*****************************************************************
05/19/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.119
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] Iran secrecy widens gap on nuclear intelligence
2 [NYTr] Iran now enriching home-processed uranium
3 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran's Snub Calls for New EU Offer
4 IRNA: Larijani, ElBaradei discuss ways to solve Iran's nuclear probl
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani, ElBaradei meet in Vienna
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran's N-plan progressing under NPT
7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Russia to complete Bushehr plant 2007
8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: America's plots are doomed to fail
9 AFP: Iran's promises cooperation with UN inspectors
10 AFP: Oman urges direct US-Iran talks on nuclear row
11 AFP: EU offers reactors, fuel in draft Iran nuclear proposal -
12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Minister Was Against Regional Crisis
13 AFP: Indonesia wants expanded team to discuss nuclear issue with Ira
14 [NYTr] Ooh... N.Korea Has New Long-Range Missiles!
15 Korea Herald: Koreas hold economic cooperation talks
16 Xinhua: Indonesian President to visit DPRK, ROK
17 AFP: Indonesia to urge N. Korea to return to six-nation talks -
18 Comment is free: Springtime in North Korea
19 AFP: Annan in China with NKorea, Iran on agenda
20 Guardian Unlimited: Movement Observed at N.Korea Missile Site
21 AFP: US to make peace moves with North Korea if it returns to nuclea
22 Guardian Unlimited: Rice leads push for US to open talks on peace
23 [NYTr] Bush's Atomic Deal w/India: Signed, but Coming Undone
24 Daily Times: US ‘has options’ if radicals get hold of Pakistani nuke
NUCLEAR REACTORS
25 US: NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection at Kewaunee Nuclear Plant
26 US: CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Nuclear energy officials see hope for indust
27 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: PG sees hope in nuclear
28 US: Seattle Times: Vestige of region's nuclear designs to be implode
29 BBC: Why is Blair backing nuclear?
30 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Environmental Review Associated w
31 US: SF Chron: Nuclear backers' energy surges / They say alternative
32 EBR: Blair gives green light to nuclear, but hard part is delivery -
33 TheStar.com: Harper plays up nuclear energy
34 US: Vermont Guardian: Tilting at turbines: Why The Burlington Free P
35 ANTARA News: RI, S Korea to sign MoU on nuclear cooperation
36 US: Vermont Guardian: Nuclear powers evil twin & A better place
37 CBC New Brunswick: Nuclear commission won't reveal details of
38 Comment is free: Nuclear power? No thanks
39 US: HVN: Rockland lawmakers demand nuclear power industry reimbursem
40 AU ABC: PM anticipates intense nuclear debate.
41 icWales: Nuclear plants reveal one fire and leaks
42 UPI: Russia to build new nuclear station
43 AFP: China to build six more nuclear reactors in southeast
44 Guardian Unlimited: Tally of mishaps hits Blair's nuclear hopes
45 Sydney Morning Herald: PM keen on nuclear power -
NUCLEAR SECURITY
46 Bellona: Military prosecutors share Bellona’s concern over vandalise
47 Bellona: Second Typhoon being defuelled
NUCLEAR SAFETY
48 MSN: Japanese officials investigate small radioactive leak at nuclea
49 US: Green Party of Utah: Desert Greens Candidates Oppose Divine Stra
50 News & Star: Safety incidents at nuclear plants
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
51 US: The State: House leaves out money for MOX
52 Typically Spanish: Nuclear waste - not in my back yard! -
53 US: NWTRB: Calendar
54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Backer says N-dump plan not for Utah
55 US: Sydney Morning Herald: We must move to nuclear fuel - PM -
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
56 [NukeNet] UC/Livermore Lab Site 300 BSL-4 proposal update
57 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Livermore concerned lab may be criticized at for
58 islandpacket.com: House committee nixes $368M budget for SRS project
59 lamonitor.com: Groundwater concerns addressed
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Iran secrecy widens gap on nuclear intelligence
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:24:39 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[How to make enemies and influence others in exactly the direction
you DON'T want them to go. Thanks, George.-NYTr]
The International Herald Tribune - May 19, 2006
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/05/19/news/nukes.p
Iran secrecy widens gap on nuclear intelligence
William J. Broad and Elaine Sciolino
The New York Times
South of Tehran, the desert gives way to barbed wire, antiaircraft guns and
a maze of buildings, two of them cavernous underground halls roughly half
the size of the Pentagon.
International inspectors could once freely roam the 20 or so main buildings
there, at the Natanz uranium enrichment complex. Operating more like police
detectives than scientists, they combined painstaking sleuthing with a
knowledge of physics and engineering in an effort to ascertain the site's
true mission, war or peace.
But in February, after three years of unusual openness, Iran drastically
reduced access to Natanz and dozens of other atomic sites, programs and
personnel.
No longer can the inspectors, from the International Atomic Energy Agency,
swab machines, scoop up bits of soil, study invoices, monitor videotapes,
peek behind closed doors, interview workers and gather seemingly innocuous
clues.
Now they can track only a narrow range of operations involving radioactive
material, and even then only with cumbersome restrictions.
As a result, the world is losing much of its ability to answer the most
pressing questions about Iran's nuclear ambitions: how fast Tehran could
make an atomic bomb, and whether it harbors a secret program to do so.
Diplomats and nuclear experts say the diminished view increases the risks of
miscalculation, and possibly armed confrontation, just as the atomic impasse
with the West is reaching a volatile new stage.
The UN agency, whose credibility as nuclear watchdog is at stake, is
particularly worried. Full access "increases our ability to detect possible
undeclared nuclear activities," said the agency's director, Mohamed
ElBaradei. Its absence, he emphasized, severely limits "our ability to
provide credible assurances."
The new restrictions were alluded to in the agency's most recent report on
Iran, late last month. But their scope and repercussions emerged in recent
interviews with diplomats, nuclear analysts and government officials.
U.S. intelligence officials say the restrictions are particularly
significant because their own assessments depend heavily on the IAEA's
findings. The reasons include the scarcity of human intelligence emerging
from Iran, and suspicions about U.S. intelligence after the failures in
Iraq.
"To build a public case, we need the international inspectors," a senior
administration official said in an interview. "The president knows that he
cannot go out and give a speech describing our suspicions, not in this
environment."
The official declined to be identified because he was not authorized to
discuss the matter publicly.
Iran insists that until negotiations with the West over wider inspections
collapsed, it had offered "full and unrestricted access" as a way to prove
that its atomic work was entirely peaceful, intended for nuclear power and
medical isotopes for fighting disease.
But the United States, Israel and many European governments see the
situation as more complex. They say that Tehran opened up only after being
caught hiding its nuclear advances for nearly two decades, and that when it
did cooperate, a steady accretion of clues suggested that more remained
hidden.
Now that Iran has cut international access to the minimum required under
arms-control accords, analysts are left with far fewer tools to penetrate
those mysteries, many of which involve how close Iran is to mastering the
transformation of uranium and plutonium into atomic fuel.
Inspectors recently confirmed Iran's claims of having enriched very small
quantities of uranium to low levels, and they can continue to monitor such
narrow steps. But at Natanz and elsewhere, the inspectors have lost their
window into the future - for instance, into the factories where, Iran has
claimed, it will build tens of thousands of centrifuges, machines that spin
incredibly fast to concentrate uranium into fuel.
Low-enriched uranium can fuel reactors; highly enriched uranium can power
bombs.
Nor can the inspectors investigate Iran's boasts that it is forging ahead
with research on a more advanced centrifuge that could accelerate its
efforts to make nuclear fuel.
The Iranians have also stopped cooperating with investigations into the
possible existence of clandestine work on uranium and plutonium, an
alternate bomb fuel. Just last week, diplomats disclosed an inquiry about
traces of highly enriched uranium linked to a razed military research base
at Lavizan, outside Tehran.
For the inspectors, and the U.S. intelligence agencies that rely on them,
the new reality is "myopia compared to what they had before," said David
Kay, a former inspector who in 2003-04 led the U.S. hunt for unconventional
weapons in Iraq.
The danger of such an information void, he added, is that officials will
fall back on "defectors, anti-regime elements and what foreign intelligence
services tell you they know
- sort of an Iraq redux."
U.S. intelligence officials say the Iraq experience has forced them to
consider a range of possible outcomes in Iran, including the best case,
rather than assuming the worst. For that reason, they say, intelligence
officials have not budged from the official estimate that Iran would need
five to 10 years to produce a weapon, even though some senior intelligence
officials foresee a shorter time frame.
Now, refining that forecast is harder than ever. As one senior European
official with knowledge of the inspections put it, "You need to roam
around."
Iran's legal obligations began in 1968, when Tehran signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, which requires countries to forgo nuclear weapons
in exchange for aid in developing peaceful atomic energy.
Six years later, Iran signed the treaty's safeguards agreement, which
mandates detailed reports on steps that could lead to weapons and allows
inspectors to hunt for cheating.
The era of expanded openness began in early 2003, after an Iranian
opposition group reported the existence of a vast nuclear facility at
Natanz. Iran had no choice but to cooperate with the inspectors if it hoped
to prove that its nuclear program was peaceful. The buildup to the invasion
of Iraq added to the pressure.
Iran invited ElBaradei and a team of inspectors to visit Natanz.
Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, led the tour,
showing off the centrifuges and claiming that Iran's scientists had learned
how to build them in only five years with information from the Internet.
The inspectors saw that as a lie and concluded that Tehran had long been
violating the treaty's safeguards agreement.
Iran, determined to reassure the West, agreed to suspend much of its atomic
program while negotiating with Europe over its fate. Beyond the basic
safeguards, it agreed to abide by the treaty's "additional protocol" and to
adopt so-called transparency measures.
Together, these measures let inspectors travel widely, even to military
bases, and expand their investigations far beyond radioactive materials, to
seemingly innocuous things like air samples and old files that might produce
serendipitous discoveries.
Thus began a game of nuclear cat- and-mouse in which inspectors praised the
Iranians for the information they divulged, while criticizing them for what
they appeared to withhold. Little by little, the agency pieced together a
pattern of deception dating from 1985, proving that Iran had done secret
uranium and plutonium work that could help fuel a bomb.
Over nearly three years of inspections, reports from the UN agency
documented dozens of surprises, including these:
Iran was found to have used lasers to purify uranium starting in 1991, and
in 2000 established a pilot plant for laser enrichment.
Significant research was uncovered on polonium 210, a rare element that can
help trigger an atom bomb.
Many ties emerged to the black market of A.Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani
atomic pioneer, who supplied Iran with its centrifuge designs. Inspectors
found one Khan document offering to help shape uranium metal into the
"hemispherical forms" needed for bomb cores.
Even on their best behavior, the Iranians could delay and stonewall. They
are still refusing to turn over an important Khan document that inspectors
have sought for more than two years.
In a sense, Iran's candor backfired. It always came up with detailed
explanations for its omissions, discrepancies and hidden programs. But each
new disclosure raised new doubts and demands for better information.
Even qualified cooperation ebbed last year after the talks with Europe
collapsed and Iran got a new, hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Tehran resumed uranium enrichment at Natanz in January, and the next month,
after the 35-nation board of the IAEA decided to send Iran's case to the UN
Security Council for possible punishment, Tehran made good on a threat to
drop all but the bare-bones inspections.
Now, the agency estimates it can visit only 20 percent of the buildings at
Isfahan, the oldest and largest part of Iran's nuclear program, where, among
other things, raw uranium is prepared for enrichment.
At Natanz, inspectors once had the right, on two hours' notice, to visit any
building, and did so dozens of times, diplomats said. Now, they can go only
to the few areas where the Iranians are enriching uranium or handling
radioactive materials, or preparing to do so.
So the inspectors can no longer enter plants where Iran makes centrifuges
and their numerous parts. Iran has said that these factories and warehouses,
some at Natanz, will produce 54,000 centrifuges for the cavernous
underground enrichment halls.
This loss of access is important because estimates on how fast Iran could
get the bomb are based mainly on understanding its potential rate of
centrifuge production. Now, no one outside Iran knows if that pace has
slowed or accelerated.
Inspectors would also like to know if Iran is designing more sophisticated
centrifuges. The UN agency has repeatedly asked for information about an
advanced type, the P-2, which could speed the making of atomic fuel.
Iran had long insisted that it abandoned work on the project three years
ago. Then, last month, Ahmadinejad made the startling announcement that
Tehran was "presently conducting research" on the P-2, boasting that it
would quadruple Iran's enrichment powers.
Since then the UN agency, which suspects Iran has a hidden P-2 research
center, has written to the Iranians demanding an explanation. They have not
replied.
In recent weeks, the West has sought to fashion a package of incentives to
persuade the Iranians to limit their nuclear program and reinstate fuller
inspections.
Tehran has offered a counterproposal: It would be happy to reopen the
window, but only if the Security Council drops its case against Iran and
returns it to the atomic energy agency. That would remove the threat of
sanctions, and possibly war.
Washington dismisses such moves as playing for time. But Iran says it
genuinely wants to prove that its aims are peaceful.
"We have every interest in cooperating," said Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador
to the United Nations.
Zarif echoed Western views on the likely repercussions of the cuts in
access, presenting them, almost tauntingly, as a potential problem that
Washington and its allies had the power to fix.
"The fewer inspections there are, the more potential there is for
misinterpretation," he said. "The other side doesn't have access any more to
reliable information and has to rely on information that is suspect. Is this
the path it is choosing?"
The Iranian strategy, it seems, is to keep its nuclear program and force the
West to find a way to verify that it is peaceful.
[David E. Sanger contributed reporting to this article.]
) 2006 The International Herald Tribune
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] Iran now enriching home-processed uranium
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:24:50 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - May 19, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-05-19T160413Z_01_HAF937010_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-URANIUM.xml&src=rss
Iran now enriching home processed uranium
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran initially enriched uranium from China but is now
using domestically processed uranium in its nuclear programme, an Iranian
diplomat said on Friday after some doubts were cast on his country's recent
enrichment claims.
Iran said last month it had enriched uranium to the level used in power
stations for the first time, crediting its own scientists for the
breakthrough. The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed this from samples taken in
Iran.
But diplomats in Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is based, said on Thursday that the processed uranium, uranium hexafluoride
(UF6), that Iran purified was almost certainly Chinese UF6 and not Iranian.
"This is correct. Preliminary tests were made using UF6 bought from China
but one week after that, we started to use the UF6 that we have produced in
Isfahan and now the UF6 that is being used in Natanz facility for enrichment
is our own product," the Iranian diplomat, who asked not to be identified
because of the issue's sensitivity, told Reuters.
Iran's uranium conversion facility which makes UF6 is in Isfahan, a city
south of the capital, while enrichment takes place at the nearby site of
Natanz.
Iran said in April that its Isfahan plant had stockpiled 110 tonnes of
feedstock UF6 gas.
Vienna diplomats have said Iran has had difficulty producing good quality
UF6. In September the material was of such poor quality that it would have
damaged the centrifuges
-- machines that enrich uranium -- had it been used, they said.
The sale to Iran of Chinese processed uranium would have come shortly before
China joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992, binding Beijing
to strict export controls.
A diplomat from the European Union accredited to the IAEA said Iran had
probably chosen to use the better Chinese UF6 to hasten the process so
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejdad could announce to the world without delay
Iran's enrichment success.
Enrichment is a process of purifying uranium for use in nuclear power plants
or, when very highly enriched, in bombs.
The European Union and United States believe Iran is secretly developing
atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme. Iran says
its programme is solely aimed at the peaceful generation of electricity.
The IAEA has found no hard proof of any project to make atomic bombs but
says that, after more than three years of probing, it still cannot confirm
that Iran's intentions are entirely peaceful.
IAEA inspectors routinely visit Iran to monitor nuclear facilities but,
after Iran's case was sent to the U.N. Security Council, Tehran stopped
allowing unannounced inspections of sites at short notice.
A team of IAEA inspectors will arrive in Iran on Friday for one of their
routine visits, state television reported.
) Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran's Snub Calls for New EU Offer
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:38:05 -0700
ROMAIPS AP MM DV IP NU=20
POLITICS: Iran's Snub Calls for New EU Offer
Analysis by Praful Bidwai=20
NEW DELHI , May 19 (IPS) - Iran's rebuff to a European =94package of inc=
entives=94, including a light-water nuclear power reactor, in return for =
halting uranium enrichment, marks a serious escalation of tensions with t=
he West. But it does not close the doors to solving the Iran nuclear cris=
is through diplomacy.
Iran's snub to the EU is noteworthy for both language and content. On We=
dnesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad contemptuously dismissed all talk =
of =94incentives'' by comparing it with a na=EFve four-year-old child bei=
ng fooled into trading gold for =94a few walnuts''. Iran's foreign minist=
ry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi added a sting by offering =94economic incen=
tives to Europe in return for recognising our right (to enrich uranium)=94=
.=20
This makes it abundantly clear that Iran is not willing to write off what=
it regards as its right to enrich uranium and conduct other nuclear fuel=
-cycle activities for peaceful purposes, which are recognised by the Nucl=
ear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). =20
The Western powers would be ill-advised to seek a revival of the 2003 for=
mula under which Iran =94voluntarily=94 accepted a short-term moratorium =
on its uranium enrichment activities, signed a tough protocol for intrusi=
ve inspections of its nuclear activities by the International Atomic Ener=
gy Agency (IAEA) and subjected a large number of its facilities to its sa=
feguards.=20
After prolonged inspections, the IAEA has not found any evidence of diver=
sion of nuclear material from civilian to military uses. But the Western =
powers are convinced that Iran's nuclear activities are directed at makin=
g atomic weapons. The United States, in particular, has vowed not to allo=
w Iran to become a nuclear weapons-state.=20
The new impasse in the West's relations with Iran is likely to lead to th=
ree events or things. First, the U.S. will press harder for punitive acti=
on against Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The EU3 (Germany,=
France and Britain), that has been trying to engage Iran diplomatically,=
will find it difficult to resist the pressure.=20
After all, none other than EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana recently=
made the Union's =94package of incentives=94 a litmus test of Iran's int=
entions, which Tehran claims are entirely peaceful. He said: If Iran want=
s =94to construct a nuclear energy power plant, they would have, in coope=
ration with EU=E0, the best and most sophisticated technology. If they re=
ject that, it would mean that what they want is something different.=94 =20
Secondly, Russia and China, which have opposed sanctions against Iran und=
er Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, will come under growing pressure and =
will vacillate. If they do not stand firm against U.S.-EU demands for pun=
ishing Iran, they will contribute to the nuclear crisis spinning out of c=
ontrol.=20
There are signs that neither Moscow nor Beijing is taking an unshakeable =
stand. Both advised Tehran to respond favourably to the EU's =94incentive=
s=94. If they repeat their behaviour patterns of the recent past, when th=
ey did not exercise the veto to prevent the Gulf War of 1990 and other cr=
ises, Iran could face tough Security Council sanctions.=20
Third, it is highly unlikely that the threat of sanctions, or actual sanc=
tions, will force Iran to completely abandon uranium enrichment and other=
nuclear activities.=20
A number of strategic experts and political analysts, including some clos=
e to the ruling establishment, told IPS in Tehran recently that domestic =
political compulsions would work against fully stopping all enrichment ac=
tivity.=20
Iran has invested heavily in the enrichment programme. Domestically, enri=
chment has acquired mystical significance as a symbol of national pride a=
nd technological achievement. =94At least pilot-scale activity would have=
to be pursued as part of a compromise deal,=94 one analyst said. =20
This is so despite Iran's keenness to negotiate a deal. As IPS reported e=
arlier, Iranian policy-makers would like to avoid a confrontation with th=
e West and believe that the gap between what Iran wants and what Western =
pragmatists might be willing to give is not unbridgeable.=20
=94At the same time, it is hard to see how conventional sanctions can be =
effective against Iran=94, says Mohammed Hamid Ansari, a former ambassado=
r of India to Iran, and later, to the U.N. =94A tough embargo on the sale=
of oil by Iran, for instance, will hurt the West as much as Iran=94.=20
Milder sanctions like arms embargoes, bans on foreign travel by Iranian o=
fficials, and impounding of Iranian assets abroad will not be effective. =
Iranians have lived with such embargoes right since the 1979 Revolution.
All this significantly narrows down the options. The West can keep on rat=
cheting up pressure on Iran in the Security Council, but without compelli=
ng Iran to comply with their demands.=20
Broadly, two different options remain: one coercive, and the other, based=
on negotiation, persuasion and agreement. The U.S. is exploring the firs=
t possibility through contingency plans for a military attack on up to 40=
0 targets in Iran to destroy all its nuclear facilities. American investi=
gative journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that the plans include the u=
se of tactical nuclear weapons.=20
This course is fraught with unspeakable consequences, including huge civi=
lian casualties: a breach of the 60 year-long taboo on the use of nuclear=
weapons; waves of mass anti-U.S. protests all over the Middle East; reta=
liatory attacks by Iran against Israel and the U.S., especially through c=
overt action in Iraq and Afghanistan; and mobilisation of public outrage =
against the West under the banner of militant political Islam.=20
The Federation of American Scientists has warned that a U.S. military att=
ack with tactical nuclear weapons could kill as many as three million Ira=
nians.=20
This only strengthens the case for the pursuit of serious diplomacy. Iran=
has dropped many hints that it favours this. President Ahmadinejad's let=
ter to George W. Bush, the first direct communication from an Iranian lea=
der to Washington since 1979, is only one indication.=20
Iran has also suggested that it could discuss a modified version of a pro=
posal made late last year by Russia, under which Russia and Iran would es=
tablish a joint venture to enrich Iran's uranium on Russian soil for use =
in power reactors in Iran.=20
Iran wants the full involvement of its personnel in such a venture, with =
guaranteed access to all facilities and joint control over them. Other so=
lutions could also be discussed, which permit Iran to conduct pilot-scale=
enrichment under strict international supervision.=20
However, for the negotiations to begin in good faith, there must be clari=
ty on Iran's rights and obligations under the NPT. Iran insists it has a =
full legal right to peaceful nuclear fuel-cycle activity, including enric=
hment. The West either denies this, or questions Iran's intentions.=20
This is resented in Iran because the same Western nations had earlier pro=
moted nuclear power under the Shah, with an ambitious programme for 23,00=
0 Mw of electricity generation.=20
The best way forward would be to refer the issue of Iran's rights and obl=
igations under the NPT to the International Court of Justice at The Hague=
for its advisory opinion. This can be done through the U.N. General Asse=
mbly.=20
The court's clarification can lay the ground for further talks to give ef=
fect to Iran's rights while promoting the objective of nuclear non-prolif=
eration. Creative diplomacy has never been in greater demand than now.=20
*****
+Sabre Rattling Won't Work=20
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33120)
(END/IPS/AP/MM/IP/NU/DV/PB/RDR/06)=20
=20
=3D 05190513 ORP007
NNNN
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Larijani, ElBaradei discuss ways to solve Iran's nuclear problem
Vienna, May 19, IRNA
Iran-IAEA--Larijani
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and the UN nuclear
watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei here on Thursday discussed ways
to solve dispute over Tehran's peaceful nuclear program.
Larijani and ElBaradei reportedly stressed a political and
diplomatic solution to the problem to prevent escalation of
conditions, while underlining continuation of the IAEA's pivotal
role in that concern.
*****************************************************************
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani, ElBaradei meet in Vienna
2006/05/19
Vienna, May 19 - Secretary of Supreme National Security Councl,
Ali Larijani and and the UN nuclear watchdog Chief Mohamed
ElBaradei here on Thursday discussed over Tehran's peaceful
nuclear program.
Larijani and ElBaradei reportedly stressed just a political and
diplomatic solution over Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
Copyright 2004,
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network
Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: >Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran's N-plan progressing under NPT
2006/05/18
Islamabad, May 18 - Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Mohammad
Ibrahim Taherian on Thursday said his country wanted to make
progress on its nuclear program within the framework of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
He made the remarks at a meeting with Pakistan Senate Foreign
Affairs Committee Chairman Mushahid Hussain Syed. Some other
members of the committee also attended the meeting.
Mushahid, who is also Secretary-General of the ruling Pakistan
Muslim League, said that President General Pervez Musharraf and
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had repeatedly said that it was
Iran's right to make use of nuclear technology for peaceful
purpose s.
He said that Pakistan stood for a negotiated settlement of the
Iranian issue.
The Iranian envoy thanked the government of Pakistan and the
committee chairman for his support, making it clear that his
country wanted to benefit from nuclear technology by adhering to
NPT regulations.
Iran's moves are in line with international laws, he said,
adding that Iran desires peace and co-existence under the UN
charter and world conventions.
He said his country will continue to face challenges posed by
imperialist forces with the help and cooperation of its friends.
The envoy contended that threats or pressure would never compel
Iran to reverse its policies which it has declared to be for the
welfare of its people.
mk
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Russia to complete Bushehr plant 2007
2006/05/18
Moscow, May 18 - Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency declared
Bushehr nuclear power plant will be operational next year.
The agency's spokesman, Sergei Novikov, in response to a
question that the plant had been scheduled to be commissioned in
2006 and why it was delayed, answered the timetable for
commissioning the plant has not changed and as Moscow had
already declared, it would be in 2007.
He added as Sergei Krinko, head of Russian Federal Atomic Energy
Agency, has already said "There is no political obstacle to
commission the Bushehr power plant."
Expressing Moscow's intention to commission the plant as soon as
possible, the spokesman said safety measures and high
qualification must be observed in the plant.
Referring to implementation of 90 percent of the work, Novikov
said the two sides agreed to establish a working group to set
the final timetable for commissioning the plant.
mk
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: America's plots are doomed to fail
2006/05/19
Tehran, May 19 - Tehran's Friday prayers' leader, Ayatollah
Emami Kashani said the enemies of Islamic Republic have plans to
create insecurity in the country's border areas.
Emami Kashani called on all Iranians from all sects and
origions to keep their unity, saying what had happened in
Kerman-Bam road recently will not affected the unity of the
nation.
He predicted that America's plots to seed discord among Shiites
and Sunnies in Iraq are doomed to fail as they were against Iran
in the early years of the Islamic Revolution.
The enemies of Islam are trying to undermine Iran in the three
arenas of border security, economy and education but they should
know that both Shiites and Sunnies have done their best to
defend their common values, he noted.
kh
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
9 AFP: Iran's promises cooperation with UN inspectors
Friday May 19, 12:19 PM
[Ali Larijani]
VIENNA (AFP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani
promised that Tehran would cooperate with UN inspectors, in a
meeting in Vienna with UN atomic agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
"The discussion was that of course Iran is continuing its
cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)
and that inspectors will continue their work in accordance with
the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) comprehensive
safeguards," Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar
Soltanieh, told AFP Friday.
Iran is honoring its NPT safeguards obligations, which mandate
the IAEA to verify that nuclear material is not being diverted
from peaceful uses.
But it has cut off wider inspections, such as visits to sites
not directly linked to the presence of nuclear material.
It did this after the IAEA in February referred Tehran to the UN
Security Council due to concern over Iran's nuclear program,
which the United States charges is a cover for secret
development of atomic weapons.
IAEA officials have said this severely limits their ability to
monitor nuclear activities in Iran.
Larijani's visit came as the European Union is readying a
package of trade, technology and security benefits in return for
Iran guaranteeing that its nuclear program is peaceful.
The EU and the United States want the United Nations Security
Council to impose sanctions on Iran if the Islamic republic
rejects this package, which the five permanent Security Council
nations plus Germany are to finalize at a meeting next Wednesday
in London.
Iran has already rejected what is expected to be yet another
call on it to stop uranium enrichment, the process that can
produce either fuel for nuclear power reactors or the explosive
core of atom bombs.
The Security Council had on March 29 asked Iran to honor IAEA
calls for the Islamic Republic to suspend its enrichment work
and also to cooperate fully with an over-three-year-old IAEA
investigation which is still unable to determine whether the
Iranian nuclear program is peaceful or weapons-related.
IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said Larijanai and ElBaradei had
"talks about the usual things, issues that are still unanswered
and of course the requirements of the (IAEA) board (of
governors) to provide some confidence-building matters."
"The purpose of the meeting was really to discuss the remaining
unanswered questions regarding Iran's past (nuclear) program and
the request by the board for confidence-building measures,"
Vidricaire said.
He did not provide details.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=]
*****************************************************************
10 AFP: Oman urges direct US-Iran talks on nuclear row
by Christian Chaise Fri May 19, 1:41 PM ET
MUSCAT (AFP) - The Gulf sultanate of Oman, which has close ties
with both Iran" /> and the United States, hopes Washington will
engage in a "direct dialogue" with Tehran to resolve the crisis
over the Iranian nuclear program.
The number two at Oman's foreign ministry, Sayyid Badr bin
Hamad bin Hamoud al-Busaidi, also told AFP in an interview that
Muscat had no reason not to believe Iran's assurances that its
program has purely civilian purposes.
Oman, Iran's co-guardian of the strategic Strait of Hormuz
entrance to the oil-rich Gulf, is trying even harder than fellow
Gulf Arab monarchies to remain neutral on the Iranian nuclear
crisis.
Although Iran rejected a package of incentives by the EU-3 --
Britain, France and Germany -- to persuade it to suspend uranium
enrichment even before the proposals were unveiled, Busaidi said
there was "still room for diplomatic efforts."
"We want to see some meaningful, concrete, constructive
negotiations that will produce a win-win situation ... That is
really our hope. And I know that is the wish of many, many
players in this particular region," he said.
"I hope there will be a way out that is peaceful, amicable and
honorable," added Busaidi, who is undersecretary of foreign
affairs.
Oman's Gulf Cooperation Council partners -- Bahrain, Kuwait,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- have
similarly advocated a negotiated settlement that would ward off
US military action, which would have grave consequences for the
region.
"The position of Oman ... is that we wish to see this whole
region free of nuclear and any weapons of mass destruction,"
Busaidi said.
"Direct dialogue between all parties is important. Between all
parties," the Omani official stressed when asked about ways of
breaking the current impasse.
Asked whether he thought the United States, which has so far
left the talking to the European Union" /> , should launch
direct negotiations with Iran, as Tehran has proposed, Busaidi
said:
"Why not? It is their decision obviously ... I just believe that
through dialogue and negotiations, direct negotiations, one can
find a solution.
"How can I find a solution in the absence of direct
discussions?," he said, while refraining from criticizing
Washington's refusal to speak to Tehran.
Iran has sent envoys to Gulf Arab states, including Oman, in
recent weeks to assure them that its nuclear program is not
aimed at producing a nuclear weapon, as Washington suspects.
"We believe it" (the Iranian position). It's up to ... others
who doubt this to prove otherwise," Busaidi said.
Oman signed a free trade agreement with the United States in
January, further boosting ties with Washington, but it prides
itself on having excellent relations with Iran as well.
"They (Iran) are our next door neighbors. We have good relations
with them," Busaidi said.
Asked what Omani leaders feared more -- to see Iran eventually
turning into a nuclear power or to see the United States
attacking Tehran to prevent this from happening, Busaidi said:
"This region, no doubt, does not want to see any military
confrontation or any tension."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: EU offers reactors, fuel in draft Iran nuclear proposal -
by Michael Adler Fri May 19, 4:41 PM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - The EU is ready to help Iran" /> Iranbuild several
light-water nuclear reactors and set up a nuclear fuel bank if
Tehran stops enriching uranium, according to a copy of a draft
proposal seen by AFP.
Russia would enrich uranium for Iran in a partnership.
The proposal by Britain, France and Germany also says the West
is ready to help work toward guarantees on "territorial
integrity and political sovereignty" for states in the Gulf
region and support the goal of "a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East."
But the four-page text also lists 15 targeted sanctions for the
UN Security Council to choose from if Iran does not comply.
The so-called EU-3 are preparing the package of trade,
technology and security benefits in return for Iran guaranteeing
that it will not make nuclear weapons, in an attempt to defuse
an international showdown that threatens to escalate.
The United States, which charges that Iran is using a civilian
nuclear program to hide the development of atomic weapons, backs
the text "on certain conditions," a Western diplomat said.
A senior European diplomat noted that the text "talks about
security but the word 'security guarantees' does not figure," as
Washington is against giving Iran assurances that it will not be
attacked.
The diplomat said the United States needed to join any future
negotiations with Iran, something it now refuses to do, as this
would be the only way to convince Tehran that it will get
benefits.
For instance, European companies that make light water reactors,
judged to be non-proliferation risks, would not deal with Iran
without a green light from Washington, as they have large
business dealings with the United States.
The West is also ready to offer support for a trade and energy
agreement for Iran with the European Union" /> European Unionand
lifting restrictions against "Iran purchasing a new fleet of
modern civil airliners."
The package is to be discussed by the EU-3, plus China, Russia
and the United States in London next Wednesday.
Diplomats are pessimistic about finding a deal which would be
acceptable to Iran, since Tehran has already rejected any halt
in uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for nuclear power
reactors but also atom bomb material.
Iranian allies and major trading partners, Russian and China
"are likely to press for changes in the text," the Western
diplomat said, particularly as they fear sanctions could be a
step towards military action against Iran.
The draft text says that "in the event that Iran does not
cooperate with the international community, we would adopt
proportionate measures" and "where appropriate these measures
would be adopted under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN
Charter."
This article mandates measures to enforce Security Council
decisions but does not include the use of armed force.
Diplomats said this was a compromise gesture to Russia and China
as it would make compliance a legal obligation but avoid opening
the door to war.
The sanctions listed fall short of a total economic embargo,
something the United States does not want since it seeks to
target the Iranian leadership rather than the Iranian people.
The text lists six sanctions described as "measures targeted
against Iran's nuclear and missile programs," including an
"embargo on export of goods and technologies" relevant to those
programs.
There are also nine "political and economic measures" that
include a "freeze of assets of individuals and organizations
connected to or close to the regime."
The draft, titled "possible elements of a revised proposal to
Iran," affirms "Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes."
But it says that Iran must cooperate fully with inspectors from
the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International
Atomic Energy Agencyand "suspend all enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities and to continue this" during
negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.
The Security Council on March 29 had asked Iran to honor IAEA
calls for it to suspend its enrichment work and also to
cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation, ongoing for three
years, which has so far been unable to determine whether the
Iranian nuclear program is peaceful or weapons-related.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Minister Was Against Regional Crisis
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 19, 2006 4:31 AM
By ALBERT AJI
Associated Press Writer
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Iran's foreign minister warned Thursday
against a possible ``escalation of the crisis in the region'' in
discussions with Syria's president about Tehran's nuclear
program and the situation in Iraq.
During their meeting, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki gave
Syria's Bashar Assad a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on the ``latest regional and international
developments,'' the state-run Syrian news agency said.
Mottaki said he and Assad had agreed on ``the necessity of
developing and strengthening bilateral relations with Iraq.''
Both Iran and Syria have been accused by Washington of
destabilizing their neighbor by allowing insurgents to cross
their borders.
``Iran and Syria are Iraq's neighbors, important neighbors, we
discussed the latest developments on the Iraqi arena and
supported the final touches of building the state,'' he said.
Mottaki and his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem told
reporters that both countries agreed the Iraqi government should
take over security matters and that a timetable must be set for
the withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition forces.
Mottaki met later Thursday with the leader of Lebanon's
Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and
Damascus-based leaders of the Palestinian militant groups Hamas
and Islamic Jihad.
The visit came as Iran and Syria encountered mounting
international pressure.
The West is seeking a U.N. resolution that could subject Iran to
sanctions if it does not stop enriching uranium. In a separate
U.N. resolution, Syria was urged to establish diplomatic
relations with Lebanon and respect its neighbor's full
independence.
Mottaki said Iran's right to possess ``nuclear power for
peaceful purposes'' was not negotiable.
``We warn against an escalation of the crisis in the region,''
said Mottaki, who spoke in Farsi through a translator.
He insisted that dialogue with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, was the only way to resolve
Tehran's standoff with the West.
Iran has rejected European plans for incentives to his country
to give up its uranium enrichment program.
A high-level, six-nation meeting on Iran was postponed Wednesday
until at least next week, reflecting differences between the
United States and its allies on one side, and the Chinese and
Russians on the other.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told European Union
lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, that his country wants Iran to
stop its nuclear activities and renewed Moscow's offer to
conduct uranium enrichment for Iran's nuclear facilities in
Russia, a senior deputy said.
``He said no to Iran's military nuclear capacities, no to
enrichment capacities, and he renewed his proposal that the
enrichment should take place on Russian soil,'' said committee
chairman Elmar Brok, a German conservative.
Enriching uranium in Russia for Iran would guarantee the uranium
was not enriched to the high level needed for nuclear weapons
Lavrov also reiterated his opposition to the threat of sanctions
or the use of force against Iran, Brok said.
Russia and China have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts
for a 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, which could
range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions
and military action, if Tehran refuses to comply.
``One approach is immediate sanctions - economic, trade, but
that will lead Iran to withdraw and become a second North Korea.
Than we can only sit and wait. Or we take military action, but
is there anyone in the room that wants that?'' Lavrov told the
lawmakers, according to the transcript of his answers to the
committee, obtained by The Associated Press.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in Tokyo that nations
need to ``be creative in finding a solution at the table'' to
solve the Iranian nuclear standoff.
``There is also a need to lower the temperature, and refrain
from actions and rhetoric that could further inflame the
situation,'' Annan said. ``Otherwise, we will see only an
increase in global tensions ... and unwelcome delays in
resolving the matter.''
Mottaki also criticized U.N. Security Council members for having
voted for the resolution against Syria, which was approved 13-0
with China and Russia abstaining. He hinted that the U.S.,
France and Britain, who co-sponsored the resolution, had coaxed
other members into voting for it. ``We consider that forcing the
U.N. Security Council to issue a resolution on this (issue) is a
novelty and a violation of international law,'' he said.
Security Council members ``should show more resistance'' to such
resolutions, which ``only weaken this institution,'' Mottaki
said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: Indonesia wants expanded team to discuss nuclear issue with Iran
by P. Parameswaran Fri May 19, 4:13 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Indonesia called for an expanded team to
negotiate directly with Iran" /> Iranto swiftly resolve a nuclear
crisis, and urged Tehran to avoid turmoil in the fragile oil-rich
Middle East region.
At present, three European Union" /> European Unionmembers --
France, Germany and Britain -- are involved in direct talks with
Iran over the Islamic republic's sensitive nuclear program.
But Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, on a visit to
Washington, said "the current negotiating forum, namely Iran and
the EU-3, should be enlarged" to cover other permanent members
of the UN Security Council and developing member economies in
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Britain and France are among the five permanent members of the
Security Council, which also includes the United States, Russia
and China.
Wirajuda said some of the developing countries in the NPT had
been "very faithful in their nuclear activities" and could help
join the process of finding a "peaceful solution.
"Countries such as Indonesia and South Africa ... we have also
an important stake in the process," Wirajuda told a Washington
forum of the US-Indonesia Society before holding talks with US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice.
Wirajuda also urged Iran to be "flexible" and strive to find a
peaceful resolution to the nuclear crisis and be "transparent"
with its atomic program.
Indonesia, he said, supported the development of nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes as this is an "inalienable
right" of every NPT member but hastened to add that Jakarta
"will be among the first to oppose any diversion of peaceful
nuclear uses to military ones."
Wirajuda also asked Iran to be "a responsible member of the
sensitive neighbourhood of the Middle East and Central Asia,"
warning that any escalation of the nuclear crisis could cause
oil prices to balloon and hit developing countries hard.
"If current tensions escalate into conflicts, we all will be
affected and you can imagine if oil price increased to 100
dollars, we and many developing countries will suffer," he said.
Wirajuda and Rice did not speak to reporters after their talks
but the top US diplomat's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the
Iranian crisis was among the key topics.
Rice was thankful to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono for talking to the Iranian government "about the need
for them to be responsible members of the international
community," he said.
"I think there was some concern on their part that Iran's
behavior not affect the ability of other countries around the
world to access peaceful nuclear technology," McCormack said.
Yuhoyono held talks last week with Iran's hardline President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was in Indonesia to attend a meeting of
the so-called Developing Eight (D-8) group of Muslim countries.
Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country.
The United States, along with the EU-3, wants a UN Security
Council resolution that would legally bind Iran to stop its
sensitive uranium enrichment work, which could lead to
development of a nuclear weapon.
But China and Russia fear this could heighten tensions and open
the door to a military attack on Iran -- an option that the
United States is refusing to take off the table.
Senior officials from the EU-3 are scheduled to meet in London
next Wednesday with their counterparts from the United States,
China and Russia to discuss "the next step" in the matter.
The closed-door meeting would discuss an EU-3 offer of
incentives to Tehran to halt its sensitive nuclear work.
Washington and its allies believe Iran is hiding a nuclear
weapons drive. Tehran insists its research is for peaceful
purposes.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 [NYTr] Ooh... N.Korea Has New Long-Range Missiles!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:24:47 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[Let's all quake in our boots, people... The DPRK has plans to defend
itself. The colossal gall! -NYTr]
Reuters - May 19, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-19T120155Z_01_T8989_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH-MISSILE.xml
N.Korea may be preparing missile launch: reports
By George Nishiyama
TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea may be preparing to launch a long-range
ballistic missile that could reach parts of the United States, Japanese
media reports said on Friday, but Japan's government said it did not believe
a launch was imminent.
Quoting unidentified South Korean government officials, public broadcaster
NHK said satellite pictures showed there have been signs since early this
month around a site in northeastern North Korea that pointed to a possible
firing in the near future.
Analysts have said, though, that development of a multiple-stage version of
a ballistic missile that can take payloads deep into the continental United
States is years away.
Japan's top government spokesman, Shinzo Abe, said he could not comment on
specific security issues, but added, "At the moment, we do not believe that
a launch is imminent."
Asked by reporters if the situation posed a threat to Japan's national
security, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said: "Japan maintains its
security through deterrence under the Japan-U.S. security alliance and I
believe North Korea knows that."
He added that he did not believe the situation was serious.
The latest reports come amid a deadlock in six-party talks aimed at
dismantling North Korea's nuclear programs, and ahead of a visit to China
next week by the chief U.S. negotiator to the talks that involve the two
Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and host China.
North Korea has said in numerous official media reports that it is building
a nuclear deterrent to counter U.S. hostility. The United States believes
that North Korea has one or two nuclear bombs and the ability to build more.
U.S. officials said on Thursday that Washington was open to discussions with
North Korea on a peace treaty at the same time as the six-party nuclear
talks, but that Pyongyang must return to the negotiating table first.
North Korea has long demanded a peace treaty to replace the armistice that
ended the 1950-53 Korean war.
Some experts detected in the U.S. stance at least a slight change in
emphasis designed to entice Pyongyang back to the table and keep Asian
allies from blaming Washington for the moribund diplomacy.
NHK said the missile appeared to be a Taepodong-2, which previous reports
have said has a range of more than 6,700 km (4,200 miles), making it capable
of hitting Alaska with a light payload.
Quoting Japanese government sources, Japan's Kyodo news agency also said
that a launch could be imminent and that the missile was probably a
Taepodong-2.
However, a report in March by the California-based Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, a non-governmental organization, said North Korea
did not have an operational missile that could hit the continental United
States.
That report said Pyongyang was working on a solid-fuel missile, Taepodong-X,
with a range of up to 4,000 km (2,500 miles) that could hit Japan as well as
U.S. bases in Guam, but North Korea has yet to demonstrate its reliability
through a test flight.
North Korea shocked the world in August 1998 when it fired a Taepodong
missile that flew over Japan before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
NHK, quoting U.S. government officials, said if the missile was a modified
version of the Taepodong-2, it could have a range of 15,000 km (9,300
miles), which would cover all of the United States.
U.S. officials have said the North is developing longer-range missiles that
could hit the continental United States.
(Additional reporting by Jack Kim in Seoul)
) Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
15 Korea Herald: Koreas hold economic cooperation talks
Inter-Korean economic talks opened in Gaeseong yesterday to
discuss business cooperation and the test runs of two
cross-border railways.
The meeting was one of many this week as the parties engaged in
inter-Korean dialogue as an apparent alternative to the stalled
six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program.
The South Korean delegation led by Kim Chun-sig, head of the
Unification Ministry's social and cultural exchanges bureau,
arrived at the Northern border town in the morning for the
two-day meeting.
Two other inter-Korean discussions took place this week,
including the military talks and working-level talks on former
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's visit to the North next
month.
The representatives exchanged views on Seoul's support for
Pyongyang's light industries and the joint development of the
North's natural resources.
North Korea has been requesting larger aid from the South to
produce such items as clothing, shoes and soaps in return for
the joint development of zinc, magnesite and coal. Seoul has
been pushing for a smaller portion of support based on a soft
loan method.
The two sides were also set to discuss details of next week's
test runs of rail lines that connect the capitals of the two
Koreas and run on the east and west side of the peninsula.
South Korea is aiming to start operating the lines on the
occasion of Kim Dae-jung's visit, while the North is hesitant.
During the preparation talks earlier in the week on Kim
Dae-jung's visit, the North suggested Kim travel via airplane,
turning down the South's proposal to use the railway.
But Seoul remains committed to the idea.
"We are not pessimistic about the possibility," Unification
Minister Lee Jong-seok told reporters yesterday.
Lee said the matter should be discussed further with the North.
The next round of preparation meetings for Kim's visit will be
held May 29 in Gaeseong.
Observers say that the two Koreas could consider a third option
of letting Kim travel by train from Munsan to Gaeseong and
traveling from Gaeseong to Pyongyang by car.
The railway between Munsan and Gaeseong will be test-run
Thursday next week.
At the economic talks, the two Koreas were also expected to set
the date for the next round of the inter-Korean economic
cooperation promotion committee meeting. The two had agreed last
month to hold the dialogue within this month.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.05.19
*****************************************************************
16 Xinhua: Indonesian President to visit DPRK, ROK
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-19 16:34:54
JAKARTA, May 19 (Xinhua) -- Indonesian President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono would pay state visits to the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and South Korea next month,
presidential spokesman announced here Friday.
Suisilo would visit DPRK from June 5 to 7 and South Korea
from June 7 to 9, Dino Pati Djalal said.
He was scheduled to have bilateral talks with DPRK leader
Kim Yong Nam and South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, said Dino.
But, the spokesman said he could not confirm yet whether
Susilo would meet with DPRK leader Kim Yoong Il.
During the meetings with the leaders, Susilo would stress
the necessity to confidence building of the two Koreas in
settling their standoff, said Dino.
"In those meetings, the president will ask about the process
of the six-party talks and what effort to be taken in the future
to address the nuclear problem of the two Koreas," he said.
In the planned meeting of Susilo and Kim Yoong Nam, the two
leaders would discuss the way for strengthening bilateral ties
as well as regional and international matters, said Dino.
In South Korea, Susilo is scheduled to meet President Roh
Moo Hyun and discuss mutual cooperation in strategic sectors,
trade and investment, infrastructure, energy and plantation,
said the spokesman.
Susilo would also have dialogue with South Korean
businessmen, Dino said.
The spokesman said the visit to the DPRK was at the
invitation of Kim Yoong Nam and Kim Jong Il in January, and the
visit to South Korea was to meet the invitation of Persident Roh
Moo Hyun.
Indonesia is active in the efforts to settle the nuclear
crisis in the Korea Peninsula by frequently sending its envoys
there.
The country has planned to facilitate the meeting of the
defense ministers of the two Koreas.
The United States has urged the DPRK to return to the
six-nation talks stalled since September last year. However, the
DPRK said it would not return to the talks if the US did not
lift the sanctions imposed on the country last year. Enditem
Editor: Mu Xuequan
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
17 AFP: Indonesia to urge N. Korea to return to six-nation talks -
[Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono]
JAKARTA (AFP) - Indonesia's president will meet North Korean
leader Kim Jong-Il early next month and urge the Stalinist state
to return to six-nation talks aimed at resolving a crisis over
its nuclear program, the foreign ministry has said.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will visit North Korea from June 5-7 as
part of Indonesia's efforts to help resolve the nuclear crisis
on the divided peninsula, said foreign ministry spokesman Desra
Percaya Friday.
He will make a stop in South Korea from June 7-9 and hold talks
with President Roh Moo-Hyun on economic and defence cooperation.
"The purpose of the visit is to help move forward the process of
reunification of the two Koreas and the resolution of the North
Korean nuclear issue in the framework of six-party talks,"
Percaya told a press briefing.
The reclusive North Korean leader has agreed to meet Yudhoyono,
the spokesman said.
Indonesia and South Korea will also sign memorandums of
understanding on nuclear energy and tourism during Yudhoyono's
visit to Seoul, Percaya said.
"The visit is aimed at strengthening the strategic partnership
between Indonesia and South Korea and expanding cooperation in
various sectors such as trade, labour and defence," he said.
A special envoy for Yudhoyono, Nana Sutresna visited North Korea
in February and delivered Yudhoyono's invitation for Kim to
visit Indonesia. The invitation has been accepted in principle,
according to the Indonesians.
Jakarta has long-standing ties with North Korea dating from the
era of Indonesia's first president Sukarno.
Six-nation talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear weapons
drive have been stalled since November when the North boycotted
the negotiations in protest at US financial sanctions.
US officials said Thursday the United States would consider
peace treaty talks with North Korea if the Stalinist state
returns to the six-nation negotiations.
"The approach with North Korea has always been the same, which
is when North Korea comes back and participates in the six-party
talks then we can proceed," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
North Korea sought the removal of the sanctions as a
precondition for returning to talks but the United States has
refused to budge.
The six-nation talks involve the two Koreas, the United States,
China, Japan and Russia.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=]
*****************************************************************
18 Comment is free: Springtime in North Korea
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree> John Swenson-Wright[John
Swenson-Wright]
Is the chilly relationship between Washington and Pyongyang
finally thawing?
John Swenson-Wright
Suddenly you can almost hear the ice cracking. After some nine
months of frozen discussions since last September's six-party
talks between North Korea and the international community over
Pyongyang's nuclear weapons, the New York Times suggeststhat the
Bush administration is poised to unveil a bold proposal for
peace talks with North Korea.
Such a step would potentially radically revise the geopolitical
landscape in Northeast Asia, removing one of the final vestiges
of the Cold War era, and resolving more than half a century of
hostility since the armistice agreement of 1953 that ended the
Korean War. Yet, the impression of a marked shift in the US
approach to North Korea may be just that - a superficial change
in tone and tactics, rather than a fundamental reorientation of
policy.
Set against the non-movement of the last nine months, the latest
initiative appears to herald a major change. Last September's
talks in Beijing, carefully brokered by the Chinese, had for the
first time led to the drafting of an agreement between the six
players (Russia, China, the US, Japan and the two Koreas) that
offered a viable route away from a diplomatic cul-de-sac.
In return for North Korean willingness to end at an "early date"
all its nuclear programmes, a commitment to rejoin the nuclear
non-proliferation regime and the readmission of International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, the Americans offered an
attractive package of practical and political concessions,
including a commitment not to attack the North, and respect for
North Korea's sovereignty and the principle of peaceful
coexistence.
The other signatories to the communiqué sweetened the pill by
recommending the establishment eventually of a cooperative
regional security framework in East Asia. By also offering to
provide, at an "appropriate time", proliferation-safe
light-water nuclear reactors, the parties directly addressed the
long-term energy needs of North Korea and an imaginative and
mutually acceptable solution seemed at hand.
Within days, however, the agreement hit the buffers, potentially
derailed by semantic disagreements over the timing of
concessions by the various parties - the North refusing to give
up its nuclear programs without a guarantee of light-water
reactors; the US and its allies accusing Pyongyang of linguistic
gamesmanship and making clear that energy provision was a
distant carrot rather than a quid-pro-quo for compliance with
past nuclear agreements.
Critics of the Bush administration's North Korea policy have
been sceptical that these early difficulties over procedure and
terminology have been the only or even the main factors standing
in the way of an agreement. In the murky world of White House
politics (seemingly as opaque and erratic as decision-making in
Pyongyang), hawkish voices in the Pentagon, the National
Security Council and above all in the vice-president's office
seem to be once more in the ascendant over the more
accommodating position favoured by some in the State Department.
While the pressure for regime change that appeared to animate
early Bush policy towards North Korea may have abated somewhat,
there seems to be little appetite for serious negotiation with
Pyongyang. Instead policy seems in the grip of individuals more
conditioned by moral absolutes than pragmatic diplomacy. In the
words of Dick Cheney, "We don't negotiate with evil. We defeat
it."
Beyond such uncompromising rhetorical positions, practical
policy in recent months suggests a marked hardening of
Washington's position. The Bush administration's decision in
September to highlight North Korea's alleged counterfeiting and
money-laundering activities and US efforts to freeze the assets
of a Macao-based bank suspected of managing the funds of North
Korea's leadership, seemed timed either to pressure the North to
make further concessions or, in the eyes of cynics, to scupper
the progress that had made within the six party talks.
The White House appears to have reverted to an earlier pattern
of severely limiting and frequently refusing to have direct
contact with North Korean officials. Christopher Hill, US
secretary of state for East Asian affairs, despite his
reputation for being an effective and pragmatic negotiator, has
been kept on a tight leash by distrustful bureaucratic rivals in
Washington and has been prevented from engaging flexibly with
his North Koreans counterparts.
Moderate and experienced officials, such as Joseph DeTrani, with
valuable experience of dealing with North Korea have resigned
their positions in the face of a growing mood of distrust and
scepticism towards the North that limits the scope for
constructive engagement. Most illustrative of this toughening of
the US position, has been the administration's recent insistence
on placing the issue of North Korea's human rights record at the
heart of its policy towards Pyongyang.
President Bush's meetings with the relatives of South Korean and
Japanese abductees, and public statements and a recent Wall
Street Journal op-edby Jay Lefkowitz, the president's special
representative on North Korean human rights, highlighting the
abuses of the regime, seem calculated to reinforce the
impression that this is a government which the United States
should not and perhaps cannot do business with.
All of this then begs the question: why the apparent change of
tone prompted by talk of a possible peace treaty? In part, the
White House needs to be seen to be doing something constructive.
Pyongyang, since February of last year, has officially claimed
to be a nuclear power and most analysts assume it has
reprocessed sufficient fissile material to make anywhere between
six and a dozen nuclear devices.
At a time when Washington is seeking to rally international
support for action against a potential nuclear power in the form
of Iran, failure to address the real and present dangers
associated with an actual nuclear power seems anomalous and
contradictory. The White House is also under pressure publicly
from former officials and conservative strategists, including no
less a figure than Henry Kissinger, to respond constructively to
the North Korean challenge.
Equally importantly, Washington may be worried that it is being
out-manoeuvred by South Korea, its ally and partner in the six
party talks. Seoul is moving with accelerating speed to promote
economic and political engagement with the North. President Roh
Moo-hyun, perhaps as means of compensating for anemic public
support at home, is talking of offering major concessions to the
North and unconditional aid as a means of building trust between
the two halves of the peninsula.
Annual South Korean visitors to the North are now in excess of
48,000, road and rail links on both sides of the peninsula are
close to completion, and South Korean business investment in the
Gaesong special economic zone just north of the demilitarized
zone is set to grow exponentially over the next decade. Of great
symbolic and possible practical importance, former President Kim
Dae-Jung, the architect of Seoul's "sunshine policy" of
engagement with the North is set to visit the North in June.
A grand breakthrough from such a visit - not dissimilar perhaps
from the experience of Jimmy Carter who's 11th hour visit to
Pyongyang in 1994 helped broker the last nuclear crisis - could
be worrying observers in Washington who may feel that South
Korea is running ahead of the United States and about to steal
the political limelight.
Will the peace treaty gambit work? If it's a genuine proposal -
and this remains a big if - then probably not if the goal is to
resolve the nuclear issue. Peace treaty talks are long and
cumbersome and take time to acquire momentum. It's difficult to
see Pyongyang making a commitment to give up its most valuable
negotiating asset in return for the prospect of drawn-out
discussions.
Even if the North were to respond positively, the non-inclusion
of Russia and Japan in the proposed talks could create very
substantial practical difficulties for the United States -
particularly with Japan, it most important Asian ally. Japanese
public opinion is exercised by the highly contentious issue of
Japan's abductees and would not look kindly at any agreement
that appeared to sideline its legitimate concerns.
Peace treaty proposal notwithstanding, the Bush Administration
remains unwilling to enter into any agreement with the North
that does not address the contentious issues of human rights,
illegal activity and economic and possibly also political
liberalization. Washington appears committed to a policy that
might be loosely characterised as "squeeze and talk" but one in
which talking is very much on US terms. The hawks in the
administration believe that engagement by itself will only end
up strengthening the North Korean leadership and make it less
willing to compromise on the nuclear issue. Hence, the
continuing commitment to a hard-line position.
In this context it is difficult to see this putative new
initiative producing real progress. There is little evidence to
suggest that the North Korean leadership is facing any immediate
serious political challenges or that economic difficulties at
home might threaten the regime. Kim Jong-il, spared the
electoral timetable that confronts his American counterpart, can
simply sit things out in the expectation that Bush's dwindling
support rate at home might impel him to make an unexpected deal
to secure a foreign policy breakthrough - Bush playing Nixon to
Kim's Mao (admittedly a very fanciful scenario). More
realistically, Kim can simply hope that time is - next to the
nuclear deterrent - his most valuable asset and that the next US
President will be more pragmatic and less viscerally opposed to
compromise.
The danger for the Bush administration is that the peace treaty
talk will be seen at best as an act of diplomatic legerdemain: a
brief and unconvincing distraction, soon to be eclipsed by the
de facto ever-closer economic union developing across the DMZ.
This entry was tagged with the following keywords: northkorea
southkorea unitedstates nuclearproliferation
Comments
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be
registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here. turgid
May 19, 2006 06:48 PM
"Kim Jong-il, spared the electoral timetable that confronts his
American counterpart, can simply sit things out"
---------
Reminds me of how excited the Bush administration was when
Castro turned 75. "Regime change is at hand! The bastard might
finally croak!" I'm sure the Bush administration is hoping for a
similar deus ex machina to spare it from making any compromises
with North Korea. Diplomacy at its finest. [Offensive?
Unsuitable? Report this comment.]
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be
registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.
The latest from the blog
[The latest from the blogs]
Gary Younge
What is truly significant in today's election is not who is
elected, but who votes. Here's why.
Georgina Henry
Highlights of the week on CiF, further thoughts on bad language
and a competition.
Jonathan Freedland
Free-market ideology is to blame for this unnecessary drought.
Mick Fealty
The Ulster Unionists cannot continue with this degree of
political naivity if they are to remain a viable party. Comment
is free· Editors' blog· Dan Chung
Comment is free About webfeeds Guardian
Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in
England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate,
Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: Annan in China with NKorea, Iran on agenda
Fri May 19, 1:14 PM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> Kofi Annanmet
Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaoas he began a five-day
visit to China, with North Korea" /> North Korea, Iran" />
Iranand East Asian tensions all on the agenda of his trip.
Annan flew in from Tokyo to begin the third leg of his
five-nation Asian tour, in which he has already spoken out on the
global stand-offs over the Iranian and North Korean nuclear
issues.
He met with Hu at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, with
the pair discussing Iran and the issue of allowing the
developing world a bigger say in global economic affairs, China
Central Television News reported.
"We must... make efforts to create a developmental environment
beneficial to developing nations," the station quoted Hu as
saying in the meeting, which was closed to international
reporters.
"We must create a mutually beneficial and win-win situation in
the increasingly globalized economy."
The pair also discussed affairs in Africa, with Hu urging the UN
to make greater efforts to bring peaceful and stable development
to the continent, the report said.
The station cited Annan as saying the United Nations" /> United
Nationsexpected "China to play an even greater role in world
affairs."
China, which has veto power on the UN Security Council, has been
a key player on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear issues, and
Annan's visit was expected to be closely watched by the
international community.
In Japan on Thursday, Annan said better diplomacy was needed
from all sides in helping to resolve the two nuclear disputes,
and warned the world was moving mindlessly towards a situation
where all nations wanted nuclear weapons.
He said the world appeared to have "reached a crossroads" on
whether nations should restrict nuclear weapons or feel obliged
to possess them.
"The international community seems almost to be sleepwalking
down the latter path -- not by conscious choice but rather
through miscalculation, sterile debate and the paralysis of
multilateral mechanisms for confidence-building and conflict
resolution," he said.
Annan urged all sides to tone down the fiery rhetoric over Iran
and negotiate face-to-face.
China has had an influential role in the Iran dispute by siding
with Russia to resist US-led efforts to introduce a UN Security
Council resolution that would legally bind Tehran to stopping
its uranium enrichment work.
China and Russia say such a resolution could heighten tensions
and open the door to a military attack on Iran -- an option that
the United States is refusing to take off the table.
China is also believed to be able to exert more influence than
any other nation on North Korea, which is refusing to return to
six-nation talks hosted by Beijing over its nuclear programs.
Annan on Thursday called for a resumption of the disarmament
talks, which have stalled since November last year over
objections from Pyongyang to US financial sanctions over money
laundering and counterfeit allegations.
Besides China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and
Russia make up the six-nation grouping.
In recent days, Annan has also sought to exert some influence on
Tokyo's continued disputes with China and South Korea" /> South
Koreaover Japan's wartime histories.
"There are new tensions between Japan, China and South Korea,"
said Annan, who began his Asian tour in Seoul.
"I think there are areas all the countries can say and make
gestures to reassure and to put their past to rest and look
forward to the future."
Aside from meeting with Hu, Annan is scheduled to hold talks
with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Monday. He will deliver a
speech at Peking University on Tuesday, the final day of his
China visit.
To coincide with the visit, the relatives of three detained
Chinese activists wrote open letters to him asking for his help
in securing their release.
After China, Annan will travel to Vietnam and Thailand.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Movement Observed at N.Korea Missile Site
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 19, 2006 1:01 PM
By JAE-SOON CHANG
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea moved a missile to a
launch site this month but there has been no credible
intelligence yet that the country is preparing to test-fire it,
South Korean and Japanese officials said Friday.
Reports that North Korea may be getting ready to test launch a
type of ballistic missile that some analysts say could reach the
United States come amid moves by Washington to improve relations
with the reclusive state.
Test-firing a long-range missile would drastically escalate
tension in Northeast Asia and beyond and would likely set back
international efforts to persuade North Korea to disarm and open
up to the outside world.
Two Japanese media outlets reported Friday that movement has
been observed near a missile base in northeastern North Korea
since earlier this month, quoting unidentified South Korean
government officials who cited satellite photographs.
Japanese broadcaster NHK reported that the officials said a
missile, possibly a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, had been
brought to the site.
U.S. officials say the 116-foot-long Taepodong-2 has a firing
range of 9,300 miles and could reach as far as the U.S.
mainland.
South Korean and Japanese officials said Friday they could not
confirm that a Taepodong-2 had been moved to the site.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso told a parliamentary
committee the government was aware of the North's missile
movement.
``In fact, we understand that it (the missile) has been brought
to the site,'' he said. ``But we are not sure about any
subsequent moves.''
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said his government
didn't expect an immediate test.
The U.S. military in South Korea and the State Department in
Washington had no immediate comment.
U.S. officials are considering ways to improve relations with
North Korea once it returns to international talks on ending its
nuclear weapons program, but said Thursday they are dangling no
new incentives to restart the stalled talks.
The New York Times reported that top advisers to President Bush
have recommended beginning negotiations on a peace treaty on a
parallel track with the disarmament talks.
A senior State Department official said the Bush administration
is debating internally how to tackle North Korea's declared
weapons program if negotiations, stalled since late last year,
resume.
The main issue is whether the U.S. will insist the North
dismantle its weapons and facilities before Washington commits
to providing Pyongyang any economic and security benefits, the
official said on condition of anonymity.
The White House urged North Korea to return to the multilateral
talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United
States, which began in 2003.
``Unfortunately, you can't have anything new until North Korea
has taken the first step of going back to the six-party talks,''
White House spokesman Tony Snow said. ``We've been very clear,
North Korea comes back to the table, we proceed from that point
on.''
North Korea shocked nearby Japan in 1998 by launching a
Taepodong-1 missile over its territory and into the Pacific
Ocean. The North said it was an attempt to put a satellite in
orbit.
North Korea announced a moratorium on long-range missile tests
in 1999 but has since test-fired short-range missiles many
times, including two in early March.
The North's missile capability is one of the main security
threats in Northeast Asia, along with Pyongyang's nuclear
weapons program.
--
Associated Press reporters Kwang-Tae Kim in Seoul and Chisaki
Watanabe and Kozo Mizoguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 AFP: US to make peace moves with North Korea if it returns to nuclear talks -
Thu May 18, 9:39 PM ET
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AFP) - The United States will consider
peace treaty talks with North Korea" /> North Koreaif the
Stalinist state returns to six-nation negotiations aimed at
ending its nuclear weapons program, officials said.
"The approach with North Korea has always been the same, which
is when North Korea comes back and participates in the six-party
talks then we can proceed," White House spokesman Tony Snow told
reporters aboard the presidential aircraft Air Force One.
Snow was responding to a report in The New York Times Thursday
that the administration of President George W. Bush" />
President George W. Bushwould consider opening a parallel track
of negotiations on a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice
that ended the Korean War.
The New York Times, quoting the president's aides, said Bush "is
very likely to approve the new approach" hotly debated within
the different factions within the administration.
"Nothing happens until North Korea goes back and participates in
the six-party talks dealing with the possibility of developing
nuclear weapons, and to talk about any further steps would be
premature," Snow said.
The nuclear talks, involving North Korea, South Korea" /> South
Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia and aimed at
ending North Korea's nuclear weapons drive, have been stalled
since November, when Washington imposed financial sanctions on
Pyongyang for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
North Korea sought the removal of the sanctions as a
precondition for returning to talks but the United States has
refused to budge.
During the nuclear talks in September 2005, Pyongyang agreed in
principle to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for
security, diplomatic and energy aid guarantees.
The September agreement also talked about negotiating a
permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate
and separate forum, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack
told reporters.
Asked whether there had been a tactical change in the way the
Bush administration approached the Korean nuclear issue,
McCormack declined to get into what he termed "internal
deliberations about the administration."
"Again, we have repeated over and over again that they need to
come back to the talks, they need to demonstrate that they have
made the strategic decision to give up their nuclear programs,"
McCormack said.
He echoed Snow's statement, saying "you can't do anything about
it until you actually get back to the talks.
"And the reason why we are not back at the talks is North
Koreans have not come back to the table."
The United States nuclear standoff with North Korea ignited in
2002 when it accused the hardline communist state of running a
secret uranium-enrichment program.
The North responded by throwing out UN International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyweapons
inspectors and abandoning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top
negotiator to the stalled six-party talks, will travel to China
and South Korea on May 24-26 to discuss the possibility of
jumpstarting the negotiations.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Rice leads push for US to open talks on peace
deal with North Korea
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian
The Bush administration is poised to abandon its policy of regime
change for North Korea by opening negotiations on a peace treaty
at the same time as it tries to persuade Pyongyang to give up its
nuclear weapons programme, foreign policy experts said yesterday.
In a shift first reported in yesterday's New York Times, the
White House has been persuaded by foreign policy scholars and the
secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to drop its insistence that
Pyongyang dismantle its arsenal before Washington considers talks
on a treaty to replace the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean
war.
Mr Bush will not endorse the new approach until North Korea
returns to the six-party talks that broke off last September, the
newspaper reported. However, the decision to acknowledge one of
North Korea's main conditions for the dismantling of its arsenal,
a peace treaty with Washington, was seen as a departure from Mr
Bush's insistence in the early years of his administration that
Pyongyang be isolated politically until it completely dismantles
its nuclear weapons programme.
"What this shows is that the US is taking a new tack, and the
possibility of some kind of a deal is increased," said Donald
Gregg, a former US ambassador to Seoul. "If you raise the level
of dialogue with a dictatorial regime things get done infinitely
more quickly."
Others said the shift indicated concern in Washington that a
failure to persuade North Korea to abandon its arsenal would
give further encouragement to Iran to defy pressure to disarm.
Since the early years of the Bush administration, North Korea is
believed to have produced enough fuel for half a dozen nuclear
weapons, illustrating the risks of relegating the issue to the
backburner.
"Clearly, Bush is deciding to go back to serious negotiations
and to abandon the policy of trying to squeeze North Korea into
submission," said Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert
at the Centre for American Progress.
"This is a further collapse of the so-called Bush doctrine - the
idea that you could solve your proliferation problems by
overthrowing one regime after the other. There seems to be some
sign that the administration recognises that however odious the
regime, cutting a deal with them is preferable to going to war."
Within the administration, credit for the change in approach was
given to Ms Rice, who has argued - against the advice of the
vice-president, Dick Cheney - that some incentive was required
to kickstart negotiations with North Korea.
But there has been pressure from foreign policy experts for a
change in approach in the administration's dealings with
Pyongyang.
Earlier this week, Henry Kissinger called on Mr Bush to abandon
his goal of regime change for North Korea. He said: "A
negotiation on nuclear disarmament will involve compensation in
security and economic benefits in return for abandonment of
nuclear weapons capabilities and is, in that sense, incompatible
with regime change."
Backstory
Ever since North Korea said it would pull out of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation treaty in 1993, international concern has
see-sawed over Pyongyang's nuclear intentions and its real
capabilities.
A deal signed a year later by the Clinton administration, which
would freeze the weapons programme in return for aid to build
nuclear power stations, was scrapped by George Bush, who
denounced North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil".
In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the NPT, and last year
declared itself a "nuclear weapons state". Negotiations have
since stalled.
In pictures
The Korean war
Timelines
12.02.2003: North Korea's nuclear programme
North Korea - 1991 to the present
Graphic
Map of North and South Korea
World news guide
20.12.2001: North Korea
South Korea
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News
Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
23 [NYTr] Bush's Atomic Deal w/India: Signed, but Coming Undone
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:24:46 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The International Herald Tribune - May 19, 2006
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/05/19/news/india.php
Signed atomic deal becoming undone
By Amelia Gentleman and Brian Knowlton
International Herald Tribune
NEW DELHI Friction has emerged between India and the United States over the
timetable for putting a civilian nuclear agreement in place, with
negotiators on both sides warning that progress needs to be made swiftly to
prevent the deal from stalling in the U.S. Congress.
Senior Indian and U.S. officials are planning to meet within a week for
talks to address key sticking points. The officials need to resolve tension
over which country should advance first in carrying out a number of
preliminary commitments on which the agreement rests.
There is also disagreement over the language of the initial U.S. legislative
bills - most crucially concerning the Indian commitment not to conduct
further nuclear weapons tests.
Although the official position in both Washington and New Delhi is that the
deal is on track, those involved in the talks are said to recognize that the
agreement has a limited time to be approved by the U.S. Congress.
The Indian foreign secretary, Shyam Saran, and R. Nicholas Burns, a U.S.
under secretary of state, plan to meet in London within a week to push the
proposal forward.
While the Bush administration has said it wants the legislation passed this
month, Teresita Schaffer, the director of the South Asia Program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, said: "I
don't see that happening.
"But if it doesn't get done within this year, then you have a new Congress,
and you go back to the starting gate," she said.
Schaffer said she was confident the votes in Congress "are there to pass
something, and that the debate is going to be over what that something is."
Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, said the deal was not in dire straits.
"I've talked to a number of those who opposed the treaty in the past few
weeks and they have told me privately that the votes for passage are there,"
Hathaway said. "I'm absolutely convinced that the votes have been there and
almost certainly are still there."
India and the United States announced the agreement last July. The United
States agreed to sell nuclear technology and fuel for use in the Indian
civilian nuclear program in exchange for a commitment by India to open a
majority of its nuclear reactors to international inspection and safeguards.
The deal, which would end three decades of Indian nuclear isolation, is the
most prominent element of a new strategic relationship between the two
countries. It would allow India to develop its nuclear energy potential to
solve some of its growing energy needs.
But the proposal is caught up in domestic politics in New Delhi and
Washington.
Western critics of the deal say that it could weaken international efforts
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and they warn that it undermines the
principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by creating a loophole for
India, which is not a signatory. Atomic experts in the United States point
out that this creates an uncomfortable precedent at a time when the United
States is pushing to enforce international nuclear agreements with Iran and
North Korea.
Opponents in India are wary of abandoning the country's traditional
nonaligned status in favor of closer ties with the United States, and they
question the amount of strategic independence that may be sacrificed once
the deal is implemented.
Progress on negotiations has slowed in recent weeks with differences in
interpretation about which country needs to take the next step toward
fulfilling obligations set out by the agreement signed by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh of India and President George W. Bush in March.
Indian officials say that they cannot move toward persuading the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, an international body that regulates nuclear exports, to
change its rules to allow trade with India until the U.S. Congress has
approved the agreement. They argue that it is equally difficult to begin
detailed negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency over how
an inspection regime would work until the Americans vote on the deal.
American officials counter that Congress cannot be expected to view Indian
intentions with any degree of confidence until India is seen to move forward
in its talks with both the suppliers group and the atomic agency.
To approve the deal, the U.S. Congress will need to exempt India from
legislation banning nuclear trade with countries that refuse full nuclear
inspections, even though India will open up only its 14 designated civilian
reactors to inspection under the agreement. Eight military reactors will
remain closed.
U.S. officials said India must work more actively toward fulfilling its
preliminary obligations to persuade American opponents of the agreement to
back it.
Delicate negotiations are continuing simultaneously in three arenas: between
India and the United States; between India and the atomic agency; and
multilaterally with both the United States and India trying to garner the
support of the suppliers group.
A senior Indian foreign ministry official said that the priority at this
stage was ensuring U.S. congressional approval.
Another major sticking point from the Indian perspective is a clause in a
draft of the U.S. legislation which asserts that the United States has the
legal right to stop cooperation if India tests a nuclear weapon. India
reiterated its commitment to a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing in
the initial agreement, but is unwilling to see that voluntary pledge
translated into a legal commitment in the U.S. legislation.
Burns said this week that the moratorium was "a very important commitment
made to our government by the Indian government and it provided some of the
backdrop to the negotiations that subsequently took place."
Much of the debate rests on how each side can sell the agreement to skeptics
at home. On the Indian side, any hint of Delhi agreeing permanently to
renounce its right to detonate a nuclear device would be highly unpopular,
even though this commitment has already been made informally. However, an
Indian official close to the deal said the dispute was "a drafting issue"
that could be resolved.
The slow pace of progress is a growing source of concern, because of a sense
that the agreement must be approved before the U.S. Congress takes its
summer break at the end of July. When Congress returns in the autumn,
analysts expect it to be preoccupied with the congressional elections in
November.
"Once you get into the eve of the congressional elections, you have a new
administration coming in, you get into a phase where the administration is
getting close to the end phase, and there are more uncertainties," a senior
Indian officials said.
[Brian Knowlton reported from Washington.]
) 2006 The International Herald Tribune
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
24 Daily Times: US ‘has options’ if radicals get hold of Pakistani nukes
Friday, May 19, 2006
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The United States has contingency plans in case any
of Pakistan’s nuclear assets are taken over by Islamist radicals.
Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban
regime, former CIA director George Tenet and former deputy
secretary of state Richard Armitage were sent to Islamabad to
discuss the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.
According to an analysis published by Thomas Donnelly of the
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in the Institute’s National
Security Outlook, any US military action in Pakistan must have
at least the tacit agreement of the Pakistan Army, if not the
government in Islamabad. Any operation which requires fighting
to gain access to Pakistan makes speculation so complicated as
to make it an exercise in futility or, at minimum, an operation
that takes so long to unfold that it would not be responsive to
the situation.
Also, it must be assumed that the situation that results in loss
of control is not a broad-based rebellion or insurgency against
the Pakistan Army or against the Musharraf government. Fighting
for access in the face of a popular uprising across Pakistan, or
even across the Punjab, is too large an operation to
contemplate.
Another correlated but necessary assumption is that the Pakistan
Army allows US forces to deploy through some airfields.
Attempting to gain a UN resolution could well slow any useful
military action. It is hard to imagine the Chinese being very
“forward leaning”- although if the Pakistanis make an appeal to
the “international community” in the moment of such a crisis, it
might be hard to keep the Chinese out, and even harder the
longer the operation continued. Any Indian role is to ruled out
as it would not be acceptable to Pakistan or Pakistanis.
The analysis maintains that the Pentagon is quite right to think
about options for dealing with “loose nukes” other than the kind
of recycled arms control.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection at Kewaunee Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region III - 2006-02
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-06-024 May 19, 2006
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail:
situation in which plant operators did not follow procedures
while starting up the reactor on May 17.
The plant, owned and operated by Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc.
at Kewaunee, Wisc., had been shut down since April 26 for
equipment repairs.
The operators were performing reactor startup using a recently
revised procedure.
While performing startup, the operators encountered an apparent
problem with the sequence of steps in the procedure. The senior
reactor operator in charge of the operating crew made changes to
the procedure sequence and continued with the startup.
Subsequent to the startup, the licensee identified apparent
errors in performing the procedure. The licensee evaluated plant
conditions and continued the startup activities.
The licensee has implemented actions to investigate what
happened during reactor startup.
The changes made to the procedure did not result in the
operators taking unsafe actions. However, both the NRC and the
licensee have questions concerning the adequacy of operator
actions and the licensees approved procedures.
The NRC inspectors will review the circumstances surrounding the
incident, including the licensees review of the operators
actions, the logic of the startup procedure itself, and the
reason for the procedure change.
The special inspection team will issue its report about 30-45
days after the completion of the inspection. The report will be
available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs or in the
agencys online document library at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
Last revised Friday, May 19, 2006
*****************************************************************
26 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Nuclear energy officials see hope for industry
Fri, May. 19, 2006
Bush says he aims for new facilities to be built by the end of
the decade; but radioactive waste disposal remains a problem
By Rick Jurgens
SAN FRANCISCO - About 400 nuclear energy executives gathered on
Nob Hill on Thursday to talk shop and revel in the revival of
their long-dormant industry.
"Nuclear power is a key part of a clean, secure energy future,"
President George Bush said in a videotaped message to the
conferees, who operate, build and sell fuel or equipment to
nuclear power plants. Some even dared to say what only recently
seemed unthinkable: Maybe someday new nuclear power plants might
be built in California.
"It's a conversation that as a state and a community we ought to
have," Tom King, chief executive of the utility unit of PG&E
Corp., said in an interview.
But it won't be easy, King acknowledged earlier, as he chaired
the opening session of the annual meeting of the
Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute.
California does not yet have the "social acceptance" needed for
the growth of nuclear power, he said.
The industry also faces a huge unsolved problem: what to do with
the radioactive waste that remains the expensive and unavoidable
byproduct of nuclear-fueled electricity generators that seem
otherwise tantalizingly free of pollution.
Plans to create a waste dump deep in the earth at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada have bogged down in the face of fierce resistance from
state officials. Technology that recycles fuel has raised
concerns about diversion of materials to make nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration has pledged to push ahead on both
approaches.
During the 1950s, supporters touted newly developed nuclear
technology as an almost magical answer to questions about the
energy future of America and the world. A building boom ensued.
But in 1979, the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island
nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania brought the American nuclear
industry to a jolting halt. Although the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission resumed issuing licenses for new plants a year later,
a fatal disaster at the Soviet nuclear plant in Chernobyl jumped
into the headlines in 1986, raising further doubts about the
safety of nuclear.
Cost overruns and falling power prices also put much of the
industry in a financial squeeze. "The predecessors of my company
were nearly destroyed by their nuclear investments," said John
Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon Corp.
The industry never fully regained its previous momentum: The NRC
issued only four new licenses during the 1990s, and none since
the 1,165-megawatt facility near Spring City, Tenn., that the
Tennessee Valley Authority fired up in 1996.
But recently, soaring prices for natural gas and scientists'
warnings that global warming is being driven by emissions from
plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels sparked a renewed
interest in nuclear.
Once-shunned nuclear advocates have found new friends, according
to Clay Sells, Bush's deputy secretary of energy. "Pillars of
the environmental community and leaders of the left side of
American politics are realizing that nuclear has to play a
role," he said in an interview prior to addressing the
conference.
Old friends also have helped. The Energy Act signed into law
last year by President Bush boosted nuclear developers with more
than $12 billion in subsidies. It also extended for 20 years a
federal program that limits operators' accident liability and
offered new guarantees of loan repayments and against project
delays caused by lawsuits or federal regulators.
Utilities and other power sellers are currently drawing up plans
for as many as 20 new reactors, according to the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
Administration officials at the event urged the attendees to use
the remainder of Bush's term to remove obstacles to future
growth of the industry. And Bush himself set this goal: "America
will start building nuclear power plants again by the end of
this decade."
King, the PG&E executive, said that the utility would be willing
to step forward to suggest that California look once again at
the possibility of new nuclear construction. California already
gets about 15 percent of its power from a nuclear plant in
Arizona and two instate nuclear plants, including PG&E's
2,174-megawatt Diablo Canyon facility.
But state law forbids the licensing of any new nuclear plant
until there is a place to permanently dispose its waste.
"Even if (the federal government) licenses Yucca Mountain, and
gets that up and operating, that facility itself is already
full," said Claudia Chandler, a spokeswoman for the state Energy
Commission. That's because waste from existing nuclear plants
will take up all the available capacity, she said.
And skepticism remains.
Rick Jurgens covers energy and business. Reach him at
925-943-8088
*****************************************************************
27 San Luis Obispo Tribune: PG sees hope in nuclear
| 05/19/2006 |
Posted on Fri, May. 19, 2006
Nuclear energy officials see promise for industry: Bush says he
aims for new facilities to be built by the end of the decade;
but radioactive waste disposal remains a problem
Rick Jurgens Contra Costa Times
SAN FRANCISCO - About 400 nuclear energy executives gathered on
Nob Hill on Thursday to talk shop and revel in the revival of
their long-dormant industry.
"Nuclear power is a key part of a clean, secure energy future,"
President George Bush said in a videotaped message to the
conferees, who operate, build and sell fuel or equipment to
nuclear power plants. Some even dared to say what only recently
seemed unthinkable: Maybe someday new nuclear power plants might
be built in California.
"It’s a conversation that as a state and a community we ought to
have," Tom King, chief executive of the utility unit of PG
Corp., said in an interview.
But it won’t be easy, King acknowledged earlier, as he chaired
the opening session of the annual meeting of the
Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute.
California does not yet have the "social acceptance" needed for
the growth of nuclear power, he said.
The industry also faces a huge unsolved problem: what to do with
the radioactive waste that remains the expensive and unavoidable
byproduct of nuclear-fueled electricity generators that seem
otherwise tantalizingly free of pollution.
Plans to create a waste dump deep in the earth at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada have bogged down in the face of fierce resistance from
state officials. Technology that recycles fuel has raised
concerns about diversion of materials to make nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration has pledged to push ahead on both
approaches.
During the 1950s, supporters touted newly developed nuclear
technology as an almost magical answer to questions about the
energy future of America and the world. A building boom ensued.
But in 1979, the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island
nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania brought the American nuclear
industry to a jolting halt. Although the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission resumed issuing licenses for new plants a year later,
a fatal disaster at the Soviet nuclear plant in Chernobyl jumped
into the headlines in 1986, raising further doubts about the
safety of nuclear.
Cost overruns and falling power prices also put much of the
industry in a financial squeeze. "The predecessors of my company
were nearly destroyed by their nuclear investments," said John
Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon Corp.
The industry never fully regained its previous momentum: The NRC
issued only four new licenses during the 1990s, and none since
the 1,165-megawatt facility near Spring City, Tenn., that the
Tennessee Valley Authority fired up in 1996.
But recently, soaring prices for natural gas and scientists’
warnings that global warming is being driven by emissions from
plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels sparked a renewed
interest in nuclear.
Once-shunned nuclear advocates have found new friends, according
to Clay Sells, Bush’s deputy secretary of energy. "Pillars of
the environmental community and leaders of the left side of
American politics are realizing that nuclear has to play a
role," he said in an interview prior to addressing the
conference.
Old friends also have helped. The Energy Act signed into law
last year by President Bush boosted nuclear developers with more
than $12 billion in subsidies. It also extended for 20 years a
federal program that limits operators’ accident liability and
offered new guarantees of loan repayments and against project
delays caused by lawsuits or federal regulators.
Utilities and other power sellers are currently drawing up plans
for as many as 20 new reactors, according to the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
Administration officials at the event urged the attendees to use
the remainder of Bush’s term to remove obstacles to future
growth of the industry. And Bush himself set this goal: "America
will start building nuclear power plants again by the end of
this decade."
King, the PG executive, said that the utility would be willing
to step forward to suggest that California look once again at
the possibility of new nuclear construction. California already
gets about 15 percent of its power from a nuclear plant in
Arizona and two instate nuclear plants, including PG’s
2,174-megawatt Diablo Canyon facility.
But state law forbids the licensing of any new nuclear plant
until there is a place to permanently dispose its waste.
"Even if (the federal government) licenses Yucca Mountain, and
gets that up and operating, that facility itself is already
full," said Claudia Chandler, a spokeswoman for the state Energy
Commission. That’s because waste from existing nuclear plants
will take up all the available capacity, she said.
And skepticism remains.
--Rick Jurgens covers energy and business. Reach him at
925-943-8088 or rjurgens
cctimes.com.
Copyright (c) 2006, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.
*****************************************************************
28 Seattle Times: Vestige of region's nuclear designs to be imploded
Sunday morning
Friday, May 19, 2006 -
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter
MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The 499-foot cooling tower of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in
Rainier, Ore., serves as a backdrop as Jessica Eckert and her
dog Missy walk along the Columbia River in Washington state. A
ton and a half of explosives will be used in Sunday's implosion.
MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES
A lattice of blasting cord connects the 3,250 holes holding
explosives that are designed to bring the tower down. The power
plant went online in 1976 and was shut down in 1992.
RAINIER, Ore. The Trojan Nuclear Plant's cooling tower took a
year to build and cost more than $10 million.
Its concrete and steel weigh as much as an aircraft carrier, and
its crown of strobe lights, 499 feet up, has been a landmark for
generations of drivers passing by on Interstate 5.
On Sunday morning, it will come down in about 10 seconds. The
implosion is scheduled for 7 a.m.
A ton and a half of explosives have been plugged into 3,250
holes and connected by a lattice of yellow blasting cord, making
the dirt-gray tower look as if it's covered by a tattered lace
doily.
If all goes as planned, the tower will crumple like an aluminum
can.
When the demolition contractor the same firm that brought down
the Kingdome is done, the tower will be a 15-foot-high pile of
rubble. Trojan demolition
Weather permitting, the Trojan cooling tower will be imploded at
7 a.m. Sunday. Portland General Electric says the best place to
watch the implosion is on TV. Northwest Cable News will carry it
live.
For friends and foes of Oregon's only nuclear-power plant, the
rumble and dust on Sunday will symbolize the Northwest's failed
nuclear experiment. Trojan was once billed as the model for 20
nuclear plants to be built in the Northwest. The financial
collapse of Washington's nuclear-plant builder famously known
as "Whoops" ended all that; just one working plant, at
Richland, is left. Two partially finished plants at Satsop are
now part of a business park.
Trojan went online in 1976 and in its heyday cranked out enough
power to light Portland. It held sway over the region's
imagination and is believed to be an inspiration for the
Springfield plant in Portland native Matt Groening's TV series,
"The Simpsons."
Closures and restrictions
" A half-mile "exclusion" zone will be imposed. Rolling
slowdowns will occur in both directions on Interstate 5 about
6:45 a.m. and traffic will be halted entirely during the
detonation. No parking on I-5 shoulder will be allowed within
six miles of the plant.
" A five-mile stretch of the Columbia River miles 70 to 75
will be closed from 6 to 8 a.m. One nautical mile of airspace
above Trojan will also be closed from 6 to 8 a.m.
" The Port of Kalama will be temporarily closed to the public
beginning Saturday.
Source: Portland General Electric
But Trojan was plagued by engineering, mechanical and political
problems.
The cooling tower, a massive steam chimney, was never
contaminated by radiation. The rest of the site was certified as
safe and radiation-free last year. What's left of Trojan is
being dismantled and cannibalized for its steel.
The only debate now is where to catch the spectacular
demolition. Portland General Electric, Trojan's majority owner,
hopes people watch it on TV. Interstate 5, the Columbia River
and surrounding airspace will be closed Sunday morning.
Anti-nuclear activist Lloyd Marbet, who was arrested several
times at the plant's gates, plans to defy PGE again and watch in
person with other former protesters. "I thought leaving the
tower up would be a good reminder to the kind of arrogance that
a utility or business can get into with a technology that is not
proven."
Protests and leaks
Perched on a rocky outcrop of the Columbia River, Trojan fed the
Bonneville power grid for 3,300 days. Its training control room
was used in scenes in the classic nuclear-disaster film "The
China Syndrome."
The plant temporarily shut down in 1978 when PGE realized it had
been built on an earthquake fault. It was shut down again when
cracks in the steam tubes were detected just four years into the
plant's life.
Radioactive compounds were later detected in the Columbia River
and a pond on the site, although not at unsafe levels. Both are
now popular fishing spots.
The environmental problems galvanized opposition, leading to
three unsuccessful ballot initiatives in Oregon to force
closure. Six days after winning the last election, in 1992, PGE
shut down Trojan because of more radioactive leaks. The utility
decided it would cost more to replace it than to shutter the
plant for good.
Decommissioning has cost more than $400 million, nearly equal to
the original construction bill. The plant's reactor core was
gingerly barged upriver and buried at Hanford in 1999.
Thirty-four spent nuclear fuel rods remain at Trojan in
17-foot-tall steel-lined casks. The rods will stay put until
they can be moved to Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste dump
when it opens.
David Lochbaum, of the nuclear-safety group Union of Concerned
Scientists, said he fears the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
inadequate security to protect the spent fuel rods. But the
casks themselves are safe, he said.
"I wouldn't have any qualms at all about visiting the site," he
said of Trojan.
Living in the shadow
The small town of Rainier welcomed Trojan. Its elegant City Hall
and Victorian homes, sprouting from hillsides sloping above the
Columbia River, attest to past fortunes made from timber and
fishing.
Trojan's cooling tower was incorporated into the city seal, and
residents an estimated one in three of whom worked at the
plant came to ignore the evacuation-warning sirens and Geiger
counters mounted on poles around town.
"You wouldn't see people in Rainier protesting" at Trojan, said
Jerry Cole, Rainier's mayor.
Trojan's 1,200 jobs swelled the tax base and helped fund local
schools. When 1,000 more temporary workers arrived most years to
switch fuel rods, local merchants called it "Christmas in the
spring."
After Trojan closed, an electric power plant was built nearby
and a dry-wall manufacturer moved in.
The Trojan site now has what locals affectionately call the
"glow-in-the-dark park." It's the fishing hole where
radioactivity was found back in the 1980s.
One day last week, Len Waggoner fished for rainbow trout at
Trojan Park, an elegant ripple of grass and birch trees that is
just outside the plant's gates, literally in the shadow of the
tower.
Waggoner joked that the fish there were not "Blinkies" the
three-eyed fish caught by Bart Simpson at a cartoon pond that
looks very similar to the Trojan pond. As for the cooling tower,
"it's an icon, but the community will be glad to see it gone,"
he said. "This is not a memory of a great product."
Resident Tony Hyde is also glad to see it go. The Columbia
County commissioner plans to get up at 3 a.m. Sunday to get a
good seat to watch the implosion. He also hopes to see Trojan
become a state park.
"It's the whole plowshares-from-gun-barrels philosophy," Hyde
said. "Let's make the most out of this."
Cole has another idea. "Who knows, maybe we'll see another
cooling tower there."
Nuclear-power return?
His idea is not as far-fetched as it may sound.
At least three energy firms have applications pending with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for plants on the East Coast and
in the South, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. A
co-founder of Greenpeace recently came out in favor of nuclear
power. Congress included $600 million in nuclear-power-plant
subsidies and loan-default guarantees in last year's energy
bill.
Jack Riggs, a former energy official in the Clinton
administration, said high fossil-fuel costs and concern about
global warming are softening resistance. If Congress passes a
"carbon cap" on energy emissions, nuclear power could return
within 10 years, he said.
"I think there is still less than a 50-50 shot, but five to 10
years ago I would say none at all," said Riggs, an energy expert
at the nonpartisan Aspen Institute in Washington, D.C.
"The climate-change concern has changed that, and the high price
of natural gas."
Energy Northwest, Washington Public Power Supply System's
successor, is not opposed to nuclear power but is looking at
other types of generation first, spokesman Brad Peck said.
"What may seem unacceptable today may seem very acceptable in
the future, if your options change," he said. "I think attitudes
toward nuclear power are changing."
Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 or
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
29 BBC: Why is Blair backing nuclear?
Last Updated: Friday, 19 May 2006
Analysis
By Nick Assinder Political Correspondent, BBC News website
So far this week the prime minister has whipped up controversies
over the criminal justice system, animal rights protesters and,
perhaps the most explosive, nuclear power.
Long battle over nuclear power
It almost appears that he is determined to get as many people up
in arms over his policies as he can humanly manage - surely
madness?
But many in Westminster believe they see a method behind this
apparently deliberate storm-chasing.
They simply believe he is engaged in a classic Alastair
Campbell-style attempt to deflect attention away from his own
leadership troubles, seize back the political agenda and inject
some forward momentum into the government.
It is certainly the case that all these issues dominated the
headlines on the days he chose to highlight them.
For example, his remarks about the likely need for new nuclear
power stations - which were, in fact, only a re-statement of his
long-held position - came on the same day the cash-for-peerages
affair took another twist and a new immigration row erupted.
It has also been pointed out that early briefings from Downing
Street on what was going to be in his speech made no mention of
energy policy and that Mr Blair appears to have rushed forward
debate on the policy several weeks before originally intended.
High risk
But, as far as nuclear energy is concerned at least, there is
another side to this, other than providing a useful diversion.
What the prime minister appears to have been doing since before
the general election is preparing the ground for what will
inevitably be a hugely difficult and controversial decision, when
it comes.
[Tony Blair]
Blair is ready to enter nuclear debate
So the prospect of a return to nuclear power was included in the
last election manifesto, the prime minister's 2005 conference
speech and most notably, his remarks to the CBI last year which
was disrupted by Greenpeace protesters and at which he used
virtually identical words on the issue being back "with a
vengeance".
It has also been noted that ministers believed to be against
nuclear power, including Margaret Beckett, and Elliot Morley have
either been moved from departments directly concerned with energy
or, in Mr Morley's case, sacked.
Mr Morley has repeated his opposition, saying the private sector
was not willing to invest in nuclear and that "economically, the
risks are great and the returns are low".
The ministers now in charge of developing the policy, David
Miliband and Malcolm Wicks in the department of trade - also the
department carrying out the energy review - are believed to be in
favour.
And now the prime minister is helpfully producing a "dossier" of
facts and figures on the Downing Street website setting out just
why we have to embrace nuclear power.
But if the prime minister has made up his mind in favour of
nuclear, as critics claim, and is attempting to gradually win
over the country there will still be a long hard battle ahead.
But this is one battle the prime minister appears eager to engage
in.
*****************************************************************
30 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Environmental Review Associated with Proposed Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Plant License Extension
News Release - Region I - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-033
May 18, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A.
Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
meetings on Wednesday, June 7, on the environmental review for
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.s application seeking renewal of
the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants operating license.
Members of the public are invited to attend and identify
environmental issues the NRC should consider during its review
of the extension request for the plant, which is located in
Vernon, Vt.
There will be two sessions held that day at the Latchis Theatre,
50 Main St. in Brattleboro, Vt. (Directions are available on the
theatres web site at: http://www.latchis.com/location.html[exit
icon] .) The first session will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30
p.m., as necessary. The second session, which will be a repeat
of the first session, will take place from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., as
necessary.
An informal open house will be held 1 hour prior to both
sessions. It will provide members of the public with an
opportunity to talk informally on a one-on-one basis with NRC
staff. Both sessions will begin with an overview and an NRC
staff presentation on the environmental review process for
license renewal applications. After that presentation, members
of the public will be given an opportunity to present their
formal comments on environmental issues they believe the NRC
should consider during its review.
In addition to those meetings, the NRC will host an open house
on Tuesday, June 6, to provide members of the public with an
opportunity to talk informally with agency staff about the
process. The open house will take place at the Quality Inn &
Suites, 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro from 2 to 8 p.m., as
necessary. Attendees will also be able to provide formal
comments on the subject.
Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a
nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be
renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements for
safe operation are met. The current operating license for the
Vermont Yankee plant is due to expire on March 21, 2012.
Entergy submitted its license renewal application for Vermont
Yankee on Jan. 25. As part of its application, the company
submitted an environmental report. The application can be
reviewed via the NRCs web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/vermont-yankee.html. In addition, the document is available
for review at the following libraries:
+ The Vernon Free Library, 567 Governor Hunt Road, Vernon;
+ Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main St., Brattleboro;
+ The Hinsdale Public Library, 122 Brattleboro Road, Hinsdale,
N.H.; and
+ Dickinson Memorial Library, 115 Main St., Northfield, Mass.
An existing NRC document, Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437),
assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that
would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power
plant site. The document for which the NRC will gather
information at the June 6th and 7th sessions will be a
supplement to that generic environmental statement that is
specific to Vermont Yankee. It will contain a recommendation
regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal
action.
At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC
staff will prepare a summary of the conclusions reached and
significant issues identified. A copy will be sent to each
person who participated in the scoping process. The summary will
also be available on the NRCs web site through the Public
Electronic Reading Room at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and
at the previously mentioned libraries. Help in accessing
documents through the Reading Room is available by contacting
the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov.
The NRC staff will subsequently prepare a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) supplement for public comment and will
hold a public meeting to solicit comments. After consideration
of comments on the draft report, the NRC will prepare a final
EIS statement.
Interested individuals may register to attend or present oral
comments at the June 7th meetings by contacting the NRC
Environmental Project Manager for the application, Richard L.
Emch, Jr., at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 1590, or by e-mail at
RLE@nrc.govno later than May 31. Those who wish to offer
comments may also register at the meetings within 15 minutes of
the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be
limited by the time available, depending on the number of
persons who register.
In addition, members of the public may send written comments on
the environmental scoping process for the supplement to the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement to: Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001. Comments may also be
delivered to the NRC, Room T-6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
during Federal workdays. To be considered, written comments
should be postmarked by June 23. Electronic comments can also be
sent via e-mail to VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.gov, again no later than
June 23. Comments will be available on the NRCs web page via the
electronic documents system.
Last revised Friday, May 19, 2006
*****************************************************************
31 SF Chron: Nuclear backers' energy surges / They say alternative would ease
concern over global warming
[San Francisco Chronicle]
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, May 19, 2006
The nuclear power industry, benefiting from fears of global
warming, now faces its best chance in years to overcome skeptics
and build plants, proponents said Thursday at a San Francisco
convention.
Nuclear power's ability to create large amounts of energy
without spewing greenhouse gases has caused a once-hostile
public to reconsider, stressed speakers at the Nuclear Energy
Assembly, one of the industry's most important trade meetings,
held at the Fairmont Hotel. President Bush has made nuclear
plant construction a priority.
But support among politicians, investors and the public could
evaporate if the industry can't pass several tests, speakers
said. With as many as 20 nuclear plants planned across the
country -- worth a total of $40 billion to $60 billion -- the
industry must prove it can open plants on time and on budget.
And, working with government, it must finally figure out what to
do with the nation's radioactive waste -- a question that has
dogged the industry for decades.
"We have a lot to do," said Frank Bowman, president and chief
executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the
industry's top lobbying group, which sponsored the two-day
meeting. "We will get it done. We will relaunch this industry
and this source of energy."
The setting chosen for this year's assembly underscores the
difficulty of winning converts.
California forbids building nuclear plants until the nation has
a long-term storage solution for waste, some of which remains
hazardous for thousands of years. Although more than 18 percent
of the power generated within the state comes from two nuclear
plants -- Diablo Canyon on the central coast and San Onofre near
San Diego -- many still view the technology with suspicion.
"The social acceptance is not where it needs to be for nuclear
power to grow in California," said Thomas King, president and
CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. "Several significant issues
must be resolved, and soon."
The utility, which owns Diablo Canyon, is building a second
waste-storage facility there now that the first is almost full.
Although the company supports expanding nuclear power
nationwide, King stopped short of saying PG wants another plant
in California.
"We are open to the debate," he said. "Is it in California? Is
it not in California? We want to be part of that debate."
Others weren't so hesitant.
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said
California will need more nuclear energy if it hopes to cut
emissions of greenhouse gases and fight global warming.
"How long will it be before this state we're in, California,
accepts that if it wants to stop importing 20 percent of its
power from out-of-state coal plants, it must build nuclear
plants?" said Moore.
Global warming has been the key to nuclear power's renaissance.
Environmentalists such as Moore have called for giving the
technology another chance, considering radioactive waste a
lesser evil than climate change. Much of the environmental
movement, however, remains opposed.
"We shouldn't go out and build a bunch of other nuclear plants
that will generate even more waste when we haven't figured out
what to do with the waste we've got," said Eric Antebi,
spokesman for the Sierra Club. He also cited the potential
dangers of an accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear plant,
noting that other alternatives don't pose the same dangers.
"You don't have to worry about solar panels causing a
catastrophe," Antebi said.
Speakers at the assembly said the industry has a solid safety
record, accidents at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island and the
Soviet Union's Chernobyl notwithstanding. And with America's
need for electricity rising -- perhaps as much as 50 percent in
the next 25 years -- they argued that only nuclear power can
produce the quantity of energy needed without speeding climate
change. President Bush echoed those sentiments in a videotaped
address to the conference.
"America needs domestic sources of clean, affordable
electricity," he said. "To maintain our economic leadership and
strengthen our energy security, America must start building
nuclear power plants."
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
Page D - 1
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
32 EBR: Blair gives green light to nuclear, but hard part is delivery -
Energy Business Review
18th May 2006 By EBR Staff Writer
The UK prime minister Tony Blair says the replacement of nuclear
plants is to be a key policy goal, and Datamonitor research
shows that industry stakeholders agree that it should be. The
lack of a defined policy on nuclear has undermined the UK's
energy markets, so this announcement is welcome news. Yet
delivering the new infrastructure in the context of a
competitive market will be no easy task.
Soaring gas prices have prevented the 'free market' from
providing the certainty in energy planning the government was
hoping for. The question of closing existing nuclear stations
without building more new ones has become embroiled in debate
surrounding security of supply, energy prices and carbon
emissions, and the pressure to find a solution has never been
greater than now.
Datamonitor believes that the crux of the problem has been
policymakers' refusal to face up to a decision on new nuclear,
be it either a yes or no. So it is a good move that Mr Blair has
taken the step to dispel the doubts over nuclear.
He has now stated that the initial findings of the energy
review, "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." However, news that the replacement nuclear power
stations are going to be part of the UK's energy mix raises many
difficult questions.
In some ways it would have been easier for Mr Blair to say 'no'
to new nuclear and establish a framework for promoting more
renewables, gas infrastructure, energy efficiency and
microgeneration. But now he has got to try to make nuclear work
while not undermining a competitive energy market.
There are many options, such as a nuclear subsidy (or tax),
similar to the way energy efficiency is financed; inclusion in
the renewables obligation, or reducing the carbon allowances of
fossil fuel generators. The key question is how private finance
can be encouraged to back nuclear power stations, (hopefully
without any public liability) and how this will avoid disrupting
existing market mechanisms.
There does seem to be some agreement from industry stakeholders
for Mr Blair's prognosis; nuclear power is considered a solution
to security of supply and is integral to the argument about how
the UK will meet its emissions targets.
Datamonitor has recently interviewed three industry stakeholder
groups; industrial energy buyers (MEUs) [516], industry
employees [61] and third party intermediaries and brokers (TPIs)
[50]. These stakeholders were all asked about the energy
sector's challenges, with the majority considering that security
of supply was the greatest challenge.
When asked what would solve this, these stakeholders thought
nuclear build would be most suitable. Nuclear build was rated at
3.6 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being most suitable by MEUs and
industry employees. TPIs rated nuclear at 3.9, which was the
most favorable. When weighted by consumption, MEUs rated nuclear
at 4 out of 5 and additional gas infrastructure at 3.9 out of 5.
Stakeholders were also asked what they believe to be the most
suitable form of power generation for managing climate change,
ranking options 1 to 5, with 5 most suitable. Industry employees
rated a new nuclear build [4 out of 5] above existing renewable
technologies [3.9 out of 5]. MEUs were less favorable to nuclear
[3.5 out of 5], however when weighted by consumption, the MEU
rating increased significantly [3.8 out of 5], showing the
larger buyers were more amenable to new nuclear build.
The fact that new nuclear build scores equivalent ratings to
renewable generation indicates that stakeholders have doubts as
to the potential for existing strategies to deal with climate
change. Additional gas fired power stations are not rated
highly, possibly as respondents believe that the UK is already
too dependant on gas in power generation. More gas fired power
stations scored only 2.8 and 2.3 [out of 5] from industry
employees and MEUs respectively.
*****************************************************************
33 TheStar.com: Harper plays up nuclear energy
Fri May. 19, 2006. | Updated at 07:55 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says nuclear energy will
have to play an important role in future energy solutions in
Canada.
Speaking after two days of meetings with his Australian
counterpart, Harper said his government has not made final its
nuclear policies, but he said nuclear energy is "going to be an
important part of the mix as we deal with energy and
environmental challenges in the next century."
Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard said they will
be studying American-led proposals on uranium production and
nuclear energy.
Canada and Australia together account for 43 per cent of the
world's uranium deposits and more than half its uranium
production.
Howard said while the two countries have much in common, they
have not decided whether they will establish a formal
arrangement.
The two Conservative leaders pledged closer ties on everything
from international security and their countries' respective
roles in Afghanistan, to their roles in the Asia-Pacific region.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of
any material from www.thestar.com
*****************************************************************
34 Vermont Guardian: Tilting at turbines: Why The Burlington Free Press loathes wind power
[BFP]
By Shay Totten | Vermont Guardian
Posted May 19, 2006
For more than two years, The Burlington Free Press has, like
clockwork, poked, prodded, cajoled, and generally lambasted
plans to construct wind turbines on select Vermont ridgelines.
The editorial voice of the states largest daily newspaper has
been loud and clear in terms of wind farms: Not here, not now,
not ever.
That view is at odds with public opinion in Vermont, which
remains heavily in favor of wind power even if people can see
turbines from their homes, according to the latest poll by
WCAX-TV.
In a survey released May 12, WCAX reported that 74 percent of
Vermonters support the development of wind power, and 69 percent
support it even if they can see it.
This mirrors several other polls conducted by Macro
International in recent years, as well as those conducted by
both Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power,
according to Andrew Perchlik, executive director of Renewable
Energy Vermont (REV).
This consistent support has not deterred the Free Press from
maintaining a keen skepticism, if not outright disdain, for wind
power.
While two years of editorials have not dissuaded Vermonts
majority, there is one person the Free Press has influenced
Gov. Jim Douglas.
The Douglas administration has issued directives that limit the
use of wind power on state-owned lands for commercial purposes,
and is offering conflicting opinions on a four-turbine project
in the Northeast Kingdom. That project is currently before the
Public Service Board awaiting a final ruling. A hearing officer,
in his advisory ruling to the board, recommended against its
construction.
According to the judges of a recent contest for public service
journalism, editorial page editor Susan Reid walked away a
winner for courageous and illuminating editorials specifically
about wind power.
Reid did not return several phone calls and e-mails for this
story.
The Sevellon Brown Award is given annually by the New England
Associated Press News Executives Association (NEAPNEA) to a
journalist at a daily newspaper with a circulation greater than
40,000.
This years award entries were judged by The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, said Larry Laughlin, the New England
bureau chief for the Associated Press. Each year, NEAPNEA
contracts with judges outside of New England to review contest
entries.
Laughlin said judges are looking for what they perceive as a
series that has an impact and makes an impression.
Clearly, the Free Press editorials, and its editorial pages,
made an impression on the judges.
By questioning whether Vermonters were willing to sacrifice the
pristine appearance of their mountain ranges in order to get an
alternative energy source that would generate a modest share of
the states needs, the editorial series forced an environmentally
aware state to see the complexities of what at first seemed like
an easy, environmentally correct endorsement, wrote the judge.
That is a major public service to readers in Vermont.
In the end, even the governor, who straddled the fence when the
debate began, saw the wisdom of the newspapers argument and
slowed down the juggernaut that seemed certain when the year
began, the judge concluded. The identity of the AJCs judge was
not made available.
A Vermont Guardian review of editorials published by the Free
Press in 2005 were consistent in their emotional appeal to
readers based on the aesthetic argument, but offered little in
terms of a broader opinion on what power sources should be
pursued, or be part of, Vermonts energy future.
In a March editorial, Big wind, small state, urging people to
take part in a series of public hearings about wind power in the
Northeast Kingdom, Reid wrote: People who care about their
ridgelines and the character and landscape of Vermont should pay
close attention to these hearings. The outcome could open the
door to a dramatically changed state. The natural beauty and
solitude of Vermonts wildest, highest places could be replaced
by rows of industrial wind turbines standing more than 30
stories high and lighted like mountaintop runways.
In a separate editorial, Wind picks up speed, Reid urged readers
even more to take action: These mountains, the rare northern
quiet and spectacular natural beauty that are so integral to
Vermont need protection. Stand with the people in these
communities who are trying to save their ridgelines from
industrial wind development. Ask the governor for leadership on
this issue, or watch giant wind turbines sprout from the Green
Mountains.
And, on April 14, 2005, she took the Douglas administration to
task for supporting the East Haven Windfarm project, and for not
providing enough guidance on the development of other proposals:
Commercial wind turbines on Vermont ridgelines pose one of the
greatest environmental challenges to face this state, she wrote,
adding that the East Haven project would provide an
infinitesimal amount of power for the state at a much higher
cost the loss of pristine ridgelines.
By October, the papers tone toward the governor changed and
Douglas was heralded for changing his tune and becoming an
opponent of large-scale commercial wind power, and calling for
smaller-scale turbines, dubbed Vermont scale by the paper and
Douglas.
The governor, whose position had been fuzzy previously, started
to speak out against the industrializing of Vermonts ridgelines
for an incremental amount of power, Reid wrote in December.
A top aide to Douglas said while the editorials did have some
effect on the governors thinking, it wasnt the only source he
considered as his position evolved during the year.
I dont want to take away from the superior editorial quality of
The Burlington Free Press, but the governor has maintained his
position on wind power for quite some time. It is certainly fair
to say he appreciates their point of view, but I dont believe
its accurate to say that he arrived at his opinions based on
what the Free Press wrote in its editorials, said Jason Gibbs,
Douglas press secretary, in response to the award judges
assessment.
His position on East Haven is as it always been. East Haven
should be allowed to go forward as it was working its way
through the regulatory process before he became governor, and he
does believe it would be a useful demonstration project, but he
does not think that it would be prudent to industrialize or
commercialize Vermonts ridgelines and that is an opinion hes
held for many years, Gibbs added.
That opinion, Gibbs said, was allowed to come to the fore thanks
to the editorial positions of the Free Press.
Certainly, perhaps the editorials gave him reason to be sure
that his point of view was understood clearly by Vermonters, but
these have always been his positions on wind power, Gibbs said.
Those positions are perpetuating a status quo that forces the
state to import 90 percent of its power rather than generating
more of its own, and allows the state to export all of its
potential environmental hazards, claim key wind power
supporters.
These same supporters take issue with the Free Press winning the
award, and claim that the states penultimate daily has been
misleading the public, perhaps deliberately, about the impact of
such development.
These say that Free Press editorial writers have refused
repeated calls to clarify what kind of energy development they
support. In private meetings, members of the Free Press
editorial board have reportedly expressed support for clean coal
technology as well as nuclear power, claiming they will be more
beneficial to Vermonts environment and its aesthetic values than
wind power.
Already, the Free Press is a likely nominee for REVs annual
Energy Ostrich Award, to be awarded in October, for sticking
their head in the sand when confronted with energy policy
questions, said Perchlick. Last year, the Free Press received
the award, which consisted of an ostrich egg on top of a bucket
of sand for the same issue, but in particular its harangue
against wind power.
Nobody from the Free Press was at the groups annual conference,
so it was hand delivered to them afterward, said Perchlik.
It is clear that the Free Press is not interested in an
intelligent discussion or investigation into our energy choices.
They simply dont like the look of wind farms and thats the end
of it, said Perchlik. They are using their bully pulpit to
advance an extremely myopic and discriminatory energy policy
that is leading us to a future of higher electrical rates, lost
economic opportunities, and increased energy security risk.
One ardent wind power supporter, Dave Blittersdorf of NRG
Systems in Hinesburg, a winner of several top business awards
from Douglas as well as Vermont Businesses for Social
Responsibility, has given up trying to change the minds of the
Free Press editorial board.
Im not even going to write an Its My Turn,[the papers op-ed
space], because the last time, they cut out part of it and never
told me and published it, said Blittersdorf.
Blittersdorf said a one-on-one meeting with Reid and the former
editorial page editor, David Awbrey, was illuminating,
Essentially, the pair said they were opposed to wind power due
to aesthetics, and also believed that the state would do better
by clean coal technology, more nuclear power, and more
hydropower from Hydro Quebec, he said
We challenged him and [Reid] to come out with an editorial
supporting clean coal and nuclear and this is the reason why,
because that would be an honest debate, but they said they
couldnt do that, said Blittersdorf. They are on a religious
mission, basically.
Blittersdorf said the papers largest ongoing factual errors
involve aesthetics.
Survey data shows that Vermonters can accept that, he said.
Folks who say its going to despoil the ridgelines dont want to
look at the data. Aesthetics is not an environmental issue, its
a people issue. And Vermonters have gotten past the aesthetic
impact and are willing to accept it.
Blittersdorf said the Free Press and other opponents are also
perpetuating myths about wind powers reliability, even after
repeated attempts to correct their errors.
Todays wind farm operators can better predict when the wind will
blow, sometimes days in advance, and plan for it, he said. The
intermittent nature of wind, as well as solar and hydro, in one
part of the region can easily be counterbalanced by similar
power sources generating electricity in other parts of the area.
They basically dont understand that the [New England power] grid
is a system of many different sources storage, peaking units,
and base load, said Blittersdorf. The grid acts as the big
battery and leveler of the power. In fact, customer load is more
unreliable and intermittent than power sources.
Its easier to find replacement power for small power sources
like a 4-megawatt wind turbine that goes offline than for
Vermont Yankee if it goes offline, Blittersdorf adds.
Having distributed energy sources will help to boost in-state
power generation, allowing Vermont to import less of the
electricity it needs while at the same time reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, he said.
What we have right now is a bunch of silver BBs, there is no
silver bullet anymore, said Blittersdorf in regard to lessening
our dependence on outside electricity sources.
Blittersdorf doesnt expect any silver bullet solutions from the
Free Press.
Weve met with them many times and they just refuse to get the
facts straight, he said. Ive told them that Im not going to
write in to the paper anymore because they cant do these things
the right way. Its fine if you want to have a debate based on
facts, but the Free Press has chosen not to be too concerned
about facts.
Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139
Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact:
802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free)
©2005 Vermont Guardian |
Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/052006/FreePressWind.shtml
*****************************************************************
35 ANTARA News: RI, S Korea to sign MoU on nuclear cooperation
May 20, 2006
Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Indonesia and South Korea will sign a
memorandum of understanding (MoU) on nuclear energy cooperation
during President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono`s visit to South Korea
next June 7-9, a government spokesman said.
"There will be two memoranda of understanding, namely on nuclear
energy and on tourism to be signed by Indonesia and South
Korea," Foreign Ministry spokesman Desra Percaya said here on
Friday.
The cooperation in nuclear energy development would be for
peaceful purposes.
"Seeing from its track record, South Korea has good and safe
nuclear (energy). The offer has come and now it will be followed
up," he added.
Asked on whether the meeting indicates if Indonesia elects South
Korea as its partner to develop the nuclear energy for power
plant, besides Japan and France, Desra said there was no further
information about it.
"I don`t know (about it) but if (it is a) national project, it
must abide by the existing process, such as bidding process.
Others will also do the same," he said.
He added, in general the president`s visit would aim to develop
and follow up the strategic partnership between South Korea and
Indonesia, mainly to extend and intensify the bilateral ties in
many sectors, including investment, trade, manpower and defense.
"Indonesia is the only nation, after the United States, that has
joint commission with the South Korea," he said.
Desra added the South Korea also wanted to get more Indonesian
workers, mainly with high qualification.
"There are now some 17,000 Indonesian working in South Korea and
there is an indication that South Korea will ask more. And as
the number is huge, we want the rights of the Indonesians
working there to be protected.
President Yudhoyono will pay state visit to North Korea on June
5-7 and South Korea on June 7 to 9.
Asked whether the meeting would include a possible negotiation
on the nomination of Indonesia and South Korea as non-permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Desra
said there was no further information about it.
Previously, a presidential spokesman Dino Pati Djalal said the
president would be accompanied by Mrs. Ani Yudhoyono and some
ministers.
The visit to North Korea was made to meet the invitation handed
by the nation`s leader, Kim Jong Il through the President`s
Specal Envoy Nana Sutresna.
Besides Indonesia, from the Asian group, Nepal and South Korea
had also expressed their wishes to be members of the council.
(*)
May 19 18:05
Copyright © 2006 ANTARA
*****************************************************************
36 Vermont Guardian: Nuclear powers evil twin & A better place
For The Independent Mind
posted May 19, 2006
Ever since the United States decided to officially sit up and
take note of what the rest of the world already knew that
greenhouse gases were turning our planet into a pressure cooker
folks have been singing the praises of nuclear power. But there
is something discordant in their tune a missing melody that
leaves it sounding naively flat.
With civilian nuclear power comes the advent of enriching
nuclear spent fuel for use in nuclear weaponry, whether it is in
warheads, for tactical nuclear weapons, or for so-called dirty
bombs. Nuclear reactors produce tons of radioactive waste for
which there is no known method of long-term, safe storage.
The New York Times is among the latest voices to jump on the
nuclear bandwagon. In a May 13 editorial, The greening of
nuclear power, the Gray Lady enumerated nuclear powers bugaboos:
radioactive waste, reprocessing, and increased fuel for nuclear
weapons. But then the Times made a leap of faith, and with no
explanation or reasoning concluded that there is no doubt that
nuclear power could serve as a useful bridge to even greener
sources of energy.
While less explicit in its endorsement of nuclear power, here in
Vermont the states largest daily, The Burlington Free Press, is
officially skeptical of wind turbines for aesthetic reasons, yet
supports both the development of clean coal, and more nuclear
power, along with massive hydro projects that flood native
lands.
Global warming and climate change are scary propositions for
which we have no crystal-clear solutions. Its tempting to be
lulled into comforting beliefs to preserve our energy-hungry
lifestyles.
Heres the wakeup call: There is no such thing as safe nuclear
power. Each year, a 1,000-megawatt commercial reactor produces
300 to 500 pounds of plutonium, enough to build between 25 and
50 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs. As of 2003, the United States
had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel
from nuclear reactors. Uprated reactors generate spent fuel at
an even higher rate.
Even The New York Times concedes that any significant reduction
in carbon emissions would need many hundreds or even thousands
of new nuclear plants around the world in coming decades.
Given our national tendency toward amnesia once a fuel crisis
has passed and once we are comfortably established as a
nuclear-powered nation, there is no reason to believe that we
would push to develop renewable alternatives. Pair that with our
taste for preemptive warfare, our propensity to bully the rest
of the world into submission, and a growing number of
well-financed parties plotting our demise, and we are virtually
creating our enemies weapons for them.
What sense does it make to save our planet from global warming
through nuclear power, only to destroy it with nuclear weapons?
A better place
If there is sweat on the purple-and-white uniforms at
Brattleboro high school, it wont come from the workers who made
them.
On May 15, Brattleboro became the second high school in the
country to join 174 colleges and universities in a garment
buyers consortium that rejects clothing made in sweatshops.
The Brattleboro Union High School board voted 9-3 to affiliate
with the Washington-based Worker Rights Consortium, which
requires that garment suppliers comply with all applicable legal
requirements, including wage and working conditions and the
right to assemble.
Unfortunately, the students battle for passage of the measure
was not sweat-free. Calling themselves the Child Labor Education
and Action Project (CLEA), the high school group worked on this
proposal for nearly two years, according to the groups
president, Sarah Maceda-Maciel, a senior who may not see the
fruits of her hard labor.
Despite the students extensive groundwork, board members had to
be convinced of the proposals merits, and in the end, three
steered clear of it, insisting there was a political agenda at
work. The boards approval also came with the condition that a
committee of school board members and students write their own
code of conduct instead of adopting the consortiums model code,
a process Maceda-Maciel fears could drag on indefinitely.
CLEAs proposal had nothing to do with politics and everything to
do with human rights. This small group of students showed the
kind of determination that adults hope to see in young people.
Although they were met with sophomoric resistance, they
persevered, and they are to be commended. They are leaving their
school a better place, and we hope they take this same spirit
with them into the world.
| | Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404
Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT
05301
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382
(toll-free)
©2005 Vermont Guardian |
Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/052006/May19Editorials.shtml
*****************************************************************
37 CBC New Brunswick: Nuclear commission won't reveal details of
'security incident' at Lepreau
Last updated May 19 2006 04:49 PM ADT
CBC News
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission discussed a "security
incident" at the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station at a
meeting Friday in Ottawa. But the safety commission won't say
what happened at the station, or even when it happened. "I will,
as appropriate, take measures to ensure that security matters of
a sensitive nature are not discussed in public," said Christopher
Barnes, who chaired the safety commission's hearing this week
into renewing Point Lepreau's operating licence.
+ FROM MAY 19, 2006: Environmentalists oppose five-year
licence for Lepreau Greenpeace doesn't think the commission
should disclose details about how security is conducted at
Canada's nuclear plants, but it says the public does have a
right to know if security is breached.
"The question is where that line is drawn between disclosure and
confidentiality for important security reasons," said Dave Martin
of Greenpeace. "I think the [safety commission] draws that line
in the wrong place. I think they're covering up a lot of
information because it has the potential to make them look bad."
Copyright© CBC 2006
*****************************************************************
38 Comment is free: Nuclear power? No thanks
> [Caroline Lucas]
Blair's nuclear posturing is dereliction of duty.
May 19, 2006 01:51 PM |
at the CBI this week, Tony Blair was absolutely right to
recognise the duty he is under to take difficult decisions about
the future of energy in the UK.
But nuclear is not the answer. It's not just the astronomical
costs of cleaning up the deadly radioactive waste (already
ÂŁ70bn and rising), the risks from accidents or terrorist
attack, or that switching to nuclear power couldn't possibly
deliver sufficient CO2 cuts in time to meet our international
commitments - or stave off climate change.
Neither is it just the terrible signal we would send to the rest
of the world that you can't tackle climate change without
nuclear power, just at a time when the UN Security Council is
bristling over Iran's insistence on maintaining its independent
nuclear energy programme.
No: the reality is that nuclear power is not just unsafe and
unsustainable, it's entirely unnecessary. A combination of
renewables, energy efficiency and demand reduction will deliver
emissions cuts and energy security much more safely and
effectively.
The tragedy is investment in new nuclear facilities draws cash
away from these areas and could set them back years. Blair
continues to woo Middle England by talking up a supporting role
for renewable energy whilst taking decisions that will
completely undermine the sector.
This is a massive failure of political leadership and vision.
Tony Blair's legacy could have been to have put UK onto path of
genuine sustainability; to demonstrate that a low carbon future
can be a positive and secure one. Instead it's a deadly legacy
of toxic waste which will continue to haunt generations in
hundreds of thousands of years.
Now that's dereliction of duty.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
39 HVN: Rockland lawmakers demand nuclear power industry reimbursements
Hudson Valley News:
Friday, May 19, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of
Statewide News Network, Inc.
Rockland County Legislator David Fried, chairman of the Public
Safety Committee, urged state leaders to approve legislation
that would require licensed nuclear generating plants, such as
Indian Point, to fully reimburse counties like Rockland for
costs incurred as a result of operating those plants.
The New City lawmaker was invited to speak as part of a panel in
Albany on Wednesday.
Rockland taxpayers are confronted with the high costs of housing
a nuclear facility in the shadows of our county, Fried said. The
nuclear industry should cover these expenses not the
hardworking women and men of Rockland County. These commercial
burdens shouldnt be carried by our taxpayers.
Nuclear generating facilities licensed by the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission are not required to pay for the
development and maintenance of radiological emergency
preparedness by government entities. Currently, the taxpayer
incurs all these costs, while the industry that directly profits
from nuclear facilities, are not required to incur any of the
costs.
Fried cited data he received from the Rockland County Office of
Fire and Emergency Services indicating that office incurs
approximately $340,000 in annual expenses as a result of the
plant being close to Rocklands borders. The data I have been
given by Emergency Services barely scratches the surface of the
true costs our communities incur as a result of the Indian Point
nuclear plant, he said. School reception centers, communication
upgrades, hospital and health preparations, first responder
readiness, and social service initiatives all add up to a
significant fiscal impact on local budgets.
Fried announced that he has introduced legislation at the county
level in support of state legislation authored to reimburse
counties for expenses they incur as a result of radiological
preparedness.
HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
only Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
40 AU ABC: PM anticipates intense nuclear debate.
19/05/2006. ABC News Online
Debate: Mr Howard says perceptions of nuclear power are changing.
PM anticipates intense nuclear debate
Prime Minister John Howard says he expects an intense debate
about nuclear energy in the next 12 months.
Mr Howard is in Canada, where he says he will discuss issues
such as uranium mining and nuclear energy with Prime Minister
Stephen Harper.
Mr Howard has repeated his assertion that a domestic nuclear
power industry is inevitable, but that it must be economically
viable to proceed.
He has also told Southern Cross Radio that high oil prices are
changing the way people and governments think about the issue of
nuclear power.
"It could be closer than some people would've thought a short
while ago," he said.
"I hope we have an intense debate on the subject over the
months ahead."
*****************************************************************
41 icWales: Nuclear plants reveal one fire and leaks
May 19 2006
Western Mail
TONY BLAIR'S hopes of winning public support for a new
generation of nuclear power plants took a knock yesterday with
the revelation that there have been 57 incidents at existing
sites around Britain since 1997.
Problems ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failures to
contamination of ground water or employees' clothes and a fire.
Some 11 of the events were serious enough to be classed as an
"incident" or "serious incident" on international nuclear
measures, said Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who obtained
the figures from Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks.
The Health and Safety Executive regularly publishes details of
incidents at nuclear installations which are serious enough to
be reported to ministers.
The figures bring together all incidents since 1997, but do not
cover any events relating to transportation of nuclear materials.
Mr Baker said, "It is extremely worrying that there have been
such a high number of incidents since 1997 in the UK's nuclear
facilities, especially as the Government is now considering new
nuclear build. Nuclear power is uneconomic, environmentally
damaging and clearly there are serious concerns about safety."
Mr Blair gave the strongest signal yet he intends to give the
go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power plants when he
told the CBI on Tuesday that the issue was "back on the agenda
with a vengeance".
The Prime Minister was accused by critics of pre-empting the
Government's Energy Review, due for publication next month.
But he told MPs yesterday it would be a "collective dereliction
of duty" if politicians failed to engage with the question of
nuclear new-build in the face of Britain's increasing dependence
on foreign energy sources.
The three incidents recorded last year all took place at the
Sellafield site in Cumbria, including a large leak of highly
radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp
reprocessing plant in April.
A DTI spokesman said, "Both the Government and the UK civil
nuclear industry take very seriously their responsibilities and
there is a strict regulatory regime supporting a high standard
of safety. The HSE requires operators to keep the safety of
nuclear sites under constant and systematic review. Over the
past 40 years, the industry has achieved a good safety record.
"Because safety is paramount, the threshold for reporting
incidents is deliberately very low.
"Few of the documented 'incidents' are of any serious danger.
Even the most serious incident - the widely reported leakage at
the Thorp plant detected last year - was contained and posed no
threat to staff, public or environment."
Copyright and Trade Mark Notice
? owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006
icWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc.
*****************************************************************
42 UPI: Russia to build new nuclear station
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
5/19/2006 11:16:00 AM -0400
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, May 19 (UPI) -- Russian
environmentalists are concerned about government plans to
construct a new commercial nuclear power near St. Petersburg on
the Gulf of Finland.
The new plant will be constructed next to the ageing Soviet-era
Sosnovyi Bor installation, which is due for closure after the
new facility is completed in 2013.
Russian Atomic Agency Administration head Sergei Kirilyenko
stated that the new plant, at least two reactors of 1,100
megawatts each, was intended to eliminate the possibility of
electricity shortages in the St. Petersburg region. While the
reactor would initially generate electricity solely for domestic
use, it could later export surplus energy to neighboring
countries.
Helsingen Sanomat reported Thursday that the prospect of an
energy shortage in northwestern Russia has been used to counter
calls for establishing an underwater electric cable for Russian
electricity exports to Finland.
Finnish Minister for Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen said
that while the reactor's construction was a purely domestic
Russian concern, Finland would be pleased if Russia replaces its
aging nuclear plants with new facilities.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
43 AFP: China to build six more nuclear reactors in southeast
May 19, 05:37 PM
BEIJING (AFP) - China is set to build six nuclear reactors in
the southeastern province of Fujian, in the latest plank of the
country's ambitious nuclear power program.
State-run energy provider China National Nuclear Corporation and
China Huadian Group, one of China's top five power producers,
has signed an agreement to build six reactors of 1,000-megawatt
capacity, China Daily reported.
The report did not say when the construction will begin or be
completed, nor did it give the total investment involved.
Energy hungry China is trying to diversify its energy mix by
pushing the use of nuclear and renewable energy sources, such as
wind and solar power.
China's current nuclear generating capacity is 8,700 megawatts,
just under two percent of total output.
With the nation's largest nuclear power generator, the Tianwan
plant in Jiangsu province, due to come on line by the end of
this year, China's nuclear power capacity will be over 9,100
megawatts, earlier press reports said.
China's national energy strategy has set a target for the
country's nuclear power generation capacity to reach 40,000
megawatts, or four percent of China's total power output, by
2020.
China currently has nine nuclear reactors in operation, the
China Daily said. To reach the target, China has to build at
least one nuclear power station with a capacity of 1,800
megawatts per year.
The ambitious plan is being implemented in an effort to meet
rising energy demand and build up alternatives to massive coal
use, which is causing serious air pollution, acid rain and
killing thousands of miners.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
44 Guardian Unlimited: Tally of mishaps hits Blair's nuclear hopes
Sam Jones
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair's hopes of persuading the public that a new generation
of nuclear power plants is the best way to plug the country's
energy gap suffered a setback yesterday after it emerged there
have been 57 incidents at existing sites since 1997.
They ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failure to
contamination of ground water and employees' clothes, and a fire.
Eleven were serious enough to be classed as an "incident" or
"serious incident" on international nuclear measures, according
to the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who obtained the figures
from the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks.
Three incidents were recorded last year, all at Sellafield,
Cumbria, including a large leak of highly radioactive nuclear
fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant in
April. High radiation was also detected in the Hales storage
plant and three staff were contaminated while carrying out
maintenance.
Two incidents were recorded in 2004 - a release of radioactivity
at Bradwell, in Essex, and a leakage at Hartlepool - but none
the previous year.
Mr Baker said: "It is extremely worrying that there have been
such a high number of incidents since 1997, especially as the
government is considering new nuclear building."
A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman said: "Few of the
documented 'incidents' are of any serious danger. Even the most
serious incident - the widely reported leakage at the Thorp
plant detected last year - was contained and posed no threat to
staff, public or environment."
The Tories joined the Lib Dems, environmental groups and some
Labour MPs yesterday in attacking the government's handling of
the issue.
The shadow environment secretary, Peter Ainsworth, urged David
Miliband, the environment, food and rural affairs secretary to
"speak up" on the matter.
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales
Email us
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
45 Sydney Morning Herald: PM keen on nuclear power -
www.smh.com.au
May 19, 2006 - 8:01PM
Prime Minister John Howard has intensified speculation that his
government is considering nuclear power generation, saying
global warming and high oil prices are making it inevitable.
He said today the government may have to review its 18-month-old
energy policy, with its heavy focus on fossil fuels for power
generation, to take nuclear power into account.
"That white paper was a very comprehensive statement about
policy but it was based on certain assumptions regarding the
price of oil and those assumptions are certainly very different
now," Mr Howard said during a visit to Canada.
Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said today an economic case
had still to be made for nuclear power, but he understood a
first Australian nuclear power plant could begin operating as
early as 2020.
Mr Howard made his comments ahead of talks in Ottawa with
Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper about uranium mining and
nuclear energy.
Like Australia, Canada holds substantial uranium deposits.
Mr Howard said the broad use of nuclear power in Australia was
inevitable and the push for its uptake was gathering momentum.
"It could be closer than some people would have thought a short
while ago," he said.
"I hope that we have an intense debate on the subject over the
months ahead.
"And the whole atmosphere in Washington, the atmosphere
everywhere I go created by the high level of oil prices is
transforming the debate on energy and alternative energy
sources."
The timing of Australia's uptake of nuclear would be governed by
economic considerations, Mr Howard said.
"Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there
for all to see: it's cleaner and greener and therefore some of
the people in the past who've opposed it should support it," he
said.
The Australian government last considered nuclear power
generation in 1971, when it was shelved as too expensive.
Mr Macfarlane said there was a growing willingness in the
community to debate nuclear power and consider its environmental
benefits.
He said while the government had not discussed a new white paper
on energy, he intended to raise the issue in cabinet.
"Cabinet will consider those options and how we move it forward,
but at this stage it's too early to comment on it," he said.
Mr Macfarlane said it had been suggested the first nuclear power
plant could begin operating by 2020 but an economic case had yet
to be proved.
"I think the original suggestion was the earliest would be
2020," he said.
"But of course underpinning that is at this stage nuclear
electricity in Australia is not competitive with coal.
"While there may be a debate and that may conclude nuclear
energy is something that is acceptable to the Australian people,
you still need a business case."
Greenpeace said Mr Howard's fascination with nuclear power was
buying Australia into an environmental disaster as a solution to
climate change.
"Buying into this environmental disaster will not save us from
climate change," Greenpeace Australia head Steve Shallhorn said.
"Nuclear power is a failed technology. It is neither safe,
economic nor clean - and it's certainly not the solution to
climate change."
AAP
*****************************************************************
46 Bellona: Military prosecutors share Bellona’s concern over vandalised RTG
ST. PETERSBURGThe deputy military prosecutor of the Siberian
military district confirmed in a letter to Bellona that electric
generators containing dangerous radioactive material were
vandalised near the city of Norilsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region.
The letter received by Bellona from the deputy military
prosecutor of the Siberian military district.
Rashid Alimov, 2006-05-19 11:35
Before this letter, no official statements had been made by
authorities despite repeated efforts of Bellona Web to secure
the information. Bellona learned of the incident from local
residents in the Krasnoyarsk.
According to Bellona Web’s information, because of a lack of
funds at the end of 2005during the transfer of a branch of
military guard 96211 from the territory they occupied 60
kilometers to the south of Norilsk in the town of Kayerkan,
eight strontium-90 powered radioisotope thermo-electric
generators (RTGs) were left without any guard.
RTGs are used as electrical power sources in navigational
lighthouses, radio beacons and weather stations. Of the some
1000 plus RTGs in Russia, all have surpassed their engineered
life-spans of 10 years. Some are unaccounted for and nearly all
of them are dilapidated, carry no radiation hazard signs and are
open prey for metal thieves.
Chernyobyl-like slovenliness today: RTGs are being vandalized
near Norilsk
At the end of March near Norilsk in the Krasnoyarsk region,
four of eight unguarded Radioisotope Thermo-electric Generators
(RTGs) with strontium-90 power cores were dismantled by
non-ferrous metals scavengers. Bellona learned of the incident
from local residents.
According to Bellona’s information, these eight RTGs of the Gorn
type composed the Gletcher energy complex. Every RTG of the Gorn
type has a thermal capacity of 1,100 watts, and an
electricity-producing output of 60 watts. The radioisotope
source of heat possesses 170,000 curies of radioactivity.
“By the results of the check-up, [the prosecutors’ office]
demanded from the command of the military guards 46179 and 96211
to assume additional measures to secure guarding of the object,
dismantling and decommissioning of the named radioactive
sources”, the Ivanov letter to Bellona Web continues.
Dangerous capsule
Each RTG has a capsule of highly active strontium-90a
radioisopic heat source. RTG’s, because of their largely
neglected state, are often the target of metal scavengers who
can fetch high prices for the non-ferrous metal they obtain
after ripping them apart. In many cases the scavengers simply
leave behind or dump the strontium element.
As an example of how active these capsules can be, a strontium
capsule dumped near a bus stop in Kingisepp in the Leningrad
Region in 1999 was found to be emitting more than 1,000
roentgens per hour some 20 centimeters from the capsule. It
later emerged that the capsule had been removed by metal
scavengers from an RTG situated in a lighthouse 50 kilometres
away.
For humans, absorbed dose higher than 100 roentgens leads to
radiation sickness, and doses of momentary irradiation higher
than 600 roentgens are considered absolutely fatal.
Information from the Military prosecutor’s office confirm
Bellona Web’s data from sources in Norilsk that metal thieves
left the strontium capsule in place. Nevertheless, the fact that
dismantling RTGs is so clearly possible is, in Bellona’s
opinion, scandalous.
In November 2003 in the Murmansk Region, metal thieves disposed
of strontium capsules after disassembling RTGs of the Beta-M
type. At that time, the Murmansk administration released a
statement saying that the strontium capsules “were the source of
heightened risk with the capacity to spread harmful radiation in
the amount of 1,000 roentgens per hour. The presence of animal
or human population within a 500 meter radius [of the abandoned
capsule] presents a serious health risk, and even the
possibility of death.”
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators
Bellona's updated working paper: all most recent incidents
involving RTGs in one table, new international efforts and plans
for RTGs decommissioning.
The list of incidents with RTGs—including the leakage of
strontium into the environment in 2004 at Cape Navarin—have been
documented in a working document called “Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generators” produced by Bellona.
Punishment of the thieves
According to the military prosecutors, police in the town of
Kayerkan launched a criminal case under article 158, part 3 of
the Russian Criminal Code “theft of a large scale cost”.
“I doubt that the thieves will be punished, but is this so
important?” asks Bellona’s legal adviser Nina Popravko.
“If the stolen [item] was so valuable, why it was left in an
unguarded and fenceless territory? How was the cost estimated,
and what corpus delicti [of theft] was there?”
According to Popravko: “RTGs were actually uncontrolled, and to
improve the situation, it is important to call to account those
who created such situation.”
Western help
A large number of RTGs were manufactured between 1960 and 1980
to operate lighthouses situated along unpopulated coastlines.
The Engineered life-spans of all RTGs in Russia have been
surpassed long time ago.
Today, when strontium can easily end up in the hands of
terrorists and thus be employed in dirty bombs, this is an
unacceptable security situation. With the help of Western
nations, Russia is decommissioning RTGs.
“Russia brought the matter up to the international levelnow the
country receives money to solve the problem from the West,” said
Vladimir Prilepskikh, head of the Siberian district of the
Federal nuclear oversight, in an earlier interview with
Bellona.Web.
“Though in my opinion, we should have our own money for this.”
Read on
2006-04-12 Northern Fleet incidents
Chernyobyl-like slovenliness today: RTGs are being vandalized
near Norilsk
2005-04-02 Northern Fleet incidents
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators—update
2005-04-02 Northern Fleet incidents
Status Report: RTGs still an underestimated foe in securing
loose nukes in Russia
2003-11-17 Northern Fleet incidents
Two strontium powered lighthouses vandalised on the Kola
Peninsula
Publisher: , President:
Information: , Technical contact:
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
47 Bellona: Second Typhoon being defuelled
Russia will soon start dismantling its second Typhoon.
2006-05-19 16:20
Defuelling of the Russian nuclear submarine TK-12, project 941
(“Typhoon”) has begun at the Zvezdochka shipyard in
Severodvinsk. The dismantling of the submarine is sponsored by
the US CTR program, Zvezdochka’s press department reported. The
defuelling should be completed in June, then the Typhoon will be
scrapped, and its reactor compartment placed for longterm
storage. In 2005 the Sevmash plant completed dismantling of the
first Typhoon.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
48 MSN: Japanese officials investigate small radioactive leak at nuclear
plant; no injuries -
MSN-Mainichi Daily News
Officials at an experimental Japanese nuclear fuel reprocessing
plant are investigating the leakage of a small amount of
radioactive material earlier this week, the operator said Friday.
No radioactive material leaked into the atmosphere and no one
was exposed to radiation, said Yukio Takahashi, spokesman for
Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.
Plant officials are investigating why about seven liters (1.8
gallons) of radioactive chemical leaked from a pipe joint onto
the floor of a refining building at the plant in Rokkasho, 580
kilometers (360 miles) northeast of Tokyo, Takahashi said.
The leak was discovered by a worker late Wednesday and stopped
after the chemical process was shut down, he said.
In July 2005, plant officials noticed that a reagent was oozing
through a joint in a different section of the same pipe. In that
case, carbon was found to have been mistakenly included in the
manufacturing of the joint, causing part of it to corrode,
Takahashi said.
It was not immediately clear whether the new leak might have a
similar cause.
On April 12, water used to rinse off solid spent fuel before it
is reprocessed leaked inside a protective tray at the plant. No
radiation release or injuries were reported.
The Rokkasho reprocessing plant started test operations on March
31 after a delay caused by a leak of radioactive water in 2002
and strident public opposition. The plant eventually is to
produce MOX fuel, a uranium-plutonium mixture.
The fuel is a central element of Japan's plans to reduce its
dependence on energy imports by building so-called fast-breeder
reactors, which produce plutonium that can then be reused as
fuel.
Japan, which now relies on nuclear plants for a third of its
energy needs, aims to raise that to nearly 40 percent by 2010.
But the Japanese public has grown increasingly wary of the
nuclear power industry following a spate of safety problems,
shutdowns and cover-ups.
On Tuesday, about 400 liters (105 gallons) of coolant water
containing radioactive material leaked from a non-active nuclear
power reactor in Mihama in western Japan, but no radiation
escaped from the plant, according to its operator, Kansai
Electric Power Co.
The reactor has been closed since August 2004, when 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.
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. (AP)
May 19, 2006
MSN-Mainichi Daily News Readers' Forum
Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
49 Green Party of Utah: Desert Greens Candidates Oppose Divine Strake Test
Green Party of Utah
http://www.gput.org
May 17, 2006
For information:
Tom King: phone 801-502-8556
gpu@gput.org Phone:
801-631-2998 Website: www.gput.org
Desert Greens, Green Party of Utah Candidates Oppose Divine
Strake Test - Endorse International Day of Action at Nevada Test
Site on Memorial Day
05.17.2006 SALT LAKE CITY -- Desert Greens Green Party
Candidates have joined the Stop Divine Strake Coalition, to
pressure the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Nuclear
National Security Agency to cancel the Divine Strake detonation
currently scheduled for June 23. Some of the candidates will be
joining the coalition on May 28 at the Nevada Test Site to stand
with dozens of other organizations to protest the planned test,
and to attempt to influence policy makers to cancel the test in
the face of massive public opposition.
Julian Hatch, U.S. Senate Candidate: "America has been addicted
to a war economy for half a century, putting the citizens of
Utah continually at risk through votes by Orrin Hatch for
military test funding. Now when it is an election year, Orrin
claims to have doubts but we know too well that deception by
government officials in the past continues at present."
Kathy Dopp, Candidate for Summit County Clerk: "I am
flabbergasted that the Bush administration is leading us towards
using nuclear weapons again; rather than employing diplomatic
means to resolve its issues with Iran. Many innocent people in
Iraq have suffered due to U.S. depleted uranium bombs and use of
phosphorous. U.S. foreign policy should promote world peace and
well-being for everyone."
Tom King, State House District 43 Delegate states, "I strongly
oppose the Divine Strake Test foremost because I see it as a
step towards the U.S. committing yet another illegal aggressive
war,"
"This test is a sneaky way of getting back into the nuclear
weapons business. We have 'Divine Strake' today, and we'll have
a string of 'Holy Explos' tomorrow," states Chuck Tripp, Desert
Greens Candidate for Salt Lake County Council at Large.
Deanna Taylor, Candidate for Salt Lake County Council, District
5, says "A delay of this test is not good enough. The Divine
Strake Test is a threat to the ecological health of our planet
and violates the sanctity of life. This test and any future
tests must cease. Stop the Divine Strake!"
Desert Greens Candidates and other activists and citizens
opposed to the Divine Strake test will be available for press
inquiries and interviews at the weekly peace vigil at 5:00 on
Thursday May 18 in front of the Salt Lake City Federal Building,
125 South State Street.
For further information, call Tom King at 801-502-8556 or
gpu@gput.org
___
Disclaimer: State, local, and candidate press releases made
available here represent the opinions of the original source
only. Opinions expressed by a state party or candidate do not
necessarily represent the views of the Green Party of the United
States. State party contact information, when provided with
candidate releases, does not imply state party endorsement of
the opinions expressed nor of the candidate (prior to gaining
formal nomination by the party).
___
Office: PO Box 57065 Washington, D.C. 20037
Email: office@gp.org202-319-7191 or toll-free (US):
866-41GREEN
*****************************************************************
50 News & Star: Safety incidents at nuclear plants
Published on 19/05/2006
PUBLIC support for a new generation of nuclear power plants has
been threatened by a revelation that there have been 57 incidents
at existing sites around Britain since 1997.
The problems ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failures
to contamination of ground water or employees’ clothes and a
fire.
Some 11 of the events were serious enough to be classed as an
“incident” or “serious incident” on international
nuclear measures, said Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who
obtained the figures from energy minister Malcolm Wicks.
The Health and Safety Executive regularly publishes details of
incidents at nuclear installations which are serious enough to
be reported to ministers.
Today’s figures bring together all such incidents since 1997,
but do not cover any events relating to transportation of
nuclear materials.
Mr Baker said: “It is extremely worrying that there have been
such a high number of incidents since 1997 in the UK’s nuclear
facilities, especially as the Government is now considering new
nuclear build.
“Nuclear power is uneconomic, environmentally damaging and
clearly there are serious concerns about safety.”
Tony Blair gave the strongest signal yet that he intends to give
the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power plants when he
told the CBI on Tuesday that the issue was “back on the agenda
with a vengeance”.
The Prime Minister was accused by critics of pre-empting the
Government’s Energy Review, which is due for publication next
month.
But he told MPs yesterday it would be a “collective
dereliction of duty” if politicians failed to engage with the
question of nuclear new-build in the face of Britain’s
increasing dependence on foreign energy sources.
The three incidents recorded last year all took place at the
Sellafield site in Cumbria, including a large leak of highly
radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp
reprocessing plant in the April. High radiation was also
detected in the Hales storage plant and three staff were
contaminated while carrying out maintenance.
Two incidents were recorded in 2004 – a release of
radioactivity at Bradwell, in Essex, and a flange leakage at
Hartlepool – but none the previous year.
*****************************************************************
51 The State: House leaves out money for MOX
| 05/19/2006 |
AIKEN
The U.S. House this week dealt another blow to the much-touted
MOX program at the Savannah River Site, which has the potential
to generate 1,000 jobs for South Carolina.
The House Appropriations Committee approved a plan for energy
and water projects that did not include money for MOX a
planned mixed-oxide plant that would turn weapons grade nuclear
fuel to commercial grade.
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., who represents the district
that includes SRS, said he was extremely disappointed in the
action but hopes money can be added later.
Earlier this month, a House Appropriations subcommittee slashed
money for MOX.
However, the Senate has set aside $368.2 million for the program
in the fiscal 2007 budget. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has
said construction on the plant will start in the fall.
But prospects for the project are unclear while the House and
Senate differ on whether it deserves federal dollars. They must
agree in the final budget bill, which may not be hammered out
until after Congress returns from its summer break.
*****************************************************************
52 Typically Spanish: Nuclear waste - not in my back yard! -
Spain News Madrid http://www.typicallyspanish.com
Editorials Last Updated: May 19th, 2006 - 08:47:06
By h.b.
Part of a Barcelona exhibtion in the Contemporary Culture
Center, CCCB, on Chernobyl, the catastrophy and the consequences
- Photo EFE
EDITORIAL COMMENT - The Spanish government is reported to have
decided what to do with its nuclear waste. A deep underground
cemetery has been ruled out in favour of sending the waste
outside Spain, but before that happens they are going to keep
the waste here for a while. A 60 year long while.
The revelation comes in the draft for the Sixth Radioactive
Waste Security Plan. The document will replace the previous plan
which dates from 1999. Sending the waste abroad is considered to
‘offer clear advantages from an economic, technical and even
safety point of view’, but the plan does also admit to
‘socio-political problems’.
Nuclear waste in Spain is handled by the National Radioactive
Waste Company, ENRESA, who advise that a temporary storage
facility should be built at ground level to evaluate how
technology in treating the waste changes over the next 60 years.
A site for this new temporary storage facility in Spain will
have to be found by the end of next year and that’s because come
2011 it will have to handle waste from the Vandellňs 1 nuclear
plant which will then return from processing in France.
An inter-ministerial commission will decide on a list of
possible sites in Spain before October, and then congress will
have six months to narrow the list down to a number between two
and five.
Currently there are 69 municipalities in Spain which live with
nuclear facilities and they have grouped themselves into an
association – the AMAC. They are expected to come up with their
own suggestion for the new treatment site.
It’s the current Socialist government’s vowed intention to close
down all nuclear power stations in Spain. Whether that remains
the case with recent price changes in oil is a matter for
debate. Tony Blair is thought to be one to have changed his mind
over nuclear power.
So, if the policy here does not change, and all the power
stations here are shut down, their decommissioning will still
cost a cool 13 billion € up to 2070. A quarter of that sum has
already been spent, and additional surcharges on our power bills
here can be expected to raise the rest of the cost in the near
future.
Nuclear energy supporters say it’s viable, and more so now with
the high cost of oil, while the ecologists answer that the costs
and dangers of dealing with the nuclear waste produced is a
problem of unknown size and one which can last for thousands of
years.
Sixty years is a long time at current progress rates in science,
and we can only hope and pray that it’s enough for the boffins
to come up with a clean and permanent solution for mankind’s
every growing energy needs.
© typicallyspanish.com
©1999-2006 typicallyspanish.com
*****************************************************************
53 NWTRB: Calendar
[U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board]
Updated May 18, 2006
Agendas will be posted approximately 1 week prior to each
meeting.
Workshop on Localized Corrosion
September 26, 2006
Contact: Carl Di Bella
Topic: Localized Corrosion of Alloy 22 Location: Marriott
Suites
325 Convention Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV
Tel: 702-650-2000
Fall Board Meeting
September 27, 2006
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Longstreet Inn
HCR 70, Box 559
Amargosa Valley, NV
Tel: 775-372-1777
Winter Board Meeting
January 24, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Las Vegas, NV
Spring Board Meeting
May 15, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Washington, DC
Fall Board Meeting
September 19, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Las Vegas, NV
*****************************************************************
54 Salt Lake Tribune: Backer says N-dump plan not for Utah
Article Last Updated: 05/19/2006 12:40:09 AM MDT
The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - A plan to build a temporary nuclear waste storage
site is making its way through Congress, although its main
proponent and the Energy Department have said private storage in
Utah is not part of the plan.
The House Appropriations Committee approved $30 million
Wednesday for interim nuclear waste storage as part of a $30
billion funding plan for energy and water programs.
Private Fuel Storage, which has a license to store 44,000
tons of waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation
about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, has expressed
interest in working with the Energy Department to store fuel for
the government.
However, the main proponent of the measure, Ohio Rep. David
Hobson, chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee, has said he envisions putting the temporary
storage in a community that wants it - not forcing
it on anyone.
That statement, and comments from Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman that PFS is not part of the department's plans for waste
disposal, has left Utah's congressional delegation comfortable
that the waste won't end up in Utah.
Before interim storage could become a reality, Congress would
also have to change the current law, which prohibits temporary
storage of nuclear waste.
- Robert Gehrke
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
55 Sydney Morning Herald: We must move to nuclear fuel - PM -
www.smh.com.au
By Mark Metherell and Wendy Frew
May 20, 2006
NUCLEAR power is inevitable in Australia and could come sooner
than expected, according to the Prime Minister.
In comments that lift the tempo on the contentious issue, John
Howard said nuclear power in this country "could be closer than
some people would have thought a short while ago". His Industry
Minister, Ian Macfarlane, claimed it could be as early as 2020.
"I think it is inevitable. The time at which it will come should
be governed by economic considerations," Mr Howard told
Melbourne radio from Ottawa.
Just four days previously while in Washington, he struck a more
cautious line, saying he had "a completely open mind to that …
It may be desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear
power plants."
Yesterday, he said: "The whole atmosphere in Washington, the
atmosphere … created by the high level of oil prices is
transforming the debate on energy, alternative energy sources."
Mr Howard's announcement risks alienating many voters but it
appears to reflect changing attitudes. A poll commissioned by
SBS last September showed 47 per cent of people supported
nuclear power and 40 per cent opposed it. However, the policy
switch has angered environmentalists and prompted a pledge from
Labor to remain anti-nuclear.
Mr Macfarlane said yesterday he expected the Government would
soon start discussions on how to encourage grassroots debate on
the issue.
Nuclear power costs twice as much as coal power, and earlier
this week the Treasurer, Peter Costello, said it was not
economically right for Australia now, "because we have such
proven resources of gas and coal".
But Mr Howard said the Government's white paper on energy 18
months ago was based on oil price assumptions that were now out
of date.
He said the environmental advantages of nuclear power "are there
for all to see. It is cleaner and greener and therefore some of
the people who in the past have opposed it should support it."
The Opposition's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said
Labor opposed nuclear power on cost, safety, waste and
proliferation grounds. "Labor will not change that view. I look
forward to Labor ending John Howard's nuclear fantasy."
According to energy experts, Australia could not develop a
nuclear power industry in time to stave off the effects of
climate change, and such a program would be prohibitively
expensive.
Academics at NSW University and the University of Technology
Sydney said no private investor would take on the risk without
huge government subsidies.
Scientists have warned that the world needs to make large cuts
in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid further climate changes.
But even if there was a doubling of global nuclear energy output
by 2050, it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per
cent, said Greenpeace Australia Pacific's chief executive, Steve
Shallhorn.
The NSW Greens MLC Ian Cohen said that after 50 years, the
nuclear industry still had not found a way to store its waste
safely. "We don't want it back and we don't want to create it
here."
*****************************************************************
56 [NukeNet] UC/Livermore Lab Site 300 BSL-4 proposal update
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Dear peace and enviro colleagues: Below is a link to a channel 5 news
story on the UC/Livermore Lab expression of interest to construct a BSL-4
complex at Livermore Lab's Site 300 high explosives testing range. Below
the link, please find a note from Tri-Valley CAREs' Staff Attorney about
our appearance before the Regents of the University and also our group's
press release. Read on... --Marylia Kelley
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_139015019.html
... Oh and to update you and the list - we did speak out at the Regents
meeting about this issue
(specifically Bob Gould at PSR, Tara Dorabji from Tri-Valley CAREs and
myself). Local channel 5 and 7 specifically came out to interview us about
this issue. Cheers, Loulena
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 17, 2006
CONTACT: Loulena Miles, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
Tara Dorabji, Outreach Director, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
Robert Gould, MD. President, SF-Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, (408) 972-7299.
COMMUNITY, STUDENT GROUPS TO DEMAND UC REGENTS DISCLOSE FULL SCOPE OF NEW
PLANS FOR "HOMELAND SECURITY" BIOWARFARE RESEARCH AT LIVERMORE LAB'S SITE
300
Tri-Valley CAREs, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Others to Testify
at Regents Meeting
WHAT: Testimony before the University of California (UC) Regents Meeting
demanding public disclosure and discussion of the UCís recent ěexpression of
interestî application to the Department of Homeland Security to place a
massive biowarfare agent research facility at Lawrence Livermore National
Labís Site 300 explosives testing range near Tracy, California.
WHEN: Thursday, May 18 at 9:45 AM
WHERE: UC San Francisco ń Laurel Heights Campus, 3333 California St., San
Francisco
(map: http://www.ucsf.edu/maps/lhts.html).
WHO: Tri-Valley CAREs, the Livermore-based nuclear watchdog that monitors
activities at Livermore Lab, and SF Bay Area Physicians for Social
Responsibility, an organization of physicians, health professionals and
concerned citizens formed to promote policies that protect human health from
weapons of mass destruction. Students who are part of the statewide
Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California will also testify.
WHY: The University of California (UC), which manages the Livermore nuclear
weapons lab for the Dept. of Energy, has quietly answered a Dept. of
Homeland Security request for "expressions of interest" to operate a massive
bioweapons agent research facility that requires a minimum of 30 acres.
The proposed facility will include a Biosafety Level-4, the highest level of
containment, reserved for the deadliest diseases, such as Ebola Virus, for
which there is no prevention or cure.
The UC Regents are partnering with Livermore Lab on this project, and they
hope to build the major portion of the bioweapons research center -- a facility
twice the size of a Walmart store -- inside the gates of a super secret nuclear
weapons facility at Livermore Lab's high explosive testing range, called
Site 300, in Tracy.
Nuclear weapons work at Site 300 has made it one of the nation's most
contaminated sites. Pollutants in soil and water include radioactive
tritium, uranium-238, Volatile Organic Compounds, PCBs, Furans, Dioxins and
perchlorate.
Community groups are disturbed that the Regents did not publicly discuss
this dangerous plan before submitting the application. Tri-Valley CAREs has
formally asked for the application to be released through the California
Public Records Act. The Regents have not released any documents and,
according to the group's staff attorney, are out of compliance with the
lawís mandatory response times.
"It is truly egregious that the Regents are keeping the public in the dark
about these dangerous plans in violation of California's Right to Know laws"
said Tri-Valley CAREs Staff Attorney Loulena Miles. "A bio-lab of this size
with the deadliest agents known should not be sited in a highly populated
area. This could be an environmental time bomb for the San Francisco Bay
Area and the Central Valley. Moreover, mixing bugs and bombs at Livermore
Lab would have major international implications."
Siting a high level bioweapons research facility inside of a nuclear weapons
lab is unprecedented. There is widespread belief that placing advanced
biodefense laboratories inside nuclear weapons labs sends a message to other
nations that the US could be using ěbiodefenseî as a smoke screen for a
bioweapons program..
"Plans to site BSL-3 or BSL-4 facilities at Livermore Labís Site 300 or
other locations for the purposes of experimenting with biologic agents of
potential significant animal or human pathogenicity should be opposed as
they could undermine the Biological Weapons Convention and lead to the
development of new offensive capabilities," said Robert Gould, MD.,
President of the SF-Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR). "There is a need for complete transparency as regards proposed
organisms to be used, and tests to be performed to avoid infection of
workers and the surrounding community, and to guarantee that experiments do
not contribute to a new biological arms race that places the world at
serious risk."
This new proposed bioweapons facility that the UC submitted an expression of
interest for would be in addition to the BSL-3 facility proposed at
Livermoreís main site. This BSL-3 research facilityóif operationalówould
aerosolize and genetically modify deadly agents including live anthrax. The
facility has not yet begun operation in part due to a lawsuit filed in
August of 2003 by Tri-Valley CAREs and Nuclear Watch of New Mexico that is
now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
According to Homeland Security, the new bio-facility may replace the aging
Plum Island lab that was built in the 1950's in New York. Originally Plum
Island belonged to the Dept. of Agriculture, but it was transferred to
Homeland Security in 2002. Among its capabilities, Plum Island studies
deadly diseases in livestock like cattle, sheep and swine. In addition to
the UC-Livermore Lab bid, various institutions in thirteen other states
submitted applications to house this facility.
-- 30 --
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
57 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Livermore concerned lab may be criticized at forum
Posted on Fri, May. 19, 2006
PLEASANTON: Misprint in agenda for peace seminar causes flap
By Bonita Brewer
Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman says she has no intention of
criticizing the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory during her speech
next month at World Peace Forum 2006 in Vancouver, B.C., despite
concerns raised by the program agenda's wording.
The forum agenda reads, "Mayor Jennifer Hosterman -- Pleasanton,
California, home of Livermore Laboratories -- the premiere
weapons and science research facility in the U.S."
Hosterman is speaking June 24, on behalf of the Mayors for Peace
Vision 2020 Campaign, during the six-day forum, which is
expected to be attended by 2,500 people from 90 countries.
Livermore Mayor Marshall Kamena said Thursday he was concerned
by the agenda's wording, particularly because the lab is not in
Hosterman's city.
"If there's any representative who might likely speak for the
Livermore lab, it seems it would be the local Livermore
jurisdiction -- not Pleasanton," Kamena said. "I absolutely
support the entire mission of the Lawrence Livermore lab and
have no intention of intervening in national policy.
"I take exception to having any mayor attacking the lab's main
mission and its justification for existence, let alone it being
a major employer and necessary for national security," Kamena
said, also citing the work the lab does in other areas,
including researching cheap, clean energy sources.
Hosterman acknowledged lab officials contacted the Pleasanton
City Manager's Office about what Hosterman might say in her
address.
But she said that the agenda wording was not hers and that she
would ask the program organizers to correct it.
What's more, "I have absolutely no intention of slamming the
lab," she said. "That's not what this is about."
During her address, "I am not talking specifically about the
lab," she said. "While I may personally have some issues with
national policy regarding the building and using of nuclear
weaponry, I certainly have no beef with either the people who
work at the lab, the UC Board of Regents or anyone else
associated with the lab."
Hosterman noted that, as with her trip to New York last year to
a United Nations conference on nuclear nonproliferation,
Pleasanton is not picking up the tab for her attendance at the
upcoming peace forum. She also said she intends to make clear in
her talk that she is not speaking on behalf of the city.
But she said she has no qualms about listing herself as
Pleasanton's mayor in the program "because that's who I am."
Pleasanton Councilman Steve Brozosky, who plans to challenge
Hosterman for mayor this November, said she should be focusing
more on city issues.
"I wish she spent as much time here in town fixing our traffic
issues as she does on these other things," he said.
Hosterman says she works hard on local concerns.
Reach Bonita Brewer at bbrewer@cctimes.comor 925-847-2120.
*****************************************************************
58 islandpacket.com: House committee nixes $368M budget for SRS project
islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online
Hilton Head Island - Bluffton, SC
Friday, May 19, 2006
BY DALIA NAAMANI-GOLDMAN, Special to The Packet
WASHINGTON -- The House Appropriations Committee eliminated the
entire $368 million construction budget for a controversial
plutonium-processing plant at the Savannah River Site on
Wednesday, jeopardizing the project scheduled to break ground in
October.
But lawmakers from South Carolina say they're not worried that
the committee action could kill the plan to transform surplus
weapons-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for nuclear energy at
the 310-square-mile site near Aiken.
Emily Lawrimore, a spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., said
he "continues to work with other members from South Carolina and
Georgia to restore this critical funding."
Before the vote, Wilson said the White House supports efforts to
reduce weapons-grade nuclear materials, adding, "with the
president's support, we have a chance."
Asked whether Wilson planned to attempt to restore the funds
when the bill is debated in the House, Lawrimore declined
comment.
On May 5, the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized full
funding for the project. Wilson is counting on approval by the
full Senate and that the project then will survive intact in the
conference committee negotiations to reconcile differences
between the House and Senate bills.
South Carolina's Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim
DeMint, support the project. DeMint's spokesman Wesley Denton
said his boss is working to make sure the Savannah site is
"taken care of" in the Senate.
Graham said the program is "vital to our national security and
we will continue to work together to ensure it is adequately
funded. The citizens of South Carolina, along with the Savannah
River Site workforce, should be proud of the role we are playing
in making the world a safer place."
Officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration, an
arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, said it is premature to
discuss the project's demise.
"It is still early in the congressional process, and we will
continue working with Congress to fully fund the budget
request," said spokesman Bryan Wilkes.
The project has been controversial in the South Carolina
legislature, where some have voiced concern about amassing
stockpiles of nuclear material in the state.
Before the committee vote Wednesday, John Scofield, spokesman
for chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said some lawmakers are
concerned that the price tag for the project has more than
tripled.
Originally, the Government Accountability Office estimated the
project's total cost at $1 billion, but Scofield said that has
ballooned to $3.5 billion.
"There's a potential boondoggle in the making, and we're not
going to put taxpayers on the hook," he said. "We think it's
prudent to take a pause here and ask the DOE to go back to the
drawing board."
In 2000 the United States and Russia signed an agreement for
each to eliminate 34 metric tons of plutonium and recycle it
into mixed-oxide fuel, commonly referred to as MOX. Savannah
River is the only MOX site in the country. Nuclear waste
produced once the plutonium is processed would be transported to
the federal nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada.
Preparation for construction of the plutonium processing plant
has been under way for a year and completion is expected in
September, said Jim Giusti, an Energy Department spokesman.
Construction would be finished in 2015, and it would take an
additional five years to complete the processing of the 34
metric tons of plutonium, according to the NNSA. The Savannah
site already has some plutonium stocks shipped from Rocky Flats,
Colo., that will be stored until the facility is completed, the
NNSA said.
The Energy Department is continuing to move forward with the
project and hasn't found any "issues," said Wilkes, the NNSA
spokesman. "There are no cost overruns because we're in the
planning phase. We have enough money to begin construction."
Recent developments have caused some lawmakers to question the
necessity of such a large facility.
Russia has dragged its feet on the nonproliferation agreement,
relieving the United States of its responsibility to abide by
the program, Scofield said. "Since the Russians have walked away
from the deal, it makes funding this large construction project
not necessary. We don't want construction to start on this
deal."
Last week, the House voted to allow the United States to
separate its program from Russia's and continue the project at
the Savannah River Site. Although the Appropriations Committee
action eliminated funding for the project, Wilkes said, "We
intend to live up to our international agreements, and we expect
the Russians to live up to theirs."
Dalia Naamani-Goldman is a reporter with Medill News Service in
Washington.
© The Island Packet,
*****************************************************************
59 lamonitor.com: Groundwater concerns addressed
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
There was not much left to say about the current status of
groundwater at Los Alamos National Laboratory by the end of the
day on Wednesday.
There was a representative tour of test wells and the
Radiological Liquid Waste Treatment Plant at the lab and a
three-hour forum at Duane Smith Auditorium and the subject was
pretty much exhausted.
While the legacy of hazardous and radiological waste continues
to encroach on the Los Alamos environment and mobile
contaminants seep into the ground, laboratory officials
expressed their determination to keep it in check and lower the
burden over time.
In December, the laboratory disclosed a previous detection of
hexavalent chromium in a deep test well in Mortendad Canyon. It
was the first time excessive levels of a laboratory contaminant
had been found in the regional aquifer.
At more than 400 parts per billion, the chromium content is
eight times higher than the state's drinking water standard and
four times higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's minimum.
County and state officials attested again during the forum that
the chromium has not affected the county's production wells and
that drinking water is still safe. The forum, with about a
hundred people in attendance, reviewed steps that are underway
to get to the bottom of the matter.
In an overview describing the nature and extent of the
contamination, Jean Dewart of the lab's environmental
remediation and surveillance program offered a preliminary
picture of how the chromium may have reached the aquifer from
what is considered to be the most likely source, large
inventories of rust-inhibitors used in the cooling towers of a
power plant at the top of Sandia Canyon.
Borne eastward by heavy volumes of water into the wet bottom of
Sandia Canyon, Dewart explained, the mobile chromium leeched
vertically into the ground in one of the flatter areas. And
then, encountering a layer of dense basalt, the chromium
dissolved in water may have moved horizontally and then migrated
down through cracks or faults in the rocks to the water table, a
thousand feet below and several miles from where it originated.
Dewart acknowledged that the transport time from the surface to
the regional aquifer could be as short as 10-20 years.
Speaking as the sole member of the public on a panel of
officials, Joni Arends, executive director of Concerned Citizens
for Nuclear Safety underlined that point.
"That's good," she said, noting that her group in recent years
had uncovered evidence of the potential for such "fast
pathways," in springs feeding into the Rio Grande.
"Citizen concerns have moved the agenda forward," she said.
Members of the National Academies of Science panel participated
in the tour. They also attended the forum but left early. They
are charged with preparing a report over the next year that will
advise the Department of Energy on how to optimize the
groundwater project at Los Alamos. The committee held its third
public meeting in Santa Fe on Tuesday.
Special guests at the groundwater forum that was sponsored by
the Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board, included Ed
Wilmot, Los Alamos site office manager for the National Nuclear
Security Administration and Ron Curry, state environment
secretary.
Wilmot offered some hopeful news about the environmental cleanup
budget that was trimmed for the rest of this year and cut deeply
for next year.
He said that he was now hopeful that the current shortfall would
be restored in the June funding cycle and that next year's
budget would be "back on track."
The administration's FY2007 budget request for DOE announced in
February included a $50 million cut in the program.
Coming at a time of increasing remediation activities, the
reduction threatened the consent order, a formal agreement on
the environment worked out between the state and laboratory
managers last year.
Curry said the budget cut had raised concerns that the consent
order might have to be renegotiated.
"Nothing could be farther from the truth," he said.
A key point of the consent order was to put federal funding on a
regular schedule that could be counted on because it was
enforced by stiff penalties.
The federal government would be looking at more than $8 million
in fines imposed by the state and doubtless more in court
disputes, according to estimates, if the cuts were sustained.
J.D. Campbell, CAB chair, who hosted the forum, said afterward
that he thought the forum had served the value of transparency.
He said he saw some common ground emerging that could help move
the environmental restoration project forward.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************