*****************************************************************
05/09/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.110
*****************************************************************
   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] Peres, Father of Israeli Nukes, Threatens to Wipe Out Iran
2 [NYTr] Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes US Govt
3 [NYTr] In Surprise Move, Tehran Reaches Out to US
4 [NYTr] Israeli Official Threatens Attack on Iran in "Months"
5 [NYTr] Pinning Venezuelan Uranium Tail on Iranian Uranium Donkey
6 [NYTr] Iranian President's Letter to Bush Emerges
7 [NYTr] Full Text: Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader Says Democracy Has Failed
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. to Present Iran Nuke Program Options
10 Guardian Unlimited: Experts: U.S. Hasty in Brushoff of Iran
11 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Resolution on Iran Concerns China
12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes U.S. Govt
13 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff
14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Won't Exit Nuclear Treaty
15 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett cautious on Iran options
16 BBC: Ahmadinejad letter attacks Bush
17 Reuters: U.S. involvement key to success with Iran-Schuessel
18 AFP: Iran's Larijani praises China, Russia's 'realism' in nuclear ro
19 AFP: US won't reply to Iran letter, wants real progress on nuclear i
20 AFP: US dismisses Ahmadinejad letter, no deal on Iran nuclear progra
21 AFP: West no closer on UN response to Iran 
22 Asia Times: China's 'two-faced' nuclear stance
23 Asia Times: The great divide over North Korea
24 US: [NukeNet] "Divine Strake" is delayed; action at Nevada Test
25 US: [NYTr] Rumsfeld's assertions come back to haunt him
26 US: Las Vegas SUN: Mushroom cloud blast in Nevada delayed to June
27 US: Platts: US House Republicans push gas-use limits, big nuclear ex
28 UPI: US signs nuke safety accord with Kazakhs
29 US: Salt Lake Tribune: We need realistic thinking about energy 
30 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nevada blast delay a victory, critics say 
31 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Divine Strake - Q&A
32 US: KBCI 2: Emmett Downwinder Against 'Divine Strake' 
33 US: Albuquerque Tribune: UNM's nuclear program will help shape futur
34 Uranium: Leave it in the ground! - Green Left Weekly, #667, May
35 Rediff: N-deal: 'Some compromises will be necessary'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
36 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at San Onofre Nuclear Plant
37 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Appeal of Diablo plan gains steam
38 US: AP Wire: 100 Prairie Island nuclear plant workers exposed to rad
39 BBC: Japan court backs nuclear plant
40 US: Platts: DOE issues rule on risk insurance for new nuclear reacto
41 US: Platts: Westinghouse to supply nuclear services to south Texas p
42 AFP: New nuclear power plants not needed in Britain - WWF 
43 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Uni
44 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
45 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
46 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; FirstEnergy Nuclear 
47 US: NRC: Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006
48 globeandmail.com: In the nuclear interest
49 US: FORTUNE Magazine: Meet Mr. Nuke - 
50 turkishpress.com: Nuclear Energy In Turkey
51 Japan Times:  Rokkasho safe to operate - high court 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
52 Telegraph: A matter of when, not if
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
53 Depleted Uranium - Far Worse Than 9/11
54 US: Guardian Unlimited: Plants to Monitor Radioactive Water
55 US: Guardian Unlimited: Minn. Nuclear Workers Exposed to Radiation
56 US: NewStandard: Nuke Waste Site Calamity Reflects Industrial Crisis
57 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting
58 US: KLASTV.com: Nevada Woman Takes on Operation Divine Strake
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
59 US: Deseret News: PFS storage proposals
60 Platts: BNG signs first new MOX fuel order in four years
61 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Nuclear industry calls for quicker disclosure of t
62 US: Whittier Daily News: Water cleanup funds needed
63 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Cause unites N-dump foes 
64 Hamilton Spectator: Nuclear waste: the forever problem
65 US: Daily Herald: BLM closes public comment on nuclear waste site
66 US: Deseret News: Utah attacks PFS nuclear waste plan 
67 AU ABC: FreightLink eyes nuclear waste transport. 
68 US: AU ABC: Budget funds Kakadu uranium clean-up. 
69 US: MetroWestDailyNews.com: Natick trash load is radioactive
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
70 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Fluor loses appeal of $4.7 million award
71 DOE: DOE Issues Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclea
72 Hanford News: BLM closes public comment period on Utah nuclear waste
73 Hanford News: Nuclear industry adopts new detection, disclosure poli
74 Hanford News: PNNL picks firm to design lab space
75 Hanford News: Tacoma says no to uranium dioxide
76 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
77 DOE: DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
78 Hanford Watch: Update on the cleanup of the Plutonium Finishing Plan
79 lamonitor.com: Lawmakers urge nuke remedies 
80 Knox News: Pension plan raises questions
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Peres, Father of Israeli Nukes, Threatens to Wipe Out Iran
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:49:26 -0400 (EDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Ha'aretz - 9 May 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/713641.html

Ahead of UN vote, debate in Israel over threatening Iran

By Shlomo Shamir and Aluf Benn

Senior defense ministry official Amos Gilad, appearing to counter a warning
by Vice Premier Shimon Peres that "Iran, too, can be destroyed," said
Tuesday that Israel should not use a language of threats in dealing with
Tehran.

Major-General Gilad said Israel should not place itself in the front-lines
of the Iran issue.

"Israel does not need to spearhead treatment on the Iran matter because this
is a world problem. We suggest not adopting a language of threats. It is
tremendously important for the world to isolate Hamas and it is tremendously
important to isolate Iran," said Gilad.

"International cooperation and legitimacy is important for Israel. Even if
we later demand other options it is important for us to pass the necessary
course of legitimacy and international support," he added.

Participants in a Tuesday defense establishment meeting said it is necessary
to prepare for military options against Iran, but urged taking diplomatic
steps for the time being.

Peres, speaking ahead of UN Security Council deliberations over sanctions
for Iran, cautioned Monday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who
has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, should bear in mind that his
own country could also be destroyed.

"They want to wipe out Israel ... Now when it comes to destruction, Iran too
can be destroyed [but] I don't suggest to say an eye for an eye," Peres told
Reuters.

"Israel would defend itself under any condition but we don't look upon it as
an Iranian-Israeli conflict exclusively... [Iran] is basically a danger to
the world, not just to us," he said.

The UN Security Council is due to vote on Wednesday or Thursday on the
American-European resolution proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue.
Diplomats in the UN headquarters said yesterday that despite Russia and
China's firm position against the mandatory wording of the proposal, the two
would not use their veto to thwart its adoption.

It is assumed that the required majority of nine members to adopt the
resolution is assured. If Russia and China abstain, Qatar, the non permanent
member in the council, is expected to join them.

Peres said Iran was mocking the international community's attempts to
resolve the crisis over its nuclear ambitions and that the credibility of
the United Nations Security Council was on the line.

Peres said he believed Iran would take a unified international front
seriously, but was making a "mockery" of the world because it saw divisions
in the way different countries wanted to react.

The Security Council had to act, added Peres. "If the crucial moment will
come and they are incapable of taking or making a policy ... then they
endanger their existence as an important world body," he said.

Peres warned of a nuclear arms race if Iran produced a nuclear weapon. "If
Iran becomes nuclear many other countries will follow suit... and whoever
will have a conflict will produce a bomb, and finally some bombs will reach
the hands of terror," he said.

Russia and China are against provisions in the draft proposal by the U.S.,
Britain and France that invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This could imply
Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security and pave the way for
sanctions - or even military action - against Iran.

Ahmedinejad Monday wrote to President George Bush, offering "new solutions"
to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. The letter is the first public
approach by an Iranian president to an American one since the Islamic
revolution in the country in 1979.

Previous public messages Iran sent the U.S. consisted of harsh criticism and
accused Washington of harassing Iran over its nuclear program and its
imperialist involvement in Iraq.

Iranian government spokesman Gulamhussein Elham said Ahmedinejad's letter
deals with the nuclear issue, but did not say whether it referred to the
possibility of direct talks with the U.S.

The importance of the letter depends on whether Iran will change its
typically chastising rhetoric, which Washington tends to dismiss. Analysts
believe there is little chance of Ahmedinejad suggesting that Iran cease to
produce nuclear fuel, and this is what the UN and Western diplomats see as
the only way to defuse the nuclear issue.

On the contrary, they say Ahmedinejad is expected to approach the United
States from a position of strength. Iran is building itself up as a regional
heavyweight, after having announced it was enriching uranium.

Dr. Ali Ansari, a specialist in Iran at Scotland's St. Andrews University,
said the letter could be an attempt on Ahmedinejad's part to follow in the
footsteps of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

"I suspect he may be trying to emulate Khomeini's letter to (Mikhail)
Gorbachev. He gave him a lesson in international politics and told him if he
carried on the Soviet Union would collapse... (Khomeini) told him to embrace
Islam," he said.

The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic ties in 1980, after radical students
stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and seized 52 Americans, whom they held
hostage for 444 days.

Iranian and U.S. officials met covertly several times in the 1980s. These
contacts were made public during the "Iran-Contra" scandal, when the U.S.
sold Iran weapons for its assistance in releasing American hostages in
Lebanon.

President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made an open overture to the United
States in 1995, offering the U.S. firm Conoco a $1 billion natural gas deal.
President Bill Clinton rebuffed him.

U.S. officials often cite Iran's implacable hostility toward Israel as a key
obstacle to restoring ties.

More than any of his recent predecessors, Ahmedinejad has raised hackles in
the United States, by asserting that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Bush told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper such comments should be seen
as a serious threat to Israel and other countries.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes US Govt
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:56:38 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP - May 9, 2006http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_US?SITE=TXCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes U.S. Govt

By NICK WADHAMS and ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush
that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented "an ever-increasing global
hatred" of the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly
rejected the letter, saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's
suspect nuclear program.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on
the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Rice said in an interview with
The Associated Press. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing
with in a concrete way."

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United States to
the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to an American president
since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an oblique reference
to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why "any technological and scientific
achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and
portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the Sept. 11 attacks,
accused the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war and railed against
the United States for its support of Israel. It questioned whether the world
would be a different place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to
fight poverty.

"Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been
stronger?" the letter said. "And I am most sorry to say, would there have
been an ever- increasing global hatred of the American government?

Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called his letter "words and opinions of the Iranian
nation" aimed at finding a "way out of problems" facing humanity, according
to the official Iranian news agency. He spoke briefly before boarding a
plane for Indonesia, where he was to attend a summit of developing nations.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new "diplomatic
opening" between the two countries, but Rice said it failed to resolve the
dispute over the Iranian nuclear program - the focus of intense U.N.
Security Council debate this week. White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan said Bush had been briefed on the letter, which the White House
received Monday through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.

"There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different
course than we were before we got the letter," Rice said.

Even though the letter hardly touched on nuclear issues, officials said it
appeared timed with a push by the United States and its European allies for
a Security Council vote to restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Both China
and Russia are opposed to leveling sanctions against Iran and the letter
could provide them support.

Rice, who said she expected no quick action on sanctions, met privately
Monday night with foreign ministers from the other permanent members of the
council.

Her spokesman gave no details of the substance of the discussions, but
described the talks as strategic and not focused on specific steps.

The United States is concerned that Iran's program is a cover for making
nuclear weapons, while Iran contends it has the right to process uranium as
fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad says that people around the world have lost faith
in international institutions and questions whether the Bush administration
has covered up some evidence surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy "have not been able to help realize
the ideals of humanity," said the letter, obtained late Monday by The
Associated Press.

"Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear
the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the
Liberal democratic systems," it read.

Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying there was an
increasing hatred worldwide of the United States, and that history shows how
"repressive and cruel governments do not survive."

"How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be
spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are
you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present
policies can continue?"

Most of Iran's newspapers devoted their front pages to Ahmadinejad's message
on Tuesday.

"Ahmadinejad's letter, an initiative in global diplomacy," read a headline
in the hard-line daily Resalat.

The moderate daily Shargh, or East, said the message may open a new page in
relations with the United States.

But a conservative lawmaker lambasted Ahmadinejad for failing to consult
parliament before he sent the letter.

"This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking behaviors in
Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is not aware of (the contents
of the) letter is questionable," Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh told an open
session of the parliament broadcast live on state-run radio Tuesday.

[Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran,]

) 2006 The Associated Press.

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] In Surprise Move, Tehran Reaches Out to US
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:59:50 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

Proof, if proof were required, of just how bad the US has become at
diplomacy when they can make a total amateur like Ahmadinejad look good.
"Duhhhs" all round at the United Nations yesterday.  Nice to see
Picasso's Guernica* featuring in the background to the blank stares of
Bolton and the team. Yet another faux-pax from the Homer Simpson
real-time school of diplomacy. - Simon McGuinness, Dublin.

Guernica, modern art's most powerful antiwar statement, is the most
visceral exposure of the evil of aerial bombardment of civilian
populations by invading imperialist military ever committed to canvas,
see:

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/main_guerfrm.html

The Independent - May 9, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article362905.ece 

Tehran reaches out to US in surprise move 

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 

In an extraordinary about-turn, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
reached out to George Bush, suggesting "new solutions" to improve
Tehran's fraught relations with the US and the West, as they try to halt
Iran's suspected drive to acquire nuclear weapons. 

The offer is contained in a letter to Mr Bush, the first such missive by
an Iranian head of state to a US leader since diplomatic ties between
the two countries were severed in 1979 as a result of the Islamic
revolution which brought about the downfall of the Shah and the
subsequent siege of the US embassy in Tehran. 

Announcing the move, an Iranian government spokesman made no mention of
the nuclear row. It was, he said, designed to address broader
disagreements between the two countries dating back to 1979 - and, some
would say, the US-backed coup of 1953 when Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran's
left-leaning Prime Minister, was overthrown. 

Almost certainly however, Mr Ahmadinejad has deliberately played his
gambit ahead of an important vote by the UN Security Council which might
lead to sanctions. Russia and China, both veto-wielding powers, have
made clear they oppose punitive action against Tehran, and the letter
may be a bid to tilt other council members the same way. Foreign
ministers of the five permanent council powers - Britain, the US,
France, Russia and China - discussed a draft UN resolution last night
over dinner in New York. 

Initial reaction was to insist that everything still depends on Iranian
compliance with the UN demand that it halt its uranium-enrichment
programme. The US and its European allies want this demand enshrined in
a resolution based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which could pave the
way for sanctions, and military action if Tehran remained defiant. 

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said the letter did not
seriously address the stand-off. She said it was 17 or 18 pages long and
covered history, philosophy and religion. It was not a diplomatic
opening, she said. "This letter isn't it. This letter is not the place
that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or
anything of the sort, " Ms Rice said. "It isn't addressing the issues
that we're dealing with in a concrete way There's nothing in here that
would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before." 

Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator, declared that the
letter contained no change in Tehran's insistence that its enrichment
programme is sacrosanct. But the move is another sign of how the two
longtime adversaries may be engaged in a delicate dance towards some
kind of contact, after a generation of estrangement. 

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, has said he has been
authorised by the White House to hold talks with Iranian officials -
though none have yet taken place. Any discussions would theoretically be
limited to Iraq, but plainly could be extended. 

Whatever its precise contents, the letter is a notable departure for Mr
Ahmadinejad who, since becoming President last August, has not lost an
opportunity to vilify the US, issue bloodcurdling threats against Israel
and dare the West to do something about Tehran's nuclear programme. 

Speaking in Turkey, Mr Larijani said Iran wanted a peaceful solution to
its disputes with the US. He predicted that in time the letter might
produce a new diplomatic opening. It proposed "new solutions" for
international problems and to improve "the current fragile situation of
he world", said a spokesman in Tehran. 

The surprise development also coincides with an Iranian diplomatic
offensive to allay worries about its nuclear programme, especially in
the Gulf. Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, was in Kuwait in
April, and last week Mr Larijani travelled to the United Arab Emirates,
another US ally in the region. 

Today Mr Ahmadinejad travels to Indonesia to assure the rulers of the
most populous Islamic country that the nuclear programme is purely
peaceful in intent. 
       
                                *
================================================================
.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] Israeli Official Threatens Attack on Iran in "Months"
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:59:52 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by mart

Daily Times - Pakistan - May 9, 2006
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page 06%5C05%5C09%5Cstory_9-5-2006_pg1_3

Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran's nuclear facilities in the next "month
or two or three," an Israeli official has been quoted here as saying.

The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the
United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day
reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike Iran
first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers would not be
involved as they had been to take out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor before
it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had used 14 F-15s and F-16s.
This time, the Israeli said, it would be missiles.

Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied, "with a gesture of
his hand that went up and down again", which meant that it would be the
weapon of choice.

Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear facilities
would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own geo-stationary
spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution
down to 70 centimetres. "We know far more than anyone realises," he added.

De Borchgrave's report quoted a poll of conservative Republicans by a
conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong
support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll and 88
percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did
before the Iraq War. To the question, "Should the US undertake military
action against Iran to stop their (nuclear) programme?" 77 percent replied
yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-five percent said that military action should
be taken by the United States, while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that.
Twenty percent said neither. As for whether US efforts to contain Iran's
nuclear weapons are working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent
said the US should not rely solely on the UN.

According to de Borchgrave, "Israel has developed some 100 Jericho-II
medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989). Jericho
II's range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, depending on payload
weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos. Israel has several
satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that were launched by Shavit
space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two stages of the Shavit were Jericho
II missiles. There are unconfirmed reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile
with a range of over 3,000 kilometres.
       
                                *
================================================================
.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 [NYTr] Pinning Venezuelan Uranium Tail on Iranian Uranium Donkey
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:12:54 -0400 (EDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 

[More weapons of mass distraction and weapons of bush desperation...-NYTr]

Council on Hemispheric Affairs - May 9, 2006
http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2006/COHA%20Opinion/COHA_Opinion_06.10_Venezuela_Iran_Uranium.htm

Washington May Soon Try to Pin the Venezuelan Uranium Tail 
on the Iranian Nuclear Donkey

by Larry Birns and Michael Lettieri

Washington is no stranger to flimsy pretexts when it comes to justifying its
ill-conceived, and at times illicit, Latin American initiatives. The contra
epoch, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile crisis, Ollie North,
former U.S. ambassador John Negroponte's skullduggery in Honduras, and
countless acts of chicanery aimed at Havana, Santiago, Grenada and Guatemala
come to mind. A spate of articles tying Hugo Ch�vez to Iran's covert nuclear
program suggests that Washington may now be finding it increasingly
difficult to resist further calumniating Venezuela by working to forge a new
weapon for its anti-Caracas jihad. The only problem is that the basis for
such a charge would be a complete concoction, more worthy to be put to work
in Iraq, where anything goes, than in Latin America. Such a scenario would
intimate that ties exist between alleged Venezuelan uranium supplies and the
Iranian nuclear program. In other words, Caracas would be presented as a
terrorist nation, illicitly involved in trafficking bootleg uranium to the
pariah Iranian regime in exchange for nuclear devices and maybe other
considerations.

The Plot

In the fall of 2005, Venezuelan officials began to explore the possibility
of acquiring nuclear reactor technology from either Argentina or Brazil,
both of which have nuclear energy programs and facilities for peaceful use.
This maneuver provoked a predictably prickly response from the State
Department, which made no effort to disguise the fact that it would not be
amused if this transaction would be carried out. While no agreement was ever
reached or shipments made, Caracas already had established close political
ties with Tehran, which became yet another reason why the White House was
suspicious of Ch�vez's ultimate intent. Iran's decision to resume enrichment
of uranium this year, which has now provoked an international uproar, also
brought new scrutiny to the purported burgeoning relationship between that
nation and Venezuela. At the U.N., Caracas helped fuel such suspicions, as
Venezuela was one of only a handful of member nations that expressed support
for Iran's resumption of peaceful nuclear activity which would effectively
not be under the U.N.'s supervision.

The wide-ranging, if somewhat vague, cooperation agreements between Iran and
Venezuela were repeatedly reiterated by Washington sources to suggest that
more malignant factors might be at play. The most popular rumor had Caracas
sending its uranium to Iran in exchange for nuclear technology, with the
most radical version beginning with accusations that Caracas was seeking to
obtain weaponry from Tehran. Some went so far as to suggest that nuclear
devices already had been clandestinely transported to Venezuela on chartered
oil tankers. Further speculative intrigue came about after the expulsion of
the New Tribes missionaries from the Amazonas region in February, as
stampeding rumors began to circulate that the evangelical group was somehow
involved in uranium exploration activities in the state of Bol�var and that
the missionaries' airstrip was facilitating such anti-Ch�vez operations. The
allegations, which included purported links to the CIA, were heatedly denied
by the group.

Much to do about Nothing

Yet all of these theories concerning some diabolic plot linking Iran to Hugo
Ch�vez have been entirely based on a handful of anemic charges coming from
several former Ch�vez officials, who, at best, merely quote each other, but
fail to advance the core of their charge or provide minimum evidence that
Venezuela somehow has been complicit with Iran when it came to supplying
uranium to the latter. In turn, their diaphanous allegations are now being
picked up by kindred rightwing sources domiciled in the U.S. who write
enraged op-eds in Rev. Moon's Washington Times ("Showdown with Ch�vez") or
get like-minded congressional colleagues to make rabid speeches from the
floor of congress accusing Ch�vez of striving to hatch a nuclear plot with
Tehran or some other threatening complot.

While the rumors sometimes involve an alleged Israeli intelligence report
which speaks of covert uranium mining in Venezuela, the so-called findings
have never been seen, let alone validated. In fact, while Venezuela may
possess some yet to be established uranium deposits, there is no evidence
that these have been located, let alone worked. Venezuelan officials have
vehemently denied charges that the country is facilitating the enrichment of
uranium by the Iranians, and even the State Department has minimized such
suggestions, noting that while it is "aware of reports of possible Iranian
exploitation of Venezuelan uranium," it does not see any "commercial uranium
activities in Venezuela." Furthermore, the speculated ties overlook the fact
that Iran does not particularly need to import uranium all the way from
Venezuela for its projects, as it has ample supplies of its own.

All of this likely matters little to the Bush administration, which is
likely feeling increased pressure from its own policy hardliners to take an
anti-Ch�vez stand. The recent Bolivian gas nationalization has been cited by
extra conservative pundits, whose knowledge of Latin America is barely
enough for them to cite Venezuela's capital city as evidence of the
pernicious spread of Chavista influence. They also derisively point to the
lack of any U.S. response to this challenge. Such militancy on their part,
combined with Washington's growing tension with Iran, may make the time ripe
for some form of diplomatic or even a retaliatory response to allegations of
Venezuela's special relationship with Tehran and other manifestations of
anti-U.S. behavior. Such a step by Washington would be entirely predicated
on rumors, inventions, and conjecture - a script, at this point at least,
entirely based on phony or no evidence - like the spurious yellowcake of
Niger which provided the basis for U.S. intervention in Iraq. By conceivably
tying Ch�vez into the Iranian crisis, the Bush administration possibly could
be laying the groundwork for its own dirty tricks campaign. Yet the world
would be well-advised to be wary of such machinations: mysterious vials,
contrived satellite images, or fuzzy photographs are now beginning to be
employed for tendentiously-pursued, if illusory, ends by a brigade of
Ch�vez-bashers serving under a variety of self-serving ideological gods.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 6 [NYTr] Iranian President's Letter to Bush Emerges
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:17:05 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[A weird and stupid NY Times headline.  The letter didn't "emerge" all
by itself from the primordial ooze. The Iranian Government released it
publicly because the US was dismissing it as "nothing new" and offering
nothing towrd the resolution of the alleged "crisis."  As if 18 pages
from one President to another is not diplomacy. As if diplomacy is not
the way to solve international disputes. But the Bush regimes knows only
two ways to end disputes: conquest and surrender.  Everything else is
ignored. -NY Transfer]

The New York Times - May 9, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iran.html?ei=5088&en=9ef8225252135e88&ex=1304827200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Iranian President's Letter to Bush Emerges

By CHRISTINE HAUSER

In his letter to President Bush, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
declared that Western-style democracy had failed and that the use of secret
prisons in Europe and aspects of the war in Iraq could not be reconciled
with Mr. Bush's Christian values. But the letter did not address directly
the central issue that divides the two countries: Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In his wide-ranging letter, written in Persian with an English translation,
Mr. Ahmadinejad at times challenges and concedes as he directs question
after question to Mr. Bush but offers no concrete proposals. In Iran today,
the Iranian president portrayed it as a blueprint of "suggestions for
resolving the many problems facing humanity," the Iranian news agency IRNA
reported.

State Department officials who read the letter suggested that it offered an
interesting window into the mentality and thinking of Iran, especially
because it seemed to reflect a inclination to dwell on myriad grievances of
the past rather than on the problem at hand, namely Iran's suspected nuclear
weapons program.

Although American officials said they intended to use the letter to make the
point that Iran deserved to be isolated internationally over its alleged
intransigence over the nuclear issue, they seemed sobered by the letter's
tone as an indication of the uphill battle to change attitudes in Tehran.

The letter has been described as the first direct communication from an
Iranian leader to an American president since 1979.

While Mr. Ahmadinejad said today in Iran that "Islamic courtesy" prevented
him from revealing the contents of the letter and American government
officials have not released a copy, an English translation provided by the
Iranian government was released by United Nations diplomats.

Some American officials have said the letter appeared to be aimed at
disrupting talks on Iran this week among top envoys of the United States,
Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.

But the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said today in
a news briefing in Tehran carried by IRNA that the letter was never intended
to bolster Iran's nuclear case, "given that there are sufficient legal
reasons" for it. He said Iran was waiting for Mr. Bush's reply.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's letter makes what could be seen as oblique references to
both the threat of Security Council resolutions and the recent advances in
Iran of its nuclear program, questioning why such Security Council
resolutions in condemnation of Israel are vetoed, and why technological and
scientific achievements in the Middle East are "translated into and
portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has said that Israel should be wiped off the map, again
questioned the Holocaust and the basis upon which Israel was created, asking
whether support for such a "regime" by the United States government was in
line with Christian teachings.

"Again let us assume that these events are true," he wrote about the
Holocaust. "Does that logically translate into the establishment of the
state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state?"

"A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids,
destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand
its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of
Palestinians in prison," the letter says.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also calls the 9/11 attacks a "horrendous incident" in which
the killing of innocent people was "deplorable."

But he asks: "Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?
Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't
those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

The letter provides at times a striking insight into the Iranian president's
vision of double standards in American foreign policy, criticizing what he
portrays as a lack of support for elected Palestinian and Latin American
governments.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also portrays himself as having his finger on the pulse of
the Middle East region.

"As you are well aware," Mr. Ahmadinejad says, directly addressing President
Bush, "I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them  many
people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not
have faith in these dubious policies either."

"There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly
angry with such policies."

Middle East experts said that some of Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks resonate
beyond Tehran.

"In terms of the things he is saying, they do they have regional resonance,"
Ray Takeyh, a Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies, said in an interview.

"The idea that the United States is not living up to its values, the idea of
Iraq as a manufactured episode and references to 9/11; that all has currency
on the street in the Middle East," he said. "He might actually inadvertently
have a point."

The references to Israel and the Holocaust, Mr. Takeyh noted, have been
"part and parcel of Arab rhetoric for a long time."

Vali R. Nasr, adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Ahmadinejad's motives appear to be to
deliver an opening salvo to the United States and make the point that
Washington has no viable option but to talk to Iran. But in doing so, he
needed to strike the necessary tone, by lecturing Mr. Bush so as not to be
seen as being conciliatory in approaching him, Mr. Nasr said.

"One of his intentions is to play to the bleachers," said Mr. Nasr.

"The most important thing that is going to be seen is that he is showing the
capability to speak truth to power," said Mr. Nasr.

"He has the audacity to call Iraq a lie and to challenge President Bush to
justify support for Israel and why he questions Iran's technological
achievements."

In his letter, Mr. Ahmadinejad both concedes and needles. With his country
having fought a war with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ahmadinejad at once
applauds the overthrow of the regime while criticizing what he seems to
imply as a double standard.

"Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator," he wrote. "But the war was not
waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy
weapons of mass destruction."

He later adds: "I point out that throughout the many years of the ... war on
Iran Saddam was supported by the West."

Its tone appears at times exceedingly polite, at least once referring to Mr.
Bush as "Your Excellency," according to the translation. He also says it is
not his intention to "distress anyone. "

But the Iranian president's style is to dissect what he sees as American
logic, by posing question after question to make his point.

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop
movement were instead spent on issues including health and aid to the poor,
he wrote, "would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the
American governments?"

The Iranian president also extends to Mr. Bush an "invitation" to return to
governing the United States based on the values of Jesus Christ, whose name
in the letter is followed each time by the letters "PBUH," which stands for
"Peace Be Upon Him."

Frequently quoting passages from the Koran, Mr. Ahmadinejad calls for a
return to a religious basis of government.

"Will you not accept this invitation?" Mr. Ahmadinejad asks Mr. Bush. "That
is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and
justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His
prophets?"

"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize
the ideals of humanity," he wrote. "Today these two concepts have failed."

He also throws his lot in with Mr. Bush, saying that as world leaders, they
will both be ultimately judged.

"The people will scrutinize our presidencies," Mr. Ahmadinejad writes.

Steven R. Weisman contributed reporting from the United Nations for this
article.

Copyright 2006 The New York 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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 7 [NYTr] Full Text: Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:17:07 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Reuters via The Washington Post - May 9, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900878_pf.html

Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written
President Bush an 18-page letter discussing religious values, history and
international relations. Following is an unofficial translation from the
original written in Farsi:

"Mr. George Bush, president of the United States of America

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable
contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being
constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university
students. Many questions remain unanswered. Those have prompted me to
discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the great
Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,

Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,

Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally,

work towards the establishment of an unified international community -- a
community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,

But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people
destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a
village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set
ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is
occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and
industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground,
sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back
perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from
the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women -- as occupation troops -- put in harms
way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the
blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday
some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become
sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf
both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was
revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course, Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to
topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of
mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal;
nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that
throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by
the West.

Mr. President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions
be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and
duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the Messenger of
peace and forgiveness?

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no
legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept
in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international
monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are
prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in
Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her
being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.
For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the
values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions
about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of
them.

Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the
establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that
is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They
show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able
to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me
that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in,
news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each
touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other
party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically
translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East
or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or
explained?

Mr. President,

I am sure you know how -- and at what cost -- Israel was established:

- Many thousands were killed in the process.

- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

- Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns
and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it
has been ongoing for 60 years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids,
destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand
its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands
of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique -- or at the very
least extremely rare -- in recent memory.

Another big question asked by the people is "why is this regime being
supported?"

Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (Peace
Be Upon Him) or Moses (Peace Be Upon Him) or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these
lands -- inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Muslim
or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy,
human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much
opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All
independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the
electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under
pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the
struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would
the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in
opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values
outlined earlier? The people are, also asking "why are all UNSC resolutions
in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"

Mr. President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact
with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as
well. They do not have faith in there dubious policies either. There is
evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with
such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to
other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the
Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the
Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other
point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the
possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes
be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a
supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc, must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt
that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be
lied to.

Mr. President,

Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected government are
being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be
threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hard-working, creative and talented. They can play
an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and
contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in
large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have
the right to ask why their enormous wealth -- including minerals -- is being
looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets
of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and
grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling
of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution,
transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities
of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents
corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran,
the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the
Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the
scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all
Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many
other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is
deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government
immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its
condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing
of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security,
protection and intelligence systems -- and even hunts its opponents abroad.
September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and
executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or
their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why
have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not
told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible
and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their
citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of
world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of
healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the
American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks
-- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity --
some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept
the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible
to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at
any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the street, in their
place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was
the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of
mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification -- for
an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In
media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of
a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard
shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an
attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly --
for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on
Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if
the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier
mentioned values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of
governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent
every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?"

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are
living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge
problem. Of course these problems exist -- to a larger or lesser extent --
in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the
gargantuan expenses of the campaign -- paid from the public treasury -- be
explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the
world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention -- which I
am hoping you will agree to some of it -- is:

Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely,
but their names will be recorded in history and will be consistently judged
in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace,
security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice or just supported special interest
groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship made a
few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and
the Almighty with theirs?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on
them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and
incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of
intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented
an inverted version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics,
peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity,
progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, Intimidation,
insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence
of other nations, and trample on people's rights?

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of
office -- to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of
the prophets -- or not?

Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of
some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be
spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop
movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries,
promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement
of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural
disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development
projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between
disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other
conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and
people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been
stronger?

And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global
hatred of the American government?

Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be
Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will
we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become
universal and Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) will be present? Will they
even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest
of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds
of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of
Moses (Peace Be Upon Him). All divine religions share and respect one word
and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the
world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of
divine religions and says: (3.64) Say: O followers of the Book! come to an
equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but
Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of
us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back,
then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

Mr. President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God
and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

"To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He
pleases." "the Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past
and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records
their deeds."

"The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe
is His court" "planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His
servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins" "He is the
companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors" "He is the
Compassionate, the Merciful" "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides
them towards the light from darkness" "He is witness to the actions of His
servants" "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks
them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast" "Calls on
servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds" "A bad
ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and
disobey Him and oppress His servants" and "A good land and eternal paradise
belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their
lascivious selves."

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road
leading to salvation and have been told that Your Excellency follows the
teachings of Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) and believes in the divine promise of
the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) was one of the great
prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus
(Peace Be Upon Him) has been quoted in Koran as well: (19.36) And surely
Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine
messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the
rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give
dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with
miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and
purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance
so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious."

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book
as well.

Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the
Almighty, so that their deeds are examined, The good will be directed
towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us
believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of
rulers, because we must be answerable to our nation and all others whose
lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man -- based on
monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these
principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the
dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems
of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the
teachings of prophets -- and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees
peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are
universally represented?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the
teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity
and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God
has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the
universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened
contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is
a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of 10 years ago?
Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little
heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world
leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading
of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the
have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural
foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed
with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no
faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated
by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize
the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with
insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the
ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main
focal point that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and
the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My
question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Reut14:40 05-09-06

) 2006 The Washington Post Company
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader Says Democracy Has Failed
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 4:46 PM

AP Photo VAH101 

By NICK WADHAMS and ANNE GEARAN 

Associated Press Writer 

NEW YORK (AP) - Iran's president declared in a letter to
President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented
``an ever-increasing global hatred'' of the U.S. government.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter,
saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's suspect
nuclear program. 

``This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to
engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort,'' Rice said
in an interview with The Associated Press. ``It isn't addressing
the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way.'' 

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United
States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to
an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran. 

The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an
oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why ``any
technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle
East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the
Zionist regime.'' 

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the Sept. 11
terror attacks, accused the media of spreading lies about the
Iraq war and railed against the United States for its support of
Israel. It questioned whether the world would be a different
place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight
poverty. 

``Would not your administration's political and economic
standing have been stronger?'' the letter said. ``And I am most
sorry to say, would there have been an ever- increasing global
hatred of the American government?'' 

Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called his letter ``words and opinions of
the Iranian nation'' aimed at finding a ``way out of problems''
facing humanity, according to the official Iranian news agency.
He spoke briefly before boarding a plane for Indonesia, where he
was to attend a summit of developing nations. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new
``diplomatic opening'' between the two countries, but Rice said
it failed to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear
program - the focus of intense U.N. Security Council debate this
week. 

The Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, also said Tuesday that
Tehran had no intention of withdrawing from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to cooperate if the U.N.
atomic watchdog agency dealt with the issue of its nuclear
program, rather than the Security Council. 

On Sunday, Iran's parliament threatened to ask the government to
withdraw its signature from a protocol in the treaty that allows
intrusive surprise inspections of nuclear facilities. 

``We have no reason to leave the NPT. Our case is completely
different from that of North Korea,'' Larijani said during a
visit to Athens, Greece. ``The additional protocol is one thing
and the NPT is another,'' he said. 

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had been
briefed on the letter, which the White House received Monday
through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. 

``There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any
different course than we were before we got the letter,'' Rice
said. 

Even though the letter hardly touched on nuclear issues,
officials said it appeared timed with a push by the United
States and its European allies for a Security Council resolution
to restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Both China and Russia
are opposed to leveling sanctions against Iran and the letter
could provide them support. 

Rice, who said she expected no quick action on sanctions, met
privately Monday night with foreign ministers from the other
permanent members of the council. 

Ministers from the five permanent members said they had agreed
not to discuss specifics of a text, instead focusing on overall
strategy. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said
diplomats would need ``another 10 days, 14 days'' to get a
resolution. 

That was a clear sign that officials had not broken a stalemate
with Russia and China, which oppose putting the resolution under
Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, thereby making it legally binding
and opening the possibility of sanctions and even military
action. 

``They have not yet reached full agreement, especially China and
Russia have not yet accepted the possibility of a general
reference to a Chapter 7 resolution,'' Steinmeier said. ``But
it's not something they have excluded at this point in time.'' 

China urged flexibility in reaching a negotiated settlement,
rejecting the ``threat of force.'' 

``The Iran nuclear dispute is at a crucial junction. We hope
relevant sides can show flexibility, restraint and calmness in
order to create favorable conditions for the resumption of
talks,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Tuesday. 

Political directors from the five countries met again Tuesday in
New York, trying to bridge the gap over the best way to send a
message to Iran that its pursuit of uranium enrichment must be
suspended to allay international concerns that it is pursuing
nuclear weapons. 

Iran contends it has the right to process uranium as fuel in
nuclear reactors to generate electricity. 

In the letter, Ahmadinejad says that people around the world
have lost faith in international institutions and questions
whether the Bush administration has covered up some evidence
surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Liberalism and Western-style democracy ``have not been able to
help realize the ideals of humanity,'' according to the letter,
which was obtained by The Associated Press late Monday from
diplomats who declined to be identified because the text had not
formally been made public. 

``Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can
already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the
ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems,'' it
read. 

Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying
hatred is increasing worldwide of the United States, and history
shows how ``repressive and cruel governments do not survive.'' 

``How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and
children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses
destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current
condition of the world? Do you think present policies can
continue?'' the letter read. 

Most of Iran's newspapers devoted their front pages to
Ahmadinejad's message on Tuesday, with the moderate daily
Shargh, or East, saying the message may open a new page in
relations with the United States. 

But a conservative lawmaker lambasted Ahmadinejad for failing to
consult parliament before he sent the letter. 

``This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking
behaviors in Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is
not aware of (the contents of the) letter is questionable,''
Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh told an open session of the
parliament broadcast live on state-run radio Tuesday. 

--- 

Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran,
contributed to this story. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. to Present Iran Nuke Program Options
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 9:01 PM

AP Photo NYRD115 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Key Security Council nations agreed
Tuesday to present Iran with a choice of incentives or sanctions
in deciding whether to suspend uranium enrichment, a move which
will delay a U.N. resolution to curb Iran's nuclear program, a
European official said. 

Representatives of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and
France as well as Germany made the decision at a meeting after
more than three hours of talks by their foreign ministers Monday
did not produce an agreement on the resolution. 

The resolution would make mandatory the Council's previous
demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment. 

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S.
efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N.
Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to
international peace and security and set the stage for further
measures if Tehran refuses to comply. Those measures could range
from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and
military action. 

As a result of Tuesday's decision, representatives from the
three European countries that had been spearheading negotiations
with Iran will spend the next few days preparing a package of
incentives and sanctions, the official said, speaking on
condition of anonymity because there has been no official
announcement. 

The package will be presented to European Union foreign
ministers on the sidelines of an EU meeting in Brussels on
Monday, and if approved will be presented to the Iranian
government, the official said. 

Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier foreshadowed
the decision, telling reporters at a news conference late Monday
that the Europeans planned to launch a new initiative alongside
their effort to win approval of the resolution. 

``In the coming days, we want to once again, as we did last
summer, outline to Iran what kind of advantages we might offer
to them if they were willing to comply with the demands of the
international community, and what possibility there would be for
further cooperation,'' Steinmeier said. 

The Europeans want the Iranian people to know that they are
heading down ``a path that would lead them into isolation if
they were not to comply with the demands of the international
community,'' he said. 

The British, French and Germans cut off more than two years of
negotiations with Iran earlier this year after it said it would
resume its enrichment activities. They had offered Iran a
package of benefits last summer. 

Steinmeier said the Europeans will have to talk about details of
the new package of ``advantages'' that would be offered to Iran.
``But I'm optimistic on the basis of the discussion we had
tonight,'' he said. 

The European official said the package of benefits is likely to
include issues related to energy security and civilian nuclear
power. 

Diplomats said the Russians and Chinese want to be sure that
Iran knows the benefits of making the right choice. 

The deeply divided Security Council has been wrestling with the
draft resolution, sponsored by Britain and France and backed by
the United States. 

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Monday the United States wanted
a vote this week, with or without Russian and Chinese support. 

But the new initiative will delay council action, the European
official said. 

Steinmeier said there are still five or six outstanding issues
in the draft resolution. 

``I think they probably need another 10 days, 14 days, to get
that resolution'' adopted, he said. 

``We've come closer in our positions'' but there is still no
agreement, Steinmeier said. ``China and Russia have not yet
accepted the possibility of a general reference to a Chapter 7
resolution, but it's not something they have excluded at this
point.'' 

Steinmeier said Monday night's discussion among ministers
touched on the question of how to prevent a resolution from
automatically triggering a reaction. 

``A resolution, if it is to come about and if it is to be a
Chapter 7 resolution, should not and must not be used as cover
for the use of force,'' he said. 

Britain's new foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, stressed that
``it is not anybody's intention to take the course of military
action, and that, I think, is simple and straightforward and
clear.'' 

--- 

Associated Press writers Nick Wadhams and Robin Hindery
contributed to this report. 	 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Experts: U.S. Hasty in Brushoff of Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 7:46 PM

AP Photo VAH101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's abrupt
dismissal of a letter from Iran's president might only
strengthen hardline attitudes and mistrust of America, some
Iranians warned Tuesday. 

As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began a high-profile visit to a
key Muslim country, Indonesia, a former top Iranian official
said Rice's response will give new justification to those who
oppose ties with the U.S. 

Iran's former ambassador to France, Sadeq Kharrazi, said the
letter - the first from an Iranian head of state to an American
president in 27 years - ``could have been a turning point in
relations.'' But he said Rice squandered the opportunity with
what he called a ``hasty reaction.'' 

``This gives a pretext to those in Iran who oppose
re-establishment of ties with America,'' he said. 

Ahmadinejad's 18-page letter to President Bush touched only
indirectly on the hottest dispute between the two countries -
Iran's nuclear program. Instead, it focuses on a long list of
grievances against the United States and seeks to build on a
shared faith in God to resolve them. 

Rice told The Associated Press the letter ``isn't addressing the
issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way.'' 

Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Rice's quick
brushoff would fuel anti-American feelings in Iran. 

``It could have been the beginning of a new process,'' he said.
Rice's response ``strengthens the suspicion (inside Iran) that
the U.S. is thinking of a military option only and not a
political solution'' to the standoff over Iran's nuclear
program, he said. 

As he boarded a plane for Indonesia on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad said
his letter contained ``the demands of Iranian people and our
nation.'' 

``I discussed our views, beliefs and positions regarding
international issues as well as some ways out of problems
humanity is suffering from,'' he told the official Islamic
Republic News Agency. ``We will wait for reaction ... and then
we'll make decisions.'' 

In Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation, which
has friendly ties with the U.S. and European countries -
Ahmadinejad was due to discuss the nuclear issue with the
country's president, then attend a summit of developing nations. 

``We want Iran to be more transparent in its program,''
Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda told reporters
Tuesday. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear
weapons, a charge Tehran denies, saying it aims only to generate
energy. 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the
letter was not intended to address the nuclear issue. ``We have
sufficient logic and legal reasoning (to defend our program),''
Asefi was quoted by the radio as saying. 

``Our aim was to express our opinions about global problems and
the way out of these problems,'' he said. 

Reaction to the letter was mixed in Iran and across the Mideast. 

Iranian newspapers described the message as ``an initiative in
global diplomacy'' and ``dialogue under the shadow of war.'' 

But conservative lawmaker Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh lambasted
Ahmadinejad for failing to consult parliament before sending the
letter to the country Iran considers its greatest enemy. 

``This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking
behaviors in Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is
not aware of (the contents of the) letter is questionable,''
Falahatpisheh told an open session of the parliament broadcast
live on state-run radio Tuesday. 

Among Gulf nations, the letter fueled suspicions toward Iran. 

The Saudi-owned daily Asharq Al-Awsat called the letter proof
that ``Iran is not enriching uranium for peaceful purposes as it
says, and is striving for leadership and control of the
region.'' 

Such Iranian leadership would mean the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process ``would be stalled, the Iraqi dream (of democracy) would
be thwarted and we would witness a new wave of armament,'' wrote
Tariq Alhomayed, the paper's editor-in-chief. 

The Kuwaiti newspaper Arab Times ran an editorial in which
editor-in-chief Ahmed Al-Jarallah accused Ahmadinejad of acting
``as if he owns the region.'' 

Some of Iran's Arab neighbors have expressed fears over Iran's
nuclear program - particularly over pollution in case of an
accident - as well as over the standoff with the West, fearing
possible Iranian retaliation against American military bases in
Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain should the U.S. launch a pre-emptive
strike. 

But an editorial in Lebanon's The Daily Star newspaper called
the letter ``a cause for hope that a peaceful solution'' to the
nuclear standoff and called on Washington to initiate direct
talks with Tehran. 

--- 

On the Net: 

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/-documents/ahmadinejad
050 9.pdf 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Resolution on Iran Concerns China
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 1:46 AM

AP Photo UNMA103 

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - China expressed concern Monday that a
proposed U.N. resolution to curb Iran's nuclear program could
lead to a new war and it urged Britain and France to eliminate
any reference to possible future sanctions or military action
against Tehran. 

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya remained adamant in his
opposition to putting the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N.
Charter, which sets out actions to respond to threats to
international peace and security ranging from breaking
diplomatic relations to arms embargoes, economic sanctions and
the use of force. 

Britain and France, who are sponsoring the resolution which is
strongly backed by the United States, insist the resolution must
be under Chapter 7 to make legally binding its demand that
Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. 

But Wang disagreed, saying China takes the view that all
Security Council resolutions are legally binding and there is no
need for a reference to Chapter 7 ``because Chapter 7 is about
enforcement measures.'' 

``I believe it is time since the Iranians have not cooperated,
have not complied, have not responded positively - so I think a
Security Council resolution is needed,'' he said. ``But I think
that the resolution has to be (an) appropriate resolution.'' 

Did Wang believe that a Chapter 7 resolution could lead the
Security Council further down a path that led to the Iraq war? 

``Yes, this is a concern,'' the Chinese ambassador replied. 

Wang spoke to reporters before a meeting of ambassadors from the
five veto-wielding permanent nations on the Security Council -
the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. 

Afterward, ambassadors said they had scrapped efforts to agree
to a resolution before their foreign ministers meet over dinner
in New York on Monday evening to discuss the Iran nuclear issue. 

``The Iranians can have a civil nuclear program, but they need
to do so in a way that gives confidence to the international
community that they are not seeking a nuclear weapon
undercover,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters
on Monday. 

Wang and the other ambassadors said the ministerial meeting will
focus on longer-range strategic thinking about how to deal with
Iran, but with the resolution still in limbo there is almost
certain to be some discussion of its most contentious issues. 

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said after an informal council
meeting Saturday that the United States isn't prepared ``to
extend these negotiations endlessly'' and wants a vote this
week, with or without Chinese and Russian support. 

``We are still working to achieve unanimity ... but we're
prepared to go to a vote without it,'' he said. 

Wang said China hopes ``that the co-sponsors can redraft their
resolution and come up with a draft that could have the support
of the whole council.'' 

``I hope that in the next two or three days we can come up with
the language with the intention of the resolution that could
unify the whole council,'' he said. 

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, declared in 2002 that Iran had been conducting secret
nuclear activities for decades, though it has never said Tehran
has a weapons program. 

Iran claims it has the right to enrich uranium for a peaceful
civilian nuclear program to produce electricity under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refused to comply with a
council demand in late March to suspend enrichment. 

The U.S., Britain and France, who believe Iran is pursuing
nuclear weapons, claim Tehran ceded the right to enrich uranium
by hiding parts of its nuclear program from the international
community. 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes U.S. Govt
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 11:46 AM

AP Photo VAH101 

By NICK WADHAMS and ANNE GEARAN 

Associated Press Writer 

NEW YORK (AP) - Iran's president declared in a letter to
President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented
``an ever-increasing global hatred'' of the U.S. government.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter,
saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's suspect
nuclear program. 

``This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to
engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort,'' Rice said
in an interview with The Associated Press. ``It isn't addressing
the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way.'' 

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United
States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to
an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran. 

The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an
oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why ``any
technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle
East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the
Zionist regime.'' 

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the Sept. 11
attacks, accused the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war
and railed against the United States for its support of Israel.
It questioned whether the world would be a different place if
the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight poverty. 

``Would not your administration's political and economic
standing have been stronger?'' the letter said. ``And I am most
sorry to say, would there have been an ever- increasing global
hatred of the American government? 

Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called his letter ``words and opinions of
the Iranian nation'' aimed at finding a ``way out of problems''
facing humanity, according to the official Iranian news agency.
He spoke briefly before boarding a plane for Indonesia, where he
was to attend a summit of developing nations. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new
``diplomatic opening'' between the two countries, but Rice said
it failed to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear
program - the focus of intense U.N. Security Council debate this
week. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had
been briefed on the letter, which the White House received
Monday through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. 

``There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any
different course than we were before we got the letter,'' Rice
said. 

Even though the letter hardly touched on nuclear issues,
officials said it appeared timed with a push by the United
States and its European allies for a Security Council vote to
restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Both China and Russia are
opposed to leveling sanctions against Iran and the letter could
provide them support. 

Rice, who said she expected no quick action on sanctions, met
privately Monday night with foreign ministers from the other
permanent members of the council. 

Her spokesman gave no details of the substance of the
discussions, but described the talks as strategic and not
focused on specific steps. 

The United States is concerned that Iran's program is a cover
for making nuclear weapons, while Iran contends it has the right
to process uranium as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate
electricity. 

In the letter, Ahmadinejad says that people around the world
have lost faith in international institutions and questions
whether the Bush administration has covered up some evidence
surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Liberalism and Western-style democracy ``have not been able to
help realize the ideals of humanity,'' said the letter, obtained
late Monday by The Associated Press. 

``Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can
already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the
ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems,'' it
read. 

Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying
there was an increasing hatred worldwide of the United States,
and that history shows how ``repressive and cruel governments do
not survive.'' 

``How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and
children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses
destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current
condition of the world? Do you think present policies can
continue?'' 

Most of Iran's newspapers devoted their front pages to
Ahmadinejad's message on Tuesday. 

``Ahmadinejad's letter, an initiative in global diplomacy,''
read a headline in the hard-line daily Resalat. 

The moderate daily Shargh, or East, said the message may open a
new page in relations with the United States. 

But a conservative lawmaker lambasted Ahmadinejad for failing to
consult parliament before he sent the letter. 

``This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking
behaviors in Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is
not aware of (the contents of the) letter is questionable,''
Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh told an open session of the
parliament broadcast live on state-run radio Tuesday. 

--- 

Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 8:01 AM

AP Photo NYR111 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

NEW YORK (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed a
letter that Iran's president sent to President Bush on Monday,
saying the first direct communication from an Iranian leader in
27 years does not help resolve the standoff over Tehran's
disputed nuclear program. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new
``diplomatic opening'' between the two countries, but Rice said
it was not. 

``This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to
engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort,'' the top
U.S. diplomat said in an interview with The Associated Press.
``It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a
concrete way.'' 

Rice said the letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
was 17 or 18 pages long and covered history, philosophy and
religion. 

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United
States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to
an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran. 

She would not discuss the contents in detail but made clear that
the United States would not change its tack on Iran. 

``There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any
different course than we were before we got the letter,'' Rice
said. 

A copy of the letter was obtained later by The Associated Press.
In it, Ahmadinejad told Bush that democracy had failed, and he
criticized the United States over a host of issues ranging from
the invasion of Iraq to its support for Israel. 

It made only an oblique reference to Iran's intentions, asking
why ``any technological and scientific achievement reached in
the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a
threat to the Zionist regime.'' 

The United States has had no diplomatic ties and almost no
economic relationship with Iran since the storming of the
embassy and the kidnapping of U.S. diplomats. 

Rice was using a two-day trip to the United Nations to confer on
the international response to Iran, but she said she expected no
quick action on sanctions or other measures. 

Rice met privately for more than two hours Monday night with
foreign ministers from the other permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council to talk about Iran. Her spokesman gave no
details of the substance of the discussions, but described the
talks as strategic and not focused on wording of a new security
council resolution or other specific steps. 

The letter from the Iranian leader, which was not made public,
appeared timed to blunt the U.S. drive for a U.N. Security
Council vote this week to restrain the Islamic regime's nuclear
ambitions. It was a striking change after the fiery
Ahmadinejad's campaign to vilify Washington and its allies as
bullies. 

Iran contends it has the right to process uranium as fuel in
nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The United States,
Britain and France are concerned that the program is a cover for
making nuclear weapons. 

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had been
briefed on the letter, which the White House received Monday
through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. He would not comment on
whether it was actually signed by the Iranian president. 

``It does not appear to do anything to address the nuclear
concerns'' of the international community, McClellan told
reporters traveling on Air Force One with Bush to Florida. 

The Iranian government spokesman who disclosed the communication
did not mention the nuclear standoff and said the missive spoke
to the larger U.S.-Iranian conflict. 

The linchpin to any better understanding between Washington and
Tehran, however, would be movement toward a solution of the
nuclear issue. 

According to government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham, the
letter proposed ``new solutions for getting out of international
problems and the current fragile situation of the world.'' 

Elham declined to reveal more, stressing ``it is not an open
letter.'' And when he was asked if the letter could lead to
direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, he replied: ``For the time
being, it's just a letter.'' 

In Turkey, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said the
Iranians were looking for a positive response but would be
patient. 

``Perhaps it could lead to a new diplomatic opening. It needs to
be given some time,'' Larijani said in a television interview.
He cautioned that the ``tone of the letter is not something like
softening.'' 

The United States has publicly sought renewed contact with Iran
through its ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been
authorized to speak to Iranian officials about security in Iraq. 

U.S. officials say the talks await selection of a new Iraqi
government and were to be limited to Iraqi security issues. Such
meetings would provide an opportunity to broaden discussions
about the U.S.-Iranian relationship. 

Before the Ahmadinejad letter was announced, Bush said he was
paying close attention to threats made against Israel by
Ahmadinejad, who has questioned Israel's right to exist and said
the country should be wiped off the map. 

``I think that it's very important for us to take his words very
seriously,'' Bush told the German newspaper Bild on Friday,
according to a transcript released Sunday. ``When people speak,
it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and
take them seriously.'' 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki delivered the letter to the
Swiss ambassador Monday, ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
told the AP. The Swiss Embassy acts as a U.S. interest section
in the Iranian capital. 

The letter appeared as the lead item on several Iranian
television and radio news shows throughout the day. The official
IRNA announced the letter and carried international reaction to
it. Iran's only evening daily, the state-owned Ettalaat, carried
a large story on its front page under the headline: ``Important
letter from Ahmadinejad to the American president.'' 

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad travels to Indonesia, where Foreign
Minister Hassan Wirajuda said, ``We support nuclear development
for peaceful purposes, especially energy, but we consistently
object to nuclear weapons proliferation.'' 

The United States is backing efforts by Britain and France to
win Security Council approval for a U.N. resolution that would
threaten possible further measures if Iran does not suspend
uranium enrichment. If taken to sufficient levels, the process
can produce fuel for nuclear warheads. 

Russia and China, the two other veto-holding members of the
Security Council members, oppose sanctions. 

^--- 

Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran contributed to
this report. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says It Won't Exit Nuclear Treaty
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 3:46 PM

By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS 

Associated Press Writer 

ATHENS, Greece (AP) - An Iranian official said Tuesday that
Tehran had no intention of withdrawing from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to cooperate if the U.N.
atomic watchdog agency dealt with the issue of its nuclear
program, rather than the U.N. Security Council. 

The five permanent members of the Security Council are working
on a resolution to pressure Iran to give up uranium enrichment
and clear up questions about its nuclear program. Germany said
Monday night another 10 days to two weeks would be needed to
complete negotiations on the resolution, with five or six issues
remaining. 

Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said in Athens that
Tehran would adhere to the nonproliferation treaty. On Sunday,
Iran's parliament threatened to ask the government to withdraw
its signature from a protocol in the treaty that allows
intrusive surprise inspections of nuclear facilities. 

``We have no reason to leave the NPT. Our case is completely
different from that of North Korea,'' Larijani said during a
visit to Athens. ``The additional protocol is one thing and the
NPT is another,'' he said. 

``There must be a balance between the rights and the obligations
stemming from the NPT,'' Larijani said. ``It is not fair that we
should have all the obligations but not enjoy the rights.'' 

Larijani is holding a series of meetings in the region that are
apparently part of an Iranian push to boost support as tension
grows with the United States. 

``There should not be hasty movements that will lead us to a
confrontation,'' Larijani said. ``There is time for diplomacy,
the basic body that must solve this issue is the International
Atomic Energy Agency,'' the U.N. watchdog. 

Sending Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council was ``a step
in the wrong direction,'' he said. 

The United States is backing efforts by Britain and France to
win Security Council approval for a resolution that would
threaten possible measures if Iran does not suspend uranium
enrichment. If taken to sufficient levels, the enrichment
process can produce fuel for nuclear weapons. 

Russia and China, the other veto-holding members of the Security
Council, oppose sanctions. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met privately for more than
two hours Monday night with foreign ministers from the other
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to talk about
Iran. 

``I think they probably need another 10 days, 14 days, to get
that resolution back up,'' said German Foreign Minister
Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. 

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said ``we took
stock of the situation. We're in the process of discussing
things.'' 

``We all agree on (the need for) suspension of sensitive nuclear
activities. The discussion tonight was about including this in
the resolution. The discussion tonight was also on the ways of
presenting a set of both incentive and deterrent measures,''
Douste-Blazy said. 

China on Tuesday urged flexibility in reaching a negotiated
settlement, rejecting the ``threat of force.'' 

Beijing has warned that the British- and French-sponsored
resolution could lead to war. 

``The Iran nuclear dispute is at a crucial junction. We hope
relevant sides can show flexibility, restraint and calmness in
order to create favorable conditions for the resumption of
talks,'' said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. 

``We are in favor of a diplomatic solution. We are never in
favor of the wanton use of force or the threat of force,'' Liu
said. 

The United States, meanwhile, dismissed a letter to President
Bush from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to try to ease
tensions. Rice said the letter, which covers history, philosophy
and religion, did not help resolve the nuclear standoff. 

``This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to
engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort,'' Rice said
in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday. ``It isn't
addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete
way.'' 

The letter - the first such communication between Tehran and
Washington in 27 years - criticized the United States over a
host of issues, including the response to the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and U.S. support for Israel. 

It made only an oblique reference to Iran's intentions about its
nuclear program, asking why ``any technological and scientific
achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into
and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime.'' 

Before leaving on a trip to Indonesia, Ahmadinejad called his
letter ``important news.'' 

``What I said in my letter was the demands of Iranian people and
our nation. I discussed our views, beliefs and positions
regarding international issues as well as some ways out of
problems humanity is suffering from,'' he said. 

Indonesian Foreign Minster Hassan Wirajuda, meanwhile urged Iran
to be more open in its uranium enrichment program, but defended
its right to produce nuclear energy. 

``We want Iran to be more transparent in its program,'' Wirajuda
said. ``We also want Iran's nuclear development program ... to
fulfill the standards of the International Atomic Energy
Agency.'' 

Wirajuda said developing nuclear energy was ``a basic right for
every country.'' 

Iran claims it has the right to enrich uranium for a peaceful
civilian nuclear program to produce electricity and has refused
to comply with a Security Council demand in late March to
suspend enrichment. 

--- 

Contributing to this story were Associated Press Writers Nick
Wadhams at the United Nations, Robin Hindery in New York, Anne
Gearan in New York, and Chris Brummitt in Jakarta, Indonesia. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett cautious on Iran options
 
Matthew Tempest and agencies
Tuesday May 9, 2006 		 

Margaret Beckett, the new foreign secretary, has stopped short of 
calling an attack on Iran "inconceivable" in her first public 
statement on the developing crisis over the state's nuclear 
ambitions.

Ms Beckett, in New York for talks with the US, France, Germany, 
Russia and China, said merely that military action was "not 
discussed, it's not an issue".

That contrasts with Mr Straw's repeated pronouncements that an 
attack was "inconceivable" and that a nuclear strike against the 
country rumoured to be an option being considered in Washington 
was "completely nuts".

Yesterday, in his monthly press conference, the prime minister, 
Tony Blair, said foreign policy under the new foreign secretary 
"will not change one iota".

That was in response to continued Westminster speculation that Mr 
Straw might have been shifted to facilitate a future attack on 
Iran. Mr Blair has been far less outspoken in ruling out military 
options.

In New York last night, asked whether she believed a military 
strike on Iran was inconceivable - the word used repeatedly by Mr 
Straw - Mrs Beckett said: "No-one has the intention to take 
military action. 

"That was not discussed, it's not an issue. 

"What people are concerned to do is to get Iran to recognise the 
strong view and the clear will of the international community 
that they should comply with the IEAE (International Atomic 
Energy Agency) board." 

She added: "You're inviting me to tread down the path of talking 
about military action - I'm not going to do that. 

"Everybody expresses their views, their stance, in their own way. 
The way that I choose to express it is that it's not anybody's 
intention to take the course of military action. 

"That I think is simple and straightforward and clear." 

Last night the US dismissed a letter from Iran's leader,
president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, apparently offering talks on
various global issues, saying it proposed nothing new. 

Britain and France, backed by the US, have proposed a formal
Security Council resolution demanding that Tehran suspend
uranium enrichment, and insist it must be under chapter seven of
the UN charter to make it legally binding. 

But Russia and China are wary, fearing it could lead to a re-run
of the Iraq crisis. 

"The discussions we have had this evening, we have not - and
this was said explicitly from the beginning - we have not been
negotiating texts, we have been discussing basic issues, the
background strategy," Mrs Beckett said. 

She added that sanctions might be needed to make Iran comply. 

"No one wants to apply sanctions if it's not necessary but what
everybody wants is to get Iran to recognise that the
international community is serious in its insistence that we
cannot continue with the assumption that Iran can just continue
to flout the will of the international community this way," she
said. 

Mrs Beckett paid tribute to Mr Straw, saying he had done a "huge
amount of detailed and skilled work" on the issue. 

"It's my first full day tackling what is a hugely important and
difficult issue, which I suppose is characteristic for this
portfolio," she said. 

Earlier, Mrs Beckett and Dr Rice, who represent the first
all-female US-UK foreign minister pairing, got together on their
own for the first time to get to know each other. 

   Useful links  

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Department for International Development

Email comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 BBC: Ahmadinejad letter attacks Bush
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 May 2006
 
[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]                           

Ahmadinejad's letter came at a time of heightened tension                                                                 

Details have emerged of the surprise letter written by Iranian 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush. 

In it, Mr Ahmadinejad criticises the US invasion of Iraq and 
urges Mr Bush to return to religious principles. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed the letter as 
"offering nothing new" and the White House said there would be no 
formal written reply. 

The letter came as foreign ministers met for talks on Iran's 
nuclear crisis. 

But after three hours of discussions in New York, the ministers 
failed to agree on how to tackle the problem of Iran's atomic 
programme. 

Iraq 'lies' 

The letter - thought to be the first from an Iranian president to 
a US leader since Iran's 1979 revolution - sparked intense 
interest, coming at a time of tense relations between Washington 
and Tehran. 

Why have the various aspects the [9/11] attacks been kept secret? 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iranian president       

The 18-page document has not yet been made public, but according 
to leaks, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke of the invasion of Iraq, and a 
range of other issues. 

"Lies were told in the Iraqi matter," Reuters news agency quoted 
the letter as saying. "What was the result? I have no doubt that 
telling lies is reprehensible in any culture." 

The president also questioned the creation of Israel, asking "how 
can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?", Reuters 
reported. 

In an apparent allusion to Iran's nuclear programme, Mr 
Ahmadinejad is quoted by the Associated Press as asking: "Is not 
scientific R [research and development] one of the basic rights 
of nations?" 

In another part of the letter, Mr Ahmadinejad suggests Washington 
has been untruthful about the 11 September 2001 attacks on the 
US, Reuters reports. 

"Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? 
Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities?" he asks. 

The president ends the letter by appealing to Mr Bush to return 
to religion. 

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking 
towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. 

"My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'" 

Divisions exposed 

There would not be a written response to President Ahmadinejad, 
National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones told the AFP 
news agency. 

"We've already given our response," he said, referring to the 
swift dismissal by US officials of the letter as a ploy which 
contributed nothing towards helping resolve the stand-off over 
Iran's nuclear programme. 

[Condoleezza Rice]                              

The US is pushing for a decisive resolution                                                             

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to 
engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Ms Rice 
told AP. 

Hours after the letter was sent, Ms Rice held an inconclusive 
meeting with her UN Security Council counterparts and the German 
foreign minister on what action to take over Iran. 

BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says that far from 
drawing the key powers at the UN towards agreement on the issue, 
the meeting seems to have exposed the scale of division. 

The UK's newly-appointed foreign minister, Margaret Beckett, 
acknowledged the meeting had been difficult. 

She refused to repeat her predecessor Jack Straw's insistence 
that military action against Iran was inconceivable. 

Mrs Beckett said she preferred to make clear that no-one was 
discussing military action. This language, our correspondent 
says, was far more welcome to the Americans. 

After the meeting, an unnamed senior US state department official 
said prospects for an agreement this week on a UN Security 
Council resolution were "not substantially good". 

However, the official said the US was "very satisfied and 
confident" at this stage. 

Washington has pushed for any resolution to be adopted under the 
terms of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. 

These are binding on all UN members, but do not automatically 
lead to sanctions or military action. Further decisions would be 
needed for such measures. 

But China and Russia have resisted such a move, fearing it could 
lead to a new war.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 17 Reuters: U.S. involvement key to success with Iran-Schuessel
         
Tue 9 May 2006 2:46 PM ET                                       

By Louis Charbonneau

 BERLIN, May 9 (Reuters) - Iran could be persuaded to give up any 
nuclear bomb ambitions in the way Brazil and South Africa once 
were, but success will hinge on the direct involvement of the 
United States, Austria's chancellor said on Tuesday.

 Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who holds the European Union's
rotating presidency and was speaking on behalf of the EU, said
it was important to prevent the West's nuclear standoff with
Iran from becoming another major crisis.

 "What I would like is a process that doesn't spiral into a
crisis but one that leads in a positive direction," Schuessel
said at a Europe Day forum at the German foreign ministry.

 "But we need the full participation of the Americans," he said,
adding discussion of Washington getting involved in direct
negotiations with Iran "is now in full swing in America".

 Ministers from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members
-- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- plus
Germany held talks in New York on Monday but failed to agree on
a resolution demanding Iran halt uranium enrichment.

 Iran says its enrichment programme, which could produce fuel
for atomic power stations or weapons, is aimed solely at the
generation of electricity and refuses to freeze the programme.
The West says Iran is covertly developing the capability to
produce nuclear bombs and must halt enrichment.

 Schuessel noted countries like Brazil and South Africa had
given up nuclear weapons ambitions after much persuasion.

 South Africa developed nuclear weapons but disarmed shortly
before the end of the apartheid regime. Brazil and Argentina
both pursued nuclear weapons ambitions in the 1980s but gave
them up by the end of the decade.

 Brazil is now holding talks with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) about the possible monitoring of a uranium
enrichment plant in the country.

 Schuessel said Iran could one day be in a position similar to
that of Brazil if it gave the international community credible
assurances that it was not pursuing nuclear bombs.

 "When you do it right -- and it's very important Europe and
America sit in a boat and navigate together -- it can lead to a
situation that contributes to world peace and a good
international development," Schuessel said.


 Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.                                              [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Iran's Larijani praises China, Russia's 'realism' in nuclear row
     
 Tuesday May 9, 07:12 PM 

  [Ali Larijani]   
    
ATHENS (AFP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani,
praised Russia and China for taking a "realistic" approach after
talks between major world powers failed to resolve differences
over Tehran's nuclear program.

"We feel that certain countries have been acting in a more
realistic manner," Larijani said of the two United Nations
powers, following talks in Athens with Greek Foreign Minister
Dora Bakoyannis.

"Other countries are trying to create problems. I come from a
region where (Advertisement)
 [ src=] a lot of problems have been created by the United
States," he said.

"Our advice to the European Union is not to follow the policy of
a country which creates problems for this region. The EU can
play a constructive role."

The United States is seeking a tough United Nations resolution
on Iran but China and Russia, which both have important trade
ties to Tehran, have resisted the move and reiterated their
objection to both sanctions and military action.

The draft resolution under debate at the UN in New York invokes
Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which can authorize economic
sanctions or military action as a last resort.

Larijani also said that Iran had no intention of leaving the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite a statement
Sunday by hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that suggested
the contrary.

"We have no reason to leave the NPT," Larijani told a news
conference at the Iranian embassy after his meeting with
Bakoyannis. "What is needed is a balance between the obligations
and the rights stemming from the NPT," he added.

Larijani, who is also Iran's national security chief, was
speaking ahead of a meeting in New York of the foreign ministers
of the UN Security Council's five permanent members, plus
Germany and the European Union. That meeting is aimed at finding
a joint strategy to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear fuel
work.

A US official said early Tuesday that the ministers had failed
to reach an agreement on a possible UN resolution on the issue,
after a round of talks late Monday.

During a visit to Turkey Monday, Larijani urged world powers to
use the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and not
the UN Security Council, to resolve the nuclear standoff.

Unlike the Security Council, the IAEA does not have enforcement
powers and cannot impose sanctions on the Islamic republic.

If the IAEA held on to Iran's nuclear dossier, Tehran would have
more time to pursue talks on a diplomatic resolution of the
dispute. But Western diplomats widely see Iran's request as
stalling tactics.

Alluding to a Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iranian
power plants on Russian soil, Larijani said that discussions
could "move forward" but "time is needed to arrive at a positive
outcome."

If Iran's case "comes back to the IAEA, we can examine this
proposal," he said. 

Iran has repeatedly maintained that its nuclear energy program
is purely peaceful but the West has remained skeptical,
believing that it masks a drive to develop nuclear weapons.

On Monday US President George W. Bush received a letter from
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the first direct
contact from an Iranian leader to a US president for more than a
quarter century -- suggesting "new ways" to settle long-running
tensions.

But Washington rejected the move, saying the 18-page document
was more a philosophical treatise than a political overture and
did not change the US position in the nuclear dispute. 

Copyright � 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=] 
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: US won't reply to Iran letter, wants real progress on nuclear issue - 

 by Stephanie Griffith Tue May 9, 7:18 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said it will make no formal 
response to a surprise letter sent by Iran" /> Iran's hardline 
leader, but President George W. Bush" /> President George W. 
Bushvowed to pursue diplomatic efforts to counter Iran's nuclear 
programme. 

 As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Indonesia,
during which he could ask Jakarta to mediate in the nuclear row,
Tehran said it was waiting for a reply to his 18-page letter to
Bush. 

But the White House insisted there would be no response on top
of comments already made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice"
/> Condoleezza Rice, who said it contained "nothing new" that
offered hope of resolving the nuclear dispute. 

Although a New York meeting Tuesday of foreign ministers from
the world's six major powers failed to agree on how to tackle
Tehran, Rice said: "The international community is united that
there must be a strong message to Iran through the Security
Council that their behavior to date is unacceptable." 

International oil prices edged up again following the US
rejection of the letter. 

Iran has refused to meet international demands to end its
uranium enrichment work, which Washington and its allies believe
hides a nuclear weapons drive. Tehran insists its research is
for peaceful purposes. 

The United States, Britain and France want a resolution under
Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which would probably start with a
warning to Iran that could be followed up with economic
sanctions and even military action. 

But China and Russia have spoken out strongly against coercive
measures, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
reaffirming the divide on Tuesday. 

"Our position is very firm. We think that at this stage there is
no necessity to discuss Chapter 7," Lavrov was quoted as saying
by Russia's Interfax news agency. 

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was at the
New York meeting, said the process of agreeing a UN resolution
on Iran could take up to two more weeks. 

Bush said that even China and Russia agreed that Iran must not
be allowed to have a bomb, but that he was determined to seek a
negotiated settlement rather than launching more coercive
measures. 

"The first option and the most important option is diplomacy,"
he said during an appearance in Florida when asked about the
Iran dispute by a member of the public. 

The letter from Ahmadinejad was the first from an Iranian leader
to a US president in more than a quarter century, and called for
"new ways" to settle long-running tensions that have reached a
new peak over the nuclear dispute. 

Tehran portrayed the letter as an important diplomatic
initiative, but US officials dismissed the document as more
philosophical treatise than political overture. 

In the letter, Ahmadinejad assailed the United States over Iraq"
/> Iraq, its reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the
handling of "war on terror" detainees and even US policy in
Latin America. 

He suggested that the two countries return to religious
principles as a means of restoring confidence. "Will you not
accept this invitation?" asked Ahmadinejad in the letter. 

"There is nothing in this letter that in any way addresses any
of the issues really that are on the table in the international
community," Rice said. 

Ahmadinejad meanwhile took his campaign to Indonesia, the
world's most populous Muslim nation. 

He was greeted early Wednesday amid tight security by Indonesian
Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda and about two dozen officials. 

The Iranian leader made no comment before leaving for his
Jakarta hotel. But Wirayuda, asked if Iran's nuclear program
would be raised in talks, said: "Certainly it will be discussed,
it's an important issue." 

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Desra Percaya said
Indonesia could "play the role of a middleman" between Iran and
the West. 

The Iranian leader will fly to the island of Bali on Friday to
attend a meeting of the Developing-8 (D-8) group of large Muslim
countries. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: US dismisses Ahmadinejad letter, no deal on Iran nuclear program
     
 Tue May 9, 7:59 AM ET 		 	 

NEW YORK (AFP) - The United States has dismissed a surprise 
letter from Iran" /> 's hardline leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US 
President George W. Bush" /> , saying it offered nothing new, as 
world powers struggled to deal with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 

 Iran hailed the letter, the first from an Iranian leader to a
US president for more than 25 years, as a major diplomatic
initiative, but senior officials here dismissed it as a rambling
18-page document that was little more than a philosophical
treatise. 

As details of the text emerged, Washington made it clear it did
not change its position in the standoff over Iran's nuclear
program. 

Tehran announced the letter before talks late Monday in New York
of foreign ministers of the five permanent UN Security Council
members plus Germany and the European Union" /> to try to map
out a strategy to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear fuel
work. 

But the ministers, also from Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States, failed to reach a consensus on a possible UN
resolution, a US official said early Tuesday. 

The official, who asked not to be named, said there was no
agreement on a US push for a resolution under Chapter Seven of
the UN charter which authorizes sanctions and even the use of
force. 

"I think the prospects for an agreement this week are not
substantially good," the official added. 

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said there were
up to six issues to be resolved before a resolution could be
agreed. 

He did not specify what they were but told Germany's ZDF
television Tuesday that he believed it would take up to two
weeks to reach agreement. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, meanwhile, praised
Russia and China for taking a "realistic" approach. Moscow and
Beijing, which have close economic ties with Iran, have not
supported a proposed draft resolution. 

"We feel that certain countries have been acting in a more
realistic manner" than others which "are trying to create
headaches," he said during a visit to Greece, referring to the
United States. 

The United States and Europe fear Iran is using a stated drive
for peaceful atomic energy as a cover for developing nuclear
weapons, which Tehran strongly denies. 

The matter went sent to the Security Council after Iran failed
to meet a deadline by the UN nuclear watchdog to halt uranium
enrichment, which can make fuel for reactors but also what can
be the core of atom bombs. 

In the letter, written in English and sent Monday, Ahmadinejad
proposed a return to religious principles as a means of
restoring confidence. 

"That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to
monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience
to the Almighty and His prophets?" read the letter, a copy of
which AFP obtained. 

The document is filled with religious references and revisits
many of the grievances Tehran has against Washington. 

It said people of the world "have no faith in international
organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these
organizations." 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> was unimpressed. 

"There is nothing in this letter that in any way addresses any
of the issues really that are on the table in the international
community," Rice told the editorial board of the Associated
Press, according to a State Department transcript. 

"It is most assuredly not a proposal," she said. "There is
nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different
course than we were before we got the letter." 

In New York, Security Council members are bargaining over a
Franco-British draft resolution that would require Iran to
freeze all uranium enrichment and reprocessing. 

Bush has not ruled out military action against Iran, which
Washington also accuses of being the world's "leading sponsor of
terror." 

Russian news agencies quoted Moscow's top envoy, Sergei Lavrov,
as calling for further negotiations, including more direct talks
between major powers and Iran. 

"There was general agreement on the need to create conditions
for resuming direct negotiations on Iran's nuclear program,"
Interfax news agency reported him as saying. 

China also reiterated its stance that the Iranian nuclear issue
could still be resolved through diplomacy. 

"We urge all sides to remain calm, exercise restraint, show
flexibility and avoid a worsening of the situation," foreign
ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing. 

Lavrov will travel to China on May 15 for a three-day visit,
Interfax news agency reported Tuesday. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: West no closer on UN response to Iran 

 by Peter Mackler Tue May 9, 2:43 PM ET 		 	 

NEW YORK (AFP) - Six weeks, three ministerial conferences and 
half a dozen senior-level meetings after the UN Security Council 
took up Iran" /> 's controversial nuclear program, world powers 
seemed no closer to agreeing what to do about it. 

 Chief diplomats of the United States, three European allies,
Russia and China wound up three hours of intensive talks late
Monday with no consensus on a UN resolution to check Tehran's
suspected nuclear weapons ambitions. 

Political directors of the Security Council's five permanent
members plus Germany were to meet here Tuesday in a new bid to
hash out a response to Iran's refusal to halt sensitive
uranium-enrichment activities. 

A senior US official, who asked not to be named, said there was
little chance a resolution would be ready this week. He said the
political directors would most likely continue their
deliberations next week in Europe. 

But there was no sign that Russia and China, which both wield a
veto on the 15-member council, were ready to ease their
resistance to punitive measures against the Islamic republic. 

"The Chinese side is opposed to the use of sanctions or the use
of force in the settlement of international affairs," foreign
ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing. 

"The Iranian issue is at a crucial moment. We urge all sides to
remain calm, exercise restraint, show flexibility and avoid a
worsening of the situation," he told reporters. 

Moscow's top envoy Sergei Lavrov spoke of "general agreement on
the need to create conditions for resuming direct negotiations
on Iran's nuclear program" broken off with Britain, Germany and
France in January. 

Washington has been struggling to nail down agreement on tough
UN measures since the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
(IAEA) referred Iran to the Security Council on March 29. 

Britain's new foreign secretary Margaret Beckett called Monday
night's talks at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel a "difficult meeting"
and US officials admitted they had a lot of work before them. 

"There is not yet agreement on the tactics and what's most
pronounced is that there is no agreement yet that this should be
a chapter seven resolution," said a senior US official, who
spoke on condition of anonymity. 

"Based on tonight's meeting, I would not expect a resolution to
be voted on and adopted this week," the official said. "I think
it's going to take a little bit more time." 

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said five or six
issues remained to be resolved before a UN resolution on Iran
could be agreed and the process would take up to two weeks. 

Speaking to Germany's ZDF television, Steinmeier did not specify
what the questions where but said, "We must ensure that no
automatism is put into motion that we cannot control
afterwards." 

Monday's talks were held as Tehran made a theatrical bid to
restart a dialogue with the United State after a quarter-century
break, with a letter from its hardline leader Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to President George W. Bush" /> . 

The Americans said the letter changed nothing and that there
would be no formal written response. 

But they described the ministerial meeting here as
"strategic-level discussions" aimed at taking a broader look at
the Iranian issue. 

The senior official said the ministers were trying to feel each
other out on questions that went beyond the specific language on
a resolution. 

"What are we all trying to do here? What are we all willing to
pay for this? What kind of compromises are we willing to make?
What kind of flexibility does each of us need to bring to the
table to stay united?" 

But the United States held firm on two key issues that have been
raised by some of their allies, the possibility of US security
guarantees for Iran and more direct involvement in the
negotiations with Tehran. 

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the ministers
discussed possible incentives for Iran to cooperate wth the
West, including the security guarantees. 

But with Washington refusing to rule out the use of force if
diplomacy failed to thwart Iran's alleged nuclear weapons
aspiration, such commitments are "not in our interest," the US
official said. 

"President Bush has said every time he has been asked over the
last year and a half (that) all options are on the table and
that means all options on the table." 

Bush said Tuesday that diplomacy remains the number one approach
to the issue. He declined to elaborate on other options. 

"I think it's very important for good negotiators to keep their
cards close to the chest and at the appropriate time, make it
clear what our intentions are. This is a serious issue, taking a
lot of our time as it should," he said. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 22 Asia Times: China's 'two-faced' nuclear stance

By Todd Crowell 

HUA HIN, Thailand - Are the Chinese playing a double game on the 
issue of North Korean nuclear disarmament? Syndicated columnist 
Tom Plate evidently thinks so. In his latest column he suggests 
darkly a "secret pro-nuclear understanding between Beijing and 
Pyongyang". 

In other words, Beijing tells the world and Washington that it 
favors a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, while quietly 
telling the North Koreans to resist any overtures from the other 
participants in the six-party talks to dismantle its nuclear 
program. 

The column is filled with heavy, loaded words, such as "big
lie", "two-faced", "Machiavellian", "bad faith", "secret
double-dealer" and so on, but it is light on specifics. He cites
a "nasty rumor" about China playing a double game in the
aftermath of Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent visit to
Washington and a sense that Hu's response on the matter of a
nuclear-free Korea was "far less emphatic than Bush's". He
didn't elaborate on the rumor. 

I have always had a lot of respect for Plate's work, and he is
certainly no knee-jerk China-basher, so you have to wonder just
what set him off. Surely it couldn't have been pronouncements of
the summit. How can anyone take seriously anything that came out
of that misbegotten meeting? 

If people think China is playing a double game, it may be
because they have set themselves up for disillusionment by
becoming victims of their own rhetoric about how important China
is to reaching a resolution of the Korean nuclear issue. 

It has often been said that China could bring Pyongyang around
to an agreement any time it chose to do so by simply withdrawing
aid and trade. This is undoubtedly true, but Beijing has said
more than once, openly and up front, that it will not do this.
Nothing two-faced about it. 

The Chinese are not particularly worried whether North Korea has
an atomic bomb. They don't believe Pyongyang would be stupid
enough to drop one on them. Historically, China has not been
concerned about nuclear non-proliferation. Indeed, it is a
recovering proliferator herself. 

The North Korean nuclear program concerns China because it
concerns the United States. The Chinese worry that it might
trigger a US attack on North Korea, something they obviously
don't want, even as the threat of its actually happening
recedes. 

China's main interest in hosting the six-party talks is to be a
good world citizen, reap the prestige that comes in helping
broker any diplomatic breakthroughs and garner any rewards that
might come its way. Beyond that it is indifferent to whether
North Korea has a bomb. 

The South Koreans, too, are not overly worried about a North
Korean bomb. Deep down they don't believe that their Korean
brothers would ever drop one on them. Seoul is currently
obsessed with reconciliation with Pyongyang and will not
countenance anything that impedes that goal. 

This posture might change if the conservative opposition wins
the South Korean presidency in late 2007, but it is doubtful a
new president would do much to alter the situation except
possibly to put more emphasis on human rights. The "Sunshine
Policy" initiated by former president Kim Dae-jung is too
popular to be abandoned no matter who is president. 

One might think that of the six parties to the negotiations,
Japan would take the strongest stand, having the most to fear.
After all, the North Koreans have fired ballistic missiles in
their direction in the past. 

But I was in Japan a year ago in February when North Korea
formally declared itself to be a nuclear-weapons state, and the
reaction in Japan was underwhelming, to say the least. The
headline in the Japan Times read: "Announcement might complicate
abduction issue", which pretty much shows where Tokyo's
priorities lie - an accounting for its nationals abducted by
Pyongyang. 

Of course, the reaction might have been entirely different if
the North Koreans had proved their assertion beyond a doubt by
actually exploding an atomic bomb. There is a school of thought
that believes - or wishes to believe - that North Korea does not
have a bomb because it has not mastered all the elements of
producing a workable weapon. Plutonium bombs are tricky. 

Supposedly the US is the one participant most committed to
ending North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. But the ink was no
sooner dry on the "breakthrough" September 19 agreement at the
last session of the six-party talks than Washington raised the
extraneous issue of Pyongyang's counterfeiting US currency. 

This may be a legitimate beef on the part of Washington, but how
can a few million fake US$100 notes weigh against the prospect
of a mushroom cloud somewhere in the United States? 

One has to wonder what kind of game Washington is playing. If
this is some kind of gambit in the complicated game to bring
Pyongyang to the negotiating table, it is too Machiavellian - to
use Plate's words - for me to understand. 

In this long, weary story, the US has dragged out delivery of
the aid and recognition it promised when North Korea agreed to
freeze its nuclear-weapons program in 1994. For its part,
Pyongyang violated the spirit by experimenting with uranium
enrichment. You don't have to look to China alone to find plenty
of bad faith. 

Todd Crowell is an Asia Times Online correspondent based in
Thailand. 

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
																	 .)   															 														
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 23 Asia Times: The great divide over North Korea

By Gavan McCormack 

For 60 years the world has faced no greater threat than nuclear
weapons. Yet nuclear politics, in principle the most urgent for
human survival, has been in practice the most ridden with
hypocrisy. 

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), has described as "unworkable" the way of
thinking that it is "morally reprehensible for some counties to
pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for
others to rely on them for security and indeed to continue to
refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use". [1] 

While he did not spell out particular countries, the nuclear
superpowers plainly fill the category of countries that "rely on
... refine ... postulate plans for" use of nuclear weapons, while 
they undoubtedly see as "morally reprehensible" the attempt of 
other countries, notably North Korea and Iran, to do likewise. 
While plainly hypocritical, the former is the position of the 
United States (and its allies, such as Japan). 

In May 2005, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review
conference collapsed in failure. It was a disaster and an
outrage, but scarcely a surprise. Responsibility was equally
shared by the established nuclear powers whose hypocrisy
discredited the system and those outside the club seeking to
justify themselves according to the superpower principle:
without nuclear weapons there is no security. 

Former president Jimmy Carter summed it up: "The United States
is the major culprit in the erosion of the NPT. While claiming
to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq,
Libya, Iran and North Korea ... they also have abandoned past
pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states." [2] 

Despite the evidence, especially since September 11, 2001, that
nuclear weapons are no guarantee of security, the nuclear club
powers ( US, Britain, Russia, France, China) ignore the
obligation they entered 30 years ago under Article 6 of the NPT,
and reaffirmed in 2000 as an "unequivocal undertaking" for "the
elimination of their nuclear arsenals". 

The dominant Western powers among them also turn a blind eye to
the secret accumulation of a huge nuclear arsenal on the part of
a favored state (Israel) that refuses to join the NPT and thumbs
its nose at the idea of non-proliferation. The US has also just
lifted a 30-year ban on sales of civilian nuclear technology to
India, describing it as "a responsible state with advanced
nuclear technology", even though civil nuclear energy
cooperation with a non-signatory contravenes the very essence of
the NPT. 

The US in March 2003 launched a devastating war on Iraq based on
a groundless charge that the country was engaged in nuclear
weapons production. Yet it maintains its own arsenal of about
10,000 warheads, deploys shells tipped with depleted uranium
that spread deadly pollution likely to persist for centuries,
has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and
declared its intent not to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban
Treaty (CTBT), has adopted (in 2006) a production schedule of
250 nuclear warheads per year, is making great efforts to
develop a new generation of "low yield" mini-nukes and promises
to extend its nuclear hegemony over the earth to space. 

Robert McNamara, defense secretary in the 1960s, in March 2005
described American reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign
policy tool as "illegal and immoral". [3] 

Japan is a well-known nuclear victim that maintains "three
non-nuclear principles" (non-production, non-possession and
non-introduction into Japan) and has a "peace constitution". Yet
the core of Japan's defense policy is nuclear weapons. [4] True
the weapons in question are not Japanese but American. Japan
clings to the assurance that any enemy attacking or threatening
it with nuclear weapons would be devastated by American nuclear
counter-attack. 

Its non-nuclear "principles" therefore amount to no more than
the pretence, while its actual policy is unswerving commitment
to (American) nuclear weapons. So supportive has Japan been of
American nuclear militarism that in 1969 it entered secret
clauses into its agreement with the United States so that the
"principles" could be bypassed and a Japanese "blind eye" turned
toward American vessels carrying nuclear weapons docking in or
transiting Japan, an arrangement that lasted until 1992. [5] 

The Japan of "non-nuclear principles" is also in the process of
becoming a nuclear superpower, the sole "non-nuclear" state that
is committed to possessing both enrichment and reprocessing
facilities, as well as to developing a fast-breeder reactor. Its
stocks of plutonium amount to more than 40 tons, the equivalent
of 5,000 Nagasaki-type weapons. Its determined pursuit of a
nuclear cycle, giving it the wherewithal to be able quickly to
go nuclear should that Rubicon ever be reached, is in defiance
of the February 2005 appeal from the IAEA director general for a
five-year freeze on all enrichment and reprocessing works. [6] 

Japan's 40 tons of plutonium may be compared with the 10-15
kilograms of fissile material that North Korea was accused of
illicit diversion in the 1994 crisis, or the .7 of a gram South
Korea produced in the early 1980s and for which it was severely
rebuked by the IAEA. [7] 

When Japan's Rokkasho facility - probably the world's most
expensive facility in modern history, expected to cost about 19
trillion yen (US$170 billion) over the term of its use -
commences operation in July 2007 it will be capable of
reprocessing 800 tons of spent fuel a year, yielding each year
about eight more tons (or 1,000 warheads-worth) of plutonium.
The best estimates are that a one-percentage loss of materials
in such a vast system would be impossible to detect. Japan also
regularly ships highly toxic wastes across vast stretches of
rough and dangerous ocean, each shipment equivalent to about 17
atomic bombs-worth, in defiance of countries en route and
despite risks of piracy or terrorist hijacking. 

In the United Nations, Japan declines to associate itself with
the "New Agenda Coalition" (NAC) that came into existence
following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 to try
to exert more urgent pressure for disarmament and
non-proliferation. For Japan, the NAC was too "confrontational",
in other words, too directly challenging the nuclear privilege
of the US and the other nuclear privileged powers. For Japan to
join NAC, against US wishes, might also have been to weaken the
US-provided "umbrella". 

While Japan therefore stresses non-proliferation, insisting on
North Korean obligation, it is passive on disarmament, ie,
specifically downplaying the obligations of the US and other
superpowers. Its defense policy rests on the attachment to,
perhaps even the implicit longing for nuclear weapons. It is
therefore cool to the idea of a Northeast Asian nuclear weapons
free zone. 

The problem of perspective
While it is common in the Western (US-centered) world to think
of the "North Korea problem" in terms of a threatening,
nuclear-obsessed, tiny and irrational country with a political
system, based on "great" and "dear" leaders, that refuses to
follow common sense, from North Korea the world looks very
different. The "problem" is the United States, and the half
century of hostile, violent and always intimidating
confrontation from the intervention that divided Korea in 1945
and the devastating war of 1950 to 1953 to the hostility that
continues to this day. 

Washington is outraged over the program it believes North Korea
has been following over the past decade and a half to produce
nuclear weapons. Pyongyang, on the other hand, looks back over
more than half a century of nuclear intimidation by the US.
During the Korean War, military commanders Douglas MacArthur and
Matthew Ridgway, presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower,
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all at one time or other favored
nuclear attack on North Korea and were restrained only by the
fear of possible Soviet retaliation. 

Then, for almost the entire period of the Cold War, American
nuclear weapons were stored in South Korea - in violation of the
Armistice Agreement of 1953 - ready for instant deployment and
use, and even after their withdrawal, at South Korean
insistence, much of North Korea continues to be targeted by US
sea and air-based nuclear war-fighting systems. 

Set in its historical context, the North Korean decision to "go
nuclear", however reprehensible, is neither illogical nor
incomprehensible. After experiencing explicit nuclear
intimidation for decades, Pyongyang seems to have decided that
its security, like that of the superpowers, could only be
accomplished by either turning itself into a nuclear power and
achieving the impregnability that is assumed to go with that
status, or by using a supposed or real nuclear weapons program
as a negotiating ploy to achieve security from nuclear and
non-nuclear threat. 

Whether it actually possesses any such weapons, the lesson it
(and indeed any other country feeling insecure) would reasonably
draw from the invasion of Iraq, and the acceptance into the
nuclear club of India and Pakistan, would be the need to
persuade its enemies that it did. In the twisted logic of
nuclear politics, that which renders all humanity insecure
becomes that without which no country can consider itself
secure. 

In 1994, the confrontation between the US and North Korea
degenerated to the brink of war, staved off only at the last
minute by an accommodation known as the Geneva "agreed
framework". Under it, North Korea froze its graphite reactors
and accepted international inspection of its plutonium wastes,
while the US promised to construct two alternative, light-water
reactors, supply heavy oil for energy generation until the
reactors came on stream, and to move toward political and
economic normalization. 

During the eight years that the framework functioned, relations
between the two countries were stabilized and late in the Bill
Clinton administration there were dramatic portents of
reconciliation. In the end, however, all that North Korea
actually got was the supply of heavy oil, which was then cut off
in the middle of the winter of 2002-3. The reactors, supposed to
be generating power from 2003, never progressed much beyond some
large holes in the ground. Rather than steps toward
normalization, the George W Bush administration came to power in
2001 denouncing North Korea, referring to it in January 2002 as
part of the "axis of evil". 

The framework broke down in particular over the US insistence
that Pyongyang had been pursuing a two-track nuclear weapons
program: the one that was subject of the 1994 agreement, using
the wastes from the Yongbyon reactors to process plutonium for
"Nagasaki-type" nuclear devices, and the other, a covert program
using uranium enrichment to produce "Hiroshima-type" devices. 

According to assistant secretary of state James Kelly, officials
in Pyongyang confessed such a program to him during his October
2002 visit to Pyongyang. This confession (denied by North Korea,
which insisted that Kelly had misunderstood its statement of the
right to such a program as a statement of its possession) led
the US to suspend its commitments under the framework. This in
turn prompted North Korea the following January to withdraw from
the NPT and resume its weapons program. 

For the United States, elimination of any North Korean nuclear
weapons and related programs (plutonium and uranium-based) is
the overriding, but far from exclusive, goal. It also demands
demilitarization, especially the scrapping of North Korea's
missile program, and major political changes (in respect of
human rights ). Some within the Bush administration are also
committed to regime change. North Korea, for its part, seeks
resolution of the problems that have plagued it for so long:
isolation, intimidation and sanctions, through the conversion of
the ceasefire of 1953 into a permanent peace treaty and the
"normalization" of relations of all kinds - security, political,
diplomatic, economic - with the United States and Japan. 

At the heart of the booming Northeast Asian region, it is
anomalous and destabilizing for such confrontation to persist.
Increasingly, neighbor countries now play an active role in
seeking to resolve it. 

The Beijing initiative 
From 2003, China began to play a crucial role in attempting to
broker a solution, hosting from August 2003 what became known as
the "six-party talks", bringing together the key protagonists,
the United States and North Korea, together with the neighbor
states - South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. 

For two years, the talks produced little. The US representative
was under instructions not to speak to his North Korean opposite
number save to state and restate US demands, calling on North
Korea to undertake what he called "CVID" (complete, verifiable,
irreversible, dismantling) of all nuclear programs, to scrap its
missiles and reduce its conventional forces, and to address
terrorism and human rights concerns, while he dismissed North
Korea's demand for a guarantee it would not be attacked, and its
pleas for comprehensive normalization, as unnecessary,
irrelevant, premature and occasionally as "blackmail". 

Asked after the August 2003 session what the biggest obstacle in
the negotiations had been, Wang Yi, the the Chinese chairman of
the talks, replied, "The American policy towards DPRK
[Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, North Korea] - this is
the main problem we are facing." [8] 

Despite regular statements from Washington about the unity of
the five countries that sat with North Korea around the table,
disunity was characteristic. Even on the US claim of a North
Korean confession to a covert uranium enrichment program,
central to the case of North Korean bad faith, the US was unable
to persuade its Beijing conference partners. 

Late in 2004, even after a concentrated diplomatic effort by the
second Bush administration, both the Chinese foreign minister Li
Zhaoxing and the director of South Korea's National Intelligence
Service explicitly rejected the US claims. [9] By then, the
manipulation of intelligence to justify war on Iraq was well
known, and the intelligence on North Korea could not escape
similar suspicion. 

The US journal Foreign Affairs published an analysis by the
highly placed Washington observer, Selig Harrison, who
pronounced the evidence inconclusive, based on a deliberate
favoring of "worst case scenarios". [10] Evidence of North
Korean purchases of aluminum from Russia (and of failed attempts
to import it from Germany), and of the Pakistan-based A Q Khan
network (he is called the father of Pakistan's nuclear program),
point to attempts by North Korea to procure the materials for an
enrichment program, but its denial of actually having an active
and ongoing one is plausible. In any case, the US failed to
convince its partners of a crucial aspect of its case. 

What had begun in the Beijing conference forum as a US attempt
to mobilize a united front of pressure on North Korea began to
turn, under South Korean, Chinese and Russian "reverse
pressure", into a true, multilateral negotiating forum. Two
years into the negotiations, the US softened its rhetoric and
ceased its abuse, showing a readiness to talk with the North
Koreans and shifting from talk about the need for "regime
change" in North Korea to "regime transformation". 

In itself, it was a minor shift in terminology. In September,
fearful of becoming what Jack Pritchard, formerly the State
Department's top North Korea expert, described as "a minority of
one ... isolated from the mainstream of its four other allies
and friends in the six-party talks," [11] and facing an
ultimatum from the Chinese chair of the conference to sign or
else bear the blame for their breakdown, [12] the US yielded.
The parties to the Beijing conference reached a historic
agreement on principles and objectives. 

Under the September agreement, North Korea would scrap "all
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs", return to the
NPT and allow international inspections. In return, it would be
granted diplomatic recognition, normalization and economic
benefits, including, at "an appropriate time", a light-water
reactor. [13] 

Several major points were left unclear: whether "existing
programs" that North Korea would scrap included the enriched
uranium weapons program on which Washington insisted but whose
existence Pyongyang denied, and when and under what conditions
would North Korea become entitled to a civilian nuclear energy
program. The right to a civilian nuclear program is described in
Article 4 of the Non Proliferation Treaty as "inalienable".
South Korea, Russia and China took the view that North Korea
should enjoy its right to a civil, energy program once it
returned to the treaty, but the US head of delegation,
Christopher Hill, had ruled it out for North Korea. 

It was also notable that long-range missile programs and "
human-rights concerns" were not addressed in the September
agreement, although they remained major concerns in Washington
and had been vigorously argued by Japan and the United States.
The reluctance to include any reference to "human rights" on the
part of China in particular, which views American "human rights"
campaigns as a cloak for attempts to achieve regime change and
extend US influence, is well-known. 

As for South Korea, it is deeply concerned over human-rights
questions in North Korea, but takes the view that
non-interference and "Sunshine [openness and engagement with the
North]" policies are the best ways to achieve long-term
improvement. 

However vague and incomplete, the Beijing consensus of September
declared principles that conformed to international law,
recognized the interests of regional countries for a
denuclearized peninsula and responded to North Korea's
complaints. Yet the agreement held for little more than a day. 

In both Pyongyang and Washington, hardliners seized the
initiative to block possible reconciliation. North Korea made
its commitment to end its weapons program and return to NPT
safeguards dependent on getting a light-water reactor first.
[14] The US responded by insisting that no light-water reactor
could even be considered until all other steps necessary to
bring North Korea back into the NPT were complete. It then
summarily terminated the KEDO agreement (the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organization's light-water reactor project at
the heart of the 1994 pact, which had remained frozen, but not
cancelled, until then). [15] Pyongyang's view of "appropriate
time" for a North Korean light-water reactor was "now",
Washington's the distant future. 

One may well wonder why North Korea should have insisted on a
civilian energy program and in particular its claim to a
light-water reactor. There is a certain logic to it. North Korea
has a chronic energy problem, is rich in uranium and for long
has dreamed of using its resource to solve its problem. In the
1980s, when North Korean president Kim Il-sung succeeded in
persuading the Russians to provide him with a reactor, he
insisted on the newest, light-water (Russian VVER) type, rather
than a graphite one, ie, the most advanced technology rather
than the technology most compatible with a weapons program, and
was apparently extremely angry when he learned that they had
sent him the graphite model instead. [16] 

In the 1990s, Kim was persuaded to sign on to the agreed
framework because of the American promise to supply him a
light-water reactor. Yet the American government was reluctant
from the start, dragged its heels, and from 2001 the Bush
administration sought the first opportunity - which came in 2002
- to scrap it. In Beijing from 2003, North Korea again pressed
the case for a light-water reactor and the Bush team opposed it
until the very last minute and, when it agreed to it under
pressure, probably had little intention of ever honoring its
commitment. 

The wisdom, economics and safety of nuclear power may be open to
serious question, and the provisions of Article 4 of the NPT may
deserve revision, but it was scarcely credible for the US (and
Japan) to demand that North Korea alone should be deprived of a
right that was generally recognized and is even entrenched in
the very treaty that it is being told it must return to,
especially when both Japan and South Korea currently produce
about 40% of their electricity from nuclear power stations and
China is planning massive expansion in the sector. 

Whether a light-water reactor is the appropriate way to address
North Korea's acute energy crisis is another matter. Such
reactors are fabulously expensive, take years to construct and
would require many billions of dollars upgrading the national
grid before any electricity from it could be circulated. However
desirable as a symbol of prestige it might be, it seems hardly
appropriate to the needs of the economy. On both sides, the
light-water reactor becomes the irrational symbol of the deeper
issues of confrontation, lack of trust (on both sides), and
insecurity (on North Korea's side). 

Non-nuclear considerations
The Beijing agreement was only possible because in Washington,
for a time, pragmatic forces that gave priority to nuclear and
missile concerns over "regime change" and "human rights" were
briefly in the ascendancy. That ascendancy did not last long.
Following what the head of the Bush administration's North Korea
working group, David Asher, referred to as a "strategic
decision" at the highest level, policy direction shifted late in
2005 from realists in the State Department to a more highly
charged and highly-placed group directed by Vice President Dick
Cheney and coordinated by under secretary for Arms Control Bob
Joseph, who were determined to squeeze North Korea on every
front, especially in regard to its alleged illegal activities
and its human rights record. [17] 

The purport of the "strategic decision" seems to have been to
widen the scope of negotiations from nuclear matters, on which
some progress had been made, to the nature of the regime itself,
thus neutralizing the Beijing process, with the ultimate
objective not of normalizing relations but of toppling the
regime. 

Allegations of North Korean involvement in narcotics are far
from new. The Pong Su, a North Korean ship, was seized in
Australian waters in 2002 after unloading 150 kilograms of
heroin. Two men from the ship were convicted and sentenced to
long prison terms, although the captain and several crew members
were eventually acquitted. [18] 

However, the allegations of narcotics dealing were stepped up in
2005 and extended into a comprehensive campaign of denunciation
of North Korea as a criminal organization. In September, the US
government ordered suspension of transactions with a Macau-based
bank that was alleged to have helped North Korea launder drug
and counterfeit money and froze the assets of eight companies
accused of involvement in weapons sales, publicized defector
allegations of regime engagement in large-scale opium production
and accused North Korea of the manufacture and distribution of
counterfeit hundred dollar bills, "super notes". [19] 

The picture that emerged was of "an extensive criminal network
involving North Korean diplomats and officials, Chinese
gangsters and other organized crime syndicates, prominent Asian
banks, Irish guerillas and a former KGB agent". [20] 

The coordinator of the Bush administration's North Korea working
group described North Korea as "the only government in the world
today that can be identified as being actively involved in
directing crime as a central part of its national economic
strategy and foreign policy ... In essence, North Korea has
become a 'soprano state' - a government guided by a [Korean]
Workers' Party leadership whose actions, attitudes and
affiliations increasingly resemble those of an organized crime
family more than a normal nation. " [21] 

The newly appointed US ambassador to South Korea, Alexander
Vershbow, spoke in similar terms, denouncing North Korea as a
"criminal regime" responsible for "weapons exports to rogue
states, narcotics trafficking as a state activity and
counterfeiting of our money on a large scale". [22] 

"Normalization" with such a regime, Washington implied, was no
more likely than normalization of relations between the US
government and the Mafia. 

North Korea's Foreign Ministry spokesman on December 11
retaliated by referring to Vershbow's statement as a
"declaration of war", saying the talks were "suspended for an
indefinite period", and a few days later demanding Vershbow's
recall. 

The campaign on criminal charges, as that on uranium enrichment,
rested heavily on US intelligence sources. Given the profound
distaste for North Korea expressed by the president and the
record on Iraq, US intelligence was inevitably suspect. South
Korea's National Intelligence Service, which had good reason to
be well-informed on its northern neighbor, advanced the contrary
view, stating that North Korea had engaged in counterfeiting in
the 1990s, but not since 1998. [23] 

The US denunciation of North Korea on grounds of counterfeiting
was dubious for another reason. On Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's instructions, the Pentagon in 2003 drew up something
called "Operations Plan 5030", a revision of its earlier plan
for war against North Korea that featured destabilization,
including "disrupting financial networks and sowing
disinformation". [24] In other words, if North Korea today were
indeed engaged in counterfeiting hundred dollar bills, it was
taking a leaf out of the US's own book. Unlike criminal
counterfeiting, the roots of counterfeiting as a political
stratagem are themselves political, and resolution is only
likely to be accomplished by political processes, especially the
ending of hostilities. 
Since nobody would defend North Korea on its human-rights record
and few would deny the likelihood of its involvement in crime,
however, these were issues on which Washington could expect to
be able to mobilize support easily and on which diplomatic
resolution was highly unlikely. Congress in 2004 adopted
(following a unanimous vote in both houses) a "North Korean
Human Rights Act" and a special US envoy for North Korean human
rights took up office in August. 

In December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a
resolution jointly sponsored by Japan, the US and the European
Union, condemning North Korea for multiple human rights abuses.
Resolution 10437 of December 16 listed "torture, public
executions, arbitrary detention, the lack of due process,
extensive use of forced labor, high rates of infant malnutrition
and restrictions on humanitarian organizations ... severe
restrictions on freedom of religion, assembly and on free
movement within the country and abroad, as well as trafficking
in women for sexual exploitation, forced marriage and forced
abortions". 

As the focus shifted to "human rights", the Bush administration
became steadily more active in interventions along North Korea's
borders and via the airwaves, supporting an "East European"
model of undermining and destabilizing the regime by
non-military means. The right-wing Hudson Institute's Michael
Horowitz, one of the authors of the Human Rights Law, on
December 23, 2004 stated his belief that North Korea would
implode within the year. 

He also spoke of the possibility of finding generals within the
North Korean military prepared to work with the US and using
them to bring about a coup. "Defense Committee Chairman Kim
Jong-il won't be able to enjoy the next Christmas," he added.
[25] 

In a similar vein, Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise
Institute, another prominent neo-conservative intellectual,
wrote a November 2004 article entitled "Tear down this Tyranny."
[26] Like Horowitz, he directed his venom at both Korean
governments, referring to "the pro-appeasement crowd in the
South Korean government" who had turned that country into a
place "increasingly governed in accordance with graduate-school
'peace studies' desiderata." From this perspective,
"negotiation" with North Korea was out of the question. North
Korea had only to submit. To encourage it, the appropriate
diplomatic tool was a "coalition for punishment", according to
Victor Cha, who in December 2004 took up the position of
director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.
[27] 

Like American nuclear double standards, Japanese human-rights
rhetoric had a strong flavor of hypocrisy because of its lack of
a universal moral frame. Outrage at being the victim of North
Korean abduction of some dozen or so of its citizens two and a
half decades ago outweighed any consideration of its own
responsibility for the mass abductions and violations of Korean
human rights by Japan a few decades earlier and inclined it to
support the US cry for punishment. 

At the Beijing table, and in addressing the North Korean problem
in general, Japan's position was therefore closest to the
American. In some respects - as with its late 2002 suspension of
humanitarian food aid to put pressure on North Korea over the
abductions - it went further than the US, and within the
Japanese diet or parliament the call for explicit sanctions
moved toward the top of the political agenda. 

The focus thus shifted in 2005 from nuclear questions to
questions of criminality and human rights, and from Beijing,
where the US had found it increasingly difficult to call the
shots, to the global arena. The efforts of the regional powers -
South Korea, China and Russia - to achieve a negotiated solution
were thereby undercut. They may find it harder to resist a
campaign on crime and human rights issues than to continue
putting pressure on both North Korea and the United States to
resolve their nuclear differences. 

Prospects
However reprehensible North Korea may be, its grievances are
also serious. Its demand for relief from nuclear intimidation
should have been heeded long ago, and its plea for
"normalization" as the price of abandonment of its nuclear
program, often referred to as "blackmail", is not unreasonable.
For about 40 years, the world was indifferent to the nuclear
threat that North Korea faced from the United States, and only
when North Korea began to develop what in great power parlance
is described as a "deterrent" was world attention aroused. 

North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and the unfreezing of its
plutonium stocks and restarting of its graphite reactors in 2003
was destabilizing, and it must be persuaded to return to the
treaty and its accompanying obligations. However, the 1994
agreement broke down because of serious breaches on both sides. 

If North Korea has produced the weapons it proclaimed in March
2005, that would certainly be in defiance of the international
will as expressed in the NPT of 1968 and the Korean South-North
"Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" agreement of January
1992. If any country has the right to develop nuclear weapons as
a deterrent it has to be North Korea, because it has faced
explicit nuclear threat longer than any country on earth. 

Even the International Court of Justice (in a 1996 advisory
opinion) refused to rule that the attempted construction of
nuclear defenses by a state under threat of nuclear attack is
illegal. [28] North Korea now uses the only negotiating
instrument it possesses to press its case for removal of
intimidation, including nuclear intimidation, the lifting of
sanctions and economic and political normalization. Resolution
of these problems is the key to peace, cooperation and
prosperity in Northeast Asia. 

The steady pressure designed to force collapse and regime change
in North Korea is risky. The Pyongyang regime is unlikely to
surrender and if pushed to the wall is likely to resist. Given
the fact that, according to veteran journalist Seymour Hersh (in
the New Yorker, April 17), the US in 2006 was actively
considering use of nuclear weapons against Iran, it could hardly
be doubted that similar plans were in store for North Korea. 

Occasional glimpses of the US nuclear strategy for Korea are
scarcely reassuring. In the late 1970s, eager to reassure South
Koreans that it would stop at nothing in their defense, the
Carter administration drew up plans to respond to any move by
North Korean forces into South Korea by dropping nuclear bombs
to within nine miles of Seoul's post office. [29] 

The government in Seoul also recently released details of a 2005
study. [30] The use of US nuclear weapons in a "surgical" strike
on North Korea's nuclear facilities would, in a worst case
scenario, make the whole of Korea uninhabitable for a decade,
and if things worked out somewhat better, kill 80% of those
living within a 10-15 kilometer radius in the first two months
and spread radiation over an area stretching as far as 1,400
kilometers, including Seoul. The Pentagon's "Doctrine for Joint
Nuclear Operations", posted on the web in March 2005, made clear
that nuclear weapons were fully integrated with "conventional"
war fighting capacity. 

In the confrontation between the US and North Korea, the
observer is hard-put to think which is the more defiant of
international law and principle. Unlike the US, North Korea has
not committed aggressive war (at least in the past half
century), threatened any neighbor with nuclear weapons or
attempted to justify the practice of torture and assassination. 

The suffering and denial of human rights suffered by citizens of
North Korea can scarcely be greater than, say, those of
prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq or Guantanamo in Cuba. Plainly,
the North Korean state is far from international norms of
behavior but, seen in its historical context, it is not so much
"evil" as the fossilized encapsulation of the contradictions and
failures of the 20th century. 

By a paradoxical feed-back process, no factor so helps sustain
its dictatorship as US hostility, on which the Pyongyang regime
feeds, justifying and reinforcing itself. Likewise, it may be
said that no factor so helps the US maintain its military
dominance over East Asia, its bases in Japan and South Korea, as
the ability to point to possible North Korean aggression. 

If one rules out pressure designed to achieve regime change by
precipitating collapse, or by coup or invasion, because of the
chaos that would be likely to bring to the entire region, what
options are there? 

The South Korean, and to a lesser extent Russian and Chinese,
approach to North Korea constitutes an alternative. Instead of
squeezing North Korea, cutting trade and restricting the flow of
funds to it, and working covertly to achieve "regime change",
South Korea, and the regional powers China and Russia, were all
doing or planning deals, maximizing their cooperation and
engagement in the two-way flow of funds and trade, and steadily
incorporating North Korea into the networks of regional
cooperation: ie precisely the reverse of US and Japanese
practice. 

Setting aside fundamentalist hostility to North Korea, South
Korea began in the late 1990s to articulate an approach that it
summed up in the word: "Sunshine". Though despised by the US
government as wimpish, this approach has served to pry open
doors through which different winds now blow in North Korea. The
contest around the Beijing table, and the ongoing contest over
North Korea, represents essentially a contest between the
American attempt to achieve regime change by the mobilization of
a "coalition for punishment" and the Seoul approach to seek
windows through which "sunshine" can penetrate into North Korea. 

The people of South Korea won their own democracy though decades
of struggle against oppressive and criminal regimes that were
supported by the US and its close allies who now claim to stand
for freedom and democracy. 

If the people of North Korea are to achieve the same victory, it
is likely to be in their own way, in association with their
southern compatriots, and by peaceful means. The campaign to
"free" them is as likely to be disastrous in its consequences as
the campaign to "free" Iraq. The Beijing agreement of September
is the best agreement thus far and renewed pressure on both
Washington and Pyongyang to honor and extend it is the only way
forward. 

Notes 
[1] Mohamed ElBaradei, "Saving ourselves from self-destruction,"
New York Times, February 12, 2004.
[2] Jimmy Carter, "Saving nonproliferation," The Washington
Post, March 28, 2005. 
[3] "McNamara derides illegal nuke policies," AP, March 10, 2005.
[4] "The GOJ [Government of Japan] ... cannot help but rely upon
security policies which include nuclear deterrence." See
discussion between Japanese non-governmental organizations and
the arms control and disarmament specialists of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, The real thinking of Japan's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (MOFA).
[5] Morton Halperin, "The nuclear dimension of the US-Japan
alliance", Nautilus Institute, 1999.  
[6] Mohammed ElBaradei, "Seven steps to raise world security"
,The Financial Times, February 2, 2005. 
[7] IAEA, 2004 
[8] "South Korea, Russia wants diplomatic push, China blames US
policy," Agence France-Presse, September 1, 2003. 
[9] Selig Harrison, "Crafting Intelligence", March 2005. Japan
Focus No 229. 
[10] Selig Harrison, "Did North Korea Cheat?" Foreign Affairs,
January-February 2005, and at Japan Focus, No 186.  
[11] Charles L (Jack) Pritchard, "Six-Party Talks Update: False
Start or a Case for Optimism", conference on "The Changing
Korean Peninsula and the Future of East Asia", sponsored by the
Brookings Institution and Joongang Ilbo, December 1, 2005. 
[12] Joseph Kahn and David E Sanger, "US-Korean deal on arms
leaves key points open," New York Times, September 20, 2005. 
[13] For relevant documents, Korea and World Affairs, volume
XXIX, 3, Fall 2005, p 45-464. 
[14] North Korean Foreign Ministry Statement of September 20,
2005, ibid, p 458. 
[15] "US, Partners end N Korean nuclear project", Associated
Press, November 22, 2005. 
[16] Yoshida Yasuhiko (head of public relations at IAEA,
1986-1989, subsequently professor at Osaka University of
Economics and Law), "Keisuiro no tottoku ha Kin Nissei no
ikkun," Shukan Kinyobi, September 30, 2005, p 20-21. 
[17] Guy Dinmore and Anna Fifield, "US hardliners grab North
Korean Policy reins," The Financial Times, December 20, 2005. 
[18] Peter Gregory and Geesche Jacobsen, "Freighter crew cleared
of drug charges," Sydney Morning Herald, March 6, 2006. 
[19] "US accuses North Korea of $100 bill counterfeiting,"
Washington Times, October 12, 2005. 
[20] Josh Meyer and Barbara Demick, "N Korea running counterfeit
racket, says US," Sydney Morning Herald, December 14, 2005. 
[21] David L Asher, "The North Korean criminal state, its ties
to organized crime, and the possibility of WMD proliferation,"
Policy Forum Online, No 05-92A, Nautilus Institute, November 15,
2005.  
[22] "US says N Korea 'criminal regime'," BBC News, December 17,
2005. 
[23] Kwang-Tae Kim, "Agency: North Korea not counterfeiting,"
Associated Press, February 2, 2006. 
[24] Bruce B Auster and Kevin Whitelaw, "Upping the ante for Kim
Jong-il," US News and World report, July 21, 2003. 
[25] Seung-Ryun Kim, "Horowitz: North Korea will explode within
one year," DongA Ilbo, December 24, 2004. 
[26] "Tear down this tyranny," The Weekly Standard, November 29,
2004. 
[27] "Korea's Place in the Axis," Foreign Affairs, 81, May-June
2002, p 79-92. Quote here is from the book, Victor D Cha and
David C Kang, Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement
Strategies, New York, Columbia University Press, 2003, p 153. 
[28] International Court of Justice, Advisory opinion on the
legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, July 9 1996,
paragraph 97.
[29] Hans M Kristensen, "Japan under the Nuclear Umbrella: US
nuclear weapons and nuclear war planning in Japan during the
Cold War," Nautilus Institute, July 1999, "Vulnerability of
North Korean Forces," Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,
April-1977-March 1978, published under FOI by Nautilus
Institute, March 31, 2004. 
[30] Chosun Ilbo, June 6, 2005. 

Gavan McCormack is professor in the Research School of Pacific
and Asian Studies at the Australian National University and
(2003 to 2005) visiting professor at International Christian
University in Tokyo. His most recent book is Target North Korea:
Pushing North Korea to the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe, Nation
Books, 2004). He is also a Japan Focus coordinator. 

(Republished with permission from Japan Focus) 																	
  															 														
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 											  
*****************************************************************
 24 [NukeNet] "Divine Strake" is delayed; action at Nevada Test
 
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 17:10:34 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Hi, colleagues. This is from Vanessa in Utah and was on another list serve
on which I participate. I haven't seen it here yet -- so, please read on.
Peace, Marylia

Nevada blast delay a victory, critics say
Environmentalists, politicians see time as chance to probe risks
By Judy Fahys and Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Red tape has snagged the federal government's plans next month for a massive
explosion at the Nevada Test Site.
    Court papers filed by Pentagon and U.S. Energy Department lawyers say the
Divine Strake test will be delayed by three weeks.
    "The proposed detonation of Divine Strake will take place no earlier than
June 23," said Jay H. Horman, acting manager of the National Nuclear
Security Administration's Nevada Test Site office, in a statement presented
to the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on Monday.
    The postponement, rumored last week, marks a victory for critics and
opponents who say the federal government has yet to prove that the massive
explosion will not harm the environment or people downwind.
    The two federal agencies say they need to detonate the 700 pounds of
explosives - an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixture many times more powerful
than the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing - to calibrate conventional and nuclear
weapons needed to take out a deeply buried enemy bunker.
    Attorney Robert Hager in Las Vegas said even with new environmental
documents released Friday, it is not clear that Nevadans, including the
Winnemucca Indian Colony, and Utahns would be safe if fallout from past
atomic testing becomes airborne in the explosion.
    "We would like it to be a permanent delay," Hager said, "and we are
prepared to go forward [demanding better information on the environmental
assessment in court until we] put this matter to bed forever."
    The Energy Department's partner in the test, the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, denied any delay late Monday.
    "As far as we're concerned, we're still saying June 2," said Irene Smith,
a spokeswoman for DTRA in Washington. "We have not received any direction
that would cause us to change the June 2 date at this point."
    But Utah lawmakers, also eager for proof of the test's safety, applauded
the delay.
    "I'm concerned with getting all the facts out for public view," said U.S.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "So, this postponement may help accomplish that."

    "We would appreciate more time," said Peter Carr, spokesman for U.S. Sen.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We've been trying to work with DTRA to get the
information that we requested during our briefing and in our letter, and
we've had problems getting that information so far."
     Nevada lawmakers were likewise satisfied with the delay. "Congresswoman
[Shelley] Berkley shares the concerns of those in Utah about the safety of
this test and the larger issue of new nuclear weapons development,'' said
the Nevada Democrat's Communications Director David Cherry. ''Postponing
Divine Strake to allow time for safety questions to be answered is in the
best interest of the families of Nevada and Utah, and no argument has been
made as to why a delay would be harmful. Given the serious concerns raised
by Nevada and Utah officials, a postponement is the only responsible course
of action to take in this case. The burden remains on DTRA to prove this
test is safe, and they have yet to meet that requirement as far as
Congresswoman Berkley is concerned.''
     No information was available from the Justice Department's Washington
lawyers late Monday.
    But, according to Hager, the test must be delayed because the
government's environmental paperwork is not in order. After Hager's original
request for an injunction to stop the test, attorneys on both sides agreed
to a schedule that is being changed to accommodate new information.
    Monday, government lawyers promised a new "decision document" that would
address many of the environmental and safety questions surrounding the
explosion. But they said they could not submit the document until today and
that, in turn, means the court schedule for hearings and other key paperwork
must be changed.
    The additional information will be welcomed by environmental officials in
Utah and Nevada.
    Nevada air-quality regulators have said they don't have enough details
about the blast to decide whether they can issue a pollution permit required
for the blast. Meanwhile, regulators from Utah's air-quality and radiation
offices have been assigned to review the environmental assessment for
assurances that any toxic material from the 10,000-foot debris cloud will
stay within the Nevada Test Site borders, as the government has promised.
The court-wrangling may force yet another, practical delay in the
government's plans for Divine Strake.
     DTRA and NNSA officials said during a tour last month that they won't
load a mountaintop pit with explosives during Nevada's lightning season.
That season begins in mid-June and ends in mid-July.
    ###

Final note: environmental and peace groups and the Western Shoshone
continue to oppose the test. While the test is delayed, there will be an
action (with workshops and other cool things) at the Nevada TEst Site on
May 28. For details, contact Citizen Alert at (702) 796-5662. Or, cruise
the web and contact any of the action organizers. Peace, Marylia

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 25 [NYTr] Rumsfeld's assertions come back to haunt him
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:04:07 -0400 (EDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by anon @mouse.com (activ-l) - May 7, 2006

Contra Costa Times (no date, no URL supplied)

Rumsfeld's assertions come back to haunt him

Defense Secretary furiously backpedaling on WMD in Iraq and connections
between Saddam and al-Qaida

By Eric Rosenberg
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to rewrite history last
week when he denied making prewar claims that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld's latest effort at backtracking on his prewar rhetoric came last
Thursday at a contentious public forum in Atlanta when he faced a handful of
hecklers and an anti-war questioner in the audience, who charged that he had
lied about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, which was President
Bush's top rationale for war.

The Pentagon chief denied he had lied and said he had relied on official
intelligence reports about Saddam's weapons.

His questioner persisted: "You said you knew where they were." Rumsfeld: "I
did not. I said I knew where 'suspect' sites were."

The record shows that in the weeks preceding the war, Rumsfeld flatly
claimed to know the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD arsenal.

On March 30, 2003, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News
interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any
weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld said, according to an official Pentagon transcript.
"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces
control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass
destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area
around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

His comments in Atlanta were in line with an earlier attempted revision.

Six months after the invasion, on Sept. 10, 2003, Rumsfeld revisited the WMD
issue in remarks at the National Press Club. "I said, 'We know they're in
that area,'" referring to the weapons. "I should have said, 'I believe we're
in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was
our best judgment."

Rumsfeld on the Iraqis welcoming the invasion

On Feb. 20, 2003, a month before the invasion, Jim Lehrer asked Rumsfeld on
the PBS show "The News Hour" if he thought the invasion would "be welcomed
by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" "There is no question
but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld said, referring to American
forces in Iraq.

He then tried to merge the earlier invasion of Afghanistan with the 2003
invasion of Iraq.

"Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music,
cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the
al-Qaida would not let them do," Rumsfeld continued. "Saddam Hussein has one
of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know
that."

On Sept. 25, 2003 -- six months after the invasion and a day on which one
U.S. soldier was killed in an ambush, eight Iraqi civilians died in a mortar
strike and a member of the U.S.-appointed governing council died after an
assassination attempt five days earlier -- Rumsfeld was asked about his
pre-war claims.

"Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said
... they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor
Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off.

"Never said that," Rumsfeld said, according to the official Pentagon
transcript. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of
somebody else. You can't find anywhere me saying anything like either of
those two things you just said I said. I may look like somebody else."

Rumsfeld on the weapons within Saddam's WMD arsenal

Six months before the invasion, when testifying about Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 19, 2002,
Rumsfeld said Saddam "has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological
weapons. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of
chemical weapons," according to the committee's transcript.

That theme continued right up to the weeks before the invasion.

On Jan. 20, 2003, Rumsfeld told an audience at the Reserve Officers
Association that Saddam "has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons including VX, Sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism
and possibly smallpox."

At a Jan. 29, 2003, Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld claimed "the Iraqi
regime has not accounted for some 38,000 liters of botulism toxin, 500 tons
of sarin, mustard gas, VX nerve agent, upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical weapons," along with mobile biological weapons labs.

After U.S. inspectors failed to locate any weapons of mass destruction seven
months after the invasion, a reporter at a Pentagon news conference asked
Rumsfeld:

"In retrospect, were you a little too far-leaning in your statement that
Iraq categorically had caches of weapons, of chemical and biological
weapons, given what's been found to date? You painted a picture of extensive
stocks of Iraqi mass-killing weapons."

"Wait," Rumsfeld interjected. "You go back and give me something that talks
about extensive stocks. The U.N. reported extensive stocks. That is where
that came from. I said what I believed to be the case, and I don't -- I'd be
surprised if you found the word 'extensive.'"

On links between Saddam and al-Qaida

On Sept. 27, 2002, at a Chamber of Commerce lunch in Atlanta, Rumsfeld
asserted that the Bush administration had "bulletproof" evidence linking
Saddam and al-Qaida, the organization that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The assertion of a connection with the organization that perpetrated the
worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil provided a secondary rational for the
invasion.

But on Oct. 4, 2004, Rumsfeld revised his assertion, telling the Council of
Foreign Relations in New York: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong,
hard evidence that links the two."
 
) 2006 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources.
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 26 Las Vegas SUN: Mushroom cloud blast in Nevada delayed to June
23, agencies say 

Today: May 09, 2006 at 17:37:36 PDT 

By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A non-nuclear explosion expected to generate a
mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert will be postponed at least
three weeks, while a federal court reviews plans for the blast,
test officials said Tuesday. 

"The planned Divine Strake experiment will not be conducted
earlier than June 23," said Cheri Abdelnour, spokeswoman for the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency at Fort Belvoir, Va. The blast
was originally scheduled for June 2. 

Darwin Morgan, spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration in North Las Vegas, confirmed the date change but
declined further comment. 

In documents filed Monday with U.S. District Court in Las Vegas,
federal Justice Department lawyers sought to push back from May
23 until early June a hearing on a lawsuit filed by the
Winnemucca Indian Colony and several Nevada and Utah
"downwinders" to block the blast. The judge did not issue an
immediate ruling. 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection spokesman Dante
Pistone also said Tuesday his agency was reviewing a revised
environmental assessment that test planners filed Friday. 

The lawsuit, filed April 20 by Reno-based lawyer Bob Hager,
accuses the government of skipping public comment and failing to
complete required environmental studies before picking a date
and place for the explosion. 

It claims the planned 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb
will kick up radioactive fallout left from nuclear weapons tests
conducted from 1951 to 1992 at the Nevada Test Site and
irreparably desecrate land that members of the Western Shoshone
tribe have never acknowledged turning over to the U.S. 

The blast, some 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is expected to
generate a 10,000-foot mushroom cloud and a shock wave that
officials say will probably be felt in Indian Springs, about 35
miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

The federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency claims the explosion
will help design a weapon to penetrate hardened and deeply
buried targets. Critics have called it a surrogate for a
low-yield nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 27 Platts: US House Republicans push gas-use limits, big nuclear expansion
 
Washington (Platts)--8May2006
 
To prevent a crippling US energy crisis, two House Republicans 
Monday floated contentious proposals to restrict natural gas use 
by the electricity sector, rely primarily on nuclear power and 
increase fuel economy standards, saying the time had come for 
Congress and the White House to make "difficult choices" that 
have been put off for decades.

     In a report concluding a series of hearings held in 2005, 
House Government Reform Committee leaders said the current US 
energy situation was unlike any other because it was being driven 
by demand and that "market forces" often touted by members of 
their own party were insufficient to assure adequate supplies.

     "In our view, the energy crisis is potentially an economic 
and national security threat of such a magnitude that 
governmental action is needed to 'provide for the common defense' 
and the 'general welfare' of the United States," wrote Committee 
Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California. 

     As part of this, they said "natural gas must not be 
squandered on baseload and new electricity generation," but 
rather should be "reserved for industries that use it as a 
feedstock or for primary energy." They recommended that nuclear 
power be made the primary generation source, saying it would 
bring cheaper electricity and cleaner air.

     The congressmen also maintained that Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy standards must be strengthened to reduce growing US oil 
demand. "By not upgrading standards [over the last 20 years], the 
government has contributed to American manufacturers losing the 
competitive edge against foreign competition," they said.

     For similar news, take a trial to Platts Inside Energy at 
http://insideenergy.platts.com.
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 28 UPI: US signs nuke safety accord with Kazakhs
     
United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

5/9/2006 3:25:00 PM -0400                               

WASHINGTON, May 9 (UPI) -- The United States has signed a
nuclear material safeguards agreement with Kazakhstan. 

As part of the overall U.S. strategy to prevent nuclear and
dangerous radiological materials from falling into the hands of
terrorists, the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration announced Friday that it had signed an agreement
with Kazakhstan to create a partnership under the Second Line of
Defense program. 

U.S. Ambassador John Ordway joined Kazakhstan Customs Control
Committee Chairman Askar Shakirov in signing the accord. The
agreement will pave the way for NNSA to work collaboratively
with the Kazakhstan Customs Control Committee to install
radiation detection equipment at strategic border crossings
throughout Kazakhstan to identify and deter illicit nuclear or
radiological materials, the agency said. 

"Establishing strong border security partnerships with willing
partners such as Kazakhstan are critical to preventing the
smuggling of nuclear and other radioactive materials. The U.S.
and Kazakhstan share a strong commitment to keeping nuclear
weapons beyond the reach of terrorists," Secretary of Energy
Samuel Bodman said. 

Under the agreement, NNSA's Second Line of Defense program will
work together with Kazakhstan officials to install radiation
detection and integrated communications equipment and train law
enforcement officials to detect nuclear or radiological material
smuggled inside cargo. 

The Second Line of Defense program is a worldwide initiative
that uses detection and deterrence to minimize the risk of
nuclear proliferation, illegal trafficking and terrorism. It
works by installing radiation detection equipment and training
personnel at strategic international border locations, airports
and seaports.

� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 29 Salt Lake Tribune: We need realistic thinking about energy 

Article Last Updated: 05/08/2006 11:08:07 PM MDT 

By Llewellyn King 

WASHINGTON - I am an energy warrior. As a journalist, 
broadcaster and public speaker, I have been trying to 
proselytize my fellow Americans that without energy, everything 
else is moot. 

I almost inherited the energy bug from my father, who tried 
to convince oil companies that there was oil in the Southern 
Hemisphere (at the time, they believed there was none), and who 
understood that energy and quality of life march in lockstep. 

In those far-off days in Africa, when oxen were still used 
for transportation in rural areas and when mules were used for 
city haulage, the graphic need for abundant, portable energy was 
everywhere to be seen. 

The message in Africa was very clear: If you had a supply of 
energy, whether diesel or electric, you were rich and would get 
richer. A few fortunates in rural areas owned diesel-fueled 
mills to grind corn - a big advance to grinding corn by hand. 
They were the village plutocrats. 

The fortunate white settlers had it all over the African 
masses because they could afford, and therefore profit from, 
energy. They drove cars, read after dark, listened to radios, 
and enjoyed a quality of life many orders of magnitude superior 
to those who, by poverty and tradition, were without energy. 
When an electric power line was put up or a new gas station was 
opened, there were celebrations. No one worried about the 
aesthetics of the installations or the environmental 
consequences. 

I stored away this knowledge and forgot about it until 1969, 
when I began to write about energy in Washington. In 1973, I 
started The Energy Daily, which I published until last month. 

The energy disruptions of the 1970s brought into focus the 
role of energy in prosperity and well-being. It also brought 
into focus how few energy options there were, and how precarious 
oil supply, in particular, was then and is today. 

As today, there were wild schemes for new energy sources. 
They included magneto-hydrodynamics (electricity generated 
directly from coal) and ocean-thermal gradients (using ocean 
temperature variations to produce electricity). For 
transportation, the visionaries envisioned oil from coal; pure 
electric cars; and wind-propelled ocean freighters, relying on 
windmills on masts rather than sails. 

Oil prices were expected to rise to such heights that any 
scheme that produced energy, at whatever cost, would be viable. 

There were no silver bullets in the 1970s, but there was 
hope for a permanent, reliable supply of electricity through 
coal and nuclear power. Transportation remained a big problem. 

Today, things are both worse and better. There is still 
plenty of coal in the world and nuclear power looks as though it 
is headed for a resurgence. The rub is still with 
transportation, but the options are better. Hybrid technology is 
pointing the way to electric-powered vehicles. And conservation 
is recognized, in the highest levels of government as a 
necessary undertaking. 

The serious reality is this time around, the oil shortage is 
not manufactured. It reflects world supply and demand. 

The future lies with electricity and its use in 
transportation, from private vehicles to railroads. Where will 
it come from? Ideally, from nuclear power, cleaner coal 
combustion and wind. 

The trick is to deal with real-world challenges and proven 
solutions, and not to be distracted by the science fantasies 
that obscured the real options in the 1970s. 

Llewellyn King is the publisher of White House Weekly and 
host of the weekly PBS television show "White House Chronicle." 

© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 30 Salt Lake Tribune: Nevada blast delay a victory, critics say 

Article Last Updated: 05/09/2006 12:48:28 PM MDT 

Environmentalists, politicians see time as chance to probe risks 

By Judy Fahys and Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

Red tape has snagged the federal government's plans next month 
for a massive explosion at the Nevada Test Site. 

Court papers filed by Pentagon and U.S. Energy Department 
lawyers say the Divine Strake test will be delayed by three 
weeks. 

"The proposed detonation of Divine Strake will take place no 
earlier than June 23," said Jay H. Horman, acting manager of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Test Site 
office, in a statement presented to the U.S. District Court in 
Las Vegas on Monday. 

The postponement, rumored last week, marks a victory for 
critics and opponents who say the federal government has yet to 
prove that the massive explosion will not harm the environment 
or people downwind. 

The two federal agencies say they need to detonate the 700 
tons of explosives - an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixture many 
times more powerful than the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing - to 
calibrate conventional and nuclear weapons needed to take out a 
deeply buried enemy bunker. 

Attorney Robert Hager in Las Vegas said even with new 
environmental documents released Friday, it is not clear that 
Nevadans, including the Winnemucca Indian Colony, and Utahns 
would be safe if fallout from past atomic testing becomes 
airborne in the explosion. 

"We would like it to be a permanent delay," Hager said, "and 
we are prepared to go forward [demanding better information on 
the environmental assessment in court until we] put this matter 
to bed forever." 

The Energy Department's partner in the test, the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency, denied any delay late Monday. 

"As far as we're concerned, we're still saying June 2," said 
Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for DTRA in Washington. "We have not 
received any direction that would cause us to change the June 2 
date at this point." 

But Utah lawmakers, also eager for proof of the test's 
safety, applauded the delay. 

"I'm concerned with getting all the facts out for public 
view," said U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "So, this 
postponement may help accomplish that." 

"We would appreciate more time," said Peter Carr, spokesman 
for U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We've been trying to work 
with DTRA to get the information that we requested during our 
briefing and in our letter, and we've had problems getting that 
information so far." 

Nevada lawmakers were likewise satisfied with the delay. 
"Congresswoman [Shelley] Berkley shares the concerns of those in 
Utah about the safety of this test and the larger issue of new 
nuclear weapons development,'' said the Nevada Democrat's 
Communications Director David Cherry. ''Postponing Divine Strake 
to allow time for safety questions to be answered is in the best 
interest of the families of Nevada and Utah, and no argument has 
been made as to why a delay would be harmful. Given the serious 
concerns raised by Nevada and Utah officials, a postponement is 
the only responsible course of action to take in this case. The 
burden remains on DTRA to prove this test is safe, and they have 
yet to meet that requirement as far as Congresswoman Berkley is 
concerned.'' 

No information was available from the Justice Department's 
Washington lawyers late Monday. 

But, according to Hager, the test must be delayed because the 
government's environmental paperwork is not in order. After 
Hager's original request for an injunction to stop the test, 
attorneys on both sides agreed to a schedule that is being 
changed to accommodate new information. 

Monday, government lawyers promised a new "decision document" 
that would address many of the environmental and safety 
questions surrounding the explosion. But they said they could 
not submit the document until today and that, in turn, means the 
court schedule for hearings and other key paperwork must be 
changed. 

The additional information will be welcomed by environmental 
officials in Utah and Nevada. 

Nevada air-quality regulators have said they don't have 
enough details about the blast to decide whether they can issue 
a pollution permit required for the blast. Meanwhile, regulators 
from Utah's air-quality and radiation offices have been assigned 
to review the environmental assessment for assurances that any 
toxic material from the 10,000-foot debris cloud will stay 
within the Nevada Test Site borders, as the government has 
promised. The court-wrangling may force yet another, practical 
delay in the government's plans for Divine Strake. 

DTRA and NNSA officials said during a tour last month that 
they won't load a mountaintop pit with explosives during 
Nevada's lightning season. That season begins in mid-June and 
ends in mid-July. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

gehrke@sltrib.com 

© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 31 Salt Lake Tribune: Divine Strake - Q&A

Article Last Updated: 05/09/2006 12:51:26 AM MDT  

  What is Divine Strake? 
    
   A detonation of 700 tons of explosives that will shoot a
cloud of debris 10,000 feet in the air. 
    
    Why the test? 
    
   To help the government fine-tune its skill at destroying
underground bunkers. 
    
    Who opposes it? 
    
   Utah and Nevada political leaders, environmentalists and 
others, who question the need for the test and whether it will 
harm the environment. 
    
    What happens next? 
    
   Federal officials say they'll have documents ready, perhaps
by today, that will address concerns. 
    
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 32 KBCI 2: Emmett Downwinder Against 'Divine Strake' 

Boise, Idaho
                                                        
May 8, 2006

By Thanh Tan

  EMMETT -   

U.S. Defense officials tell KBCI CBS 2 News today they still
plan to detonate 700 tons of explosives south of Idaho next
month at the Nevada Test Site. 

The department says this is not a nuclear test, but Idahoans who
live in Emmett say they are concerned the explosion could
disturb some radioactive dust leftover from the Cold War, and
cause it to fly in the northern direction toward Gem County.
Officials confirm several nuclear tests were conducted at least
one mile away from the site where the June 2 explosion-- dubbed
Divine Strake-- is scheduled to be tested. 

The headline in Emmett's local newspaper, Messenger Index,
expressed a widespread concern among the community: "A new
generation of Downwinders?" 

"Emmett is almost directly north of the Nevada Test Site," Tona
Henderson, an Emmett resident who has tracked cancer in more
than forty members of her family, told KBCI CBS 2 News Monday as
she pointed at a graphic in the paper. 

Henderson and other who identify themselves as 'downwinders'
argue Cold War-era weapons tests caused a higher incidence of
cancer in their valley. 

Now they have a new fear: the planned detonation of 700 tons of
explosives next month. Henderson says she believes the resulting
dust cloud could kick up contaminated dirt in nearby test sites. 

"I don't want anything tested at the Nevada Test Site that's
going to put any of that soil into the air for anybody to
breath," she said. 

Nevada Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan tells KBCI CBS 2 News
that won't happen. 

"There is no radioactive contamination in the soil that will be
kicked up and brought into the air. Secondly, the dust cloud
itself is expected to dissipate," he said. 

But the government has a track record of being wrong. 

Last year, the federal government concluded Gem County was
indeed exposed to high levels of radioactive fallout throughout
the Cold War. But they also concluded there was no evidence to
prove the fallout led to a higher incidence of cancer. 

"No, I don't believe them. And it's not the fact that I'm
against the government. I'm just as patriotic as everybody else
around here, but no-- I don't believe this at all," Henderson
says. 

Morgan responds, "We would not be doing this experiment if there
was going to be a likelihood that radioactive contaminants would
be brought up into the dust cloud." 

Henderson says if the government is wrong again-- she's afraid
she could be next. 

"For me-- don't have a clue. I could be one of the ones who by
the time they're 60 years old, will have four forms of cancer,"
Henderson said, citing several family members and friends who
have suffered multiple types of cancer. "My children right now
have a chance. I have five children. I don't want that to happen
to them." 

CBS 2 News called Idaho's congressional delegation Monday. 

Rep. Mike Simpson did not respond. 

Rep. Butch Otter's spokesman says he has no comment. 

Sen. Larry Craig's office says he supports the test because it
is a means of fighting the war on terror and the possibility
terrorists may hide weapons of mass destruction in underground
bunkers. 

Sen. Mike Crapo's spokesman tells CBS 2 News Crapo favors a
potential delay of the test because there are still too many
unanswered questions. 

Send questions and comments to: comments@kbcitv.com


KBCI-TV Boise 140 N. 16th Street Boise, ID 83702 208-472-2222 
News Fax 208-472-2211 Sales Fax 208-472-2210 Admin. Fax 
208-472-2212

*****************************************************************
 33 Albuquerque Tribune: UNM's nuclear program will help shape future

Editorials
                     
May 9, 2006

While most of the country has taken its eye off the energy ball,
the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque gets gold stars for
maintaining, growing and enhancing a career path that more and
more seems vital to U.S. energy policy, economic stability and
national security. 

Unlike many universities that threw in the towel over the last
two decades, UNM's nuclear engineering program is alive, well
and prospering. 

As Tribune reporter Sue Vorenberg noted in Monday's article,
"Nuclear program is hot major at UNM," the university's nuclear
program has quadrupled undergraduate enrollment over the last
five years. 

In 2001, the program had 10 students, but today there are 40
enrolled. At the graduate level, growth has been less meteoric
but very respectable, from 25 students in 2001 to 35 today.
Graduates are finding jobs plentiful, and demand for their
talents will certainly grow as the nation and world recognizes
nuclear energy as a vital source of future electrical power. 

At a time when the nation is experiencing the crush of high
gasoline and natural gas prices, nuclear power once again is
being considered a crucial and transitional energy source for
the future. UNM's foresight, in part fueled by its proximity to
two of the nation's nuclear laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos,
where demand for nuclear expertise is high, is to be commended. 

The reasons are many. Investing in nuclear energy will: 

Reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and alter foreign policy
for the better. 

Help maintain existing generation capacity, as older and
environmentally damaging power plants are retired. 

Address the continuing and growing need for an abundant and
affordable source of electricity. 

Offer a reasonable environmental alternative to replace
coal-fired power plants that are major culprits in emitting tons
of carbon dioxide gas. Scientists agree the gas is driving up
the world's temperature to potentially catastrophic levels. 

It is true that the nation still has hard, serious work to do to
make nuclear power plants much safer and to deal with their
dangerous nuclear wastes. But while the Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl reactor accidents still have the public spooked by
nuclear energy, many scientists believe reassurances are
possible. In any event, nuclear power is the only existing,
on-demand energy source that can readily replace coal-fired
power, plant for plant. 

In this economic, security and energy environment, UNM's dean of
engineering, Joe Cecchi, is right when he says, "I think
students are beginning to realize that nuclear engineering and
nuclear power will play a role in meeting our global energy
demands." 

Give Cecchi and other UNM scientists and administrators credit
for having the vision and academic resolve to act in the best
interests of their students, the university and the nation. 

2006 � The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement|
*****************************************************************
 34 Uranium: Leave it in the ground! - Green Left Weekly, #667, May
 
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:28:07 -0500 (CDT)

Green Left Weekly, #667, May 10, 2006
(GLW is taking a two-week break
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p2b.htm>)

Uranium: Leave it in the ground!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p24.htm>

A May 2 Sydney Morning Herald article reported federal Treasurer Peter
Costello's warning that Australia may need to turn to nuclear power as
the `solution' to greenhouse-gas driven climate change. Costello has
joined the chorus of Coalition MPs calling for the establishment of a
nuclear-power industry in Australia, opening up another front in the
offensive to get the public to accept an expansion of uranium mining.
[Full article] <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p24.htm>

******************************************************************************
John Pilger: 'Support GLW!'
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/636/636p3b.htm>

We can't do it on our own! Green Left Weekly $250,000 Fighting Fund 2006
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/663/663p2.htm>

Enjoy reading Green Left Weekly? Want to help support our work? Why not
make an online donation <http://www.greenleft.org.au/fogl.htm>.
****************************************************************************

AUSTRALIA: Sack Howard, not young workers!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11.htm>

Around the country, high-school and university students are organising
meetings and distributing zines about `No Choices' - the Howard
government's anti-worker legislation. Buoyed by the victory of
students in France last month, students in Australia are organising to
strike on June 1 to protest the government's anti-worker laws. [Full
article] <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11.htm>

* Students fight back! Join the June 1 strike!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11b.htm>
* Staying relevant: unions and young workers
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11c.htm>
* Our Common Cause: Solidarity can stop Howard's attacks: Special
fight-back appeal
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p7b.htm>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

International News

# UNITED STATES: Millions of immigrants mark May Day with marches,
stay-aways <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p14.htm>
# INDONESIA: May Day marches target labour laws
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p14b.htm>
# FRANCE: Workers celebrate victory
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p14c.htm>
# VENEZUELA: A million march on May Day
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p15.htm>
# VENEZUELA: Australian unionists address May Day rally
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p15b.htm>
# BOLIVIA: Gas nationalisation met with jubilation
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p17.htm>
# SOLOMON ISLANDS: RAMSI: Helpem fren or reimposing colonial rule?
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/666/666p12.htm>
# SOLOMON ISLANDS: Popular revolt forces PM to quit
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/666/666p12b.htm>
# SOLOMON ISLANDS: Leaked email exposes RAMSI's neocolonialism
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p18.htm>
# EAST TIMOR: Further violence feared
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p18b.htm>
# NEPAL: Reconvened parliament will hold elections
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p17b.htm>
# IRAN: US pushes for mandatory enrichment ban
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p19.htm>
# IRAQ: US casualties top 20,000
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p19b.htm>
# ECUADOR: Chevron-Texaco's toxic legacy
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p16.htm>
# Cuba's battle of ideas
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p12.htm>
# People's Trade Agreements deepens solidarity
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p12b.htm>
# SOUTH KOREA: Social movements fight free trade agreement
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20.htm>
# UNITED STATES: 300,000 turn out for New York anti-war march
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20b.htm>
# Pramoedya Ananta Toer: Indonesia's greatest novelist
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p21.htm>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to join the GLW discussion list
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/>

Visit the Socialist Alliance website <http://www.socialist-alliance.org>

Resistance Books for all your radical literature
<http://www.resistancebooks.com>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Brief

# IRAN: Thousands join labour protest march
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20c.htm>
# UNITED STATES: Miami university strikers win
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20d.htm>
# MALAYSIA: Thousands march for May Day
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20e.htm>
# ZIMBABWE: Mass arrests at school fees protest
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p20f.htm>

Regular Features

# Loose Cannons <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p6d.htm>
# Write On: Letters to the Editor
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p8.htm>
# Our Common Cause: Solidarity can stop Howard's attacks: Special
fight-back appeal <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p7b.htm>

Comment and Analysis

# Sack Howard, not young workers!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11.htm>
# Students fight back! Join the June 1 strike!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11b.htm>
# Staying relevant: unions and young workers
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p11c.htm>
# Uranium: Leave it in the ground!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p24.htm>
# Case for socialism: West Papua and self-determination
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p10.htm>
# Green Left Weekly's $250,000 Fighting Fund 2006: Good neighbours on the
other side of the world
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p2.htm>
# Most unions to rally on June 28
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p3b.htm>
# June 28: we need a Sydney city rally too!
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p5.htm>
# Should we sell the Snowy?
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p7.htm>
# Political dismissal <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p7c.htm>
# Towards a technology singularity?
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p8b.htm>
# ARTV still suspended from community TV
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p9.htm>
# Defamation or reporting?
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p9b.htm>

Australian News

# Protestors take Rio Tinto to task
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p10b.htm>
# May Day marches say 'No' to Work Choices
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p2c.htm>
# Direct action overturns sackings
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p3.htm>
# Eyewitness reports on Palestine
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p5b.htm>
# Big turnout for Qld May Day
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p5c.htm>
# May Day in the Northern Rivers
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p5d.htm>
# Beaconsfield mine disaster was waiting to happen
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p6.htm>
# ACT Liberal bill a 'cop-out'
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p6b.htm>
# Growing support for Unity for Peace conference
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p6c.htm>
# West Papuan flag raised outside Indonesian embassy
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p3c.htm>
# NUS opposes VSU protest action
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4.htm>
# Palestine solidarity
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4b.htm>
# Celebrating the Pilbara strike
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4c.htm>
# Speak-out against cyanide shipments
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4d.htm>
# Blue Mountains May Day toast
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4e.htm>
# Fare discrimination <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4f.htm>
# Climate change forum
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4g.htm>
# Judge condemns Hicks' detention
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4h.htm>
# Transgender rights petition
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4i.htm>
# Protest against rip-off of guestworker
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p4j.htm>
# Don't attack Iran! <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p6e.htm>
# Clash over call for more ACT police
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p9c.htm>

Cultural Dissent

# Western terrorists' destruction and murder
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/667/667p22.htm>

Activist Calendar

# Check out the Activist Calendar here
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/calendar.htm>.

Click here for Green Left Weekly's copyleft details.
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/copyleft.htm>
About Green Left Weekly <http://www.greenleft.org.au/what.htm>
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back issues <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/back2006.htm>

Distribution details <http://www.greenleft.org.au/distribution.htm>

Links to other sites <http://www.greenleft.org.au/others.htm>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 35 Rediff: N-deal: 'Some compromises will be necessary'
 
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | 	May 09, 2006�10:52 IST

New York Democrat and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on
India and Indian Americans, Congressman Gary Ackerman, has in a
fiery tour-de-force exhortation warned that pushing the Indo-US
civilian nuclear agreement though Congress was not going to be
easy sledding.

Coverage: Indo-US Nuclear Tango

Speaking at a Congressional reception on Capitol Hill organized
by a coalition of Indian American community organizations as
part of a two-day blitz to garner support among lawmakers to
push through the legislation that could lead to the
implementation of the deal, Ackerman said, "It is something that
is going to take a lot of hard work. It is an issue that is
tremendously misunderstood by so many people and an issue of
such importance that it cannot be allowed to fail."

"First, in order to succeed, we need the full support of the
President and the White House," he said, adding, "Nothing
happens around here unless everybody's shoulder is really put to
the grindstone."
<STRONG>US expert warns lawmakers against rejecting
N-deal</STRONG>

Ackerman, a senior member of the House International Relations
Committee, noted that there was no doubt in his mind that this
legislation would go through some modification. However, he felt
that it could not be modified in such a way as to make it
completely unpalatable for the Indian side either. Some
compromises will be necessary, he said.

"But right now, there is no scheduled vote on any piece of
legislation before any committee of either house of Congress
with the sands of time rapidly running through that little
hour-glass as an important election is coming up and people's
minds and interests are on politics," he lamented.
<STRONG>Community leaders launch campaign for N-deal</STRONG>

"Just gathering in this wonderful room and talking to each other
is not going to cut it and what is really going to get this deal
through is to knock on all doors of every member of the Senate
and House of both parties -- to get a commitment to put this
thing on the calendar, to get commitments from people to put
their names on the legislation. Let no door go un-knocked upon,"
Ackerman told the Indian American community activists.

"Get the thing going with enough weight and members endorsing
supporting what is there without giving one excuse or another,
and then we will tinker at the margins as necessary to get it
through in our committee process," he said. 
<STRONG>N-deal likely to face opposition in NSG</STRONG>

Congressman Frank Pallone, New Jersey Democrat and the founder
and former co-chair of the India Caucus, said: "It is important
to inform the lawmakers as to why the community was visiting
with them, and bemoaned that a lot of members were not aware of
the (to solicit support for the nuclear deal) purpose of the
gathering."

"In future," he advised, "it is very crucial to make that point
-- that you want to come down here to talk about this agreement
and getting it posted in Committee and getting it brought to the
floor of the House."

"It is just as important to talk about it back at home, as it is
to come down to Washington. Members like to hear from their own
constituents. They do not necessarily like to hear from people
from a different state," Pallone added. 

 Copyright � 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at San Onofre Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-010           May 
9, 2006 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: 
opa4@nrc.gov  
  

annual assessment of safety performance at the San Onofre
nuclear plant during 2005. 

The 6:30 p.m. meeting at the Country Plaza Inn, Conference Room,
35 Via Pico Plaza, San Clemente, Calif., is open to public
observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be
available to answer questions on the plants safety performance,
as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe plant operation. 

Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the
nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV
Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an
opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local
officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting
with members of the community and answering any questions they
may have about our oversight. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available
on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sano_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

Overall, San Onofre operated safely during the period. The NRC
uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with
green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate
with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all
of the inspection findings and performance indicators for the
plant during the last quarter of 2005 were determined to be
green, San Onofre will receive a baseline (or routine) level of
inspections during the upcoming assessment period. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are emergency preparedness and radiological safety. 

Current performance information for San Onofre Unit 2 is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SANO2/sano2_chart.html.
Current performance information for San Onofre Unit 3 is
available at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SANO3/sano3_chart.html.
  



  


 	Last revised Tuesday, May 09, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 37 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Appeal of Diablo plan gains steam

| 05/09/2006 | 

Two Coastal Commission members raise questions about the
potential effects of replacing generators

 David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com

  + Staff report on appeal of Diablo Canyon�s steam generator
replacement project (PDF)

Two state Coastal Commissioners have joined local nuclear
activists in appealing Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant�s
planned steam generator replacement project. 

That makes it all but certain that the panel will scrutinize the
project later this year. 

Commissioners Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County supervisor, and Mary
Shallenberger, an at-large commissioner from Sacramento, have
joined the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and the local
chapter of the Sierra Club in raising questions about the
project. 

The commission will vote whether to schedule a full hearing on
the project when it meets Thursday in Costa Mesa. Allison
Detmer, a Coastal Commission staffer, said the full hearing is
likely to be sometime in the fall. 

Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the appeal and determined
that it raises legitimate questions about how the project will
affect public access, ocean life, water quality and geologic
safety. 

The project calls for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to replace
all eight of the plant�s 300-ton steam generators. The state
Public Utilities Commission and San Luis Obispo County have
already approved the project. 

The plant would have to shut down in 2014 if the deteriorating
steam generators are not replaced. With the new generators, the
plant could stay open until its operating license expires in
2025, or longer if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extends the
license. 

"We hope to have our permits by the end of the year," said PG
spokesman Jeff Lewis. "They haven�t given us any indication that
we won�t." 

The Coastal Commission is unlikely to block the project.
However, it may require PG to make additional environmental
concessions, such as increased coastal access. 

PG has already agreed to pay $1.5 million to improve public
access to the Point San Luis Lighthouse as part of its deal with
the county to move ahead with the project. 

Read the staff report on appeal of Diablo Canyon�s steam
generator replacement project:

*****************************************************************
 38 AP Wire: 100 Prairie Island nuclear plant workers exposed to radiation

05/09/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

RED WING, Minn. - About 100 workers at the Prairie Island
nuclear plant were accidentally exposed to low levels of
radiation last week during a routine maintenance and refueling
process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. 

The levels of exposure to workers involved in the May 2 incident
were low, said Arline Datu, spokeswoman for Nuclear Management
Co., which operates the plant. No radioactive materials were
released into the outside environment. 

Jan Strasma, a NRC spokesman for the region, said one of two
nuclear reactors at Prairie Island, in Red Wing, was shut down
for refueling and maintenance. Part of the work called for
ventilating two large tanks called steam generators, but the
proper filtering equipment was not in place and radioactive
iodine was released into the containment building, he said. 

"What was unusual about this was the number of workers
involved," he said. 

Workers, who were wearing coveralls and other protective
clothing, were evacuated for about 12 hours as the air in the
plant was cleaned, he said. The workers were also
decontaminated. 

They experienced "a very small percentage of the NRC radiation
exposure limits for plant workers." The annual limit considered
safe for some radiation workers is 5,000 millirems of radiation,
he said. 

Strasma said the highest exposure to any of the workers involved
in this incident was 17 millirems. In comparison, a dose of
radiation from an X-ray is 10 millirems, and a dose from a
mammogram is 30 millirems, said Datu. 

Strasma said federal officials are conducting a follow up
inspection and report. 

"We are looking at the circumstances of it. It is likely
something that was preventable," he said. 

Datu said proper venting and filters were in place at the time,
but the level of radioactive material released was higher than
anticipated and all of it was not captured by the equipment. 

The Prairie Island facility has received top marks in recent NRC
inspections, Strasma said. 

*****************************************************************
 39 BBC: Japan court backs nuclear plant
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 May 2006
 
By Chris Hogg BBC News, Tokyo   

[Protesters at the Rokkasho plant]                              

Locals worry about the effects of a quake on the plant                                                               

A legal challenge brought by Japanese people living near a 
uranium enrichment plant in an attempt to get it shut down has 
failed. 

Locals living near the plant in Rokkasho claimed the government 
carried out inadequate safety checks before giving the plant a 
licence. 

But a high court judge has ruled that an earlier decision by a 
lower court, rejecting their claims, should stand. 

Fifty-two nuclear power plants supply more than a third of 
Japan's energy. 

The facility at Rokkasho, northern Japan, was one of the first 
commercially operated plants in the country to produce enriched 
uranium for nuclear power generation. It started operating 14 
years ago. 

This lawsuit was first filed three years before the facility 
opened. People living nearby complained the government should not 
have given it a safety licence. 

They said it was vulnerable to large earthquakes or to plane 
crashes. 

The legal arguments have continued ever since. Most recently the 
courts were told that the plant was designed to withstand tremors 
with a seismic intensity of five or more, but it was possible 
that earthquakes far greater could occur near the facility. 

A judge however ruled that the government's safety examination 
had been flawless. 

His decision has now been upheld by the higher court and the 
residents' efforts to have the plant closed rejected. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 40 Platts: DOE issues rule on risk insurance for new nuclear reactors
 
Washington (Platts)--8May2006
 
The Energy Department has issued an interim final rule intended 
to speed new nuclear plant construction by offering financial 
assurances that government obstacles or private litigation will 
not delay the work. 

     The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the DOE program, 
which provides up to $500 million in insurance for each of the 
first two new advanced reactors to be licensed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and up to $250 million for the next four. 

     Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, 
told reporters Monday the rule is intended to "remove regulatory 
uncertainty" for sponsors of new plants. The idea, he said, was 
to "reward the pioneers of the nuclear energy renaissance rather 
than punish them." 

     A final version of the rule is due in August. 

     The interim final rule, issued Saturday, establishes a 
two-step process for obtaining risk insurance. First, a sponsor 
would enter into a conditional agreement with DOE after it has 
applied to NRC for a combined construction and operating license. 
Once NRC issues a license, the sponsor and DOE would enter into a 
contract providing the insurance. 

     The DOE rule identifies events that would be covered by the 
risk insurance, including delays associated with NRC's review of 
inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria. Other types 
of covered events include certain delays associated with lawsuits 
in state, federal and tribal courts.

     For similar news, take a trial to Platts Inside Energy at
 

Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 41 Platts: Westinghouse to supply nuclear services to south Texas project

London (Platts)--8May2006
 
Westinghouse will supply nuclear services to the two south Texas 
project units under a five-year alliance agreement, potentially 
worth more than $150 million, with STP Nuclear Operating Co. 

Under the agreement, which Westinghouse Electric Co. announced 
May 4, will be STPNOC's exclusive supplier for outage services, 
NSSS engineering services, spare parts, replacement equipment, 
major hardware upgrades, digital instrumentation and control 
upgrades, and alloy 600 programs beginning in March 2006. 

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
    
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       




*****************************************************************
 42 AFP: New nuclear power plants not needed in Britain - WWF 

 Tue May 9, 12:37 PM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Britain can meet its future energy needs and 
reduce polluting emissions without building nuclear power 
stations, according to a report for the WWF. 

 "The Balance of Power", commissioned from independent
consultants ILEX by the WWF environment group, showed that by
cutting energy waste and increasing renewable energy sources,
the power sector could reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2025. 

"This report shows that a renewed focus on reducing demand for
electricity and increasing the use of renewable energy and
microgeneration would make new nuclear power redundant," said
Keith Allott, WWF's head of climate change. 

"We can not only meet energy demand without resorting to new
nuclear power, but with the right measures we can reduce
emissions from electricity generation too." 

WWF has submitted the report to the government's review into
Britain's future energy supplies, which is due out later this
year and is widely expected to recommend reviving Britain's
nuclear power programme. 

Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> , who is widely believed to be in
favour of building new nuclear power plants, ordered the review
late last year. 

The WWF report looked at future carbon dioxide emissions and
energy generation under the assumption that no new nuclear power
plants were built. 

It said modest measures to stem the growth of electricity demand
and increase renewable energy to 25 percent of total production
by 2025 could help the power sector to cut emissions by 55
percent from 1990 levels. 

WWF is urging the government to introduce year-on-year limits on
pollution from the power sector. 

Britain currently has around a dozen nuclear power stations,
most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing around 25
percent of the kingdom's electricity. Natural gas provides about
40 percent. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 43 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 
 
                         FR Doc E6-6995 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26985] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-114]                         
 
2, and 3 Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License 
Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 for an Additional 20-Year Period 
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (the licensee), the operator of the Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Unit 1, 2, and 3). 
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33 authorizes 
operation of BFN, Unit 1, by the licensee at reactor core power 
levels not in excess of 3293 megawatts thermal (1100 megawatts 
electric), in accordance with the provisions of the BFN renewed 
license and its Technical Specifications. Renewed Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-52 authorizes operation of BFN, Unit 2, 
by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 
3458 megawatts thermal (1155 megawatts electric), in accordance 
with the provisions of the BFN renewed license and its Technical 
Specifications. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-68 
authorizes operation of BFN, Unit 3, by the licensee at reactor 
core power levels not in excess of 3458 megawatts thermal (1155 
megawatts electric), in accordance with the provisions of the BFN 
renewed license and its Technical Specifications.
 
BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, are located on the north shore of Wheeler 
Reservoir in Limestone County, Alabama, at Tennessee River Mile 
294. The site is approximately 30 miles west of Huntsville, 
Alabama; it is also 10 miles northwest of Decatur, Alabama, and 
10 miles southwest of Athens, Alabama. The licensee's application 
for the renewed licenses complied with the standards and 
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 
Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 
Chapter I, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which 
are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action 
involving the proposed issuance of the renewed licenses and of an 
opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of the 
renewed licenses was published in the Federal Register on March 
10, 2004 (69 FR 11460).
 
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the 
Tennessee Valley Authority license renewal application for Browns 
Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 dated December 31, 2003, 
as supplemented by letters dated through April 4, 2006; (2) the 
Commission's safety evaluation report (NUREG-1843 and Supplement 
1), published in April 2006; and (3) the Commission's final 
environmental impact statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 21), 
published in June 2005. These documents are available at the NRC 
Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, and can be viewed from the NRC 
Public Electronic Reading Room at 
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html ).
 
Copies of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, 
and DPR-68 may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Director, Division of License Renewal. Copies of the BFN, Units 
1, 2, and 3, Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1843 and Supplement 
1) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 21) may be purchased from the National Technical 
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 
22161-0002 (http://www.ntis.gov ), 703-605-6000, or the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov), 202-512-1800. All orders should 
clearly identify the NRC publication number and the requester's 
Government Printing Office deposit account number or a VISA or 
MasterCard number and expiration date.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6995 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 44 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc E6-6997 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26984-26985] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-113]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and 
solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: ``Generic Customer 
Satisfaction Surveys and NRC Form 671, Request for Review of a 
Customer Satisfaction Survey Under Generic Clearance.'' 3. The 
form number if applicable: NRC Form 671. 4.How often the 
collection is required: On occasion. 5. Who will be required or 
asked to report: Voluntary reporting by the public and NRC 
licensees.
 
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 1,770. 7. The 
estimated number of annual respondents: 1,770. 8. An estimate of 
the number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement 
or request: 393 hours. (.222 hours per response). 9. An 
indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: 
Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: Voluntary customer satisfaction surveys will be 
used to contact users of NRC services and products to determine 
their needs, and how the Commission can improve its services and 
products to better meet those needs. In addition, focus groups 
will be contacted to discuss questions concerning those services 
and products.
 
Results from the surveys will give insight into how NRC can make 
its services and products cost effective, efficient, and 
responsive to its customer needs. Each survey will be submitted 
to OMB for its review. A copy of the final supporting statement 
may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, 
MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World 
Wide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by June 8, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be
 
[[Page 26985]] given to comments received after this date. John 
Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(3150-0014), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e- mailed to 
John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or submitted by telephone at (202) 
395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6997 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 45 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
 
                         FR Doc 06-4364 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26995] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-117]                         
 
Date: Weeks of May 8, 15, 22, 29, June 5, 12, 2006.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and closed.
 
Matters To Be Considered: Week of May 8, 2006 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the Week of May 8, 2006.
 
Week of May 15, 2006--Tentative Monday, May 15, 2006 12:55 p.m. 
Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Pa'ina 
Hawaii, LLC, LBP-06-4, 63 NRC 99 (Jan. 24, 2006) (admitting three 
safety contentions and standing); LBP-06-12, 63 NRC--(March 24, 
2006) (Tentative).
 
1 p.m. Briefing on Status of Implementation of Energy Policy Act 
of 2005 (Public Meeting) (Contact: Scott Moore, (301) 415-7278.) 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address, 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
3:30 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (closed--ex. 2). 
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency 
Action Review Meeting-- Reactors/Materials (Public Meeting) 
(Contact: March Tonacci, (301) 415- 4045.) This meeting will be 
webcast live at the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of May 22, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:30 a.m. 
Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1). 1:30 p.m. All 
Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) Marriott Bethesda North Hotel, 
Salons, D-H 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852.
 
Week of May 29, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1 p.m. 
Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1). Week of June 5, 
2006--Tentative Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9:30 a.m. Discussion of 
Security Issues (closed--ex. 1 & 3). Week of June 12, 
2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of 
June 12, 2006.
 
* * * * * * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to 
change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call 
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: 
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: May 4, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-4364 Filed 5-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; FirstEnergy Nuclear 
 
                         FR Doc E6-6999 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26985-26994] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-115]                         
 
Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Draft 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum 
Reactor Power Level AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC). ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment as 
part of its evaluation of a request by FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company (FENOC), et al., for a license amendment to 
increase the maximum rated thermal power at Beaver Valley Power 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2) from 2689 
megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 2900 MWt. This represents a power 
increase of approximately 8 percent for BVPS-1 and 2. As stated 
in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the 
Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the 
NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement if it 
believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the 
human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant 
impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU 
application for BVPS-1 and 2 or from the NRC staff's independent 
review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental 
review in an environmental assessment (EA). Also, in accordance 
with the position paper, this Draft Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact is being published in the 
Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.
 
Environmental Assessment Plant Site and Environs The EPU would 
apply to the facilities at the BVPS-1 and 2 site, located on the 
south bank of the Ohio River in
 
[[Page 26986]] Shippingport Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. 
The station site consists of 449 acres and it lies approximately 
25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, one mile 
southeast of Midland, Pennsylvania, 5 miles east of Liverpool, 
Ohio, 8 miles east of Newell, West Virginia, and 6 miles 
southwest of Beaver, Pennsylvania.
 
BVPS-1 and 2 are located within the Pittsburgh Low Plateau 
Section of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province, which 
is characterized by a smooth, upland surface cut by numerous 
narrow, relatively shallow river valleys. The site region 
encompasses portions of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, 
and the site elevation ranges from 660 to 1,700 feet above sea 
level.
 
The major river systems in the region consist of the Monongahela, 
Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, and their tributaries. The Ohio River 
is formed by the juncture of the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers 
at Pittsburgh, and extends 981 river miles to Cairo, Illinois, 
where it joins the Mississippi River. The Ohio River and lower 
portions of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers are maintained 
and controlled by a series of locks and dams operated by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers.
 
BVPS-1 and 2 consist of two light-water cooled, pressurized-water 
reactors (PWRs) with a current authorized maximum reactor core 
power level output of 2689 MWt for each unit. The two units 
employ a closed- loop cooling system that includes a natural 
draft cooling tower (CT) (one per unit) to dissipate waste heat 
to the atmosphere. The BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 circulating water 
systems (CWSs) are non-safety related and provide cooling water 
for the main condensers of the turbine-generator units. The 
closed-loop systems consist of CT pumps, pumphouses, CWS piping, 
main condenser vacuum priming systems, mechanical tube cleaning 
system (BVPS-2 only), natural draft, hyperbolic CTs for removal 
of waste heat from the main condensers, and associated hydraulic 
and electrical equipment.
 
Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated October 4, 
2004, FENOC proposed an amendment to the operating licenses for 
BVPS-1 and 2 to increase the maximum rated thermal power level by 
approximately 8 percent, from 2689 MWt to 2900 MWt. The change is 
considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power 
level more than 7 percent above the original licensed maximum 
power level. This proposed action would allow the heat output of 
the reactor to increase, which would increase the flow of steam 
to the turbine. This would allow the turbine-generator to 
increase the production of power and would increase the amount of 
waste heat delivered to the condenser, resulting in an increase 
in the circulating water condenser discharge temperature, 
evaporation flow rates, and blowdown concentrations. Moreover, 
the temperature of water discharged from the service water 
systems (SWSs) to the Ohio River would increase slightly due to 
the increased heat load, but flow rates would remain unchanged.
 
In April 2001, the NRC approved a FENOC request to increase the 
licensing basis core power level of BVPS-1 and 2 by 1.4 percent; 
no other power uprates have been requested or granted for this 
site.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action The purpose and need for the 
proposed action (EPU) is to increase the maximum thermal power 
level of BVPS-1 and 2, thereby increasing the electric power 
generation. The increase in electric power generation would give 
FENOC the capability to provide lower cost power to its customers 
than can be obtained otherwise in the current and anticipated 
energy market.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action At the time of 
issuance of the operating license for BVPS-1 and 2, the NRC staff 
noted that any activity authorized by the license would be 
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final 
Environmental Statements (FESs) for the operation of BVPS-1 and 
2, which were issued in July 1973 for BVPS-1 and September 1985 
for BVPS- 2. This EA summarizes the radiological and 
non-radiological impacts in the environment that may result from 
the proposed action.
 
Non-Radiological Impacts Land Use Impacts The potential impacts 
associated with land use for the proposed action include impacts 
from construction and plant modifications. FENOC or its 
subsidiary companies own all land within the BVPS-1 and 2 
exclusion area except the Ohio River proper; onsite property 
owned by Duquesne Light (i.e., the switchyard tract, which is 
jointly owned by Duquesne Light and FENOC); the eastern portion 
of Phillis Island, owned by the U.S. Government and administered 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and 7.4 acres of the 
Freeport Development Company (now Laurel Ventures) tract, located 
along the southern BVPS-1 and 2 site boundary. However, 
appropriate controls are in place to restrict use of these lands. 
In case of an emergency that threatens persons or the 
environment, FENOC has the authority to enter the switchyard 
(after notifying Duquesne Light) to take action to prevent 
damage, injury, or loss. Limited hunting is permitted on Phillis 
Island, but no public assembly is allowed there. Similarly, the 
Freeport Development Company property restricts use of this land 
by current and future purchasers or leasers.
 
The Beaver County Planning Commission estimates that forest land 
accounts for 49.5 percent (140,840 acres) of all land in Beaver 
County, while agricultural lands account for 26.2 percent (73,892 
acres). Forested lands are prevalent in western Beaver County.
 
Residential lands account for 15.5 percent (44,050 acres), while 
industrial, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses 
account for only 4.1 percent of the County's land area. Included 
in these industrial lands are brownfield sites of former steel 
manufacturing operations, including sites along the Ohio River.
 
Several public lands in the vicinity of the BVPS-1 and 2 site are 
dedicated to wildlife management and recreation. These public 
lands include a portion of the Ohio River Islands National 
Wildlife Refuge, Raccoon Creek State Park, Beaver Creek, State 
Forest, Brady Run County Park, and several areas of the 
Pennsylvania Game Lands.
 
Shippingport Community Park, a 7.5-acre public recreation 
facility, is located along State Route 3016 in Shippingport. The 
Shippingport Boat Ramp is located approximately 800 feet upstream 
from the BVPS-1 and 2 site eastern boundary on the Ohio River.
 
Phillis Island and Georgetown Island are located in the BVPS-1 
and 2 site vicinity and have been designated as part of a 
National Wildlife Refuge. Phillis Island (approximately 39 acres) 
is situated approximately 400 feet offshore of the downstream 
portion of the BVPS-1 and 2 site and lies partially within the 
BVPS-1 and 2 exclusion area. The 16.2-acre Georgetown Island is 
located approximately three river miles downstream from the 
BVPS-1 and 2 site.
 
The Municipality of Shippingport Borough has zoned the BVPS-1 and 
2 site as industrial except for the tract on which the Training 
and Simulator Buildings are located, which is zoned business. 
Some land adjacent to the site, south of State Route 168, is 
zoned residential. However, this area is small,
 
[[Page 26987]] consists of steep, wooded slopes, and has limited 
potential for growth. The U.S. Coast Guard has established a 
Restricted Use Zone encompassing all waters extending 200 feet 
from FENOC's BVPS-1 and 2 property line along the southeastern 
shoreline of the Ohio River. Entry of persons or vessels into 
this Restricted Use Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Pittsburgh or his designated 
representative.
 
The proposed EPU would not require any land disturbance to the 
BVPS-1 and 2 site. The EPU would not significantly affect 
material storage, including chemicals and fuels stored on site. 
The most significant modifications that would take place to 
support the EPU include replacement of the high-pressure turbine 
rotor, changes to the transformer cooler, replacement of the 
BVPS-1 steam generators (SGs), and replacement of the CT fill. 
None of these modifications would result in changes in land use.
 
FENOC does not plan to conduct major refurbishment or significant 
land-disturbing activities to implement the EPU. FENOC has stated 
that there would be no refurbishment-related impacts on historic 
and archaeological resources associated with the EPU. The 
proposed EPU would not modify the current land use activities at 
the site beyond that described in the July 1973 or the September 
1985 FESs related to the operation of BVPS-1 and 2. Therefore, 
the staff concludes that the land use impacts of the proposed EPU 
are bounded by the impacts previously evaluated in the FESs.
 
Cooling Tower Impacts The potential impacts associated with 
increased CT operation for the proposed action include aesthetic 
impacts due to the increased moisture content of the air. Other 
impacts include fogging, icing, thermal, suspended solids, and 
noise. BVPS-1 and 2 employ a closed-loop cooling system including 
a natural draft CT (one per unit) to dissipate waste heat to the 
atmosphere. The two CTs are natural draft, hyperbolic, reinforced 
concrete shells, approximately 500 feet high.
 
There would be roughly a 10-percent increase in the evaporation 
rates from the CTs as a result of the EPU. The wide dispersion 
and elevated CT exhaust plumes of the natural draft CTs at BVPS-1 
and 2 would continue to provide an advantage in mitigating any 
fogging and icing potentials. The fogging potential of the CT 
plumes would be slightly diminished compared to the existing 
plume trajectories.
 
The EPU higher heat load would increase the CT exit velocity and 
temperature. The plumes would be more buoyant and have a slightly 
higher upward velocity. This reduces the potential for fogging. 
The icing potential of the plumes during the EPU operation may 
increase slightly, with a maximum of 8 percent more icing than 
indicated by the original plume studies in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs). This results in an additional 
thickness of 0.002 inches compared to the original estimates. 
However, the original icing estimates were based on very high 
drift rates and depositions that, according to FENOC, have not 
occurred in the past 28 years.
 
Therefore, no significant fogging or icing would occur as a 
result of the EPU.
 
The increased plant load due to the EPU would increase the CT 
blowdown discharge temperature to the Ohio River by approximately 
3 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). The CT evaporation rate would 
increase by up to an additional 10 percent, which would reduce CT 
blowdown flow. Concentrate solutions and suspensions in the 
discharged water are expected to increase, and yield up to 10 
percent more solids deposition in the CTs. The National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit specifies that the 
discharge may not change the temperature of the receiving stream 
by more than 2 [deg]F in any one hour. The data evaluated 
indicate that the post-EPU discharges would not challenge this 
NPDES permit parameter. Based on Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) standards, the water temperature at representative 
locations in the Ohio River shall not exceed the monthly maximum 
limits by more than 3 [deg]F. The month of January has the most 
limiting EPA maximum temperature of 50 [deg]F. In addition, the 
data evaluated indicate that the evaporation related to operation 
at EPU conditions would not cause the mass or concentration 
parameters of the CT blowdown to exceed the BVPS-1 and 2 NPDES 
permit parameter limits. Furthermore, the additional 10-percent 
increase in suspended solids would not cause significant impacts 
to the Ohio River, and sedimentation from the CTs would be 
removed during refueling outages.
 
The aesthetic impacts associated with increased CT operation 
would not change significantly from the aesthetic impacts 
associated with the current CT operation. No significant increase 
in noise is anticipated for CT operation because there would be 
no change in flowrate and no new CT construction. The fogging 
potential of the CT plumes of the natural draft CTs at BVPS-1 and 
2 is slightly diminished compared to the existing plume 
trajectories due to higher heat load, which would increase the CT 
exit velocity and temperature, making the elevation of the plumes 
even further from the ground. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 
that there are no significant impacts associated with increased 
CT operation for the proposed action.
 
Transmission Facility Impacts The potential impacts associated 
with transmission facilities for the proposed action include 
changes in transmission line corridor right-of-way maintenance 
and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed 
EPU would not require any physical modifications to the 
transmission lines. FENOC implements a specific program for 
ensuring continued safe and reliable operation of these 
transmission lines, continued compatibility of land uses on the 
transmission corridors, and environmentally sound maintenance of 
the corridors.
 
FENOC conducts transmission line corridor right-of-way 
maintenance through helicopter inspections of transmission lines 
to determine the physical condition of towers, conductors and 
other equipment; status of vegetation communities; land use 
changes; and any encroachments on the line. On-foot inspections 
are conducted to manage vegetation growth, and crews are sent to 
problem areas to make onsite inspections and repairs, as needed. 
Routine vegetation maintenance of the rural transmission line 
corridors is managed to promote a diversity of shrubs, grasses, 
and other groundcover that provides wildlife food and cover. 
Maintenance efforts prescribed for transmission corridors include 
the removal, pruning, and chemical control of woody vegetation as 
necessary to ensure adequate clearance for safe and reliable 
operation of the line. Management of the corridor edge and beyond 
involves identification and removal of hazardous trees. These 
maintenance procedures are not expected to change as a result of 
the proposed action.
 
There would be an increase in current passing through the 
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of 
the proposed EPU. The increased electrical current passing 
through the transmission lines would cause an increase in 
electromagnetic field strength. The National Electric Safety Code 
(NESC) provides design criteria that limit hazards from 
steady-state currents induced by transmission line 
electromagnetic fields. The NESC limits the short- circuit 
current to ground to less than 5 miliamperes (mA). FENOC
 
[[Page 26988]] conducted an independent analysis of each of the 
transmission lines to determine conformance with the current NESC 
standard. As a result of the EPU, FENOC does not expect changes 
in operating voltage or other parameters for these lines that 
would affect conformance status with respect to the NESC 5-mA 
standard. Currently, all circuits at BVPS-1 and 2 meet NESC 
requirements for limiting induced shock.
 
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the 
proposed action would not change significantly from the impacts 
associated with current plant operation. No new transmission 
lines are expected to be constructed as a result of the EPU. 
There would be no physical modifications to the transmission 
lines, transmission line rights-of-way maintenance practices 
would not change, there would be no changes to transmission line 
rights-of-way or vertical clearances, and electric current 
passing through the transmission lines would increase only 
slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 
significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for 
the proposed action.
 
Water Use Impacts Water used for BVPS-1 and 2 site operations 
consists of raw water from the Ohio River and potable water from 
the Midland Borough Municipal Water Authority (MWA). Water 
withdrawn from the Ohio River is used primarily for cooling, 
initially as once-through non-contact cooling water for primary 
and secondary heat exchangers in BVPS-1 and 2. Most of this water 
is then used as makeup to the CWSs, which provide cooling for the 
main condensers, to replace water lost from evaporation and drift 
from the CTs, and to maintain dissolved solids at design 
equilibrium. A small fraction of water withdrawn from the river 
is used as feedwater for production of demineralized water (for 
use in nuclear steam supply system primary and secondary cooling 
loops) and other purposes. Cooling water not consumed by 
evaporation and drift losses and other treated wastewater streams 
is ultimately discharged back to the Ohio River in accordance 
with the NPDES permit for the BVPS-1 and 2 site issued by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
 
Municipal water from MWA supplies the station domestic water 
distribution system. Sanitary wastewater is treated in the BVPS-1 
and 2 sewage treatment plants. Though the BVPS-1 and 2 site 
originally drew water from onsite wells and the Ohio River as 
supply sources for domestic water, no groundwater is currently 
used at BVPS-1 and 2, and no future use of groundwater is 
anticipated.
 
Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include 
hydrological alterations to the Ohio River and changes to plant 
water supply. Water from the BVPS-1 SWS is discharged to the 
BVPS-1 CWS, and water from the BVPS-2 SWS (excluding up to 8,400 
gallons per minute (gpm) discharged to the emergency outfall 
structure) is discharged to the BVPS-2 CWS. This makeup water 
replaces consumptive losses due to evaporation and drift from the 
CTs. The excess makeup overflows at the CT basin and is directed 
back to the river as CT blowdown. CT blowdown flow also keeps 
dissolved solids in the CWSs within design limits.
 
Makeup flows to the CWSs would be essentially unchanged from pre- 
EPU conditions. Since the consumptive loss would increase (due to 
increased evaporation), less water would overflow the basin as CT 
blowdown when operating at the EPU conditions, leading to an 
increase in the maximum dissolved solids concentration of the 
blowdown by approximately 7 percent, with an increase in blowdown 
temperature of less than 3 [deg]F at design conditions noted 
above, and a decrease in blowdown flow amounts approximately 
equivalent to the increase in evaporation rates. With respect to 
these changes, FENOC determined that the combined maximum monthly 
average blowdown flows for the BVPS-1 and 2 units operating at 
the EPU maximum power levels of 2,900 MWt would be less than 
42,500 gpm. BVPS-1 and 2 operational monitoring data indicate 
that this is likely a conservative upper-bound estimate; for a 
recent 2-year period prior to power uprate (2001-2002), actual 
maximum monthly average blowdown discharge flow from BVPS-1 and 2 
was approximately 38,000 gpm.
 
Predicted monthly average temperature differences between the 
blowdown and the ambient river water at current authorized 
maximum power levels range from 2.4 [deg]F in August to 28.6 
[deg]F in January. During June through August, when ambient river 
temperatures under this prediction are highest (75-80 [deg]F), 
this temperature differential ranges as high as 7.2 [deg]F. 
BVPS-1 and 2 operational monitoring indicates that this range is 
appropriate for periods of high ambient water temperature. For 
example, average temperature differential between BVPS-1 and 2 
blowdown and the ambient river was approximately 5.5 [deg]F for 
August 2002, a month in which both BVPS-1 and 2 units were 
operated at or near full power and ambient temperature of the 
Ohio River averaged 82 [deg]F, at or near its highest of the 
year. Considering the expected maximum increase of less than 3 
[deg]F in blowdown temperature at design conditions noted above, 
FENOC therefore expects that this monthly average temperature 
differential during summer months when ambient river temperatures 
are highest (between June and August) would range from 
approximately 5 [deg]F to 10 [deg]F when both units are operating 
at maximum power levels of 2,900 MWt.
 
As noted above, temperature effects would not be expected to 
challenge NPDES permit parameters or EPA standards for the Ohio 
River.
 
The annual average flow of the Ohio River at the BVPS-1 and 2 
site is 39,503 cubic feet per second (cfs; or 1.25 x 10 12 cubic 
feet per year), which meets NRC's annual flow criterion for 
classification as a small river. The results of FENOC's analysis 
indicate that the lowest average flow in the Ohio River at the 
BVPS site is approximately 5,300 cfs, which occurs once in 10 
years for 7- day duration. Based on estimates from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, the minimum expected flow under conditions 
corresponding to the lowest flow of record, which occurred in 
1930, is approximately 4,000 cfs. Consumptive water losses 
resulting from BVPS-1 and 2 operation comprise a very small 
fraction of flow in the Ohio River, even under low flow 
conditions. FENOC estimates that the maximum consumptive loss 
that would occur if both BVPS-1 and 2 were operated at their 
maximum uprated power level (2,900 MWt per unit) would be 
approximately 59 cfs or 1.1 percent and 1.5 percent of the 
once-in-10-year low flow rate and the lowest flow of record of 
the Ohio River, respectively.
 
The EPU would not involve any configuration change to the intake 
structure. The pump capacity would not change; therefore, there 
would not be an increase in the rate of withdrawal of water from 
the Ohio River. There would be a slight increase in the amount of 
Ohio River water consumed as a result of the EPU under all 
cooling modes of operation due to increased evaporative losses. 
However, the increased evaporative loss would be insignificant 
relative to the flow in the Ohio River, even under low flow 
conditions. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would 
be no significant impact to the hydrological pattern of the Ohio 
River, and there would be no significant impact to plant water 
supply due to the proposed action.
 
 
[[Page 26989]] Discharge Impacts Once cooling water from the 
BVPS-1 plant river and raw water system has served its plant 
components, it is discharged to the BVPS-1 CWS to make up 
operational water losses from that system. Similarly, once 
cooling water from the BVPS-2 SWS has served its plant 
components, most of it is discharged to the BVPS-2 CWS downstream 
from the main condenser to replace operational losses from that 
system. As much as 8,400 gpm (19 cfs) originating from the BVPS-2 
primary (reactor plant) heat exchangers and components is 
discharged to the Ohio River via the emergency outfall structure 
to reduce silt accumulation in that system. Under normal plant 
operations, the temperature of this discharge to the emergency 
outfall structure is approximately 12 [deg]F above ambient river 
temperature. FENOC calculations indicate that operation at the 
EPU power level of 2,900 MWt would increase this temperature by 
less than 1 [deg]F.
 
Makeup water is supplied to the BVPS-1 closed-loop CWS by 
discharging the plant river and raw water (service water for 
BVPS-2) into the circulating water condenser discharge lines. In 
these systems, water heated by passage through the main 
condensers is circulated through the CTs, where waste heat is 
removed primarily by evaporation. The cooled water, which 
accumulates in a basin beneath each CT, is recirculated back 
through the main condensers. CWS system flow would remain 
essentially unchanged following the EPU. The increased levels of 
rejected heat resulting from an increase in turbine exhaust flow 
would increase the CWS condenser outlet temperature by less than 
3 [deg]F at bounding design condition.
 
No additional chemical usage is planned as a result of operation 
at EPU conditions. No additional pumps to increase water usage 
would be added. Therefore, total chemical mass and concentration 
in the service and river water systems would not be changed, and 
the chemical mass in the CWSs would not be changed. BVPS-1 and 2 
site operations have had no known impact on public health from 
thermophilic microbial pathogens. Risk to human health is low due 
to poor conditions for supporting populations of such organisms 
in the Ohio River, including areas affected by the thermal 
discharge, and low potential for exposure of the public in the 
thermally affected zone.
 
The impacts of continued dredging generally were determined to be 
minor for other resources, including aquatic macroinvertebrates, 
fish, aquatic vegetation, wetlands, and terrestrial biota (e.g., 
riparian zone communities). In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
these dredging activities require dredging permits issued by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Water Obstruction and 
Encroachment Permits and Sand and Gravel License Agreements 
issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, which act to control these activities to ensure that 
adverse environmental impacts are minimized. At BVPS-1 and 2, 
most of the cooling water is recirculated and kept at a 
relatively high temperature. The once-through cooling water 
discharged at the emergency outfall structure and the CT blowdown 
are routinely treated with biocides, including calcium 
hypochlorite. Some residual chlorine, within limits prescribed in 
the NPDES permit, may be discharged.
 
These biocide applications significantly reduce the likelihood 
that microbial pathogens would be discharged into the area of 
concern or pose occupational health risks. Limited access by 
members of the public to waters and sediment in the immediate 
cooling water discharge areas further lowers health risks. Access 
to the BVPS-1 and 2 site by members of the public is subject to 
control, and shore-based recreation (e.g., fishing) on the 
property by the public is not permitted. In addition, the U.S. 
Coast Guard has established a Restricted Use Zone encompassing 
all waters extending 200 feet from FENOC's BVPS property line 
along the southeastern shoreline of the Ohio River. Entry of 
persons or vessels into this Restricted Use Zone is prohibited 
unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of 
Pittsburgh or his designated representative.
 
FENOC is not aware of any public health concerns or incidents 
related to the BVPS-1 and 2 site cooling water discharge. In 
response to FENOC's general request to agencies for information 
as part of its new and significant information review for the 
EPU, the Pennsylvania Department of Health indicated that it was 
not aware of any significant health issues that might result from 
the EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action associated with 
BVPS-1 and 2 discharge would not be significant.
 
Impacts on Aquatic Biota The potential impacts to aquatic biota 
from the proposed action include impingement, entrainment, 
thermal discharge effects, and impacts due to transmission line 
right-of-way maintenance.
 
BVPS-1 and 2 has intake and discharge structures on the Ohio 
River. The aquatic species evaluated in this EA are those which 
occur in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures.
 
Closed-cycle cooling reduces potential impacts from impingement, 
entrainment, and thermal discharge. Under normal operating 
conditions, both BVPS-1 and 2 units are not shut down 
simultaneously, reducing potential impacts from cold shock. 
Considered together with the small quantity of river water the 
BVPS-1 and 2 closed-loop cooling system requires, the potential 
for fish entrainment and impingement is greatly reduced by the 
design and operation of the intake structure.
 
Population increases of some fish species have apparently 
occurred since BVPS-1 and 2 initiated operation. Annual 
monitoring of the fish community at BVPS-1 and 2 indicates the 
presence of special-status fish species at both control and 
non-control stations. Monitoring conducted at BVPS-1 and 2 from 
1976 through 1995 indicated that impacts from entrainment of fish 
eggs and larvae were not significant, and that impingement losses 
were small and had little impact on fish populations. Review of 
BVPS-1 and 2 annual monitoring reports and the BVPS-2 Operating 
License Stage Environmental Review (ER) indicates that none of 
these special status species were specifically identified in egg 
and larvae samples collected during entrainment monitoring.
 
The impacts of impingement of fish and shellfish are negligible, 
and would not be expected to increase as a result of the proposed 
action.
 
The BVPS-1 and 2 NPDES permit specifies that the discharge may 
not change the temperature of the receiving stream by more than 2 
[deg]F in any one hour. The data evaluated indicate that the 
post-EPU discharges would not challenge this NPDES permit 
parameter.
 
The EPU would not increase the amount of water withdrawn from the 
river, and the increased discharge temperature would not 
compromise the NPDES permit parameters, and therefore, would not 
result in significant environmental impacts. As discussed in the 
transmission facility impacts section of this EA, there are no 
changes in the transmission line right-of-way maintenance 
practices associated with the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC 
staff concludes that there are no significant adverse impacts to 
aquatic biota for the proposed action.
 
 
[[Page 26990]] Impacts on Terrestrial Biota The potential impacts 
to terrestrial biota from the proposed action include impacts due 
to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. As discussed in 
the transmission facility impacts section of this EA, 
transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices would not 
change for the proposed action. FENOC does not plan to conduct 
major refurbishment or significant land-disturbing activities to 
implement the EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 
are no significant impacts to terrestrial biota associated with 
transmission line right-of-way maintenance for the proposed 
action.
 
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species Potential impacts to 
threatened and endangered species from the proposed action 
include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and terrestrial biota 
sections of this EA. These impacts include impingement, 
entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and impacts due to 
transmission line right-of-way maintenance for aquatic species, 
and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance or 
construction refurbishment activities for terrestrial species.
 
There are eleven species listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Federal Endangered Species Act within Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania. These include the following: Table 1.--Threatened 
and Endangered Species for Beaver County, PA 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Mussels......................  Northern riffleshell 
(Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), 
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon).
 
Fish.........................  Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 
brevirostrum).
 
Plants.......................  Small-whorted pogonia (Isotria 
medeoloides), Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus).
 
Reptiles.....................  Bog turtle (Clemmys mublenbergii), 
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus).
 
Birds........................  Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus).
 
Mammals......................  Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Consultations with the FWS have been conducted to verify 
that this list of threatened or endangered species of potential 
concern to the BVPS-1 and 2 EPU is accurate. In a letter dated 
October 2, 2003, the Pennsylvania FWS stated that there are no 
federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species 
under its jurisdiction in the vicinity of BVPS-1 and 2. FWS 
indicates that no federally listed or proposed threatened and 
endangered species are known to occur within the project impact 
area. The NRC staff's review and conclusions for each species is 
presented in the following paragraphs.
 
The species of concern consist of three mussels, two plants, two 
reptiles, two birds, one fish, and one mammal. The three 
federally listed mussel species were last documented as occurring 
in the upper Ohio River or lower Allegheny River in early 1900s. 
The Clubshell mussel (Pleurobema clava) and Northern riffleshell 
mussel (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) have been collected in the 
French Creek and Allegheny River watersheds in Clarion, Crawford, 
Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Counties; no adverse 
impacts to these mussels are known to occur from the proposed 
actions.
 
The two mussel species known to occur in the area are typically 
found in areas with substrates composed of clean gravel or a mix 
of sand and gravel, and which have moderate water current. 
However, the Northern riffleshell mussel has also been collected 
in quieter waters, such as in the Great Lakes at a depth of 
greater than 35 feet on suitable substrate. The Northern 
riffleshell mussel prefers firmly packed gravel or sand. 
Potential habitats might include islands, nearshore areas, and 
the head ends of pools. The FWS has not designated critical 
habitat for this species. Since there has not been extensive dive 
sampling throughout the study area, it is not known with 
certainty whether this species occurs in other pools of the 
Allegheny and Ohio Rivers.
 
The two federally listed plant species of concern, Small-whorted 
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus 
ancistrochaetus), are endangered nationwide and extremely rare.
 
No occurrence records were identified for these species in areas 
of significance to the BVPS-1 and 2 EPU. Only three populations 
of Small- whorted pogonia are known to exist in the Commonwealth, 
none in southwestern Pennsylvania. Information from the 
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 
indicates that there are no recent historical records of these 
species in Beaver and Allegheny Counties. Some areas in or near 
the transmission line corridor may be consistent with the habitat 
affinities.
 
The two federally listed reptile species of concern, the Bog 
turtle (Clemmys mublenbergii) and Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, 
have not been sighted in Beaver or Allegheny Counties. There is 
little or no suitable wetland habitat on or near the BVPS-1 and 2 
site or Beaver Valley-Crescent Line 318 transmission corridor for 
these species.
 
The two federally listed bird species, the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus) and the Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), are 
endangered, and there are no records of these species on the 
BVPS-1 and 2 site. According to the FWS, the Bald eagle, a 
federally listed threatened species, may possibly be found 
state-wide in Pennsylvania. It is primarily found in riparian 
areas and is associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes. The Bald 
eagle usually nests near bodies of water where it feeds. Bald 
eagles feed primarily on fish, although they may also take a 
variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily 
available. Nesting has been known to occur in Butler County, and 
it is possible that any resident or transient individuals of this 
species may feed along the Allegheny or Ohio River corridors 
within the study area.
 
The Bald eagle species has been observed along the Ohio River 
portion at the BVPS-1 and 2 site. To date, no known nesting sites 
of Bald eagles are noted immediately adjacent to areas that may 
be dredged. In addition, critical habitat has not been identified 
for the protection of these species within the Ohio River at or 
near the BVPS-1 and 2 site.
 
The federally listed fish species, Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 
brevirostrum), is an endangered fish species and has never been 
known to occur in western Pennsylvania; therefore, it is not 
expected to occur in the impact area.
 
The federally listed mammal species, the Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalis), may be found state-wide in suitable habitat in 
Pennsylvania as part of its summer range. Preferred winter 
hibernation sites include limestone caves; abandoned coal, 
limestone, and iron mines; and abandoned tunnels (one colony is 
currently using an abandoned railroad
 
[[Page 26991]] tunnel). As many as four winter hibernation sites 
have been identified in the state to date, including sites in 
Armstrong County, Blair County, and Somerset County. According to 
the 1983 USFWS recovery plan for the Indiana bat, there is no 
critical habitat for the species in Pennsylvania.
 
Impacts to the eleven threatened and endangered species described 
above are expected to be small due to one or more of the 
following: (a) Low potential for occurrence in areas affected by 
plant and transmission line operation and associated maintenance; 
(b) protective operation and maintenance practices; and (c) lack 
of observed impacts as documented by operational monitoring. The 
FWS has listed several species with ranges that include 
Pennsylvania as threatened or endangered at the Federal level, 
but has not designated any areas in the Commonwealth as critical 
habitat for listed species (50 CFR 17.95, 50 CFR 17.96). There is 
no federally listed threatened and endangered species critical 
habitat which has been identified on or near the BVPS- 1 and 2 
site. Therefore, the species described above would not be 
significantly affected as a result of the EPU. The NRC staff 
therefore concludes that there is no effect on threatened and 
endangered species for the proposed action.
 
Social and Economic Impacts Potential social and economic impacts 
due to the proposed action include changes in tax revenue for 
Beaver County and changes in the size of the workforce at BVPS-1 
and 2.
 
FENOC is now being assessed annual property taxes by Beaver 
County, Shippingport Borough, and the South Side Area School 
District.
 
Revenues received by Beaver County support such programs as 
engineering, recreation, public safety, public works, and 
emergency services. Revenues received by the Shippingport Borough 
support such programs as waste management, public works, and 
public safety.
 
FENOC employs a permanent workforce of approximately 1,000 
employees and approximately 500 contractors at the BVPS-1 and 2 
site. No additional permanent employees would be expected as a 
result of the EPU. Approximately 55 percent of the permanent 
workforce live in Beaver County and 27 percent live in Allegheny 
County. The remaining employees live in various other locations. 
FENOC refuels BVPS-1 and 2 at intervals of approximately 18 
months. During refueling outages, site employment increases by as 
many as 800 workers for temporary (30 to 40 days) duty, and FENOC 
expects that similar increases would occur for refueling outages 
as a result of the EPU. The proposed EPU would not significantly 
impact the size of the BVPS-1 and 2 labor force and would not 
have a material effect upon the labor force required for future 
outages.
 
FENOC's annual property tax payments for BVPS-1 and 2 averaged 
less than 1 percent of Beaver County's operating budgets for 2000 
to 2002. Given the area's declining populations and sluggish 
growth pattern, EPU tax-driven land-use changes would generate 
very little new development and minimal changes in the area's 
land-use patterns. No tax-driven land-use impacts are anticipated 
because no additional full-time employees would be expected as a 
result of the EPU. The amount of future property tax payments for 
BVPS-1 and 2 post-EPU and the proportion of those payments to the 
operating budgets of Beaver County, South Side Area School 
District, and Shippingport Borough are dependent on future market 
value of the units, future valuations of other properties in 
these jurisdictions, and other factors.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by the 
licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts. No significant 
socioeconomic impacts are anticipated because no permanent 
additional employees are expected as a result of the EPU.
 
Summary The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change 
in non- radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, 
waste discharges, CT operation, terrestrial and aquatic biota, 
transmission facility operation, or social and economic factors. 
No other non- radiological impacts were identified or would be 
expected. Table 2 summarizes the non-radiological environmental 
impacts of the proposed EPU at BVPS-1 and 2.
 
Table 2.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Land Use.....................  No significant land use 
modifications; no refurbishment activities with land impacts on 
historic and archaeological resources.
 
Cooling Tower................  No significant aesthetic impact, 
slightly larger plume size; no significant increase in noise; no 
significant fogging or icing.
 
Transmission Facilities......  No physical modifications to 
transmission lines; lines meet shock safety requirements; no 
changes to right-of- ways; small increase in electrical current 
would cause small increase in electromagnetic field around 
transmission lines.
 
Water Use....................  No configuration change to intake 
structure; no increased rate of withdrawal; slight increase in 
water consumption due to increased evaporation; no water-use 
conflicts. No change in ground water use.
 
Discharge....................  Increase in water temperature 
discharged to Ohio River; will meet thermal discharge limits in 
current NPDES permit at EPU conditions; no additional chemical 
usage is planned as a result of operation at EPU conditions. EPU 
will not change conclusions made in the FES.
 
Aquatic Biota................  No additional impact expected on 
aquatic biota.
 
Terrestrial Biota............  Pennsylvania FWS found no adverse 
impact from EPU; no additional impact on terrestrial plant or 
animal species.
 
Threatened and Endangered      There are eleven federally listed 
species Species.                       in Beaver County; EPU will 
have no effect on these species.
 
Social and Economic..........  No significant change in size of 
BVPS-1 and 2 labor force required for plant operation or future 
refueling outages.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Radiological Impacts Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts 
BVPS-1 and 2 uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, 
process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that 
might contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled 
manner such that discharges are in accordance with the 
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 
20 (10 CFR part 20), ``STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 
RADIATION,'' and 10 CFR Part 50, ``DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES,'' Appendix I. These 
radioactive waste streams are
 
[[Page 26992]] discussed in the FESs for BVPS-1 and 2.
 
The proposed EPU would not result in changes in the operation or 
design of equipment for the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste 
systems.
 
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal 
operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems process and 
control the release to the environment of gaseous radioactive 
effluents, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens, 
tritium, and particulate material. Gaseous radioactive wastes 
include airborne particulates and gases vented from process 
equipment and the building ventilation exhaust air. The major 
sources of gaseous radioactive waste are filtered using charcoal 
adsorbers, held up for decay using separate pressurized decay 
tanks, and monitored prior to release to ensure that the dose 
guidelines of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and the limits of 10 CFR 
Part 20 are not exceeded.
 
Gaseous releases of Kr-85 would increase by approximately the 
percentage of power increase. Isotopes with shorter half-lives 
would have varying EPU increase percentages up to a maximum of 18 
percent. The impact of the EPU on iodine releases would be 
slightly greater than the percentage increase in power level. The 
other components of the gaseous release (i.e., particulates via 
the building ventilation systems and water activation gases) 
would not be impacted by the EPU, according to analysis using the 
methodology outlined in NUREG-0017, ``Calculation of Release of 
Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from 
Pressurized Water Reactors.'' Tritium releases in the gaseous 
effluents increase in proportion to their increased production, 
which is directly related to core power. The impact of the 
increased activity in the radwaste systems is primarily in the 
activity shipped offsite as solid waste. Gaseous releases to the 
environment would not increase beyond the limits of 10 CFR Part 
20 and the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Therefore, 
the increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release 
following implementation of the EPU would not be significant.
 
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses During normal 
operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems process and 
control the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the 
environment, such that the doses to individuals offsite are 
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidelines 
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The liquid radioactive waste 
systems are designed to process the waste and then recycle it 
within the plant as condensate, reprocess it through the 
radioactive waste system for further purification, or discharge 
it to the environment as liquid radioactive waste effluent in 
accordance with State and Federal regulations.
 
To bound the estimated impact of EPU on the annual offsite 
releases, the licensee used the highest percentage change in 
activity levels of isotopes in each chemical grouping found in 
the primary reactor coolant and secondary fluids that 
characterize each unit. The licensee then applied the values to 
the applicable gaseous and liquid effluent pathways. The 
percentage change was applied to the doses reported in the 
licensee's radioactive effluent reports for 1997 through 2001 
(adjusted to reflect a 100-percent capacity factor) to calculate 
the offsite doses following the EPU. The licensee concluded that 
although the doses increased, they remained below the regulatory 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidelines of Appendix I 
to 10 CFR Part 50.
 
The EPU would increase the liquid effluent release concentrations 
by approximately 14 percent, as this activity is based on the 
long-term reactor coolant system (RCS) and secondary side 
activity and on waste volumes. Tritium releases in liquid 
effluents would increase in proportion to their increased 
production, which is directly related to core power and is 
allocated between the gaseous and liquid releases in this 
analysis in the same proportion as pre-EPU releases.
 
However, doses from liquid releases to the environment would not 
increase beyond the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidelines 
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Therefore, there would not be a 
significant environmental impact from the additional amount of 
radioactive material generated following implementation of the 
EPU.
 
Solid Radioactive Wastes The solid radioactive waste system 
collects, processes, packages, and temporarily stores radioactive 
dry and wet solid wastes prior to shipment offsite and permanent 
disposal. The volume of solid waste is not expected to increase 
proportionally with the EPU increment, since the EPU neither 
would appreciably impact installed equipment performance, nor 
would it require drastic changes in system operation or 
maintenance. Only minor, if any, changes in waste generation 
volume are expected. This would include the small increase in 
volume of condensate polishing resins in BVPS-2. However, it is 
expected that the activity inventories for most of the solid 
waste would increase proportionately to the increase in long 
half-life coolant activity. While the total long-lived activity 
contained in the waste is expected to be bounded by the 
percentage of the EPU, the increase in the overall volume of 
waste generation resulting from the EPU is expected to be minor. 
Therefore, no significant additional waste would be generated due 
to operation at EPU conditions. Since operation at EPU conditions 
would not increase the SG blowdown, no significant additional 
solid waste resin would be generated.
 
Spent fuel from BVPS-1 and 2 is transferred from the reactors and 
stored in the respective spent fuel storage pools. There is 
sufficient capacity in the BVPS-1 fuel storage pool to 
accommodate that unit, including full core discharge, through the 
end of its current license term. FENOC anticipates that the 
capacity of the BVPS-2 spent fuel pool would be exhausted by 
approximately year 2007, although requests for approval of 
increased capacity may be undertaken. The increased power level 
of the EPU would require additional energy for each cycle.
 
To accommodate this extra energy, it is expected that additional 
fresh feed fuel assemblies would be needed in the core designs. 
The specific number of feed fuel assemblies (or discharge 
assemblies) for each cycle will be determined during the core 
design process, and will take into account expected energy 
carryover from the previous cycle. FENOC has determined that four 
additional fresh fuel assemblies would be needed for each 
refueling under EPU conditions to meet the higher energy needs.
 
Additional storage capacity would be required beyond the current 
license terms if spent fuel stored in the pools cannot be 
transferred to a permanent repository. Installation of additional 
onsite spent fuel storage capacity, if elected, is an action 
licensed by the NRC separately from EPU. Current ongoing 
criticality analysis conducted by the licensee may free up 
presently unavailable storage in the upcoming months. FENOC plans 
to request an amendment to increase spent fuel pool storage 
capacity and to seek approval for dry cask storage at BVPS-1 and 
2 by 2014. At this time, the NRC staff concludes that there would 
be no significant environmental impacts resulting from storage of 
the additional fuel assemblies.
 
 
[[Page 26993]] Direct Radiation Doses Offsite The licensee 
evaluated the direct radiation dose to the unrestricted area and 
concluded that it is not a significant exposure pathway. Since 
the EPU would only slightly increase the core inventory of 
radionuclides and the amount of radioactive wastes, the NRC staff 
concludes that direct radiation dose would not be significantly 
affected by the EPU and would continue to meet the limits in 10 
CFR part 20.
 
In addition to the dose impact to radioactive gaseous and liquid 
effluents, the licensee evaluated the dose impact of the EPU on 
the direct radiation from plant systems and components containing 
radioactive material to members of the public, as required by 40 
CFR part 190.
 
The licensee's evaluation concluded that the direct radiation 
doses are not expected to increase significantly over current 
levels and are expected to remain within the limit of 25 mrem 
(0.25 mSv) annual whole- body dose equivalent as specified in 40 
CFR Part 190.
 
Occupational Dose Occupational exposures from in-plant radiation 
primarily occur during routine maintenance, special maintenance, 
and refueling operations. An increase in power at BVPS-1 and 2 
could increase the radiation levels in the RCS. However, plant 
programs and administrative controls such as shielding, plant 
chemistry, and the radiation protection program would help 
compensate for these potential increases.
 
The licensee's assessment takes into consideration that following 
EPU, the operation and layout/arrangement of plant radioactive 
systems would remain consistent with the original design. The EPU 
assessment takes into account that normal operational dose rates 
and dose to members of the public and to plant workers must 
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 
radioactive effluent release license conditions.
 
The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's plan regarding 
occupational exposure related to the EPU. The licensee has 
evaluated the impact of the EPU on the radiation source terms in 
the reactor core, irradiated fuels/objects, RCS and downstream 
radioactive systems. These source terms are expected to increase 
by approximately 7.9 percent after a core power uprate from 2689 
MWt to 2900 MWt. The radiation exposure received by plant 
personnel would be expected to increase by approximately the same 
percentage. The above increase in radiation levels would not 
affect the radiation zoning or shielding requirements in the 
various areas of the plant because the increase due to EPU would 
be offset by the conservatism in the pre-EPU ``design- basis'' 
source terms used to establish the radiation zones by BVPS-1 and 
2 Technical Specifications (TSs) that limit the RCS 
concentrations to levels well below the design-basis source 
terms, and by conservative analytical techniques used to 
establish shielding requirements. Regardless, individual worker 
exposures would be maintained within acceptable limits by the 
site Radiation Protection Program, which controls access to 
radiation areas. In addition, procedural controls and As Low as 
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) techniques are used to limit doses 
in areas having increased radiation levels.
 
Therefore, the annual average collective occupational dose after 
the EPU is implemented would still be well below the value 
expected when the FESs were published.
 
Summary of Dose Impacts On the basis of the NRC staff's review of 
the BVPS-1 and 2 license amendment request, the staff concludes 
that the proposed 8-percent power uprate would not have a 
significant effect on occupational dose or members of the public 
from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent releases. The 
licensee has programs and procedures in place to ensure that 
radiation doses are maintained ALARA in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1101, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 
40 CFR Part 190. Therefore, the staff finds the dose impacts from 
the proposed EPU at the BVPS-1 and 2 to be acceptable from a 
normal operations perspective.
 
Postulated Accident Doses As a result of implementation of the 
proposed EPU, there would be an increase in the source term used 
in the evaluation of some of the postulated accidents in the 
FESs. The inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core is 
dependent upon power level; therefore, the core inventory of 
radionuclides could increase by as much as 8 percent. The 
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also 
increase by as much as 8 percent; however, this concentration is 
limited by the BVPS-1 and 2 TSs. Therefore, the reactor coolant 
concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to increase 
significantly.
 
This coolant concentration is part of the source term considered 
in some of the postulated accident analyses. Some of the 
radioactive waste streams and storage systems evaluated for 
postulated accidents may contain slightly higher quantities of 
radionuclides. For those postulated accidents where the source 
term has increased, the calculated potential radiation dose to 
individuals at the site boundary (the exclusion area) and in the 
low population zone would be increased over values presented in 
the FESs. As a result of the proposed EPU, plant radioactive 
source terms would be anticipated to increase proportionally to 
the actual power level increase.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed 
confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the 
licensee's calculated doses under accident conditions. The NRC 
staff's independent review of dose calculations under postulated 
accident conditions determined that dose would be within 
regulatory limits.
 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the EPU would not 
significantly increase the consequences of accidents and would 
not result in a significant increase in the radiological 
environmental impact of BVPS-1 and 2 from postulated accidents.
 
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts The environmental impacts 
of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels and wastes are 
described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, 
respectively. An additional NRC generic EA (53 FR 30355, dated 
August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 
1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher 
burnup cycles and concluded that there is no significant change 
in environmental impact from the parameters evaluated in Tables 
S-3 and S- 4 for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 
weight percent Uranium-235 and burnups less than 60,000 megawatt 
(thermal) days per metric ton (MWd/MTU). Both BVPS-1 and 2 would 
maintain their nominal 18-month refueling cycles with the EPU. 
Therefore, the environmental impacts of the EPU would remain 
bounded by the impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 and would not be 
significant.
 
Summary The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the 
potential radiological consequences of design-basis accidents, 
would not result in a significant increase in occupational or 
public radiation exposure, and would not result in significant 
additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with
 
[[Page 26994]] the proposed action. Table 3 summarizes the 
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at BVPS-1 
and 2.
 
Alternatives to Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed 
action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed EPU 
(i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application 
would result in no change in the current environmental impacts. 
However, if the EPU were not approved, other agencies and 
electric power organizations may be required to pursue other 
means of providing electric generation capacity to offset future 
demand such as fossil fuel power generation. Construction and 
operation of a fossil-fueled plant would create impacts in air 
quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater 
than those identified for the EPU at BVPS-1 and 2.
 
Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the 
environment than the construction and operation of a new 
fossil-fueled generating facility or the operation of 
fossil-fueled facilities outside the service area.
 
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use 
of any resources not previously considered in the FESs.
 
Table 3.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Gaseous Effluents and Doses..  Slight increase in dose 
due to gaseous effluents; doses to individuals offsite will 
remain within NRC limits.
 
Liquid Effluents and Doses...  14-percent increase in liquid 
effluent release concentrations; 14-percent increase for doses 
due to liquid effluent pathway are still well within the 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix I guidelines, so no significant increase in 
dose to public is expected.
 
Solid Radioactive Waste......  Volume of solid waste is not 
expected to increase; within FES estimate; increase in amount of 
spent fuel assemblies; future application for dry cask storage.
 
In-plant Dose................  Occupational dose could increase 
by 7.9 percent; will remain within FES estimate.
 
Direct Radiation Dose........  Dose expected to increase the same 
percentage as the EPU for dose rates offsite; expected annual 
dose continues to meet NRC/EPA limits.
 
Postulated Accidents.........  Licensee concluded doses are 
within NRC limits.
 
Fuel Cycle and Transportation  Impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 in 
10 CFR Part 51, ``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 
DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS'' are 
bounding.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its 
stated policy, on May 3, 2006, the NRC staff consulted with the 
Pennsylvania State official, Lawrence Ryan, of the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official 
had no comments.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the 
environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the 
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the proposed action.
 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated October 4, 2004, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 28, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff at 1-800- 397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to .
 
 
DATES: The comment period expires June 8, 2006. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, 
but the Commission is only able to assure consideration of 
comments received on or before June 8, 2006.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop 
T-6D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also be 
delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received will be electronically 
available at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) 
link, , on the NRC Web site or at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301- 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of 
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73 
issued to FENOC for operation of BVPS-1 and 2 located in Beaver 
County, Pennsylvania.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy G. Colburn, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O8-C4, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 
301-415-1402, or by e-mail at .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 
Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6999 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 NRC: Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-01: 
 
                         FR Doc E6-7000 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 27010-27012] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-119]                         
 
Plant-Specific Aging Management Program for Inaccessible Areas of 
Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel Containment Drywell Shell 
Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is soliciting 
public comment on its Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff 
Guidance LR-ISG- 2006-01. This LR-ISG proposes that applicants 
for license renewal for a plant with a boiling water reactor Mark 
I steel containment provide a plant-specific aging management 
program that addresses the potential loss of material due to 
corrosion in the inaccessible areas of their Mark I steel 
containment drywell shell for the period of extended operation.
 
The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation 
of the license renewal rule and to review activities associated 
with a license renewal application (LRA). Upon receiving public 
comments, the NRC staff will evaluate the comments and make a 
determination to incorporate the comments, as appropriate. Once 
the NRC staff completes the LR-ISG, it will issue the LR-ISG for 
NRC and industry use.
 
The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved LR-ISG into the 
next
 
[[Page 27011]] revision of the license renewal guidance 
documents.
 
 
DATES: Comments may be submitted by June 8, 2006. Comments 
received after this date will be considered, if it is practical 
to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only 
for comments received on or before this date.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, Room T-6D59, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal 
workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail at . The 
NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. These documents may be accessed through the 
NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at  
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document 
Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 415-4737, or 
by e-mail at .
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linh Tran, License Renewal 
Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
telephone 301-415-4103 or e-mail .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attachment 1 to this Federal Register 
notice, entitled Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed 
License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-01: 
Plant-specific Aging Management Program for Inaccessible Areas of 
Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel Containment Drywell Shell 
contains the NRC staff's rationale for publishing the proposed 
LR-ISG-2006-01. Attachment 2 to this Federal Register notice, 
entitled Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance 
LR-ISG-2006-01: Plant-specific Aging Management Program for 
Inaccessible Areas of Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel 
Containment Drywell Shell, contains the guidance for developing 
the plant-specific aging management program. The NRC staff is 
issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed 
LR-ISG-2006-01. After the NRC staff considers any public 
comments, it will make a determination regarding the proposed 
LR-ISG.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
Attachment 1--Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed 
License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-01: 
Plant-Specific Aging Management Program for Inaccessible Areas of 
Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel Containment Drywell Shell 
Staff Position The NRC staff determined that applicants for 
license renewal for a plant with a boiling water reactor Mark I 
steel containment should provide a plant-specific aging 
management program (AMP) that addresses the potential loss of 
material due to corrosion in the inaccessible areas of the Mark I 
steel containment drywell shell for the period of extended 
operation.
 
Rationale The current license renewal guidance documents (LRGDs) 
do not provide sufficient guidance to address inaccessible areas 
of the Mark I steel containment drywell shell. Specifically, 
additional guidance is needed for inaccessible areas where the 
distance between the drywell shell and the surrounding concrete 
structure is too small for the successful performance of visual 
inspection. Past operating experience with Mark I steel 
containments indicates that when water is discovered in the 
bottom outside areas of the drywell (for example in the sand- 
pocket area), the most likely cause is the seepage through the 
space between the drywell shell and the shield concrete.
 
Numerous requests for additional information (RAIs) on previous 
and current license renewal applications (LRAs) have been needed 
to obtain the information needed by the staff to perform its 
review. The purpose of the proposed LR-ISG-2006-01 is to provide 
guidance on the information that should be provided in the LRA to 
reduce the number of RAIs issued to the applicants. Specifically, 
the staff has determined that applicants for license renewal for 
a plant with a boiling water reactor Mark I steel containment 
should provide a plant-specific AMP to address the potential loss 
of material due to corrosion in the inaccessible areas of the 
Mark I steel containment drywell shell for the period of extended 
operation.
 
The drywell shell is a passive, long-lived structure within the 
scope of license renewal that is subject to aging degradation.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21, the applicant must demonstrate that the 
effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended 
function will be maintained consistent with the current licensing 
basis for the period of extended operation.
 
Attachment 2--Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance 
LR-ISG- 2006-01: Plant-Specific Aging Management Program for 
Inaccessible Areas of Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel 
Containment Drywell Shell Introduction Line Item II.B1.1-2 of 
NUREG-1801, Volume 2, Revision 1, includes a provision for aging 
management of the Mark I steel containment drywell shells. 
However, the line item requires additional detail to address the 
inaccessible areas of the Mark I steel containment drywell 
shells. Specifically, the line item does not provide guidance 
when the distance between the steel drywell shell and the 
surrounding concrete structure is too small for the successful 
performance of visual examination.
 
All Mark I containments are free-standing steel construction, 
except for Brunswick, Units 1 and 2. The Brunswick Mark I 
containment is a reinforced concrete drywell with a steel liner. 
A drywell shell is a free-standing steel structure with no 
concrete backing, whereas the steel liner of a drywell is a 
leak-tight membrane in direct contact with the concrete 
containment.
 
Historical Background Information Notice (IN) 86-99, 
``Degradation of Steel Containments,'' dated December 8, 1986, 
described an event related to the degradation of the drywell 
shell at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. IN 86-99, 
Supplement 1, dated February 1991, explained that the most likely 
cause of corrosion of the drywell shell in sand-pocket areas 
(near the bottom of the drywell) and in the spherical portion of 
the drywell at higher elevations, was the water in the gap 
between the drywell and the concrete shield. The source of water 
was noted as leakage through the seal between the drywell and the 
refueling cavity. The IN supplement also noted that ultrasonic 
testing (UT) discovered minor corrosion in the cylindrical 
portion of the drywell.
 
Discussion Generic Letter (GL) 87-05, ``Request for Additional 
Information- Assessment
 
[[Page 27012]] of Licensee Measures to Mitigate And/Or Identify 
Potential Degradation of Mark I Drywells,'' requested additional 
information regarding licensee actions to mitigate and/or 
identify potential degradation of boiling water reactor Mark I 
drywells. As a result, most licensees performed UT of their 
carbon steel drywell shells adjacent to the sand pocket region. 
In addition, many licensees established leakage monitoring 
programs for drain lines to identify leakage that may have 
resulted from refueling or spillage of water into the gap between 
the drywell and the surrounding concrete.
 
UT performed as a result of GL 87-05 provided a set of data 
points to determine the drywell shell thickness that could be 
compared to the nominal/minimum fabrication thickness and the 
minimum thickness required to withstand the postulated loads. 
These UT measurements taken during the 1987-1988 time frame fall 
approximately near the mid-point of the current 40-year operating 
license period for most plants with Mark I steel containments.
 
The drywell shell is a passive, long-lived structure within the 
scope of license renewal that is subject to aging degradation.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21, the applicant must demonstrate that the 
effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended 
function will be maintained consistent with the current licensing 
basis for the period of extended operation.
 
On the basis of license renewal application reviews and industry 
operating experience, the NRC staff determined that a 
plant-specific aging management program (AMP) is needed to 
address the potential loss of material due to corrosion in the 
inaccessible areas of the Mark I steel containment drywell shell 
for the period of extended operation.
 
Proposed Action In addressing Line Item II.B1.1-2 of NUREG-1801, 
Volume 2, Revision 1, applicants for license renewal for plants 
with a Mark I steel containment need to provide a plant-specific 
AMP that addresses the potential loss of material due to 
corrosion in the inaccessible areas of the Mark I steel 
containment drywell shell for the period of extended operation.
 
In conducting the aging management review of the drywell shell, 
the applicant should consider the following: (1) Develop a 
corrosion rate that can be reasonably inferred from past UT 
examinations or establish a corrosion rate using representative 
samples in similar operating conditions, materials, and 
environments. If degradation has occurred, provide a technical 
basis using the developed or established corrosion rate to 
demonstrate that the drywell shell will have sufficient wall 
thickness to perform its intended function through the period of 
extended operation.
 
(2) Demonstrate that UT measurements performed in response to GL 
87-05 did not show degradation inconsistent with the developed or 
established corrosion rate.
 
(3) Where degradation has been identified in the accessible areas 
of the drywell, provide an evaluation that addresses the 
condition of the inaccessible areas for similar conditions.
 
(4) To assure that there are no circumstances that would result 
in degradation of the drywell, demonstrate that moisture levels 
associated with accelerated corrosion rates do not exist in the 
exterior portion of the drywell shell, i.e., (1) the sand pocket 
area drains and/or the refueling seal drains are monitored 
periodically; (2) the top of the sand pocket area is sealed to 
exclude water accumulation in the sand pocket area; and/or alarms 
are used to monitor regions for moisture/ leakage.
 
(5) If moisture has been detected or suspected in the 
inaccessible area on the exterior of the drywell shell: (a) 
Include in the scope of license renewal any components that are 
identified as a source of moisture, such as the refueling seal, 
and perform an aging management review.
 
(b) Identify surface areas requiring examination by implementing 
augmented inspections for the period of extended operation in 
accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) Section XI IWE-1240 as identified in Table IWE-2500-1, 
Examination Category E-C.
 
(c) Use examination methods that are in accordance with ASME 
Section XI IWE-2500, which specifies: (i) Surface areas 
accessible from both sides shall be visually examined using a 
VT-1 visual examination method, (ii) Surface areas accessible 
from one side only shall be examined for wall thinning using an 
ultrasonic thickness measurement method, (iii) When ultrasonic 
thickness measurements are performed, one- foot square grids 
shall be used, and (iv) Ultrasonic measurements shall be used to 
determine the minimum wall thickness within each grid. The 
location of the minimum wall thickness shall be marked such that 
periodic reexamination of that location can be performed.
 
(d) Demonstrate through use of augmented inspections performed in 
accordance with ASME Section XI IWE that corrosion is not 
occurring or that corrosion is progressing so slowly that the 
age-related degradation will not jeopardize the intended function 
of the drywell shell through the period of extended operation.
 
(6) If the intended function of the drywell shell cannot be 
demonstrated for the period of extended operation (i.e., wall 
thickness is less than the minimum required thickness), identify 
actions that will be taken as part of the aging management 
program to ensure that the integrity of the drywell shell will be 
maintained through the period of extended operation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7000 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 48 globeandmail.com: In the nuclear interest

Comment
 	
DALE COFFIN director, corporate communications, AECL                                                                                                                                                
			 			 			 			 	 	 		 	 
Mississauga -- Eric Reguly (Ontario's Nuclear Strategy Is A
Lesson In Senility -- Report on Business, May 6) and your
readers need to be reminded of the facts surrounding the
positive contribution that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. makes to
the Canadian economy and the worldwide success of Candu
technology. 

Canada has invested about $6-billion in its nuclear program
since 1952 through AECL. This investment has generated more than
$160-billion in GDP benefits to Canada from power production,
research and development, Candu exports, uranium, medical
radioisotopes and professional services. 

AECL and four of the world's leading nuclear technology and
engineering companies (Babcock & Wilcox Canada, General Electric
Canada, Hitachi Canada Ltd. and SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc.)
recently signed an agreement to work together as Team Candu to
present a turnkey service and competitive solution for building
new nuclear power plants in Ontario. 

We are confident that our technology, combined with Team Candu's
"on time, on budget" track record, will make the Candu option
the obvious choice for meeting Ontario's electricity needs. 	 		
			 				 			 		 	 	 	 	Search Search Archives 		 	 		 	 	 	 	 	
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell 
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 
2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher                                       
-->                                     -->     
*****************************************************************
 49 FORTUNE Magazine: Meet Mr. Nuke - 

Meet Mr. Nuke   John Rowe of Exelon is staking out a megashare
of what could be America's great atomic revival.        

By Cora Daniels, FORTUNE Magazine       

May 9, 2006: 11:31 AM EDT 

(FORTUNE Magazine) - The CEO of Exelon(Research) is not the sort
of man you'd expect to be king of America's nukes. His mammoth
utility will soon have 20 nuclear plants in its fleet (the term
harks back to the industry's roots in the nuclear Navy), but
he's no stolid ex-seafaring engineer--he's a brainy, maverick,
Midwestern lawyer. 

But then John Rowe, 60, is full of surprises. He doesn't like to
cheerlead for his company or industry, and he readily discusses
bad news, infuriating his PR staff. He doesn't drop names of
powerful friends; Chicago locals and ancient-history buffs are
his crowd. His office is modest, and he shares it with a
2,600-year-old Egyptian coffin. 

[Exelon CEO John Rowe, standing in front of the company's Three 
Mile Island nuclear energy plant.] Exelon CEO John Rowe, standing 
in front of the company's Three Mile Island nuclear energy plant.   

He answers his own e-mail. When he received one in 2004 from an
employee who objected on religious grounds to Exelon's favorable
policies for same-sex partners, Rowe didn't delete the message;
he cited Leviticus to defend the company's stance, starting a
correspondence that went on for months. That kind of engagement
is standard for Rowe, who "certainly keeps it interesting," says
Betsy Moler, the company's public-policy chief. "There is
nothing fuddy or duddy about utilities under his watch." 

What makes now a good time to meet this CEO is that since he
took over in 2002, Exelon has lit up a lot more than the Chicago
skyline. Exelon is the industry's most profitable company,
earning $923 million on $15.4 billion in sales in 2005; its
stock, recently at $53 a share, has consistently outshone the S
utility index. This year FORTUNE named Exelon America's most
admired utility. 

Already America's largest nuclear power operator, Exelon will
become the second-largest in the world once it completes its
acquisition of New Jersey's PSEG (No. 1 is Electricite de
France; Russia's Rosenergoatom is today No. 2). That $13.7
billion deal, announced over a year ago, was severely
scrutinized by regulators because of the size of the business it
will create, but is expected to close this summer. 

The new behemoth will have an estimated $27 billion in annual
revenue and $3.2 billion in net earnings, employ 28,000 people,
and serve nine million businesses and households in Illinois,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Exelon's itch to supersize was
prompted by a desire for PSEG's nuclear plants. Rowe is betting
that as states begin to open their electricity grids to
competition, nukes will gain share by producing energy more
cheaply than rival sources of power. "I go to a nuclear power
plant and love it," he says happily. 

It's not surprising that a utilities boss loves nukes; what's
amazing is that so many people agree. Almost 30 years after the
Three Mile Island disaster, nukes have regained luster in the
public eye. Today 56% of Americans say they favor nuclear
energy, vs. 38% opposed, according to Gallup. (A surprising 42%
even say they're willing to have a nuke near their home.) 

Influential environmentalists like James Lovelock and Stewart
Brand favor using nukes to replace coal to help slow global
warming. Exelon and other utilities are in discussions with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build at least ten reactors. 

Perhaps the biggest boost to nuclear's prospects is the Bush
administration's support. Last year's federal energy bill offers
billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives for
new plants to help reduce long-term dependency on oil. The White
House also launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, a $1.1
billion effort by government and industry to start building new
plants by then. As the sole utility exec on the privately
financed National Commission on Energy Policy, Rowe helped
mastermind the energy bill, insiders say; that and nuclear's
resurgence make him one of the most influential CEOs you've
probably never heard of. 

John Rowe grew up on a dairy farm in Wisconsin. The one-room
school he attended had an outhouse. His parents, who had both
experienced the Great Depression, believed life was about work;
today Rowe gets to the office by 7:30 A.M. and works late into
the night. 

"Mother believed that if you had very much fun, you somehow
wasted a day," he says. His interest in civilizations began as
an escape from farm tedium. When he was in seventh grade, a
family friend gave him Richard Halliburton's Book of Marvels, a
history volume that divided the world into the Occident and the
Orient, with a chapter on each major country. 

Rowe keeps a vintage copy in his office and marks off the
chapters of the places where he has traveled. (He believes in
using his collectibles; he likes to fidget with a 2,300-year-old
Athena ring crafted in the reign of Alexander the Great that he
wears on his left hand.) 

After earning a law degree from the University of Wisconsin,
Rowe landed a job at a Chicago law firm. His introduction to the
nuclear business was as a punishment for arguing with his boss,
who relegated him to the division that represented nuclear plant
owners. To Rowe's surprise, he liked the industry's mix of
private-sector and policy work. When he eventually redeemed
himself and got promoted to doing railroad law, the nuclear
business stuck with him. 

So in 1984 when a small utility called Central Maine Power began
looking for a CEO, Rowe saw his chance. The utility wanted a
senior engineer/executive from New England. Rowe was just 38 and
had never even been to Maine. Scrambling to fill the holes in
his credentials, he got engineer friends to send recommendations
attesting to how much engineering he knew. 

He persuaded Secretary of Labor Bill Usery, whom he knew from
shared work in the railroad industry, to write a letter saying
how mature he was for his age. His cleverest move was in dealing
with his lack of New England roots. He drove to Maine and, in
the space of a weekend, visited every town where a Central Maine
Power director lived. When the inevitable question arose whether
he'd spent much time in the state, he could truthfully tell the
director doing the asking that he'd been to his hometown. "The
joke was on us. We had no idea," laughs E. John Dufour, a
director at the time. 

Landing the job was only Rowe's first campaign. The company was
under disciplinary review by the state utility commission. The
new CEO set out to mend fences, sitting down with utility
commissioners at even the most mundane meetings instead of
sending other execs. It helped get Central Maine Power back on
the state's good side in a matter of months. "By then we were
all patting ourselves on the back on the great job we had done
picking a CEO," recalls Dufour. 

Rowe moved on after five years to become CEO of New England
Electric in Massachusetts. In 1998 he became chief of Unicom, a
big regional utility in Chicago, and in 2000 he orchestrated its
merger with Philadelphia's PECO to create Exelon. 

So now, 21 years after moving to Maine, Rowe is nuclear power's
longest-serving CEO. But what a strange bird to represent an
industry. He will rhapsodize about the "sensuous curve of a
transmission line," yet he doesn't like to hype his business the
way Phil Knight gushes over sneakers. 

"Nuclear is not a cause; it is a business," he told shareholders
recently. It is precisely for that reason that Rowe says he does
not want to build another nuclear plant until the nation's
spent-fuel disposal problem is solved. Opponents have stalled
the Energy Department's plan to entomb nuclear waste more than
1,000 feet below Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Solving the waste
problem is "essential" for good business, says Rowe. "We have to
be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a
plant, here's where the waste will go.' If we can't answer that
question honestly to our neighbors, then we're playing politics
too high for us to be playing." 

Such outspokenness is unusual in the industry, where executives
often feel too embattled to acknowledge their own doubts. It
helps Rowe win. "Of course no one agrees with everything he
says," says Tom Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute,
the industry association. "But John is very persuasive and has a
statesmanlike approach, which makes it hard to disagree." 

When Rowe took over Exelon in 1998, the company's nuclear fleet
was one of the industry's worst. Its plants were running at only
47% capacity--in fact, they were up only about half the time.
Chronic safety problems had landed many on the NRC's watch list.
The Zion plant on Lake Michigan had been shut down, and two more
in Illinois were headed in that direction. Within the nuclear
division, everyone was pointing fingers. 

Rowe's first move was to replace the division's management team.
(Exelon has other units that operate gas mains and coal-burning
power plants.) The key survivor was its chief, Oliver Kingsley,
a widely respected nuclear turnaround expert who had just joined
Exelon. Rowe named him COO, and Kingsley helped recruit a new
generation of executives who were approachable team players. Yet
all the while, Rowe was threatening to pull Exelon out of the
business. His order to the new team was simple: Turn things
around or be shut down. "Rowe came in very skeptical of [the
nuclear division], and rightly so," says Chris Crane, Kingsley's
recruit to head the nuclear unit. "Our performance was
embarrassing, and he told us so." 

Crane and his team quickly raised safety standards, upgraded
equipment, and replaced the plants' crazy quilt of management
systems with a single system that all had to follow. It set a
new industry standard by sending plant operators for retraining
and simulations every six weeks. Exelon's production costs are
more than 50% lower than they were in 1998, and the nuclear
plants are running at 93% capacity, the best performance in the
industry. Analysts like Steven Fleishman of Merrill Lynch expect
Exelon's stock to rise as the company applies its know-how to
PSEG's plants. 

Rowe earned a reputation too, with his response to a summer 1999
blackout that paralyzed downtown Chicago in the middle of a busy
workweek. In the days after power was restored, Mayor Richard
Daley railed against Exelon to anyone who would listen. "We are
sick and tired of them, and they had better change," he fumed,
turning red and biting his nails at a news conference.
Regulators began gearing up for a major investigation. 

Rowe had been CEO only a few months. But during one of the
mayor's outbursts, Rowe impulsively pushed his way from the
audience toward the cameras, without warning or preparation from
handlers or even, he says, knowing what he would say. "This
level of service is a disgrace to us. It is a personal disgrace
to me," he declared, awkwardly donning a hard hat as he stood in
the rain. "I will not tolerate it, and you will not." He told
the mayor, "No excuse, sir," and pledged to "grovel, if
necessary" to win back the city's trust. The next day he asked
for the resignations of five senior executives. He put hundreds
of millions into upgrading infrastructure and turning things
around. 

Rowe was equally forthright last December when one of Exelon's
nuclear plants in Illinois was found to be leaking tritium into
the aquifer. A byproduct of nuclear generation, tritium is a
radioactive form of water that can increase the risk of cancer,
birth defects, and genetic damage. The state had designated a
river for its disposal, but the stuff was leaking into the
groundwater instead. Further investigation revealed two more
Exelon plants to be leaking tritium too. Although regulators and
the Illinois health department declared the leaks too small to
threaten public health, the news caused an uproar. "Where we
screwed up--and there is no other way to call it--is that some
water with tritium leaked from our premises onto other people's
property," Rowe says. "It is not dangerous, but it was sloppy
operations on our part." 

Customers today seem to like Exelon about as much as you can
ever like the electric company. Says David Kolata, executive
director of the Citizens Utility Board, a Chicago consumer
group, of Rowe: "He has a tradition of working things out in
Illinois that is good for the company and consumers." Yet lately
Rowe has angered people by pushing to end a rate freeze put in
place by legislators to ease the shift to a wholesale auction
system for electricity. When it comes, it will probably raise
Exelon's profits, as well as the rates consumers pay. Says
Kolata: "Exelon thinks they are now a global company, so how
dare the people of Illinois tell them what to do? John Rowe is
risking a lot by being so aggressive. He has a very good
reputation in Illinois that could be tarnished." 

Rowe's tolerance for controversy served him well on the
commission that shaped 2005's energy bill. The bipartisan panel
included experts from industry and environmental groups. He
joined it in endorsing carbon-emission limits to counter global
warming. Such limits are anathema to most utility
executives--they would raise the costs of fossil-fuel-fired
power plants, including ones that account for about half of
Exelon's business. Shrugs Rowe: "The utility industry is one of
the few places I would be called a liberal." 

The commission contradicted the White House, which maintains
that humans' role in causing global warming needs more proof and
that carbon limits would hurt the economy. Its report, in turn,
emboldened an arm of the Energy Department to declare that
limiting carbon emissions would not slow U.S. economic growth.
In April, North Carolina's Duke Energy joined Exelon in
testifying before Congress in support of carbon taxes.
Commission co-chair John P. Holdren, a Harvard professor of
environmental policy, says of Rowe's role, "True leaders can
bring people along. He has so much stature that if he comes out
and says something different, the industry stops and takes a
look rather than assuming he's wrong." 

It wasn't long ago that the energy industry was dominated by
another company whose name started with "E" and which had a
Texan CEO whom President Bush liked to call Kenny Boy. "I used
to have to go to these lunches with Ken Lay," recalls Rowe, who
met the Enron CEO in meetings with regulators and policymakers
in New England. "The politicians would treat me like a Chihuahua
on a leash: 'Come, John. Sit, John. Roll over, John.' And they
would treat Ken like the Lord himself," he says. "About the
fourth time I'm dragging my sorry tail out of lunch, the speaker
of the state legislature says, 'I bet you're getting real sick
of these lunches.' 'They're not a lot of fun,' I told him. He
says, 'You're not having a lot of fun, but we're having a lot of
fun.' " Rowe laughs. Now that Enron is in ashes and nuclear
power may be on the rebound, he's the one having fun. 

But gaining regulatory approval involves such elaborate
applications, reviews, and hearings that a decade or more could
pass before the U.S. sees a new plant. Though Exelon has
launched applications for two new nukes, Rowe knows they almost
certainly won't get built during his tenure, even if the
nuclear-waste question is resolved. He's more likely to be
remembered for helping the industry during its fallow phase. Yet
for a man obsessed with history, he's surprisingly philosophical
about leaving such a modest mark. "If I could pick what I do,
I'd rather be the discoverer of the great biochemical innovation
that revolutionizes health care," says Rowe. He pauses, leaning
back in his chair as he twirls his ancient ring. Then he
gestures toward that Chicago skyline Exelon keeps lit and
laughs, "But I'm pretty good at this." 

Research associate Patricia A. Neering contributed to this
article.  From the May 15, 2006 issue

*****************************************************************
 50 turkishpress.com: Nuclear Energy In Turkey

 Published: 5/8/2006 

ANKARA - While some academicians and non-governmental
organizations supported the Turkish government's plans for
establishment of nuclear power plants in Turkey, some others
opposed it. 

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ozcan Ultanir of the Ankara University, who
also acts as chairman of Wind Energy &Hydro-Power Plants
Businessmen's Association (RESSIAD), said, ''we should benefit
from renewable energy sources and nuclear energy to protect
environment. Therefore, we have been supporting nuclear energy
from the very beginning. When taking into consideration Turkey's
long-term electricity demands, Turkey should inevitably use
nuclear energy.'' 

Prof. Dr. Orhan Yesin from the Middle East Technical University
(METU) Department of Mechanical Engineering said, ''nuclear
power plants will play an important role in efforts to diversify
energy sources and to provide qualified and cheap electricity. I
think that nuclear power plants are better than thermoelectric
power plants since they do not emit greenhouse gases. Today,
concerns about global warming have been increasing day by day.
Since the Kyoto Protocol entailed countries to restrict
emissions of greenhouse gases, nuclear energy has come to the
forefront again. Turkey attempted to establish nuclear power
plants for four times between the years of 1960 and 2000, but
yielded no results. Now, we have the necessary technical
infrastructure. Recently, Turkey has launched a new initiative
to establish three nuclear power plants. Authorities are
expected to make a choice from high-tech reactor types. We
should prefer one of the third-generation reactor types such as
EPR, ABWR, AP1000 and CANDU.'' 

Independent Industrialists' &Businessmen's Association (MUSIAD)
Chairman Omer Bolat and Ankara Chamber of Industry (ASO)
Chairman Zafer Caglayan also supported the government's plans
for nuclear power plants. 

Caglayan said, ''those who oppose to establishment of nuclear
power plants in Turkey should not forget the fact that there
have already been similar plants in the neighboring countries.
Turkey needs a national energy strategy. Establishment of
nuclear power plants in Turkey will create a great atmosphere
for investments.'' 

Meanwhile, Prof. Dr. Inci Gokmen from the METU Department of
Chemistry, opposed to establishment of nuclear power plants in
Turkey. ''Except for Finland, any western countries have not
established a new nuclear power plant since 1978. They closed
down their existing plants. The West needs a new market to sell
its nuclear technology. That market should not be our country.
Nuclear power plants contain extremely complicated technologies.
Also, Turkey will have to import fuel for those power plants.
The issue of nuclear waste is another serious problem. We should
benefit from domestic and renewable energy sources instead of
establishing nuclear power plants.'' 

Chamber of Turkish Electrical Engineers (EMO) Chairman Kemal
Ulusaler called on the government to stop its initiatives
immediately. 

''We will try all legal remedies to prevent establishment of
nuclear power plants. If the government insists on its plans, we
will start a judicial struggle,'' he said. 

Ertugrul Unluturk, chairman of Chamber of Turkish Environment
Engineers, defended, ''nuclear power plants are now considered
out-dated technology. However, our government ignores the
problem of nuclear waste, risk of nuclear accidents and possible
impacts of such plants on environment and public health.
Important capital groups in Turkey have come together to invest
in nuclear power plants. They will hold a meeting at the Turkish
Ministry of Energy &Natural Resources on May 12th to discuss
their future shares. During the meeting, they will try to plan
an investment which will jeopardize our health and our future.'' 


� 2006 Anadolu Agency. All rights reserved. This material may not 
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. � 1997-2006  
Anatolia.com Inc.       
*****************************************************************
 51 Japan Times:  Rokkasho safe to operate - high court 

Judges rule assessment of uranium enrichment plant was proper 
SENDAI (Kyodo) The Sendai High Court on Tuesday upheld a lower
court decision and rejected demands by a group of citizens that
government approval be revoked for the country's only commercial
uranium enrichment plant. 

  [News photo]   

  Citizens demanding revocation of central government approval
for a uranium enrichment plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture,
head to the Sendai High Court.   


The three-judge panel, led by Judge Hiroshi Ohashi, dismissed
the appeal filed by 77 residents against the March 2002 district
court decision. 

The high court had widened qualifications for plaintiffs in the
suit to people living within 20 km of the uranium enrichment
plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture. 

The district court had ruled that 157 of the 171 people from
across Japan who filed the suit did not qualify as plaintiffs
because they lived too far from the facility. Only 14 residents
of the village of Rokkasho and the neighboring town of Yokohama
were able to continue as plaintiffs. 

However, the high court also accepted residents from the towns
of Tohoku and Noheji in Aomori Prefecture as plaintiffs. 

The Aomori District Court dismissed the suit in March 2002,
ruling the government's safety checks had been appropriate. 

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the
Rokkasho plant should not have been approved because the
facility was vulnerable to massive earthquakes, plane crashes
and major nuclear accidents. 

The court said the government's safety examination was
"legitimate" and "flawless." 

The government gave the green light in 1988 for Japan Nuclear
Fuel Ltd. to begin operating the plant and the suit against it
was filed the following year. 

The plant, the first in Japan to commercially produce enriched
uranium as fuel for nuclear power, began operating in 1992. 

During the lower court litigation, the plaintiffs said the
government did not use the latest quake data when it conducted
its safety review. They also said the plant's resistance to
earthquake was inadequate because it was the same as ordinary
buildings. 

They argued there was a strong possibility of an airplane
crashing into the facility as it is located about 28 km north of
the Misawa air base and 10 km north of a firing range. The base
is used by the U.S. Air Force and the Air Self-Defense Force. 

The government countered it had used the latest quake data and
quake resistance did not need to be the same as for nuclear
plants because the danger to the facility, which does not have a
reactor, was smaller. 

The government said a plane crash was unlikely because military
drills take place far from the facility and planes generally are
banned from flying over the plant. 

The citizens have filed other suits asking the Aomori District
Court to revoke government approval for the operations of three
other nuclear facilities in Rokkasho -- a low-level radioactive
waste disposal plant, a high-level radioactive waste storage
facility and a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The court
has yet to rule on those cases. 

The Japan Times: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 52 Telegraph: A matter of when, not if
 
Wednesday 10 May 2006 

  [telegraph.co.uk]       

SEARCH Our siteWeb SEARCH Our siteWeb [enhanced by google] Home

(Filed: 14/05/2006)

Nicholas Shakespeare reviews Nuclear Terrorism by Graham Allison.
 
First, the bad news. In May 1997, General Alexander Lebed,
security adviser to President Yeltsin, admitted that 84 of 132
special "suitcase" nuclear bombs could not be accounted for.

Devised to be activated by a single individual, and taking 20
minutes to prepare, the missing bombs may well have been stolen
or sold. 

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, security consisted of no
more, often, than "an underpaid guard sitting inside a
chain-link fence". Nor was the theft of weapons-grade material
hypothetical. The Commander of Russia's Pacific Fleet was
convicted of selling 64 decommissioned ships, including two
aircraft carriers. 

Of more concern, al-Qa'eda's number two, al-Zawahiri, boasted in
2001: "we purchased some suitcase bombs" - from a source in
Uzbekistan. 

Only now can we begin to absorb the enormity of the false alarm
with which Graham Allison begins his book. One month after
September 11, 2001, the director of the CIA informed President
Bush that al-Qa'eda had a 10-kiloton bomb, stolen from the
Soviet arsenal, ready to blow up in New York. 

Detonated above Times Square, such a bomb would incinerate
1,100,000 people, kill thousands more in their panic to escape
radiation, render the entire borough uninhabitable for years,
and cause a psychological devastation that "remains almost
inconceivable". 

With no return address, al-Qa'eda had no fear of reprisal: "Even
if the president were prepared to negotiate, al-Qa'eda had no
phone number to call." After weeks of panic, in which the
Vice-President, Dick Cheney, left Washington for an "undisclosed
location", the CIA report turned out to be as wrong as the CIA's
assessment of the nuclear threat posed by Iraq. 

None the less, the planting of a nuclear device in a major city
remains a strong possibility. What's more, it's been done: on
November 23, 1995, Chechen separatists placed a dirty bomb
(composed of cesium-137) in Moscow's Ismailovsky Park - then
alerted journalists to its whereabouts. 

The consensus among experts, writes Allison, is that a dirty
bomb is "long overdue", and that "on the current course, nuclear
terrorism is inevitable". He quotes the US General Eugene
Habiger, in charge of strategic nuclear weapons until 1998: "It
is not a matter of if; it's a matter of when." 

Allison has a rich CV that crosses party lines. Clinton kept him
on as assistant secretary of defence after Allison had served
under Reagan. As founding dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government, he has worked on the front-line and is no
scaremonger. That's why his analysis is sobering.

 In clear and thoughtful language, he outlines the availability
of nuclear weapons, the determination of groups like al-Qa'eda
to deploy them, and the steps that must be taken to prevent
this. 

Leaving aside some 22,000 atomic weapons in the former Soviet
Union, terrorists could look to Pakistan or North Korea for
fissile material. They could even build a bomb themselves. When
asked how easy this was, Theodore Taylor, the designer of
America's smallest and largest nuclear bombs, replied: "Very
easy. Double underline. Very easy." In fact, the know-how is
available on the internet, or from Amazon for the price of
�26.11 (Los Alamos Primer and Atomic Energy for Military
Purposes). 

As for delivering the bomb to the US mainland, this is "the
easiest step in the whole process". In 2003, as an exercise, an
ABC News reporter transported 15lbs of depleted uranium from
Jakarta to Los Angeles inside a Samsonite suitcase. It arrived
unchecked in one of 20,000 seaborne containers that enter US
ports every day. Simpler still, writes Allison, bearing in mind
that 95 per cent of shipped material is not opened for
inspection, you could FedEx your bomb. 

Allison levels serious charges against his government for
squandering not just America's resources but the goodwill of the
international community in its single-minded pursuit of Saddam.

After September 11, the threat of nuclear terrorism became
"incandescent" - "and yet no coherent strategy for combating
nuclear terrorism has emerged". The Bush administration
correctly identified the threat, then went and shot the wrong
guy. 

The war that should have been mounted on terror was diverted
instead to Iraq, which did not constitute a nuclear danger. The
result: America's international standing "has fallen to the
lowest point in modern history", and North Korea and Iran were
given breathing space to advance their own nuclear ambitions - a
situation, warns Allison, that "promises to become the greatest
failure in the nearly 230-year history of American foreign
policy". 

And the good news? Allison believes that a catastrophe is
avoidable, but only if we press our governments to take swift
and concerted action. 

Exactly 20 years after Chernobyl, and in the month of Iran's
claims to be the ninth nuclear power, this is a book of awful
relevance. As John le Carr� writes: "Lucid, calm, cogent and
majestically well-informed, Allison's Nuclear Terrorism is
required reading for every Western politician, journalist and
espiocrat." I would go further. Everyone ought to read it. 

 � Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 53 Depleted Uranium - Far Worse Than 9/11
 
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:21:57 -0500 (CDT)

May 3, 2006
Vital Truths and Information Clearing House

Depleted Uranium - Far Worse Than 9/11

Depleted Uranium Dust - Public Health Disaster For The People Of Iraq and
Afghanistan

by

Doug Westerman

In 1979, depleted uranium (DU) particles escaped from the National Lead
Industries factory near Albany, N.Y.,which was manufacturing DU weapons for
the U.S military. The particles traveled 26 miles and were discovered in a
laboratory filter by Dr. Leonard Dietz, a nuclear physicist. This discovery
led to a shut down of the factory in 1980, for releasing morethan 0.85
pounds of DU dust into the atmosphere every month, and involved a cleanup of
contaminated properties costing over 100 million dollars.

Imagine a far worse scenario. Terrorists acquire a million pounds of the
deadly dust and scatter it in populated areas throughout the U.S. Hundreds
of children report symptoms. Many acquire cancer and leukemia, suffering an
early and painful death. Huge increases in severe birth defects are
reported. Oncologists are overwhelmed. Soccer fields, sand lots and parks,
traditional play areas for kids, are no longer safe. People lose their most
basic freedom, the ability to go outside and safely breathe. Sounds worse
than 9/11? Welcome to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. Jawad Al-Ali (55), director of the Oncology Center at the largest
hospital in Basra, Iraq stated, at a recent ( 2003) conference in Japan:

"Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen
before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient. For example,
leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one patient with 2 cancers - one
in his stomach and kidney. Months later, primary cancer was developing in
his other kidney--he had three different cancer types. The second is the
clustering of cancer in families. We have 58 families here with more than
one person affected by cancer. Dr Yasin, a general Surgeon here has two
uncles, a sister and cousin affected with cancer. Dr Mazen, another
specialist, has six family members suffering from cancer. My wife has nine
members of her family with cancer".

"Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning. They have a much
higher absorption rate as their blood is being used to build and nourish
their bones and they have a lot of soft tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia
used to be diseases affecting them the most, however, cancer of the lymph
system which can develop anywhere on the body, and has rarely been seen
before the age of 12 is now also common.",

"We were accused of spreading propaganda for Saddam before the war. When I
have gone to do talks I have had people accuse me of being pro-Saddam.
Sometimes I feel afraid to even talk. Regime people have been stealing my
data and calling it their own, and using it for their own agendas. The
Kuwaitis banned me from entering Kuwait - we were accused of being Saddam
supporters."

John Hanchette, a journalism professor at St. Bonaventure University, and
one of the founding editors of USA TODAY related the following to DU
researcher Leuren Moret.  He stated  that he had prepared news breaking
stories about the effects of DU on Gulf War soldiers and Iraqi citizens, but
that each time he was ready to publish, he received a phone call from the
Pentagon asking him not to print the story.  He has since been replaced as
editor of USA TODAY.

Dr. Keith Baverstock, The World Health Organization's chief expert on
radiation and health for 11 years and author of an unpublished study has
charged that his report " on the cancer risk to civilians in Iraq from
breathing uranium contaminated dust " was  also deliberately suppressed.

The information released by the U.S. Dept. of Defense is not reliable,
according to some sources even within the military.

In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs
exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic,
then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in
Washington was quoted as saying,

"The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the
risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body."

At that time Dr. Durakovic was a colonel in the U.S. Army.  He has since
left the military, to found the Uranium Medical Research Center, a privately
funded organization with headquarters in Canada.

PFC Stuart Grainger of 23 Army Division, 34th Platoon. (Names and numbers
have been changed) was diagnosed with cancer several after returning from
Iraq.  Seven other men in the Platoon also have malignancies.

Doug Rokke, U.S. Army contractor who headed a clean-up of depleted uranium
after the first Gulf War states:,

"Depleted uranium is a crime against God and humanity."

Rokke's own crew, a hundred employees, was devastated by exposure to the
fine dust. He stated:

"When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy,"

After performing clean-up operations in the desert (mistakenly without
protective gear), 30 members of his staff died, and most others"including
Rokke himself"developed serious health problems. Rokke now has reactive
airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts, and kidney problems.

 "We warned the Department of Defense in 1991 after the Gulf War. Their
arrogance is beyond comprehension.

Yet the D.O.D still insists such ingestion is "not sufficient to make troops
seriously ill in most cases."

Then why did it make the clean up crew seriously or terminally ill in nearly
all cases?

Marion Falk, a retired chemical physicist who built nuclear bombs for more
than 20 years at Lawrence Livermore Lab, was asked if he thought that DU
weapons operate in a similar manner as a dirty bomb.

"That's exactly what they are. They fit the description of a dirty bomb in
every way."

According to Falk, more than 30 percent of the DU fired from the cannons of
U.S. tanks is reduced to particles one-tenth of a micron (one millionth of a
meter) in size or smaller on impact.  "The larger the bang" the greater the
amount of DU that is dispersed into the atmosphere, Falk said. With the
larger missiles and bombs, nearly 100 percent of the DU is reduced to
radioactive dust particles of the "micron size" or smaller, he said.

When asked if the main purpose for using it was for destroying things and
killing people, Falk was more specific:

"I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people."

When a DU round or bomb strikes a hard target, most of its kinetic energy is
converted to heat " sufficient heat to ignite the DU.  From 40% to 70% of
the DU is converted to extremely fine dust particles of ceramic uranium
oxide (primarily dioxide, though other formulations also occur). Over 60% of
these particles are smaller than 5 microns in diameter, about the same size
as the cigarette ash particles in cigarette smoke and therefore respirable.

Because conditions are so chaotic in Iraq, the medical infrastructure has
been greatly compromised.  In terms of both cancer and birth defects due to
DU, only a small fraction of the cases are being reported.

Doctors in southern Iraq are making comparisons to the birth defects that
followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. They have
numerous photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs
outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of
deformities goes on an on.  Such birth defects were extremely rare in Iraq
prior to the large scale use of DU. Weapons. Now they are commonplace.  In
hospitals across Iraq, the mothers are no longer asking, "Doctor, is it a
boy or girl?" but rather, "Doctor, is it normal?"  The photos are
horrendous, they can be viewed on the following website

Ross B. Mirkarimi, a spokesman at The Arms Control Research Centre stated:

"Unborn children of the region are being asked to pay the highest price, the
integrity of their DNA."

Prior to her death from leukemia in Sept. 2004, Nuha Al Radi , an
accomplished Iraqi artist and author  of the "Baghdad Diaries" wrote:

"Everyone seems to be dying of cancer. Every day one hears about another
acquaintance or friend of a friend dying. How many more die in hospitals
that one does not know? Apparently, over thirty percent of Iraqis have
cancer, and there are lots of kids with leukemia."

"The depleted uranium left by the U.S. bombing campaign has turned Iraq into
a cancer-infested country. For hundreds of years to come, the effects of the
uranium will continue to wreak havoc on Iraq and its surrounding areas."

This excerpt in her diary was written in 1993, after Gulf War I
(Approximately 300 tons of DU ordinance, mostly in desert areas)  but before
Operation Iraqi Freedom, (Est. 1,700 tons with much more near major
population centers).  So, it's 5-6 times worse now than it was when she
wrote than diary entry!!   Estimates of the percentage of D.U. which was
'aerosolized' into fine uranium oxide dust are approximately 30-40%. That
works out to over one million pounds of dust scattered throughout Iraq.

As a special advisor to the World Health Organization, the United Nations,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Dr. Ahmad Hardan has documented the
effects of DU in Iraq between 1991 and 2002.

"American forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991.  The
actual figure is closer to 800.  This has caused a health crisis that has
affected almost a third of a million people.  As if that was not enough,
America went on and used 200 tons more in Bagdad alone during the recent
invasion.

I don"t know about other parts of Iraq, it will take me years to document
that.

 "In Basra, it took us two years to obtain conclusive proof of what DU does,
but we now know what to look for and the results are terrifying."

By far the most devastating effect is on unborn children.  Nothing can
prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved fetuses " scarcely
human in appearance. Iraq is now seeing babies with terribly foreshortened
limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors
where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without
eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the
defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near
A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.

Dr. Hardan also states:

"I arranged for a delegation from Japan's Hiroshima Hospital to come and
share their expertise in the radiological diseases we

Are likely to face over time. The delegation told me the Americans had
objected and they decided not to come. Similarly, a world famous German
cancer specialist agreed to come, only to be told later that he would not be
given permission to enter Iraq."

Not only are we poisoning the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are
making a concerted effort to keep out specialists from other countries who
can help.  The U.S. Military doesn"t want the rest of the world to find out
what we have done.

Such relatively swift development of cancers has been reported by doctors in
hospitals treating civilians following NATO bombing with DU in Yugoslavia in
1998-1999 and the US military invasion of Iraq using DU for the first time
in 1991. Medical experts report that this phenomenon of multiple
malignancies from unrelated causes has been unknown until now and is a new
syndrome associated with internal DU exposure.
Just 467 US personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in
1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are
dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This
astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of
those soldiers who served in the first Gulf War now have medical problems.

Although not reported in the mainstream American press, a recent Tokyo
tribunal, guided by the principles of International Criminal Law and
International Humanitarian Law, found President George W. Bush guilty of war
crimes. On March 14, 2004, Nao Shimoyachi, reported in The Japan Times that
President Bush was found guilty "for attacking civilians with indiscriminate
weapons and other arms,"and the "tribunal also issued recommendations for
banning Depleted Uranium shells and other weapons that indiscriminately harm
people."  Although this was a "Citizen's Court" having no legal authority,
the participants were sincere in their determination that international laws
have been violated and a war crimes conviction is warranted.

Troops involved in actual combat are not the only servicemen reporting
symptoms. Four soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving
in Iraq are among several members of the same company, the 442nd Military
Police, who say they have been battling persistent physical ailments that
began last summer in the Iraqi town of Samawah.

"I got sick instantly in June," said Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos, a Brooklyn
housing cop. "My health kept going downhill with daily headaches, constant
numbness in my hands and rashes on my stomach."

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, UMRC founder, and nuclear medicine expert examined and
tested nine soldiers from the company says that four "almost certainly"
inhaled radioactive dust from exploded American shells manufactured with
depleted uranium. Laboratory tests revealed traces of two manmade forms of
uranium in urine samples from four of the soldiers.

If so, the men - Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and
Cpl. Anthony Yonnone - are the first confirmed cases of inhaled depleted
uranium exposure from the current Iraq conflict.

The 442nd, made up for the most part of New York cops, firefighters and
correction officers, is based in Orangeburg, Rockland County. Dispatched to
Iraq in Easter of 2003, the unit's members had been providing guard duty for
convoys, running jails and training Iraqi police. The entire company is due
to return home later this month.

"These are amazing results, especially since these soldiers were military
police not exposed to the heat of battle," said Dr. Asaf Duracovic, who
examined the G.I.s and performed the testing.

In a group of eight U.S. led Coalition servicemen whose babies were born
without eyes, seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU dust. In a
much group (250 soldiers) exposed during the first Gulf war, 67% of the
children conceived after the war had birth defects.

Dr. Durakovic's  UMRC research team also conducted a three-week field trip
to Iraq in October of 2003. It collected about 100 samples of substances
such as soil, civilian urine and the tissue from the corpses of Iraqi
soldiers in 10 cities, including Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. Durakovic said
preliminary tests show that the air, soil and water samples contained
"hundreds to thousands of times" the normal levels of radiation.

"This high level of contamination is because much more depleted uranium was
used this year than in (the Gulf War of) 1991," Durakovic told The Japan
Times.

"They are hampering efforts to prove the connection between Depleted Uranium
and the illness," Durakovic said

"They do not want to admit that they committed war crimes" by using weapons
that kill indiscriminately, which are banned under international law."

(NOTE ABOUT DR. DURAKOVIC;  First, he was warned to stop his work, then he
was fired from his position, then his house was ransacked, and he has also
reported receiving death threats.  Evidently the U.S. D.O.D is very keen on
censoring DU whistle-blowers!)

Dr. Durakovic, UMRC  research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz,
published a unique study in the August 2002 issue of Military Medicine
Medical Journal. The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU
among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal
ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish
between natural uranium and DU.  The study, which examined British, Canadian
and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found
that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their
urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War
veteran. That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU "amounts to
a massive malpractice," Dietz said in an interview.

The Japanese began studying DU effects in the southern Iraq in the summer of
2003. They had a Geiger counter which they watched go off the scale on many
occasions. During their visit,a local hospital was treating upwards of 600
children per day, many of which suffered symptoms of internal poisoning by
radiation.  600 children per day?  How many of these children will get
cancer and suffer and early and painful death?

"Ingested DU particles can cause up to 1,000 times the damage of an X-ray",
said Mary Olson, a nuclear waste specialist and biologist at the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service in Washington D.C.

It is this difference in particle size as well as the dust's crystalline
structure that make the presence of DU dust in the environment such an
extreme hazard, and which differentiates its properties from that of the
natural uranium dust that is ubiquitous and to which we all are exposed
every day, which seldom reaches such a small size.  This point is being
stressed, as comparing DU particles to much larger natural ones is
misleading.

The U.S. Military and its supporters regularly quote a Rand Corp. Study
which uses the natural uranium inhaled by miners.

Particles smaller than 10 microns can access the innermost recesses of lung
tissue where they become permanently lodged. Furthermore, if the substance
is relatively insoluble, such as the ceramic DU-oxide dust produced from
burning DU, it will remain in place for decades, dissolving very slowly into
the bloodstream and lymphatic fluids through the course of time. Studies
have identified DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans nine years after that
conflict, testifying to the permanence of ceramic DU-oxide in the lungs.
Thus the effects are far different from natural uranium dust, whose coarse
particles are almost entirely excreted by the body within 24 hours.

The military is aware of DU's harmful effects on the human genetic code. A
2001 study of DU's effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates
that DU's chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage
than would be expected from its radiation effect alone.

Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than
micro-sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British
toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of
the nano-particle is due to its size.

For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13
microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But
when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly
all the mice died within 4 hours.

"Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by
inhalation, and ingestion,"  writes Lauren Moret, another DU researcher.
"Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation
of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure,
because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the
blood.

"When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb
directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate
all through the brain," she wrote. "Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to
depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and
impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria,
which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve
signal across synapses in the brain.

Based on dissolution and excretion rate data, it is possible to approximate
the amount of DU initially inhaled by these veterans. For the handful of
veterans studied, this amount averaged 0.34 milligrams. Knowing the specific
activity (radiation rate) for DU allows one to determine that the total
radiation (alpha, beta and gamma) occurring from DU and its radioactive
decay products within their bodies comes to about 26 radiation events every
second, or 800 million events each year.  At .34 milligrams per dose, there
are over 10 trillion doses floating around Iraq and Afghanistan.

How many additional deaths are we talking about? In the aftermath of the
first Gulf War, the UK Atomic Energy Authority came up with estimates for
the potential effects of the DU contamination left by the conflict. It
calculated that "this could cause "500,000 potential deaths". This was "a
theoretical figure", it stressed, that indicated "a significant problem".

The AEA's calculation was made in a confidential memo to the privatized
munitions company, Royal Ordnance, dated 30 April 1991. The high number of
potential deaths was dismissed as "very far from realistic" by a British
defense minister, Lord Gilbert. "Since the rounds were fired in the desert,
many miles from the nearest village, it is highly unlikely that the local
population would have been exposed to any significant amount of respirable
oxide," he said.  These remarks were made prior to the more recent invasions
of both Afghanistan and Iraq, where DU munitions were used on a larger scale
in and near many of the most populated areas.  If the amount of DU ordinance
used in the first Gulf War was sufficient to cause 500,000 potential deaths,
(had it been used near the populated areas), then what of the nearly six
times that amount used in operation Iraqi Freedom, which was used in and
near the major towns and cities?  Extrapolating the U.K. AEA estimate with
this amount gives a figure of potentially 3 million extra deaths from
inhaling DU dust in Iraq alone, not including Afghanistan. This is about 11%
of Iraq's total population of 27 million. Dan Bishop, Ph.d chemist for IDUST
feels that this estimate may be low, if the long life of DU dust is
considered.  In Afghanistan, the concentration in some areas is greater than
Iraq.

What can an otherwise healthy person expect when inhaling the deadly dust?
Captain Terry Riordon was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces serving in
Gulf War I. He passed away in April 1999 at age 45. Terry left Canada a very
fit man who did cross-country skiing and ran in marathons. On his return
only two months later he could barely walk.

He returned to Canada in February 1991 with documented loss of motor
control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty
breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, body
pains, aching bones, diarrhea, and depression. After his death, depleted
uranium contamination was discovered in his lungs and bones. For eight years
he suffered his innumerable ailments and struggled with the military
bureaucracy and the system to get proper diagnosis and treatment.  He had
arranged, upon his death, to bequeath his body to the UMRC.  Through his
gift, the UMRC was able to obtain conclusive evidence that inhaling fine
particles of depleted uranium dust completely destroyed his heath.  How many
Terry Riordans are out there among the troops being exposed, not to mention
Iraqi and Afghan civilians?

Inhaling the dust will not kill large numbers of Iraqi and Afghan civilians
right away, any more than it did Captain Riordan. Rather, what we will see
is vast numbers of people who are chronically and severely ill, having their
life spans drastically shortened, many with multiple cancers.

Melissa Sterry, another sick veteran, served for six months at a supply base
in Kuwait during the winter of 1991-92. Part of her job with the National
Guard's Combat Equipment Company "A" was to clean out tanks and other
armored vehicles that had been used during the war, preparing them for
storage.

She said she swept out the armored vehicles, cleaning up dust, sand and
debris, sometimes being ordered to help bury contaminated parts. In a
telephone interview, she stated that after researching depleted uranium she
chose not to take the military's test because she could not trust the
results.  It is alarming that Melissa was stationed in Kuwait, not Iraq.
Cleaning out tanks with DU dust was enough to make her ill.

In, 2003, the Christian Science Monitor sent reporters to Iraq to
investigate long-term effects of depleted uranium. Staff writer Scott
Peterson saw children playing on top of a burnt-out tank near a vegetable
stand on the outskirts of Baghdad, a tank that had been destroyed by
armor-piercing shells coated with depleted uranium. Wearing his mask and
protective clothing, he pointed his Geiger counter toward the tank. It
registered 1,000 times the normal background radiation. If the troops were
on a mission of mercy to bring democracy to Iraq, wouldn"t keeping children
away from such dangers be the top priority?

The laws of war prohibit the use of weapons that have deadly and inhumane
effects beyond the field of battle. Nor can weapons be legally deployed in
war when they are known to remain active, or cause harm after the war
concludes.  It is no surprise that the Japanese Court found President Bush
guilty of war crimes.

Dr. Alim Yacoub of Basra University conducted an epidemiological study into
incidences of malignancies in children under fifteen years old, in the Basra
area (an area bombed with DU during the first Gulf War). They found over the
1990 to 1999 period, there was a 242% rise.  That was before the recent
invasion.

In Kosovo, similar spikes in cancer and birth defects were noticed by
numerous international experts, although the quantity of DU weapons used was
only a small fraction of what was used in Iraq.

FIELD STUDY RESULTS FROM AFGHANISTAN

Verifiable statistics for Iraq will remain elusive for some time, but
widespread field studies in Afghanistan point to the existence of a large
scale public health disaster. In May of 2002, the UMRC (Uranium Medical
Research Center) sent a field team to interview and examine residents and
internally displaced people in Afghanistan.  The UMRC field team began by
first identifying several hundred people suffering from illnesses and
medical conditions displaying clinical symptoms which are considered to be
characteristic of radiation exposure.  To investigate the possibility that
the symptoms were due to radiation sickness, the UMRC team collected urine
specimens and soil samples, transporting them to an independent research lab
in England.

UMRC's Field Team found Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation
poisoning, along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination,
including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large,
dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid
smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper
respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom
profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in
the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower
back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties,
headaches, memory problems and disorientation.

Two additional scientific study teams were sent to Afghanistan. The first
arrived in June 2002, concentrating on the Jalalabad region. The second
arrived four months later, broadening the study to include the capital
Kabul, which has a population of nearly 3.5 million people. The city itself
contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets during Operation
Enduring Freedom. For the study's purposes, the vicinity of three major bomb
sites were examined. It was predicted that signatures of depleted or
enriched uranium would be found in the urine and soil samples taken during
the research. The team was unprepared for the shock of its findings, which
indicated in both Jalalabad and Kabul, DU was causing the high levels of
illness. Tests taken from a number of Jalalabad subjects showed
concentrations 400% to 2000% above that for normal populations, amounts
which have not been recorded in civilian studies before.

Those in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British precision bombing
showed extreme signs of contamination, consistent with uranium exposure.
These included pains in joints, back/kidney pain, muscle weakness, memory
problems and confusion and disorientation. Those exposed to the bombing
report symptoms of flu-type illnesses, bleeding, runny noses and
blood-stained mucous.  How many of these people will suffer a painful and
early death from cancer? Even the study team itself complained of similar
symptoms during their stay. Most of these symptoms last for days or months.

In August of 2002, UMRC completed its preliminary analysis of the results
from Nangarhar.  Without exception, every person donating urine specimens
tested positive for uranium contamination. The specific results indicated an
astoundingly high level of contamination; concentrations were 100 to 400
times greater than those of the Gulf War Veterans tested in 1999.   A
researcher reported. "We took both soil and biological samples, and found
considerable presence in urine samples of radioactivity; the heavy
concentration astonished us.  They were beyond our wildest imagination."

In the fall of 2002, the UMRC field team went back to Afghanistan for a
broader survey, and revealed a potentially larger exposure than initially
anticipated. Approximately 30% of those interviewed in the affected areas
displayed symptoms of radiation sickness.  New born babies were among those
displaying symptoms, with village elders reporting that over 25% of the
infants were inexplicably ill.

How widespread and extensive is the exposure?  A quote from the UMRC field
report reads:

"The UMRC field team was shocked by the breadth of public health impacts
coincident with the bombing. Without exception, at every bombsite
investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian
population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by
uranium."

In Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, UMRC lab results indicated high concentrations
of NON-DEPLETED URANIUM, with the concentrations being much higher than in
DU victims from Iraq. Afghanistan was used as a testing ground for a new
generation of "bunker buster" bombs containing high concentrations of other
uranium alloys.

"A significant portion of the civilian population"? It appears that by going
after a handful of terrorists in Afghanistan we have poisoned a huge number
of innocent civilians, with a disproportionate number of them being
children.

The military has found depleted uranium in the urine of some soldiers but
contends it was not enough to make them seriously ill in most cases. Critics
have asked for more sensitive, more expensive testing.

------------------------------------

According to an October 2004  Dispatch from the Italian Military Health
Observatory, a total of 109 Italian soldiers have died thus far due to
exposure to depleted uranium.  A spokesman at the Military Health
Observatory, Domenico Leggiero, states "The total of 109 casualties exceeds
the total number of persons dying as a consequence of road accidents. Anyone
denying the significance of such data is purely acting out of ill faith, and
the truth is that our soldiers are dying out there due to a lack of adequate
protection against depleted uranium".     Members of the Observatory have
petitioned for an urgent hearing "in order to study effective prevention and
safeguard measures aimed at reducing the death-toll amongst our serving
soldiers".

There were only 3,000 Italian soldiers sent to Iraq, and they were there for
a short time.  The number of 109 represents about 3.6% of the total.  If the
same percentage of Iraqis get a similar exposure, that would amount to
936,000.  As Iraqis are permanently living in the same contaminated
environment, their percentage will be higher.

The Pentagon/DoD have interfered with UMRC's ability to have its studies
published by managing, a progressive and persistent misinformation program
in the press against UMRC, and through the use of its control of science
research grants to refute UMRC's scientific findings and destroy the
reputation of UMRC's scientific staff, physicians and laboratories. UMRC is
the first independent research organization to find Depleted Uranium in the
bodies of US, UK and Canadian Gulf War I veterans and has subsequently,
following Operation Iraqi Freedom, found Depleted Uranium in the water,
soils and atmosphere of Iraq as well as biological samples donated by Iraqi
civilians. Yet the first thing that comes up on Internet searches are these
supposed "studies repeatedly showing DU to be harmless."  The technique is
to approach the story as a debate between government and independent experts
in which public interest is stimulated by polarizing the issues rather than
telling the scientific and medical truth. The issues are systematically
confused and misinformed by government, UN regulatory agencies (WHO, UNEP,
IAEA, CDC, DOE, etc) and defense sector (military and the weapons developers
and manufacturers).

Dr. Yuko Fujita, an assistant professor at Keio University, Japan who
examined the effects of radioactivity in Iraq from May to June, 2003,  said
: "I doubt that Iraq is fabricating data because in fact there are many
children suffering from leukemia in hospitals," Fujita said. "As a result of
the Iraq war, the situation will be desperate in some five to 10 years."

The  March 14, 2004  Tokyo Citizen's Tribunal that "convicted" President
Bush gave the following summation regarding DU weapons: (This court was a
citizen's court with no binding legal authority)

1.   Their use has indiscriminate effects;

2.   Their use is out of proportion with the pursuit of military objectives;

3.   Their use adversely affects the environment in a widespread, long term
and severe manner;

4.   Their use causes superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering.

Two years ago, President Bush withdrew the United States as a signatory to
the International Criminal Court's statute, which has been ratified by all
other Western democracies. The White House actually seeks to immunize U.S.
leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely. It has also demanded express
immunity from ICC prosecution for American nationals.

CONCLUSIONS:

If terrorists succeeded in spreading something throughout the U.S. that
ended up causing hundreds of thousands of cancer cases and birth defects
over a period of many years, they would be guilty of a crime against
humanity that far surpasses the Sept. 11th attacks in scope and severity.
Although not deliberate, with our military campaigns in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we have done just that.  If the physical environment is so
unsafe and unhealthy that one cannot safely breath, then the outer trappings
of democracy have little meaning. At least under Saddam, the Iraqi people
could stay healthy and conceive normal children. Few Americans are aware
that in getting rid of Saddam, we left something much worse in his place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility
of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for
Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their
entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as
the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an
active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated.
The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet
sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and
social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and
educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes
other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

) Copyright Doug Westerman, Vital Truths and Information Clearing House,
2006

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060503&articleId=
2374

============
*****************************************************************
 54 Guardian Unlimited: Plants to Monitor Radioactive Water
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 2:16 PM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nuclear industry said Tuesday it will more
closely monitor and keep local and state officials informed
about releases of radioactive water into groundwater from power
plants, though it said such releases have not posed a health
risk. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently established a task
force to look into releases of water containing tritium into
groundwater at a half dozen plants over the last decade,
including three recently in Illinois, where the state has sued
Exelon Corp., for violating state environmental laws because of
the releases. 

Groundwater contamination on plant sites also have been reported
at reactors in New York, Connecticut, Florida, California and
Arizona, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
nuclear industry watchdog group. 

Tritium, which can cause cancer with significant exposures, is a
normal product of a nuclear reactor. The releases - except for
one at Exelon's Braidwood reactor - have been kept within plant
boundaries. All are reported to have been below the federal
health standard of 4 millirems for groundwater. 

Nevertheless, the releases of tritium-contaminated water into
soil at power plants has been of concern to the NRC. Some of the
leaks went undetected for as long as 12 years. They generally
have occurred because of leaks in pipes or in some cases from
the pools in which spent reactor fuel rods are kept. 

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, told the
NRC on Tuesday it is beginning a program to improve detection of
such leaks and communications with local, state and federal
officials when leaks occur. 

``The new industry program recognizes that even though
radioisotopes have not been detected off site at levels that
would jeopardize public health, the industry should adopt a
higher standard of excellence in radiation protection that goes
beyond what NRC regulations required,'' said Ralph Andersen,
NEI's chief health physicist. 

``When inadvertent radiological releases in groundwater occur at
levels that do not require formal reporting, we should inform
local and state leaders and the public as a matter of openness
and transparency.'' 

Under the new policy, plant operators will establish an action
plan ``to assure timely detection'' of such releases, submit
reports to the NRC on groundwater samples within plant
boundaries and inform state and local officials groundwater
leaks if they exceed certain levels. 

Before the creation of the recent NRC task force, the agency
``has been treating the leaks as isolated events. But seven
events in 10 years suggests a trend rather than a series of
isolated events,'' said David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear
safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

--- 

On the Net 

Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 55 Guardian Unlimited: Minn. Nuclear Workers Exposed to Radiation
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday May 9, 2006 10:31 PM

RED WING, Minn. (AP) - An accidental release of radioactive gas
at a nuclear plant in southeastern Minnesota exposed about 100
workers to low levels of radiation last week, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission said. 

The Prairie Island plant was shut down for maintenance and
refueling at the time, and no radiation was released outdoors,
said Jan Strasma, commission spokesman. 

The workers were wearing protective gear May 2 when they were
exposed to low levels of radioactive iodine, said Arline Datu,
spokeswoman for Nuclear Management Co. Most received 10 to 20
millirems of radiation, about the same as a dental X-ray. They
were decontaminated and allowed to go home, she said. 

Nuclear Management Co., which operates Xcel Energy's nuclear
plants, said residual radioactive gas in some equipment was
inadvertently released without being routed through a filtering
system. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 56 NewStandard: Nuke Waste Site Calamity Reflects Industrial Crisis

May 9 editionof The NewStandard. 

by Megan Tady                                                                                                                                   
 	 	 		 			 				 			 				
Radioactive leaks, faulty construction and doubts over untested 
technology plague Department of Energy contractor Bechtel’s 
cleanup of an atomic bomb waste site.
                                                                  
              May 9                                                                                                                                           
Residents of the Pacific Northwest are alarmed that about one 
million gallons of nuclear waste have seeped from tanks at the 
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington State to form 
an underground plume that is inching toward the Columbia River. 
But the environmental destruction is only the beginning of their 
worries.                                                                                        

They are most concerned with the government and plant
contractors’ continued malfeasance while building a
waste-treatment facility at Hanford designed to clean up the
leaking mess that has left the region progressively vulnerable
to what’s considered one of the most contaminated places in
the Western Hemisphere. 

And while residents of the area fight the Department of
Energy’s (DOE) plans to make the site a permanent waste dump,
several critics of the plant speculate over whether the waste
treatment process being implemented there is even a viable
solution. 

"I’m really disturbed by the ineptness, corruption and
negligence on the part of government and contractors," Paige
Knight, president of the public-advocacy group Hanford Watch,
told The NewStandard. Knight lives "downriver" in Portland,
Oregon. 

Hanford was originally a plutonium production site for nuclear
weapons from 1943 to the 1980s, and the plant supplied the
materials for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in
1945. 

The DOE, which is responsible for cleaning up nuclear weapons
sites across the country, signed a contract with multinational
construction contractor Bechtel to build a waste-treatment
facility at the Hanford site in 2000. The facility is supposed
to clean up the 55 million gallons of radioactive waste and
dispose of it in an off-site geological depository. 					One
million gallons of the waste has already contaminated the
groundwater and is threatening the Columbia River. 				

While Bechtel and the DOE continue to assure the public of
strict quality and safety controls at the treatment plant,
discoveries and allegations of corruption, quality violations,
worker intimidation, lack of managerial oversight and
construction shortcuts have repeatedly surfaced. 

"The DOE has a culture of putting the nuclear business over the
environment, and I don’t think they can overcome it," said
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, a nonprofit organization that works to
demystify the nuclear industry. "Their heart isn’t in it. This
is a nuisance to them. They have restarted their weapons
business and they’re very eager to build new reactors. They
think that making weapons is like cooking and the clean-up is
like doing the dishes. It’s much lower on the totem pole." 

Nearly two-thirds of the country’s nuclear-weapons waste is
stored at Hanford, most of it in 177 underground tanks. One
million gallons of the waste has already contaminated the
groundwater and is threatening the Columbia River. 

The site’s nuclear-waste legacy prompted the state to scream
for action, and in 1989, the DOE entered into an agreement with
the Washington State to build a waste-treatment plant at Hanford
to help dispose of the waste.                                   

Some critics have doubts about the vitirification process 
altogether as a solution for nuclear waste.                          

The facility uses a process called vitrification, by which
nuclear waste is converted into solid glass-waste logs. Under
the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which
requires the DOE to dispose of all high-level nuclear waste in
deep geological repositories, the waste would be removed from
Hanford after vitrification and taken to the controversial waste
site planned at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

"This is a first-of-a kind plant," said Robert Alvarez, a senior
scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies who for six years
served as a policy advisor for the DOE. "No one has attempted to
process and stabilize the witches’ brew of radioactive
materials that are in these thanks." 

In fact, some critics have doubts about the vitirification
process altogether as a solution for nuclear waste. 

"The material is a glass log when it starts out, but then they
seal up these containers, and what eventually becomes of the
glass – whether it fractures after it cools down, and whether
it’s further damaged when it’s transported – is unknown,"
said Marvin Resnikoff, senior associate at the nuclear-waste
consulting group Radioactive Waste Management Associates. "I
would not be surprised if it’s fractured into lots of pieces,
which will make a long-term problem when they eventually ship it
to Yucca Mountain." 

Another, perhaps more serious problem, added Makhijani, is that
the consistency of the waste in the tanks will make it difficult
to process it into glass in the first place. 

"The main problem is with the emptying of the tanks and
processing the different types of goop in the tanks into a
material that’s suitable for making molten glass," he said.
"You can’t just dump anything into molten glass. Some stuff
doesn’t dissolve. The waste in the tank is very heterogenic
– solid layers, peanut-butter-consistency layers, liquid
layers, all chemically diverse and with different amounts of
radioactivity."                                         

The biggest factor affecting the clean-up of nuclear-weapons 
waste around the country is the lack of accountability and 
enforceability on the part of the Energy Department.                             

Untested technology aside, Makhijani and others maintain that
the biggest factor affecting the clean-up of nuclear-weapons
waste around the country is the lack of accountability and
enforceability on the part of the Energy Department. Unlike
other government and private industrial facilities in the US,
which are subjected to licensing and regulatory oversight by
outside agencies, the DOE’s nuclear facilities have no
external regulation, as mandated by Atomic Energy Act of 1946. 

"Until the DOE is divested from clean-up at the sites at
Hanford, you’re not going to see the difficult jobs done
well," he said. 

Critics of the DOE are advocating for independent oversight to
ensure accountability, and many think bringing in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) – the agency that regulates
commercial nuclear power – is a solution. 

"What’s happening is that the DOE is so compromised that it
cannot objectively regulate the safety of this plant," Alvarez
said. 

The NRC, however, has come under heavy fire from
environmentalists as well for rubber-stamping industry projects,
making their involvement questionable. Other critics think the
DOE should be bypassed completely and that Washington State
should take over the clean-up using federally guaranteed funds. 

"The state has a real interest in seeing that the tanks are
actually emptied and the water is disinfected," Makhijani said. 

Six years after Bechtel began the project, the facility is only
25 percent complete and the original price tag has soared from
$4.3 billion to nearly $10 billion. 

Calling it the "poster child of all sweetheart deals," Gerry
Pollett, director of Heart of America Northwest, a grassroots
organization leading the clean-up efforts at Hanford, is
disturbed by the way the DOE awards contracts to corporations
with strong ties to the government. 

"The contracts are written in such a way that only a handful of
companies in the country are qualified to bid on them, rather
than breaking them up into more meaningful bites that would
allow for far greater competition and greater cost control," he
said. 

A few anonymous whistleblowers have written scathing letters
about Bechtel’s and the DOE’s negligence at the facility,
and other government agencies have issued warnings and
criticized the plant, including the Government Accountability
Office, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Army Corps of
Engineers. 

"This is a culture of mismanagement that is based on
undocumented blind faith [in] the contractor," Alvarez said.
"This should not be the way we do business, especially given the
fact that we’re dealing with some of the most dangerous
materials on the planet. They have delegated and abdicated a lot
of responsibility to ensure public safety to a contractor that
has no financial consequences for misdeeds." 

Asked about regulatory mistakes on the part of the DOE, Erik
Olds, a spokesperson for the Office of River Protection, a
regional arm of the DOE that manages Hanford, said only that
they were in the process of "improving the quality of our
oversight." 

But even the DOE itself admitted to some of Bechtel’s errors. 

"To be clear, Bechtel has made mistakes relative to quality and
relative to some of the early estimates of this project," said
Erik Olds, "We believe that Bechtel is now taking the
appropriate steps to address nuclear quality issues within their
organization." 

The Government Accountability Project (GAP), a government
watchdog, issued a report last week that exposes the blunders of
the DOE and Bechtel. 

In its’ rush to complete the site, DOE forewent building a
pilot project, which, according to Makihjani, is the typical
first step for a venture of this scale. As a result, engineers
overestimated the facility’s ability to withstand an
earthquake, causing considerable construction delays and
increased costs; the plant is located within the seismic area of
the Cascadia fault, which extends from Vancouver Island to
northern California. 

"It’s like trying to do calculus without doing algebra,"
Makhijani said. "It’s not sensible." 

Other construction problems have also been uncovered, including
Quality Assurance violations and faulty welds on some equipment.
GAP’s report determined that one key piece of equipment,
called a Scrubber vessel, was knowingly installed with flaws as
Bechtel "fast-tracked" construction to meet a $15 million
deadline incentive. 

"They [DOE] wanted to get this plant built, and they had to show
some progress," said Tom Carpenter, GAP’s nuclear oversight
program director. "The government wants it built. The state
wants it and so do the residents of Washington. Everyone is
interested in seeing this plant built, so there are some very
important drivers out there." 

The DOE, which is attempting similar undertakings at several
other sites across the country, issued an "Accelerated Clean-Up
Plan" in 2002 designed to process waste sites more quickly by
cutting costs and speeding up construction. 

As Bechtel cut corners and the DOE looked the other way,
employees at the site began to hesitantly chirp on the whistle. 

"The contractor could design and construct without regulatory
burden and could collect hundreds of millions of dollars – and
the DOE would look good for overseeing a successful project
constructed ahead of schedule and under budget," wrote employees
in an anonymous letter to a senior official at the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in 2004. 

A 2005 internal audit by the DOE found that Bechtel had created
a hostile working environment in which a "chilling" effect was
used to quell the reports of safety concerns about the plant. 

"We had a small number of individuals come forward and they said
they were afraid to raise issues for fear of intimidation," John
Britton, a spokesperson for Bechtel admitted to TNS. Britton
said the company has an "internal employees concern program"
designed to give an anonymous avenue for staff to voice concerns
to management. "So we’ve beefed up that program," he said. 

While some residents and advocacy groups are hounding the DOE to
take responsibility for and fix the errors at the plant, others
are turning their focus toward fighting a DOE plan to make
Hanford a permanent dump for some of the waste now stored there. 

Olds, of the DOE, would not comment on plans to make Hanford a
permanent site, saying only, "We are absolutely committed to
getting the waste out of the tanks, getting it treated through
vitrtificaiton, and getting that waste safely disposed of." 

One strategy behind the DOE’s accelerated clean-up is to
reclassify high-level nuclear waste as low-level waste. The
change in language would allow the DOE to reduce the amount of
hazardous material that needs to be vitrified and increase the
amount that can be left in tanks. Although an Idaho court struck
down a similar reclassification move, Congress trumped that
ruling and allowed the DOE to downgrade nuclear-waste
classifications in both Idaho and South Carolina. 

Efforts to do the same at Hanford have failed so far as
residents have mounted a fierce campaign. 

As the opening of Yucca Mountain, the government’s only plan
for a geological repository, looks increasingly unlikely,
reclassifying high-level waste would solve – at least on paper
– some of the government’s high-level-waste headaches. 

Watchdogs fear that if waste is allowed to stay at Hanford, the
site will eventually begin receiving waste from around the
country. 

The DOE is particularly interested in finding homes for nuclear
waste as Bush administration plans call for increases in nuclear
arms and nuclear power. Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), which seeks to reprocess used fuel, would
create a whole host of nuclear waste issues with which to
contend. GNEP allows "supplier" nations like the US to provide
nuclear energy components to "user" countries, who then return
their waste to the US. 

"The process of reprocessing creates even hotter contaminated
waste, and we do not have a solution for dealing with it," said
Susan Gordon, executive director of the Seattle regional
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a network of organizations
concerned about the legacy of nuclear arms proliferation. "We
haven’t cleaned-up the reprocessed mess from before, and
it’s the most difficult to deal with," she added. 			 			 		 	
		 	 	 	 	 	 		 			� 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved.
The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages
noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must
prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink
to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display
newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more
information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS
reprint policy. 		 	 	 		 	 		<img

*****************************************************************
 57 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting 
 
                         FR Doc E6-6996 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26994-26995] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-116]                         
 
Notice AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: 
Updated notice of meeting.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a 
teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical 
Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on May 23, 2006. The topic of the 
discussions will be: (1) Amendment to the ACMUI's Bylaws; (2) 
Potential Changes to 10 CFR part 35.
 
 
[[Page 26995]] Purpose: Discuss issues related to 10 CFR part 35, 
Medical Use of Byproduct Material.
 
Date and Time for Closed Session Meeting: May 23, 2006, from 2:30 
p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern standard Time. This session will be closed 
so that NRC staff and ACMUI members can discuss information 
relating solely to internal personnel rules.
 
Dates and Times for Public Meetings: May 23, 2006, from 3 p.m. to 
5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Public Information: Any member of 
the public who wishes to participate in the teleconference 
discussion may contact Mohammad S. Saba for contact information.
 
Conduct of Meeting: Leon S. Malmud, M.D., will chair the meeting. 
Dr. Malmud will conduct the meeting in a manner that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following 
procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. 
Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit a 
reproducible copy to Mohammad S. Saba, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Mail Stop T8F03, Washington, DC 20555.
 
Alternatively, an e- mail can be submitted to mss@nrc.gov. 
Submittals must be postmarked or e-mailed by May 15, 2006, and 
must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting.
 
2. Questions from members of the public will be permitted during 
the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman.
 
3. The transcript and written comments will be available for 
inspection on NRC's web site (http://www.nrc.gov) and at the NRC 
Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about August 20, 
2006.
 
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (primarily section 161a); the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's 
regulations in Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, part 
7. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, ths 3rd day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-6996 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 KLASTV.com: Nevada Woman Takes on Operation Divine Strake

| News for Las Vegas, Nevada | 

  Adrian Arambulo, Reporter
 
  "There is no way that explosion can interact with those six 
nuclear tests," said Darwin Morgan, a Nevada Test Site 
spokesperson.
   
What is a bunker buster? | Department of Energy in Nevada |
Association of Concerned Scientists 

Plans for a massive experimental explosion at the Nevada test
site have been delayed. An energy department spokesperson says
the earliest that "Operation: Divine Strake" would take place
would be June 23. 

Some concerned residents, who are worried about potential health
hazards, want the explosion cancelled all together. 

A woman, who wants to be known as Karen, is on a mission. She's
worried about how a planned explosion at the Nevada Test Site
might affect her health. 

"We're going to breathe it, and I don't want to end up with lung
cancer down the road, said the concerned Nevada resident. 

Karen is also worried about how the experiment might hurt
others, so she walks throughout her neighborhood, talks with
neighbors, and hands out flyers warning of what might happen. 

"We're going to get dusted," Karen said. "I don't care what they
say." 

Apparently, she's done her homework as she tells Eyewitness News
that a mile and a half away from the Divine Strake planned
explosion, there are bunkers where the federal government blew
up six nukes. 

"There is no way that explosion can interact with those six
nuclear tests," said Darwin Morgan, a Nevada Test Site
spokesperson. Morgan is with Nevada's Department of Energy. He
says those nuclear tests were done deeply underground. 

Morgan said, "There is a large amount of dust that'll get thrown
into the air, and that's all it is -- dust." He says more than a
hundred scientific tests have proven this. 

However, Karen questions the DOE and its claims. "How can you
say it would be completely unaffected?  There's actually nothing
in that area that can be completely unaffected. People need to
know we are not the test bed. We are not the guinea pigs." 

All content � Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KLAS.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 Deseret News: PFS storage proposals
 
Tuesday, May 9, 2006                             

Utah attacks PFS nuclear waste plan

The BLM is studying two possibilities concerning Private Fuel 
Storage's proposal to store up to 44,000 tons of highly 
radioactive material for 40 years on Goshute Indian Tribe land in 
Skull Valley, Tooele County: 

� PFS would build a railroad spur line from the main Union 
Pacific railroad route to the proposed site of the high-level 
nuclear fuel repository. 

This option apparently is precluded by Congress setting up a 
wilderness area where the spur was planned. 

� A structure called an Intermodal Loading Facility would be 
built on BLM land, where casks of nuclear fuel rods would be 
taken off rail cars and loaded onto trucks for the 26-mile trip 
to the PFS site.
 			  		 		   
� 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 60 Platts: BNG signs first new MOX fuel order in four years
 

London (Platts)--9May2006
 
British nuclear group has signed its first new MOX fuel order in 
four years, the company said today. The contract is with German 
utility EnBW Kernkraft GmbH, or EnKK, for Neckarwestheim-2. 

The order is seen as "very important" to BNG in that it "confirms 
that our customers want mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel from the 
Sellafield MOX Plant," said Jeremy Rycroft, BNG's director of 
spent fuel services. 

The contract includes a commitment by EnKK to convert all the 
separated plutonium from the fuel it is having reprocessed at the 
adjacent Thorp plant at Sellafield. A BNG spokesman said he was 
unable by press time to supply figures for the tons of MOX fuel 
involved or the contract value. 

BNG's previous most recent MOX supply contracts included with 
Sweden's OKG in 2001 and Germany's EON in 2002.

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 61 JOURNAL NEWS: Nuclear industry calls for quicker disclosure of tritium leaks

By GREG CLARY gclary@lohud.com

  On the Web 

The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's
policy organization. This news release and additional
information about nuclear energy are available on NEI's Web site
at www.nei.org.

(Original publication: May 9, 2006)
 

The nuclear industry's trade association plans today to announce
new requirements for its members to respond to accidental
releases of radioactive isotopes into groundwater, including
telling local officials more quickly and reporting spills even
when they don't leave the property.

The Nuclear Energy Institute's new guidelines, to be presented
to federal regulators today, grew out of recent tritium leaks at
Indian Point and nuclear reactors in Illinois and Arizona.

"We either do it or we're going to have a serious problem,"
Ralph Andersen, the NEI's chief health physicist said of the
industry's implementing its own such standards.

Indian Point officials have been dealing with radiated water
leaking under Indian Point 2 since August that has brought
tritium and strontium 90  two radioactive isotopes  within a
few hundred feet of the Hudson River at levels well above
federal standards for drinking water.

Locally, elected and public safety officials were outraged that
they didn't learn of the leak for nearly a month, although the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission was informed immediately, in
accordance with regulations.

NRC and Indian Point officials have said there was no risk to
the public or plant workers and the releases have not gotten
into local drinking water, but the company has still not
determined the source of the leak.

The NRC has created a special task force to investigate tritium
and other releases and the best way to prevent and manage them.
With some nuclear plants dating to the 1950s, officials want to
ensure that aging facilities won't mean an increasing number of
leaks.

Federal regulators are expected to present their findings in
August, and NEI officials yesterday said they wanted to get
their requirements in place before then.

"We are coming to recognize that our public has changed,"
Andersen said. "We would always prefer to prepare our own
solutions."

The NEI's new guidelines, set to begin July 31, include the
following

� implementing site-specific plans to ensure timely detection
and effective response to inadvertent radiological releases in
groundwater.

� submitting underground water monitoring results for on-site
sources, just as operators are required to do for off-site
sources.

� informing state and local officials within a couple of
workdays, though the exact amount of time is still being decided.

Andersen said the initiative, which was passed unanimously by
the group's members, is similar to others that bind the 286
members of the organization to the guidelines.

Previous initiatives have tightened background checks on workers
at the nation's 103 nuclear plants and changed materials that
were degrading too quickly across the industry.

 
Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
*****************************************************************
 62 Whittier Daily News: Water cleanup funds needed

5-9-6

THE San Gabriel Valley Caucus and its founder, Assemblyman Ed
Chavez, D-La Puente, have some explaining to do. They need to
tell constituents why cleanup of the region's vast underground
aquifer wasn't included in the $37 billion bond issue that will
go before voters Nov. 7. 

Additional transportation funding, school construction and
housing for the homeless are all worthwhile. Sacramento levee
repair also stands as a genuine need. We can't argue with any of
these. However, there's a lot to be said about Sen. Tom
McClintock's approach. The conservative state lawmaker voted
only for the levee repair aspect of the measure that has been
broken into four separate issues for voters. 

He believes the bond should be applied to those projects likely
to last as long as the indebtedness, about 30 years, leaving
short-term projects to be paid out of existing funds. Cleaning
an aquifer that could act as 21.5million acre-feet of water
storage qualifies under the McClintock criteria. 

Cleanup itself and a pipeline to supply water cleaned to
drinking water standards is projected to cost about $300million
and ought to be included in this infrastructure bond, because
the project could wean a good portion of Southern California
from Colorado River water. Clearly this project would be a
fraction of the pricetag of any new above-ground reservoir (the
last one built by MWD cost $3billion). 

However, officials from the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
Authority, responsible for managing aquifer cleanup, tell us
that whenever they broach the subject with Sacramento lawmakers,
they're told that the area is a Superfund site and therefore
doesn't need state funds. Well, yes, they're partially correct.
It's super that some responsible parties such as Aeroject the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and others have come up with money to
fund cleanup. Thanks to Rep. David Dreier, the federal
government has given millions to projects to rid the aquifer of
perchlorate, a chemical found in jet fuel. It makes sense that 
taxpayers nationwide chip in to help contractors who were part of 
our national defense, although the notion that polluters, not 
taxpayers ought to pay, still gets our vote. 

There are more toxins than perchlorate in the chemical soup
threatening this natural water source. Extracting the water,
cleaning it and then redepositing it into this underground water
bank is the only means to saving this precious resource. But
much of the pollution can't be traced to a single source making
it impossible to tap the bank account of a big "responsible
party." 

Plus, state laws mandate ground-water cleanup. The state created
the WQA to do the job, yet has not funded that job. That's
hypocritical. Besides, cleanup would benefit people here and
beyond, if only to stop the poison plume from reaching into
Whittier and the Central Basin. 

Efforts to clean the aquifer and stop the toxic spread began
more than 30 years ago. Then Assemblywoman Sally Tanner, D-El
Monte, fought for cleanup and brought widespread attention to
the problem. Despite such efforts, residents are still waiting
for far-reaching results. Chavez began his foray into politics
as a field representative for Tanner and can best live up to her
legacy by pushing for funding. 

It's past time the state stop looking the other way or
pretending it has no stake in this Valley. It does. This area
could be the saving grace during widespread drought, preserving
every precious drop of water in a ready- made reservoir that
will never need shoring up or repair. Even fiscal conservative
McClintock ought to favor this investment.   
                  
Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 63 Salt Lake Tribune: Cause unites N-dump foes 

Article Last Updated: 05/09/2006 12:49:42 AM MDT 

Unlikely alliance: Diverse sources blister the BLM with comments 
about the proposed waste storage in the western Utah desert 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Politicians, four-wheelers, green activists, business and even 
the top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints - they all told the U.S. Bureau of Land Management what 
they think about plans to transport reactor waste to the Skull 
Valley desert. 

Shauna Bona, a Salt Lake City mother and businesswoman, told 
the agency in comments submitted Monday that the waste should 
not be allowed to come to Utah. It will undermine the state's 
goal of providing a healthy and safe environment for families 
and businesses like her own, she said. 

�I want to be involved,� Bona, cofounder of the Salt Lake 
City information-design firm, McKinnon-Mulherin Inc., said in an 
interview. �I want my opinion to be heard.� 

The BLM's 90-day public comment period ended Monday with well 
over 5,000 e-mails, faxes and letters submitted to the land 
agency, which is considering two applications needed to go 
forward with the hotly contested storage site. The comments came 
from New York to California and everywhere between, said agency 
employee Pam Schuller. 

One new e-mail plunked into Schuller's mailbox every minute 
on Monday. But she expected many more as the midnight postmark 
deadline approached. 

A consortium of nuclear-power utility companies called PFS 
has leased part of the Skull Valley Goshutes Reservation in 
Tooele County to build and operate a kind of long-term storage 
site for reactor waste. Up to 44,000 tons of the highly 
radioactive fuel can be stored safely on the site for up to 40 
years, according to a license issued for the project this year 
by federal nuclear regulators. But the venture also needs 
permission from the BLM for a train-to-truck transfer station 
north of I-80. 

The effort to rally Utahns behind derailing PFS has made for 
one of those strange political bedfellows stories. Republicans 
and Democrats commented. So did environmentalists and their usual
critics. Even the influential First Presidency of the LDS Church 
submitted comments, a rarity for an organization that last spoke 
out on a public policy issue 25 years ago this week on the 
proposed MX missile siting in Utah and Nevada. 

The final tally fell far short of being the BLM's biggest 
ever. Some land-use plans garner as many as 30,000 comments, 
said Schuller. 

The administration of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. submitted 40 
pages of comments, along with 20 related attachments, on Monday. 

�Judged by applicable legal requirements and the current 
administrative record, there is only one supportable decision 
BLM can make: deny both PFS right-of-way applications,� the 
comment concluded. 

BLM noted that it will not be able to decide on the transfer 
station until after the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs signs off 
on the final lease agreement between the consortium and the 
Skull Valley Goshutes, and no one seems to know when that 
decision might be coming. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 64 Hamilton Spectator: Nuclear waste: the forever problem

Ian Hodgson, Reuters

A cylinder of nuclear waste is transported by rail in Britain.
There are 24 nuclear waste stockpiles in the United Kingdom.   

  Laura Rauch, the Associated Press

The tunnel entrance to the Yucca Mountain Project in Nevada
which is being designed as the central storage site for U.S.
nuclear waste.   

  Eckehard Schultz, the Associated Press

Barrels containing nuclear waste are stored in an underground
cavern beneath the eastern German city of Morsleben. German
authorities planned to seal the underground nuclear dump with 4
million tonnes of concrete to contain the radioactivity -- it is
hoped -- for 150,000 years. Sealing the dump may take up to 20
years and cost $2.5 billion US.   
  
CARLSBAD, N.M. (May 9, 2006) 

Roger Nelson has a simple message for the people of the year
12006: DON'T DIG HERE!

As chief scientist of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Nelson
oversees a cavernous salt mine that is the first geological
lockbox for what he calls the "fiendishly toxic" detritus of
nuclear weapons production -- radioactive plutonium.

Computer projections predict that within 1,000 years the
ceilings and walls will collapse sealing the plutonium in place.

But plutonium remains deadly for 250 times that long -- an
unsettling reminder that some of today's hazards will outlast
the civilizations that created them.

It's referred to as the "forever problem."

Canada too has a forever problem in the form of 40 tonnes of
nuclear waste.

The best solution so far seems to bury it deep underground and
hope that it stays put.

The global amount of spent nuclear fuel was 220,000 tonnes in
the year 2000, and is growing by approximately 10,000 tonnes
each year. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for tens or
hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, no language has
ever existed longer than a few thousand years, and no one knows
if pictograms or other symbols will be interpreted correctly
thousands of years hence. There appears to be no reliable method
to warn future generations about the existence of nuclear waste
dumps. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL: WWW.GREENPEACE.ORG/

Nuclear waste is currently stored in 131 temporary locations in
39 states. The Yucca Mountain project, which is under
development but not yet in use, would become a permanent central
storage location for all American nuclear waste.

* Location: Yucca Mountain is located on federal land in a
remote area of Nye County in southern Nevada, about 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.

* Population: No one lives at Yucca Mountain. The closest
year-round housing is about 14 miles south of the site.

* Geology: Yucca Mountain is a ridge comprised of layers of
volcanic rock, called "tuff."

* Elevation: At its crest, Yucca mountain reaches an elevation
of 4,950 feet.

* Climate: Yucca Mountain receives less than 7.5 inches of
precipitation on average per year.

* President George W. Bush signed Yucca Mountain Bill in July,
2002.

Work will begin this summer near the Bruce Nuclear station to
prove that a proposed site for storing nuclear waste is as good
as Ontario Power Generation officials think it is.

Ontario Power Generation wants to store low and intermediate
waste from Ontario's 20 nuclear reactors in vaults that would be
carved out of limestone, 660 metres below ground. That waste is
currently stored on the site in facilities intended as temporary
storage.

Seismic studies and drilling are required under the federal
government's environmental assessment process. That assessment
is expected to take up to three years. Plans call for
construction to start in 2012, with the facility to open in 2017
or 2018.

The underground facility would cover a 30-hectare area. All that
would be visible above ground is a 300-by-700-metre building.

source: The Record

After a comprehensive three year study, the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization has recommended Adaptive Phased
Management for the long-term care of used nuclear fuel in
Canada. The Government must now decide on an appropriate
approach.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization: www.nwmo.ca

Phase one of the Adaptive Phased Management plan calls for 30
years operating a prototype research facility, then we
re-evaluate. If nothing has changed, we go to Phase 2 and run a
30-year pilot project of storing wastes in such a way that we
can watch them and yank them out if there's a problem or if we
get a better idea. Phase 3 would bury the waste in a possibly
permanent site for 240 years and keep watching. Then we decide
whether to seal the site off and keep a more leisurely eye on
the site forever.

The Eye Weeklyt at: www.eye.net/

A short drive from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico
at a site where an atomic warhead was detonated 1,151 feet
underground in 1961, two corroded plaques glued to a 4-foot
concrete slab commemorate the test, dubbed Project Gnome.

The monument has been nudged several yards over the decades by
cattle that use it as a rubbing post. Spent rifle shells crunch
underfoot; the pockmarked shrine is favored by locals for target
practice.

A third plaque was pried off, perhaps as a souvenir. According
to earlier visitors, it read, in plain English, "This site will
remain dangerous for 24,000 years."

source: L.A. Times

Ontario Power Generation sets aside about $400 million per year
to ensure the necessary funds to cover the future costs for
decommissioning nuclear plants and waste fuel management. In
September 2005, the fund was about $6.6 billion.

source: www.opg.com/  
  
*****************************************************************
 65 Daily Herald: BLM closes public comment on nuclear waste site
              
Tuesday, May 09, 2006

PAUL FOY - The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY -- It will take weeks for the Bureau of Land
Management to sort through thousands of public comments before
deciding whether to grant access across public land for a
nuclear waste stockpile about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake
City.

Monday was the last day the bureau was taking comment on the
proposal from Private Fuel Storage, a group of nuclear-powered
utilities that want to ship nuclear waste to an American Indian
reservation in Utah.

BLM has taken more than 4,350 mostly negative letters, e-mails,
postcards and faxes on the project, including objections from
Utah politicians and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

"It could take 30 to 60 days to go through them," BLM
spokeswoman Christine Tincher said Monday.

The bureau will study the remarks for any "substantive"
recommendations. It has no timeframe for making a decision on a
right of way that would allow a rail spur or trucks to carry
nuclear waste down the length of Skull Valley to the Goshute
Indian Reservation.

Private Fuel Storage has a license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to store up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel rods with a
half-life of 10,000 years above ground at the reservation.

Yet it must clear other obstacles before the proposal can become
a reality:

 Utah is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a license
issued Feb. 13 by the NRC after 8 1/2 years of deliberation.

 Private Fuel Storage needs approval of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, which must decide if a lease for a nuclear-waste
repository is in the Goshute's interests.

 It needs a permit from the federal Surface Transportation Board
if it decides to build a rail line to the Skull Valley
reservation.

 It needs contracts from utilities that own nuclear power plants
before starting construction of the repository.

The utility consortium, which also needs a right of way from the
Bureau of Land Management, filed two applications to get one.

The first is for a 32-mile rail spur that's not likely to be
granted because the route would cut across a corner of the Cedar
Mountain Wilderness Area. 

President Bush signed the bill creating the wilderness area on
Jan. 6 in a move by Utah's congressional delegation to block the
project.

The second application is for a 10-acre waste transfer station
alongside the main Union Pacific rail line, which runs parallel
to Interstate 80. Under this plan, the fuel rods would be
unloaded from rail cars and put on oversized trucks for shipment
on state Route 196 to the reservation.

With Utah's wilderness maneuver, the transfer station appears
the only practical option, but PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said
Monday that it wasn't giving up hope for a rail spur.

Martin said the comments filed with the BLM weren't all negative.

"We have been very pleased with the respondents who have shared
their positive comments with us -- people who believe that this
project can be built and operated safely," she said.

Martin described the supporters as scientists, Utah residents
"who are part of the silent majority" and others who believe the
nation needs waste storage away from nuclear power plants -- a
temporary solution until the federal government can open a
national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

During transit by rail or truck, the spent fuel rods would be
packed in welded steel canisters and protected by additional
layers of steel and radioactive shields, she said.

Martin said Private Fuel Storage looked into bending a rail spur
around the wilderness area, but opponents say any other route
would send tracks over ground that is often wet. This story
appeared in The Daily Herald on page D4. 				   			 			

Copyright � 2006 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 66 Deseret News: Utah attacks PFS nuclear waste plan 

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 

PFS storage proposals 

State joins thousands in sending comments to BLM 

By Joe Bauman 

Deseret Morning News 

Hundreds of comments about Private Fuel Storage hit the Bureau of
Land Management Monday, the last day of a 90-day public comment 
period. 

The state of Utah, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and a reported 
700 people with environmental concerns filed written statements 
Monday. Another 300 with environmental comments sent e-mail 
messages to the BLM through the same group that facilitated the 
700. 

As of Friday morning, more than 4,300 statements had been 
filed on proposals to build a rail route or a loading facility 
to service the proposed high-level nuclear waste storage site, 
said Pam Schuller, planning coordinator with the BLM's Salt Lake 
Field Office. 

In an e-mail, Schuller indicated more comments may be 
coming in a few days, because mailed statements had to be 
postmarked by Monday to be included in the study. 

"Each comment must be reviewed and processed 
individually," Schuller wrote. "In some cases, one lone 
substantive comment may take one day to a week to accurately 
access, research and/or review." 

For an ordinary public comment period, processing 
statements can take from two to three months, she said. But with 
the large volume of responses on this proposal, "we cannot give 
an accurate assessment on how long it will take to process all 
of the comments." 

In addition, the BLM will not be able to make a final 
determination until the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs makes a 
decision, Schuller added. 

Among the most massive of Monday's comments was the state 
of Utah's official response � 40 pages of legal arguments and 
exhibits. 

The governor sent a cover letter with the state's formal 
comments. Huntsman noted that PFS's intermodal operations site 
would store nuclear fuel casks "next to Interstate 80 and under 
the low-altitude flight paths of military and commercial 
aircraft." 

Allowing PFS to use the federal land for the loading 
facility "would unfairly and adversely affect adjacent property 
owners," he wrote. 

"BLM's resource management plan for the intermodal area 
cannot accommodate the use of public lands for high-level 
nuclear waste operations," the governor added. 

"If BLM were inclined to grant PFS a right of way, it 
would need to amend the (agency's) Pony Express Resource 
Management Plan. Such an amendment would need to await 
completion of a Department of Defense study," as required by 
law, the letter added. 

Huntsman requested that the BLM deny both of the 
right-of-way applications. 

Among the formal comments by the state: The plant would 
pose "an unacceptable terrorist target"; PFS has not 
demonstrated the financial and technical capability to build and 
operate the above-ground storage facility; slow-moving PFS 
trucks would pose a traffic hazard on the 20-foot-wide road; PFS 
proposes to ship in one year the number of nuclear fuel casks 
that had been shipped in 17 years. 

"PFS's proposed intermodal facility is not a secure 
facility," state officials wrote. "The outer perimeter of the 
site will be fenced with a four-strand wire range fence (39 
inches high) and the operations area will be enclosed with an 
eight-foot-high chain-link fence. 

"In addition, the intermodal facility will not normally 
be staffed." 

Operations will be restricted to daylight hours and will 
require a four-person crew, "who will also drive the heavy haul 
trucks to and from the (Goshute) Reservation," the document says.

"Therefore, spent nuclear fuel casks at the right of way 
will be left virtually unprotected while a crew transports a 
cask to the reservation site." 

State officials noted that PFS plans to inspect the 
transportation casks at the reservation and reject any "if it 
detects a certain level of contamination. PFS then plans to ship 
the defective cask back to its owner." 

The "significant problem" with that is that if a cask is 
malfunctioning, Union Pacific may not accept it for the return 
trip because the cask would violate requirements for the 
integrity of something being shipped. 

"Therefore, the cask would remain at the BLM site. 
Furthermore, if the utility has completely decommissioned the 
reactor site, there would be no receiving entity to accept 
return shipment," says the state's comments. 

The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah announced Friday 
that more than 100 local and national organizations were asking 
BLM to deny the PFS request. 

Jason Groenewold, director of the Salt Lake City-based 
group, added on Monday that HEAL also delivered to the BLM on 
Monday more than 700 comments on post cards. 

In addition, the group helped send in 300 comments to the 
BLM through e-mail, Groenewold said. 

Groenewold criticized last week's statement by Glenn A. 
Carpenter, manager of the BLM's Salt Lake field office, that 
comments should be substantive and not just opinion. 

"The federal government should not minimize the public 
interest portion of their decision," Groenewold said. One of the 
agency's criteria is whether granting the permit would be in the 
public interest. 

"That is where the sheer volume of public comments ... is 
critical," he added. 

Telephone calls to PFS on Monday seeking a response to 
the statements were not immediately returned. 

E-mail: bau@desnews.com			 		 		 

� 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 67 AU ABC: FreightLink eyes nuclear waste transport. 

09/05/2006. ABC News Online
 	
The freight operator on the Adelaide to Darwin railway says it
is interested in shifting nuclear waste to any of the proposed
waste dump sites in the Northern Territory.

 FreightLink says it is already involved in moving uranium from
South Australian mines to the Darwin Port for export.

 Chief executive John Fullerton says as long as nuclear waste
haulage proves to be safe, FreightLink is interested.

 "I would've thought that putting chemical products on rails is
probably the safest way to do it ... [rail] has got a very good
safety record, and for that reason it would be considered as an
option I'm sure," he said. 






*****************************************************************
 68 AU ABC: Budget funds Kakadu uranium clean-up. 

10/05/2006. 

ABC News Online
 	
Money to clean up parts of the Northern Territory's Kakadu
National Park, which have been contaminated by uranium mining,
has been included in the federal Budget.

 Treasurer Peter Costello handed down the Budget last night.

 He says the Federal Government is putting more than $7 million
towards rehabilitating sites around the South Alligator River
contaminated by uranium mining decades ago.

 The Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Greg Hunt,
says the Jawoyn traditional owners want radioactive material
stored on-site.

 "They have very strong views that that which came out of the
ground should return to the same place," he said.

 "Traditional owners have said to us they want to find a
solution on-site in that part of the land.

 "They have a view that that is where it should be returned, it
came from there, so long as the scientists and the engineers
agree we're looking at solutions in that area."

 The Territory Environment Centre's Peter Robertson says it is
great news.

 "Those sites that have been lying around there and
contaminating the environment for decades now hopefully they
will now finally be cleaned up," he said.

 But he says other old mine sites such as Rum Jungle are in more
pressing need of a clean-up. 

Full coverage of the 2006 federal Budget.         


*****************************************************************
 69 MetroWestDailyNews.com: Natick trash load is radioactive
 
 By John Hilliard/ Daily News Staff

 Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - Updated: 06:23 AM EST

NATICK -- A load of radiation-laden residential trash made a big 
stink last weekend after state health officials ordered it stored 
at the towns West Street recycling center.

    "Normally, its just some medical waste that didnt get flushed 
down the toilet," said George Russell, Naticks public works 
environmental compliance coordinator. "Its very, very low 
radiation."

    Last Friday, a Natick Department of Public Works truck hauled 
garbage from the Cedar Gardens senior housing project to Casella 
Waste Systems trash transfer station in Holliston.

    According to Holliston Health Director Ann McCobb, the 
radioactive material in the trash was found by Casellas radiation 
detectors at 1:35 p.m. on Friday. Within an hour, state 
Department of Public Health officials ordered the load back to 
Natick, said McCobb.

    Russell said the material was scheduled to be examined by a 
state-certified radiologist yesterday afternoon. Russell said the 
material doesnt threaten public health.

    DPH spokesman Ed Kiely said the agency is waiting for more 
data before deciding what to do with the Natick waste.

    "Were hoping for more information tomorrow," said Kiely.

    Casella Regional Vice President Michael Wall would not 
comment on whether the company would require additional screening 
for Natick municipal trash.

    "The sources of the waste need to do a better job monitoring 
for this material," said Wall. "Weve put (customers) on notice 
that we dont accept this material."

    No state rules require private haulers or trash facilities to 
scan trash loads for radioactive waste, but some choose to look 
for the material, according to state health officials

    Casella used screening equipment voluntarily until earlier 
this year, when Holliston required the station search all trash 
loads for radioactive waste.

    If radiation is found, state inspectors decide whether to 
isolate the material or send it back to its source. The federal 
Department of Transportation -- which limits radioactive material 
travel on public roads -- allows states to issue temporary 
permits to take radioactive waste back to its source. [continue]


Holliston Board of Health Chairman Richard Maccagnano said the 
town's radiation protocol -- requiring screening by Casella and 
notification of town officials -- successfully kept the 
radioactive waste from being stored in Holliston.

    "We caught it going in," said Maccagnano, who added the 
town's radiation screening plan "seemed to work perfectly."

    Casella, criticized by some Holliston residents for its 
trash-hauling operation, has discovered radioactive waste at its 
Washington Street facility 10 times since 2004.

    In three previous incidents, the station found radioactive 
waste after the material had been dumped and sorted by workers. 
Since the material's source couldn't be identified in those 
incidents, state officials ordered Casella to keep the waste in 
Holliston until given permission to haul it away.

    Casella's Wall said the company is satisfied it could 
identify radioactive waste and send it back to Natick.

    "This is the way the system is designed to work," said Wall.

    According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, low-level 
radioactive waste includes clothing, laboratory animal tissues, 
used medical equipment and isotopes from nuclear medicine 
treatments.

    Low-level waste does not include spent fuel from a nuclear 
reactor, according to the NRC.

    The NRC allows low-level radioactive waste to be stored by 
licensed producers until radiation has decayed to natural 
background levels, when it can be dumped with ordinary trash.

    (John Hilliard can be reached at 508-626-4449 or 
jhilliar@cnc.com.)

� Copyright of CNC and <font color=#C0C0C0>Herald Interactive
*****************************************************************
 70 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Fluor loses appeal of $4.7 million award

[seattlepi.com]     

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 

P-I SERVICES

KENNEWICK -- A judge has rejected an appeal by a contractor at
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation seeking to vacate a $4.7 million
award to 11 pipe fitters who claimed they were fired for
speaking up about safety. 

The workers filed suit six years ago against Fluor Federal
Services, a contractor at the nuclear site. A jury awarded the
workers $4.7 million in September. 

The contractor appealed, but Benton County Superior Court Judge
Carrie Runge rejected the appeal. Runge also ordered Fluor to
pay the plaintiffs' legal fees of $1.4 million. 

The ruling sends a message to large employers such as Fluor that
there is a price to be paid for retaliating against workers who
raise safety and health concerns, the pipe fitters' attorney,
Jack Sheridan, said in a statement. 

Randy Squires, Fluor's attorney, said the ruling was
disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. The company will
appeal to the state appeals court.                 

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
�1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 71 DOE: DOE Issues Landmark Rule for Risk Insurance for Advanced Nuclear Facilities
 
  May 8, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued on 
Saturday, the interim final rule required by the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (EPACT) for risk insurance to facilitate construction 
of new advanced nuclear power facilities.  The rule establishes 
the requirements for risk insurance to cover costs associated 
with certain regulatory or litigation-related delays in the 
start-up of new nuclear power plants.  The resurgence of nuclear 
power is a key component of President Bushs Advanced Energy 
Initiative.   

The Standby Support provisions of EPACT (section 638), also 
referred to as federal risk insurance, authorize the Secretary of 
Energy to enter into contracts to cover financial losses due to 
certain nuclear plant delays up to $500 million for the first two 
reactors licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and 
up to $250 million for each of the following four new reactors.   

To strengthen our nations energy mix, we must move forward with 
more nuclear power, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said.  
Even though nuclear energy is the only mature, emission-free, 
baseload energy source available, a new reactor hasnt been 
constructed in the U.S. in decades.  Hopefully, by providing 
companies with the assurance that they will be protected against 
certain regulatory and legal delays that are beyond their 
control, this will encourage a renaissance of nuclear power in 
this county.   The President proposed and Congress passed the 
standby support as part of the key provisions of EPACT to 
facilitate the building of new nuclear power plants in the United 
States.  The interim final rule establishes a two-step process 
for obtaining risk insurance.  

First, the project sponsor of a new advanced nuclear facility may 
seek to enter into a conditional agreement with DOE after the 
sponsor has applied to the NRC for a combined construction and 
operating license for an advanced nuclear facility.  Second, 
after all applicable requirements have been satisfied, including 
the issuance of a license by the NRC, the project sponsor and DOE 
may enter into a standby support contract.  

The project sponsors for the first six reactors to satisfy the 
requisite conditions can qualify for reimbursement of losses that 
are associated with covered delays.   

Providing risk insurance to the first six new nuclear power 
plants addresses a significant barrier to building the nuclear 
generating capacity necessary to power our nations economy, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said.

  The rule identifies events that would be covered by the risk 
insurance, including delays associated with the NRCs review of 
inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria or other 
licensing schedule delays, and certain delays associated with 
litigation in state, federal, or tribal courts.  Insurance 
coverage would not be available for the sponsors failure to take 
actions required by law or regulation, events within the 
sponsors control, and normal business risks such as employment 
strikes and weather delays.  Covered losses would, subject to 
satisfaction of all requirements, include principal or interest 
on debt and losses resulting from the purchase of replacement 
power to satisfy certain contractual obligations.   Public 
comments on the interim final rule must be in writing and 
received within 30 days of the rules publication in the Federal 
Register.   

In formulating the interim final rule, DOE evaluated and took 
into account comments received from the NRC, written and oral 
comments received from interested parties that responded to DOEs 
Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register on November 
25, 2005, and comments received in the public workshop held on 
December 15, 2005.    The interim final rule will be published in 
the Federal Register.  A copy and related information materials, 
including a discussion of the nine conditions that must be 
satisfied in order to enter into a standby support contract with 
DOE, are available on the website of DOEs Office of Nuclear 
Energy (). 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 72 Hanford News: BLM closes public comment period on Utah nuclear waste site
 
This story was published Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 

By Paul Foy, Associated Press Writer 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - It will take weeks for the Bureau of Land
Management to sort through thousands of public comments before
deciding whether to grant access across public land for a
nuclear waste stockpile about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake
City. 

Monday was the last day the bureau was taking comment on the
proposal from Private Fuel Storage, a group of nuclear-powered
utilities that want to ship nuclear waste to an American Indian
reservation in Utah. 

BLM has taken more than 4,350 mostly negative letters, e-mails,
postcards and faxes on the project, including objections from
Utah politicians and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. 

"It could take 30 to 60 days to go through them," BLM
spokeswoman Christine Tincher said Monday. 

The bureau will study the remarks for any "substantive"
recommendations. It has no timeframe for making a decision on a
right of way that would allow a rail spur or trucks to carry
nuclear waste down the length of Skull Valley to the Goshute
Indian Reservation. 

Private Fuel Storage has a license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to store up to 44,000 tons of spent fuel rods with a
half-life of 10,000 years above ground at the reservation. 

Yet it must clear other obstacles before the proposal can become
a reality: 

- Utah is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a license
issued Feb. 13 by the NRC after 8 1/2 years of deliberation. 

- Private Fuel Storage needs approval of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, which must decide if a lease for a nuclear-waste
repository is in the Goshute's interests. 

- It needs a permit from the federal Surface Transportation
Board if it decides to build a rail line to the Skull Valley
reservation. 

- It needs contracts from utilities that own nuclear power
plants before starting construction of the repository. 

The utility consortium, which also needs a right of way from the
Bureau of Land Management, filed two applications to get one. 

The first is for a 32-mile rail spur that's not likely to be
granted because the route would cut across a corner of the Cedar
Mountain Wilderness Area. President Bush signed the bill
creating the wilderness area on Jan. 6 in a move by Utah's
congressional delegation to block the project. 

The second application is for a 10-acre waste transfer station
alongside the main Union Pacific rail line, which runs parallel
to Interstate 80. Under this plan, the fuel rods would be
unloaded from rail cars and put on oversized trucks for shipment
on state Route 196 to the reservation. 

With Utah's wilderness maneuver, the transfer station appears
the only practical option, but PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said
Monday that it wasn't giving up hope for a rail spur. 

Martin said the comments filed with the BLM weren't all
negative. 

"We have been very pleased with the respondents who have shared
their positive comments with us - people who believe that this
project can be built and operated safely," she said. 

Martin described the supporters as scientists, Utah residents
"who are part of the silent majority" and others who believe the
nation needs waste storage away from nuclear power plants - a
temporary solution until the federal government can open a
national repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. 

During transit by rail or truck, the spent fuel rods would be
packed in welded steel canisters and protected by additional
layers of steel and radioactive shields, she said. 

Martin said Private Fuel Storage looked into bending a rail spur
around the wilderness area, but opponents say any other route
would send tracks over ground that is often wet. 


� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 73 Hanford News: Nuclear industry adopts new detection, disclosure policy on
radioactive releases into groundwater
 
This story was published Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 

By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nuclear industry said Tuesday it will more
closely monitor and keep local and state officials informed
about releases of radioactive water into groundwater from power
plants, though it said such releases have not posed a health
risk. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently established a task
force to look into releases of water containing tritium into
groundwater at a half dozen plants over the last decade,
including three recently in Illinois, where the state has sued
Exelon Corp., for violating state environmental laws because of
the releases. 

Groundwater contamination on plant sites also have been reported
at reactors in New York, Connecticut, Florida, California and
Arizona, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
nuclear industry watchdog group. 

Tritium, which can cause cancer with significant exposures, is a
normal product of a nuclear reactor. The releases - except for
one at Exelon's Braidwood reactor - have been kept within plant
boundaries. All are reported to have been below the federal
health standard of 4 millirems for groundwater. 

Nevertheless, the releases of tritium-contaminated water into
soil at power plants has been of concern to the NRC. Some of the
leaks went undetected for as long as 12 years. They generally
have occurred because of leaks in pipes or in some cases from
the pools in which spent reactor fuel rods are kept. 

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, told the
NRC on Tuesday it is beginning a program to improve detection of
such leaks and communications with local, state and federal
officials when leaks occur. 

"The new industry program recognizes that even though
radioisotopes have not been detected off site at levels that
would jeopardize public health, the industry should adopt a
higher standard of excellence in radiation protection that goes
beyond what NRC regulations required," said Ralph Andersen,
NEI's chief health physicist. 

"When inadvertent radiological releases in groundwater occur at
levels that do not require formal reporting, we should inform
local and state leaders and the public as a matter of openness
and transparency." 

Under the new policy, plant operators will establish an action
plan "to assure timely detection" of such releases, submit
reports to the NRC on groundwater samples within plant
boundaries and inform state and local officials groundwater
leaks if they exceed certain levels. 

Before the creation of the recent NRC task force, the agency
"has been treating the leaks as isolated events. But seven
events in 10 years suggests a trend rather than a series of
isolated events," said David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear
safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 74 Hanford News: PNNL picks firm to design lab space
 
This story was published Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 

By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer 

An architecture and engineering firm from Madison, Wis., will
design new 335,000-square-foot laboratories and office space for
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to replace facilities
being demolished in the 300 Area as part of Hanford cleanup
efforts. 

Flad and Associates was chosen from five companies that
submitted proposals to do the work. Flad will be paid between
$17 million and $20 million, and will use several
subcontractors. Merrick and Co. of Aurora, Colo., will do the
radiological facility design work; Affiliated Engineers of
Seattle will be responsible for mechanical, electrical and
piping planning and design; and M.H. Chew and Associates of
Livermore, Calif., will provide analysis of hazards concerns,
documented safety and safety-related design reviews. 

PNNL's Greg Koller said Flad was selected based on cost
consideration, previous experience and reputation as a design
firm on similar projects. 

Flad will focus on designing the physical sciences facility that
will contain the lab's nuclear and radiological facilities.
Those functions are contained within the 300 Area, which is
targeted for cleanup by the end of 2010. 

The cost for Flad's design work will come out of the $224
million budgeted for the new buildings that will replace 300
Area facilities, Koller said. 

The Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National
Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Homeland
Security are funding the project. 

Construction is expected to begin in early 2008. 

Jim McClusky, a former Hanford engineer and PNNL employee, will
be construction manager of the project in Richland, which is the
largest in the 41-year history of the Battelle-operated lab. 

Mike Lawrence, deputy laboratory director for campus development
at PNNL, said in a statement that the physical sciences facility
will have research capabilities to detect proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, help environmental remediation
projects and do important homeland and national security
research.

         
� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 75 Hanford News: Tacoma says no to uranium dioxide
 
This story was published Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 

By Kelly Kearsley, The (Tacoma) News Tribune 

Nuclear fuel won't be in the Port of Tacoma's cargo mix anytime
soon. 

Earlier this year, a shipping company proposed sending uranium
dioxide, which is used to make fuel rods that power nuclear
reactors, through the port on its way to Japan, Taiwan and
Korea. 

Port, labor and fire officials traveled to the Hanford area in
February to learn more about the substance from Areva, the
Richland company that makes the uranium dioxide pellets and
powder. 

Uranium dioxide is considered hazardous, though it's of
relatively low risk to the people who handle it. 

"We decided for the (small) volume of cargo and our other
opportunities for handling cargo, let's not get into this," said
Tim Farrell, the port's executive director. "If we don't have to
take the risk, why bother? We have bigger fish to fry." 

The port anticipated 50 to 100 containers of the uranium dioxide
per year. 

The port handled 2.1 million containers last year. Farrell
informed the port commission of the decision Thursday. 

Connie Bacon, the commission's president, said not handling the
cargo is consistent with the decisions of past commissions. 

"This is in the best interest of the port and community," Bacon
said. "We always want to be as cooperative as we can, but this
wasn't something we could do and feel good about." 

A decade ago, the port commission and Tacoma City Council banned
spent nuclear fuel - which is highly radioactive - from being
stored or transported through the city and port. The decisions
came after the Department of Energy listed Tacoma as one of the
10 ports that could receive shipments of nuclear waste. 

Robert Link, Areva's environmental, health, safety and licensing
manager, noted the initial request was made by the shipper, not
Areva, but added that the company has alternative means for
getting its product overseas. 

"Tacoma isn't an issue for us," Link said. 

� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 76 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 
 
                         FR Doc E6-7038 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26936] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-47]                         
 
River AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Savannah River. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 
770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in 
the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Monday, May 22, 2006, 1 p.m.-6:30 p.m.; Tuesday, May 23, 
2006, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: DoubleTree Hotel, 411 West Bay Street, Savannah, GA 
31401.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project 
Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, 
P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda: Monday, May 22, 2006: 1 p.m.--Combined 
Committee Session. 5:15 p.m.-- Adjourn. 5:30 p.m.--Executive 
Committee Meeting. 6:30 p.m.-- Adjourn. Tuesday, May 23, 2006: 
8:30 a.m.--Approval of Minutes, Agency Updates. 9:15 a.m.--Public 
Comment Session. 9:30 a.m.--Chair and Facilitator Update. 10:30 
a.m.--National Nuclear Security Administration Update. 11:15 
a.m.--Waste Management Committee Report. 11:45 a.m.--Public 
Comment Session. 12 p.m.--Lunch Break. 1 p.m.--Facility 
Disposition and Site Remediation Committee Report.
 
2:30 p.m.--Nuclear Materials Committee Report. 3:30 p.m.--Public 
Comment Session. 3:40 p.m.--Strategic and Legacy Management 
Committee Report. 3:55 p.m.--Administrative Committee Report. 4 
p.m.--Adjourn. If needed, time will be allotted after public 
comments for items added to the agenda and administrative 
details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting, Monday, 
May 22, 2006.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office 
at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. 
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved 
prior to the meeting date.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, 
Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box 
A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on May 3, 2006.
 
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7038 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 77 DOE: DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
 
                         FR Doc E6-7039 
[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)] [Notices] 
[Page 26936] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09my06-46] [[Page 26936]]
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear 
Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of 
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Friday, July 21, 2006 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and Conference Center, 
5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department 
of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice 
and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy 
and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities 
within the field of basic nuclear science research.
 
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the 
following: Friday, July 21, 2006: Reports from Department of 
Energy and National Science Foundation.
 
Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science 
Foundation.
 
NSAC Discussion of New Charges.
 
Discussion of the Long Range Plan Assignments/Strategies.
 
Public Comment (10-minute rule).
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you 
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like 
to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the 
agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or 
Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (e- mail). You must make your request 
for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the 
meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the 
scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the 
Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute 
rule.
 
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on May 3, 2006.
 
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee, Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7039 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 78 Hanford Watch: Update on the cleanup of the Plutonium Finishing Plant

Portland, Oregon

[map of Hanford location on Columbia River]   
      
Introduction 

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste
dump in the Western Hemisphere and a major Northwest
environmental issue. It is a serious long-term threat to the
Columbia River, which Oregon depends on for power generation,
farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation. (more) 

Mission 
Our mission is to educate the public on Hanford cleanup issues,
and work to increase public participation in the Hanford
decision making process. 

Website by Lynn Porter.     
Plutonium Finishing Plant, Sabine Hilding, 1999 


 Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, April 30, 2006
 One of the original concerns of Hanford Watch in the early
1990s was the disposition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant
(PFP). One of the first Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
hearings Hanford Watch helped get the public to was on this very
issue, how to stabilize PFP's 18 metric tons of plutonium
bearing materials (half-life 24,500 years). This was one of the
three worst nightmares facing the Department of Energy (DOE) in
the U.S. weapons complex. (The other two were the K-Basins at
Hanford located 400 yards from the Columbia River and the 177
tanks of highly radioactive waste.)
 
The preferred alternative of this early EIS was to restart the
reactor and finish processing the plutonium. One of the options
that had been studied for the EIS was heating the plutonium
oxides to turn them into dried powders and putting them in
triple duty stainless steel containers. After much public
comment to this effect, this was the action taken by the
Department of Energy. Out of the 18 metric tons, 9 metric tons
are left with 4 tons being plutonium. 

The work that has been done on cleaning up the PFP has been
impressive--from the dedication of the workers in not only doing
the job, but in coming up with inventive methods of making the
cleanup safer and more doable. All of the plutonium inventory
was to be moved from Hanford to Savannah River, but they have
objected, so all work at Hanford on consolidating the plutonium
has been stopped. 

This has caused ripple effects. Continuing operations of the
vault at PFP, rather than being able to decommission it, places
requirements on the ventilation and support facilities and has
increased the need for security for all plutonium storage,
increasing the costs by $87 million a year. 

Because funding is being reduced much of the work force there
will continue to be laid off. This creates immense safety
problems as well as future cost outlays. Retraining workers for
this project and getting the level of security clearances
required to work in this facility is no easy or inexpensive
matter. This is an issue that is worth contacting our
congressional delegation about to request continued funding with
no reductions so that this immense safety problem can be brought
to a close once and for all. 

Ten years ago the three most serious problems facing the nation
were three sites at Hanford: the K-Basins, the PFP (Plutonium
Finishing Plant) and the 177 highly radioactive waste tanks. We
are coming close to reducing two of those threats, PFP and
K-Basins, if Congress continues funding of the work of these
programs. 

Hanford news

 Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, April 6, 2006 
To all our readers, you will be hearing from me more frequently
than usual with updates on the many activities that are or are
not happening at Hanford. I have been less active (but still in
the loop) this past year with family taking a top priority and
teaching becoming more demanding. It is good to have my energy
back and a renewed desire to communicate with you as much as
possible. (more) 


Scoping comments on the Tank Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement

 Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, April 2, 2006
 Hanford Watch appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement
(TC &WM EIS) for the cleanup of the Hanford Site. We commend the
Department of Energy (DOE) for its willingness to rescope the
Solid Waste EIS and to expand and update the Tank Closure EIS to
plan for a more integrated and comprehensive analysis of
Hanford's waste and waste cleanup plans. We also thank the DOE
for changing the dates of the meetings to allow more preparation
for public comment. (more)   

Timothy M. Leonard 
*****************************************************************
 79 lamonitor.com: Lawmakers urge nuke remedies 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A new broom was supposed to clean up problems in the nuclear
workers compensation program starting last year, but the
intention has not been realized. 
The troubled program was criticized again Thursday for delays
and other flaws by a panel of four congressmen, including Rep.
Tom Udall, D-N.M., and his cousin Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

The congressmen testified in Washington before a House Judiciary
subcommittee that oversees the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP). The federal entitlement
program was turned over to the Department of Labor in 2004 after
making little progress for four years under the Department of
Energy. 

The nuclear worker compensation program is charged with settling
claims from workers who have suffered specific illnesses while
employed in the Department of Energy's nuclear complex.

In his testimony, Tom Udall said he was speaking for his
constituents in New Mexico who were "sick and dying" from their
work on nuclear weapons. 
Mark Udall said he was concerned to learn that, "the President's
latest budget says the Administration expects a reduction of
about $686 million in compensation payments in fiscal year 2007."

The two Udalls have proposed legislation to have facilities in
their districts designated as "Special Exposure Cohorts" (SEC) -
a special category that permits a more simplified approval
process for claims against a larger group of cancers. 
But a White House document, disclosed earlier this year,
outlined a program for constraining outlays in the program,
including what some interpret as employing political influence
on the claims decisions. The budget office proposed requiring
administration approval for new SECs, "shoring up" any
"imbalances" on a review board, and adding an additional layer
of outside review, among other ways to slow down benefit
payments.

That and an accompanying outcry from lawmakers with Cold War
nuclear workers in their districts raised the concern of the
subcommittee chair, Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., who called for
hearings.

A first hearing on Mar. 1 considered charges of a conflict of
interest in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health auditing process. In order to address a "conflict of
roles," two officials were removed their responsibilities in
overseeing the advisory board, Hostettler reported on Mar 10.

Rep. Tom Udall's testimony Thursday highlighted difficulties of
employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory in obtaining data to
verify their claims.

"It appears that dosimetry measurements are missing for entire
years of employment and in other cases those measurements are
misreported," Udall stated.

He told the story of an employee who began working at LANL in
1948 and whose file gave evidence that he was exposed to toxic
substances, including plutonium and americium. In exposure
records submitted by LANL to NIOSH, Udall stated, the employee's
measurements for the year 1950 were omitted, although supporting
evidence indicated numerous radiation exposures in that year.

"This same internal dosimetry chart contains measurements for
the claimant through the year 1999," Udall stated.
"Unfortunately, the claimant died in 1982."

Cousin Mark Udall read a letter from a constituent, H. Charles
Wolf, who had worked at Rocky Flats, and who said he was lucky
to be a three and one-half-year survivor of a brain tumor with a
one-year life expectancy, but has so far been denied
compensation.

"I have gone through the process that is so difficult to
complete that most people, who are mostly sick and suffering,
give up," wrote Wolfe

The program, enacted in 2000 was supposed to pay a lump sum
payment of $150,000 to workers, or their survivors under certain
conditions, who were exposed to cancer-causing radiation, or
beryllium and silica that cause lung diseases.

Other aspects of the program are intended to assist workers in
collecting state workers compensation benefits and medical
expenses for other work-related illnesses.

A letter from Alan M. Varela, director of the New Mexico
Workers' Compensation Administration to the chair and ranking
member of the subcommittee on claims, supported the efforts of
the committee.

"We want to make sure that patriotic New Mexicans who have paid
the ultimate price and those who are suffering and in need due
to Cold War related illnesses are not forgotten," Varela wrote
after the first hearing. "These patriots deserve full and timely
compensation for their work-related illnesses."

EDITOR'S NOTE: An older story in this series on nuclear worker
compensation was inadvertently published Friday. This is the
current story that was intended.   

  � 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 80 Knox News: Pension plan raises questions

Workers wonder about impact of DOE policy change, when it'll 
begin

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 
                                
May 9, 2006

OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy's move to phase out 
traditional pension plans for its contractors - beginning next 
year - is raising concerns among affected Oak Ridge groups. 

"I'm not too crazy about what I'm seeing initially. I don't see 
anything good about it right now," said Kenny Cook, president of 
the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, which represents union 
workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 National 
Security Complex. 

Cook said he still was reviewing the plans to assess the 
potential impacts. 

DOE contractors were informed of the new benefits policy in late 
April and told to implement the program for newly hired workers 
no later than March 1, 2007. 

The move would substitute defined-contribution plans - similar to 
a 401(k), with contributions from employees and their employer - 
for the defined-benefit plans currently in place at the 
government's Oak Ridge facilities. DOE said the policy would 
bring the DOE contractors more in line with "market trends" for 
worker benefits. 

"The new policy will improve the predictability of contractor 
benefit costs and mitigate the growth of the department's 
long-term liabilities for these costs," DOE said in announcing 
the policy change. 

Current workers would be grandfathered into the existing pension 
and medical benefit plans, but there were differing reports about 
whether workers had to be vested to be included in that group. 

There also are questions about the transition to the new system 
and potential impacts on retired workers. 

Hourly workers at ORNL and Y-12 are covered by union contracts 
with UT-Battelle and BWXT Y-12 - the government's managing 
contractors - until 2009, Cook said. 

"These policy changes are so new to the contractor community that 
we have not had the time to fully evaluate the impacts of these 
policy changes nor develop any specific implementation plans," 
said Bill Wilburn, a spokesman for BWXT. 

UT-Battelle has about 4,100 employees at ORNL. BWXT Y-12 has
about 4,800. Each is responsible for the benefits of thousands
of retired workers. 

"Retired and existing workers will continue to be reimbursed by
the contractor for the cost of their benefit plans," said Megan
Barnett, a spokeswoman at DOE headquarters in Washington. 

David Reichle, president of the Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired
Employees (CORRE), said DOE should be commended for finally
trying to provide consistent plans among its many contractors. 

However, Reichle said DOE should be chastised for doing nothing
to clear up the inequities that already exist for Oak Ridge
retirees. CORRE has argued for years that Oak Ridge workers did
not receive fair treatment compared to their counterparts at DOE
plants elsewhere. 

Also, some "sleeper clauses" in the DOE plan could have "ominous
implications" for retirees, perhaps eliminating pension
adjustments in the future, Reichle said. "Here, even CORRE
underestimated how mean-spirited DOE would be," he said. 

Billy Stair, communications director at UT-Battelle, said it
appears all current employees would remain in the
defined-benefits plan with a one-time opportunity to change to
the new system. 

"I'm sure there are some questions we have not been able to sort
out, such as precisely how much employees and the contractor
will be allowed or obligated to contribute to the (new) plan,"
Stair said. 

Another question is how UT-Battelle's plan may differ from that
of BWXT, the operator at Y-12, Stair said. "We assume they will
be different," he said, noting that the two contractors recruit
different types of workers and may have different ideas. 

The existing Oak Ridge pension fund shared by UT-Battelle and
BWXT has a sizable surplus, and there are questions about how
that may be used in the future. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
 					
  + DOE HQ: 202-586-5575 
  + Y-12: 865-574-1500 
  + ORNL: 865-576-8844 					 			 			 		 		 	 		 		 				  

� 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************