.

Europe continues to act as if the American policy objective of regime 
change is nothing more than the irresponsible blathering of rightwing 
media pundits. The self-delusion that encompasses this way of thinking 
holds that Europe's stance vis-a-vis Iran serves more as a brake toward 
conflict, than the accelerant it actually is. As such, the European 
nations taking the lead on the Iranian issue - the UK, France and 
Germany - will meet on May 2 in Paris with representatives from Russia, 
China and the United States as a precursor for a meeting of the security 
council on May 3. The United States has already made clear its intent to 
introduce a draft resolution under Chapter VII of the UN charter, 
elevating Iran's obstinacy to the level of a clear and present danger to 
international peace and security, and paving the way for the imposition 
of stringent economic sanctions against Iran. The United States will be 
lobbying quite hard for such a resolution, and is looking to a meeting 
of the foreign ministers of the Paris group in New York on May 9 as the 
time and place for bringing this issue to a head.

While such measures appear on the surface to represent sound, measured 
diplomatic responses, the reality is that once the United States 
introduces a Chapter VII resolution, even in draft form, war with Iran 
is all but assured. Russia and China, both permanent members of the 
security council with veto powers, have made clear their collective 
objection to any Chapter VII action against Iran. However, by endorsing 
the transfer of the Iranian issue from the International Atomic Energy 
Agency to the security council, as well as the original security council 
"warning" against Iran, both Russia and China have played into the hands 
of US policy-makers, who have and will continue to use these actions as 
a clear endorsement of their position that Iran and its nuclear 
programme represents a threat to international security.

If the Russians and Chinese balk over the imposition of Chapter 
VII-linked measures against Iran, as they have indicated they will, then 
the Bush administration will simply declare that the security council 
has become impotent and irrelevant in dealing with threats that it has 
itself declared to exist, and, as such, the United States, not wanting 
to have its own national security interests so hijacked, will have no 
choice but to move forward void of any security council endorsement or 
authorisation. This model of action directly parallels that undertaken 
by the US and UK regarding Iraq, and has been strongly alluded to in 
recent statements made by Vice-President Cheney, the US ambassador to 
the United Nations, John Bolton, and Rice.

The United States has positioned itself masterfully in this regard. But 
the sense of urgency being pushed by the Bush administration does not 
match the reality painted by its own director of national intelligence, 
John Negroponte, who recently testified before the US Congress that Iran 
was, at best, 10 years away from having a nuclear weapons capability. As 
such, there is no need for the security council to pursue this matter 
under the guise of a Chapter VII resolution. In fact, there is no need 
for the security council to be engaged on this issue at all, at least at 
this time.

The one real hope of side-stepping this mad rush towards war with Iran 
lays in a statement made by the Iranian government, offering to deal 
openly and transparently with the concerns listed in the IAEA's report 
within a matter of weeks, if the Iranian nuclear issue is transferred 
away from the security council and back to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency. The best thing the Europeans could do at this time would 
be to join ranks with the Russians and Chinese to take up the Iranian 
offer, defusing a very tense and dangerous situation that, as it 
currently stands, seems to be spinning close toward yet another needless 
war in the Middle East.

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 6 What do you think is going on?
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:30:28 -0500 (CDT)

Will the US attack Iran? Is Bush on the way out?

These two questions are related and neither is easy to answer.

Perhaps those of you exposed daily to the US media might have more of 
a clue than I do. It seems I do need a weatherman to tell which way 
the wind blows.

On the one hand, we have clearly seen preparations for an attack, 
somewhat parallel to the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. There is the 
media demonization campaign, the pressure to get the UN to act, and 
the phony WMD accusations re/Iran's "nuclear program". In addition 
the administration asserts repeatedly that "all options are on the 
table", including the option of attacking with nuclear weapons.  We 
have seen the delivery of bunker-buster bombs to Israel, independent 
What do you think is going on?
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:30:28 -0500 (CDT)

Will the US attack Iran? Is Bush on the way out?

These two questions are related and neither is easy to answer.

Perhaps those of you exposed daily to the US media might have more of 
a clue than I do. It seems I do need a weatherman to tell which way 
the wind blows.

On the one hand, we have clearly seen preparations for an attack, 
somewhat parallel to the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. There is the 
media demonization campaign, the pressure to get the UN to act, and 
the phony WMD accusations re/Iran's "nuclear program". In addition 
the administration asserts repeatedly that "all options are on the 
table", including the option of attacking with nuclear weapons.  We 
have seen the delivery of bunker-buster bombs to Israel, independent 
threats of an attack by Israel, testing of bigger bunker-buster 
bombs, and reports of high-level war councils between the US and UK. 
And then there are the geopolitical motives for an attack, involving 
control over oil, rising oil prices, Iran's deals with China, the 
Euro bourse, the bubble US economy, etc.

On the other hand, we are seeing in the media a level of public 
dissent that was quite absent in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. 
The attack on Rumsfeld by retired generals, and the fact that the 
media featured this story, would have been quite out of character in 
the earlier Iraq scenario. If the powers that be are fully committed 
to an attack on Iran, then I would have expected pressure to be 
brought on the generals to hold their tongues, and any media reports 
to be played down. If we think in terms of 'full spectrum dominance' 
- a favorite strategic concept these days - the attack on Rumsfeld 
represents a significant chink the spectrum of media support for a 
new war. If there is to be a war, then it is folly to fan the flames 
of opposition in the lead-up - particularly when those flames are 
being fanned by military people, who would tend to be listened to by 
those on the right, the heartland of Bush supporters.

What does it all mean?

I'll offer one speculative scenario, for your consideration:

     The neocons were given a long leash, by those with real
     power, to carry out a particular assignment. The assignment
     was to take over Iraq in a smooth operation, with public
     support, and then move on to take over Iran. Rumsfeld then
     bungled the opening move, giving us a quagmire instead of a
     popular, shock-and-awe victory. His bungling over-stretched
     the Pentagon, making an operation against Iran more
     difficult, and the quagmire has significantly undermined the
     desired public-opinion profile. He let his bosses down. Just
     like in the Mafia - and the global elite are nothing other
     than a larger-scale Mafia - Rumsfeld is going to take the
     fall, the original plan is being scrapped, and a regrouping
     is to follow.

What do you think is going on?

rkm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cj-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cj-help@cyberjournal.org
*****************************************************************
 7 [southnews] Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:33:07 -0500 (CDT)

As part of his desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in 
January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a grave threat to the 
security of the world," words that echoed language he used in reference 
to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, 
Vice President Dick Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did 
not give up its nuclear program and U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations John Bolton claimed there would be "tangible and painful 
consequences" if Iran did not cooperate.

Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection

By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus

Posted on May 3, 2006, Printed on May 3, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35740/

With even mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and The New 
Yorker publishing credible stories that the United States is seriously 
planning a military attack on Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are 
expressing concerns about the consequences of the United States 
launching another war that would once again place the United States in 
direct contravention of international law.

The latest National Security Strategy document published earlier this 
year labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the United States 
posed by any country. This should be an indication of just how safe the 
United States is in the post-Cold War world, where the "most serious 
challenge" is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear 
weapons and sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the 
United States, but a Third World country on the far side of the planet 
which, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate out of 
Washington, is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable 
nuclear weapon.

Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to develop any delivery system in the 
foreseeable future capable of landing a weapon within 10,000 miles of 
our shores.

However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even 
developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration 
and Congressional leaders of both parties argue that simply having the 
technology which would make it theoretically possible for Iran to 
manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient 
casus belli.

As part of his desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in 
January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a grave threat to the 
security of the world," words that echoed language he used in reference 
to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, 
Vice President Dick Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did 
not give up its nuclear program and U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations John Bolton claimed there would be "tangible and painful 
consequences" if Iran did not cooperate.

The Washington Post quoted White House sources as reporting that "Bush 
views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his 
presidency ends," apparently out of concern that neither a Democratic 
nor Republican successor might be as willing to consider a military option.

Not that he needs to worry about that. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 
widely seen as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential 
nomination, accused the Bush administration in January of not taking the 
threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the Bush 
administration for allowing European nations to take the lead in 
pursuing a diplomatic solution, and insisted that the administration 
should make it clear that military options were being actively considered.

Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, another likely contender for 
the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration 
of "ignoring and then largely deferring management of this crisis to the 
Europeans." Taking the diplomatic route, according to Bayh, "has 
certainly been damaging to our national security."

Despite the hostility of these two Democratic senators toward diplomatic 
means of resolving the crisis and the similarity of their rhetoric to 
the false claims they made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that 
Saddam Hussein's government was a threat to global security and that 
diplomatic solutions were impossible, both Clinton and Bayh are widely 
respected by their fellow Democrats as leaders on security policy.

Indeed, in May of 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a 
resolution with only three dissenting votes calling on the Bush 
administration to "use all appropriate means" -- presumably including 
military force -- to "prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

As with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, both Republican and 
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have tended to call witnesses before 
the relevant committees who would present the most alarmist perceptions 
as fact. Last month, for example, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing 
Washington Institute for Near East Policy testified before the Senate 
International Relations Committee that, "So long as Iran has an Islamic 
Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely."

None of the senators present, however, bothered to mention the 
inconvenient fact that under the secular regime of the Shah that 
preceded the Islamic Republic, Iran also had a nuclear program (which 
was actively supported and encouraged by the United States.) However, 
Clawson said that since a nuclear program was inevitable under the 
Islamic Republic, only by overthrowing the government--not through a 
negotiated settlement -- would the United States be safe from the 
nuclear threat. He insisted, therefore, that "the key issue" was not 
whether an arms control agreement could be enforced, but "How long will 
the present Iranian regime last?"

The Risks from a U.S. Attack on Iran

With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of ground invasion of Iran by 
U.S. forces is out of the question. Iran is three times bigger than 
Iraq, both in terms of population and geography. It is a far more 
mountainous country that would increase the ability of the resistance to 
engage in guerrilla warfare and the intensity of the nationalist 
backlash against such a foreign invasion would likely be even stronger.

An attack by air and sea-launched missiles and bombing raids by fighter 
jets would be a more realistic scenario. However, even such a limited 
military operation would create serious problems for the United States. 
The Washington Post, in a recent article about a possible U.S. strike 
against Iran, quoted Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East 
specialist, as noting how "The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it 
because it is so constrained" by ongoing operations in neighboring Iraq 
and Afghanistan.

Similarly, the Post quoted a former Pentagon official in contact with 
his former colleagues as observing how "I don't think anybody's prepared 
to use the military option at this point." Given that the growing 
opposition to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 's handling of the war 
in Iraq within the leadership of the armed services, as expressed by a 
number of prominent recently-retired generals, would make a major 
military operation without strong support from America's military 
leadership particularly problematic.

Fears expressed by some opponents of possible U.S. military action 
against Iran that the Iranians would retaliate through terrorist attacks 
against American interests are probably not realistic. Indeed, Iran's 
control over foreign terrorist groups and its role in terrorist 
operations has frequently been exaggerated by American analysts. 
However, there are a number of areas in which the United States would be 
particularly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation:

One would be in the Persian Gulf, where U.S. Navy ships could become 
easy targets for Iranian missiles and torpedoes.

Perhaps more serious would be in Iraq, where American troops are 
currently operating against the Sunni-led insurgency alongside 
Iranian-backed pro-government militias. If these Iranian-backed militias 
also decided to turn their guns on American forces, the United States 
would be caught in a vise between both sides in the country's simmering 
civil war with few places to hide.

It would be difficult for the United States to label militias affiliated 
with the ruling parties of a democratically-elected government fighting 
foreign occupation forces in their own country as "terrorists" or to use 
such attacks as an excuse to launch further military operations against 
Iran. (Given that the Iraqi government is ruled by two pro-Iranian 
parties, recent charges by the Bush administration that Iran is aiding 
the anti-government Sunni insurgency are utterly ludicrous and have been 
rejected by the Iraqi government.)

A U.S. air strike would be a clear violation of the United Nations 
Charter and would be met by widespread condemnation in the international 
community. It would further isolate the United States as a rogue 
superpower at a time in which it needs to repair its damaged relations 
with its European and Middle Eastern allies. Even Great Britain has 
expressed its opposition to military action.

Pro-Western Arab states, despite their unease at Iran's nuclear program, 
would react quite negatively to a U.S. strike, particularly since it 
would likely strengthen anti-American extremists by allowing them to 
take advantage of popular opposition to the United States utilizing 
force against a Muslim nation in order to defend the U.S.-Israeli 
nuclear monopoly in the region. As a result, the negative consequences 
of a U.S. attack may be strong enough to convince even the Bush 
administration not to proceed with the military option.

Israel as Proxy

Though direct U.S. military action against Iran is still very possible, 
it is more likely that the United States will encourage Israel to take 
military action instead. In such a scenario, the U.S. officials believe 
that the United States would gain the perceived benefits of a military 
strike against Iran while limiting the damage to the United States by 
focusing the world's wrath on Israel. Fox News reported that Bush 
administration officials effectively told the Israelis that "we are 
doing the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel needs 
to handle this themselves."

Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate 
international legal norms and -- with U.S. veto power blocking the UN 
Security Council from imposing sanctions, and the United States 
providing vast sums of unconditional military and economic assistance to 
their government -- its ability to get away with doing so. The Israeli 
government is convinced that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has radicalized 
the Iranian clerical leadership and that Iran, unlike Iraq in the final 
years of Saddam Hussein, poses a risk to Israel's national security 
interests. However, for reasons mentioned above, Israeli leaders have 
been reported to believe that the United States will not move militarily 
against Iran and that they will end up using their own forces instead.

An Israeli strike is not inevitable, however. Public opinion polls show 
that a majority of Israelis oppose the idea of an Israeli strike against 
Iran. Policy analyst Steve Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly 
as saying, "I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President 
Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I 
did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel who 
ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to Maretz left 
thought that Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be 
engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage." He added, "Israeli 
national security bureaucrats -- diplomats and generals -- have far 
greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the 
growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack."

There is no indication that Iran would ever contemplate a first strike 
against Israel or any other country. Iran, like other Islamic 
governments in the region, has used Israel's repression of the 
Palestinians for propaganda purposes, but has rarely done anything to 
actually help the Palestinians.

It is inconceivable that the Iranians would ever consider launching a 
nuclear attack on Israel -- which possesses at least 300 nuclear weapons 
and sophisticated missiles and other delivery system that could totally 
destroy Iran -- for the sake of the Palestinians, many thousands of whom 
would die as well. However, an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds 
for retaliation. Despite these dangers, Israel -- with U.S. 
encouragement -- has long considered the possibility of an attack 
against Iran.

In the mid-1990s, prior to the election of the U.S.-backed Likud 
government of Benyamin Netanyahu to office, the peace process with the 
Palestinians was progressing steadily, a peace treaty had been signed 
with Jordan, and diplomatic and commercial ties with other Arab states 
was growing. With the prospects of a permanent Israeli-Arab peace, 
American arms exporters and their allies in Congress and the Clinton 
administration, along with their hawkish counterparts in Israel, began 
emphasizing the alleged threat to Israel from Iran as justification for 
the more than $2 billion worth of annual U.S. taxpayer subsidies for 
U.S. arms exporters for them to send weapons to Israel.

Among these was an agreement to provide Israel with sophisticated F-15 
fighter bombers. As the peace process faltered due to increased 
repression and colonization by Israel and increased terrorism from 
radical Palestinian groups and as reformists appeared to be gaining 
momentum in Iran, Israel began focusing upon more immediate threats 
closer to home, though deliveries of the F-15s continued through 2001.

Last year, however, the United States unexpectedly provided Israel with 
an additional thirty long-range F-15s at a cost of $48 million each. The 
United States has also recently provided Israel with 5000 GBU-27 and 
GBU-28 weapons, better known as "bunker busters," warheads guided by 
lasers or satellites which can penetrate up to ten meters of earth and 
concrete to destroy suspected underground facilities. Reuters reported a 
senior Israeli security source as noting, "This is not the sort of 
ordinance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve 
Israel against Iran" Israel also has at least five submarines armed 
with sea-launched missiles which could easily get within range of 
Iranian targets.

One scenario reportedly has Israel sending three squadrons of F15s to 
fly over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by the U.S. 
air force, to strike at major Iranian facilities. The United States 
would provide satellite information for the attack as well as refueling 
for the Israeli jets as they leave Iranian air space for their return to 
Israel. The Sunday Times has reported that the Israelis have been 
"coordinating with American forces" for such a scenario.

That same article described Israeli commando training operations at a 
full-sized mockup of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility at a military 
facility in Israel's Negev Desert and the dispatch of clandestine 
Israeli Special Forces units into Iran. Meanwhile, the Israeli Ofek-6 
spy satellite is now reported to have been moved to an orbit over 
Iranian facilities.

As far back as April 2004, President Bush exchanged letters with Sharon 
in which he stated, in reference to Iran, that, "Israel has the right to 
defend itself with its own forces."

Despite the widely-held tail-wagging-the-dog assumptions, history has 
shown that the United States has frequently used Israel to advance its 
strategic interests in the region and beyond, such as aiding pro-Western 
governments and pro-Western insurgencies, keeping radical nationalist 
governments like Syria in check and engaging in covert interventions in 
Jordan, Lebanon, and now Kurdistan.

During the 1980s, Israel was used to funnel arms to third parties the 
United States could not arm directly, such as the apartheid regime South 
Africa, the Guatemalan junta, the Nicaraguan Contras, and, ironically, 
the Iranian mullahs. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor 
in 1981 -- despite formal criticism -- was enthusiastically supported by 
the Reagan administration.

One Israeli analyst was quoted as saying in the Washington Post during 
the Iran-Contra scandal, "It's like Israel has become just another 
federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something 
done quietly." Nathan Shahan wrote in Yediot Ahronot that his country 
serves as the "Godfather's messenger," since Israel "undertakes the 
dirty work of the Godfather, who always tries to appear to be the owner 
of some large respectable business." Israeli satirist B. Michael 
describes U.S. aid to Israel as a situation where "My master gives me 
food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called 
strategic cooperation."

Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as 
money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the wrath of an exploited 
population, the elites of the world's one remaining superpower would 
similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do their dirty work against 
Iran. That way Israel, not the United States, will get the blame. (In 
fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes 
military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now 
circulating that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of Israel.)

It Won't Work

A military strike against Iran, either directly by the United States or 
through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear 
program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with 
enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their 
country, to redouble their efforts.

Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide 
geographical range, with at least nine major locations. Even the bunker 
buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, 
assuming all the secret sites could be located.

The U.S.-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, according 
to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a 
temporary setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and ultimately 
led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of 
nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UN's 
International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the 
Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and 
criticizing the United Nations for its opposition to Israel's illegal 
military attack.

The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a 
diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a 
nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all 
nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons 
and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has 
been joined in its proposal by Syria, by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt, 
and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear weapons-free zones have 
already been successfully established for Latin America, the South 
Pacific, Antarctica, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

The Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties have 
rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that the United States has 
the right to unilaterally decide which countries get to have nuclear 
weapons and which ones do not, effectively imposing a kind of nuclear 
apartheid. In 1958, the United States was the first country to introduce 
nuclear weapons into the region, bringing tactical nuclear bombs on its 
ships and planes.

Israel became a nuclear weapons state by the early 1970s with the quiet 
support of the U.S. government. To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have 
developed nuclear weapons as well, also with U.S. support: the Bush 
administration recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with 
India and has provided both countries with nuclear-capable jet 
fighter-bombers.

Located in such a dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that Iran 
might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The United States and Israel do 
not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would 
challenge the U.S.-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In 
other words, what those in the Bush administration, the Israeli 
government, and the bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned 
about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the United States and its 
junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Such a policy does not protect the interests of the American or Israeli 
people, nor does it help the people of Iran and the Middle East as a 
whole. It remains to be seen, however, whether the American public will 
once again allow the Bush administration and the leadership of both 
parties Congress to successfully employ exaggerated stories of potential 
"weapons of mass destruction" controlled by an oil-rich country on the 
far side of the world to justify a disastrous war.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San 
Francisco and Middle East editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. He is the 
author of "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of 
Terrorism" (Common Courage Press, 2003).

) 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 8 [NYTr] US Evil Will Lead to Attack on Israel, Says Iran
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:39:14 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

May 03, 2006: Reuters via The Irish Times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0503/567140467FR03IRAN.html

US 'evil' will lead to attack on Israel, says Iran
 
IRAN: Iran threatened yesterday to attack Israel in response to any
"evil" act by the US and said it had enriched uranium to a level close
to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations.

The defiant statements were issued shortly before world powers met in
Paris late last night to plan their next moves after Tehran rejected a
UN call to halt uranium enrichment.

Senior officials from the UN Security Council's permanent members -
Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - plus Germany, discussed how
to curb an Iranian programme that Western nations say conceals a drive
for atomic warheads.

Iran denies the charge and refuses to back down from what it calls its
right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Driving home that
message, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Gholamreza
Aghazadeh, said his country had now succeeded in purifying uranium to
4.8 per cent, at the top end of the 3 to 5 per cent range for fuel used
in nuclear power plants. "Enrichment above 5 per cent is not on Iran's
agenda," Mr Aghazadeh said. Iran has previously said it had enriched to
more than 4 per cent, far below the 80 per cent level needed for
bomb-making.

It has used a test cascade of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium so far
and is building two similar cascades. It says it will start installing
3,000 centrifuges later this year - which could yield enough material
for one bomb within a year.

The US and Israel have vowed to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Washington
has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails and Tehran has
sworn to retaliate if attacked.

"We have announced that whenever America does something evil, the first
place that we target will be Israel," senior Revolutionary Guards
commander Rear Admiral Mohammad-Ebrahim Dehqani said yesterday.

Iran's deputy oil minister said there was "some possibility" of a US
attack on his country over its nuclear programme. "I am worried.
Everybody is worried," Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said in New Delhi
after talks on a proposed $7 billion pipeline from Iran to India via
Pakistan.

Concerns that Iran's dispute with the West could lead to disruption of
its oil output pushed oil prices above $74 a barrel, close to the record
of $75.35.

The US, Britain and France are expected to introduce a resolution to the
Security Council this week that would legally oblige Iran to comply with
UN demands. The three countries favour limited sanctions if Tehran
remains defiant.

Iran said Russia and China, also veto-wielding permanent council
members, would not back any punitive measures. "The thing these two
countries have officially told us, and expressed in diplomatic
negotiations, is their opposition to sanctions and military attacks,"
foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said.

In New York, China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, said he had seen an
outline of a proposed Security Council resolution on Iran being drafted
by Britain. "There are some elements that might cause difficulties," he
said. 

) Reuters 
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Introduce Iran Resolution
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 3, 2006 10:31 PM

AP Photo UNDK108 

By NICK WADHAMS 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Britain and France introduced a U.N.
Security Council resolution Wednesday that would be legally
binding and set the stage for sanctions against Iran if it does
not abandon uranium enrichment. 

Diplomats said they hoped the resolution, backed by the United
States but opposed by China and Russia, will be adopted before a
meeting of foreign ministers in New York next Monday. 

The resolution mandates that Iran ``shall suspend all enrichment
related and reprocessing activities,'' according to the text
presented to the council. 

But Iran nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said Wednesday his
nation had enriched uranium to the upper end of the range needed
to make fuel for reactors, further defying U.N. demands. Iran
announced April 11 it had enriched uranium for the first time. 

The resolution also calls on Iran to stop construction of a
heavy-water reactor. It will seek a report back from the U.N.
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on
Iran's compliance. 

``Once again, the key to this lies in Iran's hands,'' U.S.
Ambassador John Bolton said. ``If they give up the pursuit of
nuclear weapons, a lot of things are possible. If they continue
to bluster and to threaten and obfuscate and try to throw sand
in our eyes, then we're onto a different circumstance.'' 

No timeframe has been set for that report but France's U.N.
Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said he wants that report no
later than early June. 

Iran says its nuclear program is confined to generating power,
but the United States and France accuse the country of secretly
trying to build nuclear weapons. 

The resolution was written under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter,
which makes any demands mandatory and allows for the use of
sanctions - and possibly force - if they are not obeyed. Any
sanctions would require another resolution. 

That could set up a showdown with Russia and China, which are
adamantly opposed to such a tough resolution and can veto any
resolution because they are permanent members of the council. 

Asked if a Chapter 7 resolution was acceptable, China's
Ambassador Wang Guangya shook his head and answered ``No, no,
no.'' 

President Bush has refused to rule out military action in
response to the Iranian nuclear standoff. When asked last month
whether U.S. options regarding Iran ``include the possibility of
a nuclear strike'' if Tehran refuses to halt uranium enrichment,
Bush replied, ``All options are on the table.'' He stressed,
however, the United States will continue to focus on diplomacy. 

The resolution was drafted by Britain, France and Germany, the
three European Union nations that have led negotiations with
Iran. Ambassadors said discussions between the three EU nations,
the United States, China and Russia were only beginning over the
resolution. 

``On the strategic objective, there's nothing between the six of
us. We do not want to see an Iran with a nuclear weapon
capability,'' Britain's Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said. ``On
the detail of the resolution, there have been exchanges of views
and those will continue.'' 

Last month, the Security Council issued a nonbinding statement
that Iran comply with previous demands to abandon enrichment.
That statement asked for a report from IAEA Director-General
Mohamed ElBaradei in 30 days on Iran's compliance. 

As had been widely expected, ElBaradei issued a report Friday
saying Iran had not complied, laying the groundwork for
Wednesday's resolution. 

Western nations say the statement and the resolution are part of
a gradual process of increasing pressure on Iran.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Enriches Uranium to Fuel Reactors
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 3, 2006 5:46 PM

AP Photo XHS101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's nuclear chief said Wednesday his
nation had enriched uranium to the upper end of the range needed
to make fuel for reactors, further defying U.S. and European
demands to stop those efforts. 

The announcement by nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh that Iran
enriched uranium up to 4.8 percent purity tops Iran's
declaration last month that it had surpassed the 3.6 percent
purity level. Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5
percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate
electricity. 

Uranium enriched to more than 90 percent becomes suitable for
use in nuclear weapons. Aghazadeh said Iran had no intention of
enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. 

International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna, Austria,
said they had no information about the claim. 

The agency - whose inspection powers have been curtailed in
recent months by Iran - said in a report to the U.N. Security
Council on Friday that Iran's claim to have enriched small
amounts to the 3.6 percent level appeared to be true, based on
initial analyses of samples it took. 

Wednesday's announcement, if true, is significant because it
showed that Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the
Security Council, which asked Tehran last month to cease all
such activity because of fears it could be misused to make
nuclear arms. 

The enrichment process takes gas produced from raw uranium and
aims to increase its proportion of the uranium-235 isotope,
needed for nuclear fission. 

The Security Council is scheduled to meet starting Wednesday
afternoon to discuss Iran's nuclear program. European nations,
backed by the United States, outlined a planned resolution in
Paris on Tuesday giving ``mandatory force'' to IAEA demands. 

While the resolution does not call for sanctions, that is likely
to be the next step sought by the United States, Britain and
France if Iran refuses to stop enriching uranium. 

But Russia and China, the other veto-wielding council members,
remained firmly oppose sanctions. 

Meanwhile, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, denied
that a reactor in Bushehr, near the Persian Gulf coast opposite
Saudi Arabia, presented any danger to the region from an
accident or other mishap. Gulf states have voiced concern that
the nuclear plant is based on outdated Russian designs and would
not be maintained. 

``This is baseless ... This plant does not emit any harmful
radiation. It does not even contain any nuclear fuel yet,'' the
Emirates News Agency WAM quoted Larijani, who was visiting the
United Arab Emirates, as saying late Tuesday. 

``The whole row has been fabricated by the U.S.'' 

Larijani said it would be another year before nuclear fuel was
brought to the plant. 

Aghazadeh also said Wednesday that Iran had discovered uranium
deposits in southern Iran near the port city of Bandar Abbas, a
day after Iranian officials said they had found uranium ore at
three new sites in the country's center. 

Iran announced April 11 it had enriched uranium for the first
time. Tehran says its nuclear program is confined to generating
power, but the United States and France accuse the country of
secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. 

Mohammad Ghannadi, deputy chief for nuclear research and
technology, told a conference Tuesday in Qom, Iran, that the
country's political leadership had ordered him to ensure that
enrichment did not go beyond 5 percent. 

``We need enriched uranium to produce electricity ... we have
been given orders to enrich uranium only up to 5 percent,'' he
said. 

The gas is pumped into a centrifuge, which spins, causing a
small portion of the heavier, more prevalent uranium-238 isotope
to drop away. The gas then proceeds to other centrifuges -
thousands of them - where the process is repeated, increasing
the proportion of uranium-235. 

Enrichment typically starts out with a gas that is 0.7 percent
uranium-235. 

Aghazadeh, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran, said Iran was planning vast investments to extract uranium
from its newly discovered deposits. 

``Experts at the Atomic Energy Organization are making plans to
identify the country's uranium reserves. It is predicted that we
will have vast investments in various parts of the country,'' he
said. 

--- 

Associated Press reporter George Jahn in Vienna, Austria,
contributed to this report.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Statement It Would Hit Israel
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 3, 2006 8:46 PM

AP Photo UNDK101 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Iranian military on Wednesday rejected
a statement from a top Revolutionary Guards commander that
Israel would be Iran's first target in response to any U.S.
attack, an Iranian news agency reported. 

Brig. Gen. Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's
military staff, said the statement by Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani
``is his personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian
military officials are concerned,'' according to the Entekhab
News Agency. 

A translation of Afshar's remarks was provided to The Associated
Press. 

Dehghani was quoted by the Iranian Student News Agency on
Tuesday as saying: ``We have announced that wherever (in Iran)
America does make any mischief, the first place we target will
be Israel.'' 

His threat came after the Iranian president's call for Israel to
be ``wiped off the map'' and added to international concerns
over Iran's suspect nuclear program. 

Israeli elder statesman Shimon Peres reacted to Dehghani's
warning with a call for Iran to scrap its nuclear program and a
warning of his own: ``Remember that Israel is exceptionally
strong and knows how to defend itself.'' 

The Entekhab News Agency said Afshar was asked about Dehghani's
comment at a book exhibition in Tehran. 

``Mr. Dehghani was the spokesman of a military maneuver which
ended on April 8, and his statement is his personal view and has
no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are
concerned,'' Afshar was quoted as saying. 

Dehghani, who served as a spokesman during a large-scale war
game by Iran's Revolutionary Guards last month, was described in
the Iranian Student News Agency report as a general and by
Entekhab as a rear admiral. 

Dehghani told the Student News Agency that the military
exercises were held ahead of schedule to send a message to the
United States and its allies that they shouldn't plan any
military strikes during their faceoff with the Tehran regime
over its nuclear ambitions. 

President Bush has said a military option remains on the table
if Iran does not agree to international demands to stop
enriching uranium and open its nuclear program to intrusive
inspections. But Bush has stressed that Washington wants to
solve the dispute through diplomacy. 

The United States, Britain and France are expected to circulate
a Security Council resolution making mandatory the council's
earlier demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment. They want the
resolution adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which
would mean it could be enforced by sanctions or military action. 

But Russia and China, while concerned about Iran's nuclear
program, say there is no evidence that Tehran is trying to
produce nuclear weapons and oppose putting the resolution under
Chapter 7. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: This high-octane rocket-rattling against Tehran is unlikely to 
succeed
Ringed by nuclear states, Iran's atomic programme is scarcely
unreasonable. So why has Washington manufactured this crisis? 

Tariq Ali

Wednesday May 3, 2006 The Guardian             

Till now, what has prevented the crisis in Iraq from becoming a
total debacle for the United States has been the open
collaboration of the Iranian clerics. Iranian foreign policy -
fragmentary and opportunist - has always been determined by the
needs and interests of the clerical state rather than any
principled anti-imperialist strategy. In the past, this has led
to a de facto collaboration with Washington in Afghanistan and
Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, the clerics had no hesitation in
buying arms from the Israeli regime to fight Iraq, then backed
by Britain and the US. In the wake of the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq - hoping, no doubt, that clearing the path for
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar might have won
them a respite - the regime took a tougher stance on the nuclear
question.

The Bush administration appears to be psyching itself up for a
safe strike against Iran either by itself or via the Israelis,
whose new leaders have referred to the Iranian president as a
psychopath and a new Hitler. Why has Washington manufactured
this crisis? The hypocrisy of Bush, Blair, Chirac or Olmert -
their own states armed with thousands of nuclear weapons -
making a casus belli of what are, by all accounts, primitive
gropings on Iran's part towards the technology necessary for the
lowest grade of nuclear self-defence, hardly needs to be spelled
out. So long as these powers are allowed to enlarge their
nuclear armouries unimpeded, why should Tehran not?

The country is not only ringed by atomic states (India,
Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel), it also faces a string of
American bases with potential or actual nuclear stockpiles in
Qatar, Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear-armed
US aircraft carriers and submarines patrol the waters off its
southern coast. Historically, Iran has every reason to fear
outside threats. Its elected government was overthrown with
covert Anglo-American aid in 1953, and the secular opposition
destroyed. From 1980 to 1988, the western powers abetted Saddam
Hussein's onslaught, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians
died. More than 300 Iraqi missiles were launched at Iranian
cities and economic targets, especially the oil industry. In the
war's final stages, the US destroyed nearly half the Iranian
navy in the Gulf and, for good measure, shot down a crowded
civilian passenger plane.

For the clerical state, the war on terror has been the best and
the worst of times. Oil prices have soared. Enemy regimes on
both sides, Baghdad and Kabul, have been overthrown. The Iraqi
Shia parties that they have been fostering for years are now in
office. Washington has been reliant on their help to sustain its
occupations both there and in Afghanistan. Yet social tensions
in Iran are high. In this context, the nuclear issue is one of
the regime's few unifying projects. It is worth recalling that
the Iranian nuclear programme began under the Shah with
technology offered by the Americans. Khomeini put the project on
hold, considering it un-Islamic. Operations were restarted, with
Russians later taking over construction of the light-water
reactors at Bushehr begun by the West Germans in the 1970s. From
the start, Iran, like Germany, the Netherlands or Japan, has
wanted its programme to take in the full nuclear cycle,
including uranium enrichment; Russia has several times
threatened to impose conditions on fuel deliveries. Enrichment
centrifuges were surreptitiously imported from neighbouring
Pakistan; not the process, but the failure to report it, was in
contravention of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
agreements.

There is no evidence that Iran is much closer to nuclear weapons
now than was Iraq in September 2002, when Blair and Cheney
assured the world that Baghdad represented a "genuine nuclear
threat". Reports in 2003 by a somewhat demented sect, the
Mojahedin e-Khalq, of preliminary nuclear research at the Natanz
installation were no such proof. But in the competitive scramble
by European powers to enhance their standing with Washington
after the invasion of Iraq, France, Germany and Britain were
keen to prove their mettle by forcing extra agreements on
Tehran. The Khatami regime immediately capitulated. In December
2003, they signed the "Additional Protocol" demanded by the EU3,
agreeing to a "voluntary suspension" of the right to enrichment
guaranteed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Within three months, the IAEA was condemning them for having
failed to ratify it; in June 2004, its inspectors produced
examples of Iranian enrichment work, perfectly legal under the
NPT, but ruled out by the Additional Protocol. Israel has
boasted of its intention to "destroy Natanz" - the contrast to
its stealth bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 a measure
of the new balance of forces. In the summer of 2004, a large
bi-partisan majority in the US Congress passed a resolution for
"all appropriate measures" to prevent an Iranian weapons
programme and there was speculation about an "October surprise"
before the 2004 presidential poll. Plans were thus well advanced
before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in the June 2005 Iranian
presidential election.

Ahmadinejad reaped the vote against Khatami's miserable record
between 1997 and 2005. Economic conditions had worsened and
Khatami was prepared to defend the rights of foreign investors,
but not those of independent newspapers or protesting students.
Manoeuvring ineffectually between contradictory pressures, he
exhausted his moral credit. Contrary to some reports,
Ahmadinejad has not so far imposed any new puritanical clampdown
on social mores. Instead, the most likely constituency to be
disappointed is Ahmadinejad's own: the millions of young,
working-class jobless, crammed into overcrowded living
conditions, in desperate need of a national development policy
that neither neoliberalism nor Islamist voluntarism will provide.

Nor is fundamentalist backwardness exhibited in the denial of
the Nazi genocide against the Jews and the threat to obliterate
Israel, a basis for any foreign policy. To face up to the
enemies ranged against Iran requires an intelligent and
far-sighted strategy - not the current rag-bag of opportunism
and manoeuvre, determined by the immediate interests of the
clerics.

Clearing the way for the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba'ath and
Afghan Taliban regimes and backing the US occupations has bought
no respite. The US undersecretary of state has spoken of
"ratcheting up the pressure". Israeli defence minister Shaul
Mofaz has said that "Israel will not be able to accept an
Iranian nuclear capability, and it must have the capability to
defend itself with all that this implies, and we are preparing."
Hillary Clinton accused the Bush administration of "downplaying
the Iranian threat" and called for pressure on Russia and China
to impose sanctions on Tehran. Chirac has spoken of using French
nuclear weapons against such a "rogue state". Perhaps it is
simply high-octane rocket-rattling, the aim being to frighten
Tehran into submission. Bullying is unlikely to succeed. Will
the west then embark on a new war? If so, the battlefield might
stretch from the Tigris to the Oxus and without any guarantee of
success.

· Tariq Ali is the author of Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades,
Jihads and Modernity

tariq.ali3@btinternet.com 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered 
in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 
Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 13 BBC: UN draft on nuclear Iran tabled
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 4 May 2006
 
[Iranian nuclear facility]                              

Iran says its programme is designed to meet its energy needs                                                          

The UN Security Council is discussing a resolution introduced by 
Western countries that could trigger sanctions over Iran's 
nuclear programme. 

The ambassadors of France and the US said they hoped the council 
would approve the resolution soon. 

Despite objections from Russia and China, the draft falls under 
Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which allows for sanctions and 
even military action. 

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful proposes only. 

However, Western nations are concerned it is seeking a nuclear 
weapons capability. 

US President George W Bush urged Iran to give up its programme. 

"The Iranians must understand that we won't fold, that our 
partnership is strong, that for the sake of world peace, they 
should abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions," he said in a 
White House meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

Ms Merkel said they both thought there was a good chance of 
bringing about a diplomatic solution. 

Differences 

On Friday the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, issued a report saying Tehran had ignored calls to 
halt uranium enrichment. 

The resolution urges Iran to "suspend all enrichment-related and 
reprocessing activities, including research and development" and 
"suspend the construction of a reactor moderated by heavy water". 

It threatens to consider "further measures as may be necessary" 
to ensure compliance - a reference to possible sanctions. 

If they give up the pursuit nuclear weapons, a lot of things are 
possible John Bolton US Ambassador           

The resolution also calls on all nations to help prevent the 
transfer of materials and technology "that could contribute to 
Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and missile 
programs". 

US Ambassador John Bolton said: "The key to this lies in Iran's 
hands." 

He added: "If they give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a lot 
of things are possible. If they continue to bluster and to 
threaten and obfuscate and try to throw sand in our eyes, then 
we're onto a different circumstance." 

Before a Chapter Seven resolution is passed, the council has to 
agree that there is a threat to "international peace and 
security". 

China and Russia are yet to support such a resolution and are 
opposed to sanctions against Iran. 

But the UK ambassador to the UN, Emyr Jones Parry, said the five 
permanent council members were united in not wanting Iran to have 
a nuclear weapons capability. 

"On the detail of the resolution, there have been exchanges of 
views and those will continue," he told reporters. 

*****************************************************************
 14 FT.com: US allies urge direct dialogue with Iran

Middle East & Africa - 

By Guy Dinmore

Published: May 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 3 2006 03:00

US efforts to form a new "coalition of the willing" that would 
impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme are running 
into objections from European and Asian allies who say the Bush 
administration must first exhaust all diplomatic options, 
including the United Nations process and direct talks with 
Tehran.

A senior US official said President George W. Bush would
reaffirm US opposition to direct negotiations with Iran should
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, raise the issue at their White
House meeting today.

"We are very clear that we need to see some change in Iranian
behaviour," the senior US official said just days after a 30-day
UN Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment expired. "They are moving in the opposite direction.
This does not provide an incentive for talks."

A call for US-Iran dialogue was first raised in public last
month by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister. Mr
Bush is also under pressure from some Republicans and Democrats
in Congress to stop outsourcing negotiations on Iran's nuclear
programme to Europe.

  US threats make their mark on Iranians

Whether Iran's leadership is prepared for wide-ranging talks
with the US is a matter of debate. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
supreme leader, made an important statement on March 22 when he
accepted a US offer of talks on the issue of Iraq. But he also
warned that the US wanted to use negotiations to impose its
will, not reach a mutual agreement on wider issues.

The history of US-Iranian relations since the 1979 Islamic
revolution is littered with failed attempts to establish a
serious dialogue.

But documents obtained by the Financial Times reveal that Iran
was ready to enter comprehensive talks in May 2003, shortly
after the fall of Baghdad. On the table then was a proposal to
discuss issues, including weapons of mass destruction, a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the
future of Lebanon's Hizbollah organisation and co-operation with
the UN nuclear safeguards agency.

The proposed agenda, which the Iranian side claims was a result
of earlier discussions with US officials, states that the two
sides agree to a dialogue "in mutual respect". Issues put
forward by Iran included US sanctions, frozen Iranian assets and
withdrawal of the "axis of evil" label fixed on Tehran by Mr
Bush in 2002.

The agenda suggested initial steps to stabilise Iraq, measures
to be taken against anti-Iranian elements in Iraq and al-Qaeda
militants in Iran and Iranian support for the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Also proposed were three
working groups to establish "three parallel road maps" on
disarmament, terrorism and regional security, and economic
co-operation.

The Iranian offer - first reported by the FT in March 2004 - was
ignored by the Bush administration. Instead, Washington
protested to the Swiss Foreign Ministry, upbraiding Tim
Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, who had been involved
in communicating the offer and gave his opinion that it was an
authentic proposal by Iran's leadership.

Flynt Leverett, then in the National Security Council, said he
saw the 2003 offer and Mr Guldimann's accompanying message -
both were unclassified - and confirmed that the documents
obtained by the FT last week were genuine.

A senior Iranian official, involved in the 2003 offer, told the
FT that Iran was still ready for wide-ranging talks provided the
US was serious about being ready to address Iranian concerns and
did not see the negotiating table as just another component of
attempted â€œregime changeâ€.

Mr Leverett, now a senior analyst at the Brookings Institute
think-tank, believes Mr Bush is firmly opposed to engaging Iran
in any way that would be seen to confer legitimacy on the
Islamic government.

The US rejected the Iranian offer in 2003 from a position of
strength - Baghdad had just fallen and regime change in Tehran
was in the sights of Washington's neoconservatives.

Three years later Iran is not in such a weak position, with the
US bogged down in Iraq and oil prices at record highs.

But circumstances inside Iran have also changed dramatically,
and it is again debatable whether Iran is ready for such a
dialogue along the lines of a "grand bargain". Mahmoud
Ahmadi-Nejad, the fundamentalist president elected last year, is
believed to be against engagement.

Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins
University, said Iran had been trying hard lately to get a
dialogue with the US. But "stonewalling" by the US had
strengthened the hand of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad.

"The non-response to the 2003 Iranian proposal left many in
Tehran with the impression that no Iranian concession would be
sufficient to please Washington, even if they changed their
position on Israel," he said.  

Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: UN Security Council to meet on Iran nuclear crisis

 Wed May 3, 9:21 AM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN Security Council powers readied for 
talks over Iran" /> Iran's nuclear program, after envoys from the 
top five UN powers demanded a "firm" response to its refusal to 
halt uranium enrichment. 

Washington's ambassador to the United Nations" /> United
Nations, John Bolton, voiced the US impatience by threatening to
form a coalition of allies to impose sanctions on Iran outside
the UN framework. 

If the Security Council is unwilling or unable to impose
sanctions on Iran, then "I'm sure we would press ahead to ask
other countries or other groups of countries to impose those
sanctions," Bolton told a congressional committee in Washington. 

Iran retorted by accusing the United States of using bullying
tactics. 

"We will not give up our undeniable nuclear rights in the face
of US bullying. Fake threats will not crack our will," foreign
ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was quoted as saying by
Iranian news agencies. 

"It has become obvious that in dealing with our nuclear
programme, the United States has lost the confidence of the
international community, and is trying to impose its will on its
allies by bullying an humiliation." 

The UN meeting follows talks Tuesday in Paris between high-level
officials from the permanent Security Council members --
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus
Germany. 

Washington and Europe fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear
weapons under cover of a stated drive for atomic energy, and
want to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter -- language that
would open the way for sanctions and possibly even force as a
way to freeze its activities. 

The hardening stance against Iran sent oil prices to a new
record level on Tuesday, when Brent North Sea crude for June
delivery rose to 74.97 dollars a barrel. 

US, British and French diplomats have drafted a binding
resolution legally requiring Iran to stop critical nuclear
activities, the New York Times reported Wednesday. 

But Moscow and Beijing, which are key trading partners with
oil-rich Iran, are calling for a softer approach, it added,
quoting officials. 

The three nations will introduce the resolution in New York on
Wednesday or Thursday, Nicholas Burns, the number three in the
US State Department and the point man in the US diplomatic
effort, told the newspaper. 

The UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) reported last Friday
that Iran had failed to comply with UN demands to suspend
uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for reactors but what can
also be the explosive core of an atom bomb. 

The talks in Paris were the first among senior representatives
of the six countries since that report by IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei. 

Burns said "all agreed that the Iran nuclear program should be
suspended, and agreed to begin Security Council debate and start
negotiating a resolution for suspension." 

He expressed frustration with China and Russia. "It's time for
countries to take responsibilities, especially those countries
that have close relationships with Iran." 

Further negotiations will take place in coming days with foreign
ministers planning to gather in New York next Monday to try to
produce a UN resolution acceptable to all. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki insisted Iran would
"absolutely" not suspend uranium enrichment work, and he
predicted China and Russia would block UN sanctions. 

At the same time, the head of its Atomic Energy Organisation,
Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, said Iran had managed to enrich uranium
to a higher level of purity than previously achieved. 

The grade of 4.8 percent purity would not be exceeded because
"this level suffices for making nuclear fuel," he said. 

The clerical regime has insisted its nuclear activities are
exclusively for developing atomic energy. 

Purity of more than 90 percent is required to produce the
fissile core of an atom bomb -- a weapon Western intelligence
assessments say Iran is seven years from being able to build. 

On Wednesday, Aghazadeh announced new natural deposits of
uranium had been discovered close to the southern Gulf port of
Bandar Abbas, saying it would be more economical to exploit than
one at Saghand, in central Yazd province. 

"Our preliminary estimate shows that the mine has substantial
uranium ore, with which we can make around 30 tonnes of
yellowcake a year," Aghazadeh told local news media. 

Yellowcake is refined uranium ore, which is converted into UF6
gas to be fed into centrifuges for enrichment. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Iran accuses US of 'bullying' in nuclear crisis

 Wed May 3, 6:22 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas accused the United States of 
using bullying tactics in efforts to secure a tough UN resolution 
ordering the Islamic republic to freeze its nuclear programme. 

 "We will not give up our undeniable nuclear rights in the face
of US bullying. Fake threats will not crack our will," foreign
ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was quoted as saying by
Iranian news agencies. 

"It has become obvious that in dealing with our nuclear
programme, the United States has lost the confidence of the
international community, and is trying to impose its will on its
allies by bullying an humiliation," he said Wednesday. 

On Tuesday, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns said after meeting with counterparts from the top
five UN powers and Germany that "all agreed that the Iran
nuclear programme should be suspended, and agreed to begin
Security Council debate and start negotiating a resolution for
suspension". 

But he also voiced frustration with permanent Security Council
members Russia and China, which are opposing the hard line of
the US and it European allies. 

"It's time for countries to take responsibilities, especially
those countries that have close relationships with Iran," Burns
said. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, while
Iran insists it only wants to generate atomic energy. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: US, Germany in 'total agreement' on Iran nuclear program - Merkel

 Wed May 3, 7:17 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the 
United States and Germany were in "total agreement" on the need 
to prevent Iran" /> from obtaining a nuclear weapon, after her 
meeting at the White House with US President George W. Bush" /> . 

The German leader called on other world powers to show similar
resolve in opposing Tehran. 

"We ... think that it is essential in this context that the
clear resolve of the international community is shown by
standing united, by showing cohesion on this matter," Merkel
said. 

"What is also essential, and indeed crucial in this context is
that we try to draw as many partners as possible into the fold
to clearly show to the Iranians that this is unacceptable," she
said. 

The US president and German Chancellor met in Washington for
talks overshadowed by the ongoing international crisis over
Iran's nuclear program. Iran's says its program is peaceful and
denies it is seeking nuclear weapons. 

The summit comes amid rising concern about Iran's nuclear
intentions, following confirmation last week that Tehran had
defied a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment, which
heightened fears in the West that the Islamic republic intends
to develop an atomic weapon. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: White House urges UN Security Council action against Iran -
     
 Wed May 3, 4:30 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House renewed its call for the UN 
Security Council to take action against Iran" /> Iranfor its 
"continued defiance" in pursuing a nuclear program despite strong 
objections from major powers. 

"We think it's time for the Security Council to act and move
forward on a resolution under Chapter 7 that would compel action
by the regime," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told
reporters. 

"The international community is concerned about their continued
defiance, and the international community is united in our goal
to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapons know-how
or nuclear weapons," McClellan said. 

A Chapter 7 resolution, which can be invoked to deal with
"threats to peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of
aggression," is binding on all UN member states and can
authorize sanctions or even military action. 

The US call for international action was made as France and
Britain later Wednesday were to circulate a draft resolution in
the UN Security Council that would legally require Iran to
freeze uranium enrichment. 

Paris' UN ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere told reporters
ahead of consultations by the 15-member body that the text would
be a "Chapter 7 resolution which makes mandatory the suspension
of all (Iranian) enrichment related activities". 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AP Wire: Lawmakers shape state's energy plan

| 05/03/2006 | 

 ANDREA FANTA Associated Press 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The state's energy plan began to take shape
Wednesday and includes two upcoming tax breaks for Floridians. 

House lawmakers approved a bill (SB 888) authorizing a sales tax
holiday from Oct. 5-11 on energy-friendly appliances, like
ceiling fans, light bulbs and dishwashers. They also approved a
year-round tax rebate of up to $5,000 for homeowners who buy
solar-energy products, like water and pool heaters. 

The measure, which passed with only one no vote, also would
created an energy commission to advise the Legislature on
forming an in-depth energy policy. 

"Today it's energy alternatives such as hydrogen and solar.
Tomorrow it might be grass. In a sixty-day session, the
Legislature will never be able to evaluate all the
opportunities," said Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs,
the bill's sponsor. 

The Senate already approved the bill, but the House made changes
that require it to go back to the Senate. 

Environmentalists had mixed reactions to the bill. One lobbyist
compared it to milquetoast. 

"It's not really meaningful. They throw a little money at energy
efficiency and rebates for people, they throw a lot of money at
the industry," said Susie Caplowe, a lobbyist for Florida's
Sierra Club. 

Two environmental groups said the $2.5 million allocated for the
rebate fund is a small amount, but Constantine said this was a
first step. 

"I wish we could have had more, but you got to start somewhere,"
he said. 

The provision that really smells, as Caplowe put it, is the
easing of rules for nuclear companies that apply to build new
sites in Florida. 

Rep. Susan Bucher, D-West Palm Beach, the only lawmaker to vote
against the measure, said the changes reduce citizen's ability
to object to new power plants in their backyards. 

But others said the provision streamlines applications to give
nuclear companies incentive to come to Florida, thus reducing
the state's dependence on foreign oil. 

"For the first time you can incentivize the American people in
Florida, saying stick it to Middle East oil," said Rep. Frank
Atkisson, R-Kissimmee.
*****************************************************************
 20 The Nation: Energy Independence Day

  BLOG | Posted 05/02/2006 @ 11:41am   
  
George Bush won't ask Congress for permission for torture or
domestic spying. But when it comes to energy policy – he is
very, very concerned about the limits of his presidential
powers. 

According to The Washington Post, he "renewed his call for
Congress to give him the authority to ‘raise' mileage standards
for all passenger cars." Then perhaps signaling a nod and a wink
to his Big Oil friends, "White House officials said later,
however, that they didn't know when or how the president would
use that authority." 

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress is scrambling to flex some 11th hour
Election Year muscle of its own by reviewing oil company tax
returns and "reaffirming authority for state and federal
officials to fight price gouging." 

No surprise that they are also attempting to exploit an
increasingly squeezed middle-class by once again calling for
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge under the false
pretense that it will provide economic relief at the gas pump.
The truth, as the US Geological Service estimates, is that ANWR
drilling would likely produce a total amount insufficient to
fill the need for even one year of US domestic consumption and
it wouldn't even hit the market for 10 years! 

President Bush, too, offered his own rendition of Johnny Law in
pursuit of any evildoer oil companies: "We'll make sure that the
energy companies are pricing their product fairly. If we catch
them gouging, if we catch them -- unfair trade practices, we'll
deal with them at the federal government. That's what you expect
the federal government to do." 

Indeed, many citizens and Democrats have been asking -– if not
expecting -– the formerly well-oiled, oil-friendly White House
to do that for quite some time. Senators Maria Cantwell, Jeff
Bingaman, and Bill Nelson all introduced legislation that would
have cracked down on price gouging, as has Rep. Bart Stupak and
even Republican Rep. Heather Wilson. In fact, lawmakers have
repeatedly called on Bush over the past year to investigate and
punish price gouging. But Oil man Bush--head of an
administration loaded with ex-oil and gas executives-- is just
walking the walk. If he actually talked the talk he'd be calling
for subpoenas and public testimony from his oil industry
cronies; he'd be calling for an all-out investigation of the
industry's pricing practices-- from the wells to the gas pumps. 

Even if the GOP does finally crack down on price manipulation,
greed and collusion in the oil industry (while also pursuing
more drilling and a roll-back of environmental protections) as a
result of the public's "we're mad as hell and we're not going to
take it anymore" outrage – there is a more important long-range
issue: when will we unite around a sane policy to achieve real
and lasting energy independence for our nation? 

The Apollo Alliancehas provided a blueprint for doing just that.
This coalition of labor, environmentalists, (enlightened)
business people, lawmakers, and social justice activists offers
best practices already implemented in states across the nation,
as well as its own innovative ideas for achieving energy
independence in the next decade (the name comes from JFK's goal
to land a man on the moon within 10 years). 

Founded in 2003, the group's 10-point plan includes: promoting
renewables; upgrading existing energy infrastructure; improving
efficiency in transportation, industry, and buildings; research
in new clean technology; and Smart Growth for cities and
suburbs. 

Joel Rogers, Chair of Apollo's National Steering Committee and
Director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, says of the plan,
"We estimate that $300 billion spent on our plan, would generate
about 3 million new jobs…. It would generate a little over $1
trillion in additional GDP over its ten-year development. And,
most important, probably, it would reduce our energy costs by
better than $300 billion annually. That would effectively….
eliminate our dependence on the Middle East… [and] it should
reestablish the American position in what is clearly going to be
a gigantic world market for clean-energy technology…. Our plan
has been out there for about two years now, and nobody has
seriously questioned any of these numbers." 

What is –- and has been –- lacking is the political will to
challenge the status quo and, in the case of many politicians,
to bite the hand that feeds them. But helped along by
skyrocketing gas prices, an unpopular war, growing concern about
global warming, and an overwhelming majority of Americans who
now think that sustainable energy independence should be a top
national priority, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to
argue with Apollo's message of good jobs and energy
independence. 

One current proposal that would take an important step is Rep.
Dennis Kucinich's Gas Price Spike Act. It would tax oil
companies for excessive profits; transfer those revenues to tax
credits for Americans who purchase fuel-efficient cars; and
establish a program to promote inter- and intra-city mass rail
transit. 

Other important measures have been recently proposed by Ohio
Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, who has made alternative energy
a core component of his economic platform. Foremost among his
proposals is the transitioning to bio-fuels, hybrid technology,
and other alternative energy sources. 

Ralph Nader -- whose best work has been as a consumer crusader
taking on the oil companies -- has also weighed inwith a series
of smart proposals . It is high time, he argues, to use
antitrust action to break up the oil industrial cartel. "The
claim by the oil barons that they're just responding to the
marketplace of supply and demand is laughable," Nader argues. "A
competitive domestic oil industry would not be so able to close
down scores of refineries and then turn 'refinery shortages'
into higher gas prices at the pump." 

The kind of transformative thinking represented most clearly by
the Apollo Allianceis exactly what is needed if we are to work
our way out of this mess. Election year grandstanding will
provide some good theater and a cathartic public shaming of some
oil executives. But, after that, let's not find ourselves
exactly where we are today – hostage to the oil industry and
wondering why we let things get so bad.   
    
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini   
    
Copyright © 2006 The Nation 
*****************************************************************
 21 Rediff: N-deal: 'Be ready to accept amendments'

India should be ready to accept amendments to N-deal: Rice

Sridhar Krishnaswami in Washington | 	May 03, 2006 12:02 IST

Supporting the early passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal in the
Congress, the Bush administration has said New Delhi must be
prepared to accept "amendments" to the agreement which are
within the "spirit" of the July 2005 accord signed between Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush.

This was conveyed to a delelgation of visiting Indian
parliamentarians by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
during a 30-minute meeting at the state department in
Washington. 

"She did not say basic (changes to the framework) but that India
should be prepared, should be ready for some amendments which
will be within the framework...but it depends how Congress
interprets it," Rajya Sabha member of Parliament Shahid
Siddique, who was a part of the delegation, said.

  + Indo-US nuke tango 

"Our main concern was the amendments we are expecting and we are
concerned about the amendments. She said... if the amendments
are within the spirit of the July 18 agreement then we should be
prepared for it. The message was that there are going to be
amendments and we should be ready for it," he said.

The MP said it was generally recognised that time was of essence
and that the civilian nuclear energy agreement should be
formalised at the earliest. 

"She said what is important now is the sequence, that how fast
you are able to engage Interanational Atomic Energy Agency...
because if that is not clear then the Congress will ask what are
we getting in to. That is the message from her," he added. 

Siddique said that Rice was optimistic that the administration
will be able to deliver and that the timeframe was perhaps a
couple of months. Rice told the Indian MPs that it will be
difficult in Congress unless members are clear about what they
are going to do with the IAEA. 

"She (meaning Rice) said it is going to be difficult for us...
it has to be very obvious to what they are getting into. They
feel that unless that is there (India's agreement with the IAEA)
in place they won't be able to get the acceptance of the
Congress," Siddique said. 

The Indian parliamentarian stressed that Rice did not say that
Congress was looking for "basic" changes to the agreed
framework, but that New Delhi should be ready to accept some
changes. 

"Our concern is that if it does not go through now, then it will
be difficult to get it through after summer recess... we feel
that it should be done before the summer recess," Siddique said. 

"We are a bit worried about the amendments which are being
suggested. It is not very clear as to what the amendments are
going to be ... getting us into the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty through the backdoor is also of concern to us because it
will not be acceptable to Parliament in India, especially to the
Left," he said. 

On asked what transpired in the meeting between Rice and the
visiting parliamentary delegation, a senior state department
official said, "They discussed our strategic partnership -- the
US-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative, our economic and
energy dialogue." 

  © Copyright 2006 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or

 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 RIA Novosti: Modernization of submarine fleet a priority - Navy Commander
 
03/ 05/ 2006                                  

KAZAN (Tatarstan), May 3 (RIA Novosti) - Replacing outdated
strategic submarines should be made a military shipbuilding
priority for the next five years, the Navy Commander said
Wednesday. 

"We are allocating most funds for construction of new
submarines," Admiral Vladimir Masorin told a news conference
after a meeting with heads of defense industry companies in the
Volga region of Tatarstan. "We should be able to replace
strategic submarines with new ones in the near future." 

He said that the new Bulava ballistic missile had been designed
specifically to equip new strategic submarines. 

Bulava missiles, a sea-based version of the Topol-M, could be
deployed on Borey-class nuclear submarines as early as in 2008,
a leading missile designer said earlier. 

Last year, Russia conducted two successful test launches of the
Bulava. The first in-flight test launch was conducted on
September 27, 2005, from the Dmitry Donskoi, a Typhoon-class
ballistic missile submarine. 

On December 21, 2005, another Bulava was launched from the
Dmitry Donskoi in the White Sea before traveling thousands of
miles to hit a dummy target on the Kura test site on the
Kamchatka Peninsula. It was the first time a Bulava had been
launched from a submerged position. 

Masorin also said Russia would continue building small- and
medium size surface ships, rather than "huge missile cruisers." 

"We already have them [the cruisers], and we will keep and
modernize them," he said. "But we will continue building ships
that are under construction, from small gunboats ... to
frigates." 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: US experts cut by half size estimate of China nuclear arsenal -
     
 Wed May 3, 1:35 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - China's nuclear arsenal is about half the size 
previously estimated by US experts even as the Asian giant 
modernizes its atomic forces in a secret fashion, a new study 
shows. 

China's nuclear stockpile appears to have leveled out at about
200 warheads compared with 400 as previously estimated, said
Robert Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Hans
Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists in a study
published in the latest issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. 

"We estimate that China deploys approximately 130 nuclear
warheads for delivery by land-based missiles, sea-based missiles
and bombers. Additional warheads are thought to be in storage
for a total stockpile of approximately 200 warheads," they said. 

Norris told AFP in an interview that the previous estimates were
based on assumptions during the Cold War based on alleged
Chinese development of so-called tactical nuclear delivery
systems. 

"More recently we decided to see if could find evidence of what
happened to that. We now see that probably never happened and if
it did happen, they had withdrawn them because the reason for
them is gone," he explained. 

"This was a rather long process that we had to deal with -- the
Chinese have been very good at keeping secrets and they are not
transparent about their nuclear arsenal," Norris said. 

The experts used US government intelligence documents and some
Chinese statements to arrive at the new figure. 

Past US predictions about China's nuclear arsenal "have
repeatedly proven to be highly unreliable," they said in the
report. 

The CIA" /> CIA's latest prediction of a "several-fold" increase
in Chinese warheads deployed "primarily" against the United
States is hardly a firm estimate, they said. 

The Pentagon" /> Pentagonhad predicted in 2002, 2003 and 2004
that the number of Chinese nuclear-armed intercontinental
ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States "could
increase to about 30 by 2005 and may reach up to 60 by 2010." 

But only 20 of China's 200 nuclear warheads could reach the
United States, the experts said. 

"Even if an increase occurs, the total Chinese nuclear stockpile
would rise only moderately because warheads on older
liquid-fueled missiles will have to be phased out," they
explained. 

China has kept the composition and size of nuclear warheads in
its stockpile ambiguous amid repeated calls by the United States
to make its military budget more transparent. 

But Norris said that the Chinese nuclear arsenal was a pale
shadow of the American size of 10,000 warheads. 

By 2012, under current plans, the United States has committed to
reduce it to 6,000 warheads. 

"The Chinese will have -- its very hard to say -- may be 300 or
400 (warheads) in six years' time but they have never decided --
wisely I think -- to enter into an arms race with the United
States," Norris said. 

"It's just not their way." 

Norris also said that there was a lobby in Washington that tried
to use the Chinese as a potential US threat in the future to
boost the American military capability. 

"I think they exaggerate the dimensions, they use it as a
rationale for US military programs, as a matter of fact, and
even if we project into the future, a rise in Chinese arsenal
could happen but it would never be very, very large compared to
the US arsenal," he said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 24 IPS-English HEALTH-EUROPE: Chernobyl's Elusive Bottom Line
 
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:46:34 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS EU EN HE SC CV=20
HEALTH-EUROPE: Chernobyl's Elusive Bottom Line
Julio Godoy* - Tierram=E9rica

PARIS, May 3 (IPS) - Twenty years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuc=
lear power plant, the worst in atomic energy history, governments, intern=
ational institutions, scientists and environmentalists continue to debate=
  the true extent of the disaster's impacts on human health.

On Apr. 26, 1986, a series of fires and explosions at the Ukranian energy=
  plant released radioactive material that spread through the atmosphere o=
ver Western and Eastern Europe, especially over Ukraine itself, Belarus a=
nd Russia -- the three were Soviet republics at the time.

A study by international environment watchdog Greenpeace says that in tho=
se three countries alone, by 2056 the accident will have claimed the live=
s of more than 93,000 people through thyroid cancer, leukemia, and blood =
and respiratory diseases.

The Greenpeace total is based on scientists' analysis of the three countr=
ies and contradicts the official report from the World Health Organisatio=
n (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), published in S=
eptember, which says just 56 people have died so far as a direct result o=
f the Chernobyl accident and estimates that around 4,000 more people will=
  die in the longer term.

Other studies by European scientists also suggest that the WHO-IAEA repor=
t minimises the number of victims. Such is the case of Elizabeth Cardis, =
radiologist for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in=
  Lyon, France, and co-author of one of the latest investigations of the m=
atter, to be published in June.=20

=94By 2065 there will be some 41,000 cases of cancer in Western Europe. O=
f those, 16,000 will be fatal,=94 Cardis told Tierram=E9rica in an interv=
iew.

These estimates are based on statistical analyses of the number of people=
  exposed to the radioactive cloud in several European countries, includin=
g France, Austria, Germany and Italy, the different levels of exposure to=
  the radiation, and the number of cancer cases recorded since 1986.

According to that study, the Chernobyl accident will claim the lives of a=
t least 16,000 people in thyroid cancer deaths in Western Europe, and 25,=
000 more to other types of cancer. The study did not focus on Eastern Eur=
ope.

=94The 20 years that have passed since the Chernobyl accident are a very =
short period to analyse in an exhaustive way the development of diseases =
whose symptoms are recognisable only after decades,=94 Cardis explained.

Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that the former Soviet Union, which=
  had jurisdiction over Ukraine in 1986, hid the most basic information ab=
out the accident and its consequences.

There exists no official registry of the personnel who worked on the reac=
tor after the catastrophe. Unknown are the names, locations and current h=
ealth status of tens of thousands of people who were directly exposed to =
the radiation.

Despite the Chernobyl accident and its consequences, many governments and=
  the nuclear industry in Europe continue to defend atomic energy as clean=
  and safe, arguing that it contributes to the fight against climate chang=
e because it does not produce gases that contribute to the greenhouse eff=
ect, as do petroleum derivatives.

Some countries launched new nuclear research programmes and have announce=
d construction of nuclear reactors over the next five years. The French g=
overnment recently approved construction of three reactors, the first of =
which would begin operating in 2012. The others are slated to begin energ=
y production in 2020.

With its 58 reactors, which generate 78.5 percent of the country's electr=
icity, France is the nation most reliant on atomic energy.

Jean-Philippe Desbordes, author of the book =94Atomic Park - a la recherc=
he de victimes du nucl=E9aire=94 (in search of the victims of nuclear ene=
rgy), said in a Tierram=E9rica interview that =94just one accident on the=
  scale of Chernobyl in France would convince the French authorities to re=
nounce atomic energy.=94

In Germany, leaders of the Christian Democratic Union, which governs the =
country in coalition with the Social Democratic Party, insists on reviewi=
ng the decision to gradually dismantle all functioning nuclear reactors b=
y 2025.

For Roland Koch, head of government in the central state of Hesse, =94Sus=
pending the use of atomic energy in Germany is foolishness.=94

But environmentalists criticise Koch, saying he does not have valid respo=
nses to questions about managing radioactive waste and the production of =
material that could be used in atomic weapons.

=94Nuclear power is inherently highly dangerous and despite claims of imp=
rovements in safety, scientists agree that another catastrophe on the sca=
le of Chernobyl could happen at any time, anywhere,=94 said Gerd Leipold,=
  executive director of Greenpeace International.

=94We must ensure that no more Chernobyls ever take place again, and ensu=
re that atomic energy has no future, investing instead in renewable alter=
natives. On the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, governments and internatio=
nal bodies such as the IAEA must exercise their moral duty to future gene=
rations by committing to a rapid and permanent eradication of nuclear pow=
er,=94 Leipold said.

(* Julio Godoy is an IPS correspondent. Originally published Apr. 29 by L=
atin American newspapers that are part of the Tierram=E9rica network. Tie=
rram=E9rica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backin=
g of the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Envi=
ronment Programme.)

*****

+Tierram=E9rica (http://www.tierramerica.net/english/)

+International Agency for Research on Cancer (http://www.iarc.fr/)

+Greenpeace Internacional (http://www.greenpeace.org)

+International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org)

+World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/)

+FRANCE: Chernobyl Provokes Some Rethinking
(http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3D32966)

+HEALTH: Salt Could Have Fought Chernobyl Radiation
(http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3D32931)

+POLITICS: Role of U.N. Nuke Agency Called 'Schizophrenic'
(http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3D32942)
(END/IPS/EU/HE EN SC/TRASP-LD/JG/TA/06)

=20
=3D 05031602 ORP009
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 25 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse, Fermi on way back to full service

Thursday, May 04, 2006 

Article published Wednesday, May 3, 2006
 
By BLADE STAFF WRITER

Both of the Toledo area’s nuclear plants should be back at full
power soon.

FirstEnergy Corp.’s Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ottawa County,
which had begun restart last weekend, has been on hold because
of a malfunction and calibration error involving a feedwater
pump’s shutdown mechanism.

The utility held Davis-Besse’s reactor at 61 percent power the
past two days, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
Web site.

Richard Smith, one of two NRC resident inspectors assigned to
Davis-Besse, said the repairs could be done safely without
shutting down the plant. He said the malfunction was identified
during ascension, when routine tests were performed on the
plant’s two feedwater pumps. 

Those pumps send water from the condenser to the plant’s steam
generators that make electricity.

“They’re actively pursuing a fix on it,” Mr. Smith said.

FirstEnergy was expecting to complete the fix yesterday and have
Davis-Besse at full power by tonight, said Richard Wilkins,
utility spokesman.

The plant had been offline since March 6 so that the reactor
could be refueled and two of the four reactor coolant pumps
could be rebuilt. The latter cost about $5 million.

Last night, the NRC was expected to go over the results of
Davis-Besse’s 2005 performance at a public meeting at the
plant’s administration building. No major issues were identified
in advance by the NRC.

Detroit Edison Co.’s Fermi II nuclear plant in Michigan’s Monroe
County has been offline since March 25, also for planned
refueling and maintenance.

John Austerberry, utility spokesman, wouldn’t divulge yesterday
the planned date for restart but confirmed it will be within
days. “We’re pretty much in the final stages,” he said.

The biggest improvement at Fermi II was the installation of more
efficient moisture separator reheaters. Those are devices that
dry steam before it enters the plant’s turbines.

Improving the quality of steam with those new devices alone is
expected to boost the 1,100-megawatt plant’s capacity by about
eight megawatts. That’s about enough electricity for 4,000 homes
during peak summer usage.

Drier steam also will result in less wear and tear on the plant,
Mr. Austerberry has said.

Nuclear reactors are typically refueled every 18 months to two
years, depending on the level in which their fuel has been
enriched with uranium.

Davis-Besse and Fermi II are each along the Lake Erie shoreline,
about 30 miles from Toledo.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 26 Brattleboro Reformer: State pulls VY uprate objections

  By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff  

 Wednesday, May 3 BRATTLEBORO -- The state of Vermont has
dropped its legal challenge to Vermont Yankee's uprate, leaving
a local watchdog organization to fight the power boost on its
own. 

On Tuesday, the Department of Public Service announced that it
will halt its efforts to stop the plant from operating at 120
percent of its original power output. 

State nuclear engineer Bill Sherman said many of the
department's concerns were adequately addressed since it began
contesting the uprate's approval two years ago. 

He said all the state's remaining issues were resolved in an
agreement with Entergy Nuclear, the company that owns the plant.
That agreement will see the plant share data from various tests
with the department. 

"With the agreements, we found that we'd basically gotten what
we were interested in," Sherman said. "The level of the review
in this area was much greater than in other uprate processes." 

The department had taken issue with the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission giving the plant "containment overpressure
credit," when evaluating the uprate's safety. 

In other words, the NRC agreed that Vermont Yankee can count on
vapor pressure to push water through pumps that would cool the
core in an emergency. 

Initially, the state contended that it may not be safe to rely
on the overpressure, but Sherman said the department has since
seen more assurance based on NRC inspections. 

Though the state has dropped its contentions, opposition to the
uprate hasn't faded elsewhere. 

The New England Coalition, a nuclear watchdog organization, will
continue to challenge the uprate, said technical advisor Ray
Shadis. 

"The issue that the state picked to pursue, that of maintaining
extra pressure ... is a very narrow issue," he said. "The
process is going forward without any real assurance that the
pumps will operate in the event of an emergency." 

He said the state's decision to dismiss its concerns will lead
to reduced safety margins at the plant, and said reactor
operators typically try to reduce containment pressure. 

The coalition's concerns, which are now scheduled to come before
the NRC's quasi-judicial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, are
focused on two matters. 

One challenge has to do with the integrity of the plant's
emergency cooling towers, while another questions the testing
methods Vermont Yankee will employ once its uprate is complete. 

The group has four more contentions that may come before the
board. 

Shadis said he couldn't say whether the coalition would attempt
to add a challenge based on containment overpressure, but
wouldn't rule it out. 

"Here we are. The NEC has always stood up for the environment
and the safety of the people in the region," he said. "We will
continue to go it alone." 

Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said plant officials
are looking forward to addressing the New England Coalition's
concerns at hearings this fall. 

He said the company is pleased that the state feels comfortable
with the uprate's safety. 

"We participated in the process and we have recently agreed to
enhanced inspection and monitoring, and that helped address the
state's concerns," Williams said. "We're pleased that the issue
is resolved." 

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, said this uprate has
undergone more scrutiny than any before it. 

"This is the only power uprate application under which there's
been this hearing process," he said. 

Sheehan said the issue of containment overpressure has been
examined by the plant itself, the NRC technical staff, and the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which he called an
"independent body of experts." 

Sheehan said none of those groups believe that granting the
overpressure credit will decrease safety at Vermont Yankee. 

"The NRC technical staff didn't agree, the ACRS didn't agree,
and now the state of Vermont has said it's comfortable for the
containment overpressure to be used." 

The NRC has granted overpressure credit at about 20 other plants
that have been uprated. 

Vermont Yankee is operating at 117.5 percent of its original
output. The plant stopped the final stage of its uprate after
acoustic gauges picked up possible signs of strain on the
plant's steam dryer. 

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report. 


Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802)
254-2311, ext 275. 

» (802) 254-2311
» 62 Black Mountain Road
» Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242                    

*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-06-007           May 3, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

assessment of safety performance at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant
during 2005. 

The 6 p.m. meeting at Port Gibson City Hall, 1005 College St.,
Port Gibson, Miss., is open to public observation. Before the
session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer questions on
the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in
ensuring safe plant operation. 

Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the
nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV
Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an
opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local
officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting
with members of the community and answering any questions they
may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available
on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/gg_2005q4.pdf[PDF
 Icon] . 

Overall, Grand Gulf operated safely during the period. The NRC
uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with
green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate
with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all
of the inspection findings and performance indicators for the
plant during the last quarter of 2005 were determined to be
green, Grand Gulf will receive a baseline (or routine) level of
inspections during the upcoming assessment period. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are emergency preparedness and radiological safety. 

Current performance information for Grand Gulf is available on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/GG1/gg1_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 28 Times Argus: Vt. satisfied with Yankee boost

Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 
May 3, 2006 

By Lisa Rathke Associated Press   

MONTPELIER — The state is satisfied that a 20 percent power
increase at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant will be safe.

The Department of Public Service on Tuesday withdrew concerns it
raised two years ago about how well an emergency pump would
operate with additional heat that could be generated in the
plant during an emergency at the boosted power level.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board has reviewed the concerns and approved the process, said
David O'Brien, chairman of the Vermont Department of Service.

Entergy Nuclear also has agreed to a list of stipulations to
ensure that the water cooling system will be effective.

Those steps have satisfied the state that the 20 percent power
boost will be safe, O'Brien said.

"This got a lot of attention beyond what a normal license review
for a normal uprate would have allowed," O'Brien said.

The fact that this was looked at so closely by regulators gave
us a lot of comfort. The fact that the ACRS (Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards) signed off on this was very important to
us."

The state also was satisfied with Entergy's agreement to do more
inspections and testing at the plant.

"We recently agreed to the enhanced inspection and monitoring
and that helped address those concerns and we're pleased that
the issues are resolved with the state," said plant spokesman
Robert Williams.

But Raymond Shadis of the anti-nuclear New England Coalition,
said the state's decision to dismiss its contentions means
"safety margins are being significantly reduced."

"Going forward with the extended power uprate now means that the
public can have no assurance that the emergency pumps will work
in the event of an accident," he said.

The basic theory is that the heat of an accident would raise the
pressure in the containment to force water into the emergency
pumps, Shadis said.

"This is counterintuitive for reactor operators. It has always
been their role to try to reduce containment pressure," he said.

Last week Vermont Yankee had to stop short of its goal of
increasing its power by 20 percent to address two problems.

The problems were acoustic signals from gauges that are picking
up what may be new strains on the plant's steam dryer.
   
© 2006 Times Argus
*****************************************************************
 29 peopleandplanet.net: nuclear future is a trillion dollar dream

Posted: 03 May 2006

Many politicians and even a few environmentalists have begun
advocating nuclear power as a remedy for climate change. And in
an effort to ride the coattails of a far more popular set of
energy alternatives, political leaders including US President
George W. Bush
 are now referring to nuclear power as "a renewable source of
energy".

But in Brave Nuclear World, part one of a two-part series, in
the current issue of World Watch magazine, contributor Karen
Charman questions whether this latest effort to bring nuclear
power back to life will be any more successful than the other
five nuclear "revivals" that have been predicted since the
industry first collapsed a quarter-century ago.
 
Analyses have shown that some 700 new large nuclear reactors -
producing about twice the total power of the world's currently
operating
 reactors - would be needed to achieve just one-seventh the
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required to stabilize
atmospheric carbon concentrations at 500 parts per million. 

Yet over the past two years, construction has begun on just
three new reactors, while seven operating plants were
permanently closed during the same period.
 
Building 700 nuclear reactors would cost at least $1.7 trillion
dollars, says Karen Charman, and would require construction of a
new disposal site the size of Nevada's controversial Yucca
Mountain depository "somewhere in the world every three to four
years." 

If that money were instead spent on energy efficiency measures
and renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced
by a far greater amount.
 
World Watch is published by the Washingtn-based Worldwatch
Institute. The full article can from the May-June issue can be
downloaded here

© People & the Planet 2000 - 2006

*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation and 
 
                         FR Doc E6-6678 
[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)] [Notices] 
[Page 26118-26122] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my06-111]                         
 
Model License Amendment Request on Technical Specification 
Improvement Regarding Use of the Improved Bank Position 
Withdrawal Sequence for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors 
Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Request for comment.
 
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model license 
amendment request (LAR), model safety evaluation (SE), and model 
proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination related to changes to Standard Technical 
Specification (STS) 3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern Control,'' and STS 
3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation'' for NUREG-1433 and 
NUREG-1434. The proposed changes would revise the Bases for STS 
3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern Control,'' and STS 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod 
Block Instrumentation'' to allow licensees to use an improved 
control rod bank position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) when 
performing a reactor shutdown. In addition, for NUREG-1434 
licensees, the proposed changes would add a footnote to Table 
3.3.2.1-1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation.'' The 
requirements for implementing the improved BPWS are described in 
General Electric Licensing Topical Report (LTR) NEDO- 33091-A, 
Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' 
dated July 2004. The General Electric Boiling Water Reactor 
Owners Group (BWROG) participants in the Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) proposed these changes to the STS in TSTF-476, 
Revision 0, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process 
(NEDO-33091).'' The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC 
to efficiently process amendments to incorporate these changes 
into plant-specific Technical Specifications (TS) for General 
Electric Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs). Licensees of nuclear 
power reactors to which the models apply can request amendments 
conforming to the models. In such a request, a licensee should 
confirm the applicability of the model LAR, model SE and NSHC 
determination to its plant. The NRC staff is requesting comments 
on the model LAR, model SE and NSHC determination before 
announcing their availability for referencing in license 
amendment applications.
 
 
DATES: The comment period expires 30 days from the date of this 
publication. Comments received after this date will be considered 
if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure 
consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via 
U.S. mail.
 
Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, 
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. 
Submit comments by electronic mail to: CLIIP@nrc.gov.
 
[[Page 26119]] Copies of comments received may be examined at the 
NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Thomas, Mail Stop: O-12H2, 
Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone (301) 415-6772.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 
2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process [CLIIP] for 
Adopting Standard Technical Specifications Changes for Power 
Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The CLIIP is intended 
to improve the efficiency and transparency of NRC licensing 
processes. This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to 
the STS in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment 
applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to 
comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary 
assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will 
likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice is 
soliciting comment on a proposed change to the STS that changes 
the Bases for sections 3.1.6 and 3.3.2.1 of the General Electric 
BWR STS, Revision 3 of NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, and Table 
3.3.2.1-1 in the NUREG-1434 STS. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff 
to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the 
STS and to either reconsider the change or proceed with 
announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption 
by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject 
change to TSs are responsible for reviewing the staff's 
evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, 
and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Following 
the public comment period, the model LAR and model SE will be 
finalized, and posted on the NRC Web page. Each amendment 
application made in response to the notice of availability will 
be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable NRC rules 
and procedures.
 
This notice involves implementation of an improved BPWS, which 
would allow licensees of General Electric BWRs to follow the 
improved BPWS when inserting control rods into the core during a 
reactor shutdown. By letter dated August 30, 2004, the BWROG 
proposed these changes for incorporation into the STS as 
TSTF-476, Revision 0.
 
These changes are based on the NRC staff-approved LTR 
NEDO-33091-A, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' 
dated July 2004, as approved by NRC in an SE dated June 16, 2004, 
accessible electronically from the Agency-wide Documents Access 
and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet (ADAMS Accession No. ML041700479) at the NRC Web 
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document 
Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Applicability These 
proposed changes will revise the Section 3.6.1 and Section 
3.3.2.1 TS Bases for General Electric BWR/4 and BWR/6 plants, and 
TS Table 3.3.2.1-1 for BWR/6 plants. To efficiently process the 
incoming license amendment applications, the NRC staff requests 
that each licensee applying for the changes addressed by 
TSTF-476, Revision 0, using the CLIIP submit an LAR that adheres 
to the following model. Any variations from the model LAR should 
be explained in the licensee's submittal. Variations from the 
approach recommended in this notice may require additional review 
by the NRC staff, and may increase the time and resources needed 
for the review. Significant variations from the approach, or 
inclusion of additional changes to the license, will result in 
staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring 
significant variations and/ or additional changes should submit a 
LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF-476.
 
Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested 
members of the public within 30 days of the date of this 
publication. Following the NRC staff's evaluation of comments 
received as a result of this notice, the NRC staff may reconsider 
the proposed change or may proceed with announcing the 
availability of the change in a subsequent notice (perhaps with 
some changes to the model LAR, model SE or model NSHC 
determination as a result of public comments). If the NRC staff 
announces the availability of the change, licensees wishing to 
adopt the change will submit an application in accordance with 
applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. The NRC staff 
will, in turn, issue for each application a notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating 
license(s), a proposed NSHC determination, and an opportunity for 
a hearing. A notice of issuance of an amendment to operating 
license(s) will also be issued to announce the revised 
requirements for each plant that applies for and receives the 
requested change.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of April 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Thomas H. Boyce, Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division 
of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
Attachments--For Inclusion on the Technical Specification Web 
Page the Following Example of an Application Was Prepared by the 
NRC Staff to Facilitate the Adoption of Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-476, Revision 0 ``Improved BPWS 
Control Rod Insertion Process (Nedo-33091).'' The Model Provides 
the Expected Level Of Detail and Content for an Application to 
Adopt TSTF-476, Revision 0.
 
Licensees Remain Responsible for Ensuring That Their Actual 
Application Fulfills Their Administrative Requirements as Well as 
NRC Regulations.
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, 
Washington, DC 20555.
 
Subject: Plant Name, Docket No. 50-[XXX,] Re: Application For 
Technical Specification Improvement To Adopt TSTF-476, Revision 
0, ``Improved BPWS Control ROD Insertion Process (NEDO-33091)''.
 
Dear Sir or Madam: In accordance with the provisions of Section 
50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 
[LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the 
technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The 
proposed changes would revise Sections 3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern 
Control,'' and 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation,'' to 
allow [PLANT NAME] to reference a new Banked Position Withdrawal 
Sequence (BPWS) shutdown sequence in the TS Bases. [(BWR/6 only), 
In addition, a footnote is added to Table 3.3.2.1-1, ``Control 
Rod Block Instrumentation.''] The changes are consistent with 
NRC-approved Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476, 
Revision 0, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process 
(NEDO-33091).'' The availability of this TS improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register on [DATE] ([ ]FR[ ]) as part of 
the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
 
Enclosure 1 provides a description and assessment of the proposed 
changes, as well as confirmation of applicability. Enclosure 2 
provides the existing TS pages and TS Bases marked-up to show the 
proposed changes. Enclosure 3 provides final TS pages and TS 
Bases pages.
 
[LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed license amendment by 
[DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY
 
[[Page 26120]] DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 
50.91, a copy of this application, with enclosures, is being 
provided to the designated [STATE] Official.
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this 
request and that the foregoing is true and correct. [Note that 
request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or 
affirmation statement]. If you should have any questions 
regarding this submittal, please contact [ ].
 
Sincerely, Name, Title Enclosures: 1. Description and Assessment 
of Proposed Changes 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes 
and Technical Specification Bases Changes 3. Final Technical 
Specification and Bases pages cc: NRR Project Manager, Regional 
Office, Resident Inspector, State Contact, ITSB Branch Chief.
 
1.0 Description This letter is a request to amend Operating 
License(s) [LICENSE NUMBER(S)] for [PLANT/UNIT NAME(S)].
 
The proposed changes would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern Control'', and 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block 
Instrumentation,'' [(BWR/6 only) along with TS Table 3.3.2.1-1, 
``Control Rod Block Instrumentation,''] to allow reference to an 
improved, optional Bank Position Withdrawal Sequence (BPWS) in 
the TS Bases for use during reactor shutdown.
 
The new BPWS is described in Topical Report NEDO-33091-A, 
Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' 
dated July 2004 (Reference 1), and approved by the NRC by Safety 
Evaluation (SE) dated June 16, 2004 (ADAMS ML041700479) 
(Reference 2). Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF- 476, Revision 0, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod 
Insertion Process (NEDO-33091)'' was announced for availability 
in the Federal Register on [DATE] as part of the consolidated 
line item improvement process (CLIIP).
 
2.0 Proposed Changes Consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-476, 
Revision 0, the proposed TS changes include: Revised TS Section 
3.6.1 Bases to allow use of an optional BPWS during plant 
shutdown.
 
Revised TS Section 3.3.2.1 Bases to allow reprogramming of the 
rod worth minimizer during the optional BPWS shutdown sequence.
 
[(BWR/6 only): Revised Table 3.3.2.1-1, ``Control Rod Block 
Instrumentation,'' which adds a footnote that allows operators to 
bypass the rod pattern controller if conditions for the optional 
BPWS shutdown process are satisfied.] 3.0 Background The 
background for this application is as stated in the model SE in 
NRC's Notice of Availability published on [DATE ]([ ] FR [ ]), 
the NRC Notice for Comment published on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), and 
TSTF-476, Revision 0.
 
4.0 Technical Analysis [LICENSEE] has reviewed References 1 and 
2, and the model SE published on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part of 
the CLIIP Notice for Comment. [LICENSEE] has applied the 
methodology in Reference 1 to develop the proposed TS changes. 
[LICENSEE] has also concluded that the justifications presented 
in TSTF-476, Revision 0 and the model SE prepared by the NRC 
staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.], and justify this 
amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] TS.
 
5.0 Regulatory Analysis A description of this proposed change and 
its relationship to applicable regulatory requirements and 
guidance was provided in the NRC Notice of Availability published 
on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), the NRC Notice for Comment published on 
[DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]), and TSTF-476, Revision 0.
 
5.1 Regulatory Commitments As discussed in the model SE published 
in the Federal Register on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) for this technical 
specification improvement, the following plant-specific 
verifications/commitments were performed. In Reference 2 the NRC 
staff explained that the potential for the control rod drop 
accident (CRDA) will be eliminated by the following changes to 
the operational procedures, which [PLANT NAME] [has made/will 
commit to make prior to implementation]: 1. Before reducing power 
to the low power setpoint (LPSP), operators shall confirm control 
rod coupling integrity for all rods that are fully withdrawn. 
Control rods that have not been confirmed coupled and are in 
intermediate positions must be fully inserted prior to power 
reduction to the LPSP. No action is required for fully-inserted 
control rods.
 
If a shutdown is required and all rods, which are not confirmed 
coupled, cannot be fully inserted prior to the power dropping 
below the LPSP, then the original/standard BPWS must be adhered 
to.
 
2. After reactor power drops below the LPSP, rods may be inserted 
from notch position 48 to notch position 00 without stopping at 
the intermediate positions. However, GE Nuclear Energy recommends 
that, to the maximum extent possible, operators insert rods in 
the same order as specified for the original/standard BPWS. If a 
plant is in the process of shutting down following improved BPWS 
with the power below the LPSP, no control rod shall be withdrawn 
unless the control rod pattern is in compliance with standard 
BPWS requirements.
 
In addition to the procedure changes specified above, the staff 
previously concluded, based on its review of NEDO-33091-A, that 
no single failure of the boiling water reactor CRD mechanical or 
hydraulic system can cause a control rod to drop completely out 
of the reactor core during the shutdown process. Therefore, the 
proper use of the improved BPWS will prevent a CRDA from 
occurring while power is below the LPSP. [LICENSEE] has verified, 
in accordance with NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, that no single 
failure of the boiling water reactor CRD mechanical or hydraulic 
system can cause a control rod to drop completely out of the 
reactor core during the shutdown process.
 
6.0 No Significant Hazards Consideration [LICENSEE] has reviewed 
the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination 
published in the Federal Register on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part 
of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed 
determination presented in the notice is applicable to [PLANT] 
and the determination is hereby incorporated by reference to 
satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 7.0 Environmental 
Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental 
consideration included in the model SE published in the Federal 
Register on [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] 
has concluded that the staff's findings presented therein are 
applicable to [PLANT] and the determination is hereby 
incorporated by reference for this application.
 
8.0 References 1. Topical Report NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, 
``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' dated July 2004.
 
2. NRC Safety Evaluation (SE) approving Topical Report NEDO- 
33091, Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion 
Process,'' dated June 16, 2004.
 
3. Federal Register Notices: Notice for Comment published on 
[DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]) Notice of Availability published on [DATE] ([ 
] FR [ ]) Model Safety Evaluation--U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation--``Technical 
Specification Task Force TSTF-476, Revision 0--``Improved BPWS 
Control Rod Insertion Process (NEDO-33091) 1.0 Introduction By 
letter dated [------, 20--], [LICENSEE] (the licensee) proposed 
changes to the technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME]. 
The requested changes are the adoption of TSTF-476, Revision 0, 
``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process (NEDO-33091-A),'' 
to the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS), which was proposed by the Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) by letter on August 30, 2004. 
This TSTF involves changes to NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 Section 
3.1.6 ``Rod Pattern Control,'' Section 3.3.2.1 ``Control Rod 
Block Instrumentation,'' and Table 3.3.2.1-1 (NUREG-1434 only). 
The proposed TSTF would allow the use of the improved bank 
position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during normal shutdowns if 
the conditions of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS 
Control Rod Insertion Process,'' dated July 2004, have been 
satisfied.
 
 
[[Page 26121]] 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation The control rod drop 
accident (CRDA) is the design basis accident for the subject TS 
changes. In order to minimize the impact of a CRDA, the BPWS 
process was developed to minimize control rod reactivity worth 
for BWR plants. The proposed improved BPWS further simplifies the 
control rod insertion process, and in order to evaluate it, the 
staff followed the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 
15.4.9, and referred to General Design Criterion (GDC) 28 of 
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 as its regulatory requirement. GDC 
28 states that the reactivity control systems shall be designed 
with appropriate limits on the potential amount and rate of 
reactivity increase to assure that the effects of postulated 
reactivity accidents can neither (1) result in damage to the 
reactor coolant pressure boundary greater than limited local 
yielding nor (2) sufficiently disturb the core, its support 
structures or other reactor pressure vessel internals to impair 
significantly the capability to cool the core.
 
3.0 Technical Evaluation In its safety evaluation for Licensing 
Topical Report NEDO- 33091-A, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod 
Insertion Process,'' dated June 16, 2004, (ADAMS ML041700479) the 
staff determined that the methodology described in TSTF-476, 
Revision 0, to incorporate the improved BPWS into the STS, is 
acceptable.
 
TSTF-476, Revision 0, states that the improved BPWS provides the 
following benefits: (1) Allows the plant to reach the all-rods-in 
condition prior to significant reactor cool down, which reduces 
the potential for re-criticality as the reactor cools down; (2) 
reduces the potential for an operator reactivity control error by 
reducing the total number of control rod manipulations; (3) 
minimizes the need for manual scrams during plant shutdowns, 
resulting in less wear on control rod drive (CRD) system 
components and CRD mechanisms; and, (4) eliminates unnecessary 
control rod manipulations at low power, resulting in less wear on 
reactor manual control and CRD system components.
 
[PLANT NAME] has been approved to use the improved BPWS, and the 
potential for a CRDA with power below the low power setpoint 
(LPSP) has been eliminated. The safety evaluation for 
NEDO-33091-A explained that the potential for the CRDA will be 
eliminated by the following changes to operational procedures, 
which [PLANT NAME] [has made/will commit to make prior to 
implementation]: 1. Before reducing power to the LPSP, operators 
shall confirm control rod coupling integrity for all rods that 
are fully withdrawn. Control rods that have not been confirmed 
coupled and are in intermediate positions must be fully inserted 
prior to power reduction to the LPSP. No action is required for 
fully-inserted control rods.
 
If a shutdown is required and all rods that are not confirmed 
coupled cannot be fully inserted prior to power dropping below 
the LPSP, then the original/standard BPWS must be adhered to.
 
2. After reactor power drops below the LPSP, rods may be inserted 
from notch position 48 to notch position 00 without stopping at 
the intermediate positions. However, GE Nuclear Energy recommends 
that, to the maximum extent possible, operators insert rods in 
the same order as specified for the original/standard BPWS. If a 
plant is in the process of shutting down following improved BPWS 
with the power below the LPSP, no control rod shall be withdrawn 
unless the control rod pattern is in compliance with standard 
BPWS requirements.
 
In addition to the procedure changes specified above, the staff 
previously verified during its review of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 
2, that no single failure of the boiling water reactor CRD 
mechanical or hydraulic system can cause a control rod to drop 
completely out of the reactor core during the shutdown process. 
Therefore, the proper use of the improved BPWS will prevent a 
CRDA from occurring while power is below the LPSP.
 
The staff finds the proposed Technical Specification changes in 
[PLANT NAME's] amendment request properly incorporate the 
improved BPWS procedure into the STS, and that [PLANT NAME] 
accurately adopted TSTF-476 and the requisite procedural changes.
 
Therefore, the staff approves the [PLANT NAME] license amendment 
request to adopt TSTF-476, Revision 0.
 
4.0 State Consultation In accordance with the Commission's 
regulations, the [------] State official was notified of the 
proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had [(1) 
no comments or (2) the following comments--with subsequent 
disposition by the staff].
 
5.0 Environmental Consideration The amendment[s] change[s] a 
requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility 
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 
part 20 or surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has 
determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in 
the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any 
effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no 
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational 
radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a 
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on 
such finding published [DATE] ([ ] FR [ ]).
 
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for 
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant 
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or 
environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the 
issuance of the amendment.
 
6.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, based on the 
considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable 
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be 
endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such 
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's 
regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be 
inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and 
safety of the public.
 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination 
Description of Amendment Request: [Plant name] requests adoption 
of an approved change to the standard technical specifications 
(STS) for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Plants (NUREG-1433 & 
NUREG-1434) and plant specific technical specifications (TS), to 
allow the use of the improved bank position withdrawal sequence 
(BPWS) during normal shutdowns in accordance with NEDO-33091-A, 
Revision 2, ``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' 
dated July 2004. The changes are consistent with NRC approved 
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476.
 
Basis for proposed no-significant-hazards-consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the 
issue of no-significant-hazards-consideration is presented below: 
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
 
The proposed changes modify the TS to allow the use of the 
improved bank position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during normal 
shutdowns if the conditions of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, 
``Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' July 2004, have 
been satisfied. The staff finds that the licensee's 
justifications to support the specific TS changes are consistent 
with the approved topical report and TSTF-476. Since the change 
only involves changes in control rod sequencing, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident after 
adopting TSTF-476 are no different than the consequences of an 
accident prior to adopting TSTF-476. Therefore, the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly 
affected by this change. Therefore, this change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
 
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously 
Evaluated.
 
The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The control rod drop accident 
(CRDA) is the design basis accident for the subject TS changes. 
This change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
 
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
 
The proposed change, TSTF-476, incorporates the improved BPWS, 
previously approved in NEDO-33091-A, into the improved TS.
 
Control rod drop accident
 
[[Page 26122]] (CRDA) is the design basis accident for the 
subject TS changes.
 
In order to minimize the impact of a CRDA, the BPWS process was 
developed to minimize control rod reactivity worth for BWR 
plants. The proposed improved BPWS further simplifies the control 
rod insertion process and, in order to evaluate it, the staff 
followed the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section 15.4.9, 
and referred to General Design Criterion 28 of Appendix A to 10 
CFR part 50 as its regulatory requirement. The TSTF stated the 
improved BPWS provides the following benefits: (1) Allows the 
plant to reach the all-rods-in condition prior to significant 
reactor cool down, which reduces the potential for re-criticality 
as the reactor cools down; (2) reduces the potential for an 
operator reactivity control error by reducing the total number of 
control rod manipulations; (3) minimizes the need for manual 
scrams during plant shutdowns, resulting in less wear on control 
rod drive (CRD) system components and CRD mechanisms; and, (4) 
eliminates unnecessary control rod manipulations at low power, 
resulting in less wear on reactor manual control and CRD system 
components. The addition of procedural requirements and 
verifications specified in NEDO-33091-A, along with the proper 
use of the BPWS will prevent a control rod drop accident (CRDA) 
from occurring while power is below the low power setpoint 
(LPSP). The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
 
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does 
not involve a significant hazards consideration.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ---- day of ------------, 
2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6678 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Pretoria News: Nuclear power the safest by far

Edition 1, Thursday 4th May              

Columnists
 	 	 	 	
Photo: INLSA                                                    

May 03, 2006            Edition 1                       

Earthlife Africa is either ignorant or dishonest. I refer to its
anti-nuclear protest on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
accident (Pretoria News, April 26).

Nuclear power has by far the best safety record of any source of
energy. This is over the full energy cycle, including extraction
and processing of fuel, construction, operation and waste
disposal. 

There has been only one accident in the nuclear power industry
in which more than five people were killed. This was at
Chernobyl in 1986. 

There have been hundreds of such accidents in the coal, oil,
hydro-power and gas industries. Why no Earthlife commemorations
for the thousands of people who have died in these accidents?
Why no Earthlife commemorations for South Africans who have died
in coal mine accidents?

The Chernobyl accident was caused by a crazy communist reactor
design that never would have been allowed in the West. 

According to the most authoritative study by the Chernobyl
Forum, involving hundreds of scientists and eight expert bodies
of the United Nations, the total number of people who died in 20
years from the Chernobyl accident is just over 50. 

Twice that number of South Africans die on average every week
from the use of paraffin as a form of household energy in
townships and informal settlements. 

Why no Earthlife commemorations for the South Africans who
suffered these horrible deaths? 

In the West, the worst accident at a nuclear power station was
at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979. It killed no one,
injured no one and had no health ill-effects afterwards. 

No other energy source can come close to this safety record. The
solar power accident at Barstow in the US in 1989 put people in
hospital. 

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station near Cape Town provides the
safest electricity in Africa. The pebble bed modular reactor
will be even safer.

It is fascinating that Earthlife Africa attacks nuclear power,
which has killed no one in Africa, but is silent about other
sources of energy, such as coal, gas and oil, that have killed
tens of thousands of people in Africa. 

I wonder where Earthlife Africa gets its funding from?

Andrew Kenny, Noordhoek

© 2006 Pretoria News & Independent Online (Pty) Ltd. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 32 Kyiv Post: Chornobyl project put on hold
 
Thu, May 04. 08:23         

by Vlad Lavrov, Kyiv Post Staff Writer

Despite delays, a massive containment arch over the existing
Chornobyl shelter could be in commission by the end of 2010, as
the years-long tender to find a contractor to build the arch
appears to be nearing to a close. 

It’s likely that by mid-June the world will know the winner of
the hugely lucrative tender, which could be worth more than $1
billion, according to Axel Reiserer, a spokesman for the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s London
office. The company that wins the tender will be responsible for
assembling and mounting a giant 100-meter-high, 150-meter-long
and 250-meter-wide arch to cover the plant’s notorious Reactor
No. 4, which was the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident
on April 26, 1986. 

The Post reported in June 2004 that the EBRD had planned to
announce the winner of the tender by the end of that year. At
the time, Vince Novak, the director of the EBRD’s nuclear safety
unit, had cited technical delays in the tender process. 

Now, nearly two years later, Novarca, a European joint venture
under the management of France’s Vinchi Group, and a United
States-Ukrainian consortium under the management of U.S.-based
CH2M Hill, have been singled out as the tender’s finalists. 

“It is a very complicated issue, and the first attempt to build
such a massive structure on the site of a nuclear accident,”
said Reiserer. For Reiserer, technical delays in such a project
are unavoidable. 

Mike Rengel, managing director at CH2M Hill’s London office,
told the Post on May 3 that the delays in the tender process
were not caused so much by the project’s technical difficulty as
by the amount of time it takes to get the necessary regulatory
approvals, which in Ukraine takes much longer than elsewhere. 

Similarly, Rengel said that should his company’s bid of more
than $584 million win the competition, he suspects it will face
more delays as a result of having to receive numerous approvals
from officials once construction of the containment arch gets
underway. 

CH2M Hill already has experience in Ukraine working on
EBRD-financed projects to modernize water supply systems in Lviv
and Zaporizhya. 

For the Chornobyl project, CH2M formed a partnership with
Kyiv-based construction company InterBudMontazh. 

Valeriy Kulishenko, the main engineer of the Shelter
Implementation Plan (SIP) Project Management Unit at the
Chornobyl Nuclear Power Station, explained that the massive
20,000-ton steel structure will be assembled on the Chornobyl
site about 200 meters away from the destroyed reactor and then
slid over to cover it completely. Kulishenko said that this
approach to constructing the containment arch will be used to
minimize the radiation impact on nearly 1,000 construction
workers who will be working at the site, since no one can work
in the most contaminated areas of the reactor for longer than 20
minutes. The reactor was initially covered with a makeshift roof
following the 1986 explosion, but the structure is unsafe and
subject to leaks. 

Reiserer said that of the project’s total costs, which the EBRD
estimates at $1.2 billion, nearly $900 million has already been
accumulated. The U.S. was the largest single donor with a
contribution of $130 million. Ukraine, in its turn, has
contributed $72 million. 

For its part, the Ukrainian side is seriously concerned about
the delays in the tender, as well as the way in which the SIP is
being implemented. 

According to information provided by the Emergency Ministry,
more than 330 million euros ($400 million) of the project’s
total funds have already been spent ahead of the tender’s
closure. This amount, according to the ministry, includes nearly
90 million euros ($108 million) in consulting fees. 

The ministry’s press service had said that the winner of the
tender would be announced no later than this March, but the EBRD
has once again postponed the decision. 

The Chornobyl station’s Kulishenko told the Post on May 3 that,
formally, the decision regarding which bidder gets the contract
was made back in March, but the losing company has appealed the
decision with the EBRD. 

Kulishenko expects the issue to be resolved by the end of May,
which would allow the Chornobyl station to sign the contract. 

The EBRD’s Reiserer would neither confirm nor deny this
information. CH2M’s Rengel also declined to comment on the
issue. 

Vinchi said it was unable to respond to the Post’s request for
comment. 

The Chornobyl nuclear power plant, located just 130 kilometers
north of Kyiv, was the site of the world’s worst nuclear
disaster in 1986, when its Reactor No. 4 exploded, spewing
radioactive fallout across parts of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and
northern Europe.The world commemorated the disaster on April 26,
which this year marked the tragedy’s 20th anniversary.
 
© 2004 - 2006, SputnikMedia.net.

Contact Kyiv Post         
*****************************************************************
 33 NRC: RC to Discuss 2005 Performance at South Texas Project Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-06-008           May 3, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

Project Nuclear Operating Co. officials on May 10, to discuss
the NRCs annual assessment of safety performance at the South
Texas Project nuclear plant during 2005. 

The 6 p.m. meeting at the Bay City Civic Center, 201 Seventh
St., Bay City, Texas, is open to public observation. Before the
session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer questions on
the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in
ensuring safe plant operation. 

Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the
nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV
Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an
opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local
officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting
with members of the community and answering any questions they
may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available
on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stp_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

Overall, South Texas Project operated safely during the period.
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors
start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red,
commensurate with the safety significance of the issues
involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance
indicators for the plant during the last quarter of 2005 were
determined to be green, South Texas Project will receive a
baseline (or routine) level of inspections during the upcoming
assessment period. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are emergency preparedness and radiological safety. 

Current performance information for South Texas Project Unit 1
is available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP1/stp1_chart.html.
Current performance information for South Texas Project Unit 2
is available at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP2/stp2_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 34 MyWestTexas.com: Design under way for reactor: UTPB hires nuclear phycisist 

Thursday, May 04 2006                                                                                                                                                                 

Midland Reporter-Telegram                                                                                                                                         

Staff Writer Midland Reporter-Telegram                       

05/03/2006[email 

With a nuclear physicist hired and preconceptual design under 
way, the high temperature teaching and test reactor is moving 
forward on schedule, University of Texas of the Permian Basin 
President David Watts said Tuesday. 

Watts is scheduled to speak today on the status of the project, 
which will give UTPB a chance to strengthen its science and 
engineering program, create research opportunities and economic 
development for the Permian Basin, officials have said. 

Steve Nelson, a nuclear physicist who earned his doctorate at 
Duke University, starts June 1 working on the so-called HTTR 
venture. He will be officed at the Center for Energy and Economic 
Diversification (CEED) building. 
z Nelson did his undergraduate and graduate work at Case Western 
Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, Watts said. Nelson has 
spent the last three years doing research on U.S. Navy reactors. 

Watts said the Navy has the largest number of nuclear reactors in 
the country and uses them in submarines and seagoing vessels. 

"We're very excited about having him. We're still looking for 
another physicist or engineer," Watts said. 

The reactor would be a state-of-the-art, helium-cooled nuclear 
research facility, built largely underground in Andrews County, 
also home to Waste Control Specialists, a low-level radioactive 
waste storage site and near the potential site for Louisiana 
Energy Services uranium enrichment facility in Lea County, N.M. 

The reactor would be a prototype for a full-size version at Idaho 
National Laboratory near Idaho Falls. Major partners on the 
project include University of Texas of the Permian Basin, General 
Atomics of San Diego and the UT System. Also involved are UT 
Austin, UT Dallas, UT El Paso, Midland, Odessa, Andrews, Sandia 
National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. and Thorium Power. 

A contract with General Atomics has been executed to do a 
preconceptual design on the reactor and a number of items are 
already in process for the project. "We're continuing with that 
work (the design) right now. The hiring of Dr. Nelson and another 
staff member will speed up that process," Watts said. 

He said the first stage of the preconceptual design should be 
done by August. 

Once the preconceptual design is completed, UTPB will return to 
the UT System Board of Regents to have them review and approve 
it. The next step would be to seek federal and other sources of 
revenue and go to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 
licensure. 

In the last several weeks, Watts said at least one visit has been 
made to Washington, D.C., to talk to the Texas congressional 
delegation, including U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. 

"It was a very encouraging series of meetings. We've also begun 
visiting with community leaders in New Mexico. We've talked with 
(U.S. Rep.) Steve Pearce, his staff member Bob Carter in Hobbs 
and met with a number of community leaders in Roswell," he said. 

"We're very encouraged by the response from New Mexico community 
leaders and their excitement about the project," he added. "We 
have also started conversations with a company called BWXT, a 
contractor for Pantex (near) Amarillo. We're looking for possible 
avenues of cooperation with BWXT." 

BWXT makes various nuclear related equipment. "Having a 
relationship with a company like BWXT provides options," he said. 

©MyWestTexas.com 2006                                   
*****************************************************************
 35 edie news centre: Giant scale is weak spot of nuclear power 
	
(3 May 2006)                      

The giant time and investment scales involved in nuclear power 
put it at an economic disadvantage in relation to renewables, a 
veteran Government advisor has said.                      

 While solar or wind technologies are applied to a diverse range 
of mostly small-scale projects, nuclear requires large 
investments and long-term commitments. Such commitments "cannot 
be undone," raising the risk for investors, said Walt Patterson, 
a leading nuclear expert and former special government advisor. 

Speaking at London's Chatham House, he said: "A nuclear power 
programme entails an array of industrial activities on a vast 
scale and over a timescale of many decades, interlinked and 
interdependent, with no applications outside the nuclear regime, 
civil and military." 

Walt Patterson, who is a nuclear physicist by training, said that 
Britain "seems to have forgotten" the lessons learnt since the 
onset of nuclear power. 

"The UK, for example, has never built a nuclear power station on 
time, or within budget, or that worked according to its original 
specifications - not once." 

Politicians and commentators have forgotten "the staggering sums 
of taxpayers' money poured into the nuclear black hole, in the UK 
as elsewhere, the arrogant incompetence of those spending it, the 
endless failures and futility," he said. 

The scales of nuclear projects also mean that generic problems
in power stations can be perpetuated, as happened twice in
75%-nuclear-powered France, where reactors are commissioned in
batches. 

Another "missed lesson" is America's "loopy" plan of
re-processing plutonium on a global scale, an unpopular idea
abandoned in the 1970s - and one that the Bush administration
now wants to resuscitate. 

The risks are not likely to subside as technology develops, as
increased complexity and the addition of "safety systems on top
of safety systems" can actually add to risk, with the security
systems themselves causing accidents, Walt Patterson said. 

So why the continuing interest in a nuclear renaissance from
governments the world over? That too may be a question of scale: 

"It is much easier to take one big macho decision for the next
10 years than lots of small, diverse projects," he said. 

Goska Romanowicz 

© Faversham House Group Ltd 2006. edie news articles may be
*****************************************************************
 36 Nanton News: Nuclear power not great for Alberta

Nanton, AB

May 3, 2006                                            

By Mail: Box 429 Nanton, AB, T0L 1R0 Phone: (403) 646-2023 Fax: 
(403) 646-2848                                                                                                                     

Wednesday May 03, 2006In the news for the past while have been
suggestions by groups of business people that Alberta should
seriously look into the idea of a nuclear power-plant which
would supply energy to Alberta’s north oil sands.

 Extracting oil from sand is a very time and energy-consuming
task. Currently, the oilsands are relying on expensive natural
gas to fuel their ever-demanding workload, and high natural gas
prices have only made it more expensive for oil companies to
produce a barrel of crude from Alberta’s north.

 Oil companies today are making massive profits, in the billions
of dollars, which means they can actually afford to extract oil
from sand. Alberta is currently free of a nuclear power plant,
instead relying on coal, natural gas, and wind to produce
electricity for Albertans daily needs. Most Canadians know that
Ontario is very reliant on nuclear power, which has proven to be
a safe yet expensive power option up to this point for Canada’s
biggest province.

 Recently, the world remembered the anniversary of the horrible
nuclear power plant disaster of Chernobyl. The effects of the
disaster come to fruition with each passing day in modern
Ukraine, which part of the old Soviet Union when the disaster
happened. Although the accident was blamed on poor plant
operating conditions, the site will be off limits for hundreds
of years to come. The hard truth is, nuclear power can be a
dangerous business when certain precautions are not taken. 

There are also future ramifications as well. One fact not yet
resolved is what to do with all of the nuclear waste. Bury it
underground, ship off to sea, throw it out to space? It does not
matter where it goes, as it will remain a dangerous threat for
generations to come. Is it worth putting future Albertans lives
at risk just to produce easy power? Is it worth risking the
lives of many in the future just for the sake of profit?

 Alberta has other options to serve its power needs that are
safer. Coal with modern technology, can be an extremely clean
power option. So can natural gas, as well as bio-fuels, wind and
water power. 

Although nuclear power done right has proven thus far to be safe
in North America and most of the rest of the world, what is 30
year’s worth of a proven track record. The waste has to go
somewhere, but that problem will fall in the hands of future
generations, something that has to be considered.

  Website: http://www.highrivertimes.com  
  Category: Miscellaneous  


Publisher: Nancy Middleton Proprietor and published by Bowes 
Publishers Limited at 2129 - 20 Street, Nanton, Alberta, Canada 
T0L 1R0                                                                                                                      
*****************************************************************
 37 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-06-009           May 3, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

annual assessment of safety performance at the Wolf Creek
nuclear plant during 2005. 

The 6 p.m. meeting at the Coffey County Library, 410 Juanita
Dr., Burlington, Ks., is open to public observation. Before the
session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer questions on
the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in
ensuring safe plant operation. 

Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the
nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV
Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an
opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local
officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting
with members of the community and answering any questions they
may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available
on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wc_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

Overall, Wolf Creek operated safely during the period. The NRC
uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with
green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate
with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all
of the inspection findings and performance indicators for the
plant during the last quarter of 2005 were determined to be
green, Wolf Creek will receive a baseline (or routine) level of
inspections during the upcoming assessment period. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are emergency preparedness and radiological safety. 

Current performance information for Wolf Creek is available on
the NRC web site at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WC/wc_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 38 asahi.com: Newsmaker: An invitation to close the nuclear umbrella

05/03/2006 BY SHINICHI IKEDA, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

NEW YORK--Nuclear weapons may seem impossible to defend against,
but one Mongolian diplomat thinks he has a decent solution:
Refuse to be protected by them either. 

Mongolia has already adopted the unique, and somewhat
controversial, policy of declaring itself a single-state
nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ). 

The United Nations officially recognized Mongolia as a
single-state NWFZ in 1998. 

Now Jargalsaikhany Enkhsaikhan, former Mongolian ambassador to
the United Nations, wants to spread the idea to other countries. 

Last year he founded a non-governmental organization (NGO) for
that purpose. 

Getting out of a nuclear umbrella is a realistic way to protect
people from the threats of nuclear weapons, says Enkhsaikhan,
55. 

A former diplomat at the Mongolian Embassy in Moscow when
Mongolia was a satellite of the Soviet Union, he became an
adviser to President Punsalmaagin Ochirbat when Mongolia became
a democracy in 1992, during which time he was involved in
working out the NWFZ policy. 

In conventional NWFZs, nuclear countries sign a treaty with
non-nuclear ones promising not to attack them. 

Then Mongolia, located between the two nuclear powers of Russia
and China, decided to make itself a NWFZ. 

Nuclear states were reluctant to approve Mongolia's plan, saying
that it would encourage other countries to follow suit. 

Enkhsaikhan persistently pressed them to change their minds,
however. 

The one-state NWFZ was finally approved at the U.N. General
Assembly in December 1998. 

Enkhsaikhan left the Mongolian government last year and set up
his "Blue Banner" NGO in the Mongolian capital, Ulan Bator. 

Through the organization, he hopes to persuade other countries
to become single-state NWFZs. 

He said he hopes the idea will soon seem less radical and more
like simple common sense.(IHT/Asahi: May 3,2006) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  

*****************************************************************
 39 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2006-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-06-028   		        May 2, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail:   
  

17, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance last
year at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant, located south of
Miami near Homestead, Fla. 

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers in Homesteads City
Hall. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment
and be available to respond to questions or comments from the
public before the close of the meeting. 

The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Turkey Point
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting
is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the
company, with local officials and with people living near the
plant. 

A March 2nd letter from the NRC Region II Office to plant
officials addresses the performance of the plant during the
period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion.
It is available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/tp_2005q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] . The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and
performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The
colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or
red, depending on the safety significance of the issues
involved. 

The Turkey Point plant operated safely during 2005, but Unit 4
crossed the threshold from green to white for the Unplanned
Scrams per 7000 Critical Hours performance indicator in last
years 3rd quarter. A supplemental inspection in December 2005
identified one green finding, meaning it was of very low safety
significance. 

In addition, both units had a white performance indicator for
Heat Removal System Unavailability in the 4th quarter of 2005. A
preliminary white finding involving an auxiliary feedwater pump
is also still under review and the NRC will conduct a
supplemental inspection on that issue sometime this year. 

With the exception of that supplemental inspection, the NRC
plans to conduct routine baseline inspections at the plant for
the rest of 2006. In addition, the NRC staff will conduct an
inspection of containment sump blockage that is part of a
generic inspection across plants. 

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II
Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville,
Md. Current information for the Turkey Point plant is available
on the NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP1/tp1_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP2/tp2_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 40 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Harris Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2006-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-06-029   		        May 2, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

the agencys assessment of safety performance last year at the
Harris nuclear power plant, located southwest of Raleigh, N.C. 

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 7:00 p.m. in the New Horizons Fellowship Annex, 820 E.
Williams St. (Highway 55) in Apex. The NRC staff will present
the results of the assessment and be available to respond to
questions or comments from the public. 

The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Harris plant
and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC
Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a
chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the
company, with local officials and with people living near the
plant. 

A March 2nd letter from the NRC Region II Office to plant
officials addresses the performance of the plant during the
period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion.
It is available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/har_2005q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] . 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start
with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending
on the safety significance of the issues involved. 

The Harris plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection
findings being green, or very low safety significance, and all
performance indicators also indicating performance at levels
requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC
plans to conduct routine baseline inspections at the plant for
the rest of 2006. 

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II
Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville,
Md. 

Current information for the Harris plant is available on the NRC
web site at:
 www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HAR1/har1_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 41 ENN: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Plans for Bird Flu Pandemic
     
Environment News Service (ENS)
 
WASHINGTON, DC, May 2, 2006 (ENS) - The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is working on a plan to keep the nation's 103 nuclear
power plants operating safely in the event that up to 40 percent
of the staff is absent from work for weeks with bird flu. The
Commission is considering using teleworking, bringing recent
retirees back on the job, and deferring activities such as
security exercises to maintain critical functions. 

Other federal government agencies are conducting similar
assessments, and the White House is set to issue its nationwide
flu pandemic planning document on Wednesday. 

The report builds on the strategy that President George W. Bush
outlined last November - new flu vaccine technology and greater
stockpiles of vaccines and anti-virals. 

The government projects a worst case scenario of up to two
million deaths in the United States if the deadly H5N1 viral
strain mutates into a virus that is easily transmitted from
person to person. 

[chicken] Health experts worry that the H5N1 virus that makes
chickens sick could mutate into virus that is easily spread
among humans. (Photo courtesy ) Globally, there have been 205
human cases of bird flu, 113 of them fatal, since the current
outbreak started in Southeast Asia in December 2003. 

Quarantine of exposed workers, restrictions on movement around
the country, and a limit on the number of international flights,
are among the possible government responses to a pandemic. 

The nuclear power industry is creating its own business
continuity planning and site-specific options, and is discussing
its efforts and potential needs with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 

In a closed-door workshop Thursday, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission focused on the critical functions that must be
maintained in the event of high absenteeism caused by a flu
pandemic and considered what regulatory relief might be
necessary if nuclear power plants faced similar staff shortages. 

The commission is contemplating granting regulatory relief from
minimum staffing or work hour requirements to nuclear power
plant licensees if staff members are sick. 

“We need to think creatively and strategically and work together
to address this potentially serious issue,” said NRC
Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, who was asked by Chairman Nils
Diaz to take a lead role in the review of the flu pandemic
planning effort. 

“Such a pandemic, should it occur, will be a serious issue for
this country, and maintaining the electrical grid while
continuing to provide for the safety and security of our
communities will be one of the most important tasks this country
faces,” Merrifield said. 

Based on federal government planning assumptions, the NRC is
determining how to maintain mission-critical functions with
absenteeism as high as 40 percent for periods of weeks in the
course of a 12 to 18 month period. 

The workshop, closed to the public due to the sensitive nature
of the discussions, included several panels and drew attendees
from other federal agencies, state government and power
companies. 

[control room] If nuclear power plant control room operators
contract bird flu, how would the plants continue to operate
safely? (Photo credit unknown) Discussions included a status of
the flu and the availability of vaccines and antiviral
medication; steps that might minimize the spread of the disease,
including sequestering employees. 

Workshop participants discussed the status of resident
inspectors who might fall ill, and the possibility of deferring
certain activities, such as force-on-force security exercises. 

The NRC anticipates continuing discussions with the industry and
the possibility of issuing generic guidance to power plant
operators in coming months. 

The agency formed an internal working group in March that is
preparing a report, to be finalized in the next few months,
outlining what key mission critical activities the NRC must
maintain. After the report is approved by the commission, some,
but not all, portions of it will be made public. 

The last pandemic was 1968-69 when 34,000 Americans died of the
Hong Kong flu (H3N2), a disease that scientists say is still
circulating. 

In 1957-58 Asian flu (H2N2) killed 70,000 people in the United
States. 

The worst flu pandemic was in 1918-19 when Spanish flu (H1N1)
was fatal to 500,000 in the United States and as many as 50
million worldwide.   

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved. 

*****************************************************************
 42 NRC: NRC Proposes $6,500 Fine 	for H Inspection Co. of Houston, Texas
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-006           May 
3, 2006 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: 
opa4@nrc.gov  

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine
of $6,500 against H&G Inspection Co., of Houston, Texas, for
violating NRC requirements. 

In a May 1 letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett,
Administrator of the NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas,
said that as a result of an NRC inspection, the agency
determined that the company violated NRC requirements for the
possession and use of radioactive materials. 

The violations involved failure to control and maintain constant
surveillance of radioactive material in an unrestricted area;
failure to have a second qualified individual observe
radiographic operations; and willful failure to properly handle
a radiographic device during transportation. 

Radiography is a non-destructive testing method which uses a
sealed radiation source to make x-ray like images of heavy metal
objects like pumps, valves and pipes. 

The NRC acknowledges that there were no actual safety
consequences as a result of these violations, Mallett said.
However, he added, these violations are serious because we rely
on the integrity of individuals performing licensed activities
to ensure public health and safety. 

NRC staff discussed the violations, their significance, the root
cause and the companys corrective actions during an enforcement
conference with H&G officials on April 13. The company has taken
steps to prevent recurrence, which the NRC acknowledged in the
May 1 letter. 

The NRC has classified each violation at Severity Level III. One
carries a $6,500 civil penalty. The agency has a four-level
severity scale in which Severity Level I is the most serious.
The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed fine or
challenge it. 

The NRCs letter, its enclosures, and the companys response will
be made available to interested members of the public through
the agencys public electronic reading room at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing
these documents is available from the NRC Public Document Room
at 1-800-397-4209.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 03, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 43 China Daily: Emergency system key to nuclear safety 

BIZCHINA / Center   

 By Le Tian (China Daily)
 
Updated: 2006-05-03 06:42

China has established an emergency response system to nuclear
accidents to ensure that the country's nuclear power production
programme grows safely, the National Atomic Energy Authority
said. 

Such a system at the national, provincial/municipal, and power
plant levels has operated well for the past 20 years, the Xinhua
News Agency reported yesterday. 

The system is a result of continuing efforts to improve
regulations as well as infrastructure related to nuclear power
generation, the agency said. 

The State Council approved a medium- and long-term nuclear power
development plan (2006-20) in March, which said nuclear power is
a strategic energy source and should be developed to meet the
country's growing energy demand. 

Plans have also been formulated to help prevent nuclear
accidents, Xinhua said. 

Rules on the management of nuclear power plants were unveiled
starting from 1986. To strengthen management in the sector, the
State Council has decided to establish a special commission on
nuclear accidents, which is responsible for relief and rescue
efforts. 

"Nuclear safety is the lifeline of the nuclear industry," Sun
Qin, director of the National Atomic Energy Authority, said in
an article published in People's Daily on Sunday to commemorate
the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the world's
worst nuclear power accident. 

The tragedy occurred at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union
(now Ukraine) on April 25-26, 1986, killing more than 30 people
immediately. As a result of the high radiation in the
surrounding 32-kilometre radius, 135,000 people had to be
evacuated. 

The Chernobyl accident made many countries realize the necessity
to prepare for nuclear emergencies, Sun said. 

In contrast to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, which was a
graphite-moderated reactor or boiling water reactor, the ones
used in China are heavy water reactors, which are safer in
design, structure and operation, Sun said. 

China has kept good safety records in the nuclear sector, with
no operational accidents having taken place, and the radiation
that workers receive is within the national safety standards,
Sun said in the article. 

Highlighting the importance of safety, Sun said greater
attention must be paid to the design, building, operation and
management of nuclear power plants. 

Since China built its first nuclear power plant in 1991, nine
nuclear power generation units are now in operation, with a
combined capacity of 7 million kilowatts. 

Another nuclear power plant in Tianwan of Jiangsu Province will
start operation soon, which will increase the total capacity to
9 million kilowatts, Sun said. 

The nation plans to increase the total capacity of its nuclear
power plants to 40 million kilowatts by 2020, Xinhua said. 


(China Daily 05/03/2006 page1) 

*****************************************************************
 44 [NYTr] Iran Discovers New Uranium Deposits
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:09:15 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP via Yahoo - May 2, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear

Iran Discovers New Uranium Deposits

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

Iran said Tuesday it had found uranium ore at three new sites in the center
of the country, an announcement that appeared designed as a fresh challenge
to the drive by the United States and allies to curb Tehran's nuclear
program.

Iran already has considerable uranium resources available for its nuclear
program, a fact that called into question the importance of the new
discoveries  beyond their propaganda value.

"We have got good news: the discovery of new economically viable deposits of
uranium in central Iran," Mohammad Ghannadi, deputy chief for nuclear
research and technology, told a conference.

He said the deposits were found in the Khoshoomi region, Charchooleh and
Narigan.

Iran's principal source of uranium is the Saghand mine in the center of the
country, which has the capacity to produce 132,000 tons of ore per year.

Ghannadi said Iran's enrichment of uranium was continuing, but he confirmed
reports that a few of centrifuges at the enrichment facility in Natanz had
crashed last month.

"It's not a problem. They were repaired," Ghannadi said in this holy city
south of Tehran.

Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium through cascades of
centrifuges for the first time.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran cease enrichment until all
questions have been answered about extent of its nuclear program. Enriched
uranium is used a fuel for nuclear power generators or in nuclear warheads.

Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has
flouted a Security Council deadline to suspend enrichment and had failed to
provide answers to questions about its program.

Iran says its nuclear program is confined to generating power, but the
United States and France accuse the country of secretly trying to build
nuclear weapons.

Representatives of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and
China discussed the outlines of a Security Council resolution on Iran's
nuclear program in Paris on Tuesday.

"I think what we will see unfold is that European governments will put
forward following today's (Tuesday's) discussion some form of Chapter 7
resolution, and we'll discuss the form of it," U.S. Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns said before the talks began.

A resolution under the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7 makes any demands mandatory
and allows for the use of sanctions and possibly force.

Russia and China have said they are opposed to sanctions on Iran's nuclear
program.

Copyright ) 2006 The Associated Press

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 45 [NukeNet] NJPIRG Article about Shirani and dry cask issues on
 
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:50:09 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

This is a long and complicated article, but within it are Dr Shiranis 
concerns about the dry casks to be used at Hope Creek to store spent fuel.



Norm





Clean Energy Solutions

<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=15356>Overview | 
<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=23504>Policy Agenda | 
<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=8943>Resources |

For More Information:
Oscar Shirani
(630) 790-9650
obshirani@yahoo.com

Dr. Ross Landsman
NRC Region III Decommissioning Branch
630 829 9609

Oscar Shirani's Story

Mr. Oscar Shirani is a nuclear engineer who was employed in the nuclear 
industry for 23 years. He started with Commonwealth Edison, which was later 
taken over by Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear utility, as a structural 
engineer. He has authored numerous publications in technical trade 
journals, some of which have been used as codes and guidelines by nuclear 
power plant manufacturers and organizations such as the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Motor Operated Valve Users Group (MUG), 
and American Power Conferences. He has also received numerous honors and 
awards from ComEd and various trade groups and was often invited to lead 
national quality assurance trainings for other nuclear industry inspectors.

Besides serving as senior lead quality assurance inspector for ComEd and 
Exelon for most of the 1990s, Mr. Shirani also performed that function for 
coalitions of nuclear utilities, such as the Nuclear Users Procurement 
Issues Committee, or NUPIC. Mr. Shirani was selected a number of times by 
NUPIC to lead quality assurance inspections of Holtec dry casks, which are 
certified by the NRC to both store and transport irradiated nuclear fuel, 
or high-level waste, across the country.

Holtec International, based in Marlton, New Jersey makes dry casks are to 
be used for storing high-level waste at thirty-three of the nation's 
nuclear power plants, including Indian Point in New York, Quad Cities and 
Dresden in Illinois. According to the company's website, they plan to being 
loading spent fuel into Holtec dry casks at PSEG's Hope Creek reactor at 
the Salem site starting in 2006. These casks are also designed to transport 
spent fuel on the country's rail lines and public roads, where up to 50 
million people live within half a mile. Faulty containers increase the 
likelihood of a nuclear accident at any of those places.

Mr. Shirani and his team found so many design, manufacturing, and 
regulatory code violations with the Holtec dry casks that in May 2000, he 
recommended that Exelon issue a Stop Work Order to force the company to 
correct its faulty practices. Shirani was particularly concerned about 
defective welds on the casks that would be weakened by heat-related stress. 
Mr. Shirani was already in trouble with ComEd because of an earlier Stop 
Work Order he issued against General Electric Nuclear Engineering (GENE) 
because of more than 50 design, safety system, and safety parts violations 
in GE Boiling Water Reactors, which make up about one-third of the nation's 
fleet of nuclear power reactors.

Shirani told ComEd managers that if they didn't issue the Stop Work Order 
to Holtec and then used the casks, Exelon would be liable if there was ever 
an accident. ComEd issued the Stop Work Order and soon after, Jim Gill, 
Chairman of the Dry Cask Quality Group, requested that ComEd send Shirani 
to conduct a utility-wide audit, especially because ComEd's Dresden 
reactors were going to be the first to use the casks.

When Shirani told his superior, Russ Bastyr, Manager of ComEd's Supply 
Evaluation Services, about the request, Bastyr told him not to go, stating 
that they only audit companies every two to three years. Shirani then went 
to Paul Planning, Director of Dry Casks at the Dresden plants, who also had 
concerns about Holtec. Planning convinced ComEd managers to send Shirani to 
conduct the audit, and Shirani took four of the company's best engineers 
with him.

On the first day of the audit, June 19, 2000, they found major design and 
welding issues and told Holtec that the findings didn't look good and that 
in fact it appeared the company was violating NRC design regulations. On 
the second day of the audit, June 20, 2000, Tom Joyce, the Vice President 
of Supply for ComEd, told Shirani to leave the audit and fly to 
Philadelphia to interview for a position as the Vice President of Supply 
for Enterprise, ComEd's non-nuclear division. When Shirani told Joyce that 
he was in the middle of conducting an audit, Joyce said that he was 
required to go to the interview. With great reluctance, Shirani went to the 
interview. His interviewer, Honorio Pavron, was two hours late and promptly 
told Shirani that his resume didn't fit the experience the job required.

When Shirani got back to the audit on June 21, the engineers from Southern 
Nuclear and New York power had left and the experts from ComEd had been 
transferred back to the field. He was left with three auditors who had with 
little to no welding experience. Shirani then extended the audit to the 
following week, went back to the site with the two welding engineers he 
originally selected, and found nine significant findings with the Holtec casks.

Shirani returned to Illinois on July 7 and issued his final audit report on 
August 4. During that time, Shirani had two job interviews-jobs for which 
Bastyr recommended him. Shirani was shocked to find out that one of the 
jobs was Bastyr's-the Manager of Supply Evaluation Services. The other job 
was not in ComEd's nuclear division. When Shirani interviewed for Bastyr's 
job, he interviewed with Tony Broccolo, Bastyr's good friend. Instead of 
interviewing Shirani about his professional experience, Broccolo asked 
Shirani to recall his recent disagreements with Bastyr so that they were 
properly documented.

On August 4, Shirani submitted his final audit report. He also told Bastyr 
that he needed to conduct a follow up audit that other utilities were 
asking for. Basyter told him there was no budget for a follow up audit.

At the same time Shirani submitted his audit on Holtec, ComEd was 
finalizing the merger with PSEG. Exelon, the new name for the merged 
utilities, distributed a company-wide email informing staff that they could 
apply for numerous merger-related job openings between August 4 and August 
17. Shirani asked Bastyr to nominate him for two positions. On August 17 
and during September, Shirani wrote Bastyr three reminding him, but Bastyr 
never responded.

It is important to note that during this time, the supervisor of an 
anonymous manager at Exelon's Byron plant, who had previously raised 
concerns about safety culture at the plant, requested his supervisor to 
nominate him for a new position on August 18. His supervisor refused to 
nominate him and he was terminated two months later. He then filed a 
whistleblower complaint to the NRC. Since he was clearly in the right, and 
Exelon admitted the harassment and agreed to a series of surveys and 
trainings they said would improve safety culture at the plant. Since Exelon 
was proactive in this case, the NRC did not issue any violations.

However, when the NRC investigated Shirani's complaints, they didn't take 
it as seriously since he wasn't actually terminated. In the end, the NRC 
accepted the excuse that the time period for nominating an employee for a 
new position in the merged company had expired. This is a blatant double 
standard, since the employee at the Byron plant requested nomination on 
August 18 and Shirani requested nomination a day earlier, on August 17.

On November 29, 30 and 31, Holtec hosted a utility-wide users group 
meeting. Shirani never received the invite, but when he heard about it from 
a co-worker, he changed his flight from a vacation in Brazil to attend. 
After Dr. Ross Landsman of the NRC's Region III Decommissioning Branch 
asking the company some probing questions, Shirani got on the speakerphone 
and summarized his findings to the audience and explained how Exelon 
wouldn't let him finish the audit. After he spoke, Landsman approached him, 
telling him there weren't many people like him left in the industry. 
Landsman also said that he was never told about Shirani's audit, even 
though Landsman is in charge of all the dry casks in the Midwest.

After Shirani's conversation with Landsman, Dr. Kris Singh, Holtec's 
President and CEO approached him. Singh told Shirani not to send Landsman 
the audit and that it would ruin Exelon. Singh also offered Shirani a 
six-figure job at Holtec. Shirani refused the offer. The following day, 
Landsman told Shirani that at dinner the night of November 30, Singh also 
approached Landsman, telling him to leave the NRC to come work for Holtec. 
Landsman also refused the offer.

When Shirani returned to work on December 1 and told Bastyr about his 
conversation with Landsman, Bastyr told Shirani not to send the audit. 
Shirani then told Bastyr that if he couldn't send the audit through Exelon, 
then he would hand deliver it to Landsman.
After Shirani went back and forth with different levels of management and 
being belittled and cursed at several times, Exelon sent a censored audit 
to Landsman on December 13. In the letter, Exelon wrote that as per their 
discussion over the phone, the information was proprietary and was not to 
be disclosed to the public. Although Shirani didn't know it at the time, 
Exelon altered the conclusion of his August 4 report, stating that the 
findings had been resolved. Shirani discovered this falsification when he 
saw the document at Department of Labor hearings in 2002.

However, before the letter was sent to Landsman, Shirani got a call from 
Ruth Ann Gillis, Senior Vice President of Exelon's finance division and 
Executive Sponsor of Exelon's Asian-American employees. Shirani was a 
leader in the Asian-American group, so he knew Gillis even though she was 
not in the nuclear division. Gillis called Shirani on December 7 and asked 
told him she needed to see him in Chicago immediately. Asir Dasilva, Vice 
President of Diversity, also called him to request a meeting with him the 
same day.

When Shirani met with Dasilva, Dasilva discouraged him from taking a 
position as a Diversity Manager in Exelon's nuclear division, a position 
Shirani had applied for in October. Right after the meeting with Dasilva, 
Shirani met with Gillis, who told him that Exelon wanted to hire him as a 
tax manager in the financial division doing financial audits. Shirani 
replied with concern, telling her that he had no financial experience or 
education. Gillis told him not to worry and that they would give him six to 
nine months of training through Arthur Anderson. Gillis also told him that 
he was in the line of fire at the nuclear division and that he didn't have 
a chance of moving up the chain of command if he stayed there.

Shirani told Gillis he would think about the financial job, but never 
applied. Gillis recommended Shirani for the position of Principal Auditor 
Level E4 anyway, with an $8,000 salary increase.

A week later, on December 19, Gillis called Shirani in the evening. After 
talking for half an hour, Gillis persuaded him to take the job. To cover 
her tracks, Gilis then told Shirani he needed to call Rich Landy, Vice 
President of Human Resources in the nuclear division, and tell Landy he was 
accepting a different job in the financial division.

The next day, on December 20, Shirani received an email from Jon Rowe, 
Exelon CEO, congratulating him on his new position. Shirani was surprised 
to get a personal email from Rowe, a man in charge of 28,000 employees and 
150 vice presidents, congratulating him for a position that didn't even 
include managerial responsibility.

Shirani started the new job in Philadelphia on January 15, 2001. Two days 
later, on January 17, Landsman sent a memo to Bruce Jorgensen, NRC Chief of 
the Region III Decommissioning Branch, citing serious concerns with Holtec 
dry casks and emphasizing Shirani's audit. He wrote, "during discussions 
[at the Holtec Users Group Meeting in November 2000], a ComEd QA auditor 
[Shirani] indicated that U.S. Tool & Die (the fabricator of the Holtec 
casks) appears to have a broken corrective action system. I just received a 
copy of the audit and discovered that the corrective action system wasn't 
the worst thing broken." Landsman proceeded to summarize Shirani's audit, 
noting that "the audit was done in June-July 2000, and still the issues are 
not resolved. Worse yet, I just discovered that the Audit Team Leader 
[Shirani] is being moved sideways on site, out of the audit group. These 
findings will be dropped." Landsman concluded that "This audit indicates 
that in no way do they [Exelon] meet our Region III requirements in 
implementation of the program. Cost and scheduling are controlling the work."

On January 29, Landsman called Shirani, after discovering that Shirani had 
moved to the financial division. Landsman told Shirani he was worried about 
him, that he guessed Exelon managers had tricked Shirani into agreeing to 
be transferred out of the nuclear division--common industry practice for 
potential whistleblowers.

Landsman was able to postpone the loading of the dry casks at Dresden for 
several months, but his concerns were eventually overridden by the NRC 
Nuclear Reactor Regulations division-the same agency that failed to 
identify problems with the cask in the first place. The NRC has sat on the 
issue since. Landsman refused to sign NRC papers permitting the loading of 
the casks, but the NRC has allowed the loading to occur anyway. Now, the 
same Holtec dry casks are in use at 33 reactors around the country.

Between January and April 2001, Shirani worked hard at his new job, but 
never got the training Gillis had promised. In April, Ellen Caya came in as 
Vice President of Exelon's financial auditing division. In May, Caya went 
to lunch with Shirani. Shirani told her about all of his troubles in the 
nuclear division. Caya then told him she couldn't use him in the financial 
department, as the job didn't fit his background. She told him that his 
position requires eight to fifteen years of experience and a CPA license 
and encouraged Shirani to get a job somewhere else.

On July 19, Caya's first written evaluation of Shirani said he was a 
diligent, hard worker. Shirani told Gillis about the evaluation, and two 
days later, Gillis met with Shirani and Caya, telling Caya to apologize to 
Shirani and to keep him on staff.

In September, Shirani and a few others in the auditing division were 
required to re-apply for their positions due to re-organization connected 
to the merger. When Caya wrote to him that he needed to have the eight to 
fifteen years of experience required to keep his position, Shirani got 
nervous. Shirani couldn't even apply for a demoted position as a financial 
auditor, as it also required four to six years of experience. He told 
Martha Garza, Manager of Ethics and Diversity in Exelon's Human Resources 
department about his concerns, Garza told him not to worry.
In October, Arthur Anderson evaluation of Shirani contradicted Caya's 
earlier review. Soon after the evaluation, Dasilva and Elieter Palacio, 
Director of Ethics at Exelon met with Shirani. They told him they didn't 
want him back in the nuclear division, that they weren't happy with him in 
the financial division, concluding that he should leave the company 
altogether.

On October 22, Caya told Shirani he wasn't qualified for his position, as 
it was changing from principal auditor to principal manager, and he was 
fired. At court proceedings through the Department of Labor, the official 
letter changing the name of Shirani's position from auditor to manager was 
dated on October 26, after Shirani had already left staff.

According to NRC whistleblower regulations, a former employee has 180 days 
after leaving their job to file a complaint of wrongful termination. Since 
Shirani's complaints were related to his job in the nuclear division, but 
he stayed in the financial division until October 2001, the 180 day 
deadline had passed by the time he made a formal complaint to the NRC on 
November 31, 2001. The NRC's Office of Inspector General ruled that Shirani 
didn't tell the NRC until November 31, 2001, but Shirani contends that he 
made his concerns clear to the NRC a year earlier, on November 30, 2000 
when he spoke with Landsman.

Shirani's case is currently in the appeals court of the Department of 
Labor. Shirani has since applied for engineering jobs at several nuclear 
facilities, but feels he has been blackballed from the industry, even here 
in New Jersey. In December 2003, Shirani applied for a job at PSEG's Salem 
plant. In January, Francis Albert, who works for Aerotek, the company that 
handles staffing for PSEG, called him and flew him out for an interview. At 
the meeting, Albert and three other PSEG managers told Shirani he had more 
knowledge about dry casks than anyone else and hired him on the spot. Two 
days later, Albert sent Shirani and email telling him that Ken Fleischer, a 
former ComEd electrical engineer, said to say hello. The next day, Shirani 
called Albert to finalize the details, and Albert hung up the phone. 
Shirani called and emailed Albert but never received a response.

<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=15356>Overview | 
<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=23504>Policy Agenda | 
<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=8943>Resources |

THE NEW JERSEY PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP

Citizen Lobby and Law & Policy Center
11 North Willow Street " Trenton, NJ 08608 " 609-394-8155


<http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=12182>Contact Us

<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=1906&id3=NJ>Privacy Policy

<http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=13311>Jobs

<http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=9442>Internships

<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman3/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http:/messenger.yahoo.com>Yahoo! 
Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.



Coalition for Peace and Justice; UNPLUG Salem Campaign, 321 Barr Ave, 
Linwood; NJ08221; 609-601-8583

----------
From: Oscar Shirani [mailto:obshirani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:51 AM
To: efleischauer@decaturdaily.com; clinton@lists.nonewnukes.org; 
gcannon@th-record.com; JNicker657@aol.com; asears@wbai.org; 
deb@nukebusters.org; ambladei@aol.com; ncohen12@comcast.net; 
amorigan01@msn.com; whistleblowers@lists.nonewnukes.org; 
johnsrud@csrlink.net; dianed@nirs.org; mbuntin@yahoo.com; 
ataher@townisp.com; member@CITIZEN.ORG; PC_MEMBERS@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG; 
catalyst@actionpa.org; grandgulf@lists.nonewnukes.org; 
northanna@lists.nonewnukes.org; writers@lists.nonewnukes.org; 
jjcolman@gobrainstorm.net; mail@democracynow.org; megan@nuclearpolicy.org; 
abhayathiele@yahoo.com; julie@nuclearpolicy.org; shkraus48@yahoo.com; 
jbaird@sltrib.com; geoff@ower.org; shadis@prexar.com; 
kcasa@vermontguardian.com; ross@landsman.info; 
schryver.ryan@students.uwlax.edu; stewart.matt@students.uwlax.edu; 
vaughn.gail@uwlax.edu; wolfclan3@centurytel.net; dcpino@yahoo.com; 
sshirani@merithomehealth.com; por_ti_a_17@yahoo.com; nad_23_xo@yahoo.com; 
wweaver@nswbc.org; shawnshirani@yahoo.com; sleta@njpirg.org
Subject: Fwd: NJPIRG Article about Shirani and dry cask issues on website 
(NJPIRG)





Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 46 [NukeNet] DOE PREDICTS NUKE REACTIONS IN CASKS
 
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:50:11 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

November 26, 2003



DOE predicts nuke reactions in casks




Nevadans worry about danger at Yucca

By Suzanne Struglinski
<<mailto:suzanne@lasvegassun.com>suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
LAS VEGAS SUN

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department predicts up to 60 uncontrolled nuclear 
reactions would take place inside nuclear waste casks stored at power plant 
sites should the casks corrode, according to a department study obtained by 
Nevada officials.

After a review of the documents, state officials say they believe the same 
thing would happen at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, 90 
miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The state wants the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent 
board set up by Congress to review the potential dump, to look into the 
matter.

"We were amazed to learn, after finally obtaining some of the pertinent 
documents from the Department of Energy through the Freedom of Information 
Act, that DOE's own studies anticipate that, if the repository operates as 
is now planned, up to 60 nuclear criticalities may plausibly occur inside 
the mountain, and that (the) conditional probability of occurrence may be 
greater than one in 1,000 per year," Bob Loux, executive director of the 
state's Agency for Nuclear Projects wrote to board Chairman Michael Corradini.

Criticalities are uncontrolled nuclear reactions that could occur if water 
-- or other liquids -- got inside the casks. It could start a mininuclear 
reaction inside the casks and cause a steam explosion, said Washington 
attorney Joe Egan, who represents the state on Yucca matters.

The issue of water seepage at Yucca Mountain has been a critical point of 
debate over the planned nuclear waste repository. Scientists are still 
studying how water moves through the mountain. With or without water, the 
casks are eventually expected to corrode over a period of thousands of years.

State officials expressed surprise that the report wasn't disclosed as part 
of the Yucca Mountain debate.

They say Energy officials have said that the issue won't affect Yucca 
Mountain and state officials say this study shows that it does.

But Allen Benson, a Yucca Mountain project spokesman in Nevada, said the 
documents the state received do not relate to Yucca Mountain but are from a 
4-year-old report looking at on-site waste storage facilities at nuclear 
power plants.

Benson said the department was glad Loux sent the letter to the board since 
it can now choose to review the matter, but that on-site storage and 
storage inside Yucca "are two different things."

Benson said that since the report shows that criticalities can take place 
inside above-ground storage containers at the 103 nuclear power plants 
throughout the country, especially if water gets in them, it makes even 
more sense to store the waste in Yucca, which is in the desert.

But state officials say the fact that the Energy Department acknowledges in 
this report that criticality is an issue is a huge threat.

Egan and Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval filed petitions with the 
U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court 
to include the FOIA documents in the court record. The state's major court 
arguments on the site will take place there on Jan. 14.

Loux said the department only predicated an "extremely low probability of 
occurrence" of such reactions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
issued last year. He quotes the document's specific text to that effect in 
his letter to Corradini.

State officials had Michael Thorne, a criticality expert, review the report 
and found that an expected 60 chain reaction events would occur throughout 
the lifetime of the repository since the department anticipates the waste 
packages will degrade over time.

"A criticality occurring in the repository could severely compromise the 
entire facility, vastly increasing radionuclide releases and making waste 
packages irretrievable," Loux wrote.

The department documents do not have a timeline for the events to occur, 
according to the letter.

"These are not nuclear explosions," Egan said. "We are not trying to scare 
anyone ... we are not saying this is going to happen, but DOE's own 
analysis notes it was a nonspeculative scenario."

But if the casks were to burst, the radioactive material would go with it. 
"It's literally a dirty bomb, a conventional explosion with radioactive 
materials," Egan said.

"Their maximum accident scenario in transport is $18 billion in clean-up 
(costs) and 44 early fatalities, and that's with a small puff of radiation 
not an explosion -- they call it a 'violent event' which is a euphemism for 
explosion," Egan said.

---------------
BODY BURDEN -- HUMAN CONTAMINATION
<http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/es.php>http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/es.php

Human Breast Milk Toxic Study
<http://www.sundayherald.com/print37667>http://www.sundayherald.com/print37667

Radiation & Public Health
<http://www.radiation.org/index.html>http://www.radiation.org/index.html

RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECT--DR. BERTELL
<http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html>http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html

"

Editorial: "Make Up More Stuff"

April 2 - 3, 2005

On Tuesday a House subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., will 
hold a hearing into allegations that scientific records involving the Yucca 
Mountain project were falsified. Last month the Energy Department disclosed 
the existence of e-mails sent by U.S. Geological Survey employees working 
on the Yucca Mountain project's quality assurance program, messages that 
discussed fabricating scientific information about how water moves through 
the mountain. On Friday the Associated Press disclosed the content of some 
of the e-mails, which, to put it simply, are chilling.

"I don't have a clue when these programs were installed. So I've made up 
the dates and names," a U.S. Geological Survey employee wrote in one 
e-mail. "This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I 
will be happy to make up more stuff." In yet another e-mail, the AP 
reported, the same employee wrote to a colleague about what appear to be 
his sentiments about quality assurance: "In the end I keep track of 2 sets 
of files, the one that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually 
used."

How damaging the e-mails are to the Yucca Mountain project's credibility -- 
and its future -- can't be overstated. After all, a federal employee is 
blithely discussing tampering with scientific work that goes to the very 
heart of whether Yucca Mountain can safely contain nuclear waste. If, as 
Nevada officials have contended, water can travel more rapidly through the 
mountain than the Energy Department asserts, then there is a real 
likelihood of the water corroding the canisters holding the nuclear waste, 
enabling the deadly substance to escape. Such a finding would be a 
show-stopper, resulting in Yucca Mountain being unable to receive a license 
to operate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

When Yucca Mountain eventually meets its demise, we'd suggest that a 
fitting epitaph could come from one of the aforementioned e-mails. Our 
favorite: "If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff." 
We can't think of a more apt description for the absolute disregard for 
science at Yucca Mountain.

----------------

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at 
<http://nucnews.net>http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and 
research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *




_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 47 [NukeNet] NUCLEAR WASTE DECLARED SAFE
 
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:50:13 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

2/19/05
Nuclear Waste (Declared) Safe

At the nation's three major nuclear reservations - Hanford, Wash., Aiken, 
S.C., and Idaho Falls, Idaho - radioactive wastes sit in underground 
containers that will give way long before the deadly substances stored 
inside them become inert.

Some tanks are already leaking, threatening to contaminate ground water and 
soils well past our lifetime.

A huge debate has gone on for decades about removal and disposal of this 
menace. The government designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a national 
repository for most radioactive wastes.

But it turns out that removing the hard-to-get-at radioactive sludge at the 
three nuclear reservations will be massively expensive.

The problem could be avoided if Congress insisted that the price of every 
new weapon included the cost of cleaning up wastes from its production. The 
resulting sticker shock would have the additional virtue of curbing the 
Congress' appetite for wave after wave of exotic weapons.

But last week, the clever Senate came up with its own way to "solve" the 
waste problem. It supported South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment 
to ease clean-up requirements for underground tanks by deeming the wastes 
to be harmless enough to stay in place - despite scientific findings 
showing serious risks to the environment if they remain.

One wave of the wand, and - presto! - the threat is gone.

The vote would allow the Energy Department to reclassify radioactive sludge 
so that it can be covered with concrete rather than be shipped to a 
permanent repository in the Nevada desert.

Although the amendment was designed by Senator Graham for the South 
Carolina nuclear reservation, the language is likely broad enough to apply 
to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state along the Columbia 
River, where 53 million gallons of waste is stored in 177 primitive tanks.

Sixty-seven Hanford storage tanks are known to have leaked or are leaking. 
Tritium is known to have leached into the Columbia River, presaging a 
radioactive threat to fisheries and millions of residents downstream. In 
1992, the mixture in some tanks became so combustible that officials 
worried that the cylinders might explode.

Scientists don't know precisely what's in the tanks at Hanford. Workers 
from the old days are thought to have tossed chemicals, oily truck parts 
and all manner of other debris into the tanks along with the hot stuff.

Hanford is rooted in the U.S. drive to make weapons grade material first 
for World War II, and later for the Cold War.

In this atmosphere, spent fuel and other wastes were regarded as a 
secondary nuisance, their disposal an afterthought - a pesky diversion from 
the real work of munitions making. At times, hasty workers even poured 
radioactive wastes into open, unlined pits.

"It's a witch's brew," says Robin Klein of a citizens group in Portland 
called Hanford Action.

That it is. But thank God Senator Graham knows how to handle it! Just 
redefine the problem so it's no longer a problem.

No scientific testimony was allowed on the Graham amendment. No public 
testimony was allowed, either.

In fact, there wasn't a single public hearing. Instead, Senator Graham 
slipped the amendment into a huge defense bill during a closed-door meeting 
from which the public and media were excluded.

Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell's attempt to remove the provision died on a 
tie vote, 48-48.

Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith supported Cantwell, but it was 
not enough to save the day.

Even now, as the Bush administration pushes for a new generation of nuclear 
munitions, it's sobering to realize that making weapons to protect us from 
threats abroad is endangering us here at home.

Hmm. Safety is danger: George Orwell could not have put it better.

Les AuCoin is a writer and teacher living in Ashland. He represented 
Oregon's 1st District in Congress for 18 years.




_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 48 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield faces criminal charges
 
From Press Association   

[UP] 

Wednesday May 3, 2006 9:18 PM

Criminal charges are to be brought against the Sellafield
Nuclear power plant over a radioactive leak which went
undiscovered for months, the Health and Safety Executive has
said. 

The facility's owner, British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd, is
charged with breaching conditions regarding the safe storage of
radioactive materials. 

The decision follows the discovery of 18,257 gallons (83 cubic
metres) of radioactive liquor inside a protected area of the
Thorp reprocessing plant in April last year. 

Two managers were suspended after the leak of acid containing
uranium and plutonium leaked from a pipe inside the shielded
area of the processing plant. 

The liquor leaked into a stainless steel-lined cell with 1.5m
thick concrete walls and was discovered on April 19, 2005. HSE
officials said there is no current evidence of any harm to
workers or the public. 

The facility remains closed and both managers have now been
reinstated following an internal inquiry. It is thought the
fluid may have been leaking for several months before it was
uncovered, said a Sellafield spokeswoman. 

A statement released by the HSE read: "The prosecution follows a
detailed investigation by HSE's Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate into a leak of radioactive liquor inside a heavily
shielded facility at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
(Thorp). 

"HSE was notified of the incident on April 20, 2005. HSE has
applied to the courts for summonses alleging that BNGSL breached
three conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence granted
under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended)." 

The Sellafield spokeswoman added: "The company has fully
co-operated with the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII)
throughout its investigation and continues to make good progress
against the measures needed to enable the Thorp facility to
become operational again subject to regulations." 

She added that it would be inappropriate to comment further as
the case was the subject of legal proceedings. A legal hearing
has been scheduled for June 8 at Whitehaven Magistrates Court in
Cumbria. 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 49 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Uranium at Level to Fuel Reactors
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday May 3, 2006 11:31 AM

AP Photo VAH101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's nuclear chief said Wednesday that
Iran has enriched uranium up to 4.8 percent - the upper end of
the range needed to make fuel for reactors - as it continues to
defy U.S. and European demands to stop enrichment. 

The announcement by nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh tops
Iran's declaration last month that it had surpassed the 3.6
percent purity level. Uranium enriched to between 3.5 and 5
percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate
electricity. 

Enriched to more than 90 percent, it becomes suitable for use in
nuclear weapons. Aghazadeh added that Iran has no intention of
enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. 

International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna, Austria,
said they had no information about the claim. The agency - whose
inspection powers have been curtailed in recent months by Iran -
said in a report sent to the U.N. Security Council on Friday
that Iran's claim to have enriched small amounts to a level of
3.6 percent appeared to be true according to initial analysis of
samples it took. 

Wednesday's announcement, if true, is significant because it
shows that Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the
Security Council, which asked Tehran last month to cease all
such activity because of fears it could be misused to make
nuclear arms. 

European nations, backed by the United States, outlined a
planned Security Council resolution in Paris on Tuesday to give
``mandatory force'' to the atomic watchdog agency's demands that
Iran halt uranium enrichment. 

While the resolution does not call for sanctions, that is likely
to be the next step sought by the United States, Britain and
France if Iran refuses to stop enriching uranium. 

Still, Russia and China, veto-wielding permanent members of the
Security Council, remained firmly opposed to a resolution that
could pave the way for sanctions if Tehran refuses to end
uranium enrichment. 

The Security Council is scheduled to discuss the Iran nuclear
issue on Wednesday. 

Aghazadeh also said Wednesday that Iran had discovered uranium
deposits in southern Iran near the port city of Bandar Abbas, a
day after Iranian officials said they had found uranium ore at
three new sites in the center of the country. 

Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the
first time. Tehran says its nuclear program is confined to
generating power, but the United States and France accuse the
cchief for nuclear research and technology, told a conference
Tuesday in Qom, Iran, that the country's political leadership
had ordered him to ensure that enrichment did not go beyond 5
percent. 

``We need enriched uranium to produce electricity ... we have
been given orders to enrich uranium only up to 5 percent,'' he
said. 

Enrichment is a highly difficult process that takes gas produced
from raw uranium and aims to increase its proportion of the
uranium-235 isotope, needed for nuclear fission. 

The gas is pumped into a centrifuge, which spins, causing a
small portion of the heavier, more prevalent uranium-238 isotope
to drop away. The gas then proceeds to other centrifuges -
thousands of them - where the process is repeated, increasing
the proportion of uranium-235. 

Enrichment typically starts out with a gas that is 0.7 percent
uranium-235. It must be boosted to between 3.5 and 5 percent to
produce fuel for a reactor. 

Aghazadeh, who is also the head of Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran, said Iran was planning vast investments to extract uranium
from its newly discovered deposits. 

``Experts at the (Iran's) Atomic Energy Organization are making
plans to identify the country's uranium reserves. It is
predicted that we will have vast investments in various parts of
the country,'' he said. 

--- 

Associated Press Writer George Jahn contributed to this report
from Vienna, Austria. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 50 Sydney Morning Herald: Warning against uranium sales - 

www.smh.com.au

By Cynthia Banham Foreign Affairs Reporter

May 4, 2006

 [Yasushi Akashi &#133; caution.] 

Yasushi Akashi … caution.
Photo: Reuters 	 	

ONE of Japan's most senior diplomats, Yasushi Akashi, has warned
Australia and the US against nuclear co-operation with India,
saying it will undermine the foundations of the
non-proliferation regime. 

Mr Akashi, who is the former United Nations under-secretary
general of humanitarian affairs and Japan's representative on
peacekeeping and reconstruction in Sri Lanka, is due to visit
Australia this month. 

It was important for Japan, Australia and the US to "consult as
closely as possible" on the subject of peace and security in
east Asia, he said, "in view of the rising power of China". But
a crisis over North Korea could see allies searching for options
outside the multilateral framework of the UN. This was because
the UN Security Council could be prevented from taking action by
the vetoes of Russia and China. 

Mr Akashi also cautioned against the US and Australia giving
India, which is not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, "special treatment" over nuclear issues. 

The US has recently agreed to export nuclear technology to
India, while Australia has indicated it might consider
overturning its ban on exporting uranium to New Delhi. 

"I am concerned about these exceptions to the treaty," Mr Akashi
said. "In the case of India the immediate question is why this
special treatment for India and not for Pakistan. I think we
should try to be as uniform as possible so that we will not be
accused of adopting double standards." 

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 51 Bradenton Herald: Palette of poison

| 05/03/2006 | 

Posted on Wed, May. 03, 2006

Tallevast plume grows; time for cleanup

The Mickey Mouse-hat shape is gone, the earlike projections
filled in to form a slightly irregular oval. Now the Tallevast
pollution plume looks more like an artist's palette - a 200-acre
palette that encompasses virtually the entire community of
Tallevast, a corner of Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport
property to the west and big chunks of land to the east. 

The question on the minds of almost everyone in the community:
Is that all there is? Is this truly the farthest reach of the
underground plume of contaminants that seeped from the former
American Beryllium Co. plant decades ago? Lockheed Martin, the
company that has the misfortune of owning the plant and thus
responsibility for cleaning up a mess it did not cause, says
yes. Its latest report based on 245 test wells defined the plume
as extending 1,200 feet north of the plant, 2,800 feet east,
1,600 feet south and 800 feet west, to a depth of no more than
200 feet. 

That's some 50 percent larger than Lockheed's previous estimate
of the plume's size and four times bigger than the company's
original projection in February 2005. So it's understandable
that Tallevast residents are skeptical of the accuracy of the
latest estimate. An engineer hired by the residents' community
action group Family Oriented Community United Strong (FOCUS)
thinks the pollution goes much deeper and extends beyond the
boundaries Lockheed has defined. 

Residents have been distrustful of Lockheed from the start of
this pollution scandal almost two years ago because they were
kept in the dark about it for four years after its existence was
known by Lockheed and state regulatory officials. During that
time they continued to drink, cook and bathe with water from
private wells that may have been tainted by the contaminants.
Their distrust was further fed by Lockheed's initial attempts to
confine test well drilling to the immediate plant area in order
to limit its cleanup liability. 

Yet residents should not allow their skepticism to delay start
of the cleanup at this point. Lockheed is anxious to begin the
complicated process of pumping out contaminated groundwater and
filtering and treating it to remove the chemicals that pose a
threat to human health. That process could take as long as 20
years. 

FOCUS members want further testing, by an independent geologist
designated by them but paid for by Lockheed, to confirm that the
latest plume boundaries are accurate. 

Yet given the fact that FOCUS is suing Lockheed, that may be
asking too much. Could such a study truly be objective? Would
FOCUS really trust its findings? Ironically, it could be in
Lockheed's interest to offer to finance additional testing to
determine whether there may have been other pollution sources
than the beryllium plant. Lockheed's engineers have suggested
that pollutants found in wells used for cattle watering on the
eastern edge of the designated plume area came from a different
source, possibly boat building or other industrial plants in the
area. If this is true, it adds a huge complication to the
liability issue. 

But it should not block start of the cleanup of the known
200-acre plume. Lockheed acknowledges its obligation to
remediate that problem; don't hold the process hostage to more
years of wrangling over additional potential sources that will
drag out relief for residents of Tallevast.

*****************************************************************
 52 Deseret News: Salt Lake officials join opposition to nuclear waste storage
 
[deseretnews.com] 
Wednesday, May 3, 2006                           

Salt Lake City officials have joined ranks with other city, 
county and government leaders in Utah who oppose Private Fuel 
Storage's proposal to store high-level nuclear waste in the 
state.

       The City Council approved a resolution Tuesday night,
along with Mayor Rocky Anderson, that condemns a plan by PFS to
store spent nuclear fuel rods in Utah's west desert on land
owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indians.

       "I think this is a very powerful statement on behalf of
the people of Salt Lake City," Anderson said shortly after the
council unanimously approved the resolution.

       The Bureau of Land Management, which is accepting
comments through May 8, is in charge of approving or denying the
right-of-way permit for access to public land, which would be
necessary for transporting the nuclear waste.

       Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a declaration opposing the
storage plan Friday as part of "No Way Day," a coordinated
effort to get Utah residents to speak up before the BLM closes
its comment period. The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce also has
pushed businesses to oppose the storage plan. 			  		 		   

	 	 	 		 	 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
		 		 		 		 			 			 		 		 		 		 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 53 BBC: Criminal action over nuclear
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 3 May 2006
 
[Thorp reprocessing plant]                              

The leak occurred at the Thorp complex at Sellafield                                                                 

The operators of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in 
Cumbria are to face a criminal prosecution over the leak of 
tonnes of radioactive material. 

Acid containing 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium 
spilled from a ruptured pipe into a sealed cell at the site's 
Thorp complex. 

The leak was discovered in April 2005, but investigators claimed 
it could have happened eight months earlier. 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says it is bringing the 
action. 

Operators British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd (BNGSL) were 
strongly criticised after the incident. 

No-one was hurt and no radioactive material escaped into the 
atmosphere. 

Safety systems 

An investigation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) 
found "significant deficiencies" in procedures at the site. 

Work at the Thorp complex was halted when the leak was 
discovered. 

The HSE alleges BNGSL breached conditions attached to the 
Sellafield site licence which were granted under the Nuclear 
Installations Act 1965. 

It says the company failed to ensure that safety systems were in 
good working order and that radioactive material was effectively 
contained. 

A spokesman for British Nuclear Group said: "The company has 
co-operated fully with the NII throughout its investigation and 
continues to make good progress against its measures needed to 
enable the Thorp facility to become operational again. 

"As this matter is before the courts it would not be appropriate 
for us to comment further." 
*****************************************************************
 54 Platts: EPA hopes to issue final Yucca rule by end 2006
 
Washington (Platts)--2May2006
 
The Environmental Protection Agency hopes to issue a final Yucca 
Mountain standard by the end of calendar year 2006, the director 
of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, said May 1. 

Speaking at an international high-level waste conference in Las 
Vegas, Elizabeth Cotsworth said the agency is trying to determine 
what changes, if any, are needed in its proposed 1-million-year 
radiation protection standard for a nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

If changes are made, a new proposed rule would have to be issued 
for public comment, she said. 

EPA received roughly 2,550 public comments, about 2,350 of which 
were the result of mass mailings, on the proposed 1-million-year 
standard that amount to about 3,000 pages of comments and 1,000 
pages of attachments, she said. 

The agency, she said, is compiling the comments in a document to 
accompany the final standard.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 55 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear experts push for waste re-use plan 

Article Last Updated: 05/03/2006 08:06:18 AM MDT 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - The heads of the nation's energy laboratories 
made a case Tuesday for finding a way to re-use nuclear-reactor 
fuel, saying it could extend the life of the Yucca Mountain, 
Nev., repository through the end of the century and help prevent 
the global spread of nuclear weapons. 

It is a massive undertaking that will take support from 
Congress, the energy industry and the best minds in science, 
said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell. 

The heads of the nine national labs briefed congressional 
staff on the administration's proposal, called the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, then met with reporters and later 
spoke with Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's staff. 

"We must start now so that 10 years from now the United 
States has options that it can now only dream of," said Senate 
Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M. "This initiative 
provides options for our energy future." 

EnergySolutions, formerly known as Envirocare, has expressed 
its interest in hosting a nuclear-waste reprocessing plant and 
has been running ads on Utah TV stations promoting recycling as 
a solution to the nuclear-waste dilemma. It has stressed that it 
does not want to do such work in Utah, where it is based. 

The trouble with reprocessing has been that it is costly - 
many times more expensive than mining and enriching new reactor 
fuel - and that current practices produce plutonium suitable for 
nuclear weaponry. 

"This is an unworkable, wishful-thinking plan that has been 
attempted and abandoned in the past and is now being repackaged,"
said Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and 
Non-Proliferation. 

The goal, said Robert Rosner, director of the Argonne 
National Laboratory, is "environmentally benign nuclear energy" 
in the coming century. 

Retired Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher, director of the 
Idaho National Laboratory, said there is no way to know what the 
cost of the program will be until decisions are made on its 
scope. 

The Bush administration has requested $250 million in next 
year's budget, and Domenici said he intends to include it in the 
Energy Department's bill. 

The program is aimed at providing foreign nations with 
working, small-scale reactors that they can use, then return to 
the United States where the spent fuel can be reprocessed and 
re-used, with the most dangerous material extracted and buried 
at Yucca Mountain. 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 56 kutv.com: SLC Leaders Join Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition
          
+ CBS.com	 	 		
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	
[clock] May 3, 2006 10:44 am US/Mountain 

SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City officials are teaming up with
other state leaders to oppose a proposal to store nuclear waste
in Utah. 

Private Fuel Storage wants to store spent nuclear fuel rods on
Goshutes’ Skull Valley reservation about 50 miles west of Salt
Lake City. 

Last night, the City Council and Mayor Rocky Anderson approved a
resolution that condemns Private Fuel Storage’s plan. 

Meanwhile, Governor Huntsman signed a declaration on Friday
opposing the plan. And the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce has
been pushing businesses to oppose it as well. 

The Bureau of Land Management is in charge of approving or
denying a permit for access to public land, which would be
necessary to transport the nuclear waste. 

BLM is accepting public comment on the issue until May eighth. 

(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material
	 
*****************************************************************
 57 New Scientist: UK told to bury nuclear waste, again

[NewScientist.com]                      

04 May 2006                     

"WITH a gestation period longer than an elephant, it has
delivered a mouse," says Keith Baverstock, a radiation scientist
from the University of Kuopio in Finland. 	 

He is talking about the UK's Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM), which has taken three years to deliberate on
how best to dispose of the UK's nuclear waste and come up with a
solution that the government has already rejected not once but
three times in the past 30 years. 	 

CoRWM announced on 27 April that geological disposal is the
"best available approach" in the long term for the UK's 470,000
cubic metres of highly radioactive nuclear waste. This involves
burial between 300 metres and 2 kilometres underground in stable
geological formations. 	 

CoRWM also highlighted the need for secure "interim storage" for
several decades and says the government needs to begin selecting
sites. The committee's chairman, Gordon MacKerron, stressed that
the recommendation should not be seen as a green light for new
nuclear power stations - something the government is
considering. 	 	From issue 2550 of New Scientist magazine, 06
May 2006, page 6 [Printable version] [Email to a friend] [RSS

*****************************************************************
 58 News & Star: Plan to bury nuclear waste is debated
             
Published on 03/05/2006

CUMBRIAN councillors will this month debate nuclear waste 
management.
 
It follows the launch of draft recommendations by the Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management.
 
The influential body states that underground storage bunkers are
the best way to dispose of the waste.
 
This could pave the way for a new facility to be built in west
Cumbria.
 
As part of the official consultation, which starts next Monday,
Cumbria County Council has been asked for its views on the
subject.
 
Its Nuclear Decommissioning Working Group will meet on May 17
and a formal response will be agreed at the cabinet meeting on
May 23.
 
In a statement yesterday, the county council said it broadly
agrees with the deep disposal of higher level waste.
 
						 						 				 				 					
*****************************************************************
 59 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca e-mails: No blood, no foul 

May 3, 2006

By PHILLIP GOMEZ PVT 

Last week occasioned the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
nuclear accident in Ukraine, formerly the USSR - the worst
nuclear accident in history. 

The accident began with tests conducted on reactor No. 4, in
which numerous safety procedures were disregarded. A nuclear
chain reaction in the reactor's core got out of control,
creating explosions and blowing off the reactor's 1,000-ton
steel and concrete lid that formed the containment structure. 

The Chernobyl disaster killed only two people initially and
about 30 people in the first few months after the disaster. As a
result of the high radiation levels emitted into the surrounding
19-mile radius, 135,000 people had to be evacuated. Conservative
estimates say that eventually some 9,000 people died from the
radioactive fallout and the development of thyroid gland disease.

 Coincidentally, a new report out last month by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office points out glaring deficiencies
in the federal Department of Energy's "quality assurance"
program for Yucca Mountain. 

The GAO is the federal office concerned with the receipt and
payment of public funds. Quality assurance, or QA, is the term
for the design of the "failsafe" system of controls built into
the repository's engineering. 

Enviro.BLR.com, an environmental compliance newsletter, recently
reported DOE adopting "management tools" that, according to the
GAO, "'did not target existing management concerns and did not
track progress with significant and recurring problems.'"

 In its April 12 report the newsletter said, "GAO also raised
doubts regarding DOE's assurances about the technical soundness
of (water) infiltration modeling performed by the U.S.
Geological Survey." 

Quality Assurance was a hot topic in March 2005 and again in
November when the USGS came under fire for not following proper
scientific guidelines related to the QA of the data it had
obtained.

 DOE said then that it would spend $1 million and more than a
year to investigate the QA problems raised by the contents of
the e-mail correspondence.

 But in the year since the e-mail revelations little has been
resolved, let alone improved with regard to DOE's QA program. 

GAO said in its report that clarifying the contents of 14
million USGS e-mails was extremely difficult because of their
sheer volume. Another difficulty was that many of the writers of
the e-mails had left the project and were unavailable to provide
context as to the e-mails' interpretation. 

Other QA questions raised, according to the newsletter's
synopsis of the GAO report, are:

 € The absence of an adequate management process to ensure that
broad plans and regulatory requirements affecting the project
are tracked and incorporated into specific engineering details.

 € Disorganization resulting from continual turnover at key
management positions.

 € The directorate for the QA project has been occupied by three
individuals since 1999 and is currently occupied by an acting
director. According to some Yucca critics, when quality
assurance troubles erupt, DOE appoints a new QA director "to get
QA out of the spotlight." 

The earliest date DOE has given for when the repository could
accept waste is 2010.

 The e-mail controversy has been dismissed by some as
"water-cooler talk." But concerns about document falsification
were raised in the U.S. Congress, and the issue has continued to
plague Yucca Mountain and its project managers. 

One flippant USGS e-mail concerned rainfall on Yucca Mountain
leaching into the interior where the waste would be stored. "Our
best guess," the message said of its reported numbers. "Screw
'em. It's a lovely, 85 (degrees), sunny, warm breeze. It's nice
to be disconnected and not caring whether it's QA or not. If you
can't give them QA, that's fine."

 GAO has reportedly said DOE managers agreed with the watchdog
agency's new findings and its recommendations to improve quality
assurance at Yucca Mountain. 

For comment or questions, please e-mail 
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 60 NEWS.com.au: WWF accepts nuclear reality 

From: AAP                       

May 04, 2006                                             

LEADING environment group WWF Australia says it accepts the
Federal Government's push to expand uranium mining and exports.
WWF chief executive Greg Bourne said it was a reality that all
Australian governments would mine and export uranium to a
growing world market.

 "The key issues are, if we're going to be a nation exporting
uranium, we have to know absolutely it's only being used for
peaceful purposes and waste products are being stored safely,"
Mr Bourne said.

 He said the uranium debate was a red herring which was
diverting attention away from the need to stem climate change.

 Some groups are fighting to make the Government's planned
uranium exports to China - and the nuclear power debate - a
federal election issue next year.

 Former Greenpeace International executive director Paul
Gilding, now an environmental consultant, defended WWF's uranium
position yesterday.

"I think it's rational to say: we oppose nuclear power, but given 
there is nuclear power let's make sure we make it as safe as 
possible," he said.

 Mr Gilding said WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, had
always been the environment group closest to the corporate
conservative side of the debate. 		  		 		 		 			Search for more

*****************************************************************
 61 Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon
 
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:31:27 -0500 (CDT)

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/nytimes50.htm

New York Times
May 3, 2006

Administration Conducting Research Into Laser Weapon
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

The Bush administration is seeking to develop a
powerful ground-based laser weapon that would use
beams of concentrated light to destroy enemy
satellites in orbit.

The largely secret project, parts of which have been
made public through Air Force budget documents
submitted to Congress in February, is part of a
wide-ranging effort to develop space weapons, both
defensive and offensive. No treaty or law forbids such
work.

The laser research was described by federal officials
who would speak only on the condition of anonymity
because of the topic's political sensitivity. The
White House has recently sought to play down the issue
of space arms, fearing it could become an
election-year liability.

Indeed, last week Republicans and Democrats on a House
Armed Services subcommittee moved unanimously to cut
research money for the project in the administration's
budget for the 2007 fiscal year. While Republicans on
the panel would not discuss their reasons for the
action, Congressional aides said it reflected a
bipartisan consensus for moving cautiously on space
weaponry, a potentially controversial issue that has
yet to be much debated.

The full committee is expected to take up the budget
issue today.

The laser research is far more ambitious than a
previous effort by the Clinton administration nearly a
decade ago to test an antisatellite laser. It would
take advantage of an optical technique that uses
sensors, computers and flexible mirrors to counteract
the atmospheric turbulence that seems to make stars
twinkle.

The weapon would essentially reverse that process,
shooting focused beams of light upward with great
clarity and force.

Though futuristic and technically challenging, the
laser work is relatively inexpensive by government
standards - about $20 million in 2006, with planned
increases to some $30 million by 2011 - partly because
no weapons are as yet being built and partly because
the work is being done at an existing base, an
unclassified government observatory called Starfire in
the New Mexico desert.

In interviews, military officials defended the laser
research as prudent, given the potential need for
space arms to defend American satellites against
attack in the years and decades ahead. "The White
House wants us to do space defense," said a senior
Pentagon official who oversees many space programs,
including the laser effort. "We need that ability to
protect our assets" in orbit.

But some Congressional Democrats and other experts
fault the research as potential fuel for an
antisatellite arms race that could ultimately hurt
this nation more than others because the United States
relies so heavily on military satellites, which aid
navigation, reconnaissance and attack warning.

In a statement, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a
California Democrat on the subcommittee who opposes
the laser's development, thanked her Republican
colleagues for agreeing to curb a program "with the
potential to weaponize space."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense
Information, a private group in Washington that tracks
military programs, said the subcommittee's action last
week was a significant break with the administration.
"It's really the first time you've seen the
Republican-led Congress acknowledge that these issues
require public scrutiny," she said.

In a statement, the House panel, the Armed Services
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, made no reference to
such policy disagreements but simply said that "none
of the funds authorized for this program shall be used
for the development of laser space technologies with
antisatellite purposes."

It is unclear whether the Republican-controlled
Congress will sustain the subcommittee's proposed cut
to the administration's request, even if the full
House Armed Services Committee backs the reduction.

The Air Force has pursued the secret research for
several years but discussed it in new detail in its
February budget request. The documents stated that for
the 2007 fiscal year, starting in October, the
research will seek to "demonstrate fully compensated
laser propagation to low earth orbit satellites."

The documents listed several potential uses of the
laser research, the first being "antisatellite
weapons."

The overall goal of the research, the documents said,
is to assess unique technologies for "high-energy
laser weapons," in what engineers call a proof of
concept. Previously, the laser work resided in a
budget category that paid for a wide variety of space
efforts, the documents said. But for the new fiscal
year, it has moved under the heading "Advanced Weapons
Technology."

In interviews, Pentagon officials said the policy
rationale for the arms research dated from a 1996
presidential directive in the Clinton administration
that allows "countering, if necessary, space systems
and services used for hostile purposes."

In 1997, the American military fired a ground-based
laser in New Mexico at an American spacecraft, calling
it a test of satellite vulnerability. Federal experts
said recently that the laser had had no capability to
do atmospheric compensation and that the test had
failed to do any damage.

Little else happened until January 2001, when a
commission led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the newly
nominated defense secretary, warned that the American
military faced a potential "Pearl Harbor" in space and
called for a defensive arsenal of space weapons.

The Starfire research is part of that effort.

Federal officials and private experts said the
antisatellite work drew on a body of unclassified
advances that have made the Starfire researchers
world-famous among astronomers. Their most important
unclassified work centers on using small lasers to
create artificial stars that act as beacons to guide
the process of atmospheric compensation.

When astronomers use the method, they aim a small
laser at a point in the sky close to a target star or
galaxy, and the concentrated light excites molecules
of air (or, at higher altitudes, sodium atoms in the
upper atmosphere) to glow brightly.

Distortions in the image of the artificial star as it
returns to Earth are measured continuously and used to
deform the telescope's flexible mirror and rapidly
correct for atmospheric turbulence. That sharpens
images of both the artificial star and the
astronomical target.

Unclassified pictures of Starfire in action show a
pencil-thin laser beam shooting up from its hilltop
observatory into the night sky.

The Starfire researchers are now investigating how to
use guide stars and flexible mirrors in conjunction
with powerful lasers that could flash their beams into
space to knock out enemy satellites, according to
federal officials and Air Force budget documents.

"These are really smart folks who are optimistic about
their technology," said the senior Pentagon official.
"We want those kind of people on our team."

But potential weapon applications, he added, if one
day approved, "are out there years and years and years
into the future."

The research centers on Starfire's largest telescope,
which Air Force budget documents call a "weapon-class
beam director." Its main mirror, 11.5 feet in
diameter, can gather in faint starlight or, working in
the opposite direction, direct powerful beams of laser
light skyward.

Federal officials said Starfire's antisatellite work
had grown out of one of the site's other military
responsibilities: observing foreign satellites and
assessing their potential threat to the United States.
In 2000, the Air Force Research Laboratory, which runs
Starfire, said the observatory's large telescope, by
using adaptive optics, could distinguish objects in
orbit the size of a basketball at a distance of 1,000
miles.

Another backdrop to the antisatellite work is
Starfire's use of telescopes, adaptive optics and weak
lasers to track and illuminate satellites. It is
considered a baby step toward developing a laser
powerful enough to cripple spacecraft.

Col. Gregory Vansuch, who oversees Starfire research
for the Air Force Research Laboratory, said in an
interview that the facility used weak lasers and the
process of atmospheric compensation to illuminate
satellites "all the time." Such tests, Colonel Vansuch
emphasized, are always done with the written
permission of the satellite's owner.

He said that about once a month, Starfire conducted
weeklong experiments that illuminate satellites up to
20 times.

Though the House subcommittee recommended eliminating
all financing next year for antisatellite laser
research, it retained money for other laser
development. Congressional aides said the proposed cut
to the Air Force's $21.4 million budget request for
such work would eliminate two of three areas of
development, for a total reduction of $6.5 million.

At least one public-interest group has seized on the
issue. Last week, the Global Network Against Weapons
and Nuclear Power in Space, based in Brunswick, Me.,
said that if Congress approved the antisatellite
money, "the barrier to weapons in space will have been
destroyed."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)
*****************************************************************
 62 Hanford News: Landfill moves forward
 
This story was published Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Hanford has a new landfill for radioactive waste, the last major
landfill planned for the remaining cleanup of the nuclear
reservation. 

Construction is complete on the first two waste disposal cells
of the Integrated Disposal Facility, which eventually could be
expanded to cover 26 acres. 

Now it's a 42-foot-deep hole in central Hanford that is 1,500
feet long and 765 feet wide. It will be used to hold 200,000
cubic yards of waste. 

Its cost was estimated at $36 million, but it was completed for
about $25 million, partly because of good bid competition for
the earth work, said Greg Parsons, CH2M Hill Hanford Group
project manager. 

What may look like a hole in the ground is an engineered
facility to prevent contamination of ground water with
radioactive waste that will be buried there. At its bottom is a
7-foot-thick liner system. 

It includes a system to collect rain or snow melt and pump it in
a nearby tank above ground. That's backed up with two leak
detection systems. 

One alerts operators if moisture penetrates a layer of plastic
below the pumping system and the other should detect liquid if
it hits the soil beneath the 7-foot liner system. 

Around its top is a "shine berm," a 7-foot-tall wall of dirt to
shield workers from radiation. Cranes will be used to put waste
in the facility. 

When it closes, it will be topped with a soil cap designed to
keep water out. 

"It's a state-of-the-art-built facility," said Suzanne Dahl,
tank waste disposal project manager for the Washington state
Department of Ecology, which regulates Hanford. 

Work on the landfill began after a construction subcontract was
awarded by CH2M Hill nearly two years ago. 

Now there's no definite start date for when the facility will
accept its first waste, "but the state very much believes it is
a needed facility," Dahl said. 

It was built to permanently store the least radioactive of the
glassified waste now waiting in Hanford's underground tanks to
be treated and to help allow Hanford to stop its old practice of
burying some low-level radioactive waste in unlined trenches. 

Two projects to vitrify, or turn tank waste to glass, have
fallen behind schedule. The Department of Energy has stopped
construction on the bulk vitrification pilot plant until it has
more technical and cost information. The pilot plant was
expected to produce the first of 50 blocks of low-activity
radioactive waste as early as last December. 

In addition, the soonest the Waste Treatment Plant, the main
plant to glassify waste, could be producing low-activity glass
is 2011. That assumes operations to treat low-activity waste
start at the plant years before treatment of high-level waste.
Only the low-activity glass will remain at Hanford. High-level
glass is to be sent to a national repository in Yucca Mountain,
Nev. 

There has been concern DOE could plan to eventually use the
Integrated Disposal Facility for radioactive waste imported to
Hanford. However, no waste can be imported unless DOE wins a
federal lawsuit allowing it to bring waste to Hanford for
permanent disposal without first cleaning up waste already at
Hanford.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 63 kgw.com: Low-radioactive landfill opening at Hanford

News for Oregon and SW Washington | Local News

11:24 AM PDT on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 

Associated Press 

DOE 
The Hanford nuclear site in Richland, Wash. 

TRI-CITIES, Wash. -- A state-of-the-art landfill has been
prepared at the Hanford nuclear reservation to store the least
radioactive waste that is being turned into glass. 

The first 42-foot hole is ready at the Integrated Disposal
Facility which could expand to 26 acres. 

 It has a 7-foot thick liner and monitors to detect leaks. 

 It was built for $25 million by Corvallis-based contractor,
CH2M Hill.    This text is invisible on the page, but this text
is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible
on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's
flow. 

copy; 2006, KGW-TV  
    
*****************************************************************
 64 KnoxNews: Munger: Oak Ridge experts assist in nuclear rescue program

Columnists
 		 		
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

May 3, 2006                                                             

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory's nonproliferation team 
participated in a recent project that repackaged a significant 
quantity of weapons-usable uranium and transported it from 
Uzbekistan (get out the atlas) to a more secure location in 
Russia. 

The secret project was announced after the mission was completed 
safely in mid-April. 

Larry Satkowiak, director of Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs at 
ORNL, said the lab had one person stationed in Ubezkistan to 
provide oversight of the packaging activities. 

"The most recent shipment was some partially spent fuel that was
in storage and was shipped to Mayak (a nuclear complex in
Russia) for reprocessing," Satkowiak said. 

The spent fuel still contained significant amounts of highly
enriched uranium, reportedly about 63 kilograms. That was a
concern because the fuel had lost much of its radioactivity and,
according to the ORNL official, "no longer met the criteria for
being self-protecting." 

In other words, the reactor fuel wasn't too hot to handle, and
it's conceivable that terrorists could have stolen the material
- and used it for a dirty bomb or nuclear device - without
irradiating themselves to death. 

Earlier shipments from Uzbekistan involved fresh fuel of
enriched uranium that will be "blended down" in Russia to reduce
the percentage of U-235 and make it unsuitable for weapons use,
Satkowiak said. 

He noted that ORNL also provides monitors to verify that the
uranium processing is done in accordance with international
treaties. 


Ted Sherry is off to a rocky start as federal manager at the
Y-12 National Security Complex. 

Soon after being named to the post in March, Sherry got ready
for a month-long training stint that's supposed to prepare new
managers in the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks modeled the program loosely on
one used in the U.S. Navy for nuclear submarine commanders. 

Sherry was scheduled to visit multiple sites and broaden his
management experience in the weapons complex before settling
down as the government's principal overseer at the Oak Ridge
warhead plant. 

Unfortunately, Sherry's training program was aborted not long
after it began. He broke his ankle during his first stop:
Amarillo, Texas, home of the Pantex warhead-assembly plant. 

While on a weekend hike in the Palo Duro Canyon south of
Amarillo, Sherry stepped in a hole and went down. 

Fortunately, other hikers were in the area and helped him back
to his rental car. Fortunately, the break was to his left ankle,
so he was able to drive himself to a hospital. 

His management training will be rescheduled after the ankle
heals over the next month or two. 

Meanwhile, Sherry's back in Oak Ridge and assuming his duties at
Y-12. There's no word on whether his ankle protection meets the
new safety guidelines for footwear at the nuclear facility. 

n 



The cleanup woes at the Department of Energy's Hanford complex
in Washington state, revisited this past Sunday on CBS' "60
Minutes" news magazine, may kill efforts to speed completion of
nuclear cleanups at Oak Ridge. 

Oak Ridge officials want an additional $1.6 billion or
thereabouts over a five-year period to bolster the cleanup of
old nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the
Y-12 National Security Complex. 

It's going to be difficult to get Congress to support that plan
at a time when Hanford is mired in controversy. Like it or not,
the failures at one DOE site often affect other DOE sites,
especially since many of the same contractors - such as Bechtel
- are involved. 

Oak Ridge, of course, doesn't have a perfect record in its
cleanup program. Far from it. There have been big mistakes,
including a pond-waste project that took 15 years and nearly
$200 million to accomplish. 

However, the progress in recent years has been undeniable. It
would be a shame not to build on that momentum. 

Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at .
This column is also available in the opinion section of
knoxnews.com.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************