***************************************************************** 05/05/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.107 ***************************************************************** 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's Nuclear "Crisis" - Setting the Record Straight 2 [NYTr] Russian View on Iran "Stalls" UN 3 [NYTr] Scott Ritter on the IAEA and Iran 4 [NYTr] Draft UN resolution on Iran: full text 5 Guardian Unlimited: Annan: U.S. Should Hold Talks With Iran 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's U.N. Envoy Criticizes Resolution 7 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Says Iran Should Renounce Nukes 8 AFP: Iran cleric vows 'harsh' response in nuclear showdown 9 AFP: Defiant Iranian president pledges to pursue atomic fuel product 10 AFP: Defiant Iranian president pledges to pursue atomic fuel product 11 AFP: Iran will change policies if IAEA asks - Ahmadinejad 12 IRNA: Mottaki: A professional attitude needed to solve Iran's nuclea 13 AFP: IAEA still central to solving Iran crisis - Russian FM 14 AFP: UN still chasing agreement on Iran draft 15 AFP: US shows increasing frustration with Russia 16 IRNA: Ex-Swiss envoy to Iran stresses Tehran not after nuclear bomb 17 IRNA: Merkel, Mubarak to discuss Iran's nuclear program 18 IRNA: Military action against Iran not on EU agenda 19 US: The Nuclear Option in a Mad, Mad World 20 Guardian Unlimited: Tony Blair Shakes Up Cabinet After Losses 21 Guardian Unlimited: The two crucial mistakes that cost Straw his job 22 Guardian Unlimited: Russia is blackmailing Europe over energy, says 23 IRNA: No UK plans to take Israel to UN over nukes, says minister NUCLEAR REACTORS 24 NIRS On Chernobyl's Real Effects 25 The Australian: Nuclear plant 'as safe as ever' 26 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: $19 million PG study draws fire from pu 27 AU ABC: Union raises Lucas Heights safety concerns 28 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Clinton Nucl 29 AFP: One injured in Canada nuclear power plant accident 30 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee OK'd for final hike 31 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Oconee Nucle 32 Xinhua: French utility company to launch 3rd generation nuclear reac 33 IEER: Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France 34 US: Boston Globe: Nuclear plant gets OK for final stage of power inc 35 ITAR-TASS: Modern power plant to replace Leningrad NPP 36 Las Vegas City Life: Mountain of trouble 37 SUR in English: The nuclear energy debate NUCLEAR SECURITY 38 HindustanTimes.com: India's N-protection system good - US NUCLEAR SAFETY 39 US: Rocky Mountain News: Sick nuke workers waiting 40 US: Knox News: Nuclear comp program faces critical review 41 US: Herald News: Group's cancer probe finds 46 new cases 42 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bomb testing valley's patience Action growing 43 US: Tri-City Herald: Hastings critical of worker compensation effort 44 US: Spectrum: Strake may mimic small nuke 45 US: Daily Herald: Lawmakers criticize nuclear worker comp 46 CBC Ottawa: Lab fire at nuclear site keeps 2,000 workers inside NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 47 US: Las Vegas SUN: Top Mormon church leaders oppose waste repository 48 US: Deseret News: No to nuclear storage, LDS say 49 US: Rocky Mountain News: Wildlife refuge ready to grow 50 AU: The Advertiser: Ian Hore-Lacy: Nuclear waste a political problem 51 US: BYU NewsNet: LDS Church issues nuclear waste statement 52 reviewjournal.com: Criminal charges won't be filed in Yucca e-mail s 53 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions' infomercials 54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: LDS joins N-storage foes 55 US: KTEN: Congressman wants to see plans to clean up uranium storage PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 56 KnoxNews: Nuclear waste shipped off 57 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Cleanup requires a reorganized effort 58 Tri-City Herald: Bechtel rebuts '60 Minutes' claims 59 DOE: Public Scoping Meeting on Study of Energy Rights-of-Way on ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Iran's Nuclear "Crisis" - Setting the Record Straight Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:21:38 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Information Clearing House - Nov 19, 2005 http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12942.htm An Unnecessary Crisis Setting the Record Straight about Irans Nuclear Program By The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations -New York Published: 2005-11-19 In a region already suffering from upheaval and uncertainty, a crisis is being manufactured in which there will be no winners. Worse yet, the hysteria about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear weapon program rest solely and intentionally on misperceptions and outright lies. In the avalanche of anti-Iran media commentaries, conspicuously absent is any reference to important facts, coupled with a twisted representation of the developments over the past 25 years. Before the international community is lead to another crisis of choice, it is imperative that the public knows all the facts and is empowered to make an informed and sober decision about an impending catastrophe. 1- Systematic Pattern of Denial of Irans Rights and Its Impact on Transparency Since early 1980s, Irans peaceful nuclear program and its inalienable right to nuclear technology have been the subject of the most extensive and intensive campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention and misinformation. * Valid and binding contracts to build nuclear power plants were unilaterally abrogated; * Nuclear material rightfully purchased and owned by Iran was illegally withheld; * Exercise of Irans right as a shareholder in several national and multinational nuclear power corporations was obstructed; * Unjustified and coercive interventions were routinely made in order to undermine, impede and delay the implementation of Irans nuclear agreements with third parties; and * Unfounded accusations against Irans exclusively peaceful nuclear program were systematically publicized. As a result, and merely in order to prevent further illegal and illegitimate restrictions on its ability to procure its needed materials and equipments, Iran had been left with no option but to be discrete in its perfectly legal and exclusively peaceful activities. In doing so, Iran broke no laws nor diverted its peaceful program to military activities. It only refrained from disclosing the details of its programs. In nearly all cases, it was not even obliged to disclose these programs under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Therefore, while Irans rights under the NPT continued to be grossly and systematically violated, and while major state parties to the Treaty persisted in their non-compliance with many of their obligations under Articles I, IV and VI of the Treaty in general, and under paragraph 2 of Article IV vis-`-vis Iran in particular, Iran nevertheless continued to diligently comply with all its obligations under the Treaty. 2. Nuclear Technology OR Nuclear Weapons? A vicious cycle of restrictions on Irans nuclear program and attempts by Iran to circumvent them through concealment and black market acquisitions have fueled mutual suspicions. In this self-perpetuating atmosphere, the conclusion is already drawn that Irans declared peaceful nuclear program is just a cover for developing atomic weapons. But this conclusion is based on two erroneous assumptions, which have been repeated often enough to become conventional wisdom. 2.1- Iran Needs Nuclear Energy 2.1.1. Nuclear Energy for an Oil-Rich Country The first is that Iran has vast oil and gas resources and therefore does not need nuclear energy. Although it is true that Iran is rich in oil and gas, these resources are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they will be depleted within two to five decades. With a territory of 1,648,000 km2 and a population of about 70 million, projected to be more than 105 million in 2050, Iran has no choice but to seek access to more diversified and secure sources of energy. Availability of electricity to 46,000 villages now, compared to 4400 twenty five years ago, just as an example, demonstrates the fast growing demand for more energy. And the youthfulness of the Iranian population, with around 70% under 30, doesnt allow complacency when it comes to energy policy. To satisfy such growing demands, Iran cant rely exclusively on fossil energy. Since Iranian national economy is still dependant on oil revenue, it cant allow the ever increasing domestic demand affect the oil revenues from the oil export. 2.1.2. US Support for Iranian Nuclear Program Irans quest for nuclear energy picked momentum following a study in 1974 carried out by the prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute, which predicted Irans need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear plants capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity before 1994. Now, 30 years later, Iran aims at reaching that level by 2020, which may save Iran 190 million barrels of crude oil or $10 billion per year in todays prices. Therefore, Irans nuclear program is neither ambitious nor economically unjustifiable. Diversification including the development of nuclear energy is the only sound and responsible energy strategy for Iran. Even the US State Department was convinced of this in 1978 when it stated in a memo that the U.S. was encouraged by Iran's efforts to expand its non-oil energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement would be concluded soon and that U.S. companies would be able to play a role in Iran's nuclear energy projects. 2.1.3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Producing fuel for its nuclear power plants is an integral part of Irans nuclear energy policy. While domestic production of fuel for this number of nuclear power plants makes perfect economic sense, Irans decision should not be judged solely on economic grounds. Having been a victim of a pattern of deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and technology, Iran cannot solely rely on procurement of fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would in effect hold Irans multi-billion dollar investment in power plants hostage to the political whims of suppliers in a tightly controlled market. Furthermore, it is self evident that the time-consuming efforts to gain the necessary technology and develop the capability for fuel production must proceed simultaneously with the acquisition and construction of nuclear power plants. Otherwise constructed plans may become obsolete in case of denial of fuel without a contingency capacity to produce it domestically. 2.2. Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons for Its Security The second false assumption is that because Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons in all directions the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Israel any sound Iranian strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear deterrent capability for Iran as well. It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement. Irans history is the perfect illustration of its geo-strategic outlook. Over the past 250 years, Iran has not waged a single war of aggression against its neighbors, nor has it initiated any hostilities. Iran today is the strongest country in its immediate neighborhood. It does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests. In fact, to augment Iranian influence in the region, it has been necessary for Iran to win the confidence of its neighbors, who have historically been concerned with size and power disparities. On the other hand, Iran, with its current state of technological development and military capability, cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region of the Middle East. Moreover, such an unrealistic option would be prohibitively expensive, draining the limited economic resources of the country. In sum, a costly nuclear-weapon option would reduce Iran's regional influence and increase its global vulnerabilities without providing any credible deterrence. There is also a fundamental ideological objection to weapons of mass destruction, including a religious decree issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran prohibiting the development, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons. 3. Negotiations with UK, France and Germany (EU3) 3.1. Irans Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures In October 2003, Iran entered into an understanding with France, Germany and the United Kingdom with the explicit expectation to open a new chapter of full transparency, cooperation and access to nuclear and other advanced technologies. Iran agreed to a number of important transparency and voluntary confidence building measures and immediately and fully implemented them. * It signed and immediately began full implementation of the Additional Protocol; * It opened its doors to one of the most expansive and intrusive IAEA inspections; * It provided a detailed account of its peaceful nuclear activities, all of which had been carried out in full conformity with its rights and obligations under the NPT; * It began and has continuously maintained for the past 2 years a voluntarily suspension of its rightful enrichment of Uranium as a confidence building measure; * It further expanded its voluntary suspension in February and November 2004, following agreements with EU3 in Brussels and Paris respectively, to incorporate activities which go well beyond the original IAEAs definition of enrichment and even enrichment-related activities. 3.1.1. Resolution of Outstanding Issues Iran has worked closely with the IAEA, during the course of the last two years, to deal with the issues and questions raised about its peaceful nuclear program. All significant issues, particularly those related to the sources of HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) have now been resolved. Indeed, except for few mostly speculative questions, nothing more remains to close this Chapter 3.1.2. No Indication of Non-Peaceful Activity The Agencys thorough inspections of Iran have repeatedly confirmed Irans assertion that no amount of inspection and scrutiny will ever show the slightest diversion into military activity. The Director-General confirmed in Paragraph 52 of his November 2003 report that to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme. After one more year and over a thousand person-days of the most rigorous inspections, the Director-General again confirmed in Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities. This conclusion has been repeatedly reaffirmed in every statement by responsible authorities of the IAEA. 3.2. Broken Promises and Expanded Demands by the EU3 Regrettably, Iran received very little, if anything, in return for its transparency, cooperation and voluntary suspension of the exercise of its legitimate and inalienable right. The European negotiating partners, pressured by the US, instead of carrying out their promises of cooperation and open access, have repeatedly called for expansion of Irans voluntary confidence building measures only to be reciprocated by more broken promises and expanded requests: * The October 2003 promises of the EU3 on nuclear cooperation and regional security and non-proliferation was never even addressed. * The February 2004 written and signed commitment by the EU3 to work actively to gain recognition at the June 2004 Board of the efforts made by Iran, so that the Board works thereafter on the basis of Director-General reporting if and when he deems it necessary, in accordance with the normal practice pertaining to the implementation of Safeguards Agreements and the Additional Protocol was violated, even though Iran had in fact carried out its part of the deal by expanding its suspension to include assembly and component manufacturing. Instead, the EU3 proposed a harsh resolution with further unjustifiable demands in June 2004; * The EU3 never honored its recognition, in the Paris Agreement of November 2004, of Iran's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination. * In spite of its repeated and publicized claims, the EU3 never offered, throughout the negotiations process, any meaningful incentives to Iran, other than empty and demeaning promises of consideration of possible future cooperation. 4. The Paris Agreement In November 2004, following extensive negotiations, Iran and EU3 agreed on a package that has become known as the Paris Agreement. The objective of the Paris Agreement was to to move forward in negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues. The Paris Agreement envisaged that while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements, and to build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities. At the same time, the EU3 recognized that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation as well as Iran's rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination. The Paris Agreement rested on the premise that the purpose of the Agreement was reaching mutually acceptable long term arrangements and that suspension was a temporary measure for as long as negotiations were making progress. The Agreement further envisaged specific mechanisms to monitor and assess progress. 4.1. March Report: Lack of Progress In March 2005, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, senior officials from Iran and the three European countries were mandated to make an assessment of the progress that had been achieved. The reports of over three months of negotiations by the working groups, created by the Paris Agreement, made it evident that while there was every prospect for reaching a negotiated solution based on the Paris Agreement, and while Iran had made many significant and far-reaching proposals benefiting both sides, the EU3, faced with extraneous pressure, were simply trying to prolong fruitless negotiations. This policy, in addition to its devastating impact on mutual trust, was detrimental to Irans interests and rights as it attempted to superficially prolong Irans voluntary suspension by dragging the negotiations. It also became evident that despite repeated requests by Iran from EU3 representatives to present their proposals and ideas on the implementation of various provisions of the Paris Agreement to the working groups, the European three did not have the intention or the ability to present its proposals on objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes [and] equally firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues as called for in that Agreement. In short, it became evident that after massive pressure from the United States in the winter of 2005, the EU3 had conceded to unilaterally altering the Paris Agreement into solely an instrument of de-facto cessation of Iranian peaceful enrichment program, in violation of the letter and spirit of that Agreement. 4.2. Irans Proposals In February 2005, Iran suggested to the EU3 to ask the IAEA to develop technical, legal and monitoring modalities for Irans enrichment program as objective guarantees to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain exclusively for peaceful purposes. While one member of EU3 accepted the suggestion, unfortunately the lack of consensus among the EU3 prevented resort to the IAEA as an authoritative and impartial framework for solving the impasse. On March 23, 2005, in a clearly stated desire to salvage the Paris Agreement, Iran offered a collection of solutions for objective guarantees suggested by various independent scientist and observers from the United States and Europe. The package included: 1. Strong and mutually beneficial relations between Iran and the EU/EU3, which would provide the best guarantee for respect for the concerns of each side; 2. Confinement of Irans enrichment program, in order to preclude through objective technical guarantees any proliferation concern: 2.1. Open fuel cycle, to remove any concern about reprocessing and production of plutonium; 2.2 Ceiling of enrichment at LEU level; 2.3 Limitation of the extent of the enrichment program to solely meet the contingency fuel requirements of Irans power reactors; 2.4 Immediate conversion of all enriched Uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment; 2.5 Incremental and phased approach to implementation in order to begin with the least sensitive aspects of the enrichment program and to gradually move to enrichment as confidence in the program would be enhanced; 3. Legislative and regulatory measures 3.1 Additional Protocol; 3.2 Permanent ban on the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons through binding national legislation; 3.3. Enhancement of Irans export control regulations; 4. Enhanced monitoring 4.1 Continued implementation of the Additional Protocol; and 4.2 Continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities to provide unprecedented added guarantees. 4.2.1. EU3 Inability to React Extraneous pressure had resulted in the absence of any desire or ability by EU3 to even consider any objective guarantee as called for in the Paris Agreement and instead to maneuver to achieve a de-facto cessation of Irans lawful activities. This extraneous political element precluded even a serious review by EU3 of these independently worked out proposals, which continue to have the most credible potential of providing a basis for allaying all reasonable concerns. Even Irans further good-faith effort on April 29, 2005 to salvage the process by suggesting the negotiated resumption of the work of the UCF which had never had any past alleged failures, and is virtually proliferation free at low capacity and with additional confidence building and surveillance and monitoring measures was rejected outright by EU3 officials without even consideration at political level. 4.2.2. Prelude to Breakdown in Nuclear Talks Iran replied to such intransigence with self-restraint to ensure that no opportunity was spared for an agreed settlement. In a ministerial meeting in Geneva in May 2005, Iran agreed to extend the period of full suspension for another two months, in response to a commitment made by the EU3 ministers to finally present their comprehensive package for the implementation of the Paris Agreement by the end of July or early August 2005, that is nearly nine months after the Agreement. Iran made it clear in Geneva that any proposal by the EU3 must incorporate EU3s perception of objective guarantees for the gradual resumption of the Iranian enrichment program, and that any attempt to turn objective guarantees into cessation or long-term suspension were incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore unacceptable to Iran. 4.2.3. A Further Compromise Suggested by Iran Eager to salvage the negotiations, in a further message to the Ministers, Iran offered the most flexible solution to the EU3 as they were finalizing their package: * Commencement of the work of Esfahan plant (UCF) - At low capacity, - Under full scope monitoring, - Agreed arrangements for import of the feed material and export of the product; * Initial limited operation at Natanz following - Further negotiations on a mutually acceptable arrangement, or - Allowing the IAEA to develop an optimized arrangement on numbers, monitoring mechanism and other specifics; * Full scale operation of Natanz: - Based on a negotiated agreement; - Synchronized with the fuel requirements of future light water reactors. 4.3. EUs Package: Too Many Demands, No Incentives Against all its sincere efforts and maximum flexibility, on 5 August 2005 Iran received a disappointing proposal. It not only failed to address Irans rights for peaceful development of nuclear technology, but did not offer anything to Iran in return. It even fell far short of correcting the illegal and unjustified restrictions placed on Irans economic and technological development, let alone providing firm guarantees for economic, technological and nuclear cooperation and firm commitments on security issues. While Iran had made it crystal clear that no incentive would be sufficient to compromise Irans inalienable right to all aspects of peaceful nuclear technology, the offers of incentives incorporated in the proposal were in and of themselves demeaning and totally incommensurate with Iran and its vast capabilities, potentials and requirements. 4.3.1. Extra-Legal Demands of Binding Commitments from Iran The proposal self-righteously assumed rights and licenses for the EU3 which clearly went beyond or even contravened international law and assumed obligations for Iran which have no place in law or practice. It incorporated a series of one-sided and self serving extra-legal demands from Iran, ranging from accepting infringements on its sovereignty to relinquishing its inalienable rights. It sought to intimidate Iran to accept intrusive and illegal inspections well beyond the Safeguards Agreement or the Additional Protocol. It asked Iran to abandon most of its peaceful nuclear program. It further sought to establish a subjective, discriminatory and arbitrary set of criteria for the Iranian nuclear program, which would have effectively dismantled most of Irans peaceful nuclear infrastructure, criteria that if applied globally would only monopolize the nuclear industry for the Nuclear-Weapon States. 4.3.2. Vague, Conditional and Demeaning Offers to Iran The proposal had absolutely no firm guarantees or commitments and did not even incorporate meaningful or serious offers of cooperation to Iran. It amounted to an elongated but substantively shortened and self-servingly revised version of an offer that had been proposed by EU3 and rejected by Iran in October 2004 even prior to the Paris Agreement. This indicated that there was no attempt on the part of EU3 to even take into consideration the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement in their proposal. This point is further illustrated by the fact that the proposal never even mentioned the terms objective guarantees, firm guarantees or firm commitments, which were the foundations of the Paris Agreement. Instead it tried to replace objective guarantees with termination of Irans hard gained peaceful nuclear program, and replace firm guarantees and firm commitments with vague, conditional and partial restatements of existing obligations. In the area of security, the proposal did not go beyond repeating UN Charter principles or previously-made general commitments. Worse yet, the proposal even attempted to make EU3s commitment to these general principles of international law optional, partial, and conditional by prefacing the segment with the following statement: The EU3 propose that, within the context of an overall agreement, this section could include, inter alia, the following mutual commitments in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. Another example is the negative security assurances provided in the proposal by the nuclear-weapons states of the EU3. The proposal offered the mere repetition only by UK and France -- of a universal commitment already made by all nuclear weapon states in 1995 to all NPT members. It even made the application of that commitment to Iran contingent on an overall agreement by stating Within the context of an overall agreement and Irans fulfillment of its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the United Kingdom and France would be prepared to reaffirm to Iran the unilateral security assurances given on 6 April 1995, and referred to in United Nations Security Council Resolution 984 (1995). In the area of technology cooperation, it failed to include even an indication let alone guarantees -- of the EU3 readiness to abandon or ease its violations of international law and the NPT with regard to Irans access to technology. For instance, while under the NPT, the EU3 is obliged to facilitate Irans access to nuclear technology, the proposal makes a conditional and ambiguous offer not to impede participation in open competitive tendering. And far from the generally advertised offer of EU cooperation with Iran in construction of new nuclear power plants, the proposal generously offered to fully support long-term co-operation in the civil nuclear field between Iran and Russia. In the area of economic cooperation, the proposal only included a conditional recital of already existing commitments and arrangements. While most of the document amounted to general promises of future considerations, even specific offers went no further than conditional expressions of readiness to discuss. Two examples may be sufficient in this regard: The EU3 would continue to promote the sale of aircraft parts to Iran and be willing to enter into discussion about open procurement of the sale of civil passenger aircraft to Iran. Or, the EU3 and Iran, as well as the Commission, would discuss possible future oil and gas pipeline projects. This proposal made it self-evident that negotiations were not proceeding as called for in the Paris Agreement, due to EU3 policy of disregarding the requirements of that Agreement, reverting to their pre-Agreement positions, and prolonging a semblance of negotiations without the slightest attempt to move forward in fulfilling their commitments under the Tehran or Paris Agreements. This protracted continuation was solely designed to keep the suspension in place for as long as it takes to make cessation a fait accompli. This was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and was not in line with principles of good faith negotiations. In short, the proposal, read objectively in the context of the negotiating history of the Paris Agreement as well as its letter and spirit, clearly illustrates the total abandonment of that Agreement by the EU3, who have conveniently accused Iran of the same. 4.3.3. Minimal Reaction from Iran After such a long period of negotiations and all that Iran had done and continues to do in order to restore confidence as well as the flexibility that Iran has shown, there was no pretext for any further delay in the implementation of the first phase of Irans proposal, by limited resumption of UCF at Esfahan, which has been free from any past alleged failures, and is virtually proliferation free. In this context, Iran informed the Agency of its decision to resume the uranium conversion activities at the UCF in Esfahan and asked the Agency to be prepared for the implementation of the Safeguards related activities in a timely manner prior to the resumption of the UCF activities. 4.4. Who Violated the Paris Agreement? According to the Paris Agreement, the suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements. It also envisaged a mechanism for assessment of progress within three months. In the meeting of 23 March 2005, it was clear that there had been no progress over the preceding three months. As a clearly-stated attempt to salvage the agreement, Iran made its March 23rd proposal in terms of a package of objective guarantees. The refusal of the EU3 to even consider that package coupled with their behavior in the course of the negotiations, their August 2005 proposal and their repeated statements during the time of the presentation of that proposal and since then made in abundantly clear that under pressure from the US following the Paris Agreement, the EU3 had decided to unilaterally change the nature of the Paris Agreement. This amounted to a breach of the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement as well as the principle of good-faith negotiations. The EU3 negotiating posture and the empirical evidence of lack of progress had in fact removed any onus from Iran to continue the suspension. However, Iran decided to maintain the suspension of all enrichment related activities and resume only the UCF process, which is by definition a pre-enrichment process. Therefore, the assertion that Iran broke the Paris Agreement is a self-serving and factually false proposition. In fact, the reverse is the case. 5. Iran Goes the Extra Mile for a Negotiated Solution The Islamic Republic of Iran has always wanted to ensure that no effort is spared in order to reach a negotiated resumption of its enrichment activities. It, therefore, engaged in good faith and intensive negotiations with the EU3 and other interested delegations during the Summit of the United Nations in September 2005 in order to remove obstacles to the resumption of good-faith and result-oriented negotiations in accordance with established rights and obligations under the NPT. In this context, Iran responded positively to a proposal which would have removed any concern about the continued operation of the UCF in Esfahan at lower capacity for a specific period to allow negotiations to reach results. Iran also agreed to resume negotiations with the EU3 and to consider all proposals that had been presented. Furthermore, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in his address to the General Assembly on September 17, 2005, made yet another far reaching offer of added guarantee by inviting international partnership in Irans enrichment activities. While the President reiterated that Irans right to have fuel cycle technology was not negotiable, he presented the following confidence-building positions and proposals in his statement: * Readiness for constructive interaction and a just dialogue in good faith; * Prohibition of pursuit of nuclear weapons in accordance with religious principles; * Necessity to revitalize the NPT; * Cooperation with the IAEA as the centerpiece of Irans nuclear policy; * Readiness to continue negotiations with the EU3; * Readiness to consider various proposals that have been presented; * Welcome the proposal of South Africa to move the process forward; * Acceptance of partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment program in Iran which engages other countries directly and removes any concerns. 6. Abuse of IAEA Machinery Regrettably, the EU3, pressed by the United States, adopted a path of confrontation in the September 2005 IAEA Board of Governors meeting. In clear violation of their October 2003 and November 2004 commitments, the EU3moved a politically motivated and factually and legally flawed resolution in the IAEA Board of Governors, and together with the United States and using all their combined diplomatic and economic leverages imposed it on the Board through an unprecedented resort to voting rather than the previously unbroken practice of consensus. 6.1. No Legal or Factual Grounds for IAEA Findings The imposed resolution makes a mockery of the proceedings of the Board of Governors by rehashing alleged failures that had already been dealt with in the November 2003 Board. At that time, despite the existence of ambiguities and serious questions on important issues such as the source of HEU contamination, findings of non-compliance or absence of confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Irans program were impossible. The Board refrained from making such findings in 2003 not because of a now-claimed voluntary restraint by EU3, but because such were factually and legally impossible due to the nature of failures which were solely of technical reporting character -- and also because of the fact that the Director-General had specifically stated in his November 2003 report that to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme. It is ironic that after two years of cooperation, over 1200 person/days of intrusive inspections, resolution of nearly all outstanding issues particularly the foreign source of contamination, and after repeated reiteration of the finding of non-diversion including the conclusion in the IAEA November 2004 report that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities, the imposed resolution discovered ex post facto that the failures detailed in Gov/2003/75 [the aforementioned report of November 2003] constitutes non-compliance. 6.2. The Real Story: Pressure to Deny Irans Inalienable Rights While the resolution attempted to create a convenient albeit false pretext of these alleged and old reporting failures for its so-called findings, it is abundantly clear that the reason for production of this resolution was by no means those alleged failures, but instead the resumption of Irans perfectly legal and safeguarded activities in Esfahan. In this context, it must be underlined that all States party to the NPT, without discrimination, have an inalienable right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. As this right is inalienable, it cannot be undermined or curtailed under any pretext. Any attempt to do so, would be an attempt to undermine a pillar of the Treaty and indeed the Treaty itself. Iran, like any other Non-Nuclear-Weapon State, had no obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the exercise of its inalienable right, nor could it be obligated to suspend it. Suspension of Uranium enrichment, or any derivative of such suspension, is a voluntary and temporary confidence-building measure, effectuated by Iran in order to enhance cooperation and close the chapter of denials of access to technology imposed by the west on Iran. It is not an end in itself, nor can it be construed or turned into a permanent abandonment of a perfectly lawful activity, thereby perpetuating, rather than easing, the pattern of denial of access to technology. The suspension of Uranium enrichment has been in place for nearly two years, with all its economic and social ramifications affecting thousands of families. The EU3 failed to remove any of the multifaceted restrictions on Irans access to advanced and nuclear technology. In a twist of logic, it even attempted to prolong the suspension, thereby trying to effectively widen its restrictions instead of fulfilling its commitments of October 2003 and November 2004 to remove them. As the IAEA Board of Governors had underlined in its past and current resolution, suspension is a voluntary, non-legal binding confidence building measure. When the Board itself explicitly recognizes that suspension is not a legally-binding obligation, no wording by the Board can turn this voluntary measure into an essential element for anything. In fact the Board of Governors has no factual or legal ground, nor any statutory power, to make or enforce such a demand, or impose ramifications as a consequence of it. 7. The Way Forward: No Coercion, Good-Faith Negotiations The recently imposed resolution on the IAEA Board of Governors is devoid of any legal authority, and any attempt to implement it will be counter-productive and will leave Iran with no option but to suspend its voluntary confidence building measures. The threat of referral to the Security Council will only further complicate the issue and will not alter Irans resolve to exercise its legitimate and inalienable rights under the NPT. At the same time, Iran is determined to pursue good-faith interaction and negotiations, based on equal footing, as the centerpiece of its approach to the nuclear issue. A diplomatic and negotiated framework is the desired approach for a successful outcome and Iran is ready to consider all constructive and effective proposals. Iran welcomes consultations and negotiations with other countries in order to facilitate the work of the Agency and calls on the EU3 to replace the course of confrontation with interaction and negotiation to reach understanding and agreement. The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to non-proliferation and the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons and capability to produce or acquire them as detrimental to its security. Iran will continue to abide by its obligations under the NPT and will continue to work actively for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Copyright ) 2004 Islamic Republic of Iran. * ================================================================ .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] Russian View on Iran "Stalls" UN Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:41:36 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - May 5, 2006 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0505/728843102FR05IRAN.html Russian view on Iran stalls UN by Daniel Dombey in London, Neil Buckley in Moscow and Guy Dinmore in Washington Russia: Russia's stance on Iran's nuclear programme took centre stage yesterday as the US and the European Union sought to win Moscow's support for a hard-hitting United Nations Security Council resolution. But their efforts - inspired by Russia and China's rejection this week of a draft resolution that appeared to pave the way to sanctions - face a double challenge. Moscow has deep-seated concerns about agreeing a resolution under Article 7 of the UN charter, which it believes could be used at a later date to justify military conflict. "The Russians appear to have the deepest reservations," said one European diplomat. "The Chinese appear to be more flexible." The US and Europe also need to overcome a second obstacle - the current difficult relations between Moscow and the West. These were thrown into relief yesterday by US vice-president Dick Cheney's accusation that Russia had been guilty of "blackmail" against close neighbours such as Ukraine. On a series of issues, including Russia's energy policy, Belarus and the planned expansion of Nato, Russia is at loggerheads with US and European states. On the Iran dossier, top diplomats from the permanent five members of the UN Security Council have met twice in recent weeks. Each time, Russian objections to the US and EU's current course of action have left the most lasting impact. A day after the most recent meeting, on Tuesday night, the British and French presented their draft Security Council resolution in New York. The resolution would legally oblige Iran to suspend uranium enrichment - the process that can create weapons-grade material - by an unspecified deadline, thought to be about one month. Such a timeline could bring the issue to a head in the run-up to Russia's hosting of the summit of eight industrialised countries in July. "If the Russians say our approach is a problem, they should come forward with another solution," said a French diplomat. Moscow's public stance on Iran, however, remains unchanged: that the crisis can be resolved only by diplomatic means. It insists that Iran's intention to produce weapons is unproven, and that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors must be given a chance to complete their work. It has issued strongly worded calls for Iran to restore its moratorium on uranium enrichment. But one Moscow official argues that, since the moratorium was voluntary and Iran is not in breach of international law by carrying out enrichment, coercive means to force it to restore the moratorium are not justifiable. Privately, diplomats say Russia concedes Iran is almost certainly seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and is just as concerned as any of its partners. Indeed, senior officials in Moscow are understood to be angered by portrayals of them in the US media as seeking to appease Tehran or put commercial relationships above the goals of non-proliferation. Russia has agreed contracts of $1 billion (786 million) each to build a reactor at Bushehr and provide Iran with an air defence system. The Russian government believes it has a better understanding of Iran - due to a relationship the US lacks - and of what actions are likely to be effective. It also fears the US has a hidden agenda: regime change. Yesterday, Dominique de Villepin, France's prime minister, sought to reassure Moscow. "Military action is certainly not the solution," he said. "Not only does it not solve anything, but it increases risks." Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, stressed in talks with President Bush on Wednesday night the importance of moving ahead slowly to keep the coalition together, with Russia on board. - (Financial Times service) ) The Irish Times * ================================================================ .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] Scott Ritter on the IAEA and Iran Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Dave Muller (southnews) Guardian Blog - May 2, 2006 http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/scott_ritter/2006/05/post_62.html Once more unto [sic] the breach by Scott Ritter 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. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Draft UN resolution on Iran: full text Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:39:51 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Times of London/Reuters via Info Clearing House - May 4, 2006 http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12946.htm UN resolution on Iran: full text of draft By Times Online and Reuters 05/04/06--Full text of a draft UN Security Council resolution put forward by Britain, France, the United States and Germany as the councils proposed response to Irans nuclear programme. The draft was presented at a closed council meeting after Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last Friday that Iran had failed to respond to a council statement calling on Iran to suspend its nuclear activities. The Security Council: - Recalling the statement of its president, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March - 2006, - Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of states party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, - Noting with serious concern the many reports of the IAEA director general and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Irans nuclear program, reported to it by the IAEA director general, including IAEA board Resolution GOV/2006/14, - Noting with serious concern that the IAEA director generals report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Irans nuclear program, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran, - Noting with serious concern the IAEA director generals report of 28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Irans nuclear program, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, - Noting with serious concern that Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, reiterated by the council in its statement of 29 March and which are essential to build confidence, and in particular Irans decision to resume enrichment-related activities, including research and development, its recent expansion of and announcements about such activities, and its continued suspension of cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol (to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, allowing surprise inspections), - Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear program, mindful of the threat to international peace and security and its responsibilities in this regard, and determined to prevent an aggravation of the situation, - Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Calls upon Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear program and to resolve outstanding questions, 2. Decides, in this regard, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA, and suspend the construction of a reactor moderated by heavy water, 3. Expresses the conviction that such suspension as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Irans nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes, and underlines the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution which will also benefit nuclear nonproliferation elsewhere, 4. Calls upon all states to exercise vigilance in preventing the transfer of items, materials, goods and technology that could contribute to Irans enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and missile program, 5. Strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, commends and encourages the director general of the IAEA and its secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve outstanding issues in Iran, underlines the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Irans nuclear program, and calls upon Iran to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol and to implement without delay all transparency measures as the IAEA may request in support of its ongoing investigations, 6. Requests in days a report from the director general of the IAEA on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the IAEA Board and the above decisions, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration, 7. Expresses its intention to consider such further measures as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this resolution and decides that further examination will be required should such additional steps be necessary, 8. Notes that full verified compliance by Iran, confirmed by the IAEA Board, would avoid the need for such additional steps, 9. Decides to remain seized of the matter. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Annan: U.S. Should Hold Talks With Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Friday May 5, 2006 6:31 AM AP Photo DCLJ105 UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan encouraged the United States to hold direct talks with Iran and expressed hope that an agreement can be reached to settle the nuclear dispute with Tehran without resorting to violence. The U.N. chief called for intensified diplomatic efforts to press the Iranians to suspend uranium enrichment while putting something on the table for Tehran, possibly technology or security assurances that nobody is going to blow up their nuclear facilities. ``It would also be good if the U.S. were to be at the table with the Europeans, the Iranians, the Russians, to try and work this out,'' Annan said in an interview Thursday on ``The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer'' on PBS television. ``I think it would be a good idea because the Iranians give you the impression that ... whatever they discuss with the Europeans had to be checked with the U.S. and come back,'' he added. The secretary-general spoke as the U.N. Security Council started discussing a Western-backed resolution that would make mandatory an earlier council demand that Iran stop uranium enrichment or face the threat of ``further measures.'' While pledging to let diplomacy run its course, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she did not see the need for direct talks now between Washington and Tehran, as favored by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, and other lawmakers. Britain, France and Germany have been leading negotiations to try to get Iran to give up its enrichment program, but Tehran has refused and is pressing ahead, insisting it is legally entitled to produce nuclear energy for electricity under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The three European nations, backed by the U.S., want the program stopped because they believe Iran's real goal is to use the enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons. Iran said this week it is now enriching uranium to 4.8 percent, the level required for fueling nuclear power reactors. That level is far below the enrichment of more than 90 percent that is required for making nuclear weapons. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's U.N. Envoy Criticizes Resolution From the Associated Press [UP] Friday May 5, 2006 2:01 AM AP Photo UNDK103 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran's top U.N. envoy criticized a proposed resolution on its nuclear program that carried a threat of further action which could include sanctions, charging Thursday that it's aimed at provoking confrontation rather than resolving the dispute. Ambassador Javad Zarif said it was regrettable the United States, Britain and France were taking a confrontational approach because ``there are a multitude of possibilities for finding a peaceful resolution.'' ``If anything, the draft indicates the intention of those who drafted it to create a crisis where a crisis is not needed, to create an atmosphere of tension which our region does not need, and which can be avoided simply by allowing serious, reasonable, sober discussion,'' he said. Under the proposed draft, the Security Council's demand in late March for Iran to stop enrichment would be made mandatory, and Tehran would be given a short period to comply. If it refuses, the resolution says the council intends to consider ``further measures'' to ensure compliance. The sponsors want the resolution adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which can be enforced by sanctions - or if necessary - military action. The draft also includes a declaration that the ``proliferation risk'' posed by Iran constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The resolution, which was introduced Wednesday by Britain and France and was strongly supported by the U.S., put the three Western allies at odds with Russia and China, the two other veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council who adamantly oppose strong council action and sanctions. The five permanent members met Thursday afternoon to discuss the text and agreed to meet again Friday morning. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said there was a better understanding of each other's views but ``we have some different views about Chapter 7.'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States is trying to achieve unanimity among the five permanent members and the major issues are putting the resolution under Chapter 7 and calling Iran a threat to international peace and security. ``I believe the resolution does not serve any purpose other than pushing the issue into a confrontation,'' Zarif said. ``There are possibilities for cooperation but this resolution ... indicates the intention of the drafters of the resolution to prevent cooperation and to move into confrontation.'' Zarif reiterated that Iran ``does not respond well to threat and intimidation.'' ``I think Iran has made it very clear that we are prepared to move forward with transparency measures. Iran is prepared to a negotiated solution,'' he told reporters. Bolton countered that ``the only confrontation here is provided by the Iranians. ... If they'd give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, all kinds of things would be possible.'' Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium for a peaceful nuclear energy program under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iranian authorities say the country is trying to achieve self-sufficiency in the technology despite growing international pressure to stop enrichment because of concerns that Iran's real goal is to produce nuclear weapons. Zarif said the real issue is not suspending enrichment - which Iran did for two years with no results - but to find a way to implement two pillars of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, guaranteeing Iran's rights and guaranteeing nonproliferation. ``Iran is certainly ready for both these elements and we will do everything possible in order to guarantee them both,'' he said. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the supporters of the resolution prefer cooperation but the report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said Iran had refused the council's demand to halt enrichment. ``We've been on this case for 2 1/2 years,'' he said. ``All the time we were talking, Iran was developing enrichment capability and research and development capability.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Says Iran Should Renounce Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Friday May 5, 2006 5:01 PM AP Photo PVIL106 By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting Kazakhstan Friday, said that Iran should follow the example the Central Asian set several years ago in renouncing nuclear weapons. At a news conference, Cheney also shrugged off Russian criticism of a speech he delivered Thursday that accused President Vladimir Putin of backsliding on democracy and using energy resources as political leverage against European countries. ``We need to find a way diplomatically to avoid a kind of problem that would result from Iran-developed nuclear weapons,'' Cheney told reporters after unexpectedly lengthy talks with President Nursultan Nazarbayev. He said the United States is working with others to try to find a ``diplomatic solution to avoid a confrontation over this issue.'' With Nazarbayev standing a few feet away, Cheney added, ``I frankly think that the example provided by Kazakhstan some years ago when they achieved independence, of giving up the inventory of nuclear weapons that were deployed in Kazakhstan, was an outstanding example that the Iranians might want to consider.'' Cheney said he hadn't yet had the chance to ``study the reaction out of Moscow'' from Thursday's speech. ``The speech was very carefully crafted but made it clear the extent to which they seek to resist the development of strong democracies'' in Eastern Europe, he said. Cheney said that even with his remarks, he expects a meeting of the world's industrialized nations to occur as scheduled in Russia this summer, and ``we'll all benefit from a free, open and honest exchange of views at that conference.'' Nazarbayev, whose country shares borders with both Russia and China, betrayed no concern about the sharp rhetoric. ``Every country has the right to voice their opinion about what is happening in another country and if they'll just do that in a friendly fashion we'll all benefit from it,'' he said. Cheney arrived for talks seeking to maximize access to the vast oil and gas reserves in the central Asian nation with a troubled human-rights record. He became the fourth top administration official to visit the former Soviet republic in recent months, underscoring the importance placed on a country that is strategically located and an ally in the war on terror, as well as rich in energy resources. The two men met privately more than an hour, far longer than the few minutes that had been expected to precede a larger meeting of delegations. There was no word on what the two men discussed in their private talks. They sat down in a year-old presidential palace, part of a new capital that has been rising for nearly a decade. Signs of economic development were seemingly everywhere - more than two dozen towering construction cranes were easily visible in the distance from the steps outside the palace. Cheney's schedule included a dinner with his host, with horsemeat cold cuts, a local delicacy, on the menu. Administration policy favors development of multiple means of delivering Kazakhstan's energy supplies to markets in the West and elsewhere. Among them, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told Congress recently, the United States is ``working on securing the flow of oil'' from North Caspian oil fields by tanker to a pipeline terminus in Azerbaijan. That route would bypass Russia and Iran. There has also been periodic talk of building a pipeline under the Caspian Sea. Energy aside, one senior administration official said the vice president would prod Nazarbayev to make further democratic reforms in the country he has ruled since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. ``The government's human-rights record remains poor,'' according to a recent State Department report. It was unclear how Cheney would attempt to balance the two concerns - American energy needs in a time of high prices alongside a desire for political reforms. His talks came one day after a speech to East European leaders in Lithuania that sharply criticized Russia for retreating on democracy. One senior administration official traveling with Cheney said the remarks, which drew quick criticism from Moscow, had been ``very well vetted'' in advance within the administration. Officials disclosed belatedly that while in Lithuania to attend a meeting of eastern European leaders, Cheney had met Thursday afternoon with Inna Kulei, the wife of the jailed Belarusian opposition leader, Alexander Milinkevich . The vice president's stop in Kazakhstan followed visits in recent months by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and Samuel Bodman, secretary of energy. According to the Web site of the U.S.-Kazakhstan Business Association, the Asian country has potential oil reserves of as much 110 billion barrels. American energy companies are heavily invested in that nation's oil industry, and Halliburton, the company Cheney ran before becoming vice president, has an oil-field services presence there. ``Kazakhstan, an economic success story, is rapidly becoming one of the top energy producing nations in the world,'' Boucher told a House committee on April 26. Along with its economic reforms, Boucher said, the nation ``has an opportunity to achieve stability by upholding standards of democracy and human rights.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Iran cleric vows 'harsh' response in nuclear showdown Fri May 5, 7:16 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - A top Iranian cleric has vowed a harsh response in case of a showdown with the West over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme and said Iran" /> Iranwould not abide by "bullying" Security Council resolutions. "Remember if you want to pursue the path of confrontation and talk to this people with a language of force, the ... nation's response will be so harsh that it will make the enemy regret forever," hardline cleric Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami said in his Friday prayer sermon broadcast live on state radio. "The United States and the Security Council should know that Iran is not the kind of country to back down faced with your bullying resolutions," he said, drawing chants from the faithful of "death to America." The United Nation Security Council is mulling a legally binding resolution demanding a freeze on Tehran's uranium enrichment work -- the process that makes the fuel for reactors but can also be used for the explosive core of an atom bomb. Invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which can authorize economic sanctions or even military action as a last resort to force compliance, it calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" in preventing the transfer to Iran of equipment that could assist its nuclear and missile programs. Branding the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyas "incompetent", Khatami denounced the watchdog body for referring Iran to the Security Council. "The IAEA is supporting arrogant powers, which are the axis of evil, instead of encouraging and helping a member country that has reached self-sufficiency in the field of nuclear fuel". Tehran maintains that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Tready it has the right to conduct enrichment and insists its nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Defiant Iranian president pledges to pursue atomic fuel production - Fri May 5, 7:54 AM ET BAKU (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed that Iran" /> would pursue fuel production for its controversial nuclear programme and branded those trying to stop this as "bullies." "We intend to continue our activity ... until we manage industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel for our atomic power stations," Ahmadinejad said Friday, according to a text of his speech at a regional summit in Azerbaijan. The Iranian president's comments in the Azerbaijani capital Baku came as Western powers, which fear Tehran is concealing a drive for atomic weapons, pushed for a UN resolution requiring an end to uranium enrichment or possible sanctions. Ahmadinejad told leaders from the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) -- which includes five of Iran's neighbours -- that "bullies are insolently trying to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries." The speech was made behind closed doors, but a copy of the text was obtained by AFP. Ahmadinejad also hailed his country's nuclear power project as "a great achievement for the whole region and the Islamic world." But he stressed Iran's desire to work under the scrutiny of the UN's watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> , which last week reported that Tehran had failed to comply with a demand to suspend uranium enrichment. "Our scientific progress serves the interest of peace and does not threaten a single state," he said. "All the unfounded statements made against Iran cannot influence the will of the Iranian people." The Iranian president was in Baku for a regional development summit of the 10-nation ECO Group, which includes Iran's neighbours Afghanistan" /> , Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkey and Turkmenistan. He called for regional support, saying that "the constructive cooperation of ECO is a very important step. Unfortunately there is injustice in the current international structures." Ahmadinejad also met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. The United States and Europe allege that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weaponry under cover of a civilian power network currently being built with Russian help. The draft UN Security Council resolution put forward by Britain and France would legally oblige Iran to comply with UN demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, the process creating fuel for reactors but what can also be the core of an atomic bomb. Under the proposed resolution, sanctions and even a military assault could be authorised in case of non-compliance. Iran says it needs enriched uranium as fuel for its civilian programme and refuses to halt the work. Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, said that Erdogan wanted Ahmadinejad to compromise. "All of us should make efforts for peace. We should insist on diplomatic means and find a compromise," he said. Iran's neighbours are nervous about the potential fallout in the region of sanctions or any other deterioration. "The most difficult situation will be for neighbouring countries," Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, said Thursday. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Defiant Iranian president pledges to pursue atomic fuel production - Fri May 5, 2:37 PM ET BAKU (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran" /> Iranwould pursue fuel production for its controversial nuclear program and branded those trying to stop this as "bullies." "We intend to continue our activity... until we manage industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel for our atomic power stations," Ahmadinejad said, according to the text of a speech he gave at a regional summit in Azerbaijan. The Iranian president's comments in the Azerbaijani capital Baku came as Western powers, which fear Tehran secretly plans to build atomic weapons, pushed for a UN resolution requiring an end to uranium fuel enrichment. Ahmadinejad told leaders from the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO), which includes five of Iran's neighbours, that "bullies are insolently trying to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries." At a later press conference, he said that "two or three" countries dominated international institutions that were meant to be serving the world. "They have nuclear weapons and they say that you can't even have nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. If it's bad, why do they have it? If it's good, why do they not allow us to?" he asked. Accusing his Western opponents of mounting a "psychological war" to "laugh at Iran," he warned: "Let them look at where (Iran) is on the map and how big it is." Ahmadinejad hailed his country's nuclear power project as "a great achievement for the whole region and the Islamic world." But he also warned that the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), which last week reported that Iran had failed to meet a deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, "must act in the framework of the rules. If they don't, they lose all legitimacy." "For the moment, our policy is to work within the framework of the (IAEA) rules but if they want to impose limits on us, we will change our policy accordingly," he said. The Iranian president called for support from the ECO Group, which comprises ten overwhelmingly Muslim countries, including Iran's neighbours Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkey and Turkmenistan. "The constructive cooperation of ECO is a very important step," he said. However, in a separate meeting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Ahmadinejad that the international community was resolute against the spread of atomic weapons. "No country in the world will approve the proliferation of nuclear weapons," he was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency. The United States and Europe allege that Iran is using the Russian-backed construction of a civilian nuclear power network as cover for a plan to acquire nuclear weaponry. The draft UN Security Council resolution backed by Britain and France would oblige Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, the process creating fuel for reactors and -- potentially -- the core of an atomic bomb. The proposed resolution refers to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which can authorize economic sanctions or military action as a last resort, but only warns of unspecified "further measures" requiring another resolution. Iran says it needs enriched uranium as fuel for its civilian program and defends the work as its sovereign right. Neighbouring states are nervous about the potential fallout of economic sanctions or any other deterioration in the tense standoff. "The most difficult situation will be for neighboring countries," Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, said Thursday. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Iran will change policies if IAEA asks - Ahmadinejad Fri May 5, 11:26 AM ET BAKU (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran" /> will change its policies if asked to do so by the UN nuclear monitor. Ahmadinejad told journalists in the Azeri capital that Iran would pursue its civilian nuclear programme within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA). "It is natural if they want to put limitations on us (that), corresponding with those limitations, we will change our policies," he said Friday, according to the English-language translator at the press conference. Iran is under international pressure to abandon its nuclear power programme, which Western countries say could be hiding a project to construct an atomic bomb. The IAEA confirmed last month that Iran had not complied with a UN Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment, opening the way to action by the council against Tehran. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 IRNA: Mottaki: A professional attitude needed to solve Iran's nuclear issue - Baku, May 4, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Mottaki Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Thursday that "a much more professional and non-political attitude is needed towards Iran's legitimate right to access peaceful nuclear technology in order to put an end to the current nuclear impasse. The Iranian foreign minister made the remarks after his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on the eve of the 9th summit of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) due to begin on Friday. Speaking to reporters on ways of resolving Iran's nuclear dossier, he said the current non-political attitude should be avoided and instead the grounds should be prepared for continued cooperation between Tehran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Highlighting Iran's extensive cooperation with IAEA, he said Iran's nuclear dossier is a professional and non-political issue and "we are on the opinion that politicizing the issue would be illogical and impractical." Referring to developments pertaining to nationalization of oil industry in Iran over 50 years ago and how the the members of the UN Security Council dealt with the issue at that time, he said it is good to know that a UNSC member called the move as a threat to world security. The way the UN Security Council dealt with the nationalization of Iranian oil industry was a good test for the national will of nations and their steadfastness in materializing their national interests, he said. ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: IAEA still central to solving Iran crisis - Russian FM Fri May 5, 7:06 AM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the international community should continue to focus on the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) in its efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. "It's necessary to wholly support the continuation of the activities of the IAEA in Iran" /> Iranand I hope that all efforts of the international community, in Vienna and in New York, will be aimed at exactly that," Lavrov told journalists Friday, referring to the host cities of the IAEA and the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity Council. "In such an important and serious area as nuclear proliferation we trust only the judgement of professionals," said Lavrov, whose country is one of the Security Council's five permanent members. IAEA inspections "have not supported the conclusion that Iran possesses technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction... On the other hand, the inspections don't support the opposite conclusion," he said. "All our proposals today are aimed at clarifying this question," Lavrov said. He was speaking as the permanent members of the Security Council mulled a binding draft resolution demanding a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment work. Western powers suspect that what Iran has presented as a civilian nuclear programme is in fact a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Russia, a close political and commercial ally of Iran, has consistently cautioned against the use of sanctions or force in the Iranian nuclear stand-off. In New York on Wednesday, Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow would be prepared to back a Franco-British draft resolution on Iran if its concerns were addressed. Russia is building Iran's first nuclear power station at Bushehr, a project that Washington has said Moscow should halt. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: UN still chasing agreement on Iran draft Fri May 5, 9:02 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council sought to narrow differences on a draft resolution that would legally require Iran " /> to stop sensitive nuclear fuel work as Turkey warned against nuclear proliferation. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- the council's five permanent members with veto powers (P5) -- first haggled behind closed doors in the morning before sitting down with their 10 non-permanent colleagues in the afternoon. It was agreed that P5 ambassadors would meet again late morning Saturday before informal consultations by the full 15-member council in the afternoon. The Franco-British draft would oblige Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, the process creating fuel for nuclear reactors and -- potentially -- the core of an atomic bomb. However it merely warns of, in cases of Iranian non-compliance, unspecified "further measures" requiring another resolution. A Western diplomat said the sponsors were working on a formula that could overcome objections by Moscow and Beijing to the draft's reference to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Chapter Seven can authorize economic sanctions or military action as a last resort in cases of threats to international peace and security. Diplomats said a vote on the draft was unlikely until after Monday's meeting of foreign ministers of the P5 plus Germany in New York. Britain's UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry said the discussions were "helpful" with all members agreeing on the goal that "we do not want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons." But Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin made it clear the purpose of the draft was to provide assurances that "the Iranian program stays exclusively within a peaceful framework." And he argued that only the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog agency can provide that assurance. He also suggested that invoking Chapter Seven and a threat to international peace might be "detrimental" to the goal of having the International Atomic Energy Agency " /> (IAEA) work with Tehran to "establish the peaceful nature of its nuclear program." Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya argued that according to Article 25 of the UN charter, "any decision by the Security Council has to be carried out," implying that Chapter Seven may not be necessary. "I don't share that view," retorted British envoy Emyr Jones Parry. Western powers suspect Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons under the cover of its civilian atomic program but Tehran insists its drive aims to generate electricity only. US Ambassador John Bolton, explaining the rationale for invoking Chapter Seven, said: "the objective is to increase the political pressure on Iran by making mandatory the resolutions that have already been agreed to over a three-year period by the IAEA." He said the formulation in no way implied the use of force. Tanzanian Ambassador Augustine Mahiga called for a parallel "diplomatic initiative" through multiple channels to engage the Iranians and convince them they should comply with UN demands. Meanwhile Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of a regional gathering in Azerbaijan that the world community would not tolerate nuclear weapons proliferation. But Ahmadinejad vowed that his country would pursue nuclear fuel production and branded those trying to stop this as "bullies." He also stressed Iran's desire to work under the scrutiny of the IAEA, which last week reported that Tehran had failed to comply with a demand to suspend uranium enrichment. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: US shows increasing frustration with Russia Fri May 5, 2:42 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Vice President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheney's strong attack on Russian domestic and energy policies this week reflected growing US frustration with Moscow's increasingly autocratic bent and headstrong diplomatic posturing. But it also highlighted the dilemma facing a US administration committed to pushing democratic values in its ertswhile Cold War foe, while needing Moscow's help on a slew of thorny international issues. The harsh rhetoric surfaced at a particularly delicate time with Washington struggling to line up Russian support for tough UN action against Iran" /> Iranin the dispute over its controversial nuclear activities. It also came just over two months before a summit of the Group of Eight industrial democracies in St. Petersburg where US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwas likely to be dogged by questions about the pace of reforms carried out by his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putin. Cheney made headlines with a stinging speech Thursday that accused the Kremlin of restricting human rights and using oil and gas as "tools of manipulation or blackmail" against Russia's neighbors. The State Department said it had been given an advance look at the vice president's address to European leaders in the former Soviet republic of Lithuania, and the remarks reflected administration thinking. "It's not a new policy speech," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters "It's an outline of where the horizon is for democracy and, I think, a very straightforward, clear assessment of where Russia stands right now." But if the complaints raised by Cheney were nothing new, the tone was considerably sharper than the approach taken by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricein her efforts to cajole Moscow into a softer line. Rice has consistently warned against trying to isolate the Russians and insisted last month that US comments on democratic reform were made "not in an accusatory way, they're not through a sense of criticism." Nevertheless, Washington's view of Moscow has dimmed since Bush said famously in 2001 that he had looked into Putin's soul and found someone he could work with. The Americans have a growing litany of issues, including a concentration of power in the Kremlin, a crackdown on Russia's broadcast media and an effort to keep a tight rein on pro-democracy and human rights groups. Analysts said that by raising the stakes through Cheney, Bush hoped to set down a marker for the St. Petersburg summit and prod the Russians to take steps to avert a diplomatic debacle at the July 15-17 meeting. The Americans have also kept a close eye on the flexing of Russian diplomatic and economic muscle and were quick to react when the Kremlin cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in January, which also affected parts of Europe. Alluding to separatist enclaves in the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia, Cheney said, "No one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbour, or interfere with democratic movements." Russia is a main obstacle to the US drive for UN sanctions against Iran for allegedly trying to build a nuclear bomb. Moscow has also resisted Washington's efforts to isolate Hamas in the Palestinian territories. But experts warned the Americans' stepped-up verbal assault could run the risk of alienating Moscow at a time when they were looking to boost cooperation on the world scene. "I think Cheney's speech ... is undoubtely likely to irritate the Kremlin and in my personal opinion not likely to get the result that they want," said Stephen Larrabee, a European security specialst at the Rand Corporation. "It's clear the effort to maintain some sort of a balanced is important because we would be better off with Russian cooperation on Iran and on Hamas if we could get it." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 IRNA: Ex-Swiss envoy to Iran stresses Tehran not after nuclear bomb - Berlin, May 5, IRNA Germany-Iran-Nuclear Program Despite repeated US claims, Iran has no intentions whatsoever to build a nuclear bomb, former Swiss ambassador to Iran, Tim Guldimann said on German television late Thursday evening. "The Iranians do not want to have an atomic bomb. Iran's Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei) has repeatedly said he opposes a nuclear bomb and his remarks are believable," Guldimann said during a round-table discussion on Iran's nuclear dispute, broadcast on the German Phoenix television network. Guldimann stressed Iran's close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency over the past three years, allowing unannounced snap inspections of nuclear and even military facilities, proved Iran has nothing to hide and is not seeking a nuclear weapon. "Iran's religious leadership has taken up a clear position (on this issue), saying they don't want an atomic weapon," he reiterated. Guldimann who served as Switzerland's ambassador in Iran from 1999 through 2004, proposed Iran should be allowed to keep its uranium enrichment program but "under a strict international control". The former Swiss diplomat is currently teaching at Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt. ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: Merkel, Mubarak to discuss Iran's nuclear program , May 5, IRNA German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will hold talks on Iran's nuclear program in Berlin next week, deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg told the press here Friday. Iran's nuclear program is an important issue on the international level and of course it will be an important topic of discussions between the chancellor and the Egyptian president, the German official said. The meeting in Berlin on Wednesday will also focus on the latest developments in the Mideast region and promoting 'dialogue of cultures', according to Steg who stressed Cairo's "important role" in the Middle East. Mubarak's main purpose for the three-day visit to Germany will be the opening of an exhibition in Berlin on Thursday titled "Egypt's sunken treasures". ***************************************************************** 18 IRNA: Military action against Iran not on EU agenda Brussels, May 5, IRNA EU-Iran-UN Nobody in the European Union is thinking about any military action against the Islamic Republic, EU diplomatic sources told IRNA in Brussels. "Military actions against Iran is totally off the agenda of the EU. No EU member state will join the "coalition of the willing," said the sources speaking on condition of anonymity. "For us the international coalition is the process in the UN to go back to negotiations. Europeans are clearly determined to a negotiated settlement," stressed the sources. The Bush administration wants to form a new "coalition of the willing" that would impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. "We will, however, continue calling on Iran to stop enrichment- related activities," said the EU sources. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful goals and the UN nuclear watchdog, IAEA, in repeated reports noted that it has found no evidence that Tehran has diverted its program for any other use. France and the UK in consultations with Germany and the US circulated a draft resolution in the UN Security Council Thursday night that would legally oblige Iran to comply with UN demands that it freeze its enrichment of uranium. Iran has criticized the draft resolution saying it aims to create a crisis. "This resolution indicates the intentions of those who drafted it to create a crisis where the crisis is not needed ... and which can be avoided simply by allowing a serious, reasonable, sober discussion on valid proposals," Iran's ambassador and permanent envoy to the UN Mohammad-Javad Zarif told reporters in New York . According to EU diplomatic sources, the new resolution is similar in content to the one issued by the Security Council Presidency statement of 29 March on Iran's nuclear programme. The main difference is that the new resolution which includes Chapter 7 - if adopted - will be legally-binding on all UN members, but do not automatically lead to sanctions or military action. Before a Chapter 7 resolution is adopted, the Security Council has to agree that there is a threat to "international peace and security." China and Russia are opposed to such a resolution arguing that there is no evidence that the Islamic Republic is producing nuclear weapons or Iran poses a threat to international security. Meanwhile, EU High Representative for a common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, will travel to New York to attend the meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China, France, Russia and the US - plus Germany. Lots of tough negotiations are expected to precede a vote in the Security Council on the Iran resolution expected to take place next week. Iran will then have a month, probably till end of June, to comply with the new resolution, said EU sources. ***************************************************************** 19 The Nuclear Option in a Mad, Mad World Posted on"05 May 2006" Those who think Nuclear Power could be the solution to oil dependency is pure folly The total world demand for oil reached 85.71 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2005. The main consumers were North America that accounted for 30.6 percent (or 25.65 mbd), the Pacific and Asia, including China, that accounted for 29 percent, and Western Europe for 19.5 percent. The remaining 21 percent of the total demand came from Africa, the Middle East, countries of the former Soviet Union, and Latin America. At this point, the demand is growing most rapidly in the Pacific and Asian region (due to the resurgence of China) and in the Middle East (due to wars), whereas demand growth has slowed down in Eastern Europe (due to deindustrialization) and in Western Europe (due to conservation and the use of alternatives to fossil fuels). Thus, in 2005, world demand grew at about 2 percent over the previous year. Meanwhile, the declared world refining capacity stood at 85 mbd in 2005. Taking into consideration the likelihood of bad weather events, additional wars, and oligopolistic shenanigans, negative supply shocks appear more likely than demand shocks. This means that by the end of 2006, there will probably be severe pressure on the price of oil, already oscillating around $65 a barrel. As dictated by orthodox economics, our world is obsessed with economic growth. The average person firmly believes that a 4 percent growth is always preferable to a 2 percent, and that economic growth is environmentally cost free. That credo is largely untrue, but it is vehemently pushed by governments, multinational firms and by the international punditry in the evening news. While it is true that at this point, growth depends on oil, as it is a key input in world economic activity, and so for the foreseeable future. Hence, higher crude oil price is to be expected. What is rarely emphasized, however, is that increasing oil price has many direct implications for economic growth itself. First, higher price affects global aggregate demand for goods and services by transferring income from consumers to oil producers, which on the average have a lower propensity to consume such goods and services. Pumping more inaccessible oil means higher production costs and lower profit margins. These in turn will drive the rise in inflation, depending of course on the response of monetary policy as well as that of consumers and producers in view of offsetting the decline in income and profits. Increases in price may also lower consumers confidence and, at the same time, reduce investors willingness to undertake long term capital projects. The consumption of oil is also taking a heavy toll on the environment. Last year, the consumption of fossil fuel poured some 7 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, driving the rise in the world mean temperature; that is to say global warming. I remember the first time I called economists attention to the seriousness that matter (see Unfettered Globalization, Praeger, 1999), the world oil output was 73 mbd, while the carbon concentration in the atmosphere was 374 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In 2005, world output rose to over 85 mbd and is still increasing, while the concentration of CO2 had reached 380 ppmv. As a direct consequence, the cost of bad weather events, in terms of lost assets and lives, has surpassed increases in the world GDP; just uninsured losses amounted to some $40 billion. Climatologists estimate that a concentration of 400 ppmv is a tipping point for many things we take for granted; while at 550 ppmv global warming might become irreversible. Actually, the level of carbon concentration at which global warming might become irreversible might even be overestimated, due to the recently discovered phenomenon called global dimming. Soot and other particulate matters in the atmosphere, coming from volcanic eruptions, coal burning, high flying aircrafts, etc., are blocking and reflecting the sunlight bound for the earth surface. The resulting air pollution is killing people directly through various ailments, and indirectly by shifting the rain belt northward, thereby causing drought and famine in Africa and flooding elsewhere. A reduction in air pollution is now a necessity, but that will also the increase in the world mean temperature. Over the last century, the mean temperature has gone up by anywhere between 0.6° to 0.8°C, but scientists did not know about the forced cooling brought about by pollution. If a rise of that magnitude is melting the ice caps and sheets, what would a rise of 1.2°C that would have been observed in the absence of pollution do? What I mean to say is that we are trapped between a rock and a hard place. Air pollution must be reduced, but that will accelerate global warming. Hence the point of no return will probably be reached at carbon concentration levels lower than 550 ppmv. To avoid that day of reckoning, we must reduce air pollution and halt the carbon concentration at less than 400 ppmv. Oil use intensity and higher price have cornered politicians and industry leaders. The consensus is that they do not dare shirk their responsibility in this matter any longer. But, quite astonishingly, instead of providing incentives to turn to safer options, such as biomass, solar, wind, tide, hydrogen, etc., they proposed the nuclear option as a solution. The Federal Government in the US, concerned with its dependence on Middle East oil, launched 4 years ago a campaign to encourage U.S. utilities to build a new generation of nuclear reactors by the end of the present decade. Politicians, vendors of nuclear reactors, warriors, and pundits applauded the decision; even a chairman of the Federal reserves got into the act, saying that it was the right direction to take. There are now 103 nuclear reactors operating in the US, but they provide only 20 percent of the countrys electricity need. It is then reasonable to ask: how many more reactors would the US builds in order to reduce that dependence? One hears the same refrain elsewhere. France is a close second in terms of the number of nuclear reactors in operation. Its 58 reactors supply 78 percent of Frances electricity need, but electricity represents only 20 percent of the countrys energy consumption; oil represents 49 percent. In England, the nuclear industry accounts for 27 percent of the countrys electricity need, but Mr. John Browne, the Chief Executive of BP, estimates that England needs an additional 7 gigawatts (one gigawatt (GW) = 1 billion watts) to sustain economic growth. However, the biggest and most modern nuclear plant is able to produce about 1.6 to 1.7 GW. So, Mr. Browne is telling that England needs at least 6 more reactors just to sustain economic growth; he does not consider the elimination of fossil fuel consumption, of course. As 25 percent of Englands nuclear plants will have to be replaced by 2016, according to a recent report, Mr. Blair said that he will press for a new generation of nuclear plants despite a highly critical report from MPs. Finland is another European country that could not wait to jump on the nuclear option. The country now has two nuclear plants producing some 3.4 GW, but it has just undertaken the building of the Olkiluoto complex, the first nuclear reactor to be built in Europe for more than a decade. Together, the three plants are supposed to boost Finlands need for electricity to only 37 percent, but the first two plants will have to be replaced within 25 years. Many countries that do not now have nuclear plants are thinking of their oil dependence and contemplating the nuclear option. Others that already have them are arguing that the present situation is far from satisfactory. Such is the case of Brazil. Up to the 1980s, the military government had great nuclear ambitions. These were scrapped in 1990. However, the nuclear fever has returned. The present government seems decided to join the nuclear club so as to boost its international status and perhaps to gain a seat in the Security Council of the United Nations. Brazils two nuclear plants are capable of enriching natural uranium to about 5% uranium-235, but International Atomic Energy Associations inspectors are not permitted to see the Brazilian-designed centrifuges. Maybe Brazil is afraid of industrial espionage, but what is not clear is why seven new nuclear plants are planned when the country is less dependent on petroleum than any other in Latin America? At this point, nuclear reaction satisfies 81 percent of Lithuanias electricity need, 60 percent of Belgiums, 47 percent of Ukraines, 46 percent of Swedens, 41 percent of Switzerlands, 40 percent of Hungarys, 36 percent of Germanys, 35 percent of Japans, 33 percent of South Koreas, 29 percent of Spains, 14 percent of Canadas, and so on until we reach China with 0.5 percent. In all, there are now some 440 nuclear reactors operating around the world, but they produce only 16 percent of the overall electricity needs. Even, if we omit the replacement need, some 2750 additional reactors would be needed to really satisfy world demand for electricity, even though that in itself would not eliminate the need for oil. To think that the nuclear could be the solution to oil dependency is pure folly. First, the economics of nuclear plants are not favorable compared with other options. They all must be heavily subsidized by governments in order to stay in operation. And when the environmental cost is added, it becomes clear that nuclear generation has never made sense, and never will. More importantly, contrarily to claims, and compared with other industrial complexes, nuclear plants are far from being safe. Leaks and near misses are not regularly reported, but they are frequent. The big accidents are known because they could not be hidden. The Three Mile Island in the US is one such case. The 1970 incident at Shellafield in England is another. France is reputed to have the safest installations, yet in 1981 a fire at Beaumont-Hague plant released a burst of radiation in the atmosphere. Twenty four years later, radiation levels in the region are still higher than normal and it is said that there children are more likely to come down with leukemia; the incidents at St Laurent des Eaux and at the Superphernix have all but destroyed that reputation. The Chernobyl meltdown in the Ukraine in 1986 sent a plume of radioactive debris over half of Europe, killed 56 persons involved in the clean-up operation and the World Health Organization initially estimates that it will prematurely kill 4,000 more from cancer. In a more recent report, the WHO and the International Atomic Energy Agency raised the figure to 9,000-10,000. The Russian Academy of Medical Sciences puts it conservatively at 212,000 in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus only. Houses, artifacts and the wild life within a 30 km exclusion zone are radioactive; examinations of non-human mammals show that their muscles are packed with cesium-137 and their bones contain high levels of strontium-90. The more recent one in Japan is one of the lesser incidents that may happen at any time. Others plants such as the Indian Point in the State of New York, and the Shellafield plant in England are causes for sleepless nights. To really focus on the waste problem, let me first say a brief word about the operation of a nuclear reactor. Inside a nuclear reactor, enriched uranium undergoes a process called fission that releases a huge quantity of heat. The heat converts water into steam, which in turn powers turbines to generate electricity. The process also produces plutonium. That is, plutonium and some uranium must be extracted from the spent fuel in the reactor to make mostly bombs, while the rest of the fuel must be disposed of. At Shellafield, for example, uranium and plutonium are reprocessed by dissolving them in nitric acid, producing a highly radioactive mixture. The uranium and plutonium are next turned into an oxide fuel, but the remaining liquid waste will remain radioactive for 100,000 years or more. There is so much of it now that only a fraction can be turned into some sort of cake that requires cooling for 50 years before being stored underground. The rest is simply thrown into the Irish Sea. There are many nuclear operators that do not have the means to recycle their waste. So France is now offering them a way out by building another reactor at Beaumont-Hague just to process spent nuclear fuel form the world over. Recalling that in the 1970s and 1980s, the French Government had selected some underground sites for final waste disposal in secret. But by 1991, public concern prompted a law imposing a 15-year moratorium on final disposal until the industry could find a better solution. Until today, no such solution has been found. Meanwhile, the nuclear waste is accumulating in temporary canisters at the Hague installation; right now, there are over 6,000 of them. With or without the treatment of spent nuclear fuel, there will always be waste. What will we do with it in the future? No detailed cost estimate of the new plant is available to me, but I surmise that the French Government, which has already subsidized the nuclear industry to the amount of $120 billion, is not going to be intimidated by such a cost, mostly when it is hoping to treat other countries nuclear waste for a fee. However, one can gauge the cost of such a plant from the American experience. At the beginning of 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned Bechtel National to build by 2017 a nuclear-waste treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation in the State of Washington to treat the highly radioactive waste left over from decades of plutonium production for the nuclear weapon programme, accumulated in 177 underground tanks, at a cost of $5.8 billion. One year later, a team of independent experts carried out a review that raised the cost to $11.3 billion and pushed the starting date back one year. What would it cost to treat the nuclear waste of the whole nuclear industry? Besides the increased probability of reactor accidents and the waste disposal problem, the nuclear option stands to encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms directly and indirectly. From what I have already said, the way direct proliferation could occur is obvious enough. Let me now turn to how proliferation could indirectly be brought about. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is by all accounts perhaps the only good thing to come out of the cold war era. Now the Agreement between the US and India has just sidestepped it. India has steadfastly refused to sign the treaty and consequently was kept away from its benefits. In one shot, the Agreement rewards India by removing that restriction and also removes the incentive many non participants had to join in or for participants to respect the terms of the treaty. According to many, the US took that action for pure commercial purposes and of course to counterweigh China. If that agreement is approved by the Congress and the 35-nation Nuclear Fuel Group, 8 of Indias nuclear installations will remain outside international scrutiny. As India will be able to buy nuclear fuel from the US, it can therefore devote more of its domestic uranium supply to the manufacture of warheads. In that eventuality, Pakistan and China will surely want to boost their own stockpiles. The Agreement also absolves Israel for its own stockpile and for helping apartheid South Africa to make a bomb. Moreover, it stands to reason that Iran, North Korea, and others will conclude that it was Saddams lack of a nuclear warhead that left him vulnerable to an invasion; a valid reason to accelerate their own programmes. At this precise moment, we are having a lot of talks about new wars and the possible limited use of nuclear weapons. With or without nuclear weapons, more depleted uranium will find its way into conventional weapons, thereby increasing the uranium pollution of war theaters. A visitor from outer space, upon seeing earthlings that are supposed to be endowed with deductive reasoning deliberately took the decision, through their governments, to subsidize the sources of radioactivity in their environment and to threaten each other with nuclear weapons, would surely think that they have created a mad, mad civilization. ©C-René Dominique 2006 The GlobalComment.com Team GlobalComment.com aims to publish the commentaries and other creative materials of artists all over the world, regardless of the views expressed therein. This is a free and unbiased forum. Therefore, responsibility for the opinions and the accuracy of the facts presented in articles published on this site falls entirely upon the concerned author. If you disagree with any opinion or fact presented in an article on our site, then please submit a response to us and we guarantee that your response will be published, provided it is reasonably well-written. © GlobalComment.com 2006 Last Updated 5/5/2006 [18] ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Tony Blair Shakes Up Cabinet After Losses From the Associated Press [UP] Friday May 5, 2006 9:31 PM AP Photo LKW109 By BETH GARDINER Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Stung by an election defeat, Tony Blair shuffled his Cabinet on Friday and replaced Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in an attempt to save his own political future and shore up support to tackle crises in Iran and Iraq. Straw had privately expressed doubts about the Iraq war to his boss and publicly took a different stance on Iran. He described military action against Tehran as ``inconceivable,'' something neither Blair nor President Bush would say, and called reports that the Bush administration has contingency plans for a tactical nuclear strike ``nuts.'' Margaret Beckett, a Blair loyalist who has been serving as environment secretary, takes over the Foreign Office, becoming Britain's first female foreign secretary. Blair's official spokesman said the change did not mean a shift in foreign policy. Two ministers at the center of a series of recent government woes were also fired or demoted. But critics said it is Blair himself who should step aside after voters deserted his Labour Party in local council elections Thursday. The results - Labour won 26 percent of the vote to the Tories' 40 percent - were widely seen as a referendum on Blair and his troubled government. ``It'll take far more than a reshuffle,'' declared opposition Conservative leader David Cameron, whose long-sidelined party was reinvigorated by its strongest electoral showing since 1992. ``What we need in this country is a replacement of the government.'' Nevertheless, Blair's Cabinet shake-up was his biggest ever and an effort to reassert his dwindling political authority. Home Secretary Charles Clarke, embroiled in a politically damaging furor over the failure to deport foreign criminals, lost his job and turned down other Cabinet posts, deciding instead to leave the government. Blair had defended Clarke over the prisoner controversy, but said Friday: ``I felt that it was very difficult, given the level of genuine public concern, for Charles to continue.'' Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott kept his title despite an admission of an extramarital affair with his secretary - and tabloid reports that the two had trysts in Prescott's government office. But he was stripped of the responsibilities of his department, which include housing and planning. In other changes, John Reid left his post as defense secretary to replace Clarke, and Des Browne left the Treasury to head the defense ministry. The appointment of the 63-year-old Beckett came as a surprise. She is a veteran politician and loyal to Blair, but has little experience in foreign affairs beyond her participation in international climate change talks. In August 2002, though, Beckett was one of the most senior critics of a prospective U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq, raising concerns about the impact an invasion would have on the Iraqi population. Straw was moved to the far less exalted job of leader of the House of Commons and takes responsibility for overhauling the House of Lords and campaign finance reform, two big issues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who had joined Straw on a trip to Baghdad last month, called to wish him well. ``She has had an excellent working relationship with him'' and the two will remain friends, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, adding that Rice looks forward to working with Beckett and expects to talk with her soon. Labour's drubbing at the polls came after weeks of relentlessly negative headlines over a series of government scandals. News in March that Labour had accepted millions of dollars in secret loans from wealthy backers created a furor, and Blair denied allegations that he gave nominations to the House of Lords in exchange for financial backing of the party. More recently, Clarke announced last week that officials had failed to screen more than 1,000 foreign criminals for deportation before releasing them from prison. The next day, Prescott acknowledged the extramarital affair. The government's troubles have prompted calls that Blair step aside soon and let his likely successor, Treasury chief Gordon Brown, take over as prime minister. The poor election showing has only increased the pressure. Blair, who turns 53 on Saturday, was re-elected to a third term last year with a drastically reduced majority, has said he will not run again but intends to serve his full third term. A group of Labour lawmakers were drafting a letter urging Blair to outline a ``firm and fixed timetable'' for an early departure from office, Channel 4 News reported. It did not identify the legislators, but said they claimed 50 supporters in the House of Commons. ``There are a lot of grumblings of discontent within the party about Tony Blair's leadership,'' said Martin Bright, political editor at the left-leaning New Statesman magazine. Anthony Seldon, a Blair biographer, said the prime minister realized he had to carry out a bold shake-up if he was to win enough time in office to push through his agenda on health, pensions and other domestic issues. ``This is his last chance to get it right,'' Seldon said. ``He realizes time is running out.'' Blair's new team will face an emboldened opposition. The Conservatives made a net gain of 310 seats and Labour lost a net of 306, out of 4,360 seats up for grabs on 176 local councils across England. The far-right British National Party won 27 seats. The outcome will strengthen Cameron's hand as he continues overhauling his party. He wants to give the Tories a more moderate image and make them electable again nationally. The last time the Conservatives controlled Parliament was 1997, when a bevy of sex and corruption scandals helped bring down Prime Minister John Major. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: The two crucial mistakes that cost Straw his job Explainer: Future of foreign affairs Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Saturday May 6, 2006 The Guardian Jack Straw made two crucial mistakes in his dealings with Tony Blair: one involved the prime minister's relationship with Gordon Brown and the other Iran. Mr Straw has said repeatedly that it is "inconceivable" that there will be a military strike on Iran and last month dismissed as "nuts" a report that George Bush was keeping on the table the option of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran's nuclear plants. But Mr Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary. The prime minister argues that, at the very least, nothing should be ruled out in order to keep Iran guessing. Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things. In any case, Mr Straw had boxed himself in on Iran to the extent that he would have had to resign if a military strike became a reality. Mr Blair was also irritated by what he saw as Mr Straw's opportunism in shifting his loyalty towards Mr Brown with unseemly haste in expectation that he would be the next prime minister. Iran is one of the issues consuming the Foreign Office and Downing Street. Iraq is the other, and between them they will take up most of Margaret Beckett's time. Mrs Beckett will fly to New York on Monday for a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, with whom Mr Straw had established a close rapport, and counterparts from France, Germany, Russia and China to discuss a new UN security council resolution on Iran. Among the first questions the media will ask is whether she too regards the military option as "inconceivable". The Foreign Office has taken a battering under Labour. Part of its portfolio, international development, was hived off in 1997 to become a separate department, with its own cabinet minister. And now Mr Blair has created a twin power structure in the Foreign Office by appointing a former cabinet member to what had previously been a relatively junior post, minister for Europe. Despite the importance placed on relations with Washington, the bulk of British trade is with Europe as is the country's political future. Britain's presidency of the EU, though there was a deal in the end, was fraught. There is a potential for friction in making the European post more high-profile, but the personalities of Mrs Beckett and Geoff Hoon, both government loyalists, do not suggest conflict. Useful links The Foreign and Commonwealth Office The Department for International Development [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: Russia is blackmailing Europe over energy, says Cheney Luke Harding Friday May 5, 2006 The Guardian The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, yesterday accused Russia of using blackmail and intimidation in its energy policy towards Europe. In one of Washington's sharpest rebukes to Moscow, Mr Cheney said it was not acceptable for Russia to use its vast gas and energy supplies to bully its neighbours. "Russia has a choice to make," Mr Cheney told Baltic leaders during a summit in Vilnius. "No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolise transportation." Mr Cheney urged Russia to stop backsliding on democracy. He said opponents of reform in Russia were "seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade" by restricting democratic rights, and warned the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that some of Moscow's actions could hurt relations with other countries. The vice-president's comments provoked an instant reaction from Moscow. "The speech of Mr Cheney in our opinion is full of a subjective evaluation of us and of the processes that are going on in Russia. The remarks ... are completely incomprehensible for us," said the Kremlin's deputy spokesman, Dmitri Peskov. Andrei Kokoshin, the head of the Russian parliament's committee for relations with former Soviet republics, said Washington should respect Russia's legitimate interests. "The US has to deal with an absolutely different Russia today - a Russia that has restored its real sovereignty in many areas and is pursuing a course on the world arena that meets mainly its own national interests," said Mr Kokoshin, according to Interfax. Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, who had recently warned that hawks in Russia and the US were keen to see a replay of the cold war, denounced Cheney's speech. "[It] looks like a provocation and interference in Russia's internal affairs in terms of its content, form and place," Mr Gorbachev said. The US vice-president's characteristically blunt remarks came as the energy dispute between Germany and Poland escalated after reports that Poland is planning to build a nuclear power station on its border with Germany. Earlier this week, a Polish minister complained bitterly about a German-Russian pipeline deal, comparing it to the pact made by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The plan to pipe gas under the Baltic Sea - bypassing Poland - was akin to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, when Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland between them, according to the defence minister, Radek Sikorski. The Polish media yesterday reported that the country was now considering retaliating by building its first nuclear power station in Gryfino, just 15 miles from the German border. The power station, next to a German nature reserve and 75 miles from Berlin, could start generating electricity in 2015, the reports said. "This is bad news. This would be a disaster for tourism and for our nature reserve," Klemens Schmitz, a member of the Social Democrat party who lives near Gryfino, told the Märkische Allgemeine newspaper. Yesterday Stanislaw Latek, a spokesman for Poland's national atomic energy agency, said no final decision had been made on where any new nuclear plant would be built. He told the Guardian: "The studies are unlikely to begin properly until 2008. But Poland does have a problem. Our existing coal stations are very old. We want to do something about C02 emissions. In 15 to 20 years we will need more energy. We are looking at various alternatives. But we prefer nuclear energy." Ludwik Pienkowski, a scientist at Warsaw University who is carrying out a nuclear feasibility study, said: "The best solution for Poland would be to build a nuclear power plant by 2020." Poland announced it was considering constructing its first nuclear plant during an energy review last year. Many other former Soviet bloc countries have also said they want to build nuclear power stations. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine have announced new programmes. Yesterday, a spokesman for German Greenpeace said he was doubtful that Poland could afford its own nuclear plant. "Support in Poland for nuclear power is very, very low," said Tobias Münchmeyer. The problem of energy supply in Europe has topped the political agenda since Moscow briefly turned off the gas supply to Ukraine earlier this year, sparking international condemnation. Useful links Itar-Tass news agency Moscow Times Russia Today St Petersburg Times Caucasian Knot [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 23 IRNA: No UK plans to take Israel to UN over nukes, says minister London, May 5, IRNA UK-Israel Nuclear Arms The UK government has rejected a call in parliament to take the Zionist regime to the UN Security Council over its illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons and seek its participation nder the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "We do not have any plans to make representations to the UNSC about Israel's participation in the NPT as we believe this can be best pursued though bilateral contacts," Foreign Office Minister Lord Triesman said. In a written question, published Thursday, the former BBC director general Lord Dykes urged the UK to make representations to the Security Council with regard to its nuclear arsenal, which he said remained "outside international supervision." He linked his call with the current UN pressure on Iran to ensure compliance with the International Atomic Agency's procedures and NPT obligations. Many politicians, academics and human rights groups have accused the British government of double standards in singling out Iran over its civilian nuclear programme without first addressing the illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons held by Israel for decades. According to the BBC, records have been recently uncovered showing that Britain helped Tel Aviv to speed up its development of nuclear arms by secretly supplying heavy water and plutonium nearly 50 years ago. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has repeatedly insisted that the UK supports the setting up of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East but has suggested that Israel should not be included until there is a long-term resolution over its occupation of Palestinian lands. ***************************************************************** 24 NIRS On Chernobyl's Real Effects Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 21:14:16 -0400 NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Keesing
To: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Special Appeal From NIRS

NUCLEAR INFORMATION

AND RESOURCE SERVICE

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912

301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291

nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

 

 

May 4, 2006

 

Dear Friend of NIRS,

 

I’m sitting today in our office in Rivne, Ukraine, where we’re working on the next steps to build upon last week’s remarkable Chornobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future conference in Kyiv, Ukraine.

 

I’m almost 200 miles west of Chornobyl, yet just 30 miles to the north is one of Ukraine’s four levels of contaminated zones. In this zone, tens of thousands of people live and work and farm and eat food grown on land that is killing them. More than four million people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia still live on land contaminated from the Chornobyl accident of 20 years ago. Sadly, babies born today are still dying from that accident—because they’re drinking milk produced by cows eating contaminated grass. Chornobyl truly is an accident without end.

 

If your information came only from the American media, or the nuclear power industry, you would probably think Chornobyl really wasn’t so bad. A disaster, yes, but a manageable one; one the world can live with if necessary to produce needed electricity.

 

Sitting here in Ukraine, with new studies about the real consequences of Chornobyl stacked next to my desk, the reality looks quite different.

 

Last September, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO) released a report on Chornobyl’s consequences, which concluded that while the accident had resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and permanent interdiction of large areas of land, “only” about 4,000 cancer fatalities were expected. Perhaps only the cynical nuclear power industry could consider a disaster whose consequences are greater than Hurricane Katrina to be good news, but the industry seized upon this study to argue that the world should be building more nuclear reactors.

 

But in the past few weeks, several new studies have been released countering the IAEA’s report. First came the TORCH report, prepared for the Chornobyl+20 conference. It concluded that 30,000-60,000 cancer fatalities can be expected. A report prepared for Greenpeace and endorsed by more than 50 scientists from the affected countries projects 93,000 deaths, and perhaps as many as 200,000. Other studies project even higher casualties.

 

And these reports were big news across Europe. Finally, even the World Health Organization (which by a 1950s-era agreement is forced to accept IAEA statistics on nuclear-related health effects) could no longer accept the IAEA’s numbers, and on April 20 released a document projecting a still-very-conservative 29,000 deaths (although you had to read the fine print to find that number).

In short, the IAEA has been largely discredited; its September report found to be self-serving. The real consequences, and thus lessons of Chornobyl, are much greater and more profound than the IAEA and nuclear industries of the world want to admit.

 

Across Ukraine, across Europe, this is generally understood. But the U.S. media has by and large ignored the reality of Chornobyl and its implications.

 

That’s easy to do in the U.S., it’s much harder to ignore here in Ukraine. In a couple of weeks, I’ll be coming home—I can leave and not worry about the ongoing consequences. The people who live here cannot.

 

And yet we all—in every country—ignore the devastation of Chornobyl at our own peril. Because Chornobyl can happen anywhere there is nuclear power and, unless its lessons are learned, it will happen again.

 

The studies I referred to, and more, are available on our website at http://www.nirs.org/c20/c20us.htm, along with the resolution from the conference and a lot more.

 

In coming weeks, we’ll be adding proceedings from the conference and updating and expanding our sections on nuclear power and climate change and on sustainable energy, so that you’ll continue to have access to the best and latest information on the issues important to us all. And we’ll be working to spread the truth about Chornobyl, and nuclear issues generally, to the media across the U.S.

 

You’ll also be hearing from us about the latest congressional activity on Yucca Mountain and reprocessing and how your actions can make a difference in our energy future.

 

That all takes resources, of course, and I hope you’ll take a moment now to help by donating to us at https://secure.campagne-online.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=2927&LangPref=en-CA. This is our secure online credit card processing system. You can also access this site directly from the NIRS home page at http://www.nirs.org.

 

As an added incentive, if you contribute by June 30, your contribution will be matched, dollar-for-dollar, by a matching grant set up as a tribute to NIRS’ Radioactive Waste Project director Diane D’Arrigo, who is celebrating her 20th year at NIRS.

 

If you’d prefer to donate by check, please send your contribution to NIRS, 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Or you can contribute by credit card over the phone at NIRS, 301-270-6477.

 

However you choose to contribute, I hope you will do so as generously as you can. We must ensure that there will be no more Chornobyls—not in Ukraine, and not in the U.S.

 

Thank you for your help and support.

 

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

nirsnet@nirs.org

 ***************************************************************** 25 The Australian: Nuclear plant 'as safe as ever' This story is from our network Source: AAP May 05, 2006 A DECISION to stop 24-hour monitoring of radiation levels at Sydney's nuclear reactor would not compromise safety at the plant, the operator said today. The Fire Brigade Union today threatened to ban firefighters from entering the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor when specialist safety technicians charged with monitoring radiation were absent. The threat followed reports the technicians would no longer monitor the reactor, in Sydney's south, between 11pm and 7am. The union said the decision would put firefighters, plant workers, and Lucas Heights residents at risk. But the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which runs the site, said changes in operations meant health physics surveyors were no longer needed between those hours. "Because of a change in operations we won't be moving radioactive material around in the reactor building between the hours of 11pm and 7am, so we don't need the technicians there to do the monitoring of radioactive material at that time," the head of safety at the reactor, Cait Maloney, said. "The change in our arrangements does not change the safety status of the plant at all. "We have safety staff who are knowledgeable in radiation who are here all the time and can respond to emergencies, (and) we have environmental monitoring and safety system monitoring that goes on all the time." Ms Maloney said the changes had been discussed fully with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and met regulatory requirements. Fire Brigade Union secretary Craig Harris this morning warned a ban on entering the plant could be in place by tonight unless the union received safety guarantees from ANSTO. Ms Maloney said she was surprised by the union's reaction, saying ANSTO would work with firefighters to resolve the situation. "We certainly want to work with the fire brigade to ensure that the unions understand the situation more clearly," she said. "We'll certainly be working very hard to make sure that situation is normalised by tonight. "If not we'll take measures to make sure we have our own normal back up in place." Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 26 San Luis Obispo Tribune: $19 million PG study draws fire from public 05/05/2006 | RATE HEARINGS Shareholders, not ratepayers, should foot the bill on the question of extending Diablo's license, speakers say By David Sneed Protests over Pacific Gas and Electric Co. plans to spend up to $19 million studying whether to extend Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant's operating life dominated a state hearing Thursday in San Luis Obispo. Speakers told an administrative law judge that PG shareholders -- not ratepayers -- should foot the bill for the study and that the study should be done by the state Energy Commission. The debate took place during a California Public Utilities Commission hearing on how much PG should be allowed to charge customers in coming years. The Energy Commission has called for a study to determine the costs and risks associated with the continued use of nuclear power. The county and the city of Morro Bay have supported the recommendation. All nuclear power plants that are nearing the end of their 40-year operating licenses have applied to renew them for an additional 20 years. All such applications have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Why do you need $19 million for something that is a shoo-in?" asked Carrie Filler of Morro Bay. PG officials say the study is needed to determine whether it makes sense to go through the lengthy relicensing process. Plant spokesman Jeff Lewis said it is unclear whether the Energy Commission has the expertise to do such a study. One of the main concerns is the continued stockpiling of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel at individual plants, which the Energy Commission has called "an extraordinarily important threshold question for the increased reliance on nuclear power." Thursday's hearing was one of 10 the state Public Utilities Commission is holding in PG's service area in advance of deciding how much the utility can charge customers from 2007 through 2009. Judge Glen Walker presided over the hearing. PG officials say the typical residential customer's bill will increase by $1.03 per month during that time. PG's three-year spending plan, called a general rate case, calls for the utility to spend more than $2 billion per year on its electrical and gas distribution system. Locally, PG provides only electricity. Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. ***************************************************************** 27 AU ABC: Union raises Lucas Heights safety concerns Friday, 5 May 2006. 11:03 (AEDT)Friday, 5 May 2006. 10:03 Potential risk: a union says it may impose a ban on firefighters entering Lucas Heights overnight Reuters The firefighters' union has threatened to order its members not to enter the Lucas Heights nuclear facility in south-west Sydney during overnight emergencies because of concerns over radiation monitoring. The United Firefighters Union says the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has stopped 24-hour radiation monitoring and it poses a potential risk to anyone who enters the facility. Union spokesman Craig Harris says the safety of his members is paramount. "If the employer can't confirm the safety of our members, we'll have to prevent them being put in a dangerous position," he said. "The whole point is, a health surveyor on a site like Lucas Heights is essential 24 hours a day." ANSTO safety and radiation services manager Kate Moloney says health physics surveyors are no longer required overnight because different work is being done. "Our practices are changing in that there was some work that we were doing overnight that required radioactive material to be moved and needed technicians around to check it but we've decided we won't be doing that on the nightshift, so we don't need the technicians to do that," she said. Ms Moloney says other safety staff are at the reactor 24 hours a day. ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Clinton Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-021 May 5, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov representatives of Exelon Generation Co. on Thursday, May 11, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for last year at the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Clinton, Ill. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 310 N. Quincy St., in Clinton. The NRC will respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Clinton plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities. A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meetings discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/clin_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRCs assessment concluded that the Clinton plant operated safely during the period. 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, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Clinton during 2005 were determined to be green. As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are access control to radiologically significant areas, radioactive material processing and transportation, radiological instrumentation, and maintenance effectiveness. Current performance information for Clinton is available on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CLIN/clin_chart.html. Last revised Friday, May 05, 2006 ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: One injured in Canada nuclear power plant accident Fri May 5, 8:01 AM ET OTTAWA (AFP) - One person was injured in a fire at a nuclear research laboratory some 100 kilometers (60 miles) north-west of the Canadian capital. The fire posed no danger to the environment, read a statement issued late Thursday. "In one of our laboratories there was a small fire that was contained in that one room," said Dale Coffin, spokesman for the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. "The fire was contained within an hour. It was also contained to that one room where the fire started," Coffin told AFP. "At this point we still have no details on how the fire may have started," though officials "know it was related to a pressurized gas cylinder," said Coffin. He said the reactor at the site was not damaged, and that no radioactive emissions were released. Atomic Energy of Canada provides technology and services to public companies that operate nuclear power stations around the world as well as in Ontario, a Canadian province that depends on nuclear energy. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 30 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee OK'd for final hike By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Friday, May 5 VERNON -- Vermont Yankee is again in the clear to complete the final stage of its uprate, and the plant may increase its power as soon as this morning. On Thursday, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency gave the plant a green light to finish its power ascension, and move to 120 percent of its original output. The plant has been holding at 117.5 percent since last Friday, when engineers detected possible signs of trouble with the plant's steam dryer. The steam dryer removes liquid water from steam before it reaches the plant's turbines, which spin to generate power. That component has been problematic at other plants that have increased their output. Last Friday, gauges at Vermont Yankee picked up noise in its steam lines, which could indicate strain on the dryer. Also, engineers identified an increased amount of water reaching the plant's turbines. The uprate had already been halted twice because of similar readings within the steam lines. NRC and plant engineers spent six days reviewing data and conducting computer modeling, and officials at both organizations said they've determined it's safe to continue the boost. The plant first reviewed its own data, then sent it to the NRC for approval. "We looked at (Vermont Yankee's) conclusions, and what they used to reach them," said NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci, "and we determined that we had no objections to them continuing." Plant officials welcomed the news, and said the boost will soon be complete. "We got concurrence from the NRC, and we're making preparations to do the final ascension," Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said last night. "Depending on how the preparations go overnight, we could begin the final increase in power as soon as this morning." NRC and plant officials emphasized that the gauge signals that prompted the pauses were set at levels below standards set by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which sets limits for stresses on a wide range of industrial equipment. Ray Shadis, technical advisor for the nuclear watchdog New England Coalition, said he doubts the methods of evaluating the uprate can assure its safety. "Anyone who believes that gingerly increasing the reactor (to 120 percent) provides any assurance that it can run that way day in and day out is deluding themselves," he said. Shadis said the increase in power was not necessary to begin with, and the excess capacity could have been generated through other power sources. "All of this angst and drama has been over squeezing an additional amount of power out of a reactor that no one needs," he said. Vermont Yankee and NRC officials had initially said it would take 10 days to evaluate data before the uprate could continue. Williams said the analysis and computer modeling took a shorter amount of time than expected, because the plant was able to work with data it already had from previous stages of the uprate. Information from the Associated Press was used in this report. Andy Rosen can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Oconee Nuclear Plant Concern News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-030 May 5, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: regulatory conference with officials of Duke Energy on Wednesday, May 17, in Atlanta to discuss the risk significance of an inspection finding at the companys Oconee nuclear power plant, located near Seneca in northwestern S.C. NRC and Duke officials will discuss the significance of an NRC inspection finding related to apparent untimely corrective actions in resolving deficiencies related to the east penetration room blowout panels for all three Oconee units. The meeting was requested by Duke. The blowout panels are designed to blow out if there is a pipe break in that area and prevent water from flooding the auxiliary building and affecting safety-related equipment. Modifications to the panels resulted in a lack of assurance that the panels would perform as designed. In 2004, Duke indicated that additional modifications were necessary to prevent auxiliary building flooding. The NRC staff determined that adequate corrective actions have not been taken promptly to resolve the blowout panel concerns. The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color- coded system which classifies findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety significance. The NRCs preliminary evaluation determined that this issue at Oconee is greater than green, meaning it has more than very low safety significance. The meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. in the NRCs Region II office, located on the 24th floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in Atlanta. The public is invited to attend to observe and will have one or more opportunities to talk with NRC officials after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned. No decisions on final safety significance, any apparent violations or possible enforcement action will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. Last revised Friday, May 05, 2006 ***************************************************************** 32 Xinhua: French utility company to launch 3rd generation nuclear reactor www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-06 02:59:34 PARIS, May 5 (Xinhua) -- The French FNEM-FO federation confirmed Friday in a statement that it had approved the launch of the third generation nuclear reactor EPR project built by French utility EDF. The FNEM-FO (Federation Nationale de l'Energie et des Mines) said that the decision of the French group Electricity of France (EDF) was an essential step in the renovation of nuclear plant, which does not emit greenhouse gas. "This competitive character will be of benefit to users and manufacturers and allow an advantage to our country at the moment when oil and gas prices seem to remain stubbornly high," it said. The EDF board decided Thursday to build the prototype of EPR (European pressurized-water reactor), the third generation of nuclear reactor, which will be set up in Flamanville in Normandy and will come into use in 2012. The EDF raised its estimate of the project's cost to 3.3 billion euros (4.19 billion dollars) from 3 billion euros (3.81 billion dollars), citing "current economic conditions". Italian utility Enel will contribute to 12.5 percent of the financing for the project and will get 12.5 percent of the power produced, French daily Le Figaro quoted EDF chief executive Pierre Gadonneix as saying. The plant is expected to use the EPR technology from French Areva company. Enditem Editor: zhaoqv Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 IEER: Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France For Release on May 4, 2006 Contact: Arjun Makhijani or Annie Makhijani, 301-270-5500 France Can Phase Out Nuclear Power and Achieve Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions French Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising Despite Nuclear Power, New Study Finds Subsidies for Plutonium and Pro-Nuclear Policies Inhibiting Secure, Low-Carbon Future This and a are also available in French. Takoma Park, Maryland: A new report, , examines the feasibility of phasing out nuclear power in France while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 percent in the next few decades. France is considered as exemplary by advocates of nuclear power, which provides almost 80 percent of French electricity generation, because the use of that energy source has been crucial to its relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) report is the first to detail technologies and policies that could meet the same lifestyle and economic choices as a high-nuclear, high carbon emissions future without nuclear energy and significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions. "The nuclear industry has presented itself as part of the solution to global warming" said Annie Makhijani, a co-author of the report and Project Scientist at IEER. "But nuclear power creates serious long-term security issues in the form of risks of proliferation, severe nuclear accidents, and vulnerability to terrorism. It's not a desirable trade-off. The IEER analysis shows that nuclear power is not necessary even in France to achieve a low-carbon emissions future." France obtains 75 to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, making it one of the lowest carbon-emitter countries in Europe per unit of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Because of that, France is not obligated to reduce its CO2 emissions relative to 1990 under the Kyoto protocol, while other European countries have to reduce their emissions to 8 percent (collectively) below their 1990 levels sometime between 2008 and 2012. Nuclear power has not been the solution to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in France, however. shows that, despite the essential elimination of the use of oil in the French electricity sector since 1973 and the reduction of coal use, greenhouse gas emissions are high and have been rising. This is because the main greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector as well as from the use of oil and natural gas in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. According to the report, the constraint is not a lack of carbon-free energy sources energies but that existing resources are devoted disproportionately to nuclear energy to the detriment of other sources. Official studies of the use of plutonium as a fuel in 20 nuclear reactors in France indicate that this aspect of nuclear power alone gets about $1 billion per year in subsidies. Yet, until the past few years total investment in wind energy in France had not even reached the annual plutonium subsidy. "It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in France significantly without large efficiency increases in the transportation sector and in residential and commercial heating," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER and co-author of the report "The technologies are commercial or nearly so. But the official devotion to nuclear energy, including heavy subsidies for plutonium fuel production, has sidelined other aspects of energy policy." IEER presents two scenarios that use official economic projections of high energy use to show that nuclear power would be phased out over a period of 30 to 40 years while setting a path to much reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The scenarios use existing technology or more advanced technology to achieve 20 percent and 40 percent CO2 reductions with a simultaneous phase out of nuclear power. It acknowledges that nuclear power must be phased out gradually rather than abruptly, because it is such a large part of France's electricity sector and because abandoning existing plants prematurely would divert resources that could be used for investments in efficiency and renewable energy sources, notably wind energy. "There is no question that France will have to dig deeper into the advanced technology basket to produce the same percentage of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as the United States," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani. "But the country that invests in that future can grab future technological and economic leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions." "France has unfortunately chosen its technological leadership in the energy sector to be in nuclear technology," noted Annie Makhijani. "But France and the world are ignoring warning signs, like the statement of Ichiro Ozawa, the Japanese Labor Party leader, that the commercial nuclear energy sector could provide plutonium for nuclear weapons." The French company AREVA, which is majority-owned by the French government, provides reprocessing services to Japanese utilities. Japan has a large stock of separated plutonium as a result, stored partly in Japan and partly in France. The report notes that a low carbon, zero-nuclear-power future for France by the middle of the 21st century will involve significant technical and policy changes, including + Regulations requiring new cars to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and improvements in efficiency of delivery vehicles and trucks. + Improvements in heating and cooling in the residential and commercial sector that use existing technologies like co-generation and earth-source heat pumps. + Government procurement of advanced technologies to stimulate innovation, in place of tax breaks for existing technologies. + Abandonment of reprocessing and retirement of nuclear power plants when they reach the end of the licensed lifetime (40 to 45 years after start up). + National policies to put wind, pumped hydro, and natural gas and, in the more advanced technology scenario, solar photovoltaic cells, at the center of the electricity sector. is posted in full on IEER's website. (PDF 650kB). -30- Also on this site: + (Interview with Arjun Makhijani in the , Fall 2005) + (Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 2004) + (radio commentary, June 2003) + (Nov. 2001) + Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository Program (press release, May 2001) Available at EggheadBooks: + (Apex Press, 1999) Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to ieer[at]ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA May 4, 2006 ***************************************************************** 34 Boston Globe: Nuclear plant gets OK for final stage of power increase - Boston.com + Vt.Nuclear plant gets OK for final stage of power increase Associated Press Federal regulators on Thursday cleared the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for the final stage of its 20-percent power increase. By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | May 4, 2006 MONTPELIER, Vt. --Federal regulators on Thursday cleared the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for the final stage of its 20-percent power increase. "Entergy (Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owner) has completed its evaluation justifying further power ascension to 120 percent power and provided that information to the NRC staff for review," NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said in a statement released by the agency. "The NRC staff, with support from its consultants at Argonne National Laboratory, completed its review of the information and determined that there are no objections with continuing the power ascension process to 120 percent," she added. The increase from a rated capacity of 540 megawatts to 650 megawatts began in early March, but three times during the process power ascension had to pause while technicians studied troublesome sounds from gauges measuring stresses on a key plant component called the steam dryer. The steam dryer, a large unit at the top of the reactor that removes moisture from steam before the steam is sent to spin turbines and generate electricity, has been a source of trouble at some other U.S. nuclear plants that have boosted power. At Vermont Yankee, each time the trouble signals came -- at 105 percent, 112.5 percent, and 117.5 percent of original power -- plant technicians halted the increase, collected data, and relayed the data to the NRC. The NRC and its consultant then studied the information and concluded it was safe to continue the increase. NRC and plant officials emphasized throughout that the gauge signals that prompted the pauses were set at levels below standards set by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which sets limits for stresses on a wide range of industrial equipment. At the 117.5 percent level, plant technicians picked up two signs of trouble: more acoustic signals similar to those that triggered the earlier pauses, and a new finding that the steam making it to the turbines was more moist than they wanted. Screnci said the acoustic signals at the 117.5 percent level were not a cause for worry. "Entergy's evaluation determined that the stress levels on the steam dryer still remain significantly below the ASME Code limit," she said. She said much the same about the higher moisture levels reaching the turbines. She said the "evaluation determined that the increase in moisture carryover is not considered to be a significant change from previous readings and is not indicative of steam dryer degradation." Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said the plant expected to begin the last stage of the power ascension Friday morning. "Then we'll do data gathering at the previous levels and also to testing ... of the plant systems, including the feedwater system, testing the steam flow into the turbine and the water flow into the reactor." Raymond Shadis, technical adviser to the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, said the problems the plant had as it increased power should be cause for worry. "It would be delusional to assume that inching to 120 percent over a period of several weeks means that the plant can now be operated at 120 percent day in and day out without equipment failure and the increased risk of accidents with increased potential consequences," he said.[ /] © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More: ***************************************************************** 35 ITAR-TASS: Modern power plant to replace Leningrad NPP 06.05.2006, 00.28 ST. PETERSBURG, May 6 (Itar-Tass) -- A modern nuclear power plant, which meets international requirements, will replace the Leningrad NPP, Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Sergei Kiriyenko said at a Friday meeting with St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matviyenko. The power plant should have six units, he said. It is planned to start the construction in late 2007 – early 2008, and invest about $10 billion in the project. “City industries, including Izhorskiye Zavody, will have plenty of orders,” Kiriyenko said. The construction of the new Leningrad nuclear power plant and the federal atomic energy program of Russia will entail billions of rubles worth of orders for Petersburg plants, he said. Safety of the present-day Leningrad NPP is being upgraded, and two units are being repaired. One of them may be launched in fall. Matviyenko and Kiriyenko discussed the Petersburg energy industry development. The governor complained of the shortage of electricity through the rapid growth of the city. A united network company will develop and modernize the city energy grid by consent of the Unified Energy System of Russia (UES), Matviyenko said. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 36 Las Vegas City Life: Mountain of trouble May 04, 2006 On the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Las Vegan Peggy Maze Johnson travels to Kiev to share Nevada's story Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, recently returned from an anti-nuclear conference in Kiev. BY MATT O'BRIEN On the 20th anniversary of the apocalyptic nuclear disaster, scientists and politicians and environmentalists from around the world gathered for Chernobyl + 20: Remembrance for the Future. The conference, held April 23-25 in Kiev, Ukraine, covered three important issues: the consequences of Chernobyl; the problems posed by nuclear power; and possible alternatives. The goal of the conference was to examine Chernobyl's health, social and economic consequences and to draw attention to the promise and need of sustainable energy. Las Vegan Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, attended the conference. CityLife sat down with Johnson shortly after she returned from Kiev. CityLife: What compelled you to attend the conference? Peggy Maze Johnson: I received an invitation from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service to put my name in for a grant to attend the conference. They wanted to make sure that people from around the world were represented -- and especially those representing issues that have global significance. So I put my name in and was one of the people they accepted. I was really excited, because I thought I needed to bring our issue [Yucca Mountain] forward. And everybody there knew about Yucca Mountain. Everybody. It was gratifying in a sense. It was frustrating in another sense, in that everybody has to know about it. CL: How big of an issue was Yucca Mountain at the conference? PMJ: It was the focus of one whole workshop, "Nuclear Wastes and Nuclear Reprocessing" on Monday. [Speaker] Kevin Kamps asked me if I would back him up and talk about Yucca Mountain from the perspective of a Nevadan. It was a very big issue. CL: What did people know about Yucca? PMJ: Everybody knew a lot about it. And some of the people at the conference are facing the same problem we are, so they looked to us to see how we have stopped this and how we have kept it from opening. They kind of looked to us as a resource for how they can stop nuclear waste from coming to where they live. CL: What was the one point you tried to get across to attendees about Yucca Mountain? PMJ: The one point I made was that our Department of Energy was coming to a road near them. When I was in [Washington] D.C. recently, there was a group of Russians there that had been working on the whole problem with Chernobyl and nuclear waste and the health effects of radiation. One of the gentlemen from Russia was talking about the fact that our Department of Energy had been in Russia talking about how safe Yucca Mountain was and how they would be able to store nuclear waste in his hometown, no problem. So this man asked me, "Why are you fighting it? The Department of Energy said it is safe." I asked him if their lips were moving. I told him that one of the things we've found is that the Department of Energy is not to be trusted and they are incompetent. Those are two things you have to remember whenever the Department of Energy is talking. CL: Was anything said about Divine Strake, scheduled for early June at the Nevada Test Site? PMJ: On the last day of the conference, the whole afternoon was devoted to networking. The first part of the session we broke down into our own country caucuses, so we could talk about how we could be unified within our own countries. Then we took the top three issues from each caucus into the bigger session, and one of the things we talked about was Divine Strake and the fact that we see it as a precursor to nuclear bombs. This is a model for nuclear bunker-busters. Our concern is, even though the government is denying it, that this is one of tests they're using before bombing Iran. CL: What was the most surprising thing about the conference? PMJ: The fact that everybody knew about Yucca Mountain. I talk to people in other parts of this country that don't know anything about Yucca. And if they know about it, they don't see it as having an impact on them -- until we start talking about transportation, the fact that their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover problems related to nuclear waste and that it's coming to a road near them. Then, all of a sudden, it has some significance to them. But the people in Kiev knew what was going on. They got it. Of course, they're anti-nuke activists, so I guess that shouldn't be surprising. But it was to me, because I've been trying to tell people here about it for years. CL: What lessons can we learn from the Chernobyl disaster? PMJ: That we are dealing with the most dangerous substance known to humankind. And that, so far, we have not been able to contain it. When he was here in 2004, John Kerry said that we need an un-Manhattan Project. We need to bring together the greatest minds in world to figure out how to harness this stuff. We haven't figured that out yet. We cannot build more nuclear power plants and create more nuclear waste until we figure out how to control it. To join Citizen Alert's fight against the Yucca Mountain waste dump, call 796-5662 or visit www.citizenalert.org. ***************************************************************** 37 SUR in English: The nuclear energy debate MAY 5th to MAY 11th 2006 In focus J. J.Martin The closure of Spain’s oldest nuclear plant, José Cabrera, located at Zorita, on April 30th, came at an opportune moment. The debate over the merits of nuclear energy is back in focus at a time when world oil prices are at record levels and there’s a genuine need for governments to reduce greenhouse emissions. So will the electorate buy the view that nuclear energy is a cheap and clean energy alternative? This is precisely what supporters of nuclear energy were touting during the previous oil crisis in the 70s. But today the risks of nuclear energy are all too evident. It was 20 years ago that the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in Chernobyl, Russia, spilling a radioactive cloud across Europe. Chernobyl’s effects are still lingering on today with levels of radioactivity from the explosion remaining unexpectedly high in some parts of northern Europe, according to a BBC report. Regretfully, the Chernobyl accident is not unique. In 1979, there was a serious accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United States and 20 years later, in Japan, there was another accident. Spain currently has nine nuclear plants in service producing, last year, 19.7 per cent of the nation’s energy requirements. The nation’s worst nuclear industry accident occurred in 1989 in Vandellos 1 (Tarragona). Predictably, Spain’s political left and environmentalists are lobbying the government to look for alternative energy sources. In a recent parliamentary debate United Left Spokesman Joan Herrera Torres reminded the House of another incident in Vandellos 2, requiring Spain’s Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) to carry out investigations. “The uncertainty and insecurity surrounding nuclear energy continues today, in 2006,” said Sr Herrera Torres. Referring to the nuclear waste the United Left spokesman argued that we have still not solved the problem of how to safely dispose harmful radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years Additionally, nuclear energy currently does not guarantee our energy needs, “because uranium supplies are finite, according the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),” argued Sr Herrera Torres. “Uranium prices have quadrupled and you have to import it.” However, advocates of nuclear energy are keen to point out that it is a clean energy alternative, which will help Spain meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto is an agreement under which industrialised countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 per cent compared to the year 1990. Recent figures released from the Environment Ministry showed that Spain was producing 47 per cent more greenhouse emissions than in 1990. The figure is a far cry from the country’s obligation towards European fulfilment of the Kyoto Protocol, which permits Spain to increase emissions by 15 per cent by 2012. Nevertheless, environmentalists and the United Left Party argue that nuclear energy is not a viable option to meeting Spain’s Kyoto Protocol of reducing greenhouse gases because it produces harmful waste lasting thousands of years. Furthermore, the World Bank will not provide finance for nuclear power plants, according to Sr Herrera Torres. After taking into consideration the cost of building a nuclear plant, storing the dangerous nuclear waste and then dismantling the plant at the end of its operative life nuclear energy is economically unviable, argued Sr Herrera Torres. The United Left spokesman said that the government made an election commitment to rely more on renewable energy sources. Moreover, he called on the government to dismantle the nuclear plants Garona and Vandellos 2. The two plants are the latest built with the most problems. Less than 20 per cent of Spain’s energy is generated by nuclear energy, according to Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. “On April 30th there will be eight reactors following the closure of the José Cabrera nuclear plant, which was the first plant to be built in Spain,” said Sr Zapatero. Prime Minister Zapatero is calling on parliament to bring the nuclear debate into the public realm. © Copyright Diario SUR Digital, S. L. Contacts ***************************************************************** 38 HindustanTimes.com: India's N-protection system good - US Friday, May 5, 2006|10:51 IST India's nuclear protection system 'excellent', says US PK Balachandran Colombo, May 4, 2006 The protection system put in place by India for its nuclear and strategic assets is "excellent" says the US State Department in its latest report on Global Patterns of Terrorism. "The Indian Government has an excellent record of protecting its nuclear assets from terrorists and is taking steps to improve further the security of its strategic systems," the report for 2005 released in late April said. Addressing the other major concern of the US, namely, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems, the report said that India had passed a law in May 2005 designed to prevent the transfer of WMD, their delivery systems and associated technologies to state and non-state actors, including terrorists. The report said that though terrorists had struck in many places and sometimes spectacularly, India had scored "major successes" in combating the menace. Civilian fatalities from terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir continued a five- year decline in the first nine months of 2005. And the earthquake in Pakistan had "reportedly killed many Kashmir-based terrorists". But the damaged fence running along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir, had facilitated infiltration. And this had resulted in "high profile" attacks. Patting India on the back for trying to address the grievances underlying terrorism, the US report said that the "federal and state governments have tried various strategies to address some of these grievances within the context of Indian democracy." But India's counter terror efforts were hampered by its "outdated and over burdened law enforcement and legal systems." "The Indian court system is slow, laborious and prone to corruption; terrorism trials can take years to complete," the report said. It quoted an Indian think tank saying that there were only 13 convictions for terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir between 1988 and 2002, though terrorist crimes there totalled 12,000. "Many of India's local police forces are poorly staffed, trained and equipped to combat terrorism effectively," the report said. POK terrorists benefit from quake The section on Pakistan says that the October 8, earthquake in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir had benefited terrorists, not only because it had damaged the defence systems put up by India, but also because it had given the terrorists an opportunity to do relief work and get propaganda advantage.  Relief organisations linked to the Al-Qaeda had worked in that area and reaped "public relations benefits," though the Pakistan government had promised to shut down relief agencies with known links with Al-Qaeda, the report said. The Pakistan government had scored successes in its operations against the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban within its territory. But still, these two terror groups posed a threat to US-interests, the report said. This was because tribal support for the Pakistan government's operations against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban was "mixed". LTTE not looking for WMD On Sri Lanka, the report said, the LTTE was not looking for WMD and that it had not targeted US interests. The Sri Lankan government had cooperated with US officials in tracking down terrorist financing. But there were no terrorist assets in the Sri Lankan banking system, the report said. ***************************************************************** 39 Rocky Mountain News: Sick nuke workers waiting Officials frustrated by six years of delay in deciding claims By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News May 5, 2006 Nearly 90 percent of sick nuclear weapons plant workers seeking a particular type of federal aid for their illnesses are still waiting for answers six years after Congress approved the compensation program. During a hearing Thursday, members of Congress from both parties expressed frustration with the slow response - and with plans by the Bush administration to cut the program's budget. The program was created in 2000 by Congress to provide medical care and typically $150,000 in compensation to workers who were sickened or died as a result of radiation or chemical exposure while building the nation's atomic bombs. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said that half the program is moving along, reaching decisions for 74 percent of the workers with illnesses such as cancer and beryllium disease. But the second half of the program, which covers more unusual illnesses, continues to be mired in delay, despite a reform passed last year. The second half, called Part E, has provided decisions to 10.5 percent of the nearly 40,000 workers who filed claims, Hastings said. In Colorado, the program has decided 302 of 2,270 claims filed by workers at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in suburban Denver. But only 99 have been paid. Even the more successful side of the program is having problems finishing its remaining cases. Records of radiation exposure are wrong or missing, and many claims have been denied or delayed as a result, lawmakers testified. Several members of Congress from states with weapons plants, including Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, used the hearing to condemn plans by the Bush administration to cut the aid program by $686 million in 2007 for budget reasons. An administration budget document "outlines an outrageous attempt to circumvent congressional intent," the Colorado Democrat said. Rep. Zack Wamp, R-Tenn., said that when the program was approved in 2000, lawmakers agreed that sick workers should be helped even if the cost added to the national debt. "You owe compensation to people the government has harmed," he said. "It's like a court order." Hastings noted that 51,000 workers poured into the Washington state desert in 1943 to build the world's first nuclear reactor, used to create plutonium for the first nuclear bomb. "If workers could build the world's first nuclear reactor in 13 months starting from scratch, surely the federal government should be capable of getting these claims processed after five years," he said. site map--> Subscribe | E-mail Site Map| Photo Reprints| Corrections 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 40 Knox News: Nuclear comp program faces critical review Wamp: Many OR workers say effort is too complex, slow By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com May 5, 2006 WASHINGTON - Part of the delay in awarding federal payments to sick former nuclear weapons plant workers is the massive collection of records - nearly 2 million pages - that experts are studying, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp told a subcommittee hearing Thursday. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, which collected the records, also has completed about 14,000 reconstructions of what hazardous materials workers in different buildings were exposed to in different periods since the 1940s, said Wamp, a Republican whose district includes Oak Ridge. Of four witnesses at the hearing investigating the five-year-old federal payment program, Wamp was more upbeat than the other House members about progress. He cited "tremendous success" for many Oak Ridge workers who got paid but noted many others complain of the program being too complex and slow. Nearly 4,000 former Oak Ridge workers or their survivors have received about $600 million in federal payments, Department of Labor records show. "Progress has been slow" the past 5 years, Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., told the Judiciary Committee's claims subcommittee. "Only 326 out of 800 dose reconstruction cases have been completed at Los Alamos National Laboratory" in his state, he said. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he was concerned about President Bush's budget expecting to reduce compensation payments to workers by about $686 million next fiscal year. He quoted a former weapons worker in his state, who has a terminal brain tumor and is worried about proposed cuts in the compensation program. "Instead of the Cold War heroes getting support ... they are on the losing team," he wrote Udall. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who represents the Hanford weapons site, said the federal program "has not lived up to the expectations of Congress, and it has left thousands of workers and their families waiting and wondering." Wamp said results vary around the country. More Oak Ridge claims have been paid because there were more records about workers' hazardous exposures, he said in an interview. "You know where the materials were and who worked there," Wamp said. "Other places get a little ethereal. But it's our job to make sure that equity and fairness take place and that we honor these people's sacrifice" and pay claims in questionable exposure cases where the sick worker deserves the benefit of the doubt. The Judiciary Committee earlier requested a federal investigation of Oak Ridge Associated Universities' contract costs for assisting the claims process. The contract initially was to cost $70 million but lately is expected to cost more than $200 million. Wamp told the panel he has the "highest regard" for ORAU's work. He said it is proper to have a review of ORAU's work given the taxpayer dollars involved. The claims subcommittee, headed by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., also is checking on reports that the panel of experts reviewing claims includes persons with conflicts of interest from past work with the Department of Energy. Richard Miller, an analyst at the private Government Accountability Project, said in an interview that some conflicts of interest should disqualify experts from serving on such panels where federal benefits payments are at stake for thousands of former workers. Richard Powelson may be contacted at 202-408-2727. Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 41 Herald News: Group's cancer probe finds 46 new cases [SuburbanChicagoNews.com] Near Braidwood: Citizens seek study around power plant By Kim SmithSTAFF WRITER CUSTER PARK Two weeks ago when Shirley Cavanaugh and Irene Clark held the first meeting of the group dubbed "the Citizens for Safety Awareness" group, they had uncovered 65 cancer cases in the areas surrounding the Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant. That number recently climbed to 111 with one man from Essex claiming to have walked a few short blocks to uncover around 16 new cases. The news was revealed to a crowd of 100 who attended Monday night's second meeting of the group. "We are not pointing any fingers, we are saying something is going on around here," Cavanaugh said. "We want someone to do a feasibility study and see what is going on." The group has come up with a map of the area noting the homes and types of cancer found within their properties. On a three-mile stretch along West River Road and Illinois 113 there were 11 homes with at least one cancer case living in them in the past 20 years. No cancer cases have been linked to the power plant where Exelon officials have apologized for numerous spills of radioactive tritium in levels deemed safe and acceptable by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Yet, a member of the audience pointed out that health officials from Will County and the Illinois Health Department denied the existence of cancer clusters in the area. The area discussed includes Custer Park, Braidwood, Braceville, Wilmington. Godley and Essex and could be expanded to include Morris and Minooka. One of the reasons could be that cancer is rarely listed on death certificates because patients die from things such as renal failure due to complications from cancer. Cavanaugh said this needs to be changed. Will County board member Deb Rozak asked residents to form a committee to meet with county health officials. She offered to set up the meeting. The Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nuclear watchdog group, offered to conduct a study, but Cavanaugh said they would prefer a less biased group. Will County Executive Larry Walsh said the county will support the group's endeavor, saying nothing is more important than the quality of life and the safety and welfare of citizens. He encouraged citizens to petition federal authorities who have the power to change the rules. They are U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller. Cindy Sauer, a former Minooka resident and mother of a daughter with brain cancer, has been saying something is wrong here for the past two years. She said there are high rates of leukemia and childhood cancer in areas near nuclear plants. She encouraged people to visit the listings posted in the Illinois Department of Health Web site at www.idph.state.il.us/. - Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or via e-mail at ksmith@scn1.com 05/05/06 SuburbanChicagoNews.com — © Digital Chicago & Sun-Times ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Bomb testing valley's patience Action growing over huge explosion Today: May 05, 2006 at 7:55:51 PDT Public meetings to address concerns on health, environment By Launce Rake <> Las Vegas Sun A swelling chorus of community concern in Southern Nevada and Utah has prompted planning for town hall-style meetings about a huge explosion scheduled by the Defense Department at the Nevada Test Site. Defense Threat Reduction Agency officials said Thursday they would schedule the meetings to provide information on the blast and answer questions. The move was in response to requests from Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev. The action comes as Nevada's government is asking for additional environmental information before it will grant a permit for the explosion and as a Nevada activist, already a party to a federal lawsuit to stop the blast, threatens another lawsuit against the state government. The Defense Department plans to detonate a 700-ton mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil - a much greater amount of the same mix that decimated Oklahoma City's federal building in 1995 - at the Test Site on June 2. Agency Director James Tegnelia's comment that the blast would "send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas" ignited a firestorm of controversy. Times and places for the meetings have not been determined. Energy Department spokesman Darwin Morgan said his agency, which manages the Test Site, will participate but is leaving the scheduling to the Defense Department. David Rigby, Defense Threat Reduction Agency spokesman, said his agency has been in contact with congressional staff members about town hall meetings before the test, known as Divine Strake. "It is the agency's intention to participate in these meetings to be held in Nevada, as well as Utah, to address public concerns regarding the potential consequences of the Divine Strake experiment," he said. Environmentalists and "downwinders" - who blame federal above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada in the 1950s and early '60s for health problems, including cancer - have sued to stop the test. Federal officials, who in budget documents a year ago referred to the test as a step toward a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon, now say the test could be used to develop either a conventional or nuclear bunker buster for use against underground structures. Some congressmen from Utah and Nevada have expressed concerns about the environmental impact and the possibility that the test could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, have asked for clarification on both points, as has Hatch, who also asked for meetings so that people could directly question federal officials. Sharyn Stein, a Reid spokeswoman, said the Senate minority leader welcomes the town hall meetings. Last month, Reid asked the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to do a better job of explaining the test to the public. "Sen. Reid wants to make sure that Nevadans have all the information they need," she said. Hatch, in a statement, also welcomed the meetings, which he said would be akin to taking earlier congressional briefings to the public. "I'm grateful that DTRA has agreed to my request for briefings," he said. "It's vital for the people of Southern Utah and Nevada to have full knowledge of what will take place should this test go forward." Berkley spokesman David Cherry echoed the comments: "Why shouldn't we give the ability to the public to comment and ask questions?" He noted that his boss is still awaiting a response to a letter earlier this week that asked for more information on both the environmental and weapons-development issues. To find answers to the outstanding questions, "continued pressure from all sides is still important," Cherry said. Some of those who have worked against the planned test are not satisfied. Patricia Axelrod, a Reno peace activist, said she filed a 30-day, intent-to-sue notice against Nevada if the test, as planned, goes forward. "It is an unsafe venture," Axelrod said. "I want to stop the test. The nature of the test is so very dangerous, the consequences so dire, I don't believe it is appropriate to conduct this test in proximity to people, animals, places, things." Test Site managers have said there would be no negative environmental impact from the test, that dust from the blast would not be radioactive and would not drift off-site, and that Las Vegas residents would not be able to feel, hear or see the blast. In Las Vegas, Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental advocacy group, said she still wants a full federal environmental impact study completed before the test can go forward. Such a study usually takes at least two years. Johnson, who has railed for years against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, said town hall meetings are only as good as the information presented: "It depends on whether they will tell us the truth. They have to put in writing in a legal way that this is not going to have any impacts." Johnson said she would urge people to attend a local meeting, but it may not change the course of the federal government. "We could get 20,000 people to sign a petition against it," she said, "and they're still going to do what they're going to do." Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at lrake@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 Tri-City Herald: Hastings critical of worker compensation efforts Published Friday, May 5th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer A federal program to help ill workers at Hanford and other nuclear sites has not lived up to the expectations of Congress, said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. Hastings and three other U.S. representatives testified about the compensation program at a hearing Thursday before the U.S. House Judiciary Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Hastings criticized a White House Office of Management and Budget push to control costs of the program. Unfortunately, OMB is not focused on the cost of administering the program or trying to reduce bureaucracy, but on the cost of payments to ill workers, he said. "This amounts to injecting a political budgetary element into independent science and fact-based decisions on the payment of workers' claims," he said. "As thousands of workers still wait for answers on their claims, the government should be looking for ways to make this program work better, not ways to cut corners and deny workers their due," he added. Hastings is particularly concerned with the portion of the nuclear worker compensation program called Part E, which pays lost wages and medical benefits to workers made ill by exposure to radiological, chemical or biological hazards at work. "While a great deal of taxpayer money has been spent administering the program, results have been achieved for only a very small percentage of workers," he said. The program began accepting claims nearly five years ago. At Hanford, less than 10 percent of the cases have been processed. Some progress has been made since Congress transferred administration of the program from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor. Part B of the program has been more successful in comparison, Hastings said. It pays $150,000 to workers or their survivors if the federal government determines cancer was caused by workplace exposure to radiation. It also covers two rare lung diseases. About $66 million has been paid to Hanford and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers under the program. At Hanford, 2,254 of 3,467 cases filed have been decided. Those include 505 decisions in favor of workers or their survivors, although not all have received checks yet. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said he was concerned about the quality of the work being done to determine whether former workers had received enough radiation to likely have caused cases of cancer. He showed the subcommittee records for one worker, which omitted numerous exposures to radiation in 1950 from his total radiation dose even though they were detailed elsewhere in his file. The worker's record included exposure measurements through 1999. "Unfortunately, the claimant died in 1982," Udall said. Udall also called for the government to provide technical assistance for people trying to apply for an exemption that would allow workers who suffered any of 22 cancers to be automatically compensated with $150,000 without proving their radiation dose likely caused the cancer. "(Claimants) need to pull together significant information, and many of these people don't have that expertise," he said. The exemption, called a special exposure cohort, is intended to provide compensation if radiation records are missing or inaccurate. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., also testified. To apply for compensation under the federal program, call 1-888-654-0014. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 44 Spectrum: Strake may mimic small nuke St. George UT - www.thespectrum.com - + Nevada may halt test because of insufficient data By BRIAN PASSEY bpassey@thespectrum.com ST. GEORGE - A Defense Department official reportedly confirmed Thursday morning that the large conventional blast scheduled in Nevada next month will provide data simulating the effects of a low-yield nuclear explosion. Rep. Jim Math-eson, D-Utah, met with Dr. James Tegnelia, director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, because of concerns stemming from the planned June 2 explosion of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil at the Nevada Test Site, 150 miles west of St. George. Budget documents for the test originally indicated it would simulate a nuclear explosion, but the DTRA later said the test was for conventional purposes only and to help determine the force necessary to defeat hardened targets such as underground bunkers. However, Matheson said Tegnelia reportedly told him that the test, code-named Divine Strake, has a "dual-use." Though the DTRA maintains motivation for the test is the development of powerful non-nuclear weapons, the effects of the large blast will be strong enough to simulate a small nuclear weapon and that data can be used to develop new nuclear weapons. "I'm still skeptical because the change in the budget documents just happened in the last year," Matheson said Thursday afternoon. Vanessa Pierce of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah was in St. George on Thursday to take part in a debate about fallout from previous atomic testing at the Nevada Test Site. Pierce said the nuclear connections to Divine Strake are troubling. "It might not be radioactive but it's a nuclear test," Pierce said in reference to how the data could be used. Pierce's concerns about new, low-yield nuclear weapons go beyond the testing stage, however. She said the scary thing about so-called "mini nukes" is that the military would be more likely to use them against enemies, as some Department of Defense officials have mentioned, as a possible way to destroy underground targets in Iran. She questioned what would happen to the American soldiers who then had to search the detonation sites to verify if they had actually hit their targets. A delay? The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection also has lingering concerns about Divine Strake and is still awaiting data from the National Nuclear Security Administration regarding radiological contamination of soils near the designated blast site. The federal government conducted above-ground atomic testing at the test site in the 1950s and 1960s and continued below-ground atomic tests in tunnels until 1992. Many believe radioactive fallout from the above-ground testing has caused cancer in thousands of U.S. citizens, often referred to as downwinders. The division's Bureau of Air Pollution Control sent a letter to the NNSA on April 28 requesting a dispersion modeling report for the blast. In the letter, Michael Elges, BAPC chief, wrote, "A number of question have been raised regarding radiological contamination that could be potentially resuspended as a result of the proposed test." Elges also wrote that the NNSA and DTRA had previously committed to provide the state with a detailed analysis of surface and subsurface contamination in the area and the potential for the blast to "liberate radiological contaminants into the air." BAPC again requested the information and said as its evaluation proceeds more data may be needed. Elges wrote that a timely response from the NNSA would could help BAPC finish its own technical evaluation of the blast in time for the planned June 2 detonation date. Dante Pistone, a public information officer for the Nevada Division of Environmental of Environmental Protection, said in a statement that the state again told the NNSA that the test "cannot proceed until authorization from NDEP has been received." Pierce, who saw the letter Thursday, said it raises questions about why the NNSA has hesitated in releasing information to the state. But she said it also is "par for the course" for the Department of Energy, the NNSA's parent organization. Pierce said the DOE did not release studies or tell the truth during the atomic testing of the past and "old habits die hard." She said the delay in response is all the more reason for Utah's delegation to Congress to use its power in fighting the test. Since Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently made comments about using his influence to stop the blast if he had any real concerns, she called on him to exercise that power. Hatch recently requested data from the blast's environmental assessment for an independent analysis. Safety concerns Others also want an independent analysis and implementation of more safety measures. Pistone wrote in his statement that Nevada plans to conduct a comprehensive independent review of the federal government's submittal to ensure that no state or federal air quality regulations will be violated by the blast. "We will require field monitors to ensure the accuracy of NNSA's claim that no radioactive materials will be re-suspended into the atmosphere," Pistone wrote. The state has also asked the Nevada System of Higher Education's Desert Research Institute to provide third-party monitoring at various locations. Matheson said his meeting with Tegnelia also covered some of the congressman's safety concerns about the test and he thinks some progress has been made in terms of ensuring safety. One of the recent changes is the addition of helicopters to monitor the air following detonation. Matheson said he also asked for monitoring in the blast's tunnel location to track any venting of radioactive material. Tegnelia said there is no radioactive material in the tunnel, prompting Matheson to respond that it should then be easy to provide assurance of that. He also requested monitoring of the dust plume that will result from the blast and that all monitoring information be made public after the test. Matheson said transparency is necessary in order for the public to have confidence in the test. "I think the citizens in the surrounding area deserve that," Matheson said. Tegnelia also reportedly announced a series of public meetings preceding the test. The congressman said he hopes one of those meetings will be in St. George. Originally published May 5, 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 Daily Herald: Lawmakers criticize nuclear worker comp Call Us: 801.373.5050 Friday, May 05, 2006 NANCY ZUCKERBROD - The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers who represent sick nuclear weapons workers said Thursday that the government should step up its efforts to compensate them. "These nuclear weapons workers served America well, and honor demands that they be well served in return," said Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. "You sense the urgency from all the claimants," Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said of the workers and their families. Many of the workers, or their surviving spouses, are elderly. Both Udalls, who are cousins, joined Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., and Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee on the compensation program. Wamp, whose district includes facilities in Oak Ridge, Tenn., said he has received complaints about the length of time it takes for claims to be processed. He also said some claimants have had trouble getting information from the agencies involved. "Our nation's nuclear workers and their families deserve fair and timely compensation for work-related illnesses," Wamp said. The hearing was the second in a series examining the compensation program, which was created by Congress in 2000. Workers exposed to cancer-causing radiation or beryllium and silica -- which cause lung diseases -- get a lump sum payment of $150,000 plus medical benefits. The Labor Department estimates it has paid out more than $1 billion in straight compensation, not including medical payments, under the program. Most of the workers were at Energy Department facilities in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Wamp defended Oak Ridge Associated Universities, the government contractor helping to administer the program. Critics say the Tennessee-based company has failed to police conflicts of interest among its staff. For example, some contractor employees who are writing reports about the nuclear facilities were responsible for monitoring radiation there over the years. Some also served as expert witnesses for the government during the period in which the government fought compensation claims. Wamp said the contractor has a good track record, but he said he welcomed a congressional investigation into its performance. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Indiana, who chaired the hearing and has jurisdiction over government claims, ordered the investigation. Hostettler decided to hold hearings after an internal White House budget document was publicized earlier that discussed limiting the program's costs, including calling for administration clearance of benefits decisions. Hostettler said Bush administration officials and claimants would be asked to testify at an upcoming, not-yet-scheduled hearing. Hostettler said he has been in talks with Bush administration officials and has "heard more on the reassuring side" lately. Still, the administration's memo remains a sore spot with lawmakers. "This amounts to injecting a political budgetary element into independent science and fact-based decisions on the payment of workers' claims," Hastings said. On the Net: Program statistics: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/eeoicp/weeklystats.ht m This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D3. Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 46 CBC Ottawa: Lab fire at nuclear site keeps 2,000 workers inside Last updated May 5 2006 08:42 AM EDT CBC News A fire that broke out in a laboratory of the Chalk River nuclear site on Thursday afternoon left one person injured, but caused no damage to the reactors. All 2,000 employees of the site owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. were told to remain in the building, as part of standard security procedures. One employee was treated on site for minor hand injuries. The fire was not near the nuclear reactors and there was no harm to the environment, said an AECL spokesperson. The company used its own firefighters to put out the fire, which began at 1:30 p.m. It was put out in an hour. A spokesperson said the fire may been caused by a faulty valve on a cylinder of compressed gas, but the details are still under investigation. The Chalk River Laboratories are located on the bank of the Ottawa River, about 150 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, near Petawawa. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which regulates nuclear plants and materials, said it will investigate the incident. Copyright© CBC 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 Las Vegas SUN: Top Mormon church leaders oppose waste repository in Utah Today: May 05, 2006 at 7:31:32 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have opposed a proposal to temporarily store nuclear waste on an Indian reservation in western Utah. The proposal was criticized in a statement issued Thursday by the church's First Presidency, which consists of church President Gordon B. Hinckley and his counselors Thomas S. Monson and James E. Faust. The church had previously issued a statement criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval of a license for the proposed facility on the Goshutes' reservation in Skull Valley, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The First Presidency statement Thursday went to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as an official comment on a right of way request. "The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns," the First Presidency said. "It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste," the statement said. "We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste." Policy statements by the First Presidency are the most authoritative and forceful expression of church position. The church's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and to MX (later called Peacekeeper) missile deployment in western Utah were among the most far-reaching and successful examples of its efforts to influence public policy. Its major effort in recent years has been against gay marriage. The plan by the Goshutes and Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear-power utilities, to store 40,000 tons of spent nuclear-fuel rods on the reservation has been vigorously opposed by the state's officials and its congressional delegation. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin questioned whether the First Presidency statement would have much practical impact. The BLM, she noted, can only consider technical issues, such as whether it meets the bureau regulations and whether granting the license would go against the public interest. "If this (three sentences) is all the statement is, it doesn't begin to address the criteria or the issues the BLM raised," she said. "And it's really no different that anybody else saying, `We don't want it here.'" Martin said reprocessing is not a feasible solution for the nation's nuclear waste problem and probably will not be for at least a decade. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and Mormon, heard about the statement late Thursday. "He says he did not lobby the church but he was very pleased to see the statement," his spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. Michael Lee, counsel to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, said: "Every little bit helps. The church is speaking for a lot of people in Utah and out of Utah, in the church and out of the church.'" Greg Hopkins, senior vice president for communications at EnergySolutions, formerly EnviroCare of Utah, which has been running advertisements pushing its reprocessing technology as an alternative to storage in Utah, said his company had not lobbied church leaders, but "We are aligned with the Church's statement." The BLM has been accepting comments on a proposed transfer facility and rail line to the waste site. Congress has established a Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area that could prevent approval of the rail line. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 48 Deseret News: No to nuclear storage, LDS say [deseretnews.com] Friday, May 5, 2006 Public can comment on the PFS proposals Church reaffirms stance on proposed Utah Site By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Thursday reaffirmed its opposition to storage of high-level nuclear waste in Utah, asking the federal government to search for creative ways to dispose of it. ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic The church's comment Thursday came in response to a proposal by Private Fuel Storage to build a "temporary" storage site for 40,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear-fuel rods. The plant would be built on Goshute Indian land in Skull Valley, Tooele County, 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. With time running out on a 90-day public comment period concerning the proposed PFS site, the church said it is asking the federal government to find a better way. "The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public-health, safety and environmental concerns," the church's First Presidency said in a news release Thursday. "It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste. We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste." No further comments were available, according to Dale Bills, spokesman for the church. PFS has received authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the federal Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs still must give their approval before a storage site can be built. The BLM will gather public comments until Monday on a plan to build a transfer facility to service the plant. The agency has been accepting comments on the transfer facility and a proposed rail line since Feb. 7. The rail line apparently is not feasible as it would, according to a BLM public notice, "conflict with the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area" that was recently established by Congress. However, the Intermodal Transfer Facility is seen as the alternative to the 32-mile rail line. There, casks of nuclear waste would be taken from railroad cars and loaded onto trucks for the trip to the Skull Valley storage plant. In September 2005, the church announced its opposition to PFS, saying it regretted the decision by the NRC to approve the facility. Glenn A. Carpenter, field manager of the BLM's Salt Lake District, said Thursday that more than 4,000 comments had come in so far concerning the Intermodal Transfer Facility. ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic "We're really looking for substantive comments," he said. The agency has not yet undertaken an analysis of the comments it has received and expects to go through them after the comment period closes, he added. Many of the comments were sent in by e-mail. The address for commenting — pam_schuller@blm.gov— may have been passed around on the Internet by bloggers, Carpenter said. Carpenter emphasized that anyone wishing to make a statement should confine comments to actual information. A final environmental impact statement on PFS was published in December 2001. "This is not a referendum, so we're not going to be counting votes," Carpenter said. "But we still have to examine each comment for its content." E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 49 Rocky Mountain News: Wildlife refuge ready to grow EPA set to remove 11.5 square miles from Superfund list Ken Papaleo © A Swainson's hawk flies to a branch in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Thursday afternoon. The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to remove the biggest chunk yet of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal from the national list of Superfund sites. This would expand the area of the wildlife refuge. By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News May 5, 2006 The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, once a cauldron of poisons, home to chemical weapons and pesticides manufacturing, is making another major shift toward its emerging status as an urban wildlife refuge. Federal environmental regulators want to remove the biggest piece yet of the site northeast of Denver from the Superfund list of the country's most polluted places and hand it over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the result of significant cleanup progress in recent years. In all, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that 7,399 acres of what was once a 17,000-acre site be turned over to wildlife managers. If the agency proceeds, it would mark the third section of the arsenal removed from Superfund status, for a total of 13,392 acres taken off cleanup rolls since 2003. "It's our biggest piece of land to date that we've been able to certify as complete," said Charlie Scharmann, program manager for the U.S. Army, which, along with Shell Oil Co., is responsible for decontaminating the site. "It is a significant milestone for us." The effort to de-list the parcels comes after years of work mopping up a number of fairly small, scattered areas of contamination. The projects included eradicating old landfills containing asbestos and PCBs, moving soil tainted with mercury and chemical weapons residue and digging up old canals and sewers that transported contaminated water. Major cleanup work at the arsenal dates to 1989, with completion expected in 2011. All told, the cost of the job is expected to reach $2.2 billion, making the arsenal the state's second-costliest Superfund site. It's still far less than the more than $6 billion closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant west of Denver. One of the most important components of the recent arsenal cleanup work included what EPA project manager Laura Williams called a "scrubdown" of the entire site to ensure no remaining unexploded weapons remained. The survey followed unexpected discoveries in 2000 of small, unexploded bombs filled with sarin gas, an event that drew headlines and stirred public worries about what other hazards might still lurk at the site. "We did it to give us assurances that what we are deleting (from the Superfund list) is where it needs to be," Williams said. "Any potential explosive items have been scrutinized yet again to ensure we don't have any future surprises." The EPA has opened a 30-day public comment period through May 25 on its proposal to remove the 11.5 square miles from Superfund status. Barring any major objections, the property could be off federal cleanup rolls by September, Scharmann said. If so, that would leave just 3,608 acres at the arsenal under the Army's and Shell's jurisdiction. Remaining cleanup work in that area, at the center of the arsenal, includes capping large landfills created to hold most of the contaminated debris moved from other areas. "The last few years of cleanup are actually clean construction, where we're moving clean solids over the tops of landfills . . . to provide that cap and cover for rain and snow to move over the top of, instead of moving through" the landfills, Scharmann said. Gradually, officials say, all the steady cleanup progress is making the public view the old arsenal site more as a wildlife refuge, a place to see deer, bald eagles, burrowing owls and prairie dogs, and less for its fading notoriety as a home to military nerve gas production decades earlier. "The public has seen the transition and I think their perception of the site is following it," said Dean Rundle, refuge manager for the Fish and Wildlife Service. "They know some cleanup is left to do out here, but they know the vast majority of the site wasn't contaminated, or that the areas that were have already been cleaned up." hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5048 site 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 50 AU: The Advertiser: Ian Hore-Lacy: Nuclear waste a political problem, not environmental [05may06] THE worldwide nuclear renaissance is gathering steam. Whereas 10 years ago the environmental lobby was noisy in opposition, today some of the world's highest-profile environmentalists speak very clearly for nuclear power, because they think it represents much less of a problem or threat than global warming. Doubling the world's nuclear contribution would eliminate at least a quarter of the CO2 emissions from power generation. The fond hopes of the green movement cannot match this. Nuclear wastes may be a bogey in the public mind, due to irresponsible fearmongering, but in fact they are arguably a distinct positive due to their relatively low quantity and ease of containment, storage and disposal. Other than at the political level, there are no significant problems with safe handling and storage of civil nuclear wastes anywhere in the world. The resource base for long-term use of nuclear power is excellent. With the new wave of exploration for uranium now getting under way after a long slowdown due to ex-military uranium coming on the market, I would expect known resources to double within a few years. As custodian of resources needed by the world, Australia has a responsibility to supply them with due care for how they are (or might be) used. In the case of uranium, exports are under both international safeguards arrangements which account for them and their derivatives, and also more stringent bilateral arrangements. Australia has the option of continuing its present form of uranium exports – the mines selling uranium to the power generating utilities, who then arrange for intermediate processing (notably enrichment). After using the fuel, the waste remains there. But there is also the possibility of fuel leasing, whereby supplier countries such as Australia lease nuclear fuel to users internationally and then take the spent fuel back. This is rare today but is proposed as an anti-proliferation measure, most recently by the U.S. and Russia. In this case, provisions would need to be made for it upon return – initially storage. Then there are several options. One is direct geological disposal after 50 years or so (when over 99 per cent of the original radioactivity has disappeared). Another (as currently proposed by the U.S.) is processing it to recover unused uranium, then all the actinides (including plutonium), and leaving fission products which become waste. The actinide assortment then gets burned to yield energy in special reactors (which could be here or overseas). Of course the legal and the moral position is that each country is responsible for its own wastes (nuclear and other). Here the wastes are made in the power reactors due to the nuclear fission – they are not simply left over from what we export. However, there is no in-principle problem with being responsible for something but arranging on a mutually agreeable basis for others to handle it – we all do that all the time. In Europe and North America, energy security is a big issue. In contrast to fossil fuels, several years' supplies of uranium or fabricated fuel can be stored safely, unobtrusively and relatively inexpensively if needed. Energy security was a major factor in Finland's decision to build a fifth nuclear reactor, and it comes even more to the fore in 2006 due to gas supply constraints and threats in Europe. Meanwhile, Australia provides a quarter of the mined uranium for a world increasingly concerned with the clean and reliable production of large amounts of electricity. South Australia plays a notable role in this and there is opportunity for more. + Ian Hore-Lacy is general manager of the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre, and director of public communications for the World Nuclear Association in London. © Advertiser Newspapers Pty Limited ***************************************************************** 51 BYU NewsNet: LDS Church issues nuclear waste statement - 5 May 2006 Reuters By ROBB HICKEN The LDS Church has taken a stand against the disposal or storage of nuclear waste west of Salt Lake City. In a press release attributed to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church officials took a stand against the storage of nuclear waste in Utah’s Skull Valley area. “It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste,” the statement issued Thursday afternoon read. Debate over the concentration of waste or spent nuclear material arose after there was concern about the Yucca Mountain repository near Las Vegas was questioned. Since 1997, Private Fuel Storage officials are looking to dump as much as 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians in Tooele County. The tribe, which has struggled with unemployment and poverty, has seen this venture as a relief. An agreement, estimated at as much as $240 million, has been in the works to lease reservation land for the storage of nuclear waste above ground. Church authorities called on the federal government to use technological and creative power to develop alternative means to dispose of the waste. “The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety and environmental concerns,” the release stated. Earlier this month, Salt Lake City officials joined with other city, county and government leaders in Utah to oppose Private Fuel Storage's proposal Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a declaration last week opposing the storage plan and encouraged Utah residents to speak out before the Bureau of Land Management, which is conducting a study of the proposed waste site and storage plan. BLM officials will be gathering comment on the proposal through May 8. The bureau oversees the approval process that would allow access across public lands, which would be required for transportation of the spent nuclear fuel to the storage site. Copyright, BYU NewsNet ***************************************************************** 52 reviewjournal.com: Criminal charges won't be filed in Yucca e-mail scandal May 05, 2006 Prosecutors: Evidence of criminal acts lacking By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Investigators failed to turn up conclusive evidence of criminal actions in Yucca Mountain e-mails that implied quality assurance documents might have been falsified, according to a report released Thursday. But the e-mails suggested management shortcomings on the nuclear waste project allowed for a "poor attitude" to fester among a hydrologist and his supervisor who were tied to many of the messages, the report stated. A 40-page document issued by the Interior Department inspector general sheds light on the motivations of U.S. Geological Survey employees whose e-mails triggered upheaval within the Yucca program when they were disclosed in March 2005. The report was a redacted version of material forwarded to federal prosecutors in Nevada in December following an investigation by the Interior Department and the Department of Energy. Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney in Nevada, declined to pursue criminal charges. Officials said prosecutors concluded the activity failed to reach a criminal level. "The investigation revealed the substance of several questionable e-mails, and the related conduct discussed, either did not occur or could not be substantiated," inspectors said in a summary of their work. Investigators said they parsed 19 e-mails that were originally disclosed, plus another seven that were uncovered later. They interviewed authors and recipients, and discussed the messages with experts who were brought in by the Department of Energy to assess their impact on repository science. DOE's review concluded the work was technically sound but was not suitable to be used in a formal repository license application and is being replaced. Most of the e-mails were written between 1998 and 2000 by Joseph Hevesi, a USGS research hydrologist working at the Yucca site, and were addressed to Alan Flint, his supervisor in Sacramento, Calif. Investigators said Hevesi and Flint "had limited managerial oversight" from DOE and USGS officials as they developed a computer model of how water might infiltrate Yucca Mountain toward the repository level, where nuclear waste would be stored. Excerpts from the e-mails rocked the Yucca program when they were made public. In one message discussing a research exercise, the author, later identified as Hevesi, wrote, "Wait till they figure out that nothing I've provided them is QA," referring to quality assurance. "If they really want the stuff they'll have to pay to do it right." Based on their questioning of Hevesi, investigators said that e-mail and others conveyed his frustration with quality assurance rules that require meticulous documentation. Testifying last summer before a congressional subcommittee, Hevesi said his e-mails were poorly worded and "water cooler talk" and he did not falsify information. In their report Thursday, inspectors said Hevesi's frustration was fueled by Flint's "lack of supervisory oversight." An official with Sandia National Laboratories who did a technical review of the e-mails told inspectors they "provided insight into Hevesi's and Alan Flint's poor attitude and demeanor," the report stated. "According to the (Sandia) official, Alan Flint and Hevesi isolated themselves from the rest of the project and made it known they did not want to work with anyone else except each other," the auditors said. Flint and Hevesi remain employed at the agency, but are no longer involved in Yucca work. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., expects to seek more details about the probe, spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. "The summary released today does not show the kind of thorough investigation we had hoped for," Stein said. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the e-mails, said the report sheds light on "a culture of mismanagement at DOE" no matter the lack of criminal prosecution. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said, "What it really confirms is that the quality assurance program at Yucca Mountain is totally ineffective. But until we learn more about why no criminal charges have been filed as a result of this e-mail scandal, the story remains incomplete." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 53 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions' infomercials Article Last Updated: 05/04/2006 07:46:41 PM MDT The euphemistically renamed EnergySolutions, formerly Envirocare, heavily lobbied the Utah Legislature and previously succeeded, with an extensive and expensive television campaign, in defeating a citizen's initiative to increase the tax on nuclear waste. Now they are bombarding the airwaves with ads about medical research and environmental protection. The only thing missing is showing fawns in meadows and children playing with puppies. Their infomercials have also blasted a potential rival, the Goshute Indians, for wanting to store nuclear waste, claiming that their company can recycle the waste - likely into magic fairy dust. Almost as amazing is that Utah Republicans in Congress have miraculously turned into wilderness advocates. However, the area they chose (Cedar Mountain) is one of the least scenic and wild in Utah, but it prevents a rail line to the reservation. Who says democracy cannot be bought? Craig Glover Salt Lake City © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 54 Salt Lake Tribune: LDS joins N-storage foes Article Last Updated: 05/05/2006 09:08:31 AM MDT Church's rare public-policy statement appears to go beyond Utah, may target Nevada site as well By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune One of the Rocky Mountain West's most influential forces added its voice Thursday to the campaign to block trainloads of radioactive waste from coming to Utah. But it remains unclear if even the powerful word of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can truly help stop those trains. In a rare statement on public policy, church President Gordon B. Hinckley and his two counselors said moving and storing high-level nuclear waste creates 'substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns." The statement went Thursday to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as an official comment on a right-of-way request. "It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste,' the statement continues. 'We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste.' In the fall, the LDS Church LDS Church statement + LDS Church statement on nuclear waste disposal alternatives announced through a spokesman its objections to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to license the proposed nuclear waste storage on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Tooele County. The site would be a kind of parking lot big enough to hold nearly all the reactor waste ever produced by the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. But the Thursday statement comes directly from the church's First Presidency and it is broader, apparently covering the federal government's plan to bury reactor waste forever at Yucca Mountain, Nev. And it specifically endorses alternative technologies, echoing what has become a mantra among political leaders who, along with Salt Lake City-based nuclear services company EnergySolutions, have been touting nuclear fuel reprocessing lately as an answer to the nation's waste problems. Not since the statement opposing the MX nuclear missile deployment in Utah 25 years ago has the First Presidency spoken out so directly and forcefully on a public policy issue not involving LDS Church speaking up The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints usually confines its public-policy statements to morals issues, such as: + abortion + gay marriage + liquor + gambling Thursday, the LDS First Presidency went outside the usual list to take on nuclear waste. Previous exceptions: + MX Missile (1981) + communism (1960s) + John Birch Society (1960s) + reapportionment (1960s) -- Source: Richard Davis, BYU political scientist the church's usual moral targets, such as gay rights or gambling. The church's May 6, 1981, statement on MX is widely credited with killing the missile plan. Richard Davis, a political science professor at church-owned Brigham Young University, could only remember the First Presidency speaking out on three other public policy issues, all in the 1960s: communism, reapportionment and the John Birch Society. 'They've been very protective of Utah as a home for LDS people,' said Davis, recalling the MX statement. 'And I think they realize they have an enormous power to affect the community, the home base for the LDS community. I think they would probably see this as being a good citizen, good for the neighborhood.' Davis also wondered if the statement would be read aloud from Utah pulpits this weekend. 'They will probably prompt church members to take action by taking action.' The three sentences on high-level waste shipping and disposal came just days before the BLM's MondayMay 8 deadline for commenting on a crucial application for the storage site. Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of nuclear utilities, must have the permit for a train-to-truck transfer station alongside I-80 at Rowley Junction in Tooele County. More than 2,000 Utahns already have sent in comments. The Alliance for Unity, a leadership group based in downtown Salt Lake City, and the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce have joined the state delegationUtahns in Congress in rallying Utahns to provide their input. But PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin questioned whether the First Presidency statement would have much practical impact. The BLM, she noted, can only consider technical issues, such as whether it meets the bureau regulations and whether granting the license would go against the public interest. 'If this [three sentences] is all the statement is, it doesn't begin to address the criteria or the issues the BLM raised,' she said. 'And it's really no different that anybody else saying, 'we don't want it here.'ĂŠ'' Martin said reprocessing is not a feasible solution for the nation's nuclear waste problem and probably will not be for at least a decade. Meanwhile, after an 8-year review, the PFS site has been deemed safe. 'We are what we are,' she added. 'We are not trying to play any kind of political game.' Political leaders who have been fighting the federal government's nuclear waste plans and advocating reprocessing welcomed the LDS Church statement. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and the nation's highest-ranking Mormon in Congress, heard about the statement late Thursday. 'He says he did not lobby the church but he was very pleased to see the statement,' said the senator's spokeswoman, Sharyn Stein. Michael Lee, counsel to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., said: 'Every little bit helps. 'The church is speaking for a lot of people in Utah and out of Utah, in the [Mormon] church and out of the church.' Greg Hopkins, senior vice president for communications at EnergySolutions, said his company had not lobbied church leaders either. But, he said, 'We are aligned with the Church's statement.' fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 55 KTEN: Congressman wants to see plans to clean up uranium storage site TULSA, Okla. Oklahoma Congressman Dan Boren wants the Defense Department to tell what its plans are for removing depleted uranium stored in Gore. An amendment calling for the department's remediation plans has been approved by the U-S House of Representatives. Boren says about one-and-a-half million pounds of depleted uranium have been stored at the former Sequoyah Fuels site in Gore since 1993 when the facility completed its work with uranium provided by the government. He says the storage of the uranium is impeding efforts to decontaminate and decommission the facility. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. All content © Copyright 2000-2006, WorldNow and KTEN. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 KnoxNews: Nuclear waste shipped off But processing operation may be halted if dispute with DOE over labor isn't solved By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 5, 2006 OAK RIDGE - Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. on Thursday shipped 103 drums of radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site, marking the latest milestone in an Oak Ridge operation that processes some of the nation's nastiest nuclear legacies. The company, however, may suspend work June 1 if a contract dispute with the U.S. Department of Energy isn't resolved by then. Foster Wheeler wants to restructure its original "privatization" contract negotiated with DOE in the late 1990s. Under terms of that fixed-price contract, the New Jersey-based company invested tens of millions of dollars to build the Oak Ridge waste-processing plant and receives money from DOE after reaching various production goals. Steven Fried, Foster Wheeler's president and chief operating officer, confirmed that the company wants to convert the contract to a cost-plus-fee arrangement. That would reduce the uncertainties associated with the Oak Ridge project, he said Thursday in a telephone interview. "To do work in the nuclear cleanup safely and compliantly, there are very frequently changes to the project requirements," Fried said. "The (existing) contract structure just doesn't work effectively for that. The changes are too big, and they come too fast for the contract to keep up." Fried would not discuss financial details or say how much money - if any - Foster Wheeler stands to lose under the current contract. He said the company has discussed contract revisions with DOE for at least 18 months. "What we have told DOE is we believe that we are contractually entitled to operate the facility in the most efficient manner possible," Fried said. "Given all these changes (in the project), we believe that the most efficient manner for us right now is to reschedule some of the processing, and that would result in a suspension of some activities - but not all activities - on June 1." John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs director, said DOE's primary interest is making sure waste operations continue at the Oak Ridge plant. "We don't want to see this work stopped," he said. "We are 100 percent committed to that cause." Shewairy said he was optimistic that talks between DOE and Foster Wheeler would produce "mutually beneficial" results. DOE negotiated a number of privatization contracts with cleanup contractors in the 1990s, and Fried said the track record of those is generally "not very good." Foster Wheeler is responsible for processing wastes in different forms - solids, liquids, sludges - most of which have highly radioactive materials known as "transuranics." Those wastes are then shipped west for disposal. Fried noted that production schedules have been flip-flopped and altered to meet DOE's needs and the receiving requirements at the primary disposal site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. At one time, the intent was to process multiple waste groups at the same time, Fried said. Because of changes, however, Foster Wheeler is doing one type of waste at a time, he said. "That is highly inefficient and significantly extends the duration of the project," he said. It also inflates the overall cost of doing the work, he said. Waste processing and packaging currently is scheduled to continue through 2012. A number of contract alternatives are being discussed with DOE, Fried said. If there is a work stoppage at the Oak Ridge plant, everything will be done safely and "in full compliance with every regulation that's applicable," he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 57 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Cleanup requires a reorganized effort Letters to the Editor [seattlepi.com] Friday, May 5, 2006 The only benefits that the current Hanford cleanup has for the state of Washington are how the contractors and workers are "cleaning up" from large profits and high-paying jobs at taxpayers' expense. Almost two decades ago, I co-founded the only organization dedicated to Hanford cleanup, Heart of America Northwest. As a bottom-line businessman who calls them as he sees them, I saw the most incompetent culture consisting of the Department of Energy, its contractors and the Hanford work force taking on the daunting job of cleaning up Hanford. After years of observing how work is done among those three elements of the Hanford culture, the situation is worse than incompetent; it is hopeless. Three years ago, I told now-Gov. Christine Gregoire that the vitrification plant would not work, I have told most of our congressional delegation that the vit plant, even revised as currently suggested, will not work and I stand behind that opinion. Nothing short of a complete reorganization of how work is done starting with removing Hanford cleanup from under DOE, changing contractors and a renewal of the work force will do it. Mark Bloome Retired chairman Heart of America [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 ©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 58 Tri-City Herald: Bechtel rebuts '60 Minutes' claims Published Friday, May 5th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer CBS's 60 Minutes segment on the troubles at Hanford's vitrification plant "misrepresented well-known facts, confused basic issues and drew unwarranted conclusions," according to Bechtel National, which holds the contract to build the $11 billion plant. It has posted a rebuttal to last Sunday's news program on the Bechtel Web site. The program looked at problems at the Waste Treatment Plant being built to turn millions of gallons of radioactive waste at Hanford into a stable glass form for permanent disposal. The waste is left from production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. "After examining Bechtel's response, we see no reason to amend anything we broadcast last Sunday," Kevin Tedesco, a spokesman for 60 Minutes, said in a statement. "We stand by our reporting." The segment looked at problems at the plant, including construction quality issues, a discovery that earthquake design standards might be inadequate and the decision to begin building the plant when much of the design wasn't yet complete. When the earthquake design standards were increased by the Department of Energy, Bechtel had to redo thousands of design calculations to ensure its design was adequate. But that cost would have been added to the project whether or not construction had started, according to Bechtel. "Because its original plant design was conservative, Bechtel did not have to remove or redo any construction work," Bechtel said. If construction had not started before the design was finished, the plant would not be completed for another 15 to 20 years, Bechtel said. The latest estimates show the plant will be finished years behind schedule, but could be operating in 11 or 12 years, with part of the plant possibly starting to treat the least radioactive waste years earlier. Bechtel also objected to the implication that it knowingly accepted defective processing tanks from a manufacturer. CBS said deficient welds in the first tank to be installed were missed by Bechtel and discovered only "by independent inspectors for Washington state." Bechtel said the problem was discovered by a subcontractor hired to help ensure state standards were met. Problems were fixed and DOE accepted work on the tank in July 2004. That and other quality problems led to $500,000 being withheld from Bechtel's fee and a fine of $198,000. "It is remarkable that with all the investigative resources at their disposal, 60 Minutes failed to shed light on the real issues that have made WTP such a challenging project," Bechtel said. Those include technical challenges in designing such a large and complex plant, helping revive the nation's atrophied nuclear industry production infrastructure and anticipating the soaring cost of equipment and supplies after construction began, according to Bechtel. The plant's estimated cost has almost doubled in a little more than a year. Bechtel's comments are posted at www.waste2glass. com under the "news and information" section of the outreach button. A transcript of the 60 Minutes segment is posted at www.cbs.com under the 60 Minutes portion of its CBS news section. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: Public Scoping Meeting on Study of Energy Rights-of-Way on FR Doc E6-6864 [Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)] [Notices] [Page 26483-26484] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my06-42] Tribal Lands AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy; Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of May 15, 2006, Deadline for Submitting Information and Comments. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Department of Energy (``DOE'') and Department of the Interior (``DOI'') (collectively referred to as the ``Departments'') have set May 15, 2006, as the deadline for submission of information and comments regarding the study being conducted pursuant to section 1813 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Departments invite the public to provide any information relevant to the topics being studied pursuant to section 1813 by May 15, 2006. The Departments encourage the public to submit information electronically to the email address given below. DATES: All submissions are due May 15, 2006, to the contact listed below in the ADDRESSES section. ADDRESSES: Please send written information and comments by regular mail to Attention: Section 1813 ROW Study, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 2749-MIB, Washington, DC, 20240 or by e-mail to IEED@bia.edu. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Darryl Francois, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 2749-MIB, Washington, DC, 20240. He can also be reached by telephone at (202) 219-0740 or by e-mail at darryl.francois@mms.gov. Please contact Mr. David Meyer via mail at, Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585, via phone at (202)586-3118, or via e-mail at david.meyer@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1813 of Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Energy (the ``Secretaries'') to jointly conduct a study of energy rights-of- way on tribal land. Specifically, section 1813 requires the Secretaries submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study, including: (1) An analysis of historic rates of compensation paid for energy rights-of-way on tribal land; (2) Recommendations for appropriate standards and procedures for determining fair and appropriate compensation to Indian tribes for grants, expansions, and renewals for energy rights-of-way on tribal land; (3) An assessment of the tribal self-determination and sovereignty interests implicated by applications for the grant, expansion, or renewal of energy rights-of-way on tribal land; and (4) An analysis of relevant national energy transportation policies relating to grants, expansions, and renewals of energy rights-of-way on tribal land. At meetings in March and April, the Departments sought the public's input [[Page 26484]] on information related to the historic rates of compensation paid for energy rights-of-way on tribal land that are important for the Departments to consider in the study. While the Departments are making good progress in this regard, we continue to seek factual information from the public to support specific case studies that members of the public regard as relevant to one or more elements of the study. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2006. Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. E6-6864 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************