***************************************************************** 05/16/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.116 ***************************************************************** 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 [southnews] NAM opposes military confict with Iran 2 [NYTr] Rice trades barbs with Russian before Iran mtg 3 [NYTr] Iran: Regime Change Redux 4 Nuclear Iran: Didnt the U.S. Already Try 5 Updating Contigency plan to bomb Iran 6 [southnews] China, Russia to veto force against Iran 7 IRNA: FM: we are resolved to safeguard our nuclear rights 8 IRNA: US pressure halts test-firing of India's Agni-III missile 9 Guardian Unlimited: Annan Urges Resumption of Nuclear Talks 10 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, China: Don't Use Force in Iran 11 Guardian Unlimited: EU offers Iran reactor to halt enrichment 12 IRNA: EU offers best civilian nuclear technology to Iran 13 US: Desert Dispatch: Nevada bombing prelude to attack on Iran 14 IRNA: Russia, China not backing threats against Iran: Lavrov 15 IRNA: China, Russia call for diplomatic settlement of Iran's N-case 16 AFP: Egypt FM calls for peaceful resolution of Iran nuclear row - 17 IRNA: NAM to declare stand on Iran after meeting 18 AFP: Iran says not interested in EU incentives 19 AFP: Russia, China rule out any use of force against Iran - Lavrov - 20 AFP: Khamenei slams 'world media empire' over nuclear coverage - 21 IRNA: EU underlines Iran's right to nuclear energy 22 AFP: Talks among world powers on Iran likely delayed - US 23 Korea Herald: Contact between Koreas grows 24 EDITORIAL: The plight of whistleblowers 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Restore Diplomatic Ties With Libya 26 WNE: US, France working on N-fuel supply roadmap 27 US: reviewjournal.com: DIVINE STRAKE: Experts defend blast 28 NEWS.com.au: Howard wants US involved - 29 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Official Defends India Pact 30 AFP: Straw's 'surprise' at being axed as foreign secretary - 31 UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan in nuclear development NUCLEAR REACTORS 32 US: [NukeNet] Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power 33 US: [NukeNet] Nuke Power Net Energy Scam 34 US: Nuke Power Net Energy Scam 35 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive Water Leaks From Japan Plant 36 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power back on Blair agenda 37 Guardian Unlimited: Row erupts over PM's energy move 38 London Times: Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis 39 Guardian Unlimited: Blair presses the nuclear button 40 London Times: Power station's dirty secret - 41 London Times: Blair claims two powerful reasons for atomic future - 42 US: Daily Vanguard: Tower of power 43 BBC: Blair backs nuclear power plans 44 Independent: PM backs new wave of nuclear power stations 45 AFP: Blair signals new generation of British nuclear power stations 46 AFP: Blair angers ecologists with push for new British nuclear power 47 Reutes: UK's Blair says nuclear power back on agenda 48 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepa 49 US: NRC: Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion); Surry Power 50 Scotsman.com: Nuclear power won't need tax cash 51 Telegraph: Blair says nuclear power is back on the agenda 52 Japan Times: Radioactive water leaks at Mihama 53 US: Times Herald-Record: Indian Point syndrome - heads in the sand 54 Scotsman.com News: Blair puts nuclear power firmly on energy agenda 55 US: The Herald: Nuclear plant decisions on hold for poll NUCLEAR SECURITY 56 US: APP.COM: No-fly zone at nuclear plant? | 57 US: IEER: Missing Plutonium - Index NUCLEAR SAFETY 58 US: [NukeNet] Alarming history of lack of radioactive clean up in 59 US: Times Herald-Record: Plant worker gets too much radiation 60 US: Muskogee Phoenix: The people speak: U.S. doesnt need test on ol 61 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Worker exposed to radiation at Indian Point 62 US: New London Day: Rell Seeks Evaluation Of Effects Of Millstone Ra 63 US: The State: 700-ton bomb bad for U.S. NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 64 [NukeNet] Stop Rokkasho, from Ryuichi Sakamoto 65 Las Vegas SUN: Temporary nuclear waste storage may be sought due 66 NEWS.com.au: N-waste moral issue: Anglican leader - 67 US: The Australian: Howard flags N-power 68 Sydney Morning Herald: PM poo-poos nuke waste plan, critics unsure - 69 US: Centre Daily Times: Eyes on I-99 future 70 US: BYU NewsNet: LDS Church speaks out on nuclear waste 71 US: BYU NewsNet: Utah leaders fight nuclear proposal 72 reviewjournal.com: Hecht, former U.S. senator, dies in LV 73 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY offers state dry cask fund deal 74 Norway Post: Regrets re-opening of Sellafield plant 75 US: Telegraph: Australia split over uranium boom 76 AU ABC: Aust has no plans to take back uranium waste - PM. PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 77 Tri-City Herald: Feds recommend Hanford slowdown 78 Albuquerque Tribune: Report: No brain drain at lab 79 Guardian Unlimited: N.M. Lab Workers Respond to Job Offers 80 Tri-City Herald: Hanford Reach center cost may drop by as much as $2 81 DOE: Proposed Agency Information Collection Submitted for OMB Review ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [southnews] NAM opposes military confict with Iran Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:41:08 -0500 (CDT) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) feels that another military conflict, this time in Iran over its nuclear programme, is the last thing that the world needs right now, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said Monday. Syed Hamid said it was important for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to continue playing the primary role in efforts to resolve the Iran nuclear standoff with western powers. Military Conflict In Iran The Last Thing The World Needs - Syed Hamid PUTRAJAYA, May 15 (Bernama) -- The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) feels that another military conflict, this time in Iran over its nuclear programme, is the last thing that the world needs right now, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said Monday. Saying that United Nations Security Council resolutions or sanctions against Iran would not help resolve the issue, he stressed that NAM believed that dialogues and discussions were the way to go in tackling the problem. "We have got so many problems in the world currently and I think that the last thing we would like to add in is a military conflict in Iran," he told reporters at his office here during a briefing on the upcoming NAM Coordinating Bureau (NAM-CoB) ministerial meeting. Syed Hamid said it was important for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to continue playing the primary role in efforts to resolve the Iran nuclear standoff with western powers. He said the nuclear situation involving Iran might be discussed at the May 27-30 NAM-CoB meeting and the matter might be incorporated in the ministerial declaration or issued as a separate statement. "Whether finally there will be a separate statement or included as a paragraph (in the declaration), it depends on the decision of NAM members attending the meeting," said the minister. Syed Hamid reiterated that NAM was not against the peaceful use of nuclear energy as long as it did not become a prelude to the development of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, he said, given the rising costs of fuel, there was nothing wrong for a country to look for alternative energy resources. "And this includes nuclear energy -- as long as it is intended for peaceful purposes, which is consistent with the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," he added. -- BERNAMA http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=197403 _______________________________________ Ten Stories That Desperately Need to be Told By Thalif Deen - Inter Press Service United Nations, 16 May , (IPS): Every year, the U.N.'s Department of Public Information (DPI) unveils its list of the world's 10 most under-reported stories, implying that politics, murder and sex scandals still take precedence over poverty, peace-building or economic development. The list, released by the United Nations Monday, covers a wide range of stories -- from the plight of asylum seekers and refugees in ongoing conflicts to earthquake relief and post-war reconstruction -- that received little or no play in the world media. "We all know that violence and conflict, and the threat thereof, always seem to make the headlines -- 'if it bleeds it leads', while 'good news is no news'," says Shashi Tharoor, U.N. under-secretary-general for communications and public information. "We've tried over the years to show that development issues can make good stories too -- by pointing out the human interest aspects, and by helping demonstrate that such stories can be made 'readable', 'watchable' and interesting," Tharoor told IPS. "We'll continue doing our best, but unless readers, viewers and listeners don't also let editors know that they'd like to see more of such stories (especially by offering overwhelming positive feedback when such stories do appear), it may remain difficult to persuade the media guardians that such material really has appeal to the audience," said Tharoor, who launched the initiative in 2004. Asked why the mainstream media and major international news agencies still continue to focus primarily on political issues and pay increasingly less attention to development-oriented issues, Tharoor flipped the question back to the reporter: "This is a question for journalists and editors to answer!" According to the DPI, headed by Tharoor, the ten stories the world should hear more about include post-war reconstruction in Liberia; the new challenges faced by bona fide asylum seekers; the upcoming historic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo; children caught in the ongoing conflict in Nepal; and the compounding effects of a drought threatening to undermine stability in war-devastated Somalia. The list also singles out several other stories under-reported by the world media: the plight of millions of refugees living in limbo; the problems of relief efforts in the aftermath of the South Asian earthquake and tsunami; the alarming number of children in conflict with the law; the collaborative solutions that have prevented conflicts over scarce water resources; and renewed violence that threatens to undermine the peace process in Cote d'Ivoire. Ernest Corea, a former newspaper editor in Sri Lanka and that country's one-time ambassador to the United States, says the media (of all varieties) in industrialised countries focus on issues such as Iraq, Iran, nuclear proliferation etc., because these are of primary interest to their readers, viewers or listeners. "These media are also influenced by a culture of conflict," Corea told IPS. "A good fight, of any kind, therefore makes news -- sometimes even before the fight takes place." "Thus, the run-up to the election of a bishop in California hit the headlines because three gay and lesbian candidates were in contention. Not one of them was elected. End of story." By contrast, Corea pointed out, development-oriented issues are of primary interest to readers/listeners/viewers in developing countries. In fairness, however, when some of the world's major newspapers do cover development-oriented issues, they do so with understanding and skill, said Corea, currently a consultant to an international financial institution in Washington. Over the years, several international efforts to set up news agencies or news feature services focusing on developing countries -- including the Non-Aligned News Agency Pool, Gemini News Service and Depth News -- have failed to get off the ground. Were they too political and less professional? Or were they too resource-poor to compete with Western giants? "All of the above," said Tharoor. "There was a legitimate fear that such agencies would exist to peddle a governmental view, paid for with governmental money, as an alternative to 'unwelcome' free media, at a time when free media had legitimate questions about the message being put out by the governments concerned," he added. "And of course, despite some governmental backing, they were woefully under-resourced, and what they produced could not compete credibly in the media marketplace," Tharoor said. Corea had a different take on it. He said that all of the earlier efforts, though different from each other, were afflicted by a common problem: lack of support from developing country media. "Gemini and Depth News were features services, not news agencies. Gemini features were highly professional products and its founder, Derek Ingram, tried valiantly to keep it going but he simply did not have a sufficient number of paying clients," Corea added. Early this year, Malaysia, in its capacity as chairman of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement, embarked on the creation of a Non-Aligned News Network (NNN). Asked whether this can be one answer to the current problem, Tharoor said: "It could well be, because I understand it is based on a model of open-exchange of information rather than control of information, and is open to postings from freelance journalists as well as national news-agency correspondents". If that is so, said Tharoor, it will be seen as adding to the valuable sources of information rather than restricting them. "I look forward to seeing it in operation." Corea said: "Malaysia's initiative will have a good chance of success if (a) the new agency has strong financial support and (b) the agency is professionally run." Currently, most developing nations are also poorly represented in the U.N. press corps -- perhaps because most third world countries or their national news agencies cannot afford to post full-time correspondents in New York. Asked what the United Nations can do to rectify this, Tharoor said: "Nothing, alas." If the United Nations were to try to ease the financial burden on developing country journalists by offering any sort of subsidy, he said, "We would be rightly accused of trying to buy influence with the press corps." "We can guarantee that if a credentialed developing country journalist comes to the United Nations, we will extend all the facilities and co-operation we can, so that he or she can pursue their profession with the minimum possible handicaps in terms of workspace, access, etc. I don't believe the developing country journalists who are already here have many complaints on that score," he added. Corea said: "Seeking U.N. assistance to resolve this problem is precisely the wrong way to go." He said that collaborative arrangements among developing country newspapers, etc., can go part of the way towards resolving the problem. "Developing country media can also opt to support and give more space/air time to Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, which is very active at the United Nations," he said. - Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Rice trades barbs with Russian before Iran mtg Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Standard - Hong Kong Monday, May 15, 2006 AP via The Sunday Telegraph http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=17&art_id=18714&sid7958967&con_type=1 Rice trades barbs with Russian before Iran meet by Philip Sherwell US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, traded barbs during bad- tempered talks at a foreign ministers' summit in New York on Iran's nuclear program a week ago. The exchanges provided a candid introduction to diplomacy for Margaret Beckett, Britain's new foreign secretary, who attended the tetchy session at the end of her first full day in the job. The row, which further undermines hopes of a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis, reflects deepening rifts between the United States and Russia. Tension surfaced at a private meeting hosted by Rice in the Waldorf Hotel for the Russian, British, French, German and Chinese foreign ministers, and spilt over into a much-delayed dinner. One official in Washington said: "It was a pretty extraordinary session and everyone's been talking about it in private since. It was certainly quite an introduction to the rough and tumble of the new job for Mrs Beckett." Lavrov arrived at the Waldorf for the meeting seething about a speech on Kremlin policies delivered by Dick Cheney, the US vice president, the previous week in Lithuania. The Russian repeatedly complained about the comments and then threatened to veto a Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain and France and backed by the United States, that would force Iran to abandon enrichment of uranium. Although Moscow has made clear that it opposes any use of mandatory powers, the other ministers were left in no doubt that Lavrov's approach reflected fury over the Cheney speech. As the mood worsened, Lavrov accused the Americans of seeking to undermine efforts by Britain, France and Germany to solve the crisis. He singled out Nicholas Burns, the State Department's No3, for particular flak, complaining about his criticism of Russian involvement in Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. Already frustrated, Rice, a Russia expert, took exception to his remarks about Burns and curtly told her guest: "This meeting isn't going anywhere." The gathering in Rice's suite had been intended as a 30-minute chat before dinner but turned into a two-hour session. By the time the foreign ministers sat down to eat at 10.30pm, their sea bass was shriveled and the bickering continued in front of senior officials. The next day, foreign ministry officials from the six nations worked to smooth over the row, coming up with a proposal for incentives on trade deals, security guarantees and civilian nuclear if Iran halts enrichment. The offer represented a major tactical shift by the United States, as Washington had previously refused to back rewards for Iran. Privately, American and European officials doubt it will alter Iran's behavior but believe that it may be the only hope of securing Russian and Chinese backing for stiffer diplomatic measures, including sanctions. Last week's developments also underscore tensions between Rice and the men who effectively ran US foreign policy during George WBush's first term - Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary. Rice was annoyed that talks on Iran with Lavrov were complicated by the vice president's remarks but Cheney and other hardliners want to send a tough message to Russia and also oppose US overtures to Iran and North Korea. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday he considers "invalid" any European proposals that ask Iran to halt uranium enrichment. * ================================================================ .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] Iran: Regime Change Redux Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:09:35 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit CounterPunch - May 16, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/pena05162006.html Regime Change Redux US Plans for Iran Go Beyond Halting Nuclear Efforts By CHARLES PEQA At the end of April, U.S. President George W. Bush was asked at a Rose Garden question-and-answer session with the press about the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) declaration that Iran's nuclear program was not in compliance with the U.N. Security Council. Bush answered, "It reminds the nations of the world that there is an ongoing diplomatic effort to convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. It should remind the Iranians that the world is united and concerned about their desire to have not only a nuclear weapon, but the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, all of which we're working hard to convince them not to try to achieve." With both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stating that the United States could take action outside of the U.N. Security Council, the buzz in Washington speculates whether the United States might be willing to take military action to halt Iran's nuclear program. But there is evidence that another consideration is at play: to overthrow the Iranian government. U.S. leaders need to think hard about the strategic consequences of such a move before moving too far down that road. Administration rhetoric would lead one to believe that the underlying motive for any potential action (including sanctions) against Iran is because of its nuclear program. The Iranians claim that their program is for peaceful energy purposes, but many analysts believe the real purpose - just as the North Koreans did with their nuclear program - is to build nuclear weapons. Iran has declared that it has enriched uranium. While such a capability is not prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, it is an inherent capability to produce weapon-grade uranium. But the hand-wringing over Iran's nuclear program, much like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, needs to be put into perspective. First, even if the Iranians acquired a few nuclear warheads (such as the North Koreans now have); they do not have the long-range military capability to deliver those warheads to targets in the United States. Thus, they are not a direct threat to America. But even if they could reach the United States, they would not be able to ignore the realities of the vast U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and deterrence, just like the Soviet Union and China before them and North Korea now. The so-called "mad mullahs" in Tehran have a return address, and a nuclear attack against the United States would be met with an overwhelming and devastating retaliatory response. The country that would be most threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran would be Israel, which is within range of Iran's Shehab-3 missiles. Indeed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." But just as the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal is a powerful deterrent, so is Israel's stockpile, thought to number some 400 deliverable weapons. Although Iranian rhetoric might call for wiping Israel off the map, the reality is that the price of doing so would be Iran wiping itself off the map. So if Iran can be deterred, why would the Bush administration be willing to risk military action against Iran? The answer lies in the new National Security Strategy issued on March 16. As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. "The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace, disrupts democracy in Iraq and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom," said the strategy. "The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy." In other words, it is regime change redux. The conventional wisdom, however, is that regime change is unlikely at best given that the U.S. military is still - three years after President Bush declared mission accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln - unable to put down the Iraqi insurgency. But consider this scenario: The United States decides to take out Iran's nuclear program with limited air strikes (much like the Israelis did when they attacked Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981). But even limited air strikes would involve bombing hundreds of targets, and because many of those targets are located in urban areas (such as a research reactor in Tehran), even precision weapons likely would cause civilian casualties. Unable to put forth a direct military response, the Iranians instead may decide to resort to terrorism via Hizbollah in Lebanon. The result is a terrorist attack that kills either American soldiers or civilians, which then makes the regime in Tehran a legitimate target in the global war on terrorism, just as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was. This does not mean that the administration would deliberately attack Iran to invite a terrorist attack as a reason to engage in regime change. Yet it is easy to see how what started as air strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear program could become something bigger and more dangerous. The United States could make an unnecessary enemy out of Hizbollah, which has not actively targeted Americans since the Khobar Towers attack in 1996. Worse, Hizbollah and al-Qaida could overcome Sunni-Shiite divisions and form a tactical alliance against a common enemy: the United States. And if regime change meant a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, many in the Muslim world would view this as confirmation that the United States is waging a war against Islam. But if Iran's nuclear program and its potential to build nuclear weapons - however undesirable - is not a direct threat to the United States, is risking any or all of these possibilities worth it? Charles Peqa is an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project, a senior fellow with George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute and author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism (Potomac Books). * ================================================================ .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 Nuclear Iran: Didnt the U.S. Already Try Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:22:43 -0500 (CDT) A new preventive war is the talk of Washington following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released this month It said that Iran is not disclosing all aspects of its nuclear program and has not halted uranium enrichment activities. Speeches by the Iranian president have exacerbated the crisis. The IAEA has found no evidence of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran. But Washington still argues that Tehrans concealment of its nuclear research program makes it untrustworthy to operate a domestic nuclear fuel cycle -- even for civilian needs. For a detailed analysis see FCNLs new blog, The Quakers Colonel at http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/ Last week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote an 18-page letter to President George W. Bush. The White House immediately dismissed the Iranian presidents letter as a philosophical ploy designed to derail tough United Nations Security Council action to stop Iran from expanding its nuclear program. Yet a group of Iranian scholars suggested during a press conference at FCNL that the U.S. might be wrong to dismiss the first direct communication from an Iranian leader to a U.S. president in more than two decades. This week, Henry Kissinger made the same argument. If America is prepared to negotiate with North Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to participate -- especially in light of what is at stake, writes Kissinger in a op ed published in the Washington Post. *U.S. Rhetoric Toward Iran Sounds Familiar* President Bush insists that the U.S. is committed to exhausting all diplomatic options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But the U.S. refuses to talk with Iran and the recent history of U.S. preventive war in Iraq has led some people in the United States and many people internationally to question U.S. intentions toward Iran today. The presidents own rhetoric in the last few weeks sounds very similar to statements just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Asked about how the U.S. will stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, Bush responded: "The first option and the most important option is diplomacy. As you know, I've made the tough decision to commit American troops into harm's way," Bush told an audience in Florida last week. "It's the toughest decision a president can ever make. But I want you to know that I tried diplomacy. In other words, the president has got to be able to say to the American people diplomacy didn't work." Our own view is that the coercive diplomacy of this administration has failed, and that the administration should now try smart diplomacy as the alternative, not so-called preventive war. White House officials argue that a credible threat is necessary to force Iran to comply. The United States is pressing for a UN Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for re-starting its uranium enrichment program. But, in early May, both China and Russia declined to endorse a condemnation under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Over the next one to two weeks, the European Union - 3 (Britain, France, and Germany) is putting together a new packet of carrots and sticks to entice Iran to reconsider its defiance and accept international control of the fuel rods necessary to run its Russian-built reactor. The U.S. is backing the EU-3s efforts. But the administrations insistence that all options are on the table is escalating tensions between two countries, whose leaders do not understand each other, have a long history of hostility that occasionally boils over into violence, and have almost no diplomatic relations. But as the case of Iraq clearly demonstrates, war is not the answer. As military analysts note, should the U.S. launch military action against Iran, the 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq would be in immediate danger. This is a dangerous game of chicken, warns Ahmad Sadri, a scholar who coordinated 200 academics, experts and former government officials to sign a letter warning the administration of the dire consequence of U.S. military action against Iran. *Congressional Debate on Iran* FCNL urges policy makers to exercise caution in the matter of imposing sanctions on Iran. As imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, the economic sanctions exacted a devastating effect on masses of innocent civilians and weakened any internal critics of the Iraqi regime. The effects of those economic sanctions would almost certainly would have risen to the level of war crimes had they been judged by the rules of war, which prohibit the targeting of civilians. The U.S. should not risk a similar outcome in Iran. Many members of Congress embrace the calls for sanctions and support the presidents characterization of Iran as part of an axis of evil in the world. But some seasoned members of Congress are offering a different view. Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) warned in April against imposing sanctions on Iran and called for talks between the U.S. and Iran. This view resonated with Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), who argued in an editorial last week any lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat has to address the broader interest of Iran, the US, the region and the world. FCNL has learned that several senators are considering initiatives to encourage face-to-face negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. We at FCNL believe the that the U.S. ought to engage Iran bilaterally and through the UN and other multilateral venues to develop and implement procedures for safeguarding fissile materials, while permitting Iran to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs in accordance with the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. War is not the answer. Read the web log entry, "Iranian Democracy in the 20th Century" at http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/2006/05/iranian-democracy-in-20th-century.html For more information on Iran see our web site athttp://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=123 _______________________________________ The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/ Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/ Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yard signs: http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/ http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump Contribute to FCNL: http://www.fcnl.org/donate/ Subscribe or update your information to this list: http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message. Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists: http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls. ________________________________________ Friends Committee on National Legislation 245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330 We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored. --- If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=69766974&queueid=727861941. ***************************************************************** 5 Updating Contigency plan to bomb Iran Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:39:00 -0500 (CDT) Here's a US contingency plan - what about your's ? Michael ============== http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62043.html TheHerald (Glasow) May 16 2006 THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon sources have confirmed. Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against Tehran. The main plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets in Iran, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters. At least 75 targets in underground complexes would be attacked with waves of bunker-buster bombs. Iranian radar networks and air defence bases would be struck by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and then kept out of action by carrier aircraft flying from warships in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. The alternative to an all-out campaign is a demonstration strike against one or two high-profile targets such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility or the hexafluoride gas plant at Isfahan. UK sources say contingency plans have also been drawn up to cope with the inevitable backlash against the Basra garrison in neighbouring ***************************************************************** 6 [southnews] China, Russia to veto force against Iran Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:24:38 -0500 (CDT) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> RUSSIA and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute. China, Russia to veto force against Iran 17may06 RUSSIA and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday after meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing that dialogue was needed to resolve the stand-off with Tehran. "Russia and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving this issue," Mr Lavrov said. "China and Russia agree the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved through dialogue." Western governments have urged Iran to give up nuclear development, which they fear is aimed at producing weapons. The U.S. earlier sought a UN Security Council resolution to declare the program a threat to world peace and subject Iran to sanctions or even military action if it is not halted. Beijing and Moscow hold veto power in the Security Council. In the latest diplomatic initiative, the European Union offered Iran economic incentives to stop enriching uranium. But the Iranian president has rejected that. The Russian-Chinese announcement came as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the international community must take "very urgent steps" to deal with the dual problems of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr Annan, speaking ahead of a meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Seoul last night, urged all parties to stalled six-nation - the U.S., North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - talks on North Korea's programs to resume them, saying human rights and other topics should not be allowed to block the discussions. "The nuclear issue is by far the most important and should be given a separate category and priority as compared with human rights and other activities," Mr Annan said. He also urged Iran to work with European countries to settle the dispute about the country's nuclear plans. "Until recently we were focused on North Korea. Today we also have Iran," he said. "The international community has to take very urgent steps to deal with these issues." __________________________________ US spells out plan to bomb Iran IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent The Herald (Glasow) May 16 2006 THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon sources have confirmed. Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against Tehran. The main plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets in Iran, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters. At least 75 targets in underground complexes would be attacked with waves of bunker-buster bombs. Iranian radar networks and air defence bases would be struck by submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and then kept out of action by carrier aircraft flying from warships in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. The alternative to an all-out campaign is a demonstration strike against one or two high-profile targets such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility or the hexafluoride gas plant at Isfahan. UK sources say contingency plans have also been drawn up to cope with the inevitable backlash against the Basra garrison in neighbouring Iraq. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62043.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: FM: we are resolved to safeguard our nuclear rights Tehran, May 16, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Mottaki Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Monday Iran has decided not to forgo its nuclear rights as has been delineated in the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT), the Foreign Ministry Media Department reported. Meeting with Russian and Chinese ambassadors to Iran Alexander Sadorrikov and Leo Jen Tang, he added Iran will look at any useful proposal which recognizes he legitimate right of Iran in using peaceful nuclear technology and strengthening the NPT. He said the UN Security Council should function as a venue for safeguarding the right of nations rather than weakening them. Mottaki said a review of Iran's nuclear file at the Security Council and exerting pressure will ultimately weaken the UN and other international organizations. He referred to the constructive cooperation by Iran over the nuclear dossier saying the Americans do not favor the resolution of the issue because they see benefits in an unjust system and use selective policies in dealing with the issues such that they do not tolerate a new Russia and are after dominating the world energy resources including Russia's. He said the interest of Russia and China are also protected in a just international system. Iran's positions in the current strategy is a token of Russian and Chinese successful diplomacy. "Controlling US provocations will abode well for the welfare of the people of the region," he underlined. He further alluded to the US and Israel nuclear agreement in the past decades. This sort of selective behavior will disappoint the NPT members in continuing with their obligations outlined in the treaty, the Iranian foreign minister added. For their part, The ambassadors also said Tehran has opted for a prudent diplomacy. Continuing with negotiations is the only means to resolve the nuclear impasse, the envoys added. Mottaki in a meeting with the EU3 envoys to Tehran here Monday said that Iran will welcome any constructive proposal which will guarantee its legitimate and inalienable right and help solve the nuclear issue and will be ready to talk about it. He referred to Europe's new plans proposed to Iran and said that any call for suspension or interruption of Iran's nuclear program will be irrational and unacceptable adding that it is certain to be rejected. "If Europeans' proposals disregard the two fundamental conditions, including official recognition of Iran's inalienable rights to access nuclear technology and upholding this right, it will end up facing a situation similar to their plan proposed in August 2005," he added. Mottaki reviewed the process of Iran's transparent and positive cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and said, "Iran has done its best to this end, but unfortunately Europe's response was not positive. In fact, we proceeded with confidence-building measures unilaterally. "In the confidence-building path, the EU3 approach proved that our rights are disregarded and that they are not honest in claiming to solve the matter peacefully. Therefore, it is up to the three European countries to go ahead with confidence-building measures." The minister said that Iran's recent achievement in enrichment and access to nuclear technology is an undeniable and irreversible fact, adding that if Europe acts according to realities, a positive prospect is predicted. The ambassadors of France and Britain as well as the German charge d'affaires said that they will convey Iran's views on the issue to their respective officials immediately, while expressing the interest of EU3 in holding talks with Iran. ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: US pressure halts test-firing of India's Agni-III missile New Delhi, May 16, IRNA India-Agni-US pressure Indian Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee, on the sidelines of a defence accountants' conference on Monday, admitted for the first time that the government had stayed the test-firing of the Agni-III missile because "as responsible members of the international community, we want to keep our international commitments on non-proliferation." His remarks clearly indicate that the government has abandoned the program altogether. United States pressure on India to adhere to "international norms" to get the US Congress' approval on the civilian nuclear energy agreement has worked, a leading English daily, `Asian Age', reported here today. Mukherjee told reporters: "We have no pressure on us. Nor are we putting any political pressure. It is just that we have decided to have self-imposed restraint." Agni-III has been ready for test-firing since January. Defence Research and Development Organization chief M Natarajan made the announcement, cautioning that the decision as to "when it will be fired, how it will be fired and where it will be fired is a decision to be taken at a higher level." That has not happened, however, with the defence minister now finally admitting that the green light to test-fire was not given by the government because of its commitment to non-proliferation. Natarajan, a day before, had again sought to remind the nation that Agni-III was ready and that the DRDO had cleared all technical parameters for the test. Defence scientists have been pointing out that a decision to abandon the Agni-III program, which now appears to be the case, might prevent India from ever acquiring a credible nuclear deterrent. The Americans have always been uneasy about India's Agni program, and in 1994 persuaded it to suspend testing of the missile afer three test flights. Agni-III is the third member of the family and has been developed with a 3,000-km range as against Agni-I, with a 800-900 km range, and Agni-II, with a 2,000 km range. Test-firing of the missile has been postponed twice and could be aborted altogether. Agni-III was developed as a surface-based, solid and liquid propellant ballistic missile. ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Annan Urges Resumption of Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 16, 2006 10:16 AM AP Photo TOK202 By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday called for the prompt resumption of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs and urged South Korea to play a greater role in international affairs. During a meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Seoul, Annan ``showed support for the six-party talks aimed at resolving the North Korea nuclear issue and expressed hope they will resume soon,'' Roh's office said in a statement. Annan also expressed hope for stronger relations between the United Nations and South Korea. ``This special relationship has served us well,'' Annan said after meeting Roh. ``I hope as we move into the future we are going to deepen even further our relationship. We expect you to play a greater role in international affairs.'' Annan's visit comes as the South's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon seeks to replace him as the head of United Nations. Annan's second five-year term ends on Dec. 31. On Monday, Annan urged all parties to the six-nation talks - the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States - to resume their efforts, saying human rights should not be allowed to block the discussions. ``The nuclear issue is by far the most important and should be given a separate category and priority as compared with human rights and other activities,'' Annan told reporters after meeting Ban. The talks have been stalled since November because of a dispute between the North and the United States about financial sanctions imposed by Washington for alleged illegal activities by the communist country, such as counterfeiting. The world's top diplomat said also urged Iran to work with European countries to settle the dispute about its nuclear plans. ``Until recently we were focused on North Korea. Today we also have Iran,'' Annan said. ``The international community has to take very urgent steps to deal with these issues.'' The comments came as Washington seeks support for a tough resolution in the U.N. Security Council to declare Iran a threat to world peace and subject it to sanctions or even military action. Tehran has repeatedly asserted its nuclear program is aimed at generating power. South Korea was Annan's first stop on a visit to several Asian countries for meetings with top officials. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, China: Don't Use Force in Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 16, 2006 1:16 PM AP Photo XHS108 By CHARLES HUTZLER Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - Russia and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday in a sign of persisting differences with the U.S. After two days of talks with his Chinese counterpart, Lavrov said Moscow and Beijing hold identical positions on Iran's nuclear program and a separate one by North Korea: Both disputes require diplomacy, not force. In an outreach to Tehran, Lavrov also said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will attend a summit meeting next month in Shanghai of leaders from Russia, China and four Central Asian nations. ``We cannot isolate Iran or exert pressure on it. Far from resolving this issue of proliferation, it will make it more urgent,'' Lavrov told reporters. ``Russia and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving this issue.'' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao, at a separate briefing, also urged more energetic efforts to restart negotiations. ``We believe that at the current stage relevant parties should make active gestures to launch a new round of diplomacy,'' Liu said. Russia and China's preference for talks underscores the difficulties world powers are having in forging a common stand against Iran. Last week, key U.N. Security Council members agreed to postpone a resolution that 0ould have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to reevaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities. The Chinese and Russians, who have veto power in the council, 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 suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action. The Security Council is awaiting a report on Iran's program from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. The European Union, in the latest diplomatic initiative, offered Iran economic incentives to stop enriching uranium. Lavrov and Liu each expressed regret that Iran wasn't doing enough to respond to the concerns of the international community. Liu said China supported the latest EU effort and suggested that Iran fully consider the European proposal. ``China appreciates the active and important gesture of the EU to solve the Iranian nuclear question through dialogue,'' Liu said. In recent years, Russia and China have tried publicly to project a common approach toward international issues, in part to increase their leverage against the United States. But foreign affairs specialists and diplomats say the unity is often more rhetorical than real, and Beijing is generally content to let Moscow take the lead on contentious issues, especially with the U.S. In addition to the Iranian and North Korean nuclear issues, Lavrov said he and Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing agreed to coordinate their diplomacy toward Iraq, Afghanistan and efforts to reform the United Nations. The two signed agreements Tuesday: one on building a bridge over the Argun River that marks part of their border, and the other on setting up a working commission on immigration. Chinese workers have flooded into Russia's far eastern provinces in recent years, becoming a vital part of the economy but sparking an anti-immigration backlash among some Russians. Much of their meetings concerned preparations for the mid-June summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran, along with India, Pakistan and Mongolia, are observers. Lavrov said a change of that observer status for Iran was not under consideration. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: EU offers Iran reactor to halt enrichment Ian Traynor and Ewen MacAskill in Washington Wednesday May 17, 2006 Britain, France and Germany are considering offering Iran a light-water nuclear reactor in return for abandoning its uranium enrichment programme which the west suspects is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability. The proposed offer came the day after Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said the three European countries were working on a "bold" offer to Tehran. But the US could scupper the plan. A US official said the Bush administration would react to the plan with a "real sense of scepticism". He said that such a reactor could contribute to Iran's alleged ambition of securing a nuclear weapon. Senior US officials are to join their counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in London on Friday to discuss details of a new offer to put to Iran. A Foreign Office spokesman said the European offer to Iran "is still under discussion. A light-water reactor is under consideration." The west claims Iran is covertly building a nuclear weapons capability but Tehran says its nuclear programme is for purely civilian purposes. Western diplomats, familiar with the package being drawn up, said Iran could be given the light-water reactor to prove EU support for a civil energy programme. But Washington has an effective veto on any European offer. A big European construction company - the French have the most experience - would be needed to build the reactor but no company would want to take on such a project for fear of crossing the US, which has unilateral sanctions against Iran in place. Any European company would seek guarantees from Washington that it would not be penalised. The Bush administration is divided over Iran. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, supports the EU's decision to offer incentives to Iran but may decide the offer of a nuclear reactor is a step too far. Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, favours a more hawkish approach. The reactor was a key factor in the breakdown of the EU-Iran negotiations last August, a collapse which ended Iran's freeze on uranium enrichment. In Geneva a year ago, Tehran says, the EU troika promised it would include a light-water reactor when it tabled ambitious proposals for settling the dispute. But the offer was removed when the Europeans delivered their set of proposals last August. The proposals were broad, including economic, trade, political, security, and nuclear sweeteners. But the Iranians said they had been cheated and lied to, broke off the talks, and lifted their suspension on uranium enrichment. Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, sought to mediate discreetly behind the scenes to prevent the breakdown. Senior IAEA officials and other diplomats agreed the Iranians had a genuine grievance. The main reason for the European failure was the reluctance of the US to back the proposal, suggesting that the Americans were prepared to see the two years of talks fail. For the European gambit to succeed Iran would need to make the first move on a resumption of negotiations by reinstating their freeze on uranium enrichment work. That work is much more advanced than a year ago. Tehran reiterated yesterday that there was no turning back from its enrichment work at Natanz, the underground complex south of Tehran. "Iran's decision to preserve this right [to enrichment] is definite and irreversible," said the Iranian foreign ministry. The revamped European offer represents a climbdown from a year ago, a tacit admission that the Iranians may have been right to claim they had been cheated. If the Iranians reject the reactor cooperation the Europeans will appeal to Russia for support at the security council to move towards sanctions on Iran. [UP] Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 IRNA: EU offers best civilian nuclear technology to Iran Brussels, May 16, IRNA EU-Iran-Solana European Union High Representative for a common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, underlined Monday Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology and pledged Europe' support to help Iran to get the most updated nuclear technology if Iran wins the confidence of the international community. Speaking at a press conference in Brussels Monday afternoon, Solana said the EU is to offer the Islamic Republic a cooperation package to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off. "We have an element of nuclear, we have an element of economics and an element of politics? as a proof not only of the Europeans but members of the UN Security Council that we are willing and ready to support Iran in what they want to have a nuclear reactor for energy, and not any other thing." "If that is the case I am sure that the path we are thinking of will be accepted, if they want something else it maybe rejected,'' said Solana speaking after EU foreign ministers discussed EU ties with Iran. "For us in Europe it is fundamental to establish a mechanism to build confidence and trust. To build confidence and trust between us I think it is essential that the enrichment process be stopped," he stressed. He said if Iran want to generate electricity, Europe can help out with a major positive project which will go beyond the project presented in August and which was rejected by Tehran. Asked about the time-frame for Iran to halt its enrichment activity, Solana said it depends on the period of confidence established between us. ''There is a confidence gap that needs to be closed,'' he said. "For the time being we seek full stopping the enrichment process and then we will get into a dialogue" as part of which would be to provide Iran with the use of peaceful nuclear technology of the most advanced kind that exist today. "We have said many many times that we want to work with Iran to have a solution that is diplomatic." "We have nothing against, I would like to say it clearly and loudly, Iran to use nuclear power for peaceful means." "We are going to present a plan to them, a cooperative project to them that will prove very good and very clearly that if they want to construct a nuclear energy power plant they will have in cooperation with the EU and other members of the international community the best possible security knowledge about that,'' he added. Later speaking to IRNA, Solana said the EU will present the cooperation package to Iran at the same time when the UN Security Council approves a resolution on Iran. "I do not know exactly when will be the end of the debate, but about that time in contemporary with the UN resolution" the EU will offer its package to Tehran. ***************************************************************** 13 Desert Dispatch: Nevada bombing prelude to attack on Iran Barstow, California Monday, May 15, 2006 Reality Check by Carol Jensen As an American whose family tree includes a branch of ancestors who were living on this land when the first Europeans stumbled ashore, I find it intolerable that the Bush Administration is going ahead with its plan to detonate 700 tons of explosives on tribal land in Nevada. This is yet another hate-based idea concocted by the Republican-controlled government. The planned explosion is scheduled for June 2 only 90 miles from Las Vegas on a site that belongs to the Western Shoshone (Newe tribe) who own 60 million acres in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and California, according to an 1863 United States treaty. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Geneva, Switzerland) ruled in March that the Western Shoshone are the rightful owners of this land and ordered Washington to abort the June 2 test and to desist from activities that violate Western Shoshone sovereignty. But as we have all seen in the past, the Bush Administration has no regard for the opinions of the United Nations and are thus going blindly ahead with this unconscionable plan. "The test, named 'Divine Strake,' will involve nearly 40 times the amount of commercial ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosives set off in the largest open-air, non-nuclear blast at the site to date," according to Nevada Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan. The test's purpose is "to examine ground shock effects on deeply buried tunnel structures." "This is the largest single explosives we could imagine doing," said James Tegnella, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency. He went on to say that it will generate a huge mushroom cloud. I thought only evil-doers within the axis of evil would be capable of generating mushroom clouds. "Given the level of contamination in areas where nuclear tests were conducted, I have real concerns about the dust and other pollutants that will be released into the air as a result of this explosion," said U.S. Representative from Nevada Shelley Berkley. Even Republican Utah senator Orrin Hatch joined a group of congressional members concerned about "Divine Strake" because of the possible nuclear implications as well as the real threat of dispersement of radioactive leftovers from past testing being released downwind. His constituents have suffered from past exposure to radiation during Cold War testing in that area. Many residents of Southern Utah have developed leukemia and other cancers from these past exposures and have been compensated by the government for their suffering. This bunker-busting test violates the National Environment Policy Act, but as usual the federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency came up with invisible proof that the blast would comply with air quality standards and that hazardous particles would be tracked, probably with imaginary devices. What is clear to any intelligent person is that nuclear wastes from the 1950's would be let loose into the atmosphere. All required permits have been obtained from Nevada state agencies, but there has been no indication that Shoshone approval was sought. The name of the project itself, "Divine Strake" only adds to the outrage of many Native Americans because the test site sits on land that is sacred to them. "It's a mystery why they call it 'divine,' said Carrie Dann, a grandmother and executive director of the Western Shoshone Defense Project. "Isn't 'divine' used for your deity, God, your sacredness? Why don't they call it 'Hell Strake?' When you are working testing weaponry of destruction of life, you should not associate it with 'divine.'" Dann continued, "We want this insanity to stop. No more bombs and no more testing." My personal belief is that the U.S. government's bunker busting testing is clearly a lead up to the bombing of Iran, possibly even using nuclear weapons. When asked about the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iran, President Bush replied, "All options are on the table." Bush administration officials claim that this massive test blast is unrelated to the effort to build a nuclear bunker-buster. But we all have seen how openly truthful this administration has been about everything else it has done. So we all need to worry. These fears have been heightened by a report in The New Yorker magazine that said that the administration has made contingency plans to strike at Iran's nuclear program using such a tactical nuclear weapon, according to Seymour Hersh, author. The article is titled, "How Far Will the White House Go?" And furthermore, the Bush White House believes that the only solution to the Iranian crisis is a regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr. Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." According to Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, Karl Rove is said to believe that bombing Iran will get the Republicans through the 2006 election, and President Bush would feel like a failure in God's eyes if he didn't stand up to Iran because he thinks he is doing God's work. If all of this sounds like a work of fiction, unfortunately it isn't. And so on June 2 when this perverted plot is scheduled to be launched, all Barstow residents, if they are concerned about getting nuked should stay indoors, just in case there is a wind reversal and some of those nuclear waste particles blow in from Nevada. ABOUT THE WRITER Carol Jensen is a long-time Barstow resident, graduating from Kennedy High School and Barstow College, where she was an English instructor for many years. Much of her time now is spent writing political and social commentary. She may be contacted at cajensen49@msn.com. Desert Dispatch. A Freedom Communications Newspaper. All rights reserved. Material from this site may not be republished ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: Russia, China not backing threats against Iran: Lavrov Beijing, May 16, IRNA China-Russia-Iran-Nuclear China and Russia will not support a draft resolution by the United Nations Security Council that authorizes military action or even threats to settle Iran's nuclear case, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said here Tuesday. Lavrov was speaking to reporters after a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, in Beijing on Tuesday during which the two ministers once again stressed the need to settle Iran's nuclear case through diplomatic channels. China and Russia, two of the UN Security Council's five permanent and veto-wielding powers, acknowledge Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Moscow and Beijing will not support any measure that authorizes the use of force against Tehran to settle its nuclear case, the Russian minister said, and called for resumption of talks for this purpose. Beijing and Moscow have also expressed opposition to the invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the draft resolution sought to be passed this week against Iran in the Council. Chapter 7 authorizes sanctions or even military force on a UN member that defies the Council's resolutions. ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: China, Russia call for diplomatic settlement of Iran's N-case - Beijing, May 16, IRNA China-Russia-Iran nuclear issue China and Russia on Tuesday once again stressed the need to settle Iran's nuclear case through diplomatic channels. China and Russia, two of the UN Security Council's five permanent and veto-wielding powers, acknowledge Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At a meeting held between Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Beijing, both said they would oppose any move to use force to settle Iran's nuclear case. Beijing and Moscow have also expressed opposition to the invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the draft resolution sought to be passed against Iran in the Council. Chapter 7 authorizes sanctions or even military force on a UN member that defies the Council's resolutions. Foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, the United States, Britain and France -- along with Germany held a meeting in New York on May 8 to discuss a draft resolution prepared by France and Britain on May 3 mandating Iran to halt all nuclear activities. The meeting was held upon the invitation of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but ended without achieving common ground on how to resolve the issue. Li and Lavrov have also stressed the need to resume the stalled six-party talks to settle the North Korean nuclear issue. The six parties involved in the talks are China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, the US and Japan. ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Egypt FM calls for peaceful resolution of Iran nuclear row - [Ahmed Abul Gheit] "AFP">Tuesday May 16, 11:46 AM TOKYO (AFP) - Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit has called for a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis as Tehran and Western countries remained at an impasse. "We hope this issue, this nuclear file, should be settled between Iran and the international community in a ... peaceful manner," Gheit told a news conference at the end of a two-day visit to Japan. He said Egypt wanted a nuclear-free region -- a reference to Israel which is widely suspected of possessing but has never acknowledged a nuclear arsenal. "The important thing is that no one should introduce a military nuclear program, whether it is Israel or Iran or anybody else," Gheit said Tuesday, backing Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran has refused to halt its uranium enrichment program, despite European promises of wide-ranging incentives in exchange for a moratorium. Western nations suspect that Iran's uranium enrichment is aimed at developing weapons instead of its stated goal of energy. Egypt, the largest Arab nation, is a major player in Middle Eastern politics but has had strained relations with Iran. Tehran snapped diplomatic ties with Cairo after Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979 to protest at Egypt's peace deal with Israel and temporary refuge for the deposed shah. More recently Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak sparked fury last month for saying that Shiite Muslims, who form a majority in Iraq, were usually loyal to Iran. Copyright 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: NAM to declare stand on Iran after meeting Putrajaya, Malaysia, May 16, IRNA NAM-Iran-Nuclear Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar here on Tuesday announced his country's support for Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. With pressure by the international community on Iran's nuclear enrichment program mounting, foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) will declare the movement's stand on the country at the end of the month, the Malaysian daily 'Star' quoted Albar as saying in its Tuesday issue. The four-day NAM Coordinating Bureau (NAM-CoB) meeting will be held here beginning May 27, and at the end of the session, NAM's position will be made known, he added. However, he said, the tone of the statement would depend on whether NAM members issue a separate statement on Iran or include it in the ministerial declaration. Iran, a member of the 114-strong movement, is facing international pressure, especially from the United States and the European Union, to cease its nuclear enrichment program, despite its insistence that it was in pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program, the daily wrote. The Malaysian minister expressed the hope the crisis Iran is facing will be settled through diplomatic solutions. Malaysia believes that there is nothing wrong for any country to look at alternative sources of energy, including nuclear power, as long as it is intended for peaceful purposes, he said adding that such an idea is consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Iran says not interested in EU incentives Tuesday May 16, 01:20 PM [Iran's nuclear power plant in Isfahan] TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has reiterated that it wasn't interested in an European Union offer of incentives in return for a halt to the Islamic republic's nuclear programme. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also expressed "surprise" that the EU was still working on putting such a proposal together given that Iran has consistently stated its refusal to agree to a suspension of nuclear work. "If Europe is seeking diplomatic and peaceful solutions, it must not go beyond international treaties," Asefi said in a statement. The West fears that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian atomic energy programme and the EU is working on a package of trade and other incentives to try to coax the country into freezing sensitive uranium enrichment work. But Tehran says it only wants to generate energy, and argues that fuel cycle work for peaceful purposes is a right upheld by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "No incentives are better than implementing the NPT and the IAEA rules without discrimination," Asefi said. "Iran had informed the European side at the beginning of the negotiations that the aim is to make fuel for peaceful purposes, and Iran is not seeking anything beyond its rights and would not accept commitments beyond that," he added. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Monday the 25-nation bloc would offer Iran technological help as part of a deal involving a suspension. But Asefi said: "It looks like after three years of negotiations and Iran's clear position... that Mr Solana still has doubts about Iran's rights. This is really surprising. "Iran decision to obtain its right is definitive and irreversible." Copyright 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. - - AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Russia, China rule out any use of force against Iran - Lavrov - Tue May 16, 6:43 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - Russia and China will "definitely not" approve the use of force against Iran" /> over its nuclear program, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said after meeting with China's leaders. "Russia and China will definitely not vote for the use of force to resolve this issue," Lavrov said through a translator after meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, and President Hu Jintao" /> . "We believe we shouldn't isolate Iran or increase pressure. This will not only not reduce the possibility of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it will have the opposite effect." However Lavrov also said Russia believed Iran needed to do more to cooperate with the United Nations" /> nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> . "Iran at the moment has not completely replied to and given explanations on the questions raised by the IAEA investigation," Lavrov said. "We regret this very much. We hope the Iran side will give a reply at an early date." The IAEA has been investigating Iran since 2003 and says it is not yet able to certify that the Iranian nuclear program is strictly peaceful. Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful drive to generate electricity but the United States and other Western nations say it is a cover for the secret development of atomic weapons. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Khamenei slams 'world media empire' over nuclear coverage - Tuesday May 16, 01:14 PM [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at world media coverage of the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, accusing news organisations of deliberately distorting the issue. "Today the world media empire sees it as expedient to say Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, while the propagators know it is a lie," state television quoted the all-powerful leader as saying. "Today the world media is totally monopolised by the ones who own the largest weapon factories and the most destructive atomic bombs," Khamenei said Tuesday. "The media, dominated by the ones who have money and force, portray America as the symbol of human rights and democracy while identifying Islam with terrorism," he added. The West fears that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian atomic energy programme. But Tehran insists it only wants to generate energy, and argues that fuel cycle work for peaceful purposes is a right upheld by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Copyright 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. - - AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 21 IRNA: EU underlines Iran's right to nuclear energy Brussels, May 16, IRNA EU Council-Iran-Statement The European Union reiterated Monday its commitment to find a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear stand-off and stressed the Islamic Republic's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purpose. EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels issued a statement Monday evening saying they reaffirm the right of Iran to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its obligations under the NPT. "The EU would be prepared to support Iran's development of a safe, sustainable and proliferation-proof civilian nuclear programme, if international concerns were fully addressed and confidence in Iran's intentions established. The EU hopes that Iran will not fail to take up such an offer,'' noted the statement. The EU Council of foreign ministers said it "remains committed to finding a diplomatic solution." "The EU would like to be able to develop relations with Iran based on confidence and cooperation. The alternative is that Iran chooses further isolation.'' ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Talks among world powers on Iran likely delayed - US Tue May 16, 6:52 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - World powers will probably push back a meeting on Iran" /> Iran's nuclear crisis set for this week, a senior US diplomat said. Western governments have not completed a list of incentives meant to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said. "The package has not been approved. It is under development," Burns said. "We will be meeting probably next week in London," instead of Friday as planned. But Burns said talks on new incentives offered Iran to forfeit its nuclear program were progressing. "We are just at the beginning," Burns said, "I can't say anything about the package as it is still being negotiated." Representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States) plus Germany were to meet in London on May 19 to examine the package of incentives to be offered if Iran agrees to end the enrichment of uranium, which could be used to generate power, as Iran claims, or to build a bomb, as some nations fear. That meeting was announced last week, after a dinner in New York of foreign ministers of the six countries trying to forge a common approach on Iran. While Washington said the talks were advancing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Beijing repeated on Tuesday that Russia and China remained opposed to politically isolating Iran. Beijing announced its intention to invite Iran to a summit on security in Central Asia next month. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that the United States was not opposed "in principle" to allowing Iran to use atomic technology peacefully. According to diplomats in Vienna, the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, Europe and the United States are considering a proposal would allow Iran to acquire a light-water nuclear reactor in return for forfeiting uranium enrichment. Russia would enrich uranium on Iran's behalf. "The Russians have made an attractive offer to them," McCormack said. UN sanctions could follow if Iran did not accept the deal, diplomats in Vienna told AFP. "The Iranian regime would like to make this an argument over principle about whether or not they can have peaceful nuclear power. That's not the issue," McCormack said. "The issue is that they, through their actions and decades' worth of obfuscation and lying to the international community, have eroded the trust down to zero with the international community concerning what exactly they are doing with respect to their nuclear energy program," he said. However, he did not give further details of the possible deal. "I'm going to let the diplomacy take place in private," he said. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 Korea Herald: Contact between Koreas grows A flurry of inter-Korean contacts began yesterday, despite the gloom surrounding multilateral negotiations on North Korea's nuclear ambitions which have been stalled for six months. A representative of former President Kim Dae-jung left for Mount Geumgang yesterday afternoon to discuss his upcoming visit to Pyongyang in June with North Korean officials. Meanwhile, a shipment of South Korean fertilizer aid to North Korea left yesterday from Yeosu Port in South Jeolla Province. The two Koreas are poised to hold general-level talks this week, and in addition there will be a test-run of trains along the cross-border railway link next week, the first locomotives to make the journey in five decades. These events come amid a gloomy international situation as multilateral efforts to solve North Korea's nuclear problem have been bogged down since the end of last year. Pyongyang has been boycotting the six-party talks since November after the United States accused the North of various illegal activities, and imposed a ban on dealing with a Macau-based bank, allegedly a key channel for laundering Pyongyang's dirty money. The tension between the United States and North Korea increased, but South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun vowed stronger relations with Pyongyang last week and once again offered to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Former president Kim Dae-jung is scheduled to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il next month, and there will also be Red Cross talks and a joint celebration of June 15, the anniversary of the first inter-Korean summit in 2000. The contacts will continue in July through ministerial-level talks, followed by a joint Liberation Day celebration and another real-time video reunion of separated families in August. Delegations of the two Koreas will meet today in Mount Geumgang to discuss details of the second meeting between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il. The first, historic summit opened the gate for active inter-Korean exchanges. Kim Dae-jung received the Nobel Peace Prize the same year to mark his accomplishment. Leading the South Korean delegation is former Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun. He will be meeting with Ri Jong-hyuk, vice chairman of the North's Asia-Pacific Peace Committee. During the 18th ministerial-level talks in April, Pyongyang requested Seoul send an additional 300,000 tons of fertilizer this year. Seoul agreed to sending 200,000 tons. It will cost around 77 billion for the addition shipment that will be completed by May 27. A South Korean vessel, BJ Ace, left Yeosu Port for North Korea's Nampo Port yesterday, carrying 7,000 tons of mixed fertilizer. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2006.05.16 ***************************************************************** 24 EDITORIAL: The plight of whistleblowers Issue Date: May 19, 2006 In late April, the government of Israel extended for the third straight year crippling restrictions on Mordechai Vanunu's freedom of movement and speech. Vanunu, who leaked the news about the secret nuclear weapons plant at Dimona, Israel, in 1986 and was imprisoned 18 years for doing so, is no longer in prison but neither is he a free man. On the dubious grounds that he may cause damage to the "security of the state," he is not allowed to leave Israel or to travel where he likes within it or to speak to foreign nationals. From the outset, Vanunu's treatment at the hands of Israel has been extraordinary. For revealing Israel's nuclear weapons capability, he was kidnapped in Rome, smuggled back to Israel, tried under conditions of extraordinary secrecy and security and held in solitary confinement for 11 1/2 of the 18 years he was in prison. The restrictions on his freedom after his release seem senseless and vindictive and indeed counterproductive. What do they accomplish but to increase questions about the fairness of the Israeli state? In an article published in the Israeli daily Haaretz April 26, Yossi Melman points out that the claim that Vanunu is a risk to the state is baseless. (After 20 years, there is little new that Vanunu can reveal about the Dimona nuclear plant where he once worked.) "Morally and legally, and from a democratic perspective, it is intolerable that someone who has been punished should be punished over and over again for the same sin for which he served such a heavy sentence," Melman writes. This is true, whether it be in Israel or here at home, whether punishments relate to individual crimes or to the betrayal of state secrets. This past year has seen a series of revelations about secret U.S. programs that have in turn led to government investigations of those thought guilty of disclosing them. Every government is within its rights to prosecute those who leak classified information, but when that information exposes government deeds that are illegal and immoral the complexion of the situation changes. A government not bound by the rule of law is guilty of tyranny or terrorism and often both. An official who reveals official lies and malfeasance isn't simply a loose-lipped employee but a whistleblower speaking out in the interests of the public good. Kidnapping terrorist suspects and transporting them to third countries known to use torture, detaining people without resort to law, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, these activities betray the very essence of whom we claim to be as a people. Those who reveal those activities should be heralded, not punished. The United States was a prime mover in establishing the principle that the individual is not relieved of culpability simply because he or she was following orders. Democracy depends on the rule of law, which is easily bent and even broken. Perhaps more often than we know, our freedom as citizens depends on one man (or woman) of courage and integrity speaking out against government crimes that left unchecked would grow. Nationalism is the cause of many crimes. For offending against Israeli nationalism, Vanunu suffered 18 years in prison. Fortunately, those who have revealed U.S. secret programs have not thus far been subjected to the same harsh treatment. We can hope that their disclosures will remind Americans that justice and the rule of law are just as important as national self-interest. National Catholic Reporter, May 19, 2006 Copyright The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company, 115 E. Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111 All rights reserved. TEL: 816-531-0538 FAX: 1-816-968-2280 Send comments about this Web site to: webkeeper@natcath.org ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Restore Diplomatic Ties With Libya From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 16, 2006 9:16 AM AP Photo NY118 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - American oil companies stand to gain in competing for access to oil reserves in Libya by the restoration of normal diplomatic relations and the removal of Moammar Gadhafi's regime from a U.S. list of terrorism sponsors. The diplomacy that led to the renewal of ties with the North African country, which were severed in 1980, could also serve as an example to Iran, Bush administration officials say. ``It could be a model,'' Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said Monday, citing Libya's decision, under the weight of sanctions, to abandon its nuclear and other weapons programs. American oil companies were banned from operating in Libya for 18 years - until President Bush in 2004 lifted most restrictions on doing business in Libya. This freed companies with oil and gas leases to go back to work and compete with European companies. But Peter Lichtenbaum, who oversaw trade controls until February as assistant secretary of Commerce, said the actions taken Monday by the Bush administration will remove the need for licenses for some equipment. Assuming Congress does not disapprove of Libya's removal from the State Department's terror list in the 45 days allowed for review, ``the oil companies will send whatever they want to send for their operations,'' Lichtenbaum, an international lawyer with Steptoe &Johnson in Washington, said in an interview. Another control being lifted, he said, was one imposed by energy legislation enacted last summer. It barred shipment abroad of devices that could be part of a nuclear program that companies like Halliburton normally use to explore for oil. ``That potentially was going to shut down U.S. companies' ability to explore for oil,'' he said. Libya produces about 1.6 million barrels of oil a day. Four big American companies, Occidental Petroleum, ConoccoPhillips, Marathon Oil and Amerada Hess, for some 20 years have held leases on Libyan oil and gas reserves. David Mack, a U.S. political officer in Libya during and after its 1969 revolution, said the amount of oil Libya is going to provide for America was not going to make a big difference. ``But it will be important for a few companies that do business there.'' Mack, in an interview, said American oil companies are never going to dominate Libya's oil industry again; the competition from Europe is too strong. But, he said sales of civilian aircraft without a special license now will proceed and Libya could be a pretty good market for them. Welch, at a State Department news conference, said the decision to remove Libya from the terrorism list was not based on the quest for oil. ``This decision is undertaken because they have addressed our national security concerns,'' he said. That contrasts with Iran, which is accused by the administration and its European allies of hiding a nuclear weapons program. Iran says it is only trying to develop nuclear energy. Gadhafi surprised the world in late 2003 when he swore off terrorism and announced plans to dismantle his country's weapons of mass destruction programs, including its nuclear program. Libya's nuclear weapons hardware was shipped to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in 2004. The Bush administration has kept its distance from negotiations with Iran, declining to join now-stalled talks between Iran and the European Union. There is virtually no U.S. trade with Iran. Diplomatic relations have been in suspension since 1979. Currently, the administration is seeking ways to impose economic sanctions on Iran, either through the U.N. Security Council or through actions by individual countries. Whether Iran decides to follow the model set by Libya is up to Iran, Welch said. ``It's up to other nations how they look at that as a model,'' he said. Mack said the United States was persuaded by Britain to talk to Libya ``and it was worth it.'' ``It shows diplomacy works if it is backed up with a stick in the closet,'' he said. ``The chances of having productive talks with Iran is greatly increased by this decision.'' Libya turned around after years of stiff sanctions imposed for defying international demands, Welch said. ``That is a process, in my judgment, that can be emulated in other cases.'' As the administration turned a page with Libya and struggled to find a way to halt what it insists is an Iranian nuclear program, the State Department took a significant step against Venezuela, also a major oil producer. Long at odds with the leftist government in Caracas, the department gave notice it was banning arms sales to Venezuela as well as financing for such purchases. It declared Venezuela was not cooperating with efforts to counter terrorism. U.S. officials said Venezuela was not being classified as a state sponsor of terrorism. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack expressed concern about Venezuela's close relations with Iran and Cuba, both of which are classified as state sponsors of terror. --- ^On the Net: State Department www.state.gov Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 26 WNE: US, France working on N-fuel supply roadmap Alternative & Independent Source of Indian Subcontinent News by PRANAB DHAL SAMANTA Tuesday May 16, 2006, IAEA PARIS: Moving forward on assurances for permanent fuel supplies to India as part of the India-US nuclear deal, Paris and Washington are working on a proposal laying out a multi-layered approach to assure such supplies. The proposal, to be presented before the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) early next month, talks of creating a buffer stock as well as setting up a consortium of supplier nations so that domestic compulsions in one country do not disrupt fuel supplies. The nuclear deal enters a crucial phase now with the exemption for India making it to the agenda of the Nuclear Suppliers Group plenary meet at Rio de Janeiro on May 29. The spelling out of India’s separation plan and the initial discussions between Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei are being seen here as a positive signal to the NSG. Washington will also report on the progress so far in the US Congress. (Source : Express News Service) 2003-Copyrights World News Exchange. Site maintained and hosted by GMN ***************************************************************** 27 reviewjournal.com: DIVINE STRAKE: Experts defend blast May 15, 2006 They insist explosion not aimed at developing new nuclear weapon Doug Bruder, a Defense Threat Reduction Agency civil engineer and leader of the agency's Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, fields questions from reporters April 26 at the entrance to the Nevada Test Site tunnel that will be the target of the Divine Strake detonation. Photo by Clint Karlsen. There's a reason defense scientists and government nuclear experts continue to insist that the massive Divine Strake explosion planned for next month at the Nevada Test Site is not aimed at developing a new nuclear bunker-buster bomb. Using a nuclear earth-penetrator bomb in an attempt to destroy a deep tunnel holding weapons of mass destruction could kill or seriously injure 1 million people or more from fallout, radiation and the blast itself, according to a National Academy of Sciences report by a panel of experts that included local health physicist Lynn Anspaugh, a leading expert on fallout dose calculations. And that would defeat the purpose of what such a bomb is intended to accomplish. "There's going to be massive fallout. It's going to be catastrophic," Anspaugh said in a recent interview at his Henderson home. With that in mind, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's stance that the non-nuclear Divine Strake blast is geared to exploring futuristic conventional bombs and fine-tuning the capabilities of existing nuclear weapons, Anspaugh wonders why the agency is set on proceeding with the explosion on or after June 23. "I would really question why they need to do such a test," he said, adding later in an e-mail, "I don't understand exactly what they think they will learn from this test. "They already have a lot of data. What specifically will this test provide in the way of new data? Why is 700 tons of low-density ammonium nitrate representative of advanced conventional explosives?" asked Anspaugh, a University of Utah research professor and former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist. The Divine Strake test will detonate a 700-ton slurry of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil charged by C-4 explosives. It is designed to gather data on how shock waves travel through a 100-foot-thick block of bedded limestone and to see if the so-called "coupling" effect of the shock waves to the ground is enough to cave in a tunnel that far beneath the detonation pit. Nevada environmental officials have said they won't allow it until they're satisfied it will comply with air quality standards based on information the National Nuclear Security Administration is providing. And, concerned citizens have called for a halt of the test fearing a dust-filled mushroom cloud will inject harmful surface contamination into the air and it will float beyond the test site. Though skeptical of the need for the test, Anspaugh doesn't think that will be the case. "Personally, I doubt that enough radioactive materials would be resuspended so that it could be measured above background downwind of the NTS. There is little doubt that the ground shock from the blast would result in local resuspension on the NTS itself," he wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. Nevertheless, government lawyers last week acknowledged in court documents that the test, originally set for June 2, would not go off before June 23 while a lawsuit by downwinders and some members of the Winnemucca Indian Colony to block the test is heard. On a tour of a tunnel that is the target of the Divine Strake blast, Doug Bruder, a civil engineer who leads the agency's Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, denied that the test is aimed at developing a small nuclear bunker-buster bomb as some independent scientists have claimed. Asked about this claim, Bruder, while standing April 26 at the tunnel entrance said, "No. That is not true. There is no relationship between this test and any new nuclear weapon. "The purpose of this test is really independent of any particular weapons," Bruder said. "It could be nuclear or advanced conventional. When I say advanced conventional, it would be something more developmental that would have a large energy density to it to match this type of explosive." The test, which will be the culmination of some 45 including some involving conventional bombs that were dropped by Air Force warplanes, is to give military planners more data on how best to use existing weapons and for development of more powerful conventional explosives. As a precursor, 3,000 pounds of nitro methane was exploded at an Indiana limestone quarry in 2004 and again last year. Before that, on Dec. 14, 2001, a laser-guided bomb containing a thermobaric warhead was dropped by an F-15E Strike Eagle jet and skipped into a tunnel at the Nevada Test Site where it exploded with a delayed fuse, according to a military watchdog organization, . After an accelerated development program, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in two months managed to weaponize and delivered 10 non-nuclear thermobaric bombs, including one that was used in March 2002 against al-Qaida and Taliban cave complexes in Afghanistan. Agency officials said Friday that Divine Strake is not associated with the 2001 thermobaric warhead test at the test site even though that was conducted in the same tunnel that will be used for Divine Strake. In the 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, "Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and other Weapons," Anspaugh and the panel of 14 other scientists concluded among other things that the thermobaric bomb "if detonated within the chamber, may be able to destroy" chemical or biological weapons but the explosive power of conventional weapons "is not likely to be effective in destroying the agent." The panel found that attacks near or in densely populated areas using nuclear earth-penetrators on deep targets would result in casualties ranging "from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield." In remote areas, casualties "can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds," the 134-page report states. That fits with what Linton Brooks, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told a group of defense writers Thursday. According to the Congress Daily, Brooks said, "It is very clear that there are underground structures that are beyond U.S. capability" to destroy. He doesn't believe nuclear weapons could be used for the task without spreading deadly radiation. Anspaugh said Brooks' comments are consistent with the conclusions in the panel's report. "Unfortunately, some persons within the Department of Defense thought at one time that fallout from such an earth penetrator would be contained," Anspaugh said Friday. "Such postulated containment is clearly not the case when the device penetrates only a few meters into the ground surface." The panel's No. 1 conclusion is, "Many of the more important strategic hard and deeply buried targets are beyond the reach of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be held at risk of destruction only with nuclear weapons. "Many -- but not all -- known ... hard and deeply buried targets can be held at risk of destruction by one of a few nuclear weapons," the conclusion states. Troy Wade of Las Vegas, a former defense programs chief for the Department of Energy, said he is amazed that critics of the Divine Strake test believe that it is a "hidden nuclear test" or part of a new nuclear weapons development program. "They conveniently overlook the fact that this nation is attempting to develop a deterrent that doesn't depend on nuclear weapons," Wade said Wednesday. "To move from a policy of using nuclear weapons for 'mutually assured destruction' to searching for a means to meet today's threats with as little collateral damage as possible is a tremendous step for mankind," he said. "Anyone who is a student of history ... knows that deterrence of any kind only works if the enemy believes you can really hold them at risk. Knowing that many activities of nations around the world are carried on in deep underground facilities means that the U.S. must field a convincing deterrent to that threat. Wade said Divine Strake "is part of a series of tests to develop a deterrent that moves us another step away from the doctrine of mutually assured destruction." Dr. Peter Rickards, a podiatrist from Twin Falls, Idaho has followed fallout issues for years, including seven years as a citizen adviser for the Centers for Disease Control's historical nuclear dose study in Idaho. He disagrees that Divine Strake is taking a step away from developing more nuclear weapons. Instead, he said it explains why millions of dollars are being spent to "fast track" full-scale nuclear testing in Nevada. "If you realize that no airplane can lift close to a 700-ton cargo, it is obviously a conventional weapon that will never fly and is preparing for use of nuclear weapons," Rickards said in an e-mail Friday. "The best way to stop nuclear proliferation is for the government to finally reveal all the damage we have done to our own people, by ignoring downwinders and downplaying fallout effects," he said. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 NEWS.com.au: Howard wants US involved - Political Trail - Breaking News 24/7 From: AAP By Maria Hawthorne May 16, 2006 [Rumsfeld, Howard / AP] Men in black ... Donald Rumsfeld and John Howard today / AP PRIME Minister John Howard has urged the United States to become more involved in international affairs, saying it is the only way to ensure world peace. Mr Howard made the plea to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during an official lunch at the State Department in Washington, a day after a private dinner with President George W. Bush. He also said America's involvement in our region was key to its stability. The Prime Minister has powered through a series of meetings with senior US officials, including Dr Rice, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. The meeting with Mr Bodman appears to have Australia's involvement in a US plan to force countries which sell uranium to take back spent nuclear fuel rods for disposal. Speaking from Washington Mr Howard also reports he is planning to hand over the Liberal Party leadership to Peter Costello by December. This morning he was greeted by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the steps of the Pentagon, surrounded by a military guard of honour. Dr Rice opened the earlier lunch for about 100 dignitaries, including former US ambassador Tom Schieffer and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, with a toast to Mr Howard, his wife Janette and their son Richard. Describing them as "very, very good friends", she said the Howards were honouring America with their presence. She said that on her recent visit to Australia, she was able to witness the depth and breadth of the extraordinary relationship between the two countries. She was able to thank the families of Australian soldiers who served side by side with Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. "But all the way back, of course, to world wars that we successfully fought in the defence of freedom I was able to say to them that any time the United States is on the frontline in the defence of freedom, Australia is by its side. For that we thank you. "I can't thank you enough for all that Australia does. Prime Minister and Mrs Howard, I'd like to raise a glass to this friendship, to this friendship based on shared sacrifice, ...this friendship based on an expectation of an even brighter future, given all that we've achieved in the past." Mr Howard told the lunch that Australian and US forces first fought together in 1917, beginning a shared partnership in military conflict unbroken to this day. "In every major conflict our two countries have been engaged together," he said. But it was the shared commitment to democracy and freedom, rather than the military association, that tied the countries together, he said. He said the direction of America's power and purpose was vital to all the nations of the world. "Australia is one of those countries which is in the forefront of those who urge greater rather than lesser United States involvement in the affairs of the world," Howard said. "The involvement of your country in our own region is critical to its stability. "And the energy and the intellect that you have brought to the position and the example that you represent in so many ways is a source of enormous admiration in my country and a source for very great respect around the world." ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Official Defends India Pact From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 17, 2006 1:01 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A central U.S. architect of a plan to share civilian nuclear technology with India brushed off criticism Tuesday that India is being rewarded even though it has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the treaty, considered the cornerstone of global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, has proliferating countries like Iran as members while a nuclear-responsible country such as India is on the outside. ``This was not a perfectly functioning regime; it was a regime that was filled with holes,'' Burns told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ``We're just trying to rectify things here.'' Both U.S. and Indian officials have campaigned aggressively for an accord that the Bush administration is promoting as a major shift in U.S. policy toward India. A skeptical Congress is being asked to exempt India from U.S. laws that restrict trade with countries that refuse to submit to full nuclear inspections. The accord Burns helped negotiate would allow the United States to ship nuclear technology and fuel to India in return for India's permission for international inspections and safeguards at 14 nuclear reactors it has designated as civilian; eight military facilities would remain off-limits. Burns said the administration ``thought long and hard'' about making such a big departure from the current nonproliferation regime. ``We are seeking to overturn 30 years of practice by our governments,'' he said. ``We believe we are right to do so, that it is in our national interests, but still we have to answer the questions.'' Those questions include fears that the plan would allow unfriendly countries to build nuclear weapons programs by using imported civilian nuclear technology. Burns said India has always managed its nuclear technologies responsibly. He also tackled criticism that the accord would let India use a bonanza of nuclear fuel and technology to boost its nuclear weapons arsenal. India's motivation, Burns said, is to increase its civil nuclear sector to help meet its massive energy needs. ``It's not going to build up to an arms race,'' he said. --- On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov CIA Factbook on India: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Straw's 'surprise' at being axed as foreign secretary - Tue May 16, 8:42 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Seasoned British cabinet minister Jack Straw acknowledged he was surprised to have been shifted from the post of foreign secretary after nearly five years in the job. Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairreplaced Straw with environment secretary Margaret Beckett in a cabinet reshuffle on May 5 prompted by dismal local election results and a string of scandals surrounding the governing Labour Party. "It was a surprise," Straw told BBC radio. "I talked it through with the prime minister and I accepted it." He was handed the less glamourous cabinet brief of leader of the House of Commons, responsible for steering legislation -- including Blair's controversial public sector reforms -- through parliament. "This was a job I always fancied doing and I am delighted to be doing it," Straw said. Major British newspapers have suggested that Straw's apparent demotion was linked to US displeasure over his stance on Iran" /> Iran's nuclear programme, but he replied: "That's not the way the prime minister's mind works." He said he never expected to remain foreign secretary for the duration of the current parliament -- and that after nine years as home secretary, then foreign secretary, it was a relief to no longer be on call both day and night. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 31 UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan in nuclear development United Press International - NewsTrack - 5/16/2006 8:16:00 AM -0400 MOSCOW, May 16 (UPI) -- Russia and Kazakhstan are planning to develop their cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear power, Russia's federal nuclear agency has said. Techsnabexport, the Russian state-owned company for uranium supplies and enrichment services, announced that a draft timetable for this cooperation was sent Monday to the two countries' governments for consideration, RIA Novosti reported. "After the timetable is approved, the sides will begin practical implementation of uranium production projects," Techsnabexport announced. The main part of this cooperation is the development of a uranium ore deposits in Kazakhstan, one of which has estimated reserves of 19,000 metric tons. The other points of the planned agreement cover different innovation projects and uranium supplies to world markets in 2006-2007. A Russian-Kazakh working group for nuclear power cooperation had its first meeting in Moscow in March, after being established early this year. Techsnabexport provides about 35 percent of global uranium supplies and plans to expand to the markets in Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific region. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 32 [NukeNet] Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:30:26 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) FYI Please forward Thanks, Jeannine May 13, 2006 Florida, Southeast region targets in push for nuclear power plants By LEE BIDGOOD COMMUNITY VOICE The nuclear power industry is aiming primarily at the Southeast for more nuclear plants. Florida is a prime target, and Floridians should wake up and organize to repel the assault. To lobby for new nuclear plants, the industry formed three consortiums. One is NuStart Energy Development, LLC, with 11 mostly southern members, including nine nuclear utilities and two nuclear reactor manufacturers. NuStart consortium enjoys a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Department of Energy to implement what it calls "one-time, generic activities needed to allow future nuclear investment decisions." Translation: Make permitting and financing new nuclear plants quicker and easier. The Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush are helping by pushing new laws to streamline nuclear plant approval. Members of the NuStart consortium are flush with $12 billion of promised subsidies in the federal energy bill passed last year. They plan most new nukes in the Southeast, because opposition here hasn't been as well-organized and vigorous as elsewhere. Some small rural southern towns that have lost their textile industry welcome new nuclear plants. For example, The New York Times reported that in Gaffney, S.C. (population 13,000), almost everyone supported plans for a new Duke Power nuclear plant. Gaffney residents expect about 1,500 construction jobs and 1,000 jobs in nuclear plant operations. Some $8.5 million in annual taxes would be split between the county and state. A few southern organizations have opposed nuclear plants for health reasons. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League mustered compelling evidence about the health hazards of nuclear plants in its fight against one or two new reactors to be built next to an existing nuclear plant in North Anna, Va. In 2004 BREDL released a study by the Radiation and Health Project (RPHP) showing that the infant death rate near North Anna rose 11 percent in the first three years after the nuclear plant began operations, compared to a 9 percent decline nationwide. Death rates for children 1 to 4 years old rose 99 percent near North Anna during the first few years of plant operation, while the rate declined 3 percent during the same period in the rest of Virginia. Nuclear plants are not safe, even without accidents. Here are some reasons: All nuclear plants release radioactive isotopes to the air and water in routine operations. Releases are usually (but not always) within prescribed international and national limits. Radiation exposure limits are based on the "standard man," an adult male. Fetuses, infants, children and the ill or elderly are far more susceptible than the theoretical adult man. There is no safe radiation dose. All radiation exposure is cumulative, whether from Earth's background radiation, cosmic radiation in high altitude flights or X-rays. In the 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart found that even one X-ray of a pregnant woman's fetus almost doubled the child's chances of contracting childhood leukemia. The cumulative effects of nuclear weapons testing, accidents and routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and weapons plants have about doubled the Earth's background radioactivity. Perhaps worse than cancer is irreversible radiation damage to the human gene pool leading to various mental and physical defects. The defects may appear three or four generations later. Greenpeace reports that Nuclear Regulatory Commission records disclose that U.S. nuclear power plants have had nearly 200 "near misses" of a meltdown since the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. Florida plants have had their share. The NRC records that Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point 3 reactor has had a significant near miss event. The NRC defines a significant near miss as greater than one chance in 1,000 of a reactor core meltdown. The NRC records six important near misses in Florida reactors since Chernobyl, two at Turkey Point and four at FPL's St. Lucie plant. The agency defines an important near miss as greater than one chance in 10,000 of a core meltdown. The odds are against a Chernobyl-like meltdown, but it could happen. Florida Progress Crystal River 3 nuclear plant has avoided near miss citations, but it was fined $100,000 in 1996 and $50,000 in 1997 for various safety and security violations. An outrageous claim of nuclear proponents is that nuclear power aids the fight against global climate change. Mining and six steps of uranium processing all require copious amounts of fossil fuel energy. Constructing the plant, storing and guarding its hazardous waste output and eventually dismantling it consume more energy. A nuclear plant must run at least 10 or 12 years before it has produced more calories than it has consumed and begins to reduce greenhouse gas output. The claim of cheap nuclear power is false. Nuclear plants are bad investments. It is a crime against future generations to commit $12 billion, plus liability insurance, to encourage more nuclear plants rather than use that money to accelerate renewable energy output. Bidgood, an environmental activist and retired chemist, lives in New Smyrna Beach. DAYTONA BEACH NEWS-JOURNAL ---------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "srs-action" on the web. * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------- _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 33 [NukeNet] Nuke Power Net Energy Scam Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:30:46 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bell" Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:39 PM It is widely known that even after all the energy has been consumed to create nuclear fuel rods and they are installed in a reactor and generating heat to produce steam to run a steam turbine to turn a generater to produce electricity, the efficiency of the process is around 32%. As you will see below and in Sidney's book, when all the other fossil fuel inputs needed to support the whole nuclear fuel cycle are included, the net thermodynamic energy gain is 4% as Sidney calculates or even negative as is sited below in the paragraph with the footnote number 132. The material below was excerpted from my first book. Like my latest book, this book is also available free on my web site, www.jimbell.com, click on "Jim's First Book". The footnotes for this excerpt follow the text. ACHIEVING ECO-NOMIC SECURITY* ON SPACESHIP EARTH By Jim Bell CHAPTER VII EFFICIENT ENERGY USE Pollution related to the nuclear power industry includes: 1.. Radioactive residues borne by wind and water from uranium mines and mine tailings. Rain water runoff from uranium mines and their tailings causes harmful pollutants to be distributed far beyond mining sites. Land is also required for uranium processing facilities and for the storage of radioactive wastes. In some areas, radioactive residues from mining are scattered so extensively that the public is at risk. The Grants Mineral Belt, a large area in West-central New Mexico, is so contaminated from mining and milling operations "that scientists have recommended that human habitation of the area be permanently prohibited." (124) An associated cost connected with mine residues is the illnesses, primarily cancer, that uranium miners have experienced. To address this problem, Congress passed a bill which will pay 300 to 500 miners or their survivors $100,000 each in compensation. (125) Although no amount of money can make up for the tragedy of cancer, this compensation package equals $30 to $50 million. 2.. The release of radioactive materials during fuel enrichment processes and when the enriched fuel is loaded into reactors. (126) 3.. The release of radioactive materials as part of normal reactor operation and during nuclear plant accidents. (127) 4.. Contamination of the environment with radioactive materials at nuclear waste storage facilities. (128) In recent years nuclear power has been touted as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if this is true, investing in efficiency reduces CO2 emissions for a lot less money. A study by the Rocky Mountain Institute concluded that "every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon dioxide than the same investment in nuclear power." (129) In general, investing in efficiency will displace more carbon dioxide than investing in nuclear power or any other power production system. Investing in efficiency also makes better economic sense. In 1991 a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory analysis revealed that a government investment of $6 million in three projects to improve the performance of compact florescent lights, high-performance windows, and low-energy heat pumps, water heaters, and air conditioners had "already realized savings of $5 billion and will eventually generate savings of $82 billion -- a return on taxpayer investment of 14,000 to 1". (130) Just the $3 million dollars spent on the development of high performance windows "will eventually save as much energy as the Interior Department believes could be found from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." (131) One study concluded that nuclear power may actually be a net CO2 producer. According to Gene Tyner Sr. of the Oklahoma Institute for a Viable Future, Robert Costanza of the Coastal Ecology Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, and Richard G. Fowler of the University of Oklahoma, nuclear power is probably not even a net energy producer. In their view, nuclear power, even without including past or future accidents, "is at best a re-embodiment of the fossil energies by which it was set in place." (132) In other words, if all the energy inputs necessary to mine and process uranium for use in reactors, to build and operate a reactor, and to decommission it and store the wastes it produces are added together, they are greater than the amount of energy a reactor produces over its lifetime. If this is true, less CO2 would have been released to produce the same amount of energy if the fossil fuels used up to create the nuclear industry had been burned directly to make electricity instead. Even if nuclear power proves to be a net energy plus, it "cannot compete (economically) with either efficiency or renewables." (133) To date, nuclear power has "cost the United States about $200 billion in public and private investment -- by one government estimate over a trillion dollars if all the tax-payer provided R&D (research and development) is included." (134) That is more money than what was spent on "the Vietnam War and the Space Program combined, to deliver to the U.S. just over half as much energy as wood." (135) In all, the health and environmental costs of our current energy direction are very high. If these costs are added to the tax subsidies enjoyed by the conventional energy industry, the cost to society is even higher. "Estimates for the U.S. alone range between $100 billion and $300 billion per year." (136) An exhaustive study in 1985 identified federal subsidies for non-renewable energy sources, (nuclear, oil, natural gas, and coal) in excess of 30 billion dollars per year. (137) A number of other sources put the figure at around $50 billion per year. In addition to government subsidies, there are a host of other costs associated with the use of non-renewable energy resources. A 1991 Scientific American article analyzed the true-cost of our present energy production and use direction, from the perspective of societal burden. In the article, our yearly energy production and consumption liabilities were listed as follows: (138) Corrosion $2 to ? billion Health Impacts $12 to 82 billion Crop Losses $3 to 8 billion Radioactive Waste $4 to 31 billion Military $15 to 54 billion Employment $30 to ? billion Subsidies $43 to 55 billion Total Yearly Burden $109 to 262 billion Chapter VII Footnotes for the text above 124. Shuey, Chris. "Uranium Mines and Their Problems", The Workbook. Southwest Research and Information Center, Vol. X, No. 3, (July/September 1985): p. 113. 125. Houston, Paul. "Compensation for Radiation Victims OKd", Los Angeles Times. (September 28, 1990): p. A - 1. This represents a payout of $30 to $50 million. 126. Gyorgy, Anna et al. No Nukes. South End Press, Boston, Mass., (1979): p. 103. 127. Ibid. p. 106. 128. Ibid. p. 45 - 70. 129. Hall, Stephen. "Back From The Grave", New Internationalist. No. 206, (April 1990): p. 14. Also see Udal, James B. "Turning Down The Heat", Sierra. Vol. 74, No. 4, (July/August 1989): p. 26. 130. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 139. 131. Ibid. p. 140. 132. Tyner, S., Gene et al. "The Net-Energy Yield of Nuclear Power", Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol. 13, No. 1, (1988): p.73. 133. Lovins, Hunter et al. Changing America: Blueprints for a New Democracy. (Reprint), Rocky Mountain Institute, Old Snowmass, Colorado, (1992): p. 12. Also see Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 139. 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136. Hubbard, Harold R. "The Real Cost of Energy", Scientific American. Vol. 264, No. 4, (April 1991): p. 36. 137. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 147. 138. Ibid. p. 148. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 34 Nuke Power Net Energy Scam Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:23:43 -0400 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bell" Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:39 PM It is widely known that even after all the energy has been consumed to create nuclear fuel rods and they are installed in a reactor and generating heat to produce steam to run a steam turbine to turn a generater to produce electricity, the efficiency of the process is around 32%. As you will see below and in Sidney's book, when all the other fossil fuel inputs needed to support the whole nuclear fuel cycle are included, the net thermodynamic energy gain is 4% as Sidney calculates or even negative as is sited below in the paragraph with the footnote number 132. The material below was excerpted from my first book. Like my latest book, this book is also available free on my web site, www.jimbell.com, click on "Jim's First Book". The footnotes for this excerpt follow the text. ACHIEVING ECO-NOMIC SECURITY* ON SPACESHIP EARTH By Jim Bell CHAPTER VII EFFICIENT ENERGY USE Pollution related to the nuclear power industry includes: 1.. Radioactive residues borne by wind and water from uranium mines and mine tailings. Rain water runoff from uranium mines and their tailings causes harmful pollutants to be distributed far beyond mining sites. Land is also required for uranium processing facilities and for the storage of radioactive wastes. In some areas, radioactive residues from mining are scattered so extensively that the public is at risk. The Grants Mineral Belt, a large area in West-central New Mexico, is so contaminated from mining and milling operations "that scientists have recommended that human habitation of the area be permanently prohibited." (124) An associated cost connected with mine residues is the illnesses, primarily cancer, that uranium miners have experienced. To address this problem, Congress passed a bill which will pay 300 to 500 miners or their survivors $100,000 each in compensation. (125) Although no amount of money can make up for the tragedy of cancer, this compensation package equals $30 to $50 million. 2.. The release of radioactive materials during fuel enrichment processes and when the enriched fuel is loaded into reactors. (126) 3.. The release of radioactive materials as part of normal reactor operation and during nuclear plant accidents. (127) 4.. Contamination of the environment with radioactive materials at nuclear waste storage facilities. (128) In recent years nuclear power has been touted as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if this is true, investing in efficiency reduces CO2 emissions for a lot less money. A study by the Rocky Mountain Institute concluded that "every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon dioxide than the same investment in nuclear power." (129) In general, investing in efficiency will displace more carbon dioxide than investing in nuclear power or any other power production system. Investing in efficiency also makes better economic sense. In 1991 a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory analysis revealed that a government investment of $6 million in three projects to improve the performance of compact florescent lights, high-performance windows, and low-energy heat pumps, water heaters, and air conditioners had "already realized savings of $5 billion and will eventually generate savings of $82 billion -- a return on taxpayer investment of 14,000 to 1". (130) Just the $3 million dollars spent on the development of high performance windows "will eventually save as much energy as the Interior Department believes could be found from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." (131) One study concluded that nuclear power may actually be a net CO2 producer. According to Gene Tyner Sr. of the Oklahoma Institute for a Viable Future, Robert Costanza of the Coastal Ecology Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, and Richard G. Fowler of the University of Oklahoma, nuclear power is probably not even a net energy producer. In their view, nuclear power, even without including past or future accidents, "is at best a re-embodiment of the fossil energies by which it was set in place." (132) In other words, if all the energy inputs necessary to mine and process uranium for use in reactors, to build and operate a reactor, and to decommission it and store the wastes it produces are added together, they are greater than the amount of energy a reactor produces over its lifetime. If this is true, less CO2 would have been released to produce the same amount of energy if the fossil fuels used up to create the nuclear industry had been burned directly to make electricity instead. Even if nuclear power proves to be a net energy plus, it "cannot compete (economically) with either efficiency or renewables." (133) To date, nuclear power has "cost the United States about $200 billion in public and private investment -- by one government estimate over a trillion dollars if all the tax-payer provided R&D (research and development) is included." (134) That is more money than what was spent on "the Vietnam War and the Space Program combined, to deliver to the U.S. just over half as much energy as wood." (135) In all, the health and environmental costs of our current energy direction are very high. If these costs are added to the tax subsidies enjoyed by the conventional energy industry, the cost to society is even higher. "Estimates for the U.S. alone range between $100 billion and $300 billion per year." (136) An exhaustive study in 1985 identified federal subsidies for non-renewable energy sources, (nuclear, oil, natural gas, and coal) in excess of 30 billion dollars per year. (137) A number of other sources put the figure at around $50 billion per year. In addition to government subsidies, there are a host of other costs associated with the use of non-renewable energy resources. A 1991 Scientific American article analyzed the true-cost of our present energy production and use direction, from the perspective of societal burden. In the article, our yearly energy production and consumption liabilities were listed as follows: (138) Corrosion $2 to ? billion Health Impacts $12 to 82 billion Crop Losses $3 to 8 billion Radioactive Waste $4 to 31 billion Military $15 to 54 billion Employment $30 to ? billion Subsidies $43 to 55 billion Total Yearly Burden $109 to 262 billion Chapter VII Footnotes for the text above 124. Shuey, Chris. "Uranium Mines and Their Problems", The Workbook. Southwest Research and Information Center, Vol. X, No. 3, (July/September 1985): p. 113. 125. Houston, Paul. "Compensation for Radiation Victims OKd", Los Angeles Times. (September 28, 1990): p. A - 1. This represents a payout of $30 to $50 million. 126. Gyorgy, Anna et al. No Nukes. South End Press, Boston, Mass., (1979): p. 103. 127. Ibid. p. 106. 128. Ibid. p. 45 - 70. 129. Hall, Stephen. "Back From The Grave", New Internationalist. No. 206, (April 1990): p. 14. Also see Udal, James B. "Turning Down The Heat", Sierra. Vol. 74, No. 4, (July/August 1989): p. 26. 130. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 139. 131. Ibid. p. 140. 132. Tyner, S., Gene et al. "The Net-Energy Yield of Nuclear Power", Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol. 13, No. 1, (1988): p.73. 133. Lovins, Hunter et al. Changing America: Blueprints for a New Democracy. (Reprint), Rocky Mountain Institute, Old Snowmass, Colorado, (1992): p. 12. Also see Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 139. 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136. Hubbard, Harold R. "The Real Cost of Energy", Scientific American. Vol. 264, No. 4, (April 1991): p. 36. 137. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. William Morrow and Company, (1992): p. 147. 138. Ibid. p. 148. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive Water Leaks From Japan Plant From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 16, 2006 8:16 PM By HIROKO TABUCHI Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) - About 105 gallons of coolant water containing radioactive material leaked from an inactive nuclear power reactor in western Japan, but there was no danger of radiation escaping from the plant, its operator said Tuesday. The leak was discovered by a worker who rushed to the scene after an alarm went off at Reactor No. 3 of the Mihama nuclear power plant, about 200 miles west of Tokyo, according to Kansai Electric Power Co. spokesman Hiroshi Toshikiyo. The water, which contained traces of radiation, spilled from the primary coolant tank into a catchment area, and about seven gallons then spilled onto the surrounding floor. No radiation leaked outside the compound, and no one was harmed by radiation, Toshikiyo said. The cause of the leak was under investigation, but it appeared water spilled out after workers failed to properly attach a hose leading to the tank, he said. The reactor has been closed since August 2004 after a corroded pipe ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water and steam, killing five and injuring six others in the country's worst-ever nuclear plant accident. There was no radiation leak at that time. The government in December said Kansai Electric could restart the reactor, saying the pipe had been repaired in line with government safety standards. The energy company has been carrying out checks since then, but the plant has yet to resume operations. Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program, with the country's 52 active nuclear reactors supplying 35 percent of its electricity. The government has said it wants to raise the figure to nearly 40 percent by 2010. But the public has grown increasingly wary of the nuclear power industry following a series of safety problems, shutdowns and cover-ups. In 1999, an accident at a reprocessing plant north of Tokyo killed two workers and exposed hundreds to radioactivity. That accident was caused by two workers who tried to save time by mixing excessive amounts of uranium in buckets instead of using special mechanized tanks. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power back on Blair agenda From Press Association [UP] Press Association Tuesday May 16, 2006 10:23 PM Tony Blair sparked fury by giving his strongest signal yet that he will give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations. The Prime Minister said the issue was "back on the agenda with a vengeance" because of carbon emissions and Britain's growing reliance on imported gas. In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Mr Blair said failure to take such long-term decisions would be a "serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country". But the anti-nuclear lobby condemned the move and the Government's energy review was widely branded a sham. The Government is carrying out a review of Britain's energy needs which will be published before the summer. Mr Blair said the twin pressures of climate change and energy security had put the issue at the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. The Prime Minister said he had received "the first cut" of the review on Monday. "The facts are stark," he said. "By 2025 if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90% self-reliant in gas to 80-90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Mr Blair also used the speech to underline his reform agenda. He said the Government needed to be "in a state of permanent modernisation". He said the key question facing the Government was not whether to abandon public service reform but "just how far it can be driven", adding: "I (have) described some of the long-term decisions we have to take," he said. "I intend to take them." Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 37 Guardian Unlimited: Row erupts over PM's energy move From Press Association [UP] Press Association Tuesday May 16, 2006 10:23 PM The Prime Minister sparked a huge row after he announced that replacement of Britain's existing nuclear power stations was now "back on the agenda with a vengeance". The Government's own advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, recently warned new nuclear plants were not the answer to tackling climate change or securing Britain's energy supply. Commission chairman Lord Porritt said the Government's credibility would be damaged if it pre-empted the outcome of the energy review. And there was a furious reaction from the anti-nuclear lobby. There had been speculation that new Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was moved from her environment brief because of her scepticism about nuclear power. Her successor, David Miliband, has said he is "open-minded" on the issue. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "The Prime Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the Government launched its energy review. "This is the latest act in a long-running farce that is the energy review. The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken. We said at the start of the review that this would happen. It is tragic at a time when many groups are showing the way to a safer and cheaper energy future." Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper also reacted with anger, saying: "It's clear that Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power and is determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors rather than investing in clean and sustainable options that already exist. "The UK could be leading the world in the development of a low carbon, nuclear free economy. But rather than backing safe solutions for tackling climate change and meeting our energy needs, he seems intent on trying to waste yet more taxpayers' money on a discredited and dangerous nuclear dinosaur." Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said the review was nothing more than a smokescreen, adding: "What on earth is the point of an energy review, when all he (Mr Blair) ever wanted to do was to say that you will be having nuclear power whether you like it or not?" However, Mr Blair's speech was welcomed by the CBI. Director-general Sir Digby Jones said: "The Prime Minister is absolutely right to put nuclear power firmly on the agenda for the future. The Government must take brave decisions as a result of its energy review, to help deliver to business and consumers secure and affordable power for the long term - that doesn't come at the expense of the environment." Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 London Times: Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis The Times May 17, 2006 By Philip Webster, Political Editor Fast-track planning for new generation of power stations BRITAIN is to build the first new generation of nuclear power stations for 20 years to avoid becoming dependent on foreign gas imports. Tony Blair yesterday pre-empted his Government's energy review to say that the replacement of existing nuclear stations was back on the agenda "with a vengeance", provoking a row with environmentalists. Construction of the first new atomic plants could start within ten years under fast-track planning permission. Britain's twelve nuclear power stations currently provide 22 per cent of the country's electricity, but all but three will close by 2020. Objections to the cost and environmental record of nuclear power have ensured that no new plants have been ordered since work started on Sizewell B in 1988. However, early findings from the Government's review of the country's future energy needs show the importance of the nuclear option, the Prime Minister said last night. Britain will be importing 90 per cent of its natural gas by 2025, leaving electricity generation reliant on potentially unstable countries in the Middle East, Africa and the former Soviet Union, he said. Mr Blair told the Confederation of British Industry last night: "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." Ofgem, the energy regulator, yesterday added to the sense of urgency surrounding Britain's power future by saying that the country faced shortages in gas supplies next winter if there are delays in key projects to import more gas. Nuclear energy can help to reduce the reliance on energy imports and reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming. "If we do not take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country," Mr Blair said. It is the clearest public signal that he has made up his mind to commission new nuclear stations since The Times reported last November that Mr Blair had become convinced that new plants would be needed. The new plants will almost certainly be built on existing sites to lessen planning objections and public opposition. The Prime Minister is unlikely to encounter much Cabinet opposition, although some Labour MPs remain strongly opposed to nuclear power. Gordon Brown is believed to be in favour of the principle of building more stations, although he has insisted that the decision should be supported by a cost-benefits analysis. Stephen Tindale, the director of Greenpeace, said: "The Prime Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the Government launched its energy review. "This is the latest act in a long-running farce that is the energy review. The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken." Kate Hudson, the chair- woman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said that pressing ahead with building new nuclear power stations would be "incomprehensible". Given the 15 years it would take a nuclear power station to come on stream, the cost of dealing with radioactive waste and the threat of terrorist attacks, it would be "irrespons-ible" to replace existing stations, she said. Tony Juniper, the director of Friends of the Earth, said: "The UK could be leading the world in the development of a low- carbon, nuclear-free economy. He seems intent on trying to waste yet more taxpayers' money on a discredited and dangerous nuclear dinosaur." Alan Duncan, the Shadow Trade Secretary, said: "What on earth is the point of an energy review, when all he ever wanted to do was to say that you will be having nuclear power whether you like it or not?" Sir Digby Jones, the CBI Director-General, said that Mr Blair was right to put nuclear power firmly on the agenda for the future. "With an everincreasing reliance on imported gas, and the pressing need to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear power may well form part of the solution." Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 39 Guardian Unlimited: Blair presses the nuclear button Patrick Wintour and David Adam Wednesday May 17, 2006 The Guardian London. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA ] Tony Blair delivers a speech at the CBI annual dinner in London. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Tony Blair ignited a political storm, including within his own cabinet, by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations last night. Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country. Effectively pre-empting the outcome of the government's energy review due to be published in July, Mr Blair, in a speech to the CBI, said the issue of a new generation of stations was back on the agenda with a vengeance, alongside a big push on renewables and a step change in energy efficiency. Mr Blair's spokesman said the prime minister was speaking after reading "a first cut" of the Department of Trade and Industry-led review on Monday. He said the country could not rely on one new source to meet the coming energy gap, pointing out that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, had technical problems. Ministers believe a new generation of nuclear stations will require an extension of the current renewables subsidy to nuclear electricity and some form of pre-licensing agreement to speed up planning permission for new stations. In his speech last night Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Although Mr Blair has warned before -in a speech to the CBI last November - that energy policy was back on the agenda with a vengeance, his remarks yesterday were significant since his considered judgment comes after viewing the initial findings of the energy review. His aides said he was convinced that improved energy efficiency and renewables were not enough to fill the energy gap caused by the phasing out of the current set of ageing stations. His spokesman insisted: "There is no one club solution." Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by the government chief scientist, Sir David King, who believes nuclear power could in future provide 40% of electricity supply, double the current figure. Mr Blair's move will open up divisions inside the cabinet, on the Labour backbenches and provide the first serious test of the nature of David Cameron's green credentials. The Liberal Democrats are firmly opposed to nuclear. Some environmentalists regard nuclear as a renewable option, and Mr Cameron's colleagues have been looking at making the investment climate more favourable to nuclear without actually endorsing new stations. Mr Blair has also decided there will not be a separate white paper after the energy review, suggesting there will be no legislation to bring in nuclear stations - reducing the opportunities for a focused backbench rebellion in the Commons. He will face familiar questions on the cost and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and strong criticism from his own Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt. The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the prime minister's remarks, saying they came at a "crucial time". Keith Parker, NIA chief executive, said: "Nuclear energy is a large-scale, low-carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply." The French company Areva said last night its reactors could be up and running by 2017 - if the planning procedures were streamlined and decisions made on long-term waste storage. Resolutely anti-nuclear environmental groups were less enthusiastic. Greenpeace said Mr Blair's nuclear embrace was "recklessly incompetent". Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is not a chance comment it is a political set-piece. He's trying to soften the ground and get us all angrily running about in the hope that by the time the final report comes out in July we'll all be bored of arguing about it. We won't." Polls show that Mr Blair is pushing the right buttons to convince a traditionally equally split public on the issue of new reactors. A survey of 1,491 people this year, carried out by Mori and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, found 60% of people would support new atomic power stations as long as renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply. But 74% said that nuclear power should not be considered as a solution for climate change before all other energy options had been explored. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 40 London Times: Power station's dirty secret - The Times May 17, 2006 By Anthony Browne, Europe Correspondent BRITAIN'S biggest coal-fired power station pumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 103 countries each do, according to figures from the European Commission that are likely to add to the debate about the role of nuclear power in combating climate change. Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire, which is twice the size of any other power station in the UK, produces more than a quarter of the amount of carbon dioxide produced by all of Britain's private motorists, and nearly a third of that produced directly by all of Britain's homes. Last year, Drax produced 20.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. In contrast, Britain's motorists produced 91 million tonnes, while householders produced more than 80 million tonnes. A spokeswoman for Drax, which was opened in 1974, insisted that it was the most efficient coal-fired power station in the country. However, she admitted: "Yes, we are going to be a big emitter of CO2." The Nuclear Industry Association said: "Nuclear is the only large-scale low carbon source of energy. Nuclear has to be part of the solution to climate change. There is a problem with nuclear waste, but the biggest problem we face is carbon and climate change." Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 41 London Times: Blair claims two powerful reasons for atomic future - Britain - The Times May 17, 2006 Science Editor's Briefing by Mark Henderson TONY BLAIR'S argument that nuclear power has to be part of Britain's energy future rests on two chief arguments: the technology's central place in the fight against climate change and the future security of natural gas supplies. The crux of the Prime Minister's case is not that new nuclear power stations should be built instead of investing in renewable sources and energy efficiency, but that all three are needed if the country is to stand a chance of meeting demanding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while keeping the lights on. He used three graphs, published yesterday on the 10 Downing Street website, to make his case. The first shows visually the extent of the "carbon gap" that must be bridged if Britain is to achieve its goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. This involves bringing output down from 158.5 million tonnes annually - the provisional figure for 2004 - to about 63.5 million tonnes. The second graph shows how the anticipated development of Britain's energy mix will complicate this task. At present, nuclear power accounts for about 23 per cent of the electricity supply, but all except one of the existing plants will be decommissioned by 2025. The Government has a target of generating 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020. Even if this target is achieved, however - and many engineers consider it ambitious - it will simply replace the carbon-neutral generating capacity that is lost as nuclear plants shut down. There would be no net reduction in carbon emissions. This argument, which has been made forcibly by Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, has been accepted by Mr Blair. He called yesterday for a three-pronged approach to transforming the energy mix, encompassing new nuclear stations alongside "a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency". The final problem, illustrated by the third graph, is that ageing nuclear plants are not the only power stations on the threshold of retirement. Many fossil fuel plants, particularly of the coal-fired variety, are also scheduled to close. When combined with the loss of nuclear plants, the total shortfall by 2025 is estimated at 30 per cent of current capacity. Without new nuclear power stations, this will inevitably mean increased reliance on natural gas. If renewables targets are not reached, the need for extra gas will be still greater. The escalating importance of gas, at a time when the output of Britain's North Sea fields is predicted to fall, will mean that more and more will have to be imported. Most of these imports, which could account for up to 90 per cent of Britain's needs, will have to come from Russia, the Middle East and Africa, and may be at risk from political instability. The security of gas imports is an issue that has also influenced other governments. It was the chief reason cited by Finland in its decision in 2002 to construct a nuclear reactor - the first to be started in Europe, outside nuclearenthusiast France, since the Chernobyl disaster. Pro-atom campaigners won a debate on nuclear power not primarily by pressing its importance in cutting carbon emissions, but by emphasising how it would cut reliance on Russia for gas. Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 42 Daily Vanguard: Tower of power Portland State University - Tower of power Tue May. 16 Opinion We ask the doomed Trojan nuclear cooling tower a few questions and to our surprise it answers. By Dylan Tanner Next Sunday will mark the end of one of southern Washington’s most infamous landmarks. With the aid of 3,300 sticks of dynamite, the cooling tower designed to withstand any sort of natural disaster, will crumble in less than 20 seconds. While there is officially no danger of the demolition releasing any radiation, the Trojan plant represents to many Northwesterners the trials and fears surrounding nuclear energy. We stopped by to see how, with its sentence confirmed, the cooling tank was holding up. Hey Buddy, any last words? Um … How about “you’ve got the wrong guy.” Chernobyl is over there. Clearly you’re no Chernobyl, but do you think that it’s reasonable to label you a risk? A risk to what? To the thousands of families who visit me annually? To the poets and painters who use me as a sounding block and an inspiration? Or a risk to lawmakers who fear they may have to continue the dialogue about Washington State’s blundering foray into nuclear field? You seem a little bitter. I am. Chernobyl is still killing, 20 years later. That stupid sarcophagus they built around Reactor Four is leaking. All I did was cause shutdowns. I could be repaired. I withstood almost 20 years of abuse and protest while providing for your energy grid. What does Chernobyl get? A $1.1 billion project. What do I get? The shaft. It’s not my fault the state of Washington failed in its bid to bring five plants to the state, of which just one is producing. It’s not my fault those never-built plants caused a $2.5 billion bond default which Washingtonians will be paying for until 2024. I wasn’t even a part of that project. I didn’t waste all that money. Still, it would have cost an extraordinary amount — too much — to repair the problems with you. Oregonians are still troubled by the fact that the payback for PGE’s investment in you is still coming out of their pockets — at a rate of $30 million a year. I’m not any happier with PGE than you are. They left me high and dry. Sure, there’s still waste here, but what good is demolishing me? And next year the plant itself. People won’t just forget us. I don’t think it’s a matter of forgetting you. Protests didn’t ever die down — instead they grew. People are afraid of nuclear energy. They’re afraid of what damage it can do. But it’s not as if nuclear energy is no longer an option. There’s a lot of profit to be made here. There are at least a dozen more plants in development right now. Oil is running out, solar is a pipe dream, you need what we in the field have to offer and you know it. Certainly there’s risk but don’t think that the industry doesn’t care about the people it could affect. We care, I care, and we know who’s around us and whom we’re responsible for. So are you going to miss Rainier? The beer or the mountain? The small Oregon town just around the corner from you. The first victims if something at Trojan were to go wrong. Clearly you must know Rainier. Oh, I never really had the chance to get to know Rainier. I think we had some employees from there. Sorta backwoodsy right? 2006 Daily Vanguard ***************************************************************** 43 BBC: Blair backs nuclear power plans Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 May 2006 [Sizewell B nuclear power station] Mr Blair has raised the prospect of new nuclear power stations Prime Minister Tony Blair has given his strongest signal yet that he backs the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. The prime minister told the CBI annual dinner that the issue was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". He said Britain faced the prospect of being largely reliant on foreign gas imports for its future energy needs. Critics claim Mr Blair had decided to opt for nuclear power even before the government energy review launched. In the speech Mr Blair revealed he had seen a "first cut" of the government-commissioned energy review, due by the end of July. 'Premature' Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission Lord Porrit said: "It would be damaging to this government's credibility if it were to pre-empt the conclusions of its own energy review, by making premature and insufficiently considered announcements on nuclear power." [Tony Blair] It would damaging to this government's credibility if it were to pre-empt the conclusions of its own energy review, by making premature and insufficiently considered announcements on nuclear power Tony Blair Changing the subject The commission, which is the government's independent watchdog on sustainable development, recently produced a report that said nuclear power was not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply. Ahead of the speech, Mr Blair's official spokesman predicted there would be "despairing shrieks of outrage" in response to the prime minister's comments. BBC political editor Nick Robinson said ministers appeared to be considering changes to the planning process to overcome local resistance to new power stations. Meanwhile, BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said she believed Mr Blair had been happy to stir up a "whole storm of controversies" this week, on issues such as animal experimentation. She said the prime minister wanted to show he was ready to take on controversial decisions. She said: "He cannot afford to be seen as somebody who is simply languishing in Number 10 while people are waiting for his days to be over. "He is trying to distract from all the speculation there is about when he is going to go." Done deal? A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman said there was as yet no first draft of the energy review, and that the prime minister would be responding to information about its progress passed on to him by Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks. The prime minister said if current policy remained unchanged there would be a "dramatic gap" on targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 forcing Britain to become heavily dependent on gas. "We will move from 80 or 90% self-reliance on gas to 80 or 90% dependency on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia," he told business leaders. These "stark" facts "put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance," Mr Blair added. For the Conservatives, shadow industry secretary Alan Duncan accused Mr Blair of "trampling" over the review in his desire to reassert his authority in government. Stephen Tindale, spokesman for environmental group Greenpeace, said: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the government launched its energy review. "The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken." 'Does not make economic sense' CND chairwoman Kate Hudson argued: "Nuclear power does not make economic or environmental sense. The amount of money invested in producing nuclear power could produce far more sustainable energy, much more rapidly." Friends of the Earth's Tony Juniper meanwhile said: "It's probably no coincidence that a number of nuclear sceptics were removed from key Cabinet posts earlier this month." Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Mr Blair had made his mind up to support new nuclear power stations. "The economic case for nuclear is extremely weak. There are many other options for a secure low carbon energy supply." He said Mr Blair would present a large nuclear tax bill to future generations and described the move as another "desperate attempt" to establish a legacy. ***************************************************************** 44 Independent: PM backs new wave of nuclear power stations By Andrew Grice, Political Editor Published: 17 May 2006 Tony Blair has agreed to the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations on the grounds that they would guarantee energy supplies and tackle climate change. A government review of energy policy, to be published in July, will recommend a mix of three components a new lease of life for nuclear power, an expansion of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power and an energy efficiency drive by business and individuals. In a speech last night, the Prime Minister foreshadowed the review by saying the replacement of Britain's nuclear power stations is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". He also promised a "big push" on renewables and a "step change" to boost energy efficiency. The first draft of the review, headed by the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, was shown to Mr Blair and other cabinet ministers on Monday. Mr Blair said that, without a policy change, by 2025 there would be a "dramatic gap" in Britain's efforts to hit its targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The country would also be heavily dependent on gas, moving from a position where it produced 80 to 90 per cent of its needs to relying on foreign imports for the same proportion, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia, he said. "If we don't take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country," Mr Blair told the CBI's annual dinner. He presented the energy policy as an example of difficult decisions that required "faith in long-term gain to triumph over the certainty of short-term pain" and said he " fully intended" to take them. "Not a single difficult decision I have taken in government hasn't resulted in predictions of disaster, shrieks of outrage and determined resistance. But the urgency is begotten of the scale of the challenge." Mr Blair hopes that including a push on renewable energy will reduce the controversy over his decision to go for the nuclear option, but is convinced that renewables alone will not plug the energy gap. However, the three-pronged approach will not allay fears of critics, who claim that going nuclear will leave insufficient money for a big expansion of renewables. These include Elliott Morley, the sacked former environment minister, who spoke for the first time yesterday since his dismissal a fortnight ago. "If the review was open, transparent and fair, looking at the options on economic grounds across a whole life cost assessment of nuclear stations, the solution may well point to renewables," he told The Guardian. Other opponents of nuclear power also cite the cost, safety fears, including possible terrorist attacks, and the 70bn clean-up costs of the existing plants. They believe the review has been a device to cover Mr Blair's private decision to go for the nuclear option. Other Labour MPs also expressed their outrage. Alan Simpson, a leading member of the left-wing Campaign group of Labour MPs, said: "It's not just an absurdity, it is an affront to the whole democratic process. Blair has conducted an inquiry in his own head with his own lobbyists and come to his own conclusion." Stephen Tindale, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: "The Prime Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago. The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken." Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the review had been a complete sham. "It's clear Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power. Rather than backing safe solutions for tackling climate change and meeting our energy needs, he seems intent on trying to waste yet more taxpayers' money on a discredited nuclear dinosaur." Kate Hudson, the chairman of CND, said nuclear power did not make economic or environmental sense, whereas investment in sustainable energy did. Can we not just use coal, oil or gas? Britain's reserves of natural gas and oil have probably passed their peak and will start to run out over the coming decades. To fill the gap we are having to buy gas and oil from other countries, but unfortunately these are not the most friendly or stable places in the world. Russia could supply much of our needs but future governments might worry strategically about security of supply. The events this winter, when Russia shut down supplies to the Ukraine, showed how vulnerable energy customers can be to political pressure. An equally important reason for not buying fossil fuel from abroad is the Government's commitment to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide because of global warming. This is one of the arguments in support of rebuilding nuclear power stations, which do not produce carbon dioxide. So what have we got against nuclear power? Nuclear power stations may be good for climate change, but they still produce toxic waste which can remain radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years. Britain has yet to decide on what to do with the radioactive waste that has built up from nearly 50 years of nuclear power. Another important issue concerns safety and nuclear proliferation. Chernobyl showed that a nuclear accident can be devastating - and does not respect national borders. If Britain goes ahead with new nuclear power stations, why shouldn't other countries in Africa, Asia and South America do the same? A world with thousands of nuclear power stations may not be as safe as a world with a few dozen. Steve Connor 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 45 AFP: Blair signals new generation of British nuclear power stations - by Deborah Haynes Tue May 16, 2:25 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairwill say that plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain are "back on the agenda with a vengeance", instantly infuriating environmentalists. In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry, Blair is expected to push for nuclear energy after receiving the first draft of a long-awaited energy review by the government, which is due to be published in July. The prime minister will tell business leaders: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world." He will warn: "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions." Britain will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-to-90 percent self-reliant in gas to 80-to-90 dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia, Blair will say. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance," the prime minister will say. "If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Britain currently has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing around 25 percent of the country's electricity. Natural gas provides about 40 percent. Environmental groups reacted angrily to Blair's comments, arguing that Britain can meet its future energy needs and cut polluting emissions without building new nuclear power plants. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the government launched its energy review." Keith Allott, head of climate change for environmental group WWF-UK, was also disappointed at the prime minister's pro-nuclear stance. "The signals that Tony Blair appears to have already made up his mind on nuclear before launching the (energy review) are deeply worrying," he said. "We and many others believe that nuclear is the wrong way to go and all the work that we have done shows that we can keep the lights on while seeing substantial reductions in our emissions without resorting to new nuclear power," he told AFP. A report for WWF earlier this month claimed that by cutting energy waste and increasing renewable energy sources, the power sector could reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2025. WWF has submitted the report to the government review on future energy supplies, which was ordered by Blair late last year and is expected to recommend reviving Britain's nuclear power programme. As for Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, she said given the 15 years it would take a nuclear power station to come on stream, the cost of dealing with radioactive waste and the threat of terrorist attacks, it would be "irresponsible" to replace existing stations. "Nuclear power does not make economic or environmental sense. The amount of money invested in producing nuclear power could produce far more sustainable energy, much more rapidly," added Hudson. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 46 AFP: Blair angers ecologists with push for new British nuclear power plants - Tue May 16, 6:14 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairangered ecologists when he pushed for building new nuclear power plants in Britain as part of a drive to ensure both reliable energy supplies and combat global warming. In a speech to business leaders, Blair said nuclear energy and renewables are "back on the agenda with a vengeance" after he received the first draft of an energy review by the government, which is due to be published in July. Renewables are constant sources of energy like wind, water and solar power. "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world," Blair told the annual dinner of the Confederation of British Industry. "The facts are stark," warned the prime minister, dressed in a tuxedo. "By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions." Carbon dioxide emissions are blamed for fueling global warming by trapping heat-retaining gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Britain, Blair added, will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-to-90 percent self-reliant in gas to 80-to-90 percent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance," the prime minister said. "If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Britain currently has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing around 25 percent of the country's electricity. Natural gas provides about 40 percent. Environmental groups reacted angrily to Blair's comments, released hours ahead of his speech, as they argued that Britain can meet its future energy needs and cut polluting emissions without building new nuclear power plants. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the government launched its energy review." Keith Allott, head of climate change for environmental group WWF-UK, echoed Tindale's remarks. "All the work that we have done shows that we can keep the lights on while seeing substantial reductions in our emissions without resorting to new nuclear power," he told AFP. A report for WWF earlier this month claimed that by cutting energy waste and increasing renewable energy sources, the power sector could reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2025. WWF has submitted the report to the government review on future energy supplies, which was ordered by Blair late last year and is expected to recommend reviving Britain's nuclear power program. As for Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, she said given the 15 years it would take a nuclear power station to come on stream, the cost of dealing with radioactive waste and the threat of terrorist attacks, it would be "irresponsible" to replace existing stations. "Nuclear power does not make economic or environmental sense. The amount of money invested in producing nuclear power could produce far more sustainable energy, much more rapidly," added Hudson. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 47 Reutes: UK's Blair says nuclear power back on agenda Tue 16 May 2006 12:00 PM ET LONDON, May 16 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair will say on Tuesday that replacement of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants is firmly back on the agenda due to global warming and rising reliance on imported energy, his spokesman said. The comments will be seen as a clear signal that the government will back the building of new nuclear power plants when its review of future energy sources is finalised before the end of July. Blair, who has seen the first draft of the review, will tell business chiefs: "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." The draft of the energy review showed "stark facts", Blair's spokesman said, reading from extracts of the speech. All but one of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants are scheduled to close by the mid 2020s. If current policy remained unchanged, Britain would fall dramatically behind its targets to slash harmful carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, Blair will say. "We'll become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90 percent self-reliant on gas to being 80-90 percent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia," Blair will tell a dinner hosted by the Confederation of British Industry. Blair -- whose popularity has slumped and who is under pressure from parts of his Labour Party to step down -- is aware of deep-rooted opposition within Labour to more nuclear power. But he will say: "If we don't take these long-term decisions now, we'll be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 48 NRC: Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare a FR Doc E6-7426 [Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 28392-28393] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16my06-127] Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Anna ESP Application On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) received an application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52 (10 CFR part 52) from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP site located in Louisa County, Virginia near the town of Mineral. On December 10, 2004, the NRC issued a Federal Register notice (69 FR 71854) announcing the availability of NUREG- 1811, ``Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site'' (DEIS) and sought comment on the DEIS. On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted a revision to its application. The revision to the application described changes to the cooling water system for postulated Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site and an increase in power level for both postulated Units 3 and 4. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.72, the NRC will be preparing a supplement to its DEIS in support of the review of the ESP application. A subsequent Federal Register notice will announce the availability of the supplement to the DEIS and will request public comments on the supplement. An applicant may seek an early site permit in accordance with subpart A of 10 CFR part 52 separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) for a nuclear power facility. The ESP process allows resolution of issues relating to siting. At any time during the term of an ESP (up to 20 years), the permit may be referenced in an application for a CP or COL. The staff evaluated possible alternatives to the proposed action (issuance of an ESP at the North Anna ESP site) including the no action alternative and alternative sites in its DEIS to determine if there was an obviously superior alternate site. In the supplement to the DEIS the staff will evaluate only the impacts of the changes proposed for the cooling system for postulated Unit 3 and the power increase from 4300-4500 MWt for postulated Units 3 and 4. Scoping was previously conducted for the original DEIS and the the changes described in the revision to the application do not appear to change the scope of the environmental evaluation required by 10 CFR 52.18. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.72(c), additional scoping is unnecessary and will not be conducted. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will contain both the staff's evaluation of the changes proposed in the April 13, 2006, revision to the application and the staff's evaluation of those areas that were not affected by the revision. A copy of the application, including the environmental report, is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and via the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The accession number for the revised application is ML061180180. Future publicly available documents related to the application will also be posted in ADAMS. 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 staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The Louisa County Library, located at 881 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia has agreed to make the application available to local residents. The application is also available on the NRC Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html. For further information regarding the proposed action, contact Mr. Nitin Patel, Project Manager at telephone number 301-415-3201 or by mail at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Nitin Patel, Mail Stop 0- 4D9A, One White Flint North, [[Page 28393]] 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. For further information regarding the environmental impact statement, contact Mr. Jack Cushing, Senior Environmental Project Manager, at telephone number 301-415-1424, or by mail at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Jack Cushing, Mail Stop 0-11F1, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of May 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Cushing, Acting Chief, New Reactors Environmental Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-7426 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 49 NRC: Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion); Surry Power FR Doc E6-7497 [Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 28390-28392] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16my06-126] Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Surry County, Virginia. The proposed amendments would add a requirement to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 CFR) part 50 license to restrict the minimum cooling time and burnup of spent fuel assemblies that will be placed into storage in the NUHOMS HD spent fuel dry storage system at Surry 1 and 2 starting in the summer of 2006. Specifically, the proposed amendments would add Figure 5.4-2 to the Technical Specifications (TSs) to ensure that the NUHOMS HD canister remains subcritical during operations in the Surry 1 and 2 spent fuel pool. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendments request involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 50, Sec. 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: (1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Operation under 10 CFR 50.68 for use of the NUHOMS HD system and implementation of additional requirements on the cooling time and burnup of fuel that is to be loaded into the NUHOMS HD 32PTH DSC [Dry Shielded Canister] will not require any physical changes to Part 50 structures, systems, or components, nor will there be any changes to the performance requirements of existing structures, systems, or components. Handling of spent fuel storage casks has previously been evaluated for Surry. When older cask designs stored under the Surry ISFSI [Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation] site specific license are returned to the station, they will be handled and controlled in the same manner as the initial loading and movement of these casks. The response of the plant to previously analyzed Part 50 accidents is not adversely impacted, and current analyses of radiological releases, including those for the fuel handling accident, will continue to bound activities related to spent fuel cask loading, handling, and storage. (2) The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created. Neither fuel handling nor the loading and handling of the NUHOMS HD 32PTH DSC will be affected by operation under 10 CFR 50.68(b) or by placing additional constraints on selection of fuel to be stored in the DSC. When older cask designs stored under the Surry ISFSI site specific license are returned to the station, they will be handled and controlled in the same manner as the initial loading and movement of these casks. The existing process used to ensure that fuel assemblies selected for dry storage comply with the specific cask and ISFSI licensing requirements will be used to select the fuel assemblies to be placed in the NUHOMS HD 32PTH DSC. The requirements of the proposed new Technical Specification will only represent additional limitations that must be considered during this selection process. (3) There is not a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Code of Federal Regulations identifies compliance with 10 CFR 50.68(b) as an acceptable alternative to compliance with 10 CFR 70.24. The emphasis of 10 CFR 70.24 is on detection of criticality events, while the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b) emphasize prevention of inadvertent criticality events. Operation under 10 CFR 50.68(b) is therefore preferable to ensure that Surry complies with the intent of General Design Criterion 62, which specifically directs that criticality should be prevented during fuel storage and handling. The existing criticality limits for the Surry Spent Fuel Pool and New Fuel Storage Area will be maintained. The NUHOMS HD spent fuel storage system is currently under review for general licensing, and has been shown to comply with the criticality requirements identified in 10 CFR part 72. Compliance with the proposed Surry Technical Specification will further ensure that the system remains safely subcritical during all handling and storage operations (e.g., load, unloading, handling, decontamination, etc.) that are conducted at the station prior to transfer of the DSC to the ISFSI, even under the more restrictive condition of assuming the DSC is fully loaded with fuel of the maximum allowable [[Page 28391]] reactivity and flooded with unborated water. Application of a fuel burnup credit in this criticality analysis ensures that the full soluble boron concentration required in the Spent Fuel Pool water by Surry plant Technical Specifications is available to provide defense in depth to an inadvertent criticality event. The older cask designs stored under the Surry ISFSI site specific license will be handled in the same manner used to initially load and move these casks, and the criticality requirements that were previously determined to be acceptable for safe loading, unloading and handling of these casks will remain applicable. Based on the above discussion, Surry operation under 10 CFR 50.68(b) and implementation of the proposed Technical Specification for use of the NUHOMS HD dry storage system, and continued handling of older cask designs under the original licensing basis for these casks, will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is also not created, and there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are met, and there is not a significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involve no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room (PDR) on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendments request involve no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing [[Page 28392]] held would take place after issuance of the amendments. If the final determination is that the amendments request involve a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Ms. Lillian M. Cuoco, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 06385, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated February 14, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen R. Monarque, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-7497 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 50 Scotsman.com: Nuclear power won't need tax cash "The Scotsman" />Wed 17 May 2006 JOHN BOWKER DEPUTY CITY EDITOR BRITISH Energy claimed yesterday that it would not need any more taxpayers' money to build a fleet of new nuclear power stations, saying that all that was required from the government was greater certainty over planning consent and the carbon trading market. Robert Armour, the energy giant's general counsel, promised a cross-party group of MPs that BE was "not looking for subsidies" to help build new stations - a plan widely expected to be given the green light as a result of the current Energy Review. However, it warned that private-sector backing would be needed for the new-build, and therefore the government would have to "create a framework" for outside investors. This would include a reliable long-term price structure for carbon, and a simplification of the planning and pre-licensing processes. Nuclear power currently accounts for more than a fifth of the UK's electricity, yet all but one of BE's eight plants are set to be decommissioned in the next two decades. Their replacement is at the heart of the Energy Review, which aims to establish how the UK can off-set the decline in North Sea oil and gas reserves. Last night, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, all but confirmed that the review would come out pro-nuclear, even though the deadline for responses has only just passed. He told the CBI dinner: "I [have] received the first cut of the [energy] review. The facts are stark. [They] put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency back on the agenda with a vengeance." Livingston-based BE was giving evidence to the trade and industry select committee on the challenges facing new nuclear build. The company had to be bailed out by the government two years ago - but is still expected to play a significant part in any future nuclear programme. Armour was joined by Peter Spence, BE's head of strategy, and Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. Parker laid out the body's demands of the government, in an argument later echoed by Armour. "The government has to identify the desirable outcomes of energy policy - understood to be security of supply and a reduction in carbon emissions," he said. Armour noted that the current European emissions trading scheme - which creates a market for carbon - had proved unreliable in recent weeks and is not set to last beyond 2012. "We need a framework up until 2050 if we are to build nuclear power stations," he said. A key issue in the debate is who will pay for the clean-up process, but Armour said BE itself would set up a fund. "For each megawatt of electricity generated, we will pay a levy into a fund," he said. However, it was that liability on its current stations that the government was forced to shoulder in rescuing BE in 2003. In a debt-for-equity deal, it insured the decommissioning fund in return for a 65 per cent stake in the company, which it has since announced it will sell. 2006 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 51 Telegraph: Blair says nuclear power is back on the agenda [telegraph.co.uk] (Filed: 16/05/2006) The replacement of Britain's existing nuclear power stations is "back on the agenda with a vengeance", Tony Blair has said. [Tony Blair] Tony Blair's comments will attract criticism The Prime Minister delivered a speech to a Confederation of British Industry dinner saying that a failure to take difficult long-term decisions on energy policy would represent "a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country". Downing Street earlier released extracts of the speech after Mr Blair received an early draft of the Government's energy review, due to be published by the end of July. Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, made a presentation of the review to Mr Blair yesterday, leading the Prime Minister to predict that Britain will become dependent on energy imports unless action is taken. Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90 per cent self-reliant in gas to 80-90 per cent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." Green campaigners reacted with anger to Mr Blair's comments, accusing him of being "hell bent" on nuclear power and ignoring sustainable options. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "This is the latest act in a long running farce that is the energy review. The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken." Kate Hudson, chairman of CND, said pressing ahead with building new nuclear power stations would be "incomprehensible". And Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth director, said: "Increasingly it looks like the energy consultation has been a complete sham. It's clear that Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power and is determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors rather than investing in clean and sustainable options that already exist." Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 52 Japan Times: Radioactive water leaks at Mihama The Associated Press About 400 liters of coolant water containing radioactive material leaked from a nonactive reactor at the Mihama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, but there was no danger of radiation escaping from the plant, its operator said Tuesday. The leak was discovered by a worker who rushed to the scene after an alarm went off in the afternoon at Mihama's No. 3 reactor, according to Kansai Electric Power Co. spokesman Hiroshi Toshikiyo. Some 400 liters of water spilled from the primary coolant tank into a catchment area, 26 liters of which then spilled onto the surrounding floor. No radiation leaked outside the compound and no one was exposed to radiation, Toshikiyo said. The cause of the leak appeared that workers had improperly attached a pipe to the tank, he said. The Japan Times: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 (C) All rights reserved The Japan Times] The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 Times Herald-Record: Indian Point syndrome - heads in the sand May 16, 2006 By Gilles Malkine John Kelly's recent "My View" piece on Indian Point not only failed to convince me, but also stank to high heaven. First, the term "clean" may never be accurately used to describe nuclear energy because that would mean forgetting that generating it creates plutonium, the filthiest and most lethal substance on Earth, which remains deadly for thousands of years. We leave the price for it to be paid by future generations, confident they will understand that we couldn't do without such essentials as electric weed whackers and George Foreman grills. Second, it's not so much the amount of tritium, nickel 63, or strontium 90 found to be leaking on the edge of the Hudson River that's so disconcerting as the fact that no one seems to know exactly where it's leaking from. "Every possible measure" is an insidiously meaningless phrase, and I shuddered to find Kelly using it about people "at all levels of government." The very fact that politicians are involved to any degree in decisions regarding nuclear facilities conjures up visions of Moe, Larry and Curly in lab coats. But don't believe me, look around, read all you can about Katrina, about the system failures, reparation fraud, and about Homeland Security proving to be the most dysfunctional system ever concocted. Talk about comfort to the enemy. This nuclear site is ranked No. 1 in the nation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in terms of "potential human consequences." The evacuation plans for people with disabilities around Indian Point seem to me as useful as the "In case of fire, don't use this elevator" signs, and they don't look much better for everyone else. Let's say an emergency happens at 3 a.m., the power goes out, and, just for fun, it's snowing heavily. Even if the sirens finally work right (and half the population, believing it's probably another malfunction, rolls over and goes back to sleep), would anyone be surprised to see an instant multi-county combination of a demolition derby and gridlock? Does anyone think that only those directly in the path of the (invisible and odorless) radioactive plume are going to be moving? Who's going to tell us where it is, who to believe? There is only one good plan in case of an Indian Point nuclear disaster: place both palms together with fingers pointing upward, assume a kneeling position, close your eyes, and try to think of one good reason you didn't voice your concerns before it came to this. Enough talk - shut 'er down! Since there exists a slim possibility that this advice, its unassailable logic notwithstanding, may be ignored, I strongly recommend, as anyone with any common sense would, that people with mobility impairments who live within 30 miles of Indian Point, if they haven't yet, lose no time in beginning to consider relocation, preferably upwind, while they still can. Gilles Malkine is director of Services for Action Toward Independence in Monticello. Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Orange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Scotsman.com News: Blair puts nuclear power firmly on energy agenda Wednesday, 17th May 2006 GERRI PEEV AND JAMES KIRKUP TONY Blair last night announced that nuclear power stations were back on the agenda "with a vengeance". The Prime Minister made the controversial statement at a dinner with business chiefs in London, after he was presented with "stark facts" on climate change and Britain's looming dependency on foreign gas. Pre-empting his own energy review, which is not expected until the end of July, Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "Yesterday I received the first cut of the [energy] review. The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90 per cent self-reliant in gas to 80-90 per cent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." Mr Blair's comments further focused attention on the First Minister's stance on nuclear power, and opposition MPs and environmentalists across the UK were furious that Mr Blair had not waited for the findings of the energy review. Mr Blair had seen a draft of the review and had been briefed by Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, and other key officials on Monday night. Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, described the energy review as a "smokescreen". Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the economic case for nuclear power was weak and that Mr Blair was attempting to establish his legacy irrespective of cost. The Prime Minister's unequivocal support will also increase pressure on Jack McConnell to declare his hand over a new generation of nuclear power stations in Scotland. Mr McConnell had always said he wanted to wait for the final report of the government-sponsored commission on radioactive waste before deciding, but this week he suggested he also wanted a "period of reflection" after this. That would give him breathing space until after next May's Holyrood elections. However, his Liberal Democrat coalition partners have already made clear that they will oppose a new generation of generators, threatening to split the coalition if he backs the Prime Minister. A source close to Mr McConnell said: "Tony Blair may have used more colourful language, but it doesn't change the position in Scotland." Any new power stations in Scotland have to have the "specific consent of Scottish ministers", who also have jurisdiction over planning. The source added: "I'm not saying that Scotland is not going to agree to this, but our view is that there should be no new nuclear stations until the issue of waste has been resolved." Mike Weir, the SNP's energy spokesman, said Mr Blair was putting Mr McConnell between a "rock and a hard place". Duncan McClaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, urged the Executive not to bow to Westminster's attempts to "impose" new nuclear power stations north of the Border. 2006 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 55 The Herald: Nuclear plant decisions on hold for poll Web Issue 2528 May 15 2006 DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor May 15 2006 ROSS Finnie, the environment minister, has postponed any decision on new nuclear power plants until after next year's election, while warning there is a need to tackle the "great luxury of a greedy energy policy". The Liberal Democrat minister has said there is "no perfect solution" to the issue but that there is a need to address the questions of existing waste and new plants. Of the nuclear option, he said: "I don't think there is an immediate need for it", in line with the recent findings of the sustainable development commission. Jack McConnell, first minister, has said there will be no approval for new nuclear plants until the issue of handling waste is resolved. Yesterday, he was questioned about the subject on the BBC's Politics Show, and said it is important to leave open the option of new plants, rather than take a "dogmatic" approach to opposing them, but that they are ruled out "until we are satisfied that the waste can be managed safely". In recent weeks, the first minister has hinted that he will not let the issue be addressed before the Holyrood election in May 2007. The environment minister confirmed to Holyrood magazine that delay is now seen within the Scottish Executive as a virtual certainty. By the time the committee on radioactive waste management has reported its final conclusions, it will be too late for this administration to act, said Mr Finnie. "By March, there will be no government decisions being taken, so you've only got about nine months of this coalition government to go," he said. Mr McConnell has placed emphasis in recent weeks on Holyrood having powers over planning and regulation of building any new power plants, saying the planning question should not be decided according to party political stances. Yesterday, he said: "I don't think we should rule it out in the long term because nuclear is currently producing just over a third of Scotland's energy resource, and therefore we need to ensure we take a balanced approach to this, and that is a better approach than a dogmatic one that rules this out entirely. "But we will not go ahead with nuclear power stations until we are satisfied that the waste can be managed safely." Part of the growing pressure on the executive and the Whitehall administration is coming from the nuclear industry, with newspaper reports yesterday of lobbyists stepping up their activities and having close links to both administrations. The strength of the environmental cause is giving hope to Scottish Green party leaders that they could at least double their numbers at Holyrood next year, and hold the balance of power in support of a minority administration. Robin Harper, joint party leader, told the magazine they are aiming for two list seats in the five parts of Scotland where they have one, a rise from two to three in their Lothian representation and one seat in the remaining two regions. Their minimum expectation is a rise from seven to ten seats. The party is planning on that giving them the leverage to offer a deal to a new minority administration in which they would support the executive on any no confidence motions and its budget votes, but would have to be persuaded on other issues. This would be in return for assurances about key green issues, such as a block on nuclear power. Meanwhile, less than a year from the election, Nicol Stephen, Scottish LibDem leader and deputy first minister, claimed that recent by-election results have put his party in contention to become the largest at Holyrood. According to a Sunday newspaper interview, Labour's struggling electoral performance and polling figures could lead to him becoming first minister. Copyright Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 56 APP.COM: No-fly zone at nuclear plant? | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, May 16, 2006 BY TOMS RIVER BUREAU Why does Disney World rate a no-fly zone, while the nuclear plant at Oyster Creek does not? That's the question Ed Frydendahl, a Manchester resident, asked the Ocean County Board of Freeholders. "What's to stop a terrorist from packing explosives into a small plane at Miller Airpark, taking off and flying the plane right into the power plant?" Frydendahl said at a freeholder meeting earlier this month. "That would mean a catastrophic disaster. We need a no-fly zone over that plant." Frydendahl said his concern focused on smaller planes that can pass within several thousand feet of the plant, not large commercial aircraft flying several miles high. The freeholders told Frydendahl that they would look into why air traffic is allowed to fly over the plant, located just off Route 9 in Lacey. "The county has been making inquiries," said David McKeon, the county's assistant planning director. "We have contacted state and federal agencies. We have yet to receive a formal response." He added that county officials are aware that a flight "advisory" concerning nuclear power plants is in effect. "The advisory discourages private aircraft and general aviation from circling or loitering above such facilities," said Jim Peters, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration. It's a nationwide precaution applying to private planes, and protects all nuclear power plants, electrical generation plants, coal-fired power plants and natural gas pipelines. "But the county wants to know why there isn't a stronger flight restriction in place, if one can be established and, if so, what the process would be to establish one over Oyster Creek," McKeon said. Onus is on pilots Flight advisories are relayed to pilots when they call for a weather brief before takeoff, Peters said. "Not all pilots call in for a weather brief," he said, "but ignorance of the advisory is no excuse. The onus is on the pilot to know the rules." A pilot who disregards the advisory could find U.S. military jets confronting him and the private pilot would be held responsible for the outcome of such an encounter, Peters said. "There is not a flight restriction over Oyster Creek or any other nuclear power plant because the government does not consider such a restriction necessary," he added. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the FAA imposed a temporary flight restriction, or no-fly zone, of 10 nautical miles and below 18,000 feet over 86 of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. Since the government never publicly revealed which plants were covered, it has never been ascertained whether Oyster Creek was. Chris Dancy, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said his organization agrees with the FAA that the current advisory is sufficient protection for nuclear plants. "There is strong evidence, attained through several independent studies, that an aircraft, whether a small plane loaded with explosives or a large commercial airline, is incapable of causing enough damage to a nuclear plant to cause a catastrophic release of radiation," he said. Dancy explained that tests have shown that an aircraft cannot crack the thick containment wall that protects the reactor. The fuel rod pool But as Frydendahl and other critics of Oyster Creek have pointed out, the contained reactor is not their main concern. Oyster Creek's spent fuel rods sit in a pool outside the plant's containment system. The pool holds about 375 tons of highly radioactive rods and is 100 feet above ground, next to the reactor in a reinforced concrete building covered by a metal roof. The fear is that a terrorist in a plane could strike the fuel rods pool and release radiation. "The National Academy of Sciences dis-agrees with the pro-nuclear think tanks," said Peg Sturmfels, a Jackson resident and member of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. "The NAS has published a report saying they are greatly concerned about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist attacks." The NAS report, published in April 2005, stated that "an attack which partially or completely drains a plant's spent fuel pool might be capable of starting a high-temperature fire that could release large quantities of radioactive material into the environment." State Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, whose constituency includes Lacey, said the status quo is insufficient. "We need a stronger restriction on flying over the power plant than the current pilots advisory," said Connors. Rep. H. James Saxton, R-N.J., whose constituency also includes parts of Ocean County, said that he also is pushing for more security. "I have encouraged the FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and the Transportation Security Administration to take whatever precautions they reasonably require to protect our nuclear plants," Saxton said in a prepared statement. Drawback for zones Saxton's spokesman, however, added that one of the reasons it is not wise to place flight restrictions over nuclear power plants is because establishing such no-flight zones would require publishing the exact coordinates of each of the nation's nuclear plants. "Every pilot, and any member of the general public, would know the exact location of every plant," said Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner, Saxton's spokesman. "A pilot with ill intent would also have this information." Disney World in Florida does have a fly-over restriction, established by an act of Congress in March 2003. Dancy said Disney had been trying to get such protection since before 9/11, fearing crashes from small planes that drag advertisements. "After 9/11, Disney was able to get enough backing for the restriction," he said. Joseph Picard: (732) 557-5738 or [E-mail] E-mail Copyright 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 IEER: Missing Plutonium - Index IEER| Publications Plutonium Discrepancies in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex Official US Department of Energy records show a discrepancy of weapons plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory of about 300 kilograms - enough to make 60 nuclear bombs. The potential environmental, health and security implications are huge. The documents below chronicle IEER's efforts to get DOE and LANL to account for the discrepancy. IEER report: Dangerous Discrepancies: Missing Weapons Plutonium in Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Accounts, November 29, 2005, reissued with corrections April 21, 2006 Correspondence with officials: + Letter to US Environmental Protection Agency, March 22, 2006 + Reply from EPA, May 2, 2006 + Response to EPA, May 15, 2006 + Letter to Linton Brooks, Administrator of the US National Nuclear Security Administration, December 19, 2005 + Reply from Linton Brooks, NNSA, February 28, 2006 + Response to Linton Brooks, NNSA, March 16, 2006 + Letter to A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, December 13, 2005 + Reply from DNFSB Chairman Eggenberger, January 30, 2006 + Response to DNFSB Chairman Eggenberger, February 8, 2006 + Letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board from 27 organizations, January 26, 2006 + Letter to Samuel Bodman, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, December 13, 2005 + Letter to LANL Director Pete Nanos, August 10, 2004 IEER radio commentary, August 2004 DOE's Ever-Changing Estimates of Buried TRU Waste, from SDA vol. 7 no. 2, January 1999 IEER report: Containing the Cold War Mess, October 1997 Guimond-Beckner DOE memo, "Plutonium in Waste Inventories"January 30, 1996 Available at EggheadBooks: Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age(International Physicians Press, 1992) Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Updated May 15, 2006 ***************************************************************** 58 [NukeNet] Alarming history of lack of radioactive clean up in Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:30:43 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear All, This is truly alarming. Please read it all, and continue to pass it on. Knowledge is power, and although I have been following the nuclear crisis since 1974, I knew nothing of this. Thanks Jack for putting us all in the loop. Jeannine >From: Jacksha1@aol.com >To: djhonicker@msn.com, Subject: Re: A must read, Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 >10:21:51 EDT > >Here is a letter we sent to a bunch of Local, State, and Federal Officials. >Sometimes sarcasm works. All the facts here are frighteningly true - >believe >it or not. Send to your distributions if you like. The wider the >distribution >the better [ Jeannine I did send the letter to many of your e-mail >distribution, hope you don't mind]. It really does point out how truly >corrupt and >incompetent the DOE/NRC really are. They just walked away from a major >reprocessing facility in the downtown area of Schenectady, NY. Furthermore >the DOE/NRC >continue to insist that the cleanup is now complete. Mr. Stater and I know >better. Maybe just forwarding the letter to Hillary, along with several >hundred signatures might get some action form some politicians. >Jack Shannon >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >------------------------------------------------------ >To: > 10 May 2006 >Mayor Brian Stratton >City Hall >Schenectady, NY >12305 > > >The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, recently announced that the >Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking proposals for sites suitable for >advanced >recycling technologies under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). >The DOE is seeking the best ideas from the public and private sectors on >where >to build the demonstration facilities, as a key step forward for GNEP. > >No problem. Schenectady, New York, is the answer. Schenectady is the >perfect >site, exactly what the Secretary is searching for. This solution was >discovered and implemented years ago. In 1946 the General Electric Company >and Naval >Reactors program saw fit to build weapons factory pilot plant in a >residential neighborhood of down town Schenectady. This weapons factory >separated >plutonium from depleted reactor fuel via the PUREX process. No state or >city >approvals were sought or required. General Electric and Naval Reactors >just did >it. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has proven >to >be very accommodating when it comes to General Electric and Naval >Reactors. >Hence legal paper work can be held to a minimum, a definite cost saving >benefit. > >The Peek Street weapons factory was operated for about 5 years. During that >time, extensive levels of radioactivity accumulated in the soil off- site >along an adjacent railroad track. Much of the interior of the large main >building >at Peek Street that contained offices and other facilities was >contaminated >with radioactivity, as was acres of land within the site compound itself. >At >least two accidental releases of plutonium from an incinerator were >carried >over the surrounding neighborhood of Goose Hill. Radioactivity was dumped >into >sinks within the site that contaminated the city storm drains leading to >the >Mohawk river. Obviously, funding for control of radioactive releases is >not >an issue, a definite cost saving benefit. > >In 1951, after construction of a larger weapons factory pilot plant was >completed at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) in nearby Niskayuna, >NY, >General Electric and Naval Reactors moved out of the radioactively >contaminated > Peek Street site, i.e. without making radioactive surveys and without any >meaningful cleanup of the indoor or outdoor radioactive contamination. >General >Electric and Naval Reactors just closed the door, locked it, and walked >away. > Subsequently, the Peek Street site was sold to Buy Rite, a food >wholesaler >who shipped food products from the radioactively contaminated main >building to >the entire Capitol region for over 20 years. After Buy-Rite departed, the >main building was converted into a small industrial park, with several >small >companies as tenants. The employees of these companies unknowingly worked >in >radioactively contaminated offices for 10 years. Clearly, Schenectady can >supply a local work force that has experience working in a radioactive >environment, a >definite advantage in expediting initiation of GNEP operations. > >Sometime in the late 70's or early 80's the adjacent railroad was converted >into recreational bike path. Local children used the bike path extensively, >as evidenced by chalked hop-scotch diagrams and discarded toys. In 1987 >allegations were raised that the Peek Street site had been abandoned by >General >Electric and Naval Reactors without cleanup of radioactive contamination, >charges that were vehemently denied by both General Electric and Naval >Reactors. >Subsequently, a soil sample taken along the bike path, adjacent to a >discarded >Raggedy -Anne doll, revealed radiation levels 700% above the state limit >for >radioactivity in soil. Even with this, it took the intervention >of the governor of New York state to force the Department of Energy to >revisit the Peek Street site. Several covert visits by the DOE resulted in >the >removal of truck loads of radioactively contaminated soil and of extensive >cleaning of the internals of the main building. In 1999 the main building >was >consumed by a roaring inferno, the biggest fire seen in Schenectady in >decades. >The resultant pile of rubble, which almost certainly contained amounts of >radioactivity, was not removed until 2006. In any case, the site is now >cleared >and available for use. It is a tried and tested property with prior usage >as >a weapons factory separations facility. There would be no need to risk >contamination of a new site. > >On the basis of the above described benefits and advantages, we highly >recommend the Peek Street site as, by far, the most suitable for advanced >recycling technologies under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). > >Respectively, > > >Robert Stater, John >P.Shannon >Nuclear Engineer [Retired] Nuclear >Physicist/Nuclear Engineer [Retired] >Pashley, Road 12 >Cleveland Avenue >Scotia, NY Sarasota >Springs, N.Y. 12065 > 12866 >518-3991072 518-587-8565 > - >Sent to Mayor Jennings, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Arnold Spadafora >[assistant superintendent of Schenectady schools], Shirley Jackson RPI, >John >Sweeney, Pataki, Brian Stratton [Mayor of Schenectady, NY] > > _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 59 Times Herald-Record: Plant worker gets too much radiation May 16, 2006 Buchanan - Indian Point officials are looking into how a contract worker was over-exposed to radiation during a scheduled reactor refueling earlier this month. Jim Steets, a spokesman for the Westchester County power station, said an employee received a dose of 474 millirem while replacing a steel sleeve at the bottom of Indian Point 2 on May 4. The amount was 58 percent higher than health and safety officials had anticipated for the job. "There were no health or safety consequences from it," Steets said of the exposure. He did not identify the employee. "We're looking into certain work practices that would have ensured he would only have received the 300 as planned." Nuclear power plant employees are carefully monitored for radiation exposure. Steets said Indian Point employees can not receive more than 5,000 millirem in a given year. Greg Bruno Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Orange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Muskogee Phoenix: The people speak: U.S. doesnt need test on old nuclear site www.muskogeephoenix.com - Muskogee, OK The Western Shoshone want to ask What is the greatest danger to life? The answer is nuclear proliferation. Why is the United States going to detonate a massive, 700-ton bomb on June 2 outside Las Vegas? To help develop nuclear bunker busters. Horribly and hideously they call this bomb, Divine Strake. Sick. While agreeing that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to our security, Slick Bush decides that a great way to get mangoes from India is to sell them nuclear technology. Hey, someone, like the French or the Chinese, will do the same and get all the money, so instead, we should do it. Tell our anti-Mother Earth senators to stop psycho-Bush/Cheney/Halliburton from doing this destruction. Stop using nuclear materials in the deserts of Iraq in the form of depleted uranium. Jean McMahon Fort Gibson Originally published May 16, 2006 Copyright 2006 Muskogee Daily Phoenix. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 JOURNAL NEWS: Worker exposed to radiation at Indian Point By GREG CLARY Millirem quota The Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't monitor daily levels for industry workers or others who may be exposed to radiation. The agency relies on a yearly maximum of 5,000 millirem, or 5 rem, the measurement of the effects of radiation on the body. Anyone who enters an area of a nuclear site with the potential for exposure must carry a dosimeter to measure radiation levels to that person, which is then compiled into an annual total and sent to the NRC. (Original publication: May 16, 2006) BUCHANAN  A contractor working on the nuclear refueling of Indian Point 2 was exposed to levels of radiation nearly 60 percent higher than what is permitted for a day at his job. Federal regulators and plant owners are investigating the May 4 incident, when workers were using a crane to lift a large component of the reactor vessel. The reactor was shut down for the month-long refueling as part of an inspection that occurs every 10 years. The crane operator, whose name was not released by the company, stayed too long while the lift was going on, officials said. He received a dose of 474 millirem when his job specifications called for a maximum of 300 millirem. The millirem is used to measure the effects of radiation on the body. Officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point's owner, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed yesterday that there was no health risk to the worker. The maximum radiation exposure allowed for nuclear reactor workers is 5,000 millirem per year. Entergy officials said they were more concerned about figuring out how the exposure happened, since it was unplanned. "We should not be in a position where we have a guy getting an exposure of 100 millirem above his set point because it's unexpected," said Donald Mayer, one of Indian Point's top health physicists. "Anytime we get something that's unexpected, we investigate it." Company officials said the man's dosage alarm sounded and he should have walked away from the crane he was operating. But he considered that more of a radiation risk to others and opted to secure the reactor's core barrel before leaving his post. Mayer said Entergy took signed statements from all people in the area and was trying to figure out if the underwater work was done in water deep enough to provide adequate shielding, or if the reactor piece was lifted too high. Company officials said they would incorporate new technology to prevent a similar event at the 10-year reactor vessel inspection. The plant is shut down every other year for refueling. The worker was the only person present whose monitoring device showed higher than expected levels, according to the NRC. Entergy was not required to report the event to the agency, but did so quickly, NRC officials said. The agency has sent a health inspector to the site and the event will be included in the second quarter 2006 inspection report. The elevated radiation levels could not have been detected outside of the containment building, and as such were not a public-safety issue, company and NRC officials said. David Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the 5,000 millirem limit for one year was conservative and those levels wouldn't adversely affect the human body, even in one exposure. "At that level, I'm not advocating going and getting exposed, but even then it's not going to affect things like white blood counts," Lochbaum said. "If anyone got 5,000 in one shot, he wouldn't even know it." Copyright 2006 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7, 2005. ***************************************************************** 62 New London Day: Rell Seeks Evaluation Of Effects Of Millstone Radiation By Patricia Daddona Published on 5/14/2006 in Region Region Main Photo by Sean D. Elliot The Millstone Nuclear Power Station sits on the Waterford coast. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has asked the state's public health officials to evaluate the most scientifically accurate way to study the possible harmful effects of radiation from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. A year ago, the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone compiled data from recent testing of goat's milk that suggested the level of radiation releases from Millstone Power Station in Waterford was harmful. Rell asked the state Department of Environmental Protection to review 35 years' worth of records, and DEP reported in March that there was no basis for the coalition's claims. Since then, Commissioner J. Robert Galvin of the state Department of Public Health has asked his staff to review DEP's report and expects the conclusions in the next 10 days, according to William Gerrish, a department spokesman. So far, there are no indications the DEP report is flawed, said John Wiltse, a spokesman for Rell. Based on inquiries from some members of the public and research organizations, however, Rell this week asked Galvin to determine, once he has finished the review of the DEP report, what it would take to thoroughly examine potential harmful effects of emissions from the two operating reactors at Millstone. Rell wants to know, Wiltse said:  What questions about radioactivity, nuclear plant emissions and harmful effects should be asked  Whether the state has the money and expertise to study those questions effectively and scientifically  How much such a study would cost  What type of experts might be needed "The governor feels that there are enough valid questions raised to warrant" such an assessment, Wiltse said Friday. "Ultimately, she feels this entire issue should really be funded and focused at the federal level, which has the ultimate responsibility for regulating nuclear power across the United States. "She wants the right questions asked, and part of the right question is what science is out there or not out there," he said. He repeated past assertions that Rell has confidence in DEP's recent "thorough" review. Gerrish could not provide specific details about how the department would approach the governor's demand, but said, given the DEP findings, it was "an opportune time" to look at these issues "from a wide scope." Pete Hyde, the spokesman for Dominion, the owner of Millstone, said Friday it would cooperate with studies the state might undertake. "We don't believe there are harmful effects associated with operations at Millstone, and we welcome an opportunity to investigate that, provided that the study is conducted by reputable and reliable scientists whose work is held up to the utmost scrutiny," Hyde said. For years, anti-nuclear activists have challenged the nuclear industry's claims that emissions of cancer-causing radioactive elements at and around reactors are miniscule and, consequently, harmless. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission insists its staff fully evaluates these issues, and that fallout from atomic testing and the Chernobyl disaster account for most of the radioactive elements that are found to exceed the levels naturally occurring in the air, water and soil. The Public Health department recently rejected a contract proposed in late 2004 by a member of the Radiation & Public Health Project in New York City, in which the state of Connecticut would have participated in a national study of the alleged links between cancer in children and radioactive elements found in baby teeth. Since 1998, Mangano's organization has been collecting teeth from children with cancer to see if levels of the radioactive isotope Strontium 90, the same element tested in goat's milk, correspond to the incidence of cancer in children. Mangano's group has tested tooth samples of 4,800 children in four states with reactors: New York, California, New Jersey and Florida. The group's national coordinator, Joseph Mangano, said Rell's administration led him to believe it would sign the contract but never did. On March 30, public health officials turned him down, he said. At some point, Wiltse said, Rell's administration had transferred $25,000 from social services to public health, the same amount Mangano was seeking for his study, but now plans to use it as seed money for a broader assessment. "It's very unfortunate that they would backtrack on this important health study," Mangano said Friday. Wiltse insisted, however, that Mr. Mangano's proposal was "reviewed, scrutinized" and rejected, and that a more comprehensive approach is needed. Further, if the state determines that federal studies are required, Rell would seek those out, Wiltse said. Nancy Burton, the leader of the coalition, said Rell has refused to meet with her group, and that the DEP and the Department of Public Health have "stonewalled" coalition requests for information. Burton said the offer to demand federal studies is unlikely to yield results. "This is a state issue, front and center," said Burton. "The federal government doesn't care about us." ***************************************************************** 63 The State: 700-ton bomb bad for U.S. www.statenews.com May 16, 2006 What Happened? The Pentagon plans to detonate a 700-ton explosive in Nevada as research into developing weapons that can destroy underground military targets. What it Means? Populations across Nevada are questioning the results of the bomb and whether or not radioactive material will be stirred up. What's Next? Tests are being conducted to more precisely determine the area of contamination. Nevada Test Site Established by President Truman in 1950 and now operated by the Department of Energy, the NTS has been the site of more than 900 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests. Novaya Zemlya Island Site of extensive Soviet atmospheric and underground testing, Novaya Zemlya was the site of the largest thermonuclear device ever tested a 58 megaton bomb detonated on Oct. 23, 1961. We eat organic food. We do yoga. We drive hybrid cars. We blow up massive bombs stirring up radioactive material into the atmosphere. Which one doesn't belong? If all goes as planned, this June, a 700-ton explosive will be detonated 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nev. in a high desert valley bounded by mountains. In an era deemed to be progressive concerning the environment and health, it seems as if our powerful nation has made a misstep. Conducted by the Pentagon, the bomb is part of a test that is code-named "Divine Strake." The test is part of research in developing weapons that can destroy deeply buried military targets, according to the Pentagon. With their eyes on North Korea and Iran, the planners of this test have overlooked one hugely important factor: What will happen here in the United States? The Pentagon estimates the blast could send a cloud of dust more than 10,000 feet into the air. With the dust, radioactive fallout from previous atomic testing in the area could be dispersed. With this in mind, environmental officials in Nevada have demanded additional data from the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, to ensure the test will comply with the state's air quality standards. It's 2006 and we're talking about radioactive fallout, an explosion that will be nearly 50 times bigger than the largest conventional weapon and underground bunkers housing nuclear weapons. Did we mention that it's 2006? Didn't the race toward nuclear arms end with the Cold War? The Winnemucca Indian Colony thought so. With a large percentage of their Nevada population having contracted cancer, which is believed to be caused by exposure to fallout from Cold War nuclear tests, the colony has sued to stop the Divine Strake detonation. So far, they have been successful in postponing the test until after June 23, from its originally scheduled June 2 date. Whether it's the safety of the surrounding people, or just the idea of reverting back to primitive ideals of war and world power, the test seems largely out of place. Needless to say, if the test happens this June, make sure the organic food you buy in the future doesn't come from Nevada. All content 2006 The State News ***************************************************************** 64 [NukeNet] Stop Rokkasho, from Ryuichi Sakamoto Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:30:02 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear friends, Sorry for cross-posting. I hope this message finds you are well. The world renowned artist Ryuichi Sakamoto will launch the website against Rokkasho Reprocessing plant. I dedicated myself to commit this project for these 30 days. Please forward his message to others, and watch out iTMS tomorrow! R. Sakamoto's message ---------------- Here is Ryuichi Sakamoto. We will launch the website on the 17th of May. It's for raising the awareness by the Internet and music/art about the massive radioactive contamination that is occurring at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the village of Rokkasho in Japan's northern Aomori Prefecture. Download the music and watch the video. Making a remix and putting it on the web would be a nice way to spread the word on this cause. --------------- end of message In peace, Mika Ohbayashi -- Director Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies 4-7-3, Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0001, JAPAN phone: +81-3-5318-3331, FAX:+81-3-3319-0330 mobile: +81-90-7263-9494 e-mail: mika@isep.or.jp www.isep.or.jp _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 65 Las Vegas SUN: Temporary nuclear waste storage may be sought due to Yucca delays Today: May 16, 2006 at 13:36:59 PDT By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration says it is willing to store temporarily nuclear power plant waste somewhere other than the delayed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada but needs congressional approval to do so. Paul Golan, the Energy Department official in charge of the project, said the department "continues to have an open mind about interim storage" of the thousands of tons of used reactor fuel now kept at nuclear power plants in 31 states. Golan noted at a Senate hearing Tuesday that $30 million has been included in a House appropriations bill for examining temporary acceptance of some of the waste, pending the completion of the Nevada facility. The nuclear industry and government officials have talked of putting some of the waste at federal facilities run by the Energy Department as part of its nuclear weapons program. Golan, talking to reporters after he testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, decline to suggest an interim site, saying that's a decision "that's going to have to involve a public dialogue." The federal government is obligated under contractual agreement with individual utilities to take the used reactor fuel. A federal storage site was to have been available by 1998. The Yucca Mountain facility, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, won't meet a 2010 completion target and is years behind schedule. Golan declined to give a completion date or even a target of when the department will submit a license for the waste dump to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A schedule and strategy for a license application will be made this summer, he said. Even if the dump opened in 2010 - which had been the target up until a few years ago - the government could be liable for $2 billion to $3 billion in damages "and the liability will grow" for any additional delays, Golan said. Several senators were sharply critical of the long delays in the Yucca facility, which was given a final go-ahead by Congress in 2002. Utilities have paid $18 billion into a nuclear waste fund in anticipation the government would take the waste, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., complained, "and there still isn't a canister in the ground." Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., blamed Nevada officials - who have vigorously fought the Yucca project in court and in Congress - for the delays and directed his criticism at Robert Loux, head of the state agency that has spearheaded the fight against the waste dump. "Flogging Nevada certainly isn't the answer," Loux later told reporters. "I believe any state would do the same thing" if asked to accept the nation's nuclear waste. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the committee's chairman and among the biggest boosters of nuclear power in Congress, suggested the Yucca design may already be outdated and irrelevant in light of the administration's desire to return to reprocessing nuclear fuel. "Confusion is rampant and the time frames are all out of whack," said Domenici. If fuel reprocessing - or recycling, as Domenici and the administration prefer to call it - becomes reality, "we will need a completely different Yucca Mountain," he said. If fuel is recycled, a repository no longer will have to hold complete fuel rods, including the isotopes that will remain dangerous for a million years. Instead it will be used to dispose of material that will lose its radioactivity in a few hundred years. The administration plan for Yucca at this time assumes no design change to accommodate reprocessing, said Golan, even as he acknowledged that the proposed facility - which is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste - will fall short of what will be needed. The Energy Department has begun making preliminary assessments about a second repository. Golan said there are more than 50,000 tons of used reactor fuel at power plants today and that amount will double during the lifetime of the operating reactors. Nevada long has argued that it has no confidence the Energy Department will develop a safe and environmentally protective waste repository. Golan said there is "a strong international scientific consensus that the best and safest option for dealing with this waste is geologic isolation" and that the volcanic ridge at Yucca Mountain is suitable for such a repository. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 66 NEWS.com.au: N-waste moral issue: Anglican leader - Breaking News 24/7 - From: AAP May 16, 2006 AUSTRALIA had a moral obligation to store nuclear waste if it continued to export uranium, a senior Anglican cleric said today. Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile has said the Government should have an open mind about "nuclear leasing", which would require Australia to take back nuclear waste from countries importing its uranium. Prime Minister John Howard, whose overseas tour is expected to include talks on uranium exports, and Treasurer Peter Costello have moved to hose down debate triggered by Mr Vaile's comments. But Canberra Anglican Bishop George Browning, who also chairs the church's international environmental network, said the renewed debate about the nuclear industry was welcome. Bishop Browning said if China and India needed nuclear energy as a bridge until other renewable energy sources became available then Australia probably had an obligation to assist them. "However, if we begin to sell we must act responsibly," Bishop Browning wrote in the latest edition of the church newspaper, Anglican News. "Given that uranium ore can go astray, should we not take more moral responsibility for the destiny of the product by processing the rods here in Australia? "Given that we have one of the most geologically stable continents in the world, should we not also agree to store the waste? "Moral responsibility almost certainly does not end when the raw product is sold." Search for more stories on ***************************************************************** 67 The Australian: Howard flags N-power Steve Lewis, Washington May 17, 2006 AUSTRALIA may consider building nuclear power plants as an alternative source of clean energy and to combat the spiralling price of oil. Signalling a new phase in the uranium debate, John Howard has suggested the Government could issue a white paper outlining the nuclear options for Australia. But the Prime Minister cautioned that the economic case for large-scale nuclear power plants had to be made. "It may be desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants," Mr Howard told reporters in Washington, after meetings with US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. Mr Howard's enthusiasm for a possible nuclear future came after he told Mr Bodman that Australia wanted to be fully consulted over plans for the big six nuclear-power countries - the US, France, China, Britain, Russia and Japan - to forge a new informal trading bloc. But Mr Howard poured cold water on suggestions Australia could become a waste dump for nuclear material from other countries, arguing that this was never contemplated. "What I indicated to (Mr Bodman) is that we would want to be kept fully informed of how this proposal developed. At this stage, Australia is a willing seller of uranium subject to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and our own separate safeguards," he said. "We would continue to want to be in that position, but we would want to be kept informed of any progress towards formation of what could be regarded as a fuel reprocessing group." US President George W. Bush wants a global nuclear energy partnership as part of his push to generate a viable nuclear industry, to reduce Washington's reliance on Middle East oil, and coal. Part of the GNEP plan is for nuclear leasing, under which nuclear countries would provide enriched uranium to other countries for energy purposes, then take back the nuclear waste. With nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, Australia will be a key player in the world nuclear talks, along with Canada, the No2 global supplier of yellowcake. Mr Howard is clearly seeking a public debate on the future of nuclear energy in Australia, arguing that even "radical greenies" had changed their attitude on the use of enriched uranium as an energy source. "I'm attracted to Australia selling uranium to people who want to buy it, not lease it, buy it, in other parts of the world, subject to our obligations under the (nuclear non-proliferation) treaty and subject to our own safeguard arrangements - I'm in favour of that," Mr Howard said. "And I'm in favour at all times of examining whether it is in our national interest to progress the use of nuclear power in Australia. "Now obviously that would include a consideration of whether we should process the uranium here." Whether Australia goes down the nuclear road will depend on whether the process is economically viable. China and India - and more recently Indonesia - want nuclear energy, and Mr Howard does not want Australia to fall behind in the race to satisfy the increasing demand for uranium. But it will be hard for the Government to win public support for nuclear energy, although sections of the Labor Party also back a more open debate. The Democrats said yesterday the Northern Territory could end up with "radioactive waste the rest of the world does not want". Mr Howard refused to rule out the release of a white paper on the nuclear leasing issue, with people increasingly worried about greenhouse gases. Privacy Terms The Australian ***************************************************************** 68 Sydney Morning Herald: PM poo-poos nuke waste plan, critics unsure - www.smh.com.au May 16, 2006 - 7:08PM Prime Minister John Howard appears to have ruled out an American plan to take back nuclear waste from Australian uranium, but critics believe he is still considering an international waste dump in the outback. Mr Howard met US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman in Washington on Tuesday to discuss the idea of nuclear leasing. Under this system, the supplier of nuclear fuel would have responsibility for disposing of it once the leasing country was finished with it. Mr Howard said after the meeting that he had asked to be kept fully informed about the proposal. But he said it did not appear to apply to Australia because Australia was only supplying uranium, not nuclear fuel. "This is an anti-proliferation strategy to reduce the number of countries involved in the processing of uranium, of the developing of nuclear fuel, and obviously Australia would have to take into account its own interests as the repository of such large resources of uranium," Mr Howard said. "The question of waste disposal is an issue for those who process the uranium and develop the nuclear fuel, rather than the supplier of the uranium, which if Australia were to remain a bare exporter, would be the situation pertaining to us." Australia has some of the largest reserves of uranium in the world and intends expanding its exports. "I think what can safely be said about this is that it's a proposal that we want to follow. It's not something that we're proposing at this point." Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison believes Mr Howard is prepared to provide an Australian site for US nuclear waste. "I think it's on the cards," she said. "The PM is so keen to impress President Bush, it wouldn't surprise me if he makes undertakings that down the track he'll try and deliver." Senator Allison said Mr Howard's comments had not ruled out nuclear leasing. "We've seen the government on a number of occasions float a really outrageous idea and then the PM says we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves, that's his usual response," she said. "It's all a question of softening up people and testing his reactions and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see (nuclear leasing) happening." WA Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey showed there is government support for a nuclear dump, saying he would rather have nuclear waste brought back to Australia in an orderly way. "I prefer the cradle-to-grave process because really, you don't know where the stuff is until you take it back," he told The West Australian newspaper. But Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said Mr Tuckey's comments merely showed there were problems with nuclear waste and proliferation. Mr Albanese said Mr Howard was clearly in negotiation with the Bush administration on these very issues. "Nuclear leasing is being put on the agenda, and the reason why it's being put on the agenda just highlights that the intractable problems of nuclear waste and proliferation associated with the nuclear fuel cycle remain," he said. "(As for Treasurer) Peter Costello's comments yesterday, where he said, 'That's not the issue, the issue is mining and export of uranium,' well, I'm afraid that is the issue. "You can't disregard the consequences of an activity. In law it's described as reckless indifference." International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Claude Mandil also cast doubt on nuclear leasing on Tuesday. He told The Australian Financial Review newspaper that nuclear energy could not be treated the same as other forms of energy in regard to international transport. "Nuclear waste is the responsibility of the country that has produced it," he said. AAP ***************************************************************** 69 Centre Daily Times: Eyes on I-99 future 05/16/2006 | Long-term effects of cleanup plan studied By Mike Joseph [Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Management Specialist Dan Alters gives a presentation on the state Department of Transportation's application for a DEP permit to clean up the acid rock drainage at Skytop at a public meeting on Monday, May 15, 2006 ] CDT/Craig Houtz Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Management Specialist Dan Alters gives a presentation on the state Department of Transportation's application for a DEP permit to clean up the acid rock drainage at Skytop at a public meeting on Monday, May 15, 2006 More photos PATTON TOWNSHIP -- Scientists and laymen alike Monday sought assurances from state officials that the effects of a proposed acid-rock drainage cleanup at Skytop will indeed be long-lasting without thrusting the water contamination problem into the laps of their grandchildren. "What about this material?" Huston Township resident Nancy Bachman, a retired school teacher who grew up in the Bald Eagle Valley, told state road builders and environmental regulators. "How good is it and how long is it going to last? Are we going to have to do this all over again?" "It's an extremely important problem," added Penn State hydrogeologist Richard Parizek, a longtime presidential appointee to the 11-member U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which provides technical oversight of activities associated with isolation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nev. "I just want to get it right," Parizek said. "Save our taxpayers money and let us get on with our lives." The meeting between state officials and the public at the Park Forest Middle School came at a Department of Environmental Protection hearing on the Transportation Department's $14 million plan to treat acid-bearing rocks that will remain at the Interstate 99 construction site five miles west of State College. PennDOT in 2003 unearthed massive amounts of pyrite-laced sandstone -- enough to fill a train stretching from here to Harrisburg -- and has been trying to decide what to do with it ever since. When exposed to air and water, pyrite creates metal-dissolving sulfuric acid and can devastate streams and ground water. PennDOT plans to truck two thirds of its pyritic rocks, about a million tons, to a Worth Township disposal site and treat the rest in place. Tucker Ferguson, the PennDOT central-office official overseeing cleanup plans, told about 100 people in Monday night's audience that PennDOT will cover mountainside cut faces and pyritic fill areas with rain-proof covers, anchored by cables, and pump acidic drainage through a pipe over the Skytop crest to a 100,000-gallon storage tank in Huston Township. From the storage tank, the drainage would be trucked out of the area for treatment until PennDOT has enough flow-pattern information to decide how big a treatment plant to build. "We're not really sure of the amount of water we're going to get," Ferguson said. Parizek told PennDOT it should instead consider a more passive system so the state will not have to spend so much -- the other part of the plan costs about $26 million -- to truck rocks to a disposal site three miles away. He said the plan to pump water indefinitely could lead to the abandonment of needed mechanical repairs and pump replacement if doing so turned too costly in the future. Ground water flows need to be mapped so that a French drain -- an underground passageway for water -- can be dug to capture and convey drainage to a passive treatment system on the Bald Eagle Creek side of Skytop. He said modern drilling techniques can cut a downward slanting borehole a thousand feet or more underground to greatly reduce the need to maintain pumping equipment above ground. "Use gravity," Parizek said. "The rock is going to be here long after we're all dead. Use the geology and hydrology that God gave us and minimize long-term costs. ... You want passive -- you want a passive system. This gets rid of that problem forever." PennDOT's Ferguson told Parizek he would consider the idea, and Ferguson repeated that commitment after the meeting. "I think we want to meet with him and talk about all of these issues," Ferguson said. Some approved of PennDOT's plan. Wilhelm Kogelmann, president of Alpine Equipment Corp. of State College, a company that provides heavy-duty excavating services, said the "the basic system is sound and fine." Patton Township manager Doug Erickson agreed. He said during a break in the meeting that long-term monitoring will be required but added: "It seems like they've got it under control." DEP officials said they will accept written comments on their plan for Skytop until May 31. Mike Joseph can be reached at 235-3910. News | ***************************************************************** 70 BYU NewsNet: LDS Church speaks out on nuclear waste By David Kimball - 16 May 2006 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has, in the past, spoken out on moral issues such as gambling and same-sex marriage. Practices like gambling and same-sex marriage are clearly prohibited in church doctrine and the lines are clearly drawn. When it comes to politics, however, the church has urged members to be active in their communities, educate themselves on the issues at hand and make their own educated decisions. That's why the church's recent statement urging the federal government to seek alternative solutions to the storage and disposal of nuclear waste in Utah raised a few eyebrows. The issue at hand involves a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste at the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Tooele County. Officials say the site is safe for storage, but Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and many other Utahns and environmentalists don't want nuclear waste in their backyards. In a statement to the media released May 4, the First Presidency of the LDS Church added its voice to the fray and offered its own perspective. "The transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste create substantial and legitimate public health, safety, and environmental concerns," the First Presidency said in the press release. "It is not reasonable to suggest that any one area bear a disproportionate burden of the transportation and concentration of nuclear waste. We ask the federal government to harness the technological and creative power of the country to develop options for the disposal of nuclear waste." On the surface, the issue seems more political than moral. Gay marriage and gambling are both highly political and moral issues, so why would the church pick this issue to comment on? "It's hard to say why they pick and choose certain issues," said Richard Davis, a professor of political science at BYU. "They [the church] are concerned about how this affects the state. They know this is the center of the church and one could argue they are setting an example for members in other places on how to act in these situations." Davis said the storage of nuclear waste could affect the way Utahns live in their environment, making nuclear waste storage a moral issue. Davis also said it is, in fact, a moral issue because it deals with "polluting and destroying the world God gave us." Richard O. Cowan, church history and doctrine professor at BYU, also said nuclear waste storage is a moral issue. "What constitutes a 'moral issue'? One that would impact our ability to live the gospel," Cowan said. Cowan said the church's interest lies in protecting its members. Because there is a large concentration of members in the area of the Skull Valley site and Utah in general, the church wants to protect its "home territory." Cowan also said such a site that would contain so much nuclear waste would be a prime target for bomb attacks. If attacked, a large concentration of members could be lost, greatly affecting church members and membership. Whether or not the church's statement will affect the final decision is yet to be seen. The Bureau of Land Management is in the process of reviewing over 7,000 messages, comments and letters regarding the issue from people across the nation. Copyright, BYU NewsNet ***************************************************************** 71 BYU NewsNet: Utah leaders fight nuclear proposal By Amy Brennan - 16 May 2006 Provo Mayor Lewis Billings"We are the place where cars come in and are stopped and switched. If there was ever to be any delay, we could have large periods of time with very large quantities of waste in our city." More Utahns than Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Sen. Orrin Hatch are saying "no way" to nuclear waste in Utah. A plan to transport and store nuclear waste in the state recently prompted more than 7,000 comments, mostly negative, to the Bureau of Land Management during the 90-day public comment period that ended last week. Utah's federal delegation and Huntsman are among those who have recently submitted letters to the BLM opposing the plan, which has been underway for several years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license to Private Fuel Storage in February to operate a temporary nuclear waste storage facility. The project involves transporting nuclear waste by rail from across the nation to the northern end of Skull Valley. From there, PFS will operate a transfer facility adjacent to the Union Pacific main line. From the facility, waste will be moved to trucks and driven 26 miles to Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County to be stored at a site in above-ground casks. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said this is a temporary solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage needs until the federal government opens a permanent repository. Planning for the project, Martin said, has been extensive. "We have spent the last eight and a half years thoroughly investigating every possible environmental and safety concern in great detail," she said. David McIntyre, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the company met all requirements for the project. "Our reviews were concerned with whether the company could transport and store this waste safely at the facility they proposed, and we determined they could," he said. McIntyre also said above-ground storage methods are used at several points throughout the country and are safe. However, not everyone is convinced. On May 5, Utah's representatives sent a letter to the BLM expressing concern and highlighting safety concerns regarding the nuclear waste. "It may only be a matter of time before an accidental aircraft crash would lead to a dangerous breech," wrote Utah Reps. Rob Bishop, Jim Matheson and Chris Cannon. Provo City Mayor Lewis Billings said because Provo is home to a large railroad yard, the city could be at risk. "We are the place where cars come in and are stopped and switched," Billings said. "If there was ever to be any delay, we could have periods of time with very large quantities of waste in our city." Many are not happy Utah will bear the nation's nuclear waste burden. Christine Tincher, spokeswoman for the BLM, said the issue is emotional for many people and the bureau is not surprised by the public interest. Reviewing public comment will likely take several months because "each comment will be considered very carefully," Tincher said. "The public has an opportunity to let us know if we have missed something." Copyright, BYU NewsNet ***************************************************************** 72 reviewjournal.com: Hecht, former U.S. senator, dies in LV May 16, 2006 His defeat of Howard Cannon in 1982 might be biggest political upset in Nevada history By ED VOGEL
REVIEW-JOURNAL Chic Hecht, a former U.S. senator from Nevada, died Monday in Las Vegas. Review-Journal file photo Freshman Sen. Chic Hecht re-enacts his swearing-in ceremony with Vice President George H.W. Bush in the Old Senate Chambers of the U.S. Capitol Jan. 3, 1983. Hecht served one term in the Senate but was defeated in his bid for a second term. After that, he served for five years as the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, before returning to private business. The Associated Press file photo Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht, a Las Vegas ladies' clothing store owner whose congenial personality propelled him to a 1982 Senate victory in perhaps the biggest political upset in Nevada history, died Monday afternoon from prostate cancer complications. He was 77. Hecht had been hospitalized at Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center for nearly three weeks. For much of that time, his wife, Gail, and daughters Leslie and Lori were at his side. Arrangements for a private family funeral are pending. A public memorial celebration of his life will be conducted in a few weeks. A humble man who refused to take personally insults from political opponents, Republican Hecht served in the U.S. Senate from 1983 to 1989 and was the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas from 1989 to 1994. He served in the state Senate from 1967 to 1975, including two years as Senate minority leader. During his political career, he led the move that lifted the 55 mph speed limit and also worked with President Reagan to persuade the Soviet Union to lift restrictions on the emigration of Jews. Hecht, who spoke with a lisp, exhibited none of the slickness of the powerful people who usually inhabit the halls of Congress. "He was a humble guy, a genuine guy," said former Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, R-Nev. "People always underestimated Chic. He was very proud of his heritage, very proud of his family and very involved in raising his daughters." Former Sen. Paul Laxalt, R-Nev., called Hecht "one of the gutsiest politicians" he ever knew. "Regardless of how the political winds might be blowing, Chic staunchly defended his cherished ideas," Laxalt said. "His basic philosophy could be summed up in an old truism I often heard him quote: 'Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.' " "Chic was very shrewd, an extraordinarily successful businessmen who had real political insights," added former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., who defeated Hecht in the 1988 Senate race but remained friends with him for life. "He was a very gracious guy." U.S. District Judge Philip Pro, whom Hecht nominated to the bench in 1986, said he was a man who lacked pretense and never uttered a negative work about anyone. "He always had a smile," Pro said. "What you saw was what you got. He was very kind to everyone." The Wall Street Journal once dubbed Hecht a "walking gaffe machine" for his malapropisms, such as referring to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository as a "nuclear suppository" shortly after his election to the Senate in 1982. He also infuriated U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., in 1989 when he said he would welcome an appointment to the ambassadorship of the Bahamas, noting, "I love golf and they have a lot of nice golf courses and good fishing." But his enthusiasm and candor also led to Hecht's popularity. He once said Nevadans appreciated him because he "didn't make a lot of promises or give all the slick political answers." No Jew in Nevada ever held as high a political office as did Hecht. His defeat of 24-year Senate veteran Howard Cannon, D-Nev., was described by state Archivist Guy Rocha as the biggest upset in Nevada politics. Polls had shown Cannon with a 13 percentage point lead two weeks before the 1982 election. Cannon had been weakened because of a bitter primary campaign against Jim Santini, because he had backed turning the Panama Canal over to Panama and because had been mentioned in a Teamsters' trucking scandal. "Only in America could this happen," Hecht said after that victory. "Put that down. That's what makes America great." Hecht made similar comments on July 12, 1988, after Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., saved his life by performing the Heimlich maneuver to dislodge a slice of apple stuck in his throat. He had been eating in a Senate lunch room and stumbled into the hallway gasping for air when Kerry stepped off an elevator and immediately saw he could not breathe. "This says something about America," Hecht said. "That's the difference between America and another country. He's targeted me as the No. 1 (to defeat), yet he saves my life." Every year Hecht would call Kerry on the anniversary of that incident and thank him for saving his life. He also contributed $2,000 to Kerry's unsuccessful candidacy for the presidency in 2004. Despite political differences, Bryan said as state lawmakers he and Hecht would drive to Carson City at the beginning of legislative sessions and then drive home at the end. When Bryan announced he would retire from the U.S. Senate in 2002, he said the first call he received was from Hecht, inviting him to dinner in Las Vegas. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., noted he served with Hecht both in the Legislature and in the U.S. Senate. "We represented different parties, but we always had a very good relationship," Reid said. "Chic had a wonderful family and he had a great career in business and politics." Although politicians and Hecht himself joked about his operating Chic Hecht's Women's Apparel at 413 Fremont St., next door to his father's business, he became a multi-millionaire businessman. He served on the board of directors of Nevada State Bank for 20 years and in 1980 became a partner in Sam's Town. He also opened Sam's Town Western Emporium clothing store. Boyd Gaming Chairman Bill Boyd said he was a close friend of Hecht who last saw him just before he went into the hospital. The two owned property together, and Hecht had served on the gaming company's board of directors. Hecht was one of the original stockholders of Boyd Gaming. Hecht's death is a "big loss to our community," Boyd said. Born Jacob Hecht on Nov. 30, 1928, in Cape Giradeau, Mo., Hecht received a bachelor of science degree in retailing from Washington University in St. Louis in 1949. He received the nickname "Chic" (pronounced "chick") about a week after his birth. A relative thought the baby should get into movies and needed a Hollywood name. Hecht remarked during a political campaign that he had "spent about a quarter million dollars" on store advertising so that he would be known as Chic. Soon after graduation, he was drafted into the Army and served as an intelligence officer in Berlin during the Korean War. Hecht knew Russian and some German and often worked undercover for the predecessor agency of the Central Intelligence Agency behind the Iron Curtain. "He was extremely bright and loyal," said Francine Pulliam, who managed Hecht's real estate investments and began working for him when he opened the clothing store in 1953. It is remarkable, she said, "when someone can be a spy for a year behind the lines in Germany and be a Jew." Hecht was named to the Army Intelligence Hall of Fame in 1988. Hecht was a favorite of Reagan, according to Laxalt, having supported him over Richard Nixon at the 1968 Republican convention. As president, Reagan would campaign for Hecht in Nevada in 1982 and 1988. Nevada Gaming Commissioner Art Marshall said his friend deserves some credit for concessions made by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on Jews emigrating. According to Marshall, Reagan gave a copy of Hecht's request for concessions to Gorbachev when they met at a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1986. "He was a politician whose only agenda was the people he represented," Marshall said. "He was a totally honest man." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 73 Brattleboro Reformer: VY offers state dry cask fund deal By KRISTI CECCAROSSI and ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Tuesday, May 16 BRATTLEBORO -- Owners of Vermont Yankee pitched the state a deal Monday, with the hope of settling plans to build a nuclear waste site on the plant's grounds. Entergy Nuclear outlined how it would pay for the waste site through the full decommissioning of Vermont Yankee, which could not be completed until 2082. The proposal was a requirement from the Public Service Board, which gave Entergy conditional approval for so-called dry cask storage last month. The board wanted proof from Entergy that it would absorb the financial burden of dry cask storage between the time the plant is permanently shut down and when the plant owners get access to Vermont Yankee's federal decommissioning fund. But Entergy's offer could fall short of what the Public Service Board was looking for; either way, Entergy would like a response from board members soon. Officials plan to begin construction of the dry cask storage site as soon as next week. Rob Williams, spokesman for the plant, said Entergy aims to stick to that schedule. Entergy also plans to start moving spent fuel into the casks by the fall of 2007. Dry cask storage is necessary for Entergy to keep the plant operating, at least until 2012, when its federal license and its contract with state utilities expires. Plant officials say the plant's fuel pool -- where waste is now stored -- will run out of space by 2008. Nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, the Windham Regional Commission and the state's Department of Public Service were all parties to the dry cask storage case. No organization opposed construction of the casks, but raised serious questions asked about the safety and financial risks attached to them. Especially because Entergy is seeking a 20-year extension to the plant's license and has recently boosted the plant's power output to 20 percent more than its original capacity. That's all likely to mean more nuclear waste for Vermont. Few are putting faith in federal promises to ship it to a permanent site. The Public Service Board, after two weeks of technical hearings in February, found that a dry cask storage site "can occur without undue harm to the natural environment, without increased safety risk and without affecting the reliability of Vermont Yankee." The board gave Entergy permission to build six containers, weighing 190 tons each, and standing about 11 feet across. But the board's OK came with three conditions: that Entergy show "financial assurances" that it would manage the waste through decommission; that Entergy has permission to store waste only until the plant's current license expires; and that Entergy may not store waste from any site other than Vermont Yankee at its Vernon property. During the quasi-judicial proceedings over dry cask, the Department of Public Service -- which advocated for state ratepayers in the case -- argued for a greater financial guaranty from Entergy and its parent company. Entergy insisted the state didn't have the authority to regulate its financial commitment on dry cask storage, but the Public Service Board disagreed. And apparently, Entergy has now acquiesced. The proposal Entergy offered the board Monday says, roughly: if, at the time Vermont Yankee is shut down, Entergy Corp.'s debt is rated below investment grade, then Entergy Corp. would instruct Entergy Nuclear (a limited liability corporation that owns the plant) to get a third-party credit line. That credit would be enough to cover the cost of maintaining the dry cask storage for six months. But what is the cost of maintaining dry cask storage for six months? Entergy doesn't know for certain. In its letter to the Public Service Board, officials said they would conduct a study to determine, essentially, how much money the company is pledging to the state. Last week, the New England Coalition asked the Public Service Board to reconsider its approval of dry cask storage. The coalition contends that the board ignored evidence that suggested it would be safer to contain the storage casks in earthen mounds, rather than concrete and steel containers. Technical Advisor Ray Shadis said the mounds would provide added protection against the escape of radiation, and added that they could hide the casks and protect against terrorism. On Monday, Shadis said the coalition had not yet heard back from the board about when they would consider the request to reconsider their approval. It's possible Entergy could file its own appeal of the Public Service Board's order. On Monday Williams, plant spokesman, said "that option is still open." ***************************************************************** 74 Norway Post: Regrets re-opening of Sellafield plant Wed, 17.05.2006 Regrets re-opening of Sellafield plant Envionmental Minister Helen Bjoernoey regrets that the British Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant probably will be re-opened sometime this year. The plant was closed last year, following a serious leak. More than 80,000 litres of highly radioactive waste leaked into the sea during a period of 8 months. The plant will be allowed to re-open, despite the fact that British authorities has charged the operator with breach of security regulations, NRK Radio reports. Environmental Minister Helen Bjoernoey says she regrets the decision, and has informed the British authorities of the Norwegian view. (NRK) Rolleiv Solholm Imaker Content Management Systems - 1996 - 2005 Imaker as ***************************************************************** 75 Telegraph: Australia split over uranium boom By Nick Squires in Olympic Dam (Filed: 16/05/2006) The prospect of building a radioactive dump for much of the world's nuclear waste has bitterly divided opinion in Australia, which stands to reap billions of pounds from a bonanza in uranium sales. Australia has around 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves and is soon likely to overtake Canada as the biggest uranium exporter. A deal was struck last month to sell an estimated 12 billion of uranium to China, and the government is also considering selling yellowcake (uranium concentrate) to India. But environmental groups are implacably opposed to any expansion of uranium mining and condemn nuclear energy as dangerous, dirty and costly. Amid lingering public disquiet over the safety of nuclear power, the government is enthusiastically backing uranium mining. It has canvassed the prospect of a "cradle to grave" system in which Australia would sell its uranium to approved countries and then take back the spent fuel and reprocess it or store it in an Outback dump. The prime minister, John Howard, is on a visit to America and is expected to discuss the concept with President Bush today. It would allow Australia to sell uranium to countries such as India which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a prospect which Greenpeace described as "unconscionable". The epicentre of Australia's revived uranium industry is the Olympic Dam mine, 350 miles north of Adelaide. A 3 billion expansion of the mine is being planned in which a giant open pit nearly two miles wide and 3,000 ft deep will be dug. Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 76 AU ABC: Aust has no plans to take back uranium waste - PM. 16/05/2006. ABC News Online "Prime Minister John Howard has asked the United States to keep Australia fully informed about its plans to create a group of countries involved in processing uranium." border="1" class="featurepic" /> Prime Minister John Howard has asked the United States to keep Australia fully informed about its plans to create a group of countries involved in processing uranium. (ABC) [ border=] Aust has no plans to take back uranium waste: PM Prime Minister John Howard says Australia has no plans to take back waste from uranium it exports. Mr Howard says he has asked the United States to keep Australia fully informed about its plans to create a group of countries involved in processing uranium. The plan will limit the number of countries processing nuclear fuel and includes a proposal for the supplier to take back the waste for disposal. But Mr Howard says Australia would sell uranium which is not a nuclear fuel. "I just think we should say ... this is a proposal that has been made in very general terms - it might happen, it might not happen and because we have a lot of uranium we want to be kept informed," he said. ***************************************************************** 77 Tri-City Herald: Feds recommend Hanford slowdown Published Monday, May 15th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Continuing to delay construction on key parts of Hanford's vitrification plant could save money by reducing false starts and delays when the plant begins operating, the Government Accountability Office said Friday. Representatives of the federal agency defended its recommendation to end the "fast track" approach to the plant's construction at a Friday committee meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board in Richland. But the state questioned the wisdom of any action that might slow the project, saying there's been nothing fast about the project so far and tanks holding radioactive waste waiting to be processed are deteriorating. "There's a lot of uncertainty about when the single-shell tanks will look more like colanders than tanks," said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal project manager for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Also at the meeting, Bechtel National said it expects the estimate of the plant's cost will be somewhat higher than the current preliminary estimate of $11.3 billion when a detailed cost estimate is completed by the end of the month. Since 2000, the cost of the plant has increased from $4.3 billion. It's planned to turn radioactive waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program into a stable glass form. The waste is now held in aging underground tanks. The GAO is recommending that 90 percent of the design be completed before construction resumes on two huge buildings that will handle high-level radioactive waste at the plant. Construction stopped on the High Level Waste Facility and the Pretreatment Facility, which will cover the equivalent of four football fields, this year because of a reduced budget and technical and management problems. In what's been called a fast track or design-build approach, construction was started on the plant with the design far from complete. But the new standard in the nuclear industry is to complete the design before construction begins, said Tom Perry of the GAO. "Design-build increases the risk projects will need major work to operate successfully," Perry said. "Retrofitting is very expensive." But Jerry Peltier, a HAB board member, said the sheer complexity of nuclear plants fuels many design changes as construction proceeds. Design-build is common on nuclear projects, he said. "A lot of people after they are done say that is not ideal," but starting construction only after the design is completed never happens, he said. In the past, many nuclear plants were built on a fast track approach, Perry agreed, and as a result their costs were much higher. But the design-build strategy appears to be at a turning point, Perry said. As three consortia plan the next generation of nuclear power plants, they are talking about having the design 99 percent complete, he said. "Our view is the record is not very good on the fast track approach, not only for this facility but for other nuclear facilities across the nation," said Bill Swick of the GAO. However, Dahl pointed out that the design-build concept continues to be used by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy for its large projects. There's a difference in urgency in building a plant to supply power and to get millions of gallons of radioactive waste out of aging underground tanks, Dahl said. "At this time we're two decades beyond the reasonable objectives everyone signed up for," she said. DOE was supposed to be turning waste into glass in 1999, she pointed out. But now the plant is not expected to be operating until possibly 2018 based on the fast track approach. If the vitrification plant is the only facility used to treat the waste, the waste will not be treated until 2093, according to the state. If a supplemental treatment is approved, the waste still will not be treated until 2040. As management and technical problems piled up last year, a series of independent reviews of the plant were ordered. "All in some way validated the path we're on now," Dahl said. None said the work could be done cheaper or more quickly, she said. Although the plant has been built on a fast track approach, Bechtel National cannot build any part of the plant until the design for that portion is completed, the state has reviewed the design and the state has issued a permit, Dahl said. That includes tanks that will hold radioactive waste within the plant, she pointed out. CBS's 60 Minutes earlier this month criticized Bechtel National for installing the first large tank in the plant even though Bechtel knew the tank was faulty. Bechtel knew there were problems with the tank welds when it was delivered and still lying on its side in a receiving yard, Dahl said. The tank needed to be set upright for a thorough check, and DOE and Bechtel agreed that the safest way to do that was to set it on the skirt built for the tank at the plant, she said. The tank was moved to the skirt but not permanently fastened in place immediately, she said. More problems were discovered and fixed, Bechtel said. Many mistakes have been made on the project, but they are being corrected, said DOE. There was a time when construction caught up to within a few months of the design, but from now on construction should lag design and engineering by about a year, said John Eschenberg, DOE's project manager for the plant. The preliminary estimate of $11.3 billion also includes a more realistic budget of about $3 billion for contingency costs, up from the $650 million set in April 2003, he said. Part of the increase also comes from increasing the plant's capacity. The current preliminary estimate seems very roughly comparable to the costs of building a vitrification plant in Savannah River, S.C., to treat radioactive tank waste there, he said. It cost $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion and began operating in 1996, he said. A decade later construction costs have gone up considerably and the Hanford plant's building will have a footprint about four times larger. 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 78 Albuquerque Tribune: Report: No brain drain at lab By Associated Press May 16, 2006 About 95 percent of Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have responded to job offers from a new management team, dispelling earlier fears that moving from one manager to another would cause a brain drain at the nuclear weapons lab. Jeff Berger, a spokesman for the lab's incoming manager, Los Alamos National Security LLC, declined to disclose how many of the employees had accepted jobs with the new manager. Employees can send back responses declining to continue working for the lab, but Berger said he thinks a "vast majority" of the respondents are likely to stay at the northern New Mexico lab. Monday was the deadline for employees to respond to the job offers before Los Alamos National Security takes over June 1. 2006 The Albuquerque Tribune | | ***************************************************************** 79 Guardian Unlimited: N.M. Lab Workers Respond to Job Offers From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 16, 2006 6:16 AM By HEATHER CLARK Associated Press Writer ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - About 95 percent of Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have responded to job offers from a new management team, dispelling earlier fears that moving from one manager to another would cause a brain drain at the nuclear weapons lab. Jeff Berger, a spokesman for the lab's incoming manager, Los Alamos National Security LLC, declined to disclose how many of the employees had accepted jobs with the new manager. Employees can send back responses declining to continue working for the lab, but Berger said he thinks a ``vast majority'' of the respondents are likely to stay at the northern New Mexico lab. ``We're pleased to be at that number,'' Berger said. Monday was the deadline for employees to respond to the job offers before Los Alamos National Security takes over June 1. Under LANS' contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, the corporation was required to make job offers to all but a ``couple dozen'' senior managers, Berger has said. About 9,500 people work at Los Alamos. The lab's management contract was put out for bid after a series of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement. LANS is a team headed by the Bechtel Corp. and the lab's former sole manager, the University of California. Last fall and earlier this year, lab employees and retirees expressed fears that many workers would not accept jobs with LANS or would take early retirement. They also worried that the transition would discourage talented physics graduates from seeking jobs at the lab. More recently, employees and retirees had mixed feelings about the way job offers were handled. The University Professional and Technical Employees Union, which represents some lab employees, is challenging the legality of the job offers. The union's lawsuit filed in California Superior Court alleges workers were forced to make ``truly impossible and coerced'' decisions. The plaintiffs are seeking a longer period to make a decision about their future employment and benefits, said union president Manny Trujillo. They also want a chance to reconsider their decision should the litigation bring new information to light, he said. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 80 Tri-City Herald: Hanford Reach center cost may drop by as much as $2 million Published Tuesday, May 16th, 2006 By Elena Olmstead, Herald staff writer The price tag may seem large at $49 million, but the cost of the Hanford Reach interpretive center project could be shrinking. Changes to the three phases of the project could potentially cut the cost of the interpretive center by as much as $2 million, said project manager Ron Hicks. The original plan for the project called for the first phase to include nothing more than groundwork at the 50-acre site on Richland's Columbia Point. The second phase included construction of most of the interpretive center, with the exception of the education wing. The wing was to be shelled in during the second phase and completed during the third phase of the project, along with the construction of office space. The first two phases were expected to cost $37 million, and the third phase would be completed when money was available. But Monday, Hicks told members of the Richland Public Facilities District that not including the education wing in the second phase could help save a little cash. Shelling in the wing would have cost $2 million. Moving the wing to the third phase and separating it from the main building, Hicks said, will cut costs and improve fundraising potential. Instead of people seeing a shelled-in, unused section of the building, visitors to the interpretive center will find the educational exhibit housed in a temporary space. Hicks and the rest of the board are hoping the lack of an education wing will prompt more donations to build it. That isn't the only cost savings that has come with the help of Roen Associates, a cost estimating and construction management firm. The firm has overseen the design work done by the project architect, Jones and Jones. Hicks says that since design work started on the 61,000-square-foot interpretive center, Roen Associates has helped save more than $1 million by suggesting the use of less expensive materials. He said the firm also suggested the cost-saving measure of using stamped concrete instead of stone in certain areas of the building. 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 81 DOE: Proposed Agency Information Collection Submitted for OMB Review FR Doc E6-7413 [Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 28311-28312] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16my06-56] and Comment AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for OMB review and comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Office of Science reports annually in the President's Budget Request the numbers of researchers, post docs, graduate students and technicians supported through Research Grants and Field Work Proposals (FWPs). However, these data are based on forecasts by the principal investigator (i.e., PIs) at the time the grants and FWPs were initially funded. These estimates are unreliable because they are based on the best guess of the PIs at the time of funding. While the PI's initial estimate could be accurate at the time of the request, the reliability of the initial estimate decreases as the project matures. Further, the forecasts by the PIs are subjective. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify the inaccuracies with any confidence. To better plan for future investments, the Office of Science must better understand the actual impact of its budget on the technical manpower supported. A short (approximately 17 minutes) web-based survey has been developed to collect actual workforce data from a small sample of researchers currently supported by the Office of Science. The result will be compared to proposal data to estimate the average and range of variation and to derive a statistically valid methodology for approximating budgetary impacts on the technical manpower supported. DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before June 15, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-3087. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. (Comments should also be addressed to Jeffrey Martus, Records Management Division IM-11/Germantown Bldg., Office of Business and Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, and to [[Page 28312]] Christine A. Chalk, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christine A. Chalk. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains: (1) OMB No. ``New''; (2) Package Title: DOE 2005 Technical Manpower Online Survey (3) Type of Review: New; (4) Purpose: {enter a brief description of the need for the information and its proposed use{time} ; (5) Respondents: 366; (6) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: Approximately 17 minutes per respondent times 366 respondents is 103.7 hours. Statutory Authority: Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, as amended) Sec. 209 defines the duty and the responsibilities of the Director of Office of Science to include: Advising the Secretary with respect to education and training activities required for effective short and long-term basic and applied research activities of the Department; and Advising the Secretary with respect to grants and other forms of financial assistance required for effective short and long-term basic and applied research activities of the Department. Jeffrey Martus, Records Management Division, Office of Business and Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer (IM-11). [FR Doc. E6-7413 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************